Is Christ cruel? (For member Schrafinator)

I certainly must not agree, in fact. I agree that no human can achieve perfection (the view of what perfection really is being limited by each individual's opinion and imagination anyway), but I certainly don't think that a single sin - or even many - can render one's acts of good meaningless. What you seem to be saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that each deed should be judged on the basis of other deeds committed by the same person, rather than on its own merits, and that all good deeds are immediately nullified by a single bad one. Why should this be so? But is it really justice for a man striving to do good - often at his own expense, perhaps - to burn for eternity, to be damned without hope for redemption because he was proud, or because he had sex outside of marriage, or because he lied on occasion, or because he simply didn't see any reason or enough evidence to believe in the "correct" religion when all of them claimed to be correct? Okay. No one at any time is evil enough to deserve hell. Perhaps, but why would He, having come here to save us, only save the few who believed He was divine and/or that the Bible is the true God-inspired holy book? Did He only die for those who would believe in Him, or all humans? Wouldn't a reasonable, benevolent God recognize that some would find much room for doubt in His existence, and rather than require them to believe against their own capabilities, reach out to them and accept them anyway? I think you're taking an overly simplistic view. Why must there be a numerical value attached to one's goodness/evil? I wasn't aware that God was a D&D fan.Why would God limit Himself to counting deeds when forming His judgment? Can't God can see into our hearts? Can't He tell whether we try to do what we feel is the right thing, whether we regret our mistakes, how deeply opposed or supportive we are of specific morals (IE: most would consider killing to be a much more horrible sin than lying, and feel much more dissonance about it), the motives behind what we do, the strength of our convictions?{Edited for minor typing errors.}This message has been edited by Morte, 06-02-2005 02:50 AM

But the point (or mine, at least) is that, if belief is what is required to be saved, many do not even have this choice. It might be difficult for you to imagine not having complete control over your own beliefs, but I invite you to take the challenge posed earlier. Try to believe for a little while that God doesn't exist.You see, it's not that we're denying God because we don't want to believe in Him. It's that we don't believe in him, plain and simple. I can't speak for others, but I know that I, personally, can't just simply make myself believe whatever I want to believe. Between what I see as inconsistencies in the Bible, inconsistencies between the God described by the religious and the God of the Old Testament, and worldly evidence that I try to view as objectively as possible, I simply cannot believe that the God of the Bible exists. There is no choice involved.It's very similar to trying to control whatever you're thinking about at a given moment, if that comparison helps; can you willfully make yourself stop thinking about a topic when you try? Me, I just think about it more if I try to do so. Message 26 put it better than I ever could (I would consider it for POTM if there was a thread for it yet):

quote:

---

The problem with the "mainstream" evangelical ideology is that it cannot accept the idea that people may be damned to eternal torment for something beyond their control -- that is why there is this idea that somehow non-believers must "know", deep in their hearts, that God and Jesus are real, and that they must willingly choose to deny God.

---

*** You paint an unrealistic scenario, however. Other men tell me that the Lord says that, not God Himself. Other men also tell me that Allah is the true god, that nature is to be worshipped, of Vishnu and Shiva. What is supposed to distinguish your claim from theirs in my mind?{Added in edit: Bah, there is a POTM thread open. Somehow I missed it when I searched for it earlier.}This message has been edited by Morte, 06-02-2005 03:05 AM

Sorry if some of this has already been covered - I've only read a page or two ahead from the message I'm replying to and don't have the time right now for more. I’m not saying that beliefs cannot change; but do you honestly think that you could make yourself believe that again right now if you wanted to? Could you just say to yourself, There is no God, and believe it without a single doubt now that you do believe?{Added by edit: I just got to the part of the thread about your own beliefs - turns out I had a bit more time than I had thought - and I'm not sure if this question actually applies to you personally, but I still think it's an important point for possible others reading the thread. I had originally misinterpreted your quote above as saying that you believed that for 10 years before becoming a Christian.}I would be quite interested in hearing how one wills oneself into believing something; I’m not trying to be sarcastic or argumentative, I truly just cannot see how it is possible to do so. The argument that I was talking about was that you had a choice to believe in Christ’s divinity or not. It may seem trivial, but it makes a world of difference; having a choice to accept Christ or not implies that you already believe in his divinity, otherwise there would be no need for such a choice in the first place.Again there seems to be an assumption that I know, deep in my heart, that the Bible is true, and that the issue is simply whether I choose to accept God’s gift of salvation or not. That’s not the case. If that was the case, why would anybody in his/her right mind refuse that gift?The issue is that I don’t believe this, and can’t simply say to myself, Oh, I’d like to believe that that’s true, so I think I will. It doesn’t matter whether I actually would like to believe it or not, because I don’t choose my beliefs. I can’t force myself to believe in Jesus’s divinity any more than I can force myself to believe that 2+2=5, that the computer I’m typing on isn’t actually there, that World War II never occurred, that I’m actually a twenty year-old billionaire, and so on.I’m trying to think of a good analogy because I don’t know whether it’s the case that you don’t understand what I’m saying or that you, unlike me, actually do have the capability to change your belief at will. So how about music?I like specific types of music — U2, Pink Floyd, Supertramp, and REM are some of my favourite bands, and I’m a big fan of classic rock or anything with a decent piano or sax — and dislike specific other types — I’ve never been a fan of country or rap, for example. Now, my tastes in music aren’t as such because I just said to myself one day, I’d don’t think I should like country music, or I’ve decided to like the album The Joshua Tree. I don’t choose my tastes in music. They just are. And even though they change slowly, over time, it’s not because I make the decision to like any specific type of music less or more.It’s a very similar thing for me and beliefs; I never sat down and compared the possibilities, making a list of pros and cons of belief or disbelief or belief in other religions to come to an informed decision about what I should believe. I never said to myself, Hm, I don’t think I like the morals declared by the God of the Bible, guess He must not exist. I simply don’t believe in Him. Not everything you believe or feel is related to a conscious choice you make.So it’s not a choice of whether to accept Christ or not, because it never even reached that point for me. It’s a matter, first, of believing that Christ presented me with a gift to accept. For the reason I’m stressing above, it didn’t have one whit to do with whether or not I accepted faith as applicable or not; I am not someone who lives only by what I can see and demonstrate to be true, as you might expect (and reasonably so, given that that is a stereotype that is often true here). But to believe in the God of the literal Bible requires more than just faith in God; it requires faith in the Bible as a source of truth, too. A literalist might equivocate the two, but when I believed in (a non-biblical) God, I believed because I had faith in the existence of a God; to believe in the God of the literal Bible requires that you have faith that the Bible is composed of His words, His stories for those of us on earth — and that none of these stories have been created, altered, or omitted by humans. But that just goes back to the original point — whether there is no choice to believe or the choice is subconscious makes no difference. If God requires belief for salvation, and there are any, any at all, who cannot consciously make themselves believe, it is an inherently unjust system. If they choose only subconsciously, they still have no control over their fate in the end and the system is unjust. Exactly — he didn’t make a choice about his beliefs based simply on what he was experiencing, because he knew what he believed in his heart and couldn’t change it simply because it didn’t seem true for a while. Not your point, I know; and not really my own, either, since I recognize that one’s beliefs may be changed easily by external events and transitions. But still, consider: maybe Job didn’t change his beliefs because he didn’t have an option; maybe no matter what trials came his way he still knew, deep down, that God was there, and he couldn’t just look at the situation and say, Obviously there is no God even if it might have seemed that way at times.(Basically, I’m saying that the story could be used either way.) Not for me, but again other religions can make the same case for their own god(s). The point I was trying to make is that saying this is all good and well in theory, but the reality is not a case of God presenting his scenario to us and us refusing his gift; it is a case, as with other religions, as men presenting a scenario that they claim to be God’s, and there is no way for me to distinguish that yours is the truth among them. So saying is misleading because God does not speak to me directly; again, this would make it quite simple.See, it could just as easily be the Jewish scenario that is true, or the Islamic scenario, or the Hindu — and since I have no way of knowing which one, how do I know where to place my faith in the first place?{Edited to make slight alterations for the reason mentioned above.}This message has been edited by Morte, 06-06-2005 02:35 AM