• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Don't Blame Me For Not Accepting Jesus

Skwim

Veteran Member
According to Christian theology if I don't accept Jesus as my savior I will never make it into heaven and could likely end up in hell.


For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
(John 3:16)

Christians say that if I don't accept Jesus as my savior it's my own darn fault. Okay, but consider. Why do we accept something or reject it? We do so because we're convinced it makes sense. I accept the fact that evolution is true because to me it makes sense. I reject creationism because to me it doesn't make sense. So, if I'm to accept Jesus as my savior, above all else it has to make sense that I do so. There has to be some kind of compelling rational, and without this rational it would be unreasonable to agree to the proposition. I certainly wouldn't find believing in faeries and gnomes to be sensible if the only reason given is that this is what many people down through the ages have believed. People down through the ages also believed the earth was flat. I would need a more compelling rational to accept faeries and gnomes as a reasonable belief.

So, whose fault is it that I don't? Is it my fault that my mind has been so constructed that it rejects the argument of "people down through the ages have believed"? Hardly. Other than perhaps exercising the mind to work a bit better, none of us chooses how it accepts or rejects information. So what I believe is dependent on the information making its impression on my mind. I don't choose how information X is going to be processed. This process is an automatic one. Perhaps fear is a huge motivating factor within the processing operation. No matter how outlandish a proposition may be, scare me enough and I'll believe it. Or perhaps reason is thee controlling factor within the processing operation. Proposition XYZ has to make sense or I'll reject it. The thing is, we don't choose how these factors weigh in on our conclusions. Just as one doesn't choose what they find attractive about other people. What we find attractive and don't find attractive depends on how our minds have been configured. And this configuration is not something we choose. In effect, our mind is compelled to operate in a certain manner.

Therefore, we can't be held responsible for how our mind processes information. So, if I'm to find believing in faeries and gnomes sensible, where would the responsibility have to lie? What's left are those influences outside myself. If I'm to believe in faeries and gnomes then someone or something is going to have to persuade those deciding factors in my mind that it makes sense, and it's what I should do. Now, I have very little influence over what kind of evidence or argument I'm presented. It might even be a case of GIGO. If the ICFB, the International Council of Faerie Belief, fails to scare me into believing in faeries and gnomes, that's their fault, not mine. If the ICFB, fails to present a persuasive enough case to accept faeries and gnomes, that's their fault, not mine. And this goes right down to those individual representatives of the ICFB. If my neighbor down the block comes knocking on my door trying to get me to accept faeries and gnomes and fails, it's his fault, not mine. Or, if no one presents any information on faeries and gnomes for me to consider, it isn't my fault either.

So, In as much as I can't help how my mind processes information, and I can't help if the tactics of Christians fail to persuade me that believing in the Son is the way to an everlasting life, why should I perish because of it? If any blame is to be laid it has to be on those presenting, or failing to present, the case for Jesus.

.
 
Last edited:

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
Lets look at it this way. What if I fail to accept Donald Trump as my president. I didn't vote for him. I don't believe he is qualified. I don't believe he has my best interests at heart. If he creates a law that I don't agree with, what happens if I break that law and get caught. He failed to persuade me that I should follow any thing he says or does. Those that present his case are as idiotic as he is. The only case they have is a piece of paper written over 200 years ago that has no connection to me. Why should I be penalized for ignoring him.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
If you want to play with words just for fun, what you quoted literally says that believing in Jesus is a path but not the only one. From that one passage, I could argue that there are other paths that are not mentioned. Aren't theological arguments ever so much fun? ;)
 

Muslim-UK

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
According to Christian theology if I don't accept Jesus as my savior I will never make it into heaven and could likely end up in hell.
New Testament condemns you to hell for not accepting him.
Old Testament condemns those that do accept him.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
If you want to play with words just for fun, what you quoted literally says that believing in Jesus is a path but not the only one. From that one passage, I could argue that there are other paths that are not mentioned. Aren't theological arguments ever so much fun? ;)
They are, and they usually spiral down into a morass of nonsense and absurdity where they spin off in all kinds of irrelevant directions. Theology, and Christian theology in particular, is fraught with apologetic cherry picking. It fails to convince.

.
 
Last edited:

Mindmaster

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
It's your own fault you're not simple-minded enough to accept religion. It's high time you take some personal responsibility for not being credulous. Any way you try to paint it, the only one at fault for being skeptical and rational is yourself. Don't try to blame Jesus.

I find it endlessly amusing that atheists continually gripe about Christianity after they've defected away from it, it's like they just can't move the hell on. Anyway, logic is not the privy of the atheists - a general blind faith in established science is and mostly it's apples and oranges. They dogmatically believe the "science" they are fed without investigating any of the data themselves and trusting various authorities. Rather than establishing a position of intellectual superiority, they are pseudo-intellectuals banking on the opinion of X being more right and only appear "more correct" if they just happen to latch, by luck mostly, onto what is correct. In essence, they are doing the same thing as the Christian does since they lack the ability to ascertain the correctness of any of the information themselves.

@Skwim - Things do not have to make sense (logically) to be useful. They can appeal as social vehicle, represent ones morality, or as a emotional support infrastructure. (Just a few examples, off the top of my head.) That's probably the thing that most "logical" people miss about the function of religion, in that it is much more than the books/dogma/etc. In that way, the religion can be an outwardly visible symbol of oneself that can be shared with the world. At least, if you pick one rather than just being bootstrapped into it from birth. :D
 
Last edited:

Mindmaster

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Arguments are fun. Discussions are useful. :cool:

Arguments, discussions? You say tomato, I say, "tomatoe".

Any meaningful communication results in conflicts, if it doesn't it's just wasted air/type. All it means is someone's bubble popped, and now they have to do something to preserve it. :D
 

David1967

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Arguments, discussions? You say tomato, I say, "tomatoe".

Any meaningful communication results in conflicts, if it doesn't it's just wasted air/type. All it means is someone's bubble popped, and now they have to do something to preserve it. :D

Hey MM! Been a while. To me the difference (to me at least), is that in a discussion there is usually a little more room for compromise regarding the subject at hand.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
If you want to play with words just for fun, what you quoted literally says that believing in Jesus is a path but not the only one. From that one passage, I could argue that there are other paths that are not mentioned. Aren't theological arguments ever so much fun? ;)
Reminds me of one of my first room mates. He kept going on about me needing to go to church, and tried to engage in Biblical debates for me. One of the things I enjoyed pointing out to him is it wasn't so much Jesus going on about accepting him as his savior and all that to be saved, but rather that his ways are the ways of peace, love, and community. He said to be meek, and humble, and love thy neighbor as thyself. He seemed to be way more concerned that people take care of each other and show each other love and peace than gathering together to worship him. I kind of get the feeling he'd rather people worship in private anyways to not draw public attention to themselves.
 

The Holy Bottom Burp

Active Member
I agree that you cannot "choose" your beliefs, it is a combination of cultural influences, education, and your experience of reality. My 'gut instinct' BS detector is usually pretty good, when I hear something that sounds like BS but dig into it deeper to find out if there is anything more than ill founded assertions, I almost always get confirmation of BS. I cant help thinking "Yup, that's a load of old woo-woo talk", what am I supposed to do? Hit my head against a wall until it begins to make sense?
I would say that not all Christians proffer the scenario you outlined. LDS Christians believe you have several chances to change your mind when you die, and atheists can get into Telestial heaven. Now that seems a lot more reasonable and friendly...hurrah for the LDS Jesus! :)
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
I would say that not all Christians proffer the scenario you outlined. LDS Christians believe you have several chances to change your mind when you die, and atheists can get into Telestial heaven. Now that seems a lot more reasonable and friendly...hurrah for the LDS Jesus! :)
And to change my mind would depend on someone's or something's ability to do so, which puts my fate in their hands, not my own. God is still betting my fate on the ability of others, which doesn't seem a lot more reasonable and friendly at all.

.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I find it endlessly amusing that atheists continually gripe about Christianity after they've defected away from it, it's like they just can't move the hell on. Anyway, logic is not the privy of the atheists - a general blind faith in established science is and mostly it's apples and oranges. They dogmatically believe the "science" they are fed without investigating any of the data themselves and trusting various authorities. Rather than establishing a position of intellectual superiority, they are pseudo-intellectuals banking on the opinion of X being more right and only appear "more correct" if they just happen to latch, by luck mostly, onto what is correct. In essence, they are doing the same thing as the Christian does since they lack the ability to ascertain the correctness of any of the information themselves.

@Skwim - Things do not have to make sense (logically) to be useful. They can appeal as social vehicle, represent ones morality, or as a emotional support infrastructure. (Just a few examples, off the top of my head.) That's probably the thing that most "logical" people miss about the function of religion, in that is is much more than the books/dogma/etc. In that way, the religion can be an outwardly visible symbol of oneself that can be shared with the world. At least, if you pick one rather than just being bootstrapped into it from birth. :D

Have to admit, I'm getting a little over being told what 'atheists' are.
Some of your other points were cogent though.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
According to Christian theology

So, whose fault is it that I don't? Is it my fault that my mind has been so constructed that it rejects the argument

.

Yes. It certainly isn't God's fault.
 

Mindmaster

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Have to admit, I'm getting a little over being told what 'atheists' are.
Some of your other points were cogent though.

Mostly, the need to be 'right' is more important than the need for the 'truth' for most humans. It's hard to address a concept like that without stumbling into what, at first glance, seems like an over-generalization of some form. The observation holds valid regardless of how many toes are stepped on along the way. :D Can we at least admit there is a difference between what on-paper atheism is, and what it really is in practice? For most people it is just swap religion with science, and everything else remains the same. These people need answers, and the religion failed them but science has them, eh?

Atheism in its purest form basically makes no assertion that because "no god exists" science/logic/intellectualism is right by default, but most people don't believe that way. :D There are very few people to embrace such a pure form of it, and I'm only directly aware of one.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
They are, and they usually spiral down into a morass of nonsense and absurdity where they spin off in all kinds of irrelevant directions. Theology, and Christian theology in particular, is fraught with apologetic cherry picking. It fails to convince.

.
Theology is utterly unconvincing to me as well. But I would not limit the cherry picking to Christianity.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
And to change my mind would depend on someone's or something's ability to do so, which puts my fate in their hands, not my own. God is still betting my fate on the ability of others, which doesn't seem a lot more reasonable and friendly at all.

.

"If there is a god, that god should know exactly what it would take to change my mind...and that god should be capable of doing whatever it would take. The fact that this hasn't happened can only mean one of two things: Either no such god exists, or whatever god exists doesn't care to convince me, at this time. In either case, it's not my problem and there's nothing I can do about it. Meanwhile, all of those believers who think that there is a god who does want me to know that he exists - are clearly, obviously, undeniably... wrong." - Matt Dillahunty"
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
I find it endlessly amusing that atheists continually gripe about Christianity after they've defected away from it, it's like they just can't move the hell on.
Likely, this is because the ones you know are English speaking residents of Christendom. We can't escape it. Christians keep demanding attention.
So yeah, that is who we are inclined to talk about most.
Tom
 

The Holy Bottom Burp

Active Member
And to change my mind would depend on someone's or something's ability to do so, which puts my fate in their hands, not my own. God is still betting my fate on the ability of others, which doesn't seem a lot more reasonable and friendly at all.
Ah, but it is the person of the LDS Jesus speaking through other people to you directly to change your mind. Gotcha! :p
 
Top