If Non-Christians Can Go to Heaven, Why Introduce the Faith to Others?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Medical_Student
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Medical_Student

Guest
I read a recent blog post, and the following comments reflect my thoughts.

Then Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, in a 1964 homily said:

"The question that torments us is . . . why, if there are so many other ways to heaven and to salvation, should it still be demanded of us that we bear, day by day, the whole burden of ecclesiastical dogma and ecclesiastical ethics? . . .

If we are raising the question of the basis and meaning of our life as Christians . . . then this can easily conceal a sidelong glance at what we suppose to be the easier and more comfortable life of other people, who will “also” get to heaven.

We are too much like the workers taken on in the first hour whom the Lord talks about in his parable of the workers in the vineyard (Mt 20:1-6). When they realized that the day’s wage of one denarius could be much more easily earned, they could no longer see why they had sweated all day. . . .

But the parable is not there on account of those workers at that time; it is there for our sake. For in our raising questions about the “why” of Christianity, we are doing just what those workers did. We are assuming that spiritual “unemployment”—a life without faith or prayer—is more pleasant than spiritual service. Yet how do we know that?

We are staring at the trials of everyday Christianity and forgetting on that account that faith is not just a burden that weighs us down; it is at the same time a light that brings us counsel, gives us a path to follow, and gives us meaning. We are seeing in the Church only the exterior order that limits our freedom and thereby overlooking the fact that she is our spiritual home, which shields us, keeps us safe in life and in death. We are seeing only our own burden and forgetting that other people also have burdens, even if we know nothing of them.

And above all, what a strange attitude that actually is, when we no longer find Christian service worthwhile if the denarius of salvation may be obtained even without it! It seems as if we want to be rewarded, not just with our own salvation, but most especially with other people’s damnation—just like the workers hired in the first hour. That is very human, but the Lord’s parable is particularly meant to make us quite aware of how profoundly un-Christian it is at the same time. Anyone who looks on the loss of salvation for others as the condition, as it were, on which he serves Christ will in the end only be able to turn away grumbling, because that kind of reward is contrary to the loving-kindness of God."
I still wonder though; why introduce Catholicism to a non-believer? Would it be better to leave them alone? Say they found out about what the faith taught and subsequently rejected it. Wouldn’t they then be answerable to God for this? I personally have very few Catholic friends with the majority being atheist, or at least non-practicing of their religions by birthright. As I progress with my formation in Catholicism, the question resounding in my mind does not cease–“If what I believe is truth, with all of its magnanimity, power, and glory and belief in a supreme, sentient being, then shouldn’t one of the main goals in my life be to share this message and my faith, so that others may know this Truth?” Then again, am I “doing them in” by sharing this message with them and having them subsequently reject truth? Would it not have been better for them to proceed in ignorance, finally perish from this earth, and be judged by God for what good they accomplished on earth sans an actual belief in the Trinity or other dogmas of the Church?

Most non-believers I know do not believe in or would not even seriously acknowledge a belief in a preternatural state, a God if you will (let alone the tenets of Catholicism), despite what I did or shared with them.

Would it not have been better for a non-believer’s ultimate salvation to never have known about the Catholic faith per se, and instead base their life off of good morals and being a morally good citizen, but not necessarily going to Church every Sunday, receiving the sacraments, and ? Perhaps I should simply stress being a “good person” to friends before fancying thoughts on proselytizing? Though now the question beckons: Most, if not all, of my peers and colleagues are “good people,” by society’s standards. They are good-hearted, highly intelligent individuals with a genuine desire to care for the sick of our world (I attend a top-tier allopathic medical school). Why should I try and change them? Why not leave them be; they shall continue on with their good works or at least whatever their conscience deems the correct path, and they shall be judged by God based off what they did on this earth with the knowledge and talents they were given. Why should I place this “burden” of Catholicism (this extra knowledge) on them, if, with their praiseworthy intentions of making the world a better place, they would see salvation anyway?

As I write this question, I am realizing that it seems to be more about the concern for my own salvation. Am I at fault for not introducing the faith as some LDS or Jehovah’s Witness do? What a Catch-22…

sidenote: Why can I not have an avatar picture? Does one need a certain number of posts or have to be member of this forum for a designated time?

Thanks.
 
Medical_Student said:
Most non-believers I know do not believe in or would not even seriously acknowledge a belief in a preternatural state, a God if you will (let alone the tenets of Catholicism), despite what I did or shared with them.
Click to expand...
There are a few factors at play. We never know with full certainty another person’s standing with God; only God can know that. At best, assuming another person could be saved outside of the Church would be an uncharitable risk. Next, you are probably not the only person to share religion, so you probably could not keep them “perfectly ignorant” of Truth.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, although God knows who was and was not able to know His Truth, not all of those who did not know the Church will be saved. You are not saving atheists by not sharing your Faith. “Atheists” who are saved would be atheists who did God’s will as much as one can with just the aid of reason. We don’t know which atheists those are, but it would not include all atheists who have not had a chance to hear the Truth.

As to having a moral obligation to share your Faith, it is a complex issue. There is a proper context to share one’s religion, and with out current mores, doing so in the wrong context is more liable to drive someone away (especially a professed atheists). It is generally more appropriate to live out your Faith and make a good example.
 
Why give a person the full truth when he MIGHT be saved with partial truth?

Why give a person the fullness of grace when he MIGHT be saved with less grace?

Why give a person the benefits of the sacraments when he MIGHT be saved without the benefits of the sacraments?

Why give a person the beauty of the faith when he MIGHT be saved despite the ugliness of the modern world?
 
Why? Because a believer is more likely to make it to heaven than a non-believer.

I like to give this example.

You are on top of a mountain with steep cliffs, and you need to get down. There is a guide taking people down the slow and sometimes tough path that zigzags down the face of the cliff. If you follow the guide and heed his warnings and follow him correctly, then you will make it down the mountain safe and unharmed (A truly devout 100% believer and follower of Christ). Some may get distracted and stumble here and there along the way, and they might get down safely, but a little banged up (someone who imperfectly follows Christ and will likely have to go through purgatory before being able to enter heaven). And then you have those that do not want to follow the guide and either try to find their own way down, or some even just jump off the cliff. Without the guide to lead them, most are likely to not make it down alive, but some may survive, but will be so close to death that it may take a long time for them to fully recover (the atheists).
 
The web. I disbelieve until proven. Is there a source for this supposed quote?

As well, the parable is commonly interpreted to indicate those who repent and claim Christ at the ends of their lives - who will receive the same reward as those who repented early on.
 
Medical_Student said:
I still wonder though; why introduce Catholicism to a non-believer? Would it be better to leave them alone?
Click to expand...
One reason is because when people participate in the Eucharist, grace is released into the world because it is a participation in the grace-releasing event of Christ’s sacrifice. Essentially, when we hold people back from coming to receive the Eucharist, it is like attempting to snuff out the grace that draws souls to the Church. Receipt of the Eucharist transcends merely the individual recipient. In other words, leaving an atheist in ignorance is to keep that atheist from the Eucharist which is to prevent that atheist from helping draw other souls into the Church by partaking in the Eucharist.

For theology on the matter, see How the Eucharist Benefits the World. 😉
 
This is the better question:
“Can’t you lead a good life without believing in Christianity?” This is the question on which I have been asked to write, and straight away, before I begin trying to answer it, I have a comment to make. The question sounds as if it were asked by a person who said to himself, “I don’t care whether Christianity is in fact true or not. I’m not interested in finding out whether the real universe is more what like the Christians say than what the Materialists say. All I’m interested in is leading a good life. I’m going to choose beliefs not because I think them true but because I find them helpful.” Now frankly, I find it hard to sympathise with this state of mind. One of the things that distinguishes man from the other animals is that he wants to know things, wants to find out what reality is like, simply for the sake of knowing. When that desire is completely quenched in anyone, I think he has become something less than human. As a matter of fact, I don’t believe any of you have really lost that desire. More probably, foolish preachers, by always telling you how much Christianity will help you and how good it is for society, have actually led you to forget that Christianity is not a patent medicine. Christianity claims to give an account of facts—to tell you what the real universe is like. Its account of the universe may be true, or it may not, and once the question is really before you, then your natural inquisitiveness must make you want to know the answer. If Christianity is untrue, then no honest man will want to believe it, however helpful it might be: if it is true, every honest man will want to believe it, even if it gives him no help at all.

As soon as we have realised this, we realise something else. If Christianity should happen to be true, then it is quite impossible that those who know this truth and those who don’t should be equally well equipped for leading a good life. Knowledge of the facts must make a difference to one’s actions. Suppose you found a man on the point of starvation and wanted to do the right thing. If you had no knowledge of medical science, you would probably give him a large solid meal; and as a result your man would die. That is what comes of working in the dark. In the same way a Christian and a non-Christian may both wish to do good to their fellow men. The one believes that men are going to live forever, that they were created by God and so built that they can find their true and lasting happiness only by being united to God, that they have gone badly off the rails, and that obedient faith in Christ is the only way back. The other believes that men are an accidental result of the blind workings of matter, that they started as mere animals and have more or less steadily improved, that they are going to live for about seventy years, that their happiness is fully attainable by good social services and political organisations, and that everything else (e.g., vivisection, birth-control, the judicial system, education) is to be judged to be “good” or “bad” simply in so far as it helps or hinders that kind of “happiness”.

Now there are quite a lot of things which these two men could agree in doing for their fellow citizens. Both would approve of efficient sewers and hospitals and a healthy diet. But sooner or later the difference of their beliefs would produce differences in their practical proposals. Both, for example, might be very keen about education: but the kinds of education they wanted people to have would obviously be very different. Again, where the Materialist would simply ask about a proposed action “Will it increase the happiness of the majority?”, the Christian might have to say, “Even if it does increase the happiness of the majority, we can’t do it. It is unjust.” And all the time, one great difference would run through their whole policy. To the Materialist things like nations, classes, civilizations must be more important than individuals, because the individuals live only seventy odd years each and the group may last for centuries. But to the Christian, individuals are more important, for they live eternally; and races, civilizations and the like, are in comparison the creatures of a day.

The Christian and the Materialist hold different beliefs about the universe. They can’t both be right. The one who is wrong will act in a way which simply doesn’t fit the real universe. Consequently, with the best will in the world, he will be helping his fellow creatures to their destruction.

With the best will in the world … then it won’t be his fault. Surely God (if there is a God) will not punish a man for honest mistakes? But was that all you were thinking about? Are we ready to run the risk of working in the dark all our lives and doing infinite harm, provided only someone will assure us that our own skins will be safe, that no one will punish us or blame us? I will not believe that the reader is quite on that level. But even if he were, there is something to be said to him.
 
Pt 2The question before each of us is not “Can someone lead a good life without Christianity?” The question is, “Can I?” We all know there have been good men who were not Christians; men like Socrates and Confucius who had never heard of it, or men like J. S. Mill who quite honestly couldn’t believe it. Supposing Christianity to be true, these men were in a state of honest ignorance or honest error. If there intentions were as good as I suppose them to have been (for of course I can’t read their secret hearts) I hope and believe that the skill and mercy of God will remedy the evils which their ignorance, left to itself, would naturally produce both for them and for those whom they influenced. But the man who asks me, “Can’t I lead a good life without believing in Christianity?” is clearly not in the same position. If he hadn’t heard of Christianity he would not be asking this question. If, having heard of it, and having seriously considered it, he had decided that it was untrue, then once more he would not be asking the question. The man who asks this question has heard of Christianity and is by no means certain that it may not be true. He is really asking, “Need I bother about it?” Mayn’t I just evade the issue, just let sleeping dogs lie, and get on with being "good”? Aren’t good intentions enough to keep me safe and blameless without knocking at that dreadful door and making sure whether there is, or isn’t someone inside?”

To such a man it might be enough to reply that he is really asking to be allowed to get on with being “good” before he has done his best to discover what good means. But that is not the whole story. We need not inquire whether God will punish him for his cowardice and laziness; they will punish themselves. The man is shirking. He is deliberately trying not to know whether Christianity is true or false, because he foresees endless trouble if it should turn out to be true. He is like the man who deliberately “forgets” to look at the notice board because, if he did, he might find his name down for some unpleasant duty. He is like the man who won’t look at his bank account because he’s afraid of what he might find there. He is like the man who won’t go to the doctor when he first feels a mysterious pain, because he is afraid of what the doctor might tell him.

The man who remains an unbeliever for such reasons is not in a state of honest error. He is in a state of dishonest error, and that dishonesty will spread through all his thoughts and actions: a certain shiftiness, a vague worry in the background, a blunting of his whole mental edge, will result. He has lost his intellectual virginity. Honest rejection of Christ, however mistaken, will be forgiven and healed—“Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him.” 1 But to evade the Son of Man, to look the other way, to pretend you haven’t noticed, to become suddenly absorbed in something on the other side of the street, to leave the receiver off the telephone because it might be He who was ringing up, to leave unopened certain letters in a strange handwriting because they might be from Him—this is a different matter. You may not be certain yet whether you ought to be a Christian; but you do know you ought to be a Man, not an ostrich, hiding its head in the sand.

But still—for intellectual honour has sunk very low in our age—I hear someone whimpering on with his question, “Will it help me? Will it make me happy? Do you really think I’d be better if I became a Christian?” Well, if you must have it, my answer is “Yes.” But I don’t like giving an answer at all at this stage. Here is door, behind which, according to some people, the secret of the universe is waiting for you. Either that’s true or it isn’t. And if it isn’t, then what the door really conceals is simply the greatest fraud, the most colossal “sell” on record. Isn’t it obviously the job of every man (that is a man and not a rabbit) to try to find out which, and then to devote his full energies either to serving this tremendous secret or to exposing and destroying this gigantic humbug? Faced with such an issue, can you really remain wholly absorbed in your own blessed “moral development”?

All right, Christianity will do you good—a great deal more good than you ever wanted or expected. And the first bit of good it will do you is to hammer into your head (you won’t enjoy that!) the fact that what you have hitherto called “good”—all that about “leading a decent life” and “being kind”—isn’t quite the magnificent and all-important affair you supposed. It will teach you that in fact you can’t be “good” (not for twenty-four hours) on your own moral efforts. And then it will teach you that even if you were, you still wouldn’t have achieved the purpose for which you were created. Mere morality is not the end of life. You were made for something quite different from that. J. S. Mill and Confucius (Socrates was much nearer the reality) simply didn’t know what life is about. The people who keep on asking if they can’t lead a decent life without Christ, don’t know what life is about; if they did they would know that “a decent life” is mere machinery compared with the thing we men are really made for. Morality is indispensable: but the Divine Life, which gives itself to us and which calls us to be gods, intends for us something in which morality will be swallowed up. We are to be re-made. All the rabbit in us is to disappear—the worried, conscientious, ethical rabbit as well as the cowardly and sensual rabbit. We shall bleed and squeal as the handfuls of fur come out; and then, surprisingly, we shall find underneath it all a thing we have never yet imagined: a real Man, an ageless god, a son of God, strong, radiant, wise, beautiful, and drenched in joy.
 
Conl: “When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.” 2 The idea of reaching “a good life” without Christ is based on a double error. Firstly, we cannot do it; and secondly, in setting up “a good life” as our final goal, we have missed the very point of our existence. Morality is a mountain which we cannot climb by our own efforts; and if we could we should only perish in the ice and unbreathable air of the summit, lacking those wings with which the rest of the journey has to be accomplished. For it is from there that the real ascent begins. The ropes and axes are “done away” and the rest is a matter of flying.

merelewis.org/CSL.gitd.1-12.ManOrRabbit.htm
 
  1. Jesus wants us to.
  2. Just because they reject the faith now doesn’t mean they won’t accept it later. People change over time and many people return to their faith as they get older. Some people leave the faith for good, while for others it’s just a phase.
  3. Only God knows the state of anyone’s soul, so we cannot presume who is going to heaven and who is not. I think we will be surprised in the end to see who ends up where. I bet there are good people who are doing good for the wrong reasons (self-promotion rather than love of God and love of neighbor) who won’t make it to heaven, while there will be people who reject God because they can’t understand Him (not out of hate for God, religion or people of faith) who end up in heaven.
  4. God is a just God. There are different levels in heaven. Someone who had a disability in this life will be given a very high place in heaven, assuming they were faithful and good people. The faithful will be given high places in heaven, especially those who remained faithful and did not stray. Don’t we want to give everyone a chance at a high place in heaven? Metaphorically speaking, it’s like the difference between living in a mansion and living in a shack. Yes, you can be happy in a shack because your soul will be near God, but the faithful will be closest to God, near His throne living in His castle.
 
I think it is important to know what the Church’s teaching on Atheism and Agnosticism as well is when discussing this subject and so here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say:
**Atheism
Click to expand...
** 2123 "Many . . . of our contemporaries either do not at all perceive, or explicitly reject, this intimate and vital bond of man to God. Atheism must therefore be regarded as one of the most serious problems of our time."58

2124 The name “atheism” covers many very different phenomena. One common form is the practical materialism which restricts its needs and aspirations to space and time. Atheistic humanism falsely considers man to be "an end to himself, and the sole maker, with supreme control, of his own history."59 Another form of contemporary atheism looks for the liberation of man through economic and social liberation. "It holds that religion, of its very nature, thwarts such emancipation by raising man’s hopes in a future life, thus both deceiving him and discouraging him from working for a better form of life on earth."60
**
2125** Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion.61 The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. "Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion."62
**
2126** Atheism is often based on a false conception of human autonomy, exaggerated to the point of refusing any dependence on God.63 Yet, "to acknowledge God is in no way to oppose the dignity of man, since such dignity is grounded and brought to perfection in God. . . . "64 "For the Church knows full well that her message is in harmony with the most secret desires of the human heart."65

Agnosticism
**
2127** Agnosticism assumes a number of forms. In certain cases the agnostic refrains from denying God; instead he postulates the existence of a transcendent being which is incapable of revealing itself, and about which nothing can be said. In other cases, the agnostic makes no judgment about God’s existence, declaring it impossible to prove, or even to affirm or deny.
**
2128** Agnosticism can sometimes include a certain search for God, but it can equally express indifferentism, a flight from the ultimate question of existence, and a sluggish moral conscience. Agnosticism is all too often equivalent to practical atheism.
Click to expand...
58 GS 19 § 1.
59 GS 20 § 2.
60 GS 20 § 2.
61 Cf. Rom 1:18.
62 GS 19 § 3.
63 Cf. GS 20 § 1.
64 GS 21 § 3.
65 GS 21 § 7.
66 Deut 4:15-16.
67 Sir 43:27-28.
68 Wis 13:3.
69 Cf. Num 21:4-9; Wis 16:5-14; Jn 3:14-15; Ex 25:10-22; 1 Kings 6:23-28; 7:23-26.
70 St. Basil, De Spiritu Sancto 18,45:PG 32,149C; Council of Nicaea II: DS 601; cf. Council of Trent: DS 1821-1825; Vatican Council II: SC 126; LG 67.
71 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II,81,3 ad 3.
Click to expand...
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c1a1.htm#2123

Also, here are some links from Catholic Answers about Atheism:

catholic.com/blog/matt-fradd/christianity-or-atheism

catholic.com/blog/matt-fradd/is-atheism-a-religion

catholic.com/blog/matt-fradd/atheism-and-the-burden-of-proof

catholic.com/speakers/talks/answering-atheism

catholic.com/radio/shows/reaching-out-to-atheists-7117
 
bzkoss236 said:
Why? Because a believer is more likely to make it to heaven than a non-believer.

I like to give this example.

You are on top of a mountain with steep cliffs, and you need to get down. There is a guide taking people down the slow and sometimes tough path that zigzags down the face of the cliff. If you follow the guide and heed his warnings and follow him correctly, then you will make it down the mountain safe and unharmed (A truly devout 100% believer and follower of Christ). Some may get distracted and stumble here and there along the way, and they might get down safely, but a little banged up (someone who imperfectly follows Christ and will likely have to go through purgatory before being able to enter heaven). And then you have those that do not want to follow the guide and either try to find their own way down, or some even just jump off the cliff. Without the guide to lead them, most are likely to not make it down alive, but some may survive, but will be so close to death that it may take a long time for them to fully recover (the atheists).
Click to expand...
Good analogy. The comparison that works for me is that an atheist living a life pleasing to God and getting into Heaven would be like a blind squirrel with no sense of smell finding an acorn in a land where there is only one acorn per acre of land. Becoming a true believer would be like healing the squirrel so he can both see and smell, and then putting him into a dump truck full of acorns.
 
Medical_Student said:
I read a recent blog post, and the following comments reflect my thoughts.

Then Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, in a 1964 homily said:

"The question that torments us is . . . why, if there are so many other ways to heaven and to salvation, should it still be demanded of us that we bear, day by day, the whole burden of ecclesiastical dogma and ecclesiastical ethics?
Click to expand...
Why would any reasonable God put a person in hell for not having faith in Jesus?
That is not a merciful God. That is a tyrant and an irrational one at that.

God does not judge merely in terms of who is willing to have faith, but rather God judges the hearts of people.

It is true that there will be no atheists in heaven, but not because there are no people there that were formally atheists, but because in heaven its impossible to be an atheist. There are no drunkards or thieves or prostitutes in heaven, because these things are impossible. But that does not mean that you will not meet people who were atheists, thieves or drunks.

Some people are these things because they did not know God. It is not always because of having a will against God.

When you die and face God, your heart will ever run from him or embrace him.

Also, being told about some religion, does not constitute positive knowledge. Faith, in and of its self no-matter how courageous is not evidence of God or religion.
 
Linux said:
Why would any reasonable God put a person in hell for not having faith in Jesus?
That is not a merciful God. That is a tyrant and an irrational one at that.

God does not judge merely in terms of who is willing to have faith, but rather God judges the hearts of people.

It is true that there will be no atheists in heaven, but not because there are no people there that were formally atheists, but because in heaven its impossible to be an atheist. There are no drunkards or thieves or prostitutes in heaven, because these things are impossible. But that does not mean that you will not meet people who were atheists, thieves or drunks.

Some people are these things because they did not know God. It is not always because of having a will against God.

When you die and face God, your heart will ever run from him or embrace him.

Also, being told about some religion, does not constitute positive knowledge. Faith, in and of its self no-matter how courageous is not evidence of God or religion.
Click to expand...
But, as I demonstrated with the essay from C.S. Lewis, once your faced with the question of Christ, you have to find the answer. There’s no middle ground.
 
“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my
heavenly Father.” Matthew 10:32-33

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:16

“Fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no God.’” Psalms 14:1

“If we have died with him we shall also live with him; if we persevere we shall also reign with him. But if we deny him he will deny us.” 2nd Timothy 2:11-12

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment.” Matthew 22: 37-40

And so, if we disobey the first and greatest commandment, how do we deserve heaven? :confused:
 
The_GreyPilgrim said:
But, as I demonstrated with the essay from C.S. Lewis, once your faced with the question of Christ, you have to find the answer. There’s no middle ground.
Click to expand...
Why does one have to find an answer if the moral imperative of the question is not self evident. To the unbeliever, Christianity is just one more belief about the world. There is nothing in the fact that people have faith in a judging God that should compel a reasonable person to pursue an answer. There are plenty of other beliefs that speak of judgement, but with out positive knowledge of whether or not those religions speak of something real then any ascent to those beliefs is based on paranoia.

Without the positive knowledge of the realities that religion describes no one is rationally obliged to investigate; people investigate out of curiosity.
 
linux
**Without the positive knowledge of the realities that religion describes no one is rationally obliged to investigate; **

How do you get to the positive knowledge without investigating?

people investigate out of curiosity.

When it comes to the fate of one’s immortal soul, it is downright foolishness not to investigate, not only out of curiosity, but out of real concern that one’s own atheism may be the ultimate foolishness.
 
Linux said:
Why does one have to find an answer if the moral imperative of the question is not self evident. To the unbeliever, Christianity is just one more belief about the world. There is nothing in the fact that people have faith in a judging God that should compel a reasonable person to pursue an answer. There are plenty of other beliefs that speak of judgement, but with out positive knowledge of whether or not those religions speak of something real then any ascent to those beliefs is based on paranoia.

Without the positive knowledge of the realities that religion describes no one is rationally obliged to investigate; people investigate out of curiosity.
Click to expand...
Because, as Lewis states, Christianity makes claims on the truth, to explain what the universe is really like. Therefore it is NOT like every other religion. The moral imperative is in the claim of it’s founder: “I am the way, the truth, and the life…”

Your objection isn’t really that “it’s just another religion”; what you’re really saying is,“why do I need to bother with it? Why not just get on with being ‘good’?”

The fact that we’re human beings we have a thing about us that we have to know things for the sake of knowing them. That’s not what’s happening here. It’s as if you’re advocating not just innocent ignorance, but outright willful ignorance. To just let sleeping worms lie. Its like avoiding going to the doctor even though you feel that pain in your chest, or avoiding the duty roster for fear that you’ll get some unpleasant assignment.

That’s not honest ignorance, that’s dishonest ignorance.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
How do you get to the positive knowledge without investigating?
Click to expand...
Its irelivant. Without it, there is no reason to investigate accept for curiosity or paranoia.

people investigate out of curiosity.
When it comes to the fate of one’s immortal soul, it is downright foolishness not to investigate, not only out of curiosity, but out of real concern that one’s own atheism may be the ultimate foolishness.
Click to expand...
You aready believe and so you percieve that moral imperative as the result of belief. Theere is no reason for an atheist to think his soul is in danger or his disbelief is foolishness outside of faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top