a question mainly for the christians here.

do you think its possible to "believe" in God with out really "believing in" God?

such as you can believe George Bush exists but not believe everything he says is true or believe in his policies and ideas.

Of course.

But you'd have to be careful, because God requires constant praise and worship and great will his displeasure be if this is not delivered.

We are not trying to please men but God, who tests our hearts. (1st Thesselonians 2)

The bible describes how it works that people believe god exists, but don't Believe in God. The trouble is with our definition of the word "belief".

It sure does....

Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood. (Jeremiah 48:10

Praise be to Allah..Let everything that have breath...praise the lord!!!

There is often a question of a disconnect between man and god. Who said what or even who is who sometimes is unclear given the circumstances.

I am not a “Christian” per say, but I was raised in the Christian faith. If what you were getting at with the original question was, “is it possible to believe in God without actually following the Christina doctrine”, then perhaps I can contribute a little…
I don’t necessarily think that one has to believe in the fundamental Christian God to accept the aspect of a higher power. That is to say that believing a higher power exists doesn’t necessarily make someone a Christian, Buddhist, Jew, Hindu or whatever the preconceived notion seems to be, but rather a person who has a belief that is not grounded in a preconceived set of doctrines. I completely believe that it is possible to believe in God without being a follower of any given faith.
Of course I could be totally wrong… It’s just my opinion, and opinions are like assholes… Everyone has one and they all stink…

How could that be wrong? It's completely possible to believe in God or a higher power without adhering to any certain religion or faith. People tend to like labels though, so I suppose there's a name somewhere for such a belief.

There sure is, "Pagan".

pa·gan

pa·gan [páygən]
n (plural pa·gans)
1. an offensive term that deliberately insults somebody who does not acknowledge the God of the Bible, Torah, or Koran
an offensive term that deliberately insults somebody's nonbelief in religion, way of life, or degree of knowledge polytheist or pantheist: a follower of an ancient polytheistic or pantheistic religion


[14th century. < late Latin paganus "heathen, non-Christian," in classical Latin "villager, civilian" < pagus "rural district"]


-pa·gan, , adj
-pa·gan·ish, , adj
-pa·gan·ism, , n

The Latin word pagus , from which pagan is derived, originally meant "something stuck in the ground as a landmark." It was extended metaphorically to "rural district, village," and the noun paganus was derived from it, denoting "country dweller, villager." This shifted in meaning, first to "civilian," and then (based on the early Christian notion that all members of the Church were "soldiers" of Jesus Christ) to "heathen."
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Sounds a bit like Agnostic beliefs.

Agnostics don’t necessarily believe in God, generally they refuse to decide on way or the other.

I was under the impression they believed in something, they just didn't want to label it specifically yet and were open to deciding later.

Pagans usually know their gods, and give them names even if symbolic.

If the word is a pejorative term, I think we need a new word for it. And I was under the impression that people who classify themselves as Pagan these days are practicing a faith akin to Wicca.




agnostic

1. somebody denying God's existence is provable: somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists
2. somebody denying something is knowable: somebody who doubts that a question has one correct answer or that something can be completely understood

I understood the question, especially given the example to be about the subtleties of belief and knowing.

If you were an angel you would know God existed but would you believe in God? Is knowing the same as belief or does belief take faith and therefore the angel couldn't believe because it requires no faith due to direct proof.

And if direct proof destroys belief...All the apostles went to hell.

yeah but the existence of angels does not prove that god exists...I mean they could be angels with no god..like...god is dead or something..and the angels fly around and carry people away when they die and shit..ya know?

Er...The angels are directly in contact with God in christian theism.

which I don't think that was the point.

more like a reference to the human politician bit.

in is it possible to believe God exists but not believe in God as a leader, teacher, or believe that he's telling the truth.

the angel thing I took to mean by being in direct contact they would "know" he exists, but not necisarily believe in him as their leader.

(kinda like the movie Constantine).

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, since you didn't actually say anything. What does the pasted definition say in reply to my 'understanding' of what agnostic means? Were you confirming my understanding? If not, where's the contradiction? I'm lost.

According to the definition I found, they do believe in something: that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists. I think that's pretty specific. And I think that's a decision in itself; that it is impossible to know. They're deciding not to decide one way or the other. So I didn't think your impression was entirely accurate; although, according to Wikipedia there are varying types of agnostics, including the type you described, I think, "mild agnostics" who are open to be swayed one way or the other it seems:

QUOTE
Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism, strict agnosticism, absolute agnosticism)�€”the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of an omnipotent God and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience.
Mild agnosticism (also called weak agnosticism, soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism, temporal agnosticism)�€”the view that the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available.
Apathetic agnosticism (also called Pragmatic agnosticism)�€”the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of God or gods, but since any God or gods that may exist appear unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic anyway.
Agnostic theism (also called religious agnosticism)�€”the view of those who do not claim to know existence of God or gods, but still believe in such an existence. (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs)
Agnostic atheism�€”the view of those who do not know of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods, and do not believe in them. "^[7]
Ignosticism�€”the view that a coherent definition of God must be put forward before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition isn't coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of God is meaningless or empirically untestable. A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "God exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against.

Additional note in response to the actual question... everyone I've met who practices any type of faith has had varied beliefs on how to practice it or worship their deity of choice. I have yet to meet someone who completely accepts everything their religious text tells them is true of God. So I think that not only is it completely possible to believe in God without accepting everything "he" says is true; it is common among a great deal of religious adherents. I have met a lot of Christians who believe the Bible is open for interpretation. I have actually met a couple of people who do not believe the Bible is entirely divinely inspired and reject many parts of it.
I have also met one person who believes that there is a higher power of some sort, but he doesn't worship it or believe in any particular religion. He simply believe that a higher power exists.
There aren't enough labels for all the varying ways people believe.

Thank you for clarifying. I was almost under the impression you were contradicting what I had posted, and leaning toward agnostics being atheist. I don't agree completely with the dictionary you used to paste definitions from. The definition for pagan looks incomplete at least.

i think it possible. . but then again i believe a lot of things are possible.
Is it not fun being the dreamer. . heheheh.
Seriously though, in most of the people i have come across, there seems to be a need to believe in some form of god-like creature or being. At the same time, there seems to exist also, a security in not jumping completely into one specific belief & stating what exactly one believes in. This may be for a number of reasons, being labeled frequently tops the list. But if you take an extreme situation, many people who claim to believe in nothing, facing death let us say, suddenly find themselves praying or something similar. Funny how things kinda work like that.

Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism, strict agnosticism, absolute agnosticism) ”the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of an omnipotent God and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience.

Well I hardly see a reason to divide that from Atheism...Atheists don't believe in God either...The difference being that Strong Agnostics wouldn't believe in God even if there was one in front of them floating around on a cloud offering them a free ticket to the nubile angels club? Hell...I'm fairly hard-line atheist but even I'd give the benefit of the doubt in some situations....Like if I suddenly had the ability to turn water into wine and people into idiots.

I thought people were idiots the whole time. Then again, I could use a good drink right about now...

Well, I believe God exists and that God has a purpose for our lives larger than we could possibly understand. On the other hand, I believe all religions are the products of mankind. They ultimately center more around cultural compliance than they do around any larger purpose.

So, short answer to the question posed is "yes". It is possible. I believe in God, but not in God as is represented in any monotheistic religion since I believe those canons were largely written to enforce the compliance of a population rather than being true reflections of God's will.

I hope that makes sense. I think Vore may have already miracled my ass into idiocy.

At least we have plenty of wine...

Just as far as this bit goes, does the roll of satan/lucifer prove that it can happen? Specifically from a christian stand point of course, he knows for a fact that god exists but rejects everything that god is, stands for, believes in, or does. Also isn't this kinda part of the one unforgivable sin?

It's odd that religion can't decide if sins are forgivable or not... Especially in the face of the foundational ideal that Jesus died for them... All of them.

Why can none get their story straight on that...

And absolutely it's possible to believe in God, or Gods without having to subscribe the dogmatic bullshit of most organised religion... In fact, take into heart (should you need to believe) only that God or Gods are all compassionate and loving, and that's all you really need or should believe of the concept...

No sense allowing all we -think- we know or believe of the idea to have been formed by men thousands of years ago... That just seems absolutely ridiculous to me.

One word: power. If you can convince your little money bags, I mean followers, that such and such a thing is 'unforgiveable' unless they pay X amount of money to the church you get a lot of power.

The bible only mentions one "unforgiveable" sin and general interpretation puts that at dieing without being a Christian.

I thought it was sinning against the Holy Ghost. Pretty sure that sin is totally unforgivable. I'd look up the quote, but I'm lazy.

Throne777

FUCK EM' ALL! LET OBLIVION SORT IT OUT!!!

Then why did he not make us more predisposed to belief, if that was such a concern? This reeks of a setup to me. Humanity has been set up by God and the Devil with their little digs and their little wagers since the time of Adam and Eve...

apparently my understanding of the one unpardonable sin is a bit different then WilV's....I always understood it to be some one who knows that god exists with out question or doubt, and yet intentionally denying god's existance.

It seems to me somewhat unjust and even pretty appalling that Jim can spend his entire life trying to be pleasant, kind and helpful, he can turn the other cheek, he can be compassionate, do volunteer charity work, fly out to New Orleans to help take food to hurricane victims and be punished for not believing in God, while John can be a brutal bully, put six million Jews to death, bomb world trade centers, invade Iraq and destroy the infrastructure so he can sit on 250 billion barrels of crude, indulge in sexual depravity that would make the marquis de sade blush and yet inherit the kingdom of heaven because he repents at the eleventh hour and fifty ninth minute on his death bed.

Does anyone else see anything wrong with that picture?

No?

Yes, and it's that very concept that has kept me away from embracing Christianity.

Although, the way you put it is really tempting me to go back to the Catholic church and be all sorts of naughty! Hell, I can confess my sins away weekly!

And you'd still fail because confession isn't the hallmark of salvation.

Well, I would love to hear you attempt to justify that postition...

I do as well, but then I may have a vested interest in needing to believe that god is able to save those who don't believe too...Anyways I firmly believe that god knows intent, and those who want to lead better lives and improve themselves and the world around them are offered the same power god offers to Christians. But then again, I don't believe in once saved always saved either. I believe it's a daily decision to continue down the path your own, but ya, I refuse to believe the god I worship would damn some one because his followers fucked up.

No justification needed. The question is what do you consider to be a "decent human being". Visual aid works wonders here:

The first photo is how "humans" were meant to be. On the left in the large jug we have a representation of god. The three cups are all representations of humans. The stated purpose (according to the bible) of a human being and God is to "be joined in relationship with each other". This is a litteral joining of the two, as in actually dwelling with each other physically and within each other spiritually. Now, as you can see here in the first one, all the "spirits" (the water) are clean. You can easily tip more of the jugs contents into the cups, and the cups likewise can be returned to the jug without any fear of contamination between them.



Now the second image represents three different people. The coloured dye represents "morally bad" or "wrong" things they have done in their lives. The one on the left represents someone who spread a rumour they know is false, but otherwise they live a real decent life. The middle one represents your average joe, done a few things wrong in their life but otherwise is a pretty decent person. The one on the right represents a murderer or child molester or eqivalent, or someone who has purposely lived a life doing everything "wrong" they could imagine.



Now, while they are just single or multiple drops in a cup, you'd say the first two that are "decent" (or extraordinary in the case of the first one) people you wouldn't go tipping the whole cup back into the original jug. You'd easily contaminate it. But you would say, with careful pouring you could get most of the water back in with no contamination at all. The one on the right however, has no chance of being poured back in without contaminating the original. This is the way most people, and I dare say you yourself, would view the state of the world and the people there-in. Thus, if the "jug" represented heaven, if you just didn't pour in the stains you'd say that the people represented by the first two cups could get into heaven.

This, however, is not how Christians, the bible or God views the situation. The final picture shows how it is viewed by those three.



When you mix the dye in, and view the stain dispersed throughout the entire glass there's no way you could pour it into the jug without contaminating it too. Wether for the "decent" ones or the "fully dirty one". Even though the first cup had just a single drop of dye in it, it is still no longer "clean" in any way.

The point of the "you have the believe in Christ" line is that Christ is a filter for the water, able to filter out the dye. Unless you pass through the filter you can never be returned to a "union" with God (re: heaven). Irreguardless of how many stains you put on your "soul".

did you just copy and paste one of your old replies from another thread?

Of course not, I completely re-typed it. It just so happens that I'm capable of being consistant.

I'd have to say I'm in that apathetic category. I've never heard of a "higher power" doing ANYTHING of pure benefit for lesser beings. In fact, they tend to do the exact opposite for shits and giggles.

What a prepsoterous and depressing point of view you have. You must be a joy to be around at parties... :(

That is quite a story, but you haven't offered a shred of any kind of evidence to back it up, just a rather lenghty lack of common sense narrative...

Actually I am. I think we'd probably get along quite fine over a couple of beers.




Evidence:

John 3:18 'He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he wo does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God'

Romans 3:9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin

Romans 3:20a Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God

Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

(actually, just pretty much read the first 8 and a half chapters of romans)

That isn't evidence, it's allegory. Everything in life that is of any interest is, according to the bible, sinful in some way or other, so if Jesus is the cure, give me the disease!

To a sensualist like me who has no qualms and even believes in prolonging pleasure, physical or otherwise, I really don't see the point of that kind of thinking at all...

Look but don't touch! Smell but don't taste!

Not a chance!

You first said that God's way of offering salvation to everyone equally was "unjust". My example offers a different point of view that shows otherwise. Then you claim that my example of how God and the Bible view the nature of the world has no supporting evidence. I then provide supporting evidence for my claim that my example is how God and the Bible view the world. You then say that my evidence supporting my example supporting my point of view is not valid because you don't agree. And you call me "closed-minded". *rolls eyes*

No. Your evidence is not valid because it does not have quantifiable factors. I want to SEE a soul before I can definitively state "Souls exist". Similarly, I'd need to SEE this in action to acknowledge it. Your Bible has NO empirical backing when it comes to this claim or any other regarding spirituality. Oh, and don't even bother with anything that requires faith. Faith requires one to NOT think for oneself, and that is merely contrary to that which is needed to survive in a modern world.

You provided precisely nothing except a load of rhetoric about how we are all doomed because we are imperfect.

If I provided you with a few phrases from a book that was compiled in 325AD that suggests that the univerese is actually a tawny owl perched on the back of a giant turtle, would you take that as serious evidence.

I want you to give me quantifiable evidence, not ancient allegories from a long forgotten time.

But that is just all wrong....We are already perfect so Wilv's statements don't even make sense.