Is believing actually a conscious choice?

Shenshen

I'm a little confused by this. I don't think it believing is something you can just decide on, you don't usually wake up one morning thinking, yes, I do think I believe now, do you? And by the same token, you don't actively decide not to believe, or do you?

It's been confusing me for a while. I had a Catholic upbringing, communion, confession, confirmation, the lot. Everybody I knew believed in god (well, that's what they were telling me, anyway), and I had no reason to doubt them. Yet, I don't think I ever actually believed in the god they were telling me about. I knew they were quite serious about it, not like they were when they were telling me about the Easter bunny for example, But at the same time, I couldn't really belief they whole thing was entirely serious, either.
I mean, Jesus was easy enough to grasp, and his stories and lessons did make sense, but the whole resurrection thing? The virgin birth? Life after death? Transsubstanciation (or however you spell that one)? I used to have that filed under "doesn't really matter that much, probably, and is probably just a metaphor anyway". The rest I tried to believe in, as that was expected of me.
But when I was able to take a step back, and to take an honest look, I had to admit to myself and the rest of the world that, no, I'm sorry, I don't believe it. I tried, but I can't.

After struggling to believe for well over 2 decades, I had to admit defeat.
So how can belief be a choice? Surely a choice would mean that you actually can choose to either believe or not to believe?
Without anybody jumping down my throat for this, please, I feel that being religious or not being religious is about as much choice as being gay or not being gay.
You can try all you want, if you're straight you'll never be attracted to members of your own sex. And try as I might, I could never believe in a spiritual side of the world..

antiskeptic

Shenshen wrote: »

I'm a little confused by this. I don't think it believing is something you can just decide on, you don't usually wake up one morning thinking, yes, I do think I believe now, do you? And by the same token, you don't actively decide not to believe, or do you?

It's been confusing me for a while. I had a Catholic upbringing, communion, confession, confirmation, the lot. Everybody I knew believed in god (well, that's what they were telling me, anyway), and I had no reason to doubt them. Yet, I don't think I ever actually believed in the god they were telling me about. I knew they were quite serious about it, not like they were when they were telling me about the Easter bunny for example, But at the same time, I couldn't really belief they whole thing was entirely serious, either.
I mean, Jesus was easy enough to grasp, and his stories and lessons did make sense, but the whole resurrection thing? The virgin birth? Life after death? Transsubstanciation (or however you spell that one)? I used to have that filed under "doesn't really matter that much, probably, and is probably just a metaphor anyway". The rest I tried to believe in, as that was expected of me.
But when I was able to take a step back, and to take an honest look, I had to admit to myself and the rest of the world that, no, I'm sorry, I don't believe it. I tried, but I can't.

After struggling to believe for well over 2 decades, I had to admit defeat.
So how can belief be a choice? Surely a choice would mean that you actually can choose to either believe or not to believe?
Without anybody jumping down my throat for this, please, I feel that being religious or not being religious is about as much choice as being gay or not being gay.
You can try all you want, if you're straight you'll never be attracted to members of your own sex. And try as I might, I could never believe in a spiritual side of the world..

Atheist boardsie Strobe asked the same question in slightly different form over in the Christianity forum.

Strobe wrote:

Pretty straight forward question (I think). Why (in your opinion) do atheists and Hindus not believe Jesus was the son of God? Why are non-Christians, non-Christians?

To which I replied

antiskeptic wrote:

It's quite simple to my mind. The reason you don't believe Jesus is the son of God is the same as the reason you don't believe a whole raft of other things, namely: you haven't sufficient evidence to enable belief. If you had convincing evidence of X then you would naturally, believe X to be the case. Whatever X may be.

Conversely, the reason why Christians believe is that they have evidence suffficient to sustain belief. That would also be a biblical take - there is no requirement for blind (evidential-less) faith.

Which he not unsurprisingly concluded was the:

Strobe wrote:

Most interesting answer so far, in my opinion.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056208332

You don't believe in Christs resurrection for instance, because there is no good reason for you to believe it. Which is utterly fair enough. God is nothing if not reasonable.

Doctor DooM

If you ever watch or listen to podcasts like the Atheist Experience you'll often get fundamentalists calling in who will say "you're choosing to ignore god, you're ignoring his call" etc etc.

This of course isn't true, but I suppose if a person has a strong belief cognitive dissonance would turn "this person perhaps refutes some of my beliefs" into "this person chooses to ignore the facts".

Penn

I believe that some people are more likely to believe in God and be religious than others. I wouldn't go so far as to equate it to being born gay, as personal circumstances can still destroy a religious persons beliefs.

Some people subconsciously WANT to believe in God. They need to believe in God because it comforts them. It's the balance that religion is based on. You don't believe in God, you'll burn in Hell for eternity. But believe in God and follow him, and you'll have a good life and be rewarded in Heaven. People, even those who you'd think wouldn't place their faith in something so unproven and doubtful, subconsciously don't want to risk being wrong.

I watched Religulous (Bill Maher's movie about religion) last week, and I saw something which kinda proved what I'm saying. After Bill talked to some believers, pointed flaws in what they were saying, and generally ran rings around them, a few of them just asked him "What if you're wrong?". That's it. That's the fear that religion has drilled into them and they can't escape from, because they are more subsceptible to it than others. That's what faith is in my opinion. Worshipping God when something good happens, and worshipping him when something bad happens because you're too afraid that questioning him will result in your being condemned to Hell.

So yes, I believe some people are a lot more likely to become religious from birth. But it's still a choice.

liamw

antiskeptic wrote:

Conversely, the reason why Christians believe is that they have evidence suffficient to sustain belief. That would also be a biblical take - there is no requirement for blind (evidential-less) faith.

So you claim to apply the same standards of evidence to christianity, as you do in every other area of your life?

Dades

The idea that some people (theists) find evidence convincing that others (atheists/agnostics) don't - only holds true only for a certain, limited amount of people.

It is my unsupported contention, that the vast majority of "believers", believe because they:

1. Want/need to believe in something and have (sub)consciously silenced the voices;
2. Have never really thought about it out of pure apathy;
3. Are (through no fault of their own) brainwashed or uneducated in science or what we know the natural world.

Also, almost all the above would have been raised in a religion.
This is supported by the stats that show the "transfer" between religious and non-religious hugely outnumber the opposite.

antiskeptic

liamw wrote: »

So you claim to apply the same standards of evidence to christianity, as you do in every other area of your life?

I'd apply far higher standards in fact. Christianities claims are too outlandish and significant to settle for common-or-garden levels of evidence such as those required to support something as relatively insignificant as eg: evolution

Dades

Before this turns into a thread requesting and debunking antiskeptic's evidence - can we just assume the answer to the question as far as he's concerned is "yes - for me it's a conscious decision"?

Kthxbye

liamw

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'd apply far higher standards in fact. Christianities claims are too outlandish and significant to settle for common-or-garden levels of evidence such as those required to support something as relatively insignificant as eg: evolution

I'd agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Bu why doesn't everybody accept this 'high standard' of evidence that supports the outlandish claims of christianity? Where is this evidence? Is it hidden away from us all until we 'open our hearts'?

EDIT: Aww Dades, that's no fun

token56

I think there are various reasons why some people believe and others dont but ultimately I completely agree with Barrington.

The first and most obvious reason is your upbringing and the environment you are brought up in. If from a kid you have been told by its parents, teachers, etc there is a God and X, Y and Z happened, a lot of kids are just going to believe what they are told. Sure alot will have questions but ultimately once they are still kids the will continue to be told whatever the parents, teachers etc want to tell them. The people who do question these things as kids are in my opinion more likely to continue to question them as they grow up and this can ultimately lead to them not believing, or conversely it could strengthen their believe. In these cases there is some element of a conscious choice. You then have others who just tend to accept the things they are told as they grow up and never think to question them or have reason to question them, although I would think the majority of people would question theirs believes from time to time. But I think the element of conscious choice is not as significant here if someone never questions what they have been told since they were a kid.

But you also have to take into account what Barrington said and I firmly believe for some people its simply in their nature to believe and for others its in their nature to question, be a skeptic and not believe. I think this is largely dominated by a persons upbringing and their environment but ultimately their personality. I think some people feel a need to believe in a higher power or that there is something beyond this life. This could be for a sense of security, or a comfort in believing there is some element of order or reason behind all of us and the madness that goes on, that there is some reward for being a good person after all of this. I think this is mainly down to a persons personality, but of course upbringing and environment can effect a personality so these have to be considered.

I think ultimately that even if we all had our minds wiped clear regarding religion and no one had ever heard of such a thing as a higher power, i.e. we were all set to a default atheist state but we all retain our current knowledge of the world around us, you will have some sort of split between those that will believe there is some sort of higher power and those that dont but I think this split will always come down to a persons personality.

antiskeptic

Dades wrote: »

Before this turns into a thread requesting and debunking antiskeptic's evidence

You wish, you old empiricist ringfencer you

can we just assume the answer to the question as far as he's concerned is "yes - for me it's a conscious decision"?

I wouldn't fully agree. I don't think it's a conscious decision to believe there's a computer screen in front of me. More like a default reaction to the evidence that's there.

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wouldn't fully agree. I don't think it's a conscious decision to believe there's a computer screen in front of me. More like a default reaction to the evidence that's there.

My point is - and I was doing you a favour - is that you didn't just choose it because it suited you. In the same way you aren't choosing to believe there's a screen in front of you, as the evidence removed the "choice" aspect completely.

antiskeptic

liamw wrote: »

I'd agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Bu why doesn't everybody accept this 'high standard' of evidence that supports the outlandish claims of christianity? Where is this evidence? Is it hidden away from us all until we 'open our hearts'?

EDIT: Aww Dades, that's no fun

Sorry. I've been muzzled.

:)

Dades

^^ Only to the extent that we don't need to empty your evidence box and the table and spend 10 pages reaching the unsatisfactory conclusion that we all see different things as evidence.

Would be nice for that thread to stay on topic for one page.

ShooterSF

Dades wrote: »

Would be nice for that thread to stay on topic for one page.

I hope you haven't your settings to 40 posts a page or you're being very optimistic :D

The OP's point is one I bring up often when someone throws some variant of Paschal's Wager at me in real life. I don't believe and if I wanted to I couldn't choose to believe.
However I think our brains make it easier once we hold a belief to strengthen it. We are all subject to confirmation bias subconsciously and need to actively be aware of it to avoid it. I think that's why we don't see mass conversions.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

You don't believe in Christs resurrection for instance, because there is no good reason for you to believe it. Which is utterly fair enough. God is nothing if not reasonable.

But he'll punish us for not believing it nonetheless. Yeah, reasonable

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But he'll punish us for not believing it nonetheless. Yeah, reasonable

Technical point: It's not you're not believing in eg: Christ resurrected that you'll be punished for. It's for the wrongdoing you know is wrong you'll be punished for. Now you might say you don't know God exists in order to know what absolute good and evil is. Unfortunately that defence doesn't deal with a knowledge of good and evil being installed in you at birth - if that is indeed what occurred.

Technical point: It's a denial of what you do know to be the case (see above point about that knowledge installed at birth) that leads to your not being saved (and so being punsihed for your sin - which is reasonable) . Evidence of Christ resurrection is a subsequent event to your being saved - if you happen not to believe in Christs resurrection it's because you're not saved. Belief in Christs resurrection is 'merely' a marker or identifier of the fact you've been saved. According to the argument.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Technical point: It's not you're not believing in eg: Christ resurrected that you'll be punished for. It's for the wrongdoing you know is wrong you'll be punished for. Now you might say you don't know God exists in order to know what absolute good and evil is. Unfortunately that defence doesn't deal with a knowledge of good and evil being installed in you at birth - if that is indeed what occurred.

Technical point: It's a denial of what you do know to be the case (see above point about that knowledge installed at birth) that leads to your not being saved (and so being punsihed for your sin - which is reasonable) . Evidence of Christ resurrection is a subsequent event to your being saved - if you happen not to believe in Christs resurrection it's because you're not saved. Belief in Christs resurrection is 'merely' a marker or identifier of the fact you've been saved. According to the argument.

Yeah you've made this silly point a million times. We're being punished for our sins but those who are saved aren't punished for theirs because god has arbitrarily chosen to "save" them and not others. Basically god's an asshole. When two people have committed exactly the same sins and only one of them is punished because the other is "saved", the punishment has nothing do with sin. It's down to the whims of the metaphysical equivalent of a kid with a magnifying glass and an ant hill

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yeah you've made this silly point a million times. We're (to be - a.s.) being punished for our sins but those who are saved aren't punished for theirs because god has arbitrarily chosen to "save" them and not others.

Not at all arbitrarily as the point made plain.

me a minute ago wrote:

It's a denial of what you do know to be the case (see above point about that knowledge installed at birth) that leads to your not being saved (and so being punished for your sin)

Those who deny are lost. Those who desist from denying are saved. Where's "arbitrarily" in that?

witchgirl26

I think it is a choice to believe or not. I do believe & i've made that decision and am happy with it. Others I know have chosen not to believe & they are just as happy with their decision.

Some people subconsciously WANT to believe in God. They need to believe in God because it comforts them. It's the balance that religion is based on. You don't believe in God, you'll burn in Hell for eternity. But believe in God and follow him, and you'll have a good life and be rewarded in Heaven. People, even those who you'd think wouldn't place their faith in something so unproven and doubtful, subconsciously don't want to risk being wrong.

I suppose I do beleive in God because it comforts me. That said the God I believe in would not let people burn in Hell for all eternity for not believing in Him. I do believe in an afterlife and I think, whether you believe in God or not, what you do in this life determines how you'll spend your afterlife.

That's the fear that religion has drilled into them

Religion has never drilled fear into me and the "What if you're wrong" is not the reason I've chosen to believe in God. It's a lot more personal than that to me.

Just a viewpoint from some who does believe. That said I'm not trying to convert anyone (just in case someone thinks I am). Like I said, it's all a personal thing in my mind so I respect others choice to believe or not.

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yeah you've made this silly point a million times.

And yet you continue to make the same mistake.

We're being punished for our sins

You are inheriting the price of sin which was ordained from the beginning, i.e. death.

but those who are saved aren't punished for theirs because god has arbitrarily chosen to "save" them and not others.

No, thats an assumption on your part.

Basically god's an asshole.

Well, you make your choices.

When two people have committed exactly the same sins and only one of them is punished because the other is "saved", the punishment has nothing do with sin. It's down to the whims of the metaphysical equivalent of a kid with a magnifying glass and an ant hill

Well, no-one is entitled to be forgiven, so those who aren't are getting what they deserve. Those who are, are receiving an undeserved gift. That its done so arbitrarily is only your assumption.

Dades

witchgirl26 wrote: »

Religion has never drilled fear into me and the "What if you're wrong" is not the reason I've chosen to believe in God. It's a lot more personal than that to me.

From what I can see, in your case you have chosen to strip the belief in God of uncomfortable elements that would have prevented you from choosing to believe in him.

So by removing Hell, and no doubt other things attributable to God, you have paved the way for you to be comfortable with this belief. You have no logical justification for doing this - you have simply used your own conscience to mould a God from the raw materials others are made from.

But it's a good example for the thread.

antiskeptic

Onto your add-by-edit.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

When two people have committed exactly the same sins and only one of them is punished because the other is "saved", the punishment has nothing do with sin

Two sins by two different people attract two punishments for two people. In the case of a saved person the punishment is transferred to Christ. So punishment appears to have everything to do with it.

I find it hard to believe you've not grasped this most basic of Christian doctrines. You're not trolling me Sam ?

witchgirl26

Dades wrote: »

From what I can see, in your case you have chosen to strip the belief in God of uncomfortable elements that would have prevented you from choosing to believe in him.

So by removing Hell, and no doubt other things attributable to God, you have paved the way for you to be comfortable with this belief. You have no logical justification for doing this - you have simply used your own conscience to mould a God from the raw materials others are made from.

But it's a good example for the thread.

It's not exactly that - it's more that I don't believe in the "vengeful God" stereotype or the whole "fire & brimstone" thing. I do believe that religious or not, if you do bad in this life, you will be punished accordingly in the next. I just don't count not believing in God as doing bad.

There are many uncomfortable elements as you refer to them that I still believe in (and that I do struggle with the belief at times because of) but I have never, since childhood, believed in the traditional view of Hell.

Galvasean

witchgirl26 wrote: »

It's not exactly that - it's more that I don't believe in the "vengeful God" stereotype or the whole "fire & brimstone" thing. I do believe that religious or not, if you do bad in this life, you will be punished accordingly in the next. I just don't count not believing in God as doing bad.

There are many uncomfortable elements as you refer to them that I still believe in (and that I do struggle with the belief at times because of) but I have never, since childhood, believed in the traditional view of Hell.

FWIW, many of the posters in Christianity don't believe in a literal 'fire and brimstone' hell. Apparently, hell is supposed to be eternity without the love of God.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not at all arbitrarily as the point made plain.

Those who deny are lost. Those who desist from denying are saved. Where's "arbitrarily" in that?

Onto your add-by-edit.


Two sins by two different people attract two punishments for two people. In the case of a saved person the punishment is transferred to Christ. So punishment appears to have everything to do with it.

I find it hard to believe you've not grasped this most basic of Christian doctrines. You're not trolling me Sam ?

Oh I've grasped it, I just don't see anything "reasonable" about it. What you're describing is not a punishment for sin. If the punishment was for sin then all sin would be punished equally, i.e. in exactly the same way and not with your punishment being given to someone else (see my above point re god being an asshole btw). What you're describing is a punishment for denying that your sins are sins.

I doubt you'll claim that saved people never sin so are you saying that those who commit sin without realising it are damned and those that know something is a sin but do it anyway are saved?

witchgirl26

Galvasean wrote: »

FWIW, many of the posters in Christianity don't believe in a literal 'fire and brimstone' hell. Apparently, hell is supposed to be eternity without the love of God.

I don't see how that would be something that atheists or agnostics would be worried about though.....

Sam Vimes

You claim that god instilled the knowledge of what is sinful in us at birth and all we have to do is stop denying this knowledge and we'll be saved. But the vast majority of the world are not christian and presumably a small subset of them are actually saved rather than just thinking they are so it appears that most people never manage it.

Personally if I loved people and wanted to save them from damnation I'd use a method that wasn't going to lead to about 99% of people failing the test.

But then I'm not an asshole.

antiskeptic

Galvasean wrote: »

FWIW, many of the posters in Christianity don't believe in a literal 'fire and brimstone' hell. Apparently, hell is supposed to be eternity without the love of God.

And some would believe in annhilationalism I'm sure.

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Oh I've grasped it, I just don't see anything "reasonable" about it. What you're describing is not a punishment for sin. If the punishment was for sin then all sin would be punished equally, i.e. in exactly the same way and not with your punishment being given to someone else (see my above point re god being an asshole btw).

Sin involves a debt. Debts can be transferred between parties so long as all are willing. Furthermore, debts can be paid off in various ways - it not being necessary to pay off your mortgage debt in money, you can equally pay it off with your house.

You're construct doesn't really operate in the day to day of real world. Yet you impose it on this specific case.

??

I doubt you'll claim that saved people never sin so are you saying that those who commit sin without realising it are damned and those that know something is a sin but do it anyway are saved?

We all know* we do wrong (even if we don't all attach the lable "sin" to it). So knowingly doing wrong clearly isn't the basis that separates the saved and the lost


*providing God has indeed equipped us with that knowledge. Which either is or isn't the case - it's not dependent on your viewpoint.

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

FWIW, many of the posters in Christianity don't believe in a literal 'fire and brimstone' hell.

Might be worth putting to the poll there? I'm sure that a very basic issue like that would have 100% agreement amongst believers!

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Sin involves a debt. Debts can be transferred between parties so long as all are willing.

Complete nonsense. It would be completely irresponsible and selfish of anybody to let somebody else to take responsibility for something they'd done.

And that's not taking account of the fact that the christian myth says that the guy who's taking on all this "spiritual debt", is the guy who granted everybody the chance to acquire some in the first place. That's basically what the Mafia does.

Seriously, that's just mad, Ted!

oldrnwisr

robindch wrote: »

Complete nonsense. It would be completely irresponsible and selfish of anybody to let somebody else to take responsibility for something they'd done.

And that's not taking account of the fact that the christian myth says that the guy who's taking on all this "spiritual debt", is the guy who granted everybody the chance to acquire some in the first place. That's basically what the Mafia does.

Seriously, that's just mad, Ted!

I wouldn't say it's complete nonsense. There seems to have been a very real belief that sin was just another form of debt. This practice survived up to the early 20th century in some parts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin-eater

Dades

witchgirl26 wrote: »

It's not exactly that - it's more that I don't believe in the "vengeful God" stereotype or the whole "fire & brimstone" thing. I do believe that religious or not, if you do bad in this life, you will be punished accordingly in the next. I just don't count not believing in God as doing bad.

Surely that rejects the whole 'salvation' notion, though? Without God you can't be saved from *whatever*...

So if there's no Hell, and you don't need to believe in God for any type of salvation - doesn't that make religion rather superfluous? You are still basically rejecting core tenets of (I assume) Christianity because it doesn't fit your view of what a God should be.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Sin involves a debt. Debts can be transferred between parties so long as all are willing. Furthermore, debts can be paid off in various ways - it not being necessary to pay off your mortgage debt in money, you can equally pay it off with your house.

You're construct doesn't really operate in the day to day of real world. Yet you impose it on this specific case.

??

We all know* we do wrong (even if we don't all attach the lable "sin" to it). So knowingly doing wrong clearly isn't the basis that separates the saved and the lost


*providing God has indeed equipped us with that knowledge. Which either is or isn't the case - it's not dependent on your viewpoint.

If I really loved someone and was willing to pay off their mortgage I would just pay it off without even asking them. I wouldn't insist on the silly prerequisite that the person should come to realise that I was willing to pay it off before I would actually pay it off. The knowledge that I was willing to pay it off would come from the fact that I had paid it off and that there was no more debt to be repaid. But then I'm not an asshole.

krudler

Galvasean wrote: »

FWIW, many of the posters in Christianity don't believe in a literal 'fire and brimstone' hell. Apparently, hell is supposed to be eternity without the love of God.

That such a bad thing though? look at the mayhem he causes in this life, never mind the next one where you're on his home turf. It'd be like living with your parents for eternity, their house, their rules. I'm gonna go live with Satan my real dad, he lets me stay up late on schoolnights.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Complete nonsense.

Not really, no. If I owe you money and have not the ability to pay you, but my brother comes along and pays for me, then thats it. I don't deserve the bailout, but I am sure thankful for it. So someone else paying your debt is is far from complete nonsense, nor is it irresponsible in and of itself.

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If I really loved someone and was willing to pay off their mortgage I would just pay it off without even asking them.

Thats what God did, but you just don't want to give him your account number.

But then I'm not an asshole.

Have you got any evidence for that claim?

ShooterSF

JimiTime wrote: »

Not really, no. If I owe you money and have not the ability to pay you, but my brother comes along and pays for me, then thats it. I don't deserve the bailout, but I am sure thankful for it. So someone else paying your debt is is far from complete nonsense, nor is it irresponsible in and of itself.

I don't think his point was debt is not transferable, rather that unlike debt, repercussions for your actions are not transferable.

For example Guy A kills Guy B. Guy B's brother witnesses it and helps get Guy A sentenced for 40 years. Guy A's brother in turn kills Guy B's brother as "payback". Guy A cannot say "I will take my brothers punishment for him".

witchgirl26

Dades wrote: »

Surely that rejects the whole 'salvation' notion, though? Without God you can't be saved from *whatever*...

So if there's no Hell, and you don't need to believe in God for any type of salvation - doesn't that make religion rather superfluous? You are still basically rejecting core tenets of (I assume) Christianity because it doesn't fit your view of what a God should be.

I do believe in a form of hell, ie if you do wrong in this life you will be punished for it in the next. I just don't subscribe to the traditional view of a place full of fire and a devil with a pointy tail poking you for all eternity with a trident.

To me (and this is a personal view) hell would be the lack of anything....friends, family, anything or anyone you've ever loved for all eternity. Which I know sounds more like the traditional view of purgatory.

Thus my beliefs are that if I sin and repent to God then I won't face the above. I also believe that if you don't believe in God but repent sins that he will save you.

I don't reject the core aspect - just the traditional image of it. And there's a lot of things about Christianity (and Catholocism) that I don't agree with. In fact I'd probably be classed as a pretty bad Catholic in that sense but I don't feel the need to answer to the Church - just to God.

I never claimed that religion was necessary, just that I believe in God.

krudler

JimiTime wrote: »

Not really, no. If I owe you money and have not the ability to pay you, but my brother comes along and pays for me, then thats it. I don't deserve the bailout, but I am sure thankful for it. So someone else paying your debt is is far from complete nonsense, nor is it irresponsible in and of itself.

but then the person paying the money is paying a debt that they they set up to begin with.

Its like the bank ringing you saying you owe them a million quid for no reason or fault of your own, but they're going to pay it off for you, baffling.

JimiTime

krudler wrote: »

but then the person paying the money is paying a debt that they they set up to begin with.

Its like the bank ringing you saying you owe them a million quid for no reason or fault of your own, but they're going to pay it off for you, baffling.

No, God did not choose to sin for Man. Man chose to sin. The issue you guys seem to have, is that you don't believe God should have allowed the sin of Adam impact his children. That question is slightly different, and a valid one. The 'Why didn't he just start again' question, or 'Why didn't he just let Adam die, and not pass the punishment of death to his children' etc.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

If I owe you money and have not the ability to pay you, but my brother comes along and pays for me, then thats it.

Analogies are best avoided in this, since the real belief is more interesting.

The christian belief is that Jesus (as god) created the world and created the ability and desire to sin. He then condemned people who sinned and demanded reparations for what he allowed them to do. These reparations were a requirement to believe that he exists as the story tellers claim and that the need to deliver reparations is real. Jesus sets the exchange rate on these reparations and burns people who disagree with him.

In this case, Jesus created a political problem, allowed it to fester, created a political solution, the efficacy of which he is the sole judge, and out of which he comes with every human (in heaven at least) in bottomless debt to him.

To analogize, which I don't really want to, it's a bit like a parent giving a kid a bottle of poison, then when he drinks it, offering to take him to the doctor but only if the kid agrees to worship the parent. If he doesn't agree to worship, the parent will burn the child in a fire.

As I said, it's violent, nasty, threatening and utterly bonkers.

It's exactly the kind of respect-trading that goes on in violent, closed, authoritarian Mafia-style societies and which should be abhorred by people from peaceful, open, fair and free societies who've moved on from humanity's tribal roots.

witchgirl26

robindch wrote: »

Analogies are best avoided in this, since the real belief is more interesting.

The christian belief is that Jesus (as god) created the world and created the ability and desire to sin. He then condemned people who sinned and demanded reparations for what he allowed them to do. These reparations were a requirement to believe that he exists as the story tellers claim and that the need to deliver reparations is real. Jesus sets the exchange rate on these reparations and burns people who disagree with him.

Em according to christian belief Jesus didn't create the world - God did. Jesus was born much later in the story and had nothing to do with creation.
Got gave us free will & in the original sin story told Adam & Eve not to do one thing (eat the apple). They had free will.....they ate the apple....they sinned....

Sorry don't have any disrespect for people who don't believe in God but just like things to be right when they're being used in an argument.

robindch

witchgirl26 wrote: »

Em according to christian belief Jesus didn't create the world - God did.

Have a read of the post again -- I did say "The christian belief is that Jesus (as god) created the world". Aside from that, do check out what the trinity is supposed to be.

Substitute "god" or "the holy ghost" for "jesus" in the above if it makes it any more comprehensible.

witchgirl26 wrote: »

just like things to be right when they're being used in an argument.

So do I

.

krudler

witchgirl26 wrote: »

Em according to christian belief Jesus didn't create the world - God did. Jesus was born much later in the story and had nothing to do with creation.
Got gave us free will & in the original sin story told Adam & Eve not to do one thing (eat the apple). They had free will.....they ate the apple....they sinned....

Sorry don't have any disrespect for people who don't believe in God but just like things to be right when they're being used in an argument.

Isnt God Jesus and vice versa, holy trinity and all that?

The belief that a man and woman lived in a garden with a talking snake and an apple that decided the fate of mankind is even more insane tbh.

witchgirl26

robindch wrote: »

Check out the trinity.

Substitute "god" or "the holy ghost" for "jesus" in the above if it makes it any more comprehensible.

Thing is (sorry to be pedantic), God was one being during the creation story. The Holy Spirity is still part of Him but Jesus does not feature at all in the Old Testament (which the story is from), he is solely in the New Testament.
The Holy Trinity was only such after Jesus had been born.

strobe

So Witchgirl (I went out with a girl with that nickname before. You aren't from Walkinstown are you?) do you believe in the Christian god but believe the bible misrepresents him or is the god you believe in nothing to do with the God of the Bible?

robindch

witchgirl26 wrote: »

Thing is (sorry to be pedantic), God was one being during the creation story.

Not according to the Nicene (and some of the subsequent) creeds:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

Original Nicene Version wrote:

We believe in one God [...] Maker of all things visible and invisible [...] And in one Lord Jesus Christ [...] being of one substance with the Father

God is reported to have done the making, but since Jesus is reported to be the same entity, he must have taken an equal part in the manufacture too.

witchgirl26 wrote: »

Jesus does not feature at all in the Old Testament (which the story is from), he is solely in the New Testament. The Holy Trinity was only such after Jesus had been born.

It is unusual that the entire OT fails to mention two-thirds of the godhead, but that little niggle is perhaps best kept for another thread

witchgirl26

strobe wrote: »

So Witchgirl (I went out with a girl with that nickname before. You aren't from Walkinstown are you?) do you believe in the Christian god but believe the bible misrepresents him or is the god you believe in nothing to do with the God of the Bible?

Lol nope not from Walkinstown.
Hmmm that's a difficult one in some ways. Thing is the Bible is written down by men thousands of years ago so it can be seen to reflect more their view on the world and thus religion then a true view. I do think that I believe in the Christian God but that the Bible is misrepresentative of it due to who wrote it & the time it was written at. That said (and as you might be able to guess from my name), I've dabbled in other forms of belief, such as pagen, and have been somewhat influenced by them in aspects of my beliefs. I can see the links between them aswell.

Sorry if I sound messed up but I find it hard sometimes to explain exactly what it is I believe. It's not something I talk about much as it is a personal thing in my opinion and don't really like to feel like I'm pushing it on anyone. I hate either religious or anti-religious pushy people!

krudler

robindch wrote: »

It is unusual that the entire OT fails to mention two-thirds of the godhead, but that little niggle is perhaps best kept for another thread

Its probably because the people who wrote the bible figured keeping people in check with a spiteful bastard was harder than a loving god with a kid.