In another thread lancia got me thinking when he said to paidion that there is less convincing and tangible evidence for God than there is for evolution.
I think willful ignorance is wrong, but is the evidence for Jesus being the son of God so overwhelming that to not believe it would constitute willful ignorance?
What makes unbelief immoral?
Surely that is purely an assumed position?
Wilful or otherwise… IF Jesus died for ALL sin THEN unbelief is no more terminal a sin than the next — in fact ignorance IS quite forgivable, as Paul mercifully found…
1Tim 1:13 Although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
I think to believe in Jesus as the Son of God one has to believe in God and then accept the bible is true. So many people don’t even give it much thought, they just live life and maybe until they face a tragedy or death they don’t even give God much thought so a lot of belief or unbelief has to do with circumstances in life so generally I don’t see this as immoral.
Perhaps the ‘understanding’ portion of belief is different from the ‘obedience’ portion? Could we really be held morally culpable on an issue that is not moral to begin with? There is a part of ‘belief’ that has many roots, that take a long time to develop, and our slowness in that endeavor is just part of being human, having enough time to study, having good teachers and examples, etc.
That verse ‘for judgment begins in the household of God’ shows where unbelief really shows up - the more light - and I mean more than information, I mean experiencing to some extent the presence of God, or the prodding of true conscience - we have then more culpability we have. We can’t play around with the Spirit of God and not expect consequences, even if loving chastisement is one of them.
But I could not accept that a sincere unbeliever is guilty, except maybe of lack of insight.
Plus I have to share this from an essay on Charles Taylor’s Secular Age:
The NT contains ample statements that people would/will be punished for unbelief. The corollary of a just God punishing people for X is that X is immoral.
John 3:18
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
Mark 16:16
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Revelation 21:8
But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
Then we have Paul saying that someone who doesn’t take care of his family is worse than an unbeliever. The obvious implication of this is that it’s immoral to be an unbeliever. The statement that a certain type of a person is worse than an unbeliever wouldn’t have rhetorical force if unbelief wasn’t immoral.
Gosh, this kind of thinking in relevance to all the posts in the past is totally BS. Especially to a person who claims to have preteristic belief.
It seems to me that you either believe or you don’t. If you do, then all of your arguments are by the wayside and if not you are in deep crap. Poop or get off the pot as they say qaz
qaz… you have read right past and ignored the text I provided you, with its obvious implications.
As for your 3 quoted texts… the condemnation associated with each of these was relative to the destructive condemnation coming with the last days, end of the age, i.e., this was NOT a morals matter BUT a survival matter.
And then, as for your… “Then we have Paul saying that someone who doesn’t take care of his family is worse than an unbeliever. The obvious implication of this is that it’s immoral to be an unbeliever.” — again, you’ve read right past Paul! NO… what was immoral was for a believer to be acting like an unbeliever.
Do you really believe that it is impossible to believe in Jesus as the Son of God unless you accept the Bible to be true in its entirety?
No but to have confidence in the account of Jesus and the prophecies about him you would need to have confidence the bible is generally true. Obviously there are certain issues about particular subjects.
Why so? Wouldn’t it be sufficient to believe that the accounts about him in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are true?
Mathew references a lot of OT verses to try and convince the Jews from OT sources. The other 3 also but to a lesser extent and of course you could just simply believe these accounts at face value but I think without supporting evidence the depth of belief would be shallow for most folks.