by accepting Jesus?
2007-05-28 10:17:21 · 48 answers · asked by Wikisidr 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I agree. What, just what if there IS a heaven, God and Jesus? Would it have hurt you one bit to have believed? I don't get it. It makes me sad for all of them.
2007-05-28 10:21:36 · answer #1 · answered by Kaliko 6 · 2⤊ 13⤋
Yes, it's better to be safe than sorry, but that is no reason for believing in the divinity of Jesus.
You believe that there is an omniscient, omnipotent, caring God watching over everything. If such a deity exists, there is no need for prayer because God already knows your thoughts. Maybe God answers prayers and improves the world, but since he already knows what you want, maybe you should stop wasting time on prayer and lend a helping hand yourself.
However, what if he doesn't exist? Then there is no one to answer your prayers and improve the world. In this case, prayer is a complete waste of time and the only way to improve the world is for you to help out.
It is better to be safe than sorry and even in the "safe" case, it doesn't hurt to stop wasting time on prayer.
However, regarding "accepting Jesus," that presupposes that God is a selfish, uncaring bastard because that is the only way he will care more about whether or not you believe in the divinity of one man than he does about whether or not you work to improve the world around you during life. Why do you believe in such an evil deity?
2007-05-28 10:29:41 · answer #2 · answered by scifiguy 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
That makes absolutely no sense. No one can force themselves to believe in anything, including Jesus. It also makes no sense that you even asked this question because there are thousands of beliefs, if you say an atheist should be safe by accepting Jesus then they must accept every religion, that includes you, what if you followed the wrong belief. Every belief is just as possible as the other one.
2007-05-28 10:23:47 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If that was my attitude, I'd join all of the major religions just to be safe.
What if You're wrong?
What if it's Thor or Zeus not Jesus that you should have accepted?
If Mohammed was right we are all (christians and atheists) going to get a nasty surprise after death anyway.
Maybe Krishna or Vishnu from the Hindu pantheon is the one true faith.
So, no, I feel better not living my life in fear of the genocidal invisible bullying monster from the Old Testament. Much better. Jesus cheers me up many times when I hear the original message.
It's the people that claim to speak for him (and their track record) that turn me off to religion.
_____________________________________________
DRINK!
2007-05-28 10:25:59 · answer #4 · answered by annarkeymagic 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
This is one ludicrous question and as a Christian I am appalled by it. What this question endorses is "Pascal's Wager," summarily the "better safe than sorry" notion. People don't just serve Jesus to be safe than sorry later- they serve Him because they love Him and because He died on the cross of Calvary for us. That is why Christians serve God. It is NOT to be safe. If you choose to follow Jesus then it must be genuine, as He himself knows the heart.
2007-05-28 10:32:46 · answer #5 · answered by Abi 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
*Drink!*
This is a copy-and-paste answer of mine from the last time someone asked this question. Earlier today, it was! Here it goes:
Is that your reason for faith? Because you fear God so much you'd rather believe in Him than suffer His wrath?
Thanks for the argument as to why I should worship a God of love!
You also admit that the reason why you follow your God is because of the treasures you percieve you'll get as the result? That's greed, not faith. And since greed's a sin, I guess I'll see you in Hell if you've got this whole thing right.
2007-05-28 10:38:46 · answer #6 · answered by writersblock73 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The universe is complex and probably required a Creator. But which one? It seems that all cultures throughout human history have recognized the role of a Creator God.
The Creator defined by the North American Native Americans only asked that humans live in harmony with all nature. In exchange, the Creator provided plants and animals for humans to use as food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. Early Native Americans showed their respect and appreciation to the Creator by making small offerings of tobacco.
The Creator God defined by Hebrew scholars, 6000 years ago in the Middle East, was a jealous, and often cruel God. He demanded that humans make sacrifices of animal blood in order to appease Him, and set out Old Testament laws of behavior that often required the stoning-to-death of your neighbor for sins as minor as eating shell fish or working on the Sabbath. These laws remained in effect for over 4000 years until Emperor Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire and commissioned the first Bible from a collection of Hebrew scrolls and stories of Jesus. Religious scholars of today claim that the Old Testament God decided to change his original requirements for animal sacrifice and for stoning-your-neighbor-to-death for disobeying His written laws. This God, rather than having his human scribes re-write the laws on new scrolls, he decided to have His only Son sent to earth to be tortured and murdered.
I believe there is a Creator God. I just believe that his personality is more like the compassionate Creator God of the early Native Americans. If He turns out to be the cruel Middle Eastern God, and He throws me in Hell for thinking He is more loving than He really is, then I’m willing to accept that fate.
2007-05-28 10:26:17 · answer #7 · answered by Honest Opinion 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That is not the way to look at Christ.
I don't follow Christ to be safe as opposed to sorry, I follow him because it is the truth (from my perspective).
If you only follow him to be safe as opposed to sorry then you are merely using him out of fear. That is not how God intended it to be.
I know you didn't mean to make it sound that way, but I'm sure a few people here are going to pick up on that and roll with it.
2007-05-28 10:23:02 · answer #8 · answered by Me 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, there is no safety in accepting jesus. There is no evidence that jesus is god. There is no evidence that god exists. Hence, there is no safety in accepting jesus.
This question is inappropriate. It's akin to me asking christians: isn't it better to be safe than sorry by accepting Zeus?
2007-05-28 10:22:21 · answer #9 · answered by CC 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Ah, Pascal's wager. I'd recommend listening to the podcast Logically Critical, if you have itunes. He did a whole (amusing, as usual) episode on Pascal's wager once, that points out what's wrong with the whole idea.
2007-05-28 10:24:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Don't you think that Jesus would know if somebody was accepting him just to "be safe"?
2007-05-28 10:22:23 · answer #11 · answered by October 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋