A question to think about.

[NothingSacred]

The requirements for christian heaven just irk me now. I was in a book store the other day with my mother in law and we stumbled upon a biography book about a notorious criminal who murdered several people and then went to confession and was killed a few days later. She said to me" wow he's lucky our god is a forgiving god" and I thought to myself " the christian god will grant eternal bliss to a serial murderer but I simple disbelieve and I get eternal torture???" ... if heaven exsisted and folks like him are up there how heavenly could it be?

[theantithesis]

My friend and I were having a debate about whether god is not real or not.He is a average free thinker and I am also a average free thinker.While we were debating,he said something that really hit me.

 He said "John,if you do believe in god you go to heaven if you don't,you have the possibility to go to hell,so why take the chance?"He then proceeded to tell me that religion is really just a gamble and that choosing one religion is that you have one chance to go to heaven so why become an atheist and take no chances at all?

I was really thinking about the question he asked me,so I wanna know what you guys think about this question.

What is it with christians and this? Do they think we're stupid or that such dishonesty will gain them treasures in heaven?

Pascal's wager is the least convincing argument for believing in god ever conceived because it doesn't convince and it is not intended to convince. It is sort of like the "fuck you" flung at the end of an argument. After failing to convince, they trot out the wager to say "even though I failed to provide a convincing argument, you should believe me anyway." That many christians lead with the wager is telling.

[ablprop]

I think Pascal's wager is exactly wrong as far as our species as a whole is concerned. If you believe in a plan, how could that plan go wrong? If you believe in a designer, how could we possibly do anything to destroy the design? If you believe that there is a being out there who will save us, then why save ourselves?

We live in a dark, dangerous universe. If anything of the spark we humans have discovered is to survive, we have to abandon our belief that someone else is looking out for us. If there really is such a being, well, we've done no harm in trying to be self-sufficient. If, however, such a being doesn't exist, then we're all we've got.

[jduster]

My friend and I were having a debate about whether god is not real or not.He is a average free thinker and I am also a average free thinker.While we were debating,he said something that really hit me.

 He said "John,if you do believe in god you go to heaven if you don't,you have the possibility to go to hell,so why take the chance?"He then proceeded to tell me that religion is really just a gamble and that choosing one religion is that you have one chance to go to heaven so why become an atheist and take no chances at all?

I was really thinking about the question he asked me,so I wanna know what you guys think about this question.

As the above users had said, that argument is called Pascal's Wager.  At first, it seems like a strong and solid argument, but once you examine it carefully, it proves to be fallacies.

Pascal's Wager assumes it's a 50/50 chance that either the God of 1 religion exists or no God exist.  In reality, there are an infinite number of theoretic possibilities. Essentially, believing in God, mathematically, isn't anywhere near 1/2.  It's more along the lines of 1/9999999999999...

The theory convinces some people to live as if there were a God (why an omniscient being would be fooled by one of his creations, I don't know), but it doesn't prove the existence of God.

[Joel25]

This is one part that always bugs me. How does anyone know this is the requirement to get into heaven?

If the Bible is God's Word, and I believe it is, then given the definition of who God is (all-knowing, all-powerful, love, truth, merciful, just, holy, etc.) as He has revealed Himself to mankind through His Word, His Son Jesus Christ, and creation itself then nothing I or any other mere human can say can claim the authority that God's Word can when it says that: "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12) You can't truly know anything just because I or any other group of people say it is so just like I can't truly know anything just because you or any other group of people say it is so. The ultimate source of truth on this issue has to be God and His Word.

I also find myself asking, why would god set up this game where you have to believe in him with no proof at all in order to hang out at his place after you die, or else suffer eternal pain. Doesn't that seem childish to you believers? Just think about it for a second, don't answer automatically.

I disagree with your assumption and your conclusion. There are many reasons why a belief in God makes more sense to me than not believing in a God. As for your conclusion, God did not create man in order to suffer (although He certainly could have if He wanted to because He is God and who are we to attempt to make Him "fit into what we can understand" with our little pea brains?) Our own sin and disobedience to God's commands and a rejection of His free gift of salvation is where we send ourselves to eternal pain.

It almost seems like it's made up by man, to control other men with fear.

Evil people seeking power under the guise of religion is not an uncommon thing throughout history but here is a question to ponder: Did you know that what separates Christianity* apart from every single other religion in the world is that Christianity is the only religion that states that man cannot save Himself and is utterly sinful and utterly incapable of achieving salvation apart from accepting the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ (For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8,9)?

Now ask yourself, if every other religion says in some form or another that man can achieve salvation on his own (through pleasing Allah, through achieving enlightenment, etc.) and Christianity says that man on His own is worthless and needs to admit his utter sinfulness and powerlessness and need of a Savior - which religions do you think sound like they would be man-created and which one sounds like it would be God-created?

I will quote you and say to don't answer right away - Just think about it for a second, which category sounds man-created vs. God-created....

* "Christianity" = Biblical Christianity that accepts the entire Bible as the Word of God and that salvation is by grace through faith alone in Jesus Christ (I clarify just because so many different groups call themselves "Christian" but may believe entirely different things)

[Joel25]

Using the Bible as evidence of your god is circular reasoning.

If the Bible is God's Word, and God is the ultimate source of truth (an important distinction: God is not just truthful but He is actually the source of truth - as in God is the measuring stick for what is and what is not true - given that God is truly all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal, etc. and not the irreverent and incorrect cartoon depictions of a "man upstairs" or some other nonsense) then there is no higher reference point for proof of God's existence then His very own Word (exhibited in the Holy Bible and in the Living Word - His Son Jesus Christ).

[Joel25]

The requirements for christian heaven just irk me now. I was in a book store the other day with my mother in law and we stumbled upon a biography book about a notorious criminal who murdered several people and then went to confession and was killed a few days later. She said to me" wow he's lucky our god is a forgiving god" and I thought to myself " the christian god will grant eternal bliss to a serial murderer but I simple disbelieve and I get eternal torture???"

You and I and everyone else all were born with hearts full of evil and the capacity to do things just as evil as that murderer. We may not follow through and actually do the deed but Jesus says in Matthew 5 if we have been wrongfully angry with someone then we are equivalent to having murder in our hearts or if we have lusted after someone then it's as if we have had adultery with them in our hearts.

Our own evil hearts and our own rejection of God's free gift of salvation will send us to eternal torture but not because God is not extending to us, each and every one of us - people who have just thought murderous thoughts in their heart and those who have actually committed murder, the free gift of salvation. We all do not deserve salvation because of our evil hearts: you, me, and the murderer you mentioned. We all have to choose to accept His free gift of salvation.

When you say you "simply disbelieve" you are acting as if that is not a big deal that you are choosing to refuse God's free gift of salvation, say that He does not even exist, and that you will be OK on your own. That is very much a big deal.

... if heaven exsisted and folks like him are up there how heavenly could it be?

Everyone will be sinless in heaven and God will make everything perfect. Side note: No, it will not be a boring eternity filled with cloud sitting and harp playing but a perfect version of everything wonderful on earth.

[Joel25]

If you believe in a plan, how could that plan go wrong? If you believe in a designer, how could we possibly do anything to destroy the design? If you believe that there is a being out there who will save us, then why save ourselves?

The amazing thing is that God's plan involves creating us to have free will and not simply be robots that He controls. Our limited human minds can't even begin to fully grasp how Divine Sovereignty and personal responsibility work together but would you rather that God had made you just a robot?

Nothing can thwart God's overall Divine plan but because of His allowing man to have free will to make both good decisions (like accept God's free gift of salvation and follow Biblical principles) and bad decisions (like refuse to acknowledge that there is a God, refuse salvation, murder, lie, cheat, commit adultery, steal, etc.) then there are many things within his overall Divine plan that he does not desire as best for us and those bad decisions have very negative consequences both for the person committing the sin and for others around them.

[fester30]

Evil people seeking power under the guise of religion is not an uncommon thing throughout history but here is a question to ponder: Did you know that what separates Christianity* apart from every single other religion in the world is that Christianity is the only religion that states that man cannot save Himself and is utterly sinful and utterly incapable of achieving salvation apart from accepting the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ (For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8,9)?

Now ask yourself, if every other religion says in some form or another that man can achieve salvation on his own (through pleasing Allah, through achieving enlightenment, etc.) and Christianity says that man on His own is worthless and needs to admit his utter sinfulness and powerlessness and need of a Savior - which religions do you think sound like they would be man-created and which one sounds like it would be God-created?

I will quote you and say to don't answer right away - Just think about it for a second, which category sounds man-created vs. God-created....

* "Christianity" = Biblical Christianity that accepts the entire Bible as the Word of God and that salvation is by grace through faith alone in Jesus Christ (I clarify just because so many different groups call themselves "Christian" but may believe entirely different things)

You can't accept the entire Bible as the literal Word of God and also accept that the only salvation is through grace.  The Bible literally lays out a second path to salvation through works, and even mentions which works will keep you out of the book of life.  There was a preacher who told me the Bible was God's word and was literal.  I mentioned the Great White Throne Judgment, of which he was aware.  He said that to understand the Great White Throne Judgment, you have to read about ten other Bible verses, and then you will understand that at that judgment nobody will have their name in that book.  He was interpreting that section of the Bible after telling me the Bible was not for interpretation, but was to be taken literally.

That part of Revelation literally leaves the door open to salvation through works if you happen to miss out on salvation through grace.  However, this does not suit Christianity, because of course what is the point in believing in Jesus, er... Horus, er... Krishna if you can get there simply by not being a complete deviant.

As for literal... Matthew and Luke have different genealogies for Jesus.  Luke has 53 generations from Abraham.  Matthew has 42.  God seems to be perfectly imperfect.

[Asmodean]

Didn't answer this before, did I..?  

so why become an atheist and take no chances at all?

Sometimes fun costs you, and life without certain forms of fun is arguably not worth living. That there would be as good an answer as any. Personally, the afterlife was never even close to being an issue when I started calling myself atheist.

The problem with many religious people who raise this question is their lack of understanding of the fact that people see things differently and value different things. If I literally woke up dead, for example, I'd be positively surprised to find myself still in existence. And if the place where I woke up was hell, well... I'd work with that. I'd have to, wouldn't I? Going by what I know, however, there is near-zero chance (So close it might as well BE zero) of waking up dead, as I put it,  so why should I base any decision in the life I know I have on the prospect of some highly hypothetical life beyond? I'll just live my best and die like the rest.

I did not choose atheism to avoid a gamble, and I think I speak for the majority when I say that, even though our reasons differ greatly.

[LegendarySandwich]

This is one part that always bugs me. How does anyone know this is the requirement to get into heaven?

If the Bible is God's Word, and I believe it is, then given the definition of who God is (all-knowing, all-powerful, love, truth, merciful, just, holy, etc.) as He has revealed Himself to mankind through His Word, His Son Jesus Christ, and creation itself then nothing I or any other mere human can say can claim the authority that God's Word can when it says that: "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12) You can't truly know anything just because I or any other group of people say it is so just like I can't truly know anything just because you or any other group of people say it is so. The ultimate source of truth on this issue has to be God and His Word.

And how do you know all that?

I also find myself asking, why would god set up this game where you have to believe in him with no proof at all in order to hang out at his place after you die, or else suffer eternal pain. Doesn't that seem childish to you believers? Just think about it for a second, don't answer automatically.

I disagree with your assumption and your conclusion. There are many reasons why a belief in God makes more sense to me than not believing in a God.

Most likely because you're starting out with the assumption that a God does exist.

As for your conclusion, God did not create man in order to suffer (although He certainly could have if He wanted to because He is God and who are we to attempt to make Him "fit into what we can understand" with our little pea brains?)

Who are we to question God? We should never question things that we can't possibly understand and just take everything on faith. Right?

Our own sin and disobedience to God's commands and a rejection of His free gift of salvation is where we send ourselves to eternal pain.

You Christians always word that in a way that attempts to reduce the ridiculousness of it. I see no evidence of God, and try to be a good person, but my "own sin and disobedience to God's commands and a rejection of His free gift of salvation" is sending me to Hell. You're trying to make it seem as if I know full well that your religion is true and am just denying it (which you might actually think). I don't. And what about people of other religions, like Islam?

Evil people seeking power under the guise of religion is not an uncommon thing throughout history but here is a question to ponder: Did you know that what separates Christianity* apart from every single other religion in the world is that Christianity is the only religion that states that man cannot save Himself and is utterly sinful and utterly incapable of achieving salvation apart from accepting the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ (For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8,9)?

Doesn't Islam state that as well? Anyways, so what? Your religion doesn't like humanism. What relevance does that have? All religions have certain features that set them apart from all the rest.

Now ask yourself, if every other religion says in some form or another that man can achieve salvation on his own (through pleasing Allah, through achieving enlightenment, etc.) and Christianity says that man on His own is worthless and needs to admit his utter sinfulness and powerlessness and need of a Savior - which religions do you think sound like they would be man-created and which one sounds like it would be God-created?

They all sound fake.

I will quote you and say to don't answer right away - Just think about it for a second, which category sounds man-created vs. God-created....

Both.

* "Christianity" = Biblical Christianity that accepts the entire Bible as the Word of God and that salvation is by grace through faith alone in Jesus Christ (I clarify just because so many different groups call themselves "Christian" but may believe entirely different things)

That seems like it's bordering might close to a No True Scotsman fallacy. I would call a Christian anyone who believes that Jesus Christ was the son of God.

[LegendarySandwich]

Using the Bible as evidence of your god is circular reasoning.

If the Bible is God's Word, and God is the ultimate source of truth (an important distinction: God is not just truthful but He is actually the source of truth - as in God is the measuring stick for what is and what is not true - given that God is truly all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal, etc. and not the irreverent and incorrect cartoon depictions of a "man upstairs" or some other nonsense) then there is no higher reference point for proof of God's existence then His very own Word (exhibited in the Holy Bible and in the Living Word - His Son Jesus Christ).

You just used circular reasoning here. Let me explain with a graphic:

[Joel25]

You can't accept the entire Bible as the literal Word of God and also accept that the only salvation is through grace. The Bible literally lays out a second path to salvation through works, and even mentions which works will keep you out of the book of life.

It's very easy to take one verse or one passage of Scripture out of context and literally make it say almost anything. Many very smart and even very Godly Christians have gone astray in different areas because of this, not to mention atheists A proper hermeneutic or method of interpreting Scripture involves yes, a literal approach, but also an approach that looks at every verse and passage in context of Scripture as a whole.

For this particular grace/works issue there are overwhelming numbers of Scripture that show that salvation is a free gift and not earned by works (Ephesians 2:8,9 as mentioned and even in Isaiah it goes so far as to say that man's attempts at righteousness apart from God is "as filthy rags" - which in the Hebrew means used menstrual rags so as vile as one could imagine is our own attempts at doing good works/earning salvation apart from God)

For example, some Christians, Martin Luther notably (I think it was him), had problems understanding the book of James because James was so works focused. The key to understanding James is that many people say they are Christians (but don't really understand what they are saying nor do they really care) but a true Christian will show good works ("fruit" if you will) so works does not earn salvation but those who are saved will show "fruit" of their salvation in the form of good works (so, where there is salvation there is works but works does not bring about salvation)

As for literal... Matthew and Luke have different genealogies for Jesus. Luke has 53 generations from Abraham. Matthew has 42. God seems to be perfectly imperfect.

One genealogy was traced through Mary and the other through Joseph: (More Info)

[Joel25]

You just used circular reasoning here. Let me explain with a graphic:

All reasoning at its highest level is circular. Here is what I mean:

(I'll just cherry pick two different worldviews: Christian and atheist and forgive me for painting in broad strokes because I realize that every Christian and every atheist is obviously not the same)

Christian: God is the the source of all truth. Whatever God says (the Bible) is truth. Why is it the truth? Because God said it. How can that claim be trusted? One the basis of who God is - because God is all-knowing, eternal, all-powerful, etc.

Logical critique: If the assumption that there is a God and He really is who He says He is - if that initial assumption is true then the conclusion that there is no possible higher standard for truth holds. Of course, if there is not a God then everything falls apart.

Atheist: Truth exists somewhere out there and whenever I or a proper quotient of others agree that a given thing is truth then that is truth. Whatever we agree on as being truth is truth. Why is it the truth? Because we said so. How can that claim be trusted? On the basis of what we have accomplished together over the ages as humans - our study, research, observation, etc.

Logical critique: If the assumption that there is no God and man must make sense out of a possibly senseless world and be the final arbiter of truth - if that initial assumption is true then the conclusion that what the best and brightest of mankind over the centuries have discovered as being truth sounds good but even given the assumption that there is no God then how can we know that our human brains aren't only partially developed and we really aren't fully evolved enough to grasp what is truth and what is not? We may think we are at the pinnacle of the evolutionary process but what if we are hardly even 1.3% of the way there and trillions of years in the future suprahumans will look back on us and our pathetic attempts at reason and understanding the same way that we now look back at amoebas? How do we truly know or rely on anything if all we have to trust is our own brains (that are admittedly still an in process work of evolution)? We can certainly rely on the consensus that we can arrive at together with our pooled amoeba knowledge and we can feel good about ourselves, but should we?

[Joel25]

We should never question things that we can't possibly understand and just take everything on faith. Right?

Wrong. Question everything. Given what I know about the world around me believing in God makes the most sense to me among all other alternatives:

1. That there is an absolute right and wrong that all of us know without it having to be taught to us (God has placed a "conscience" and knowledge of Him within us "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" Romans 1:19,20)

2. The wonder of the universe and how it works perfectly together in perfect order ("The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows His handiwork")

3. We don't see anything that is in the process of evolution or halfway evolved

4. I have a desire to know God (Ecclesiastes says that the reason all of us want to know God and want to live for ever and want something more than just this short life is because He made us that way - He "placed eternity in our hearts")

5. The coded information found in the smallest parts of us (DNA code = coder/code designer)

6. The bazillion different interrelated and interdependent machinations that all must be working 100% correctly and in coordination with each other for the world to exist otherwise we all die (i.e. one little machination couldn't evolve and survive on its own and the whole couldn't survive without all of its parts functioning properly at the same time)

7. I called to God and I have experienced His working personally in my life (Jeremiah 33:3 "Call to me, and I will answer you, and show you great and mighty things, which you know not.")

Remember, these are not "proofs" that I am citing that God exists just observations about what I observe to be true in the world and then based on these things that I have observed I am making rational conclusions - one of which is that given the absence of any credible alternatives the most likely, and yes what I wholly believe by faith, and now know because of personal experience, is that God does exist.

The key reason why people can ask the same questions and get different answers is kind of like the idea behind the Upton Sinclair quote that "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." so if you approach the issue with a vested interest that you already don't want there to be a God because you don't want to be proven wrong, you enjoy being an atheist, you enjoy living any way you want without having to submit to a Higher Power, you don't like to see the consequences of your actions, etc. then sure, it's very easy for someone to "question things" without really "questioning things". You could also come right back and say the same thing applies to me but I would counter that the atheist has the largest vested interest in maintaining their status quo and not changing given that under the assumption that there is no God if I were to forsake my faith then all I have done is had to admit to you that I was wrong where as an atheist if you were to admit that you were wrong and the Christian God exists then you would have to not only admit you were wrong but admit that you were a powerless sinner headed for eternal torture and in need of a Savior to forgive your sins. Quite a difference in incentives.