nm - posted by mistake. Sorry!
As a believer, I have wagered nothing.
Most atheists I have talked to believe that when you die there is emptiness, nothing, blackness, end of existence, game over. Now if they are right and I have lived my life as a believer, then what have I lost?? It will simply be game over for me as well.
Now as a Christian, I believe that unless someone is saved, (and that only occurs by accepting Jesus (who is God’s son)), you will spend an eternity in hell, while those who are saved will spend an eternity in Heaven. So what has a non-believer lost? Eternal life.
By the way, being an “agnostic” is no different than being an atheist when it comes to whether someone is saved or not.
God is not who is making the wager. You are by not accepting Him.
But you’re still worshipping a god who would happily condemn someone to an eternity in hell just for not believing he exists (and if he does, he’s keeping pretty quiet about it, it has to be said).
That’s really not the sort of deity I want to have anything to do with, frankly.
That sounds perfectly, uh, cromulent.
And if you are wrong and Crom rules the universe, you will end un burning in hell. (Though, TBMK, no actual theology has that idea written down. That is a hugely distorted, albeit common, misrepresentation of what is in the bible, it is more like believers get heaven and unbelievers get eternal purgatory.)
Agnostics do not believe in that stuff, so it does not matter to them. They do not believe because it seems irrational, but could, maybe, change their minds given solid evidence. There is no hedging of bets in being agnostic.
God would be far from “happy” about condemning someone to hell. God the Father established a plan for salvation long before we were conceived. He gave us His word (the Bible) for us to use as a guide to get to that salvation. He also gave us free will to accept or reject Him. God is not going to come down and thump you or me on the head and say “You got it, Dude”. He left it up to us. I really hope you reconsider.
I agree that it sounds like you’re more meditating than actively praying in the Protestant sense. As someone who grew up Protestant and became Catholic at age 19, I would say the Catholic way of prayer is much more meditation-oriented. I stopped going to church years ago but I still pray a decade on the rosary every night. I don’t think it matters whether you’re saying “Hail Mary” or “Om” or “I’m thankful,” it’s just a tool to focus your mind and help you transcend everyday thoughts and rest in an oasis of positivity for a little while. Nothing wrong with that.
Problem is that one corollary of that is that all is planed; so, so much for free will. I also have to say that I think better of God in the sense that I do think he/she/it would be aware of all the science bits that show how we are beholden to our past and our genes.
As Tim Minchin puts it (in a commencement graduation ceremony):
Knowing how we are the result also of the country and the family were we are born into and knowing how nature and fate conspired to make it so I do think that any deity that is keeping track already knows that. The point for me is clear:
The eternal punishment you believe in is really unfair and illogical.
Far more logical would be to have any criminal to experience the pain and fear of all those that suffered at their hands at least once (As an episode of the Twilight Zone proposed once). Clearly doable for anyone that does claim omnipotence.
So you’re saying that people who don’t believe in God should spend their lives pretending to, just in case? How would that get us credit with an omnipotent God who knows whether we truly believe or not?
I also agree with GIGObuster that condemning perfectly good people to an eternity in hell for being unbelievers doesn’t sound like the actions of any deity I would worship, were I theist, particularly in the absence of any quantifiable evidence whatsoever of God’s existence.
I was raised Catholic and this is not necessarily true of all Christian belief. It’s a lot more complex than that. (Unless, of course, you’re one of those who think Catholicism isn’t true Christianity, in which case, forget I said anything)
I am not saying that at all. It would do no good to pretend. God knows the heart. He knows who believes and who does not. So if you don’t believe then there is no use to pretend you do.
We are not “perfectly good people”. Everyone is a sinner. Since Adam and Eve committed the original sin everyone is, by default, condemned in the eyes of God the Father. It is ONLY through Jesus Christ who will intercede for us at the time of judgement, can we be saved. The hardest part of showing people how to be saved is making them realize they need saving in the first place.
Eve was framed.
Other than the Bible, I don’t know what type “quantifiable evidence” there could be. I doubt we will ever find any physical evidence of God’s existence, I doubt we will find the crown of thorns that Jesus wore when He was crucified for example, and I do not believe He will show up in your bedroom at night, although I suppose He could if He chose to. We are told to accept by faith. Well to me faith means believing in something even though there is no “quantifying evidence”. If there were “quantifying evidence” then our belief would be based on that evidence and not faith.
Naw, Adam was framed…he let a woman get them evicted from of some great digs
Right. My point is that in the absence of any evidence, not believing in God is the only rational position, as an omnipotent God would be aware. For God to punish people who don’t believe by condemning them to an eternity in hell seems absurd - not to mention extremely disproportionate - in those circumstances.
But we have now drifted away from the OP and I’ll probably not say any more on this side issue, with respect.
The problem is double, besides not being evidence, another issue is what Joseph Campbell could had told you. The problem is that religion defines what the universe is to us, and our place in it. And how we relate to the world. We have found out nowadays that the bible is not all in tune with what we now know about the cosmos.
One theory I have is that before writing was invented this worked beautifully as religion changed along with society and what it was discovered about the cosmos then was gradually integrated to civilization thanks to oral traditions that changed gradually; and none could go back to check if the traditions being taught to them were the same as the great - great - grandfathers had.
Once writing entered the picture that gradual and natural change was disrupted. By the time the first books of the bible were written it actually freeze dried the changes going on then in the form of 2 recognizable traditions about the creation that we can see in the bible. And it also freezes for us lessons that are no longer applicable.
The challenge indeed will be on how to make old time religion go forward. (Or it will fade away as others will then take their place) The modern lessons that most of us are learning now, like the ones that teach us that owning slaves, putting women down*, and beating gay people are not to be done even if the bible tell us so. This and taking what we do know about the cosmos into account are part of the process that is needed by religion nowadays; IMHO.
- That was the point you missed from me when I mentioned that “Eve was framed”. What the bible told us is not a good lesson nowadays.
So, collective punishment, whether we deserve it or not. Also, isn’t your God the one who commanded the Israelites to slay the Caananites’ infants by dashing their heads against rocks? The God who hardened Pharaoh’s heart to refuse Moses, and then slew all the first-born sons of the Egyptians? The God who sent bears to slay children for making fun of one of his prophets?
Your God’s not worth worshipping.
Technically, the story of Adam and Eve is primarily a metaphor about humans “discovering” moral code (or more accurately, developing the basis of morality, condensed from centuries into an evening). No part of Genesis, on up to Exodus 20, was ever meant to be taken literally, only ignoramuses, charlatans and SDAs preach that doctrine.
Okay, question: how do you know the Bible is true?
So why does he do it then? If he is a truly omnipotent god, surely he would have the power to choose who can or can’t go to hell. If he is a truly loving god, he would accept pretty much everyone except the truly evil and irredeemable. If he is not omnipotent or loving, then he is not the god that you think you’re worshipping.
Except, apparently, if you reject him you’re condemned to an eternity of damnation. Doesn’t seem like much of a choice to me. What about those who have not been told about this deal? Seems unfair to damn them just because they weren’t made aware.
If you really want me to reconsider, then maybe you could ask your god to send me some sort of sign that he exists. I’m open to accepting him, but from where I’m sitting I’m not seeing much evidence of his existence (and no, the bible doesn’t count).
Asking me to accept such a fundamental and life changing belief in the face of (let’s face it) zero evidence is a bit much to ask, really.