Why must we believe *before* we die?

Here's a question (for "Faith and Belief") that has been bothering me for some time:Why does God want us to reach belief in him in the very short period of our existence when it is hardest for us to do so? I mean, our life on earth is infinitely short compared to the eternal afterlife. Why can't God accept people who only come to believe after they have died and then see that everything they've been told in church is true after all?One would imagine that belief would be instantaneous once people actually find themselves in front of the gates of heaven (or of hell, as the case may be), so the delay should not be too annoying for a god who had already whiled away an eternity before creating us. And if, when staring Peter in the face, you would still not believe in God and heaven, then God would really have a reason to send you straight to hell. (In which case you'd perhaps do well to pretend not to believe in Satan either, since I'm told hell is a rather nasty joint. Who knows, you might even get sent back to earth.)So why does God insist on people becoming believers during their lifetime? Does God prefer people who will believe things in spite of a total lack of evidence? (I'm beginning to suspect a hidden agenda here. Only the gullible are admitted to heaven, so there must be some catch to it. "Verily, I say unto you, don't go there!")Or is the afterlife a myth after all, and is infecting people's minds, while they are still operative, the only way for religious memes to survive and thrive? That would be my answer of choice, but I'd like to see some religious opinions.I may have sounded facetious in the description of my question, but it is meant as a serious question nonetheless. If religious people can't take a bit of humour, they need not bother to answer, I wouldn't want to be in the same heaven with them anyway.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 16-Sep-2005 02:55 PM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

She doesn't. It couldn't care less about whether or not you believe.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sounds like an excellent question to me. As a Christian, I am eager to see the replies... I'm caught up in too many threads to play just at the moment. Hmmm, sounds like the Golgafrinchams... don't you think

I would imagine there is no point in making people believers before they die if you were a god who will get your attention in the end any way, but if you were a priest greedy for converts to fill his coffers or provide man power, then it make perfect sense.that sounds like a good message to put out if you are such a priest (or any other preacher type etc)

Hey! High stakes testing! We're down with that here in the U.S.

I have personally believed that many people do, in fact, become believers once the choice is clear to them...which for some, happens after the physical death. God is not so mean as to limit the exclusivity of Heaven...He wills that whosoever can come in.Communion is a mystery and a beautiful love relationship.

The problem of eschatological verification seems no greater than simply asking why God doesn't prove his existance here. And besides, you're assuming you get to gates of Heaven and instantly recognize what's happening. In reality, an afterlife prior to judgement would only show that belief systems involving an afterlife are correct, and there are still thousands of those to choose from. And any number that could be modified or started in the afterlife.If everybody came up after their graves at the end of the world, there is no logical reason why nonbelievers would not still be nonbelievers. They would say, "well that was a surprise, but where is this Jesus you were talking about?" And eventually some kind of speculation about accidental time travel would could about that, while unusual, would seem more probable than the entire virgin birth/died for your sins thing.My prediction, anyway.

I am going to try to answer this question seriously from the standpoint of a believer (even though I'm not one).Let's examine this passage from Matthew, chapter 16: What does this tell us about the concept of faith? How did Peter know that Jesus was the son of God and no mere prophet? God the Father revealed it to him. So faith can be defined as God revealing himself to one. The Father "told" Peter subliminally, as it were,
that Jesus was His Son.Faith, then, is not exactly the action of deciding to believe a doctrine; it is the outcome of God's revelation to a person.God reveals himself to good people only.Good people are not people who have faith: faith is given to those who are good.ed: typosThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 09-16-2005 01:00 PMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 09-16-2005 01:03 PMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 09-16-2005 01:06 PM

You did a good job with this from a believer's point of view. Yes, true. But this isn't true at all according to Reformation Protestantism. God has mercy upon "whomever He will have mercy" and reveals Himself to whomever He will. There are some great sinners among God's chosen. Consider King David. Not sure how you get this out of that passage. Please tell me where you get this idea. Scripture says "no one is good, no not one." Faith isn't given to us because we are good at all. Far from it. It's given to people who know they are transgressors of God's law, some very serious transgressors. Nor are people who have faith good in themselves --according to Protestantism anyway. They are only good through Jesus' goodness, not their own.

Faith, I was assuming that the reason Peter received the revelation was because he was better, not in the sense of not having sinned, but because he was pure at heart. I deduced it from the passage. God revealed the truth to Peter. Peter as a result believed in Jesus as the son of God. Peter did not just start to believe on other grounds (miracles, for example). He believed because The Father revealed to him the truth. Why him and not others? His purity of heart. I can't think of any other reason.And by the way, Faith. There is more to Christianity than the Protestant Reformation. Let's not forget the Catholics.

Yes, when I asked I thought maybe that was a Catholic viewpoint.Yes, about Peter's pure heart, David the sinner also had a pure heart, honest before God, and that is to his credit. Protestant theology -- actually, also Catholic theology as I recall from some of the mystics -- ascribes ALL goodness, even of this sort, to God's own gift, and not to the person. But that may be a fine point.

I think my interpretation is Catholic, though not intentionally by me.Let us never underestimate, Faith, the power of the Catholics.

quote:

---

Scripture says "no one is good, no not one."

---

Not quite what scripture says. This song of David seems to refer to fools or adversaries of the Jews, not necessarily everyone and says no one DOES good, not that no one IS good.Now Paul states that no one is righteous, which deals with following divine laws. It is also written: ABE: RomansThis message has been edited by purpledawn, 09-17-2005 09:53 AM

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Yes, you are being more precise, but I'm not sure the distinction is crucial, as Jesus speaks of people (not) BEING good as opposed to DOING good in a way that makes the two almost synonymous:Matthew 19:17 And he said to him, Why do you call me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if you will enter into life, keep the commandments.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-17-2005 09:46 AM