On non-belief and the existence of God

[FallentoReason]

...Hang on, so are you [Michael] essentially saying that knowledge of Jesus/God isn't required to gain access to heaven?

I want to answer this, not to put words into Michael’s mouth, but to contribute my own thoughts on your question.

Salvation is not an either/or proposition. In both Catholic (correct me if I’m wrong Michael) and New Church doctrine, both Heaven and hell have degrees to reflect either: 1) the maximum amount of happiness that can be attained by the blessed OR 2) the level of corruption present in the wicked. It is all based on how much light a person is capable of receiving; regardless of when the light is received. Thus if a person is incapable and resistant to receiving the Light of Truth during their earthly existence, they will not be able to receive it in the afterlife. Even though ‘the heathens’ failed to hear the Gospel truth, they may still move towards the Light of Truth in the afterlife, because the direction of their earthly life was already heading in that direction.

Even if salvation isn't a discrete matter (taking a value of 0 or 1), but rather a continuous line between the two extremes, it has no bearing on the potential to be saved, all things considered. Why? Because the silence on God's behalf is still undermining our ability to move "towards the light", since there doesn't seem to be a light shining--

--but on the other hand, if heathens fail to hear the Gospel, yet they are able to "move towards the light", then that's quite clearly saying Jesus - now a.k.a. the middle man - is unnecessary; a proposition with *its* own prima facie problems for Christianity. I mean, you can bite the bullet here and say "yes, this is the case" in order to get out of the problem of non-belief. We can explore this possibility, but I think it's very clear to you and I that the notion of Jesus being unnecessary - even if logically sound - is a radical and inherently un-Christian proposition.

Missionary work remains important, because salvation is more than a one-time confession based and affirmation of a specific doctrine. Missionaries use the Gospel to deliver people from the false religious beliefs that foster strife and unnecessary bondage to false doctrines in this life. This allows the newly saved, as a community of believers, to bring healing, education, and love into this world.

Faith without works is dead, as one of the epistles states.

…If we remember that God is omniscient, then he would know precisely how to reveal himself such that we wouldn't be mistaken about his existence… it would still make a world of difference … if God undeniably showed himself. That way, those who lack the will to act on this knowledge are *absolutely* responsible for the life they've lead. … it's unjust to punish the unbeliever to an eternity of damnation just because God didn't make it clear…

And why must it be undeniable clear and not simply clear enough?

Because evidently it's not good enough, given the state of affairs in today's world. A mere ~33% of this world believes Jesus to be God [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations] so for every 3 people that pass away, 2 are guaranteed to be suffering in the afterlife, and that's if we grant the best case scenario where both orthodoxy *and* orthopraxy are the way to heaven.

Did God forsee his Divine Plan to be under achieving? Yes, he's omniscient.
Was this God's intention? No, his will is for us to be in relationship with him.
Did he have the power to make states of affairs different than what they are? Yes, he's omnipotent.
Is it actually the case in this world? No.
Well then.. does God exist? ____

I don't know how to make it any clearer.. but it seems to me that the hypothesis of the god of the Bible being real are extremely slim.

---

[quote='FallentoReason' pid='730639' dateline='1408069964']...an agnostic atheist is that none [religion] stand out more than any other as the accurate truth of this universe. I mean, what do I pick? The "genuine history" claim? The "impossibly beautiful book" claim? The "reality incarnate through text" claim?

Shallow thinkers say things like, “they cannot all be true and therefore they must all be false.” That’s not you, but it’s a common refrain around these parts. Why does diversity of human religious experience mean that the Divine must be rejected altogether?

The only thing that needs to be rejected is the uncommon idea that all religions are the way to the divine, because it just so happens that certain religions themselves claim only theirs is the way, and so a universal philosophy stating they can all be correct will be self-refuting.

Picking a tradition to me seems to be more about mining the depths of one’s own faith as opposed reading everyone else’s Cliff Notes. In my experience, truly spiritual people that are deeply seeped in their own faith traditions are remarkably similar with respect to their gentleness and humility.

No True Scottsman. Truly spiritual people have also been remerkably similar in wanting to shed blood.

That's great for you that you can have faith without having ever been given an explicit experience of God's existence. Great for you, and *only* you

So you do not count the whole of reality and your life’s experience in it as explicit enough? I often say, those who cannot recognize the Lord through His work cannot hope to see His countenance.

I do not. As it stands for me, any religion could be true. And God being omniscient/omnipotent could change this in a heartbeat.