See posts 26, 29 and 34 (in that order).
How can someone have a ‘certain relation towards Jesus’ if they’ve never heard of him? As far as I can see, having the relation toward Jesus necessary to get into heaven is being a Christian.
The reactions of such a God as defined in my proposition are so far beyond extrapolation, it’s really a moot point. I have no way of guessing God’s motives, reactions or emotional state.
To answer your question, it would annoy a normal human quite a lot and drive an insecure one crazy (or crazier). But then humans aren’t “all that”; God (as defined above) is.
Hey, man, you’re stealing my stuff:
It needed said again.
It’s fairly standard for Christians to believe Jesus died for all (see 1 Peter 3:18). And worshiping God to avoid Hell is missing the point of Christianity–it’s not a quid pro quo. That would reduce religion to a simple economic transaction. Christians worship God because of who he is, and they try to do good because they want to emulate him. Simply put: it is the journey, not the destination, that matters.
In mine own opinion, calling oneself Christian means recognizing Jesus as your God, but anyone who does as Jesus does is saved, whatever label they use. That’s the point of the story of the good Samaritan. Jesus compares the Levite, who follows God in the “correct” manner, with the Samaritan, a member of a different religion, and it is the Samaritan who follows Jesus. It is actions that matter to God, not specific beliefs or labels.
Hmmm, you’re saying it’s works, not faith, that matter. I wonder if that has ever been the subject of a theological debate…
And several wars, too. 
That’s why I prefaced with “opinion”.
But “saved by faith” /= “saved by membership in the Christian religion”.
I think the best reading of the Bible says something much like what Pleonast said, though I’d add that (the best reading of the Bible indicates that) “living as Jesus lived” is essentially a matter of faith, and is not just a matter of works.
But “faith” =/ “belief in Christian doctrines.”
Either we judge by the standards we have to the best of our ability, or we don’t judge at all. Either this “god” is the most insecure being in the universe, or she/he/it is something we should stay completely away from until more solid evidence concerning she/he/it’s nature is presented.
It was a Mormon who told me this - I think he said ‘Spiritual prison’ actually.
Every Christian I’ve ever spoken to has agreed on two things (and two things only):
- Jesus is the Son of God
- a genocidal maniac who sincerely repents on his deathbed will go to Heaven.
Or, to consider a third possibility, every act and word of God’s is as worthy of spontaneous unfeigned praise as, say, the single finest golf shot Tiger Woods will ever hit, or the single best verse Shakespeare ever wrote, or the single best tune Mozart ever composed; and the whole sentient population of the universe can be divided according to their willingness to recognise this, or their mean-spirited determination to withhold praise for any excuse they can trump up.
This may not be necessarily the truth, but is presented in a spirit of something to do with false dilemmas.
Which was my original point.
Being an agnostic I don’t actually believe it, but I at least understand the principle of why one would spend eternity praising God.
I don’t think it is within me to praise God for letting children die of disease and malnutrition without a damn good reason first.
That’s as may be, but you’ve shifted ground somewhat, because earlier you were talking about the insecurity of someone who expected to be praised all the time, and suddenly now we’re not talking about insecurity any more.
But in a way, we still are. Does this deity requires constant praise for any and all actions, whether we understand them or not? Is 24-hours-a-day-unto-eternity constant praise a “heaven” one wants to strive for? If atheists were allowed into Heaven if they turned out to be pretty good folks otherwise, would they even want to?
I agree with Czarcasm. I would never worship anyone who could have prevented 9/11 and didn’t. That god is evil and/or not able to do everything.
See, what I’ve always heard is that the repentance is just part of it, that accepting god/jesus is the second necessary part. You can’t just be sorry, you have to be sorry to the right supernatural being.
You’re still moving the definition of Heaven from “place where you willingly praise God eternally” to “place where you are required to praise God eternally”. Big difference. Does God demand our praise, or merely our faith/obedience?
And any Christian who thinks that God gives His people an easy ride really hasn’t read the Bible. God plays the Long Game - in the end it’s all good, even if in the short term (by God’s timeframe, anyway) it’s really quite horrible.
This is a false choice. It assumes the individual knows that God exists and can consciously make a choice to be “with” him or “against” him (whatever that means). For an individual (like me) with no awareness that God exists, this choice is impossible to make.
Not only that, it’s a stupid and immoral criterion for God to judge people on. If he isn’t willing to demonstrate his own existence, he has no right to demand belief in it.
You can also count me as another one who doesn’t get God’s alleged craving for praise and glory. Praise and glory for what? Being so big and strong? Whoop-dee-doo. An omnimax entity who creates a whole universe just so he can hear his own creations kiss his ass is not somebody I have much interest in hanging with.