What do believers say when you ask or tell them..

[tavarish]

Judging by the answers given thus far, it seems I get to treat you with answers that are unique.

I'm going to resist the bait (your claim that multiple deities exist) and answer the question you're really asking. Christianity is the only religion in the entire world whose afterlife is based on grace; i.e., every single other religion on the planet teaches an afterlife that is reached by some kind of balance of good works. Christianity is singularly unique in that salvation (afterlife) is NOT based on any human good works at all, period. It is based on the good works of Jesus Christ, in whom alone the believer is saved. This is because "a balance of good works" is precisely that, a balance, meaning that in addition there are bad works, violations of God's law. In human courts, a person found guilty of breaking several criminal laws is never told by the judge, "Well, aside from these laws you have broken you're an otherwise pretty decent fellow. You may go. No sentence for you." It would be unjust to not punish criminal acts. He may be a decent fellow, but he is nevertheless guilty of having broken several criminal laws, and justice demands that crime is punished. On what grounds, then, would a person think God would leave sins unpunished? That would be unjust.

You came to the conclusion that the correct religion in the world consists of a God with a one size fits all plan for salvation? One that simply judges a book by its cover?

How did you reach the conclusion that other religions were wrong in this aspect?

So I am confronted with two scenarios:

(1) If my religion is wrong, then it does not matter because I'll be okay on a balance of good works in whatever other religion turns out to be true. Buddhism. Wicca. Islam. Hinduism. Judaism. My life will not have been a waste, because of that balance of good works. My beliefs may have been wrong all along but (i) they were the guiding principle that led to those good works and (ii) in the afterlife it won't ultimately matter anyway. Whether it's reincarnation, attaining enlightenment, the judgment seat of Allah, etc., it all comes down to an overall balance of good works in the end.

Not so fast there.

Allah doesn't take kindly to false believers. "Fine" wouldn't exactly cover it, according to the Qur'an:

Qur'an (40:71-72) - When the fetters and the chains shall be on their necks; they shall be dragged Into boiling water, then in the fire shall they be burned

Qur'an (22:19-21) - But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads; Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted; And for them are hooked rods of iron

Qur'an (4:56) - Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment Lo! Allah is ever Mighty, Wise

Qur'an (56:92-94) - But if he is of the rejecters, the erring, then the welcome will be boiling water and roasting at hell-fire

(2) If my religion is right, then I'll be saved by God's grace in Christ's righteousness irrespective of my works, for salvation is by his merits alone who took upon himself the punishment my sins were due. And anyone who was banking on a balance of good works will have to confront the punishment their law-breaking is due, which no amount of good works can hide. As our own justice systems recognize, to not punish law-breaking is unjust. And the God they'll face is perfectly just.

Peachy.

Welp, I guess I'm fucked.

You also ruled out the possibility that God isn't real and you wasted valuable time in life praying to an imaginary friend. It's pretty irrelevant, as you'll be too dead to care. In retrospect it's kind of a drag though :/

Consequently: it wouldn't matter if my religion is wrong, but it sure matters if it's right. As C.S. Lewis said, it is of no importance if Christianity turns out to be false, but of infinite importance if it turns out to be true.

No importance to whom? It would be pretty hilarious if Christianity turned out to be correct, but only a select denomination got into heaven. Oh well, I'll send you a postcard from hell, if it doesn't melt first.

First of all, five billion years of being in heaven will not have even begun to scratch the surface of my praising and enjoying my Savior. Secondly, I have no reason to think that we'll even register the passage of time in heaven, given the descriptions of it we do have; i.e., "five billion years" will be a meaningless expression. Either way, eternity could never exhaust my love for Jesus Christ.

The summa theology says if you die a martyr or monk, you get special crowns in heaven.

Sa-weeet.

That is called the Complex Question fallacy. "Who created the Creator?" is a complex of two separate questions: (1) "Is the Creator himself created?" (2) "If so, who created him?" Asking who created the Creator presupposes that he was created at all, in the same way that "Have you stopped beating your spouse?" presupposes you were beating her at all. And it is a fallacy because it requires the Christian to implicitly concede that God even had a creator, which begs that first question. So, "Is the Creator himself created?" No, because he is eternal. To ask about the origin of something that has no origin is a meaningless question; and if not created, then to ask who created him is twice meaningless.

Definitely agree. It's a loaded question.

And if you want to suggest that the universe had no beginning, I would direct your attention to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, which vindicated the Hawking-Penrose theorems by proving that any universe which on average is in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be eternal in the past but must have an absolute beginning. "With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe," writes Alex Vilenkin. "There is no escape; they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning" (Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes, Hill & Wang, 2006). As their work shows, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem holds regardless of the physical description of the universe prior to Planck time (such as the Gott-Li model and its "adapted Rindler vacuum").

God of the gaps! I love this one! I think Bill Craig uses this one as one of his strongest points.

Here's the paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012

Let's see what Guth says about this very subject:

http://www.onpointradio.org/2007/05/forg...ang-theory

“I think the challenge we’re raising is that the usual picture of the Big Bang is based on an assumption which is that time, space, matter, energy, everything began at the Big Bang. And that assumption was made in the 60s when people got the first strong observational evidence that the Big Bang happened. But it’s really just an assumption and our point of view has come out of new development in physics which are enabling us to describe the behaviour of matter in very extreme conditions such as were present around the Bang. And what we’re seeing is that the Big Bang doesn’t have to be the beginning of time. It’s perfectly possible that the Big Bang was just a violent event in a pre-existing universe.” Neil Turok

… What we call the Big Bang was almost certainly not the actual origin of time in either of the theories that we’re talking about. … The main difference I think [between the inflationary theory and Neil and Paul's theory] is the answer to the question of what is it that made the universe large and smooth everything out. … The inflationary version of cosmology is not cyclic. … It goes on literally forever with new universes being created in other places. The inflationary prediction is that our region of the universe would become ultimately empty and void but meanwhile other universes would srput out in other places in this multiverse. ” Alan Guth

The hypothesis is incomplete and still in development. It's a bit dishonest to latch it onto the kalam argument, then make the point that because some scientists believe that the universe had a singularity or beginning, it must have been God.

Even granting all of these theories are true, it would not prove, in any context, that a God created the universe, much less a sentient, omnibenevolent being. If the cause argument did stand (as there isn't any evidence that it would), it still would only paint the picture that whatever caused the universe to exist would have to be timeless. That's the only conclusion you could come up with. Anything having to do with intent and attributes would be purely speculative.

In very simple terms, you're putting an extra factor in the equation that would necessarily be more complex than the sum of the original factors.

He doesn't. Ever.

Tell that to the kids that were fucked by Catholic priests, or is it fine if they truly accept Jesus?

Where's the OT divine justice? I think God's getting soft.

Because I love God, and because I think it is morally wrong.

Nice. I don't believe in God and think it's morally wrong. I'll just latch on to whatever you think is right cause you have absolutes to abide by.

You can, if you want. But I think that would qualify as a delusion, a view contradicted by an extraordinary degree of evidence to the contrary.

Ok, I'll play along. What is your evidence that someone created the world?

Are you aware of how many times that very prediction has been made?

And the more time passes, the more the prediction rings true. Mankind is becoming more secular by the minute.

It sure beats the brainless twaddle you subscribe to. Err, in my opinion. Don't want to offend you. (Did you catch the hint being made there?)

What you did. It's there, and I see it.

---

Bad sex usually isn't terribly memorable.

It's only gay if the balls touch. Or you make eye contact. Or if you love them.

..I think.