Will I be punished for failing to believe something that I don't think is true?

[powlette]

Imagine for a moment that I told you that you must believe in Santa Claus or you'll burn in hell for all eternity. Certainly there's plenty of reason to believe - people sing songs about him, play music about him and CNN even shows NORAD covering his trip around the world at christmas time with no sense of facetiousness.

If I told you that you had to believe in something that you don't currently think is true and for which there is no empirical evidence, could you? Well I can't - it's not a choice I made to ignore your god or ignore Zeus or any number of other mythical gods, I just simply don't believe god exists and there's no more reason to believe he does than there's reason to believe santa does. I believe they're all old myths created by people, spread by stories and taught to children. This would by equivalent to you not believing in Mythra or Ra or any number of gods that are equally supported by evidence.

Now I know you'll say god "touched" you or "speaks" to you, or whatever, but there's no real evidence for this - if there were, his existence wouldn't continue to be debated for thousands of years. Personally I think my christians are using what's called cognitive disonance which allows you to believe something because you don't want to face the alternative.

But my question is, using my brain which tells me there are no gods/devils/angels/ghosts/demons/supernatural spirits (and you believe was given to me by god), I can't convince myself to believe in something that I don't think is true, so how can you reconcile my sentence to burn in hell for using my god-given brain with your belief in an all-loving god?

[quiet dove]

You need to do more research, Jesus is a better documented more evidence) historical figure than most any figure of antiquity.

God also gave you a conscience, He expects you to use it. But He will not force you to do so.

[powlette]

You need to do more research, Jesus is a better documented more evidence) historical figure than most any figure of antiquity.

God also gave you a conscience, He expects you to use it. But He will not force you to do so.

Thanks for the reply, but you'll notice I didn't mention Jesus at all in my OP. But since you brought it up, could you point me to documentation of his works written by his contemporaries outside of the gospels?

[Paul_born_again]

Thanks for the reply, but you'll notice I didn't mention Jesus at all in my OP. But since you brought it up, could you point me to documentation of his works written by his contemporaries outside of the gospels?

Here are some: (specifically, points 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9)

1. Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?, a Jewish historian) mentions John the Baptist and Herod - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 5, par. 2
1. "Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness."



2. Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.
1. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
1. There is debate among scholars as to the authenticity of this quote since it is so favorable to Jesus. For more information on this, please see Regarding the quotes from the historian Josephus about Jesus



3. Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions James, the brother of Jesus - Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 9.
1. "Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done."



4. Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Ananias the High Priest who was mentioned in Acts 23:2
1. Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias (25) he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money
2. Acts 23:2, "And the high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him [Paul] on the mouth."



5. Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "Christus" who is Jesus - Annals 15.44
1. "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."
1. Ref. from http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.mb.txt



6. Thallus (Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun) Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus, who wrote about AD 221, mentioned Thallus' account of an eclipse of the sun.
1. "On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun."
1. Is this a reference to the eclipse at the crucifixion? Luke 23:44-45, "And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 the sun being obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two."
2. The oddity is that Jesus' crucifixion occurred at the Passover which was a full moon. It is not possible for a solar eclipse to occur at a full moon. Note that Julius Africanus draws the conclusion that Thallus' mentioning of the eclipse was describing the one at Jesus' crucifixion. It may not have been.
3. Julius Africanus, Extant Writings, XVIII in the Ante Nicene Fathers, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), vol. VI, p. 130. as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.



7. Pliny the Younger mentioned Christ. Pliny was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Pliny wrote ten books. The tenth around AD 112.
1. "They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."
1. Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.



8. The Talmud
1. "On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!"
1. Gal. 3:13, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree."
2. Luke 22:1, "Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was approaching. 2And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how they might put Him to death; for they were afraid of the people."
3. This quotation was taken from the reading in The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, p. 281 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.



9. Lucian (circa 120-after 180) mentions Jesus. Greek writer and rhetorician.
1. "The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property."
1. Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 1113, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4, as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
2. Though Lucian opposed Christianity, he acknowledges Jesus, that Jesus was crucified, that Christians worship him, and that this was done by faith.

http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm

Hope that helps!

[th1bill]

Thanks for the reply, but you'll notice I didn't mention Jesus at all in my OP. But since you brought it up, could you point me to documentation of his works written by his contemporaries outside of the gospels?

... Neighbor, all your extra-biblical answers and documentation are referenced in the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics by N. Geisler. Every reference there is referenced in the complete bibliography for easy reference to the original non-Biblical document it can be traced. I'll be honest and tell you that if you are honest in your quest and seek out the truth contained in the single volume work that to my knowledge you will be the first to look Jesus up in this work that is not a Christian. In fact most people claiming the name of the Christ have no idea of the wealth of references to Jesus, the Christ outside the scriptures. The items are short and to the point and very easily read in less than a minute each.

[Revinius]

By conscience, do you mean the ability to distinguish between right and wrong? Like, for example, knowing that success through hard work is better and more honorable than cheating? Perhaps this is the same conscience that allows us to read the Old Testament and realize how terrible it is to claim belief in a god who orders Holocausts on anyone with dissenting views and convictions.... you think?

Wow, the straw man cometh.

Your old testament claims do require more research, but if it's a simple answer you are after: I do not know why God judges some people at certain times. What i do know is that those He judges are judged for their deeds and they are found wanting, these are nations that have such a twisted morality that they have steeped to such acts as baby sacrifice (something i find abhorent both intellectually and emotionally). This applies both to Israel being used to judge pagan nations, pagan nations used to judge Israel, and God judging them both via direct personal intervention.

When i step back and attempt to see things through God's eyes, knowing His revealed character, what He does makes alot more contextual sense. He is God, and he created all beings to be in line with His purpose, for us to scream and yell at Him is like the clay yelling at the potter for making it into a toilet bowl. For us to scream and yell me this and me that is quite arrogant. That we think in the scope of the universe that our tiny life is of any consequence outside of God, is some of the most ignorantly arrogant tripe that has ever been concieved. And i know this because i am keenly aware of my own pride and arrogance toward God and how much i need Him in order to turn away (repent) from myself and live the way he would have me.

[Vhayes]

Forgive me for the "drive by" post - i am in the middle of a couple of things and may not make it back to this thread for a bit -

Think about this:
You are starving. I prepare a meal for you filled with all the nutrients you need to make you healthy and strong. I set the plate in front of you. You refuse to eat it. You die. Is it my fault you died or is it yours?

[mcgyver]

Since the OP is unable to respond, we're going to close this thread.

Thanks.

*****EDIT: Thread is now open for posting****

[powlette]

Think about this:
You are starving. I prepare a meal for you filled with all the nutrients you need to make you healthy and strong. I set the plate in front of you. You refuse to eat it. You die. Is it my fault you died or is it yours?

With respect, I don't think your analogy applies. Deciding whether or not to eat is a choice. It is wholly within my power to eat or not to eat. My thesis here is that belief isn't something that's up to a decision. If you fail to believe the sky is green, I wouldn't say you chose not to believe. I would say, that given your senses, you could do no other that stick to your guns that the sky is blue and no matter how much you wanted to think the sky is green, you simply wouldn't be able to do it because it's at odds with what your senses tell you.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[ServantofTruth]

The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel is a book you might like to read. Chapter 6 Is there a case for Christ outside the bible, may answer your question?

I have read many books from both sides - Christians and non believers - but when you actually read the bible, you are going to a new higher level. Men can educate themselves in human knowledge, but until they submit to God's Wisdom they are blind. Love SofTy.

[monergist]

People go to hell because they sin, not "just because" they fail to believe in Christ. Failing to acknowledge the Kingship of Christ is one of many sins that take people to hell.

[watchinginawe]

my question is, using my brain which tells me there are no gods/devils/angels/ghosts/demons/supernatural spirits (and you believe was given to me by god), I can't convince myself to believe in something that I don't think is true, so how can you reconcile my sentence to burn in hell for using my god-given brain with your belief in an all-loving god?

Hello powlette. Your relationship with God is ultimately between you and Him. I don't know how my belief enters into that. Perhaps you feel that you stand a chance with the explanation you have concocted if there really is a God. Think about this. How do you reconcile depriving me of heaven if there is no God? In either case, reality is reality. If there is no God, then there is no heaven for me to be deprived of. If there is a God, then you are already going to hell. The Truth doesn't change reality. Truth stands whether we believe it or not.

I do believe you are capable of faith though. It is just that you have bounded your faith by your philosophical worldview. Since you don't believe in the supernatural, then you are willing to draw lines of faith that allow nature to start up and produce life, even when there is no evidence that this is possible. In your God given brain, you have determined that there is no other possible explanation because there is no supernatural. So while you may not have knowledge of exactly how life got started naturally, you do probably have faith that it did. Now to me, the notion that nature did this all on its own is just as unbelievable as Santa Claus, or even a real "mother nature". I have no faith that nature created me.

My advice would be to carefully consider the things that you currently are expending your faith on.

God Bless!

[powlette]

You are correct, I have bounded my worldview based on what is and can be observed. As a scientist I have been trained to observe, take measurements, draw conclusions and learn from things around me. I'm not taking anything on faith. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow and I take that on faith, but it's not a blind faith, it's based on what I have observed every morning for my whole life. I haven't measured the speed of light, but I know that many scientists have studied this, completed experiments, and compared reproducible results, so I take their conclusions on faith that light travels ~300km/sec in a vacuum even though I didn't see it myself.

I believe OJ Simpson killed his wife because the evidence strongly suggests it. Again, you could call that faith, but I'm basing it on something concrete and testable. I'm also open to the possibility that he didn't kill them if new evidence were to arise.

How did life come to be is certainly a complex question. Presupposing a supernatural force to create life would necessarily be more complex than life itself which begs the question of where did this creator come from? This discussion leads down a road that has been traveled many times before and I don't want to rehash it.

My original question is simply, outside of any religion, can you honestly believe something that you don't think is true? I don't think I could honestly believe in any supernatural beings no matter how hard I might want to. Turning the question around, if you had to believe in Thor, could you? If you researched Thor and found lots of books on the subject dating back hundreds of years and hung around people who believed in Thor, went to meetings to praise Thor, etc. could you believe in him if you wanted to, or would you always know that Thor isn't a supernatural god? That's the position I am in.

Thank you, I appreciate your comments.

[tango]

How did life come to be is certainly a complex question. Presupposing a supernatural force to create life would necessarily be more complex than life itself which begs the question of where did this creator come from? This discussion leads down a road that has been traveled many times before and I don't want to rehash it.

I'm not presupposing anything. I look at the evidence my eyes can see, measure the evidence I can see against the hypothesis "God exists" and against the opposing hypothesis "God does not exist" (for this purpose I use the term "God" to refer to a generic deity or group of deities) and test to see which one is more plausible. After some consideration I concluded that "God exists" is the hypothesis which more plausibly explains our existence, and on that basis decided I should find out more about God.

My original question is simply, outside of any religion, can you honestly believe something that you don't think is true?

Could I believe something I don't think is true? In terms like that it sounds absurd, and since the question is self-contradictory it makes little sense. But if you change the question slightly to something more like "Could I come to believe something I don't think is true?" then the answer has to be that I certainly could, if presented with something that convinced me it was true.

About 18 months ago I was quite happy in the belief that Christianity was an interesting concept that worked for some people but lacked substance. Then a number of things occurred in rapid succession that shook my belief. Since my belief was under attack I had to conclude that either it was wrong, or that the events occurring could be explained away, so I set out attempting to determine which was the case. Finally I concluded that my beliefs had been wrong, and that I'd spent my entire adult life living a lie. Not quite the "cushy number" a lot of atheists like to think Christianity represents - in fact having spent over a decade working in a well-paid career and feathering my own nest very nicely, I had to face the possibility that God would call me to give what I had accumulated away. Again, not something that gives the soft-n-cuddly feeling that many associate with Christianity.

I don't think I could honestly believe in any supernatural beings no matter how hard I might want to.

When you have experienced the supernatural first hand it is much harder to explain it away.

Turning the question around, if you had to believe in Thor, could you? If you researched Thor and found lots of books on the subject dating back hundreds of years and hung around people who believed in Thor, went to meetings to praise Thor, etc. could you believe in him if you wanted to, or would you always know that Thor isn't a supernatural god? That's the position I am in.

Using the specific example of Thor, unless I experienced something that changed my mind I would retain my belief that Thor is a legend, as opposed to a reality.

Let me ask you something. If you had a direct personal experience that you couldn't explain away through science, would you be willing to concede that your current worldview is wrong and do something about it?

[powlette]

Let me ask you something. If you had a direct personal experience that you couldn't explain away through science, would you be willing to concede that your current worldview is wrong and do something about it?

This is exactly my point.. my worldview is subject to change. I'm open to new ideas and experiences. For example, I don't claim to know if string theory (as an example) is correct. The science is still out on this matter and even after the science is in, it will still be a matter up for debate and open to changes over time as more evidence is presented. (as is almost concept in science)

However, putting forth the idea of a supernatural being, who is beyond all capacity to see, measure, identify, quantify, etc. would require significant proof to alter my worldview. If the Red Sea were to suddenly part, my first conclusion wouldn't be that god did it, it would be to look for natural phenomenon that could cause the sea to part. Failing that, I still wouldn't say, god exists, I would simply say, we don't know why the sea parted at this time.

So let's say, I had stage 4 pancreatic cancer and was given a month to live. Then my cancer suddenly went into remission. Many people, I believe, would say that it was a miracle from god. My position would be that we don't know why it went into remission, but the conclusion that stage 4 pancreatic cancer is always terminal within a month must be wrong. I don't think you can jump to the conclusion that a supernatural being intervened.

In short, to answer your question, yes, like all scientists, I'm open to the possibility that you're right and I'm wrong, but changing my mind would require extraordinary evidence since everything we know about the natural world suggest that it's entirely governed by natural laws that don't require supernatural intervention.