What does it mean to reject God? Is rejection of God based on not believing that God exists? Or is it based on rejection of the message? And if a part of the message is that God exists or that a relationship with with God/Jesus is a requirement, then both 'types' of rejection are really in play.

If you ask me if I reject the existence of the Christian God. I would say I reject the affirmative believe in the existence of the Christian God. Should He exist, I do not feel that He should feel any form of personal rejection - my non-belief isn't out of spite. Given different conditions or sufficient evidence of God, I would update my beliefs to include the affirmative belief in the existence of God.

If you ask me if I reject the message of the Christian God, I would say there are parts I like and parts I don't like. A Christian might argue that some of my understanding of 'good' and 'bad' is misguided.

I would argue that in order to meaningfully reject something, one needs to understand the thing they are rejecting and it sure helps to believe that the thing is real. The majority of people on the planet could be said to reject God. There will be varying levels of understanding of what they are rejecting, but in just about every case, there is a belief that either the Christian God does not exist or that He likely does not exist.

If, when we all die, we go to meet St. Peter and have the whole of creation and God and everything revealed to us and we say 'Nah, I'm good.', then I think you can call that a rejection of God. But, I don't think its a stretch to say that having the whole of Meaning and Truth revealed is going to change just about everyone. Following this, can you really say that someone has rejected God if they are ignorant to either God's existence or the full and proper understanding of the message?

Only God knows the heart.

And if the Bible is correct, and I believe it is, there is no Pearly gates where a kindly St. Peter resides.

Believers go to be with the Lord and when the Lord comes back are resurrected bodily to dwell eternally in the New Jerusalem. Imagine your best days ever without death, disease, sorrow, toil, etc.

Now the question becomes is who is a "believer". And as I said only God knows the heart.

As to the others, depends on your theology.

Orthodox think all go into the presence of God which is bliss for believers and horror for those who reject God.

Others believe others go to Hades until Christ comes back and they are resurrected bodily and subject to the white throne judgement where they are not covered by the blood and atonement of Christ.

I am unsure if any of those are resurrected into eternal life in the new Jerusalem.

Revelation says the others are thrown into the lake of fire but there is disagreement whether they suffer eternal torment or total destruction(my personal view at this time).

That to me makes sense as God created them and can destroy them.

I do not think God is an eternal torturer.

That is my understanding.

I strongly recommend Randy Alcorn's book on Heaven as it is very hopeful and makes sense.

Hope that helps.

And of course, that is without discussion of Christ's return and the question of rapture, and if rapture, pre trib or later. A millennial, pre millennial, post millennial, and preterism(both partial and full)etc.

If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

If your parents tell you to do something and you don't, that is a rejection of their authority. Of course believing they exist is essential to submitting to them, but only part of the equation.

I'm not convinced those on earth who have rejected God would all of a sudden submit to him after they die. Maybe out of fear, but certainly not out of love. If you hate him, his ways, and his children on earth, you will hate him, his ways, and his children in the afterlife.

Quote:

---

Orthodox think all go into the presence of God which is bliss for believers and horror for those who reject God.

---

This is the one that makes most sense to me, especially given the verses about the effect of loving your enemies being like heaping burning coals on their head. And that's flawed human love. Imagine that in the presence of God who is love. I also believe, just as we see that God is a consuming and refining fire, that all will be reconciled with Him once that "dross" has been burned away by the presence of His love. At that point, there is no more horror.

This dovetails the other thread, but I think rejecting God is rejecting who God is. We can describe God as love, truth, compassion, justice, goodness, selfless, and a whole host of other adjectives. If you reject those things, then you reject God. If you are actively against those things, then you are actively against God.

Quote:

---

This is the one that makes most sense to me, especially given the verses about the effect of loving your enemies being like heaping burning coals on their head. And that's flawed human love. Imagine that in the presence of God who is love. I also believe, just as we see that God is a consuming and refining fire, that all will be reconciled with Him once that "dross" has been burned away by the presence of His love. At that point, there is no more horror.

---

I can buy this as the mechanism of annhilation or even purification. However, I can't reconcile the idea of God's love causing anyone eternal pain and Him being just cool with that

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

If your parents tell you to do something and you don't, that is a rejection of their authority. Of course believing they exist is essential to submitting to them, but only part of the equation.

I'm not convinced those on earth who have rejected God would all of a sudden submit to him after they die. Maybe out of fear, but certainly not out of love. If you hate him, his ways, and his children on earth, you will hate him, his ways, and his children in the afterlife.

---

Suppose that when you die, you go to the (metaphorical) pearly gates to meet God. Then lets say He tells you. "Well Martin, you lived a pretty good life and you tried really hard and were sincere and devout. But, there are some parts of what you believed about Me and about Truth and the rest that are deeply incorrect." God then waves his hand over you and gives you all of the correct objective truths about the universe, mankind, morality, etc. Then God says "Now that you now the complete Truth, will you update your views and correct any flaws in how you have been worshipping?" What are you going to do? Tell God to piss off for not being exactly the way you had imagined? I understand that this is a bigger shock to someone of a different religion or an atheist. . . . but the point is that if you would find it easy to update your acceptance of God, why is it so hard to think others cannot do the same?

The only reason why someone might submit to God out of fear after our poorly defined 'complete Revelation' is if said Revelation contains things that we should fear. If the Revelation is the expression of love you expect it to be, then why should you remain unconvinced by the motives of people changing their mind when presented with this new information?

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

This dovetails the other thread, but I think rejecting God is rejecting who God is. We can describe God as love, truth, compassion, justice, goodness, selfless, and a whole host of other adjectives. If you reject those things, then you reject God. If you are actively against those things, then you are actively against God.

---

And what If I am for those things, but I don't call it 'God'. Or call it by a different God's name?

I don't care what you call it. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet". Our limited or different understandings of God don't change Him in any way

kurt vonnegut said:

---

What does it mean to reject God? Is rejection of God based on not believing that God exists? Or is it based on rejection of the message? And if a part of the message is that God exists or that a relationship with with God/Jesus is a requirement, then both 'types' of rejection are really in play.

If you ask me if I reject the existence of the Christian God. I would say I reject the affirmative believe in the existence of the Christian God. Should He exist, I do not feel that He should feel any form of personal rejection - my non-belief isn't out of spite. Given different conditions or sufficient evidence of God, I would update my beliefs to include the affirmative belief in the existence of God.

If you ask me if I reject the message of the Christian God, I would say there are parts I like and parts I don't like. A Christian might argue that some of my understanding of 'good' and 'bad' is misguided.

I would argue that in order to meaningfully reject something, one needs to understand the thing they are rejecting and it sure helps to believe that the thing is real. The majority of people on the planet could be said to reject God. There will be varying levels of understanding of what they are rejecting, but in just about every case, there is a belief that either the Christian God does not exist or that He likely does not exist.

If, when we all die, we go to meet St. Peter and have the whole of creation and God and everything revealed to us and we say 'Nah, I'm good.', then I think you can call that a rejection of God. But, I don't think its a stretch to say that having the whole of Meaning and Truth revealed is going to change just about everyone. Following this, can you really say that someone has rejected God if they are ignorant to either God's existence or the full and proper understanding of the message?

---

Honestly the whole idea of a "relationship" with God is weird. God doesn't beam info into peoples heads. He isn't talking to people in their sleep. He provided prophets and scribes to write His word and talk about His Word. To reject God is basically simply to quit believing that He will do what He says He will do, that's it.

codker92 said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

What does it mean to reject God? Is rejection of God based on not believing that God exists? Or is it based on rejection of the message? And if a part of the message is that God exists or that a relationship with with God/Jesus is a requirement, then both 'types' of rejection are really in play.

If you ask me if I reject the existence of the Christian God. I would say I reject the affirmative believe in the existence of the Christian God. Should He exist, I do not feel that He should feel any form of personal rejection - my non-belief isn't out of spite. Given different conditions or sufficient evidence of God, I would update my beliefs to include the affirmative belief in the existence of God.

If you ask me if I reject the message of the Christian God, I would say there are parts I like and parts I don't like. A Christian might argue that some of my understanding of 'good' and 'bad' is misguided.

I would argue that in order to meaningfully reject something, one needs to understand the thing they are rejecting and it sure helps to believe that the thing is real. The majority of people on the planet could be said to reject God. There will be varying levels of understanding of what they are rejecting, but in just about every case, there is a belief that either the Christian God does not exist or that He likely does not exist.

If, when we all die, we go to meet St. Peter and have the whole of creation and God and everything revealed to us and we say 'Nah, I'm good.', then I think you can call that a rejection of God. But, I don't think its a stretch to say that having the whole of Meaning and Truth revealed is going to change just about everyone. Following this, can you really say that someone has rejected God if they are ignorant to either God's existence or the full and proper understanding of the message?

---

Honestly the whole idea of a "relationship" with God is weird. God doesn't beam info into peoples heads. He isn't talking to people in their sleep. He provided prophets and scribes to write His word and talk about His Word. To reject God is basically simply to quit believing that He will do what He says He will do, that's it.

---

So what about Samuel?

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

What does it mean to reject God? Is rejection of God based on not believing that God exists? Or is it based on rejection of the message? And if a part of the message is that God exists or that a relationship with with God/Jesus is a requirement, then both 'types' of rejection are really in play.

If you ask me if I reject the existence of the Christian God. I would say I reject the affirmative believe in the existence of the Christian God. Should He exist, I do not feel that He should feel any form of personal rejection - my non-belief isn't out of spite. Given different conditions or sufficient evidence of God, I would update my beliefs to include the affirmative belief in the existence of God.

If you ask me if I reject the message of the Christian God, I would say there are parts I like and parts I don't like. A Christian might argue that some of my understanding of 'good' and 'bad' is misguided.

I would argue that in order to meaningfully reject something, one needs to understand the thing they are rejecting and it sure helps to believe that the thing is real. The majority of people on the planet could be said to reject God. There will be varying levels of understanding of what they are rejecting, but in just about every case, there is a belief that either the Christian God does not exist or that He likely does not exist.

If, when we all die, we go to meet St. Peter and have the whole of creation and God and everything revealed to us and we say 'Nah, I'm good.', then I think you can call that a rejection of God. But, I don't think its a stretch to say that having the whole of Meaning and Truth revealed is going to change just about everyone. Following this, can you really say that someone has rejected God if they are ignorant to either God's existence or the full and proper understanding of the message?

---

Honestly the whole idea of a "relationship" with God is weird. God doesn't beam info into peoples heads. He isn't talking to people in their sleep. He provided prophets and scribes to write His word and talk about His Word. To reject God is basically simply to quit believing that He will do what He says He will do, that's it.

---

So what about Samuel?

---

God wasn't beaming info into Samuels head like x- files. God was standing nearby and calling to Samuel out of sight. God talks to people like a person, not a robot.

1 Samuel 3:1012 (LEB): Then Yahweh came and stood there and called out as before, "Samuel! Samuel!" And Samuel said, "Speak, because your servant is listening." 11 So Yahweh said to Samuel, "Look, I am doing something in Israel which will cause the two ears of everyone who hears it to tingle. 12 On that day I will fulfill against Eli all that I have spoken against his household, from beginning to end.

Note how it says God STOOD there. We don't need people to speak for God He speaks for Himself.

Rejecting God.

16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God."

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

The solution:
21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Believe...Please!

The idea of "rejecting god" just feels like a very inaccurate description to me. Mankind has believed in literally thousands of gods throughout our history and I must agree that yes, I don't believe in any of them. But to be fair, that's only one more than most of you. Does non-belief imply rejection? It's just not the way I would phrase it.

Speaking from my own experience, I think that many Christians have a deep misunderstanding both of what non-Christians believe and why they believe it. I've seen too many Christians argue in all seriousness that everyone secretly agrees with their beliefs but only says otherwise because they "hate God", whatever that's supposed to mean. Such a point of view might be comfortable, but it certainly isn't accurate.

The gospel may be written on my heart, but

I am confused.

If you do not believe in the Christian God, how are you not rejecting it?

What do you believe in? What started everything? How did nature become so ordered?

And I am not trying to be obtuse or whatever. Really trying to understand your views.

I just happen to think disbelief in something and rejecting it are two different things and I make that distinction because the word rejection has some connotations I don't think are valid. Consider in this very thread it was argued that rejecting (ie not believing in) god is equivalent to rejecting the properties that believer associates with god including "love, truth, compassion, justice, goodness..." I do take issue with that line of reasoning.

The other reason I dislike describing belief in those terms is because it creates the implication that the default state is the belief in something and that believing otherwise is the result of rejecting that belief. But that's not true. No one is born believing in any specific religion. That has to be taught.

Were you raised in a Christian background?

dermdoc said:

---

I am confused.

If you do not believe in the Christian God, how are you not rejecting it?

---

I think that I would object to the word 'reject' as not being the most appropriate way to describe my feelings toward the Christian God.

It is an unnecessarily barbed word that I think some Christians would like shoved into my mouth in order to further their contempt for my non belief. Rejection implies a personal distaste or repulsion toward something or that the object in question (God) is believed to be inadequate or undesirable in some way.

You wouldn't object to me saying that I do not believe in Bigfoot and rather insist that I have rejected Bigfoot. Would you?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I am confused.

If you do not believe in the Christian God, how are you not rejecting it?

---

I think that I would object to the word 'reject' as not being the most appropriate way to describe my feelings toward the Christian God.

It is an unnecessarily barbed word that I think some Christians would like shoved into my mouth in order to further their contempt for my non belief. Rejection implies a personal distaste or repulsion toward something or that the object in question (God) is believed to be inadequate or undesirable in some way.

You wouldn't object to me saying that I do not believe in Bigfoot and rather insist that I have rejected Bigfoot. Would you?

---

Of course not. And meant no malice. Just curious.

I was. So I suppose that if it can be said that I "rejected" any religion that religion would be Christianity. And there are certainly aspects of Christianity that I liked and miss, but I couldn't keep calling myself a Christian once I no longer agreed with the core beliefs.

May I ask which core beliefs?

I'd figure the existence of a deity at all is a pretty important core belief. I won't argue that we can prove no gods exist because I don't think that's true, but I certainly am not convinced that any are necessary to explain the world as we know it.

There are a plethora of other topics that were a part of my questioning Christianity, including but not limited to: creationism, the history of Judaism and the Hebrew people versus what the Bible says, the problem of evil, the impossibility of free will with an omnipotent and omniscient god, and the impossibility finding some fair and consistant standard of judgement by which the supernatural claims of one religion are accepted and all others are rejected.

Rocag,

As to the question of whether God is necessary for the creation (etc.) of the universe as we know it, check out reasons.org.

Thanks

Oh I was big into apologetics the last couple of years I was a Christian. I know and understand the popular arguments for the existence of God and I've read countless articles from the William Lane Craig types trying to make those points. But what happened was that the more familiar I became with those arguments the more glaring I found their faults to be. Admittedly, I haven't kept up with the more recent apologists but I doubt they've come up with any truly new arguments.

Funny enough, my first experience with this kind of disappointment in the arguments for Christianity was reading "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. I just remember hearing so many people rave about this book and then reading it and not at all understanding what other people saw in it. I still chuckle when I see people recommend it.

I have been there also my friend. Got to the same place and went back to God rather than away. But I think I understand.

And I might add God actually would never let me go. And I had an encounter with Jesus which changed my life. He is as real to me as my family.

And the joy and peace are unbelievable.

And realistically that's what most people of any religion will tell you is why they believe. It isn't about logical arguments swaying them one way or another but that they've had some personal experience that convinces them of the truth of their belief. My question has always been: since we can see this trend time and time again in every religion, can we really trust it?

I don't at all discount your experiences or the impact its had on your life. But likewise, how can we dismiss the claims of the Muslim or the Buddhist or the Hindu or the Scientologist that also talks about a life-changing experience that has proven to them the truth of their beliefs? By what fair and consistent standard are some accepted and others rejected?

Quote:

---

Consider in this very thread it was argued that rejecting (ie not believing in) god is equivalent to rejecting the properties that believer associates with god including "love, truth, compassion, justice, goodness..." I do take issue with that line of reasoning.

---

Just to be clear, I wasn't implying that rejecting the Christian or Biblical narrative is the same thing as rejecting God. OTOH, rejecting compassion, mercy, selfless love, and goodness in general is the same as rejecting God, because that's who He is and what He commands us to be.

Perhaps all you need is an experience.

Paul hunted Christians till his road to Damascus experience.

And what if I had an experience that convinced me that some non-Christian religion was true? Would you consider that a valid experience I would be correct in placing my faith in?

Rocag said:

---

And what if I had an experience that convinced me that some non-Christian religion was true? Would you consider that a valid experience I would be correct in placing my faith in?

---

We could literally sit and delve into the what ifs all day long.

You're seeking and asking all the right questions. Keep up the good work!

This video seems like it might offer some useful knowledge on the effects of rejecting God.

Is rejection and non-belief the same?

When I ponder how this applies to Christianity...

God created the universe, earth, and humanity in His image for the purpose of governing the earth in fellowship with Him. Mankind sinned, humanity and creation was cursed, and God is pursing people to redeem them from this curse.

I see non-belief in God as no you didn't create the world, no you didn't create me in your image, no you didn't die to pay for my sins so that I have one day experience eternal life without the consequences of sin, death, and a broken creation. No you don't determine right and wrong, I do or my society does. To me all of this sounds a lot like rejection.