131 replies to this topic

[Corky]

That sounds pretty simple, doesn't it?

What if you are presented with something that is totally unbelievable to you, is it a sin not to believe it?

This is not a trick question. What if evolution is true but you can't believe it, would that be a sin?

What if the resurrection story is true but you can't believe it, would that be a sin?

What if Judas of Galilee changed his "born from above" (born again) name to Jesus just as Saul changed his name to Paul and the gospel stories handed down to us are not the true story? Unbelievable, but if it turns out to be true, would it be a sin to not believe it?

What if the virgin birth story is a later proto-catholic invention of the late first century and you can't believe it, would that be a sin?

Is belief in or unbelief in things that we have no first hand knowledge of a sin? Is a man obligated to take another man's word for something unbelievable just because he wrote it down and it later became part of a book?

[Evangelion]

No, unbelief is not a sin.

[Mercia2]

Hi Corky
Not until someone has been enlightened.
I went through stage before I had the veil removed and I was born again by asking for the Holy Spiit (Luke 11:13) - where I used to reason that the suffering in the world was enough reason to believe their probably was not a God or a God I wanted to know. I think that is how everyone should reason but not assume too much before studying, but their comes a time in your life when you must set aside time to study the Bible with a open mind. I took 7 years off to read books [most nonsense] and read the Quran, Bhavad Gita, Tibetan book of the dead etc etc, theosophy then historical Christian books and eventually the Bible. As soon as I began studying the Bible a leaflet came through my door offering a free Christadelphian 12 week Bible course in my local area. My savings had gone and I could not even afford the bus fair, it was cold and dark walk through a dangerous council estate to walk their but I had my folder and notes and was always their early, eager to learn. And to be honest Corky I was stunned. The Bible actually had a coherant narrative, I didnt think it did, but more than that, events in Genesis convincingly were shown to be reflected in the life of Christ and connected to the New Testament. I began to see how parts of the Bible echoed each other and when they did a spiritual meaning was revealed. Further allegorical connections were shown between Isaac and Jesus, Esau as the flesh etc and this narrative unfolded and I began noticing the same metaphors for natural things appearing accross many of the books in the Bible written a vast time apart.

This was like no other book I had read. I reasoned it was either the result of some hidden conspracy of astonishingly intelligent spiritual men who all had the same mind and understanding of the allegories and metapors as no Jew was apart from Jesus, over a vast amount of time,but then what would be their interest to deceive us? Or it really was the Word of God.

The content of the Bible could not help support a rich and powerful church/state system either. So I realized that no one benefited and that the Bible is so unique and rich with Bible echo, allegory, repeating metaphors accross the ages and a continous spiritual narrative from Genesis to Revelation that it was as it claims, the Word of God. I also reasoned it was more than coincidental, for example, Psalm 83 was repeating modern events of 1967 in a uncanny way, the times of the gentiles ending and the creation of Israel as a marker of what times we live in was persuasive. The Christadelphians had helped open my eyes, or God did through them I should say.

I believe there should come a time in everyones life where they study and investigate without prejudice and from doubting, be convinced. If this study is done with prayer and asking the Holy Spirit to open up the meaning of the Bible in our studies. When you know and ask for the Holy Spirit then its a sign to God concerning your free will (some people cannot handle proof when the veil is lifted), but after then you live with absolute personal proof. Going back to unbelief is impossible.

Edited by Mercia2, 10 October 2009 - 10:22 PM.

[Mercia2]

Quote

This is not a trick question. What if evolution is true but you can't believe it

I have become convinced the Creation account in Genesis is a prophecy about mans spiritual evoluton/creation over 7000 years from the time of Abraham. The natural mirrors the spiritual,[as with the metaphors in the Bible], the natural world is one big spiritual allegory the symbols of which God uses in the Bible to decode and explain spiritual things. So if we evolve spiritually as I believe we do then that is how God created us naturally. Looking at the brutality of some of the natural world evolution is most plausable. God says in the Bible He detests the creeping things, I believe God wrote the program of Creation and that the evolution of species was the mrthod of Creation with us as the end result in mind. The vast amount of time it took to get to how we are now, irrelevant. A illusion to respect athiests free will.
People should be careful what they chose to hang their faith on because the very assumption on which it is built may be wrong. We all must always consider that.

Edited by Mercia2, 10 October 2009 - 11:02 PM.

[Corky]

Evangelion, on Oct 10 2009, 04:22 PM, said:

No, unbelief is not a sin.

Would you care to elaborate on that, because I've always heard that to not believe means that you either go to hell or that you are destroyed. But since that is supposedly the wages of sin (death and destruction) unbelief must be a sin.

[Corky]

Mercia2, on Oct 10 2009, 05:58 PM, said:

Quote

This is not a trick question. What if evolution is true but you can't believe it

I have become convinced the Creation account in Genesis is a prophecy about mans spiritual evoluton/creation over 7000 years from the time of Abraham. The natural mirrors the spiritual,[as with the metaphors in the Bible], the natural world is one big spiritual allegory the symbols of which God uses in the Bible to decode and explain spiritual things. So if we evolve spiritually as I believe we do then that is how God created us naturally. Looking at the brutality of some of the natural world evolution is most plausable. God says in the Bible He detests the creeping things, I believe God wrote the program of Creation and that the evolution of species was the mrthod of Creation with us as the end result in mind. The vast amount of time it took to get to how we are now, irrelevant. A illusion to respect athiests free will.
People should be careful what they chose to hang their faith on because the very assumption on which it is built may be wrong. We all must always consider that.

Thanks, but that's not what I'm getting at. I have studied the Bible and other books too but those things have not always been available for people to study, ancient people had only hearsay and official proclamations from their leaders. Even when ancient books finally became available to people it must still be decided whether to believe some of the unbelievable stuff contained in them - even if they came from official proclamations and self-proclaimed dignitaries. Is unbelief in the unbelievable a sin? That's my question.

[nsr]

Corky, on Oct 11 2009, 12:28 AM, said:

Evangelion, on Oct 10 2009, 04:22 PM, said:

No, unbelief is not a sin.

Would you care to elaborate on that, because I've always heard that to not believe means that you either go to hell or that you are destroyed. But since that is supposedly the wages of sin (death and destruction) unbelief must be a sin.

Unbelief prevents you from having your sins forgiven, though this does not make it a sin in itself.

[Mercia2]

Corky, on Oct 10 2009, 11:58 PM, said:

Mercia2, on Oct 10 2009, 05:58 PM, said:

Quote

This is not a trick question. What if evolution is true but you can't believe it

I have become convinced the Creation account in Genesis is a prophecy about mans spiritual evoluton/creation over 7000 years from the time of Abraham. The natural mirrors the spiritual,[as with the metaphors in the Bible], the natural world is one big spiritual allegory the symbols of which God uses in the Bible to decode and explain spiritual things. So if we evolve spiritually as I believe we do then that is how God created us naturally. Looking at the brutality of some of the natural world evolution is most plausable. God says in the Bible He detests the creeping things, I believe God wrote the program of Creation and that the evolution of species was the mrthod of Creation with us as the end result in mind. The vast amount of time it took to get to how we are now, irrelevant. A illusion to respect athiests free will.
People should be careful what they chose to hang their faith on because the very assumption on which it is built may be wrong. We all must always consider that.

Thanks, but that's not what I'm getting at. I have studied the Bible and other books too but those things have not always been available for people to study, ancient people had only hearsay and official proclamations from their leaders. Even when ancient books finally became available to people it must still be decided whether to believe some of the unbelievable stuff contained in them - even if they came from official proclamations and self-proclaimed dignitaries. Is unbelief in the unbelievable a sin? That's my question.

The dark ages were truly dark as far as their was a drought of Gods Word. Locked up in Latin by Satans church. God will have taken that into account, but as God tells us in Revelation 12, even in those dark times a remant were fed by the true Scriptures.

No its not a sin if you havent read the Word just a rather rash assumption. But if we believe it is God who decides who He enlightens/saves then read into that the answer.

Edited by Mercia2, 11 October 2009 - 12:20 AM.

[Mercia2]

Dying in unbelief is sad, but it is a charachter test.

[Richie]

Unbelief leads to sin.

[Evangelion]

Corky, on Oct 11 2009, 12:28 AM, said:

Evangelion, on Oct 10 2009, 04:22 PM, said:

No, unbelief is not a sin.

Would you care to elaborate on that, because I've always heard that to not believe means that you either go to hell or that you are destroyed. But since that is supposedly the wages of sin (death and destruction) unbelief must be a sin.

The Bible tells me that only those responsible for judgement will be judged. Everyone else will simply remain dead.

Death is a natural consequence of mortality. Animals and plants don't die because they're sinners; they die because they're mortal. Humans die for exactly the same reason. However, death as a result of divine judgement is most definitely a punishment for sin. That will be the fate of those who are found unworthy at the Judgement Seat.

Richie, on Oct 11 2009, 02:50 AM, said:

Unbelief leads to sin.

Surely not? There is no sin without law.

[R2D2]

Evangelion, on Oct 11 2009, 05:35 PM, said:

Corky, on Oct 11 2009, 12:28 AM, said:

Evangelion, on Oct 10 2009, 04:22 PM, said:

No, unbelief is not a sin.

Would you care to elaborate on that, because I've always heard that to not believe means that you either go to hell or that you are destroyed. But since that is supposedly the wages of sin (death and destruction) unbelief must be a sin.

The Bible tells me that only those responsible for judgement will be judged. Everyone else will simply remain dead.

Death is a natural consequence of mortality. Animals and plants don't die because they're sinners; they die because they're mortal. Humans die for exactly the same reason. However, death as a result of divine judgement is most definitely a punishment for sin. That will be the fate of those who are found unworthy at the Judgement Seat.

Richie, on Oct 11 2009, 02:50 AM, said:

Unbelief leads to sin.

Surely not? There is no sin without law.

Agree with Ev. Death is a natural consequence for those never enlightened and they will never know any different, just like animals and plants. However, it becomes a punishment for those who are at the judgment but who rejected God simply because they become aware of the consequence of their choice, even if they just shrug their shoulders and die.

[Richie]

Evangelion, on Oct 10 2009, 11:35 PM, said:

Richie, on Oct 11 2009, 02:50 AM, said:

Unbelief leads to sin.

Surely not? There is no sin without law.

Have a gander at Hebrews 3.

[Mercia2]

Richie, on Oct 11 2009, 12:32 PM, said:

Evangelion, on Oct 10 2009, 11:35 PM, said:

Richie, on Oct 11 2009, 02:50 AM, said:

Unbelief leads to sin.

Surely not? There is no sin without law.

Have a gander at Hebrews 3.

Heb 3.13-14
"..so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness. We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first."

If you want to sin you no longer want to believe and even though deep down you know the truth, you try and rationally explain it away. That is what "sins deceitfulness" means. Many fall away like this. So Hebrews 3 is talking about those [after] they have been enlightened not in ignorance before.

Edited by Mercia2, 11 October 2009 - 12:48 PM.

[Evangelion]

Well said Mercia.

Richie, Hebrews 3 proves my point. There can be no sin without law.

[Richie]

I think you've lost me. Hebrews 3 proves my point - it was for unbelief that they did not enter the land.

This has nothing to do with being outside of law (especially since those who Hebrews 3 refers to had the law), and that's a misapplication of Romans 5 anyway. It's perfectly reasonable to say that a pagan who doesn't have a law has sinned when they've murdered someone in cold blood.

[Corky]

Richie, on Oct 11 2009, 01:10 PM, said:

I think you've lost me. Hebrews 3 proves my point - it was for unbelief that they did not enter the land.

This has nothing to do with being outside of law (especially since those who Hebrews 3 refers to had the law), and that's a misapplication of Romans 5 anyway. It's perfectly reasonable to say that a pagan who doesn't have a law has sinned when they've murdered someone in cold blood.

I don't think there has ever been a society that didn't have a rule/law/taboo against murder. Romans 2 sounds like men are judged by whatever law they happen living under.

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

[Corky]

Richie, on Oct 10 2009, 08:50 PM, said:

Unbelief leads to sin.

Does unbelief in something that may not even be true lead to sin? I don't see how it can unless unbelief in the unbelievable is a sin in itself.

[Corky]

What I am getting at is whether or not God requires people to believe in hearsay about fantastic, impossible things recorded by nobody knows who thousands of years ago.

If that is required, does God only desire gullible, naive people?

In other words, is unbelief in unbelievable things worthy of destruction? If so, why would God hate people who are not gullible and naive and want proof and evidence of such things? Is it just a stumbling block so that intelligent, reasonable, rational people are left out? And, wouldn't that be a little bit unbelievable too?

[Richie]

Corky, on Oct 11 2009, 01:40 PM, said:

What I am getting at is whether or not God requires people to believe in hearsay about fantastic, impossible things recorded by nobody knows who thousands of years ago.

If that is required, does God only desire gullible, naive people?

In other words, is unbelief in unbelievable things worthy of destruction? If so, why would God hate people who are not gullible and naive and want proof and evidence of such things? Is it just a stumbling block so that intelligent, reasonable, rational people are left out? And, wouldn't that be a little bit unbelievable too?

Well since the Bible is believable under the closest scrutiny and has plenty of proof to back it up then it's rather a moot point on a Bible discussion forum.

[Evangelion]

Richie, on Oct 11 2009, 07:10 PM, said:

I think you've lost me. Hebrews 3 proves my point - it was for unbelief that they did not enter the land.

"Unbelief" is used here to cover a wide range of sins, including disobedience and rebellion. They lacked faith; that's the primary issue (the Greek word here actually means "faithlessness"). "Unbelief" is not a good translation in this context. It is not that they had simply stopped believing, or had never believed in the first place. They were not unbelievers; they were believers who lacked faith.

Quote

This has nothing to do with being outside of law (especially since those who Hebrews 3 refers to had the law), and that's a misapplication of Romans 5 anyway.

Well it's a moot point anyway, since your example from Hebrews 3 does not deal with unbelievers. It addresses people who were believers and were living under the Law of God.

Quote

It's perfectly reasonable to say that a pagan who doesn't have a law has sinned when they've murdered someone in cold blood.

As Corky has said, men are judged by whatever law they are living under. If they are ignorant of God's law, they will not be judged under it. Unbelief - that is, the complete absence of belief - is not a sin per se. God will not punish those who never believed in Him. But He will punish those who once believed and later turned away.

[Evangelion]

Two posts in this thread have been made invisible by a moderator. This action is currently under discussion amongst the BTDF Team, and will be reviewed. I had intended to answer Corky's other post, and have written a reply. I will post it if the two posts are restored. If this does not happen, I will send it via PM.

Corky, I believe you have a legitimate question even though you expressed yourself in a way that you must have known would cause offence. Please moderate your language so that others don't have to do it for you.

[Evangelion]

Corky, on Oct 11 2009, 09:40 PM, said:

What I am getting at is whether or not God requires people to believe in hearsay about fantastic, impossible things recorded by nobody knows who thousands of years ago.

No, He doesn't. He presents a logical, rational message which is based upon largely verifiable historical events concerning largely verifiable historical persons. This message contains elements of supernaturalism, some of which are falsifiable (ie. prophecy) and some which must be taken on faith (ie. the virgin birth).

That is the Christian perspective. Of course, I acknowledge that most non-Christians will not see it this way.

Quote

If that is required

It isn't.

Quote

does God only desire gullible, naive people?

No.

Quote

In other words, is unbelief in unbelievable things worthy of destruction?

No.

Quote

If so, why would God hate people who are not gullible and naive and want proof and evidence of such things? Is it just a stumbling block so that intelligent, reasonable, rational people are left out? And, wouldn't that be a little bit unbelievable too?

See above.

If someone considers God's Word unbelievable, God will not punish them for it. And why would He? There is no basis for judgement.

[Juliashmoolia]

Evangelion, on Oct 12 2009, 10:19 AM, said:

Corky, on Oct 11 2009, 09:40 PM, said:

What I am getting at is whether or not God requires people to believe in hearsay about fantastic, impossible things recorded by nobody knows who thousands of years ago.

No, He doesn't. He presents a logical, rational message which is based upon largely verifiable historical events concerning largely verifiable historical persons. This message contains elements of supernaturalism, some of which are falsifiable (ie. prophecy) and some which must be taken on faith (ie. the virgin birth).

That is the Christian perspective. Of course, I acknowledge that most non-Christians will not see it this way.

Quote

If that is required

It isn't.

Quote

does God only desire gullible, naive people?

No.

Quote

In other words, is unbelief in unbelievable things worthy of destruction?

No.

Quote

If so, why would God hate people who are not gullible and naive and want proof and evidence of such things? Is it just a stumbling block so that intelligent, reasonable, rational people are left out? And, wouldn't that be a little bit unbelievable too?

See above.

If someone considers God's Word unbelievable, God will not punish them for it. And why would He? There is no basis for judgement.

What about someone like me, who was raised to belive, but who after careful examination considers God's word unbelivable and so no longer belives?

[Flappie]

Juliashmoolia, on Oct 12 2009, 11:04 AM, said:

What about someone like me, who was raised to belive, but who after careful examination considers God's word unbelivable and so no longer belives?

You will die.

[Richie]

Evangelion, on Oct 11 2009, 02:15 PM, said:

Richie, on Oct 11 2009, 07:10 PM, said:

I think you've lost me. Hebrews 3 proves my point - it was for unbelief that they did not enter the land.

"Unbelief" is used here to cover a wide range of sins, including disobedience and rebellion. They lacked faith; that's the primary issue (the Greek word here actually means "faithlessness"). "Unbelief" is not a good translation in this context. It is not that they had simply stopped believing, or had never believed in the first place. They were not unbelievers; they were believers who lacked faith.

Well the word "believe" and "faith" are both pistis in Scripture so I think I made a legitimate point.

[jon]

Evangelion, on Oct 11 2009, 07:35 AM, said:

Evangelion, on Oct 10 2009, 04:22 PM, said:

No, unbelief is not a sin.

Surely not? There is no sin without law.

Rubbish on both counts.

Rom.14:23 whatever does not proceed from faith is sin

Rom.3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

[Fortigurn]

jon, on Oct 12 2009, 10:35 AM, said:

Evangelion, on Oct 11 2009, 07:35 AM, said:

Evangelion, on Oct 10 2009, 04:22 PM, said:

No, unbelief is not a sin.

Surely not? There is no sin without law.

Rubbish on both counts.

Rom.14:23 whatever does not proceed from faith is sin

This does not say that there's no sin without law.

Quote

Rom.3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

This does not say there's no sin without law either (and resting a literal statement on hyperbolic statements isn't a good idea). Meanwhile, I think you know that John defined sin as lawlessness, and that Paul made the point at least three times that those who are ignorant of law are not responsible to it, and that sin is not counted where there is no law.

[Flappie]

I have a feeling that the perspective is wrong. He doesn't so much punish those who don't believe, He just lets them live their life and die. He saves those who do have faith.

[Fortigurn]

Flappie, on Oct 12 2009, 10:58 AM, said:

I have a feeling that the perspective is wrong. He doesn't so much punish those who don't believe, He just lets them live their life and die. He saves those who do have faith.

Yes.