Is a theist's testimony obligatory for others?
Can a theist unilaterally obligate other people (who are not theists) to belief in God?
Do theists believe that God will punish those who are not convinced by the testimonies of theists?
Is a theist's testimony obligatory for others?
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
Is a theist's testimony obligatory for others?
Can a theist unilaterally obligate other people (who are not theists) to belief in God?
Do theists believe that God will punish those who are not convinced by the testimonies of theists?
To them it would seem it is. They believe in many things in each of their religions. While others might not care at all about their beliefs they do feel obligated to substantiate their dogma upon others from time to time. This gives them more confidence and finds others of the same ilk at the same time they can discuss their views with.
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
It is going to depend on what you mean by "obligatory". Do you mean "try to convert?" If yes, well in the past, there have been forced conversions - conversions at sword point. forced or coerced conversion is not conversion and is therefore wrong. However, if one places the truth (as they see it) before another and thereby convinces them of that truth then this is not wrong, it is their duty.
It is required that we "make disciples of all nations" refer to Mt 28:19 (By the way, I'm not preaching, I simply answer your questions). This does not mean that every person in every nation be Christian but rather that we are to declare Christ in every nation and accept converts from all nation.
It is often said that We proclaim the Gospel, but it is the Holy Spirit who converts people.
Then atheists have the same right and duty - namely, to place the truth (as they see it) before another and thereby convince them of that truth.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Of course not. An atheist's isn't either.
Can one person "obligate" another? How can that happen?
I suppose one way would be for the second person to start to feel an obligation or to believe that he or she is somehow obligated. But in that case, the second person would seemingly be obligating him/herself by internalizing the expectation.
Another way would be to create a legal framework that defines legal obligations. Even if a criminal feels no personal obligation to obey the law, the legal system would still insist that an obligation exists and may prescribe penalties for ignoring it.
And there are ethical and moral systems, cultural mores and stuff, that kind of informally define social obligations in a particular culture. Again, even if an individual feels no personal obligation, onlookers may believe that an obligation exists and may react to the individual in that light.
That's probably about as close as we come to an argument that theists can somehow obligate non-theists to believe in God. There may be some social expectation in some theistic subculture that the non-theist needs to believe, which might result in some social pressure.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I guess that there are some theologies and belief systems that insist that something very bad is going to happen to people who don't do whatever the belief system prescribes.
But there's sometimes a doctrinal disclaimer that the condemnation doesn't apply to those who were in no position to know about or to make the prescribed choice. People who lived before the time of Christ, perhaps.
So yeah, in that kind of scheme, missionaries would seem to be bringing more and more people into the sphere of knowing about the task that the missionaries' religion prescribes, and thus into the danger of damnation if they don't respond in what the religion defines as the appropriate way.
In other words, somebody ignorant of Christianity might have some kind of ignorance-based get-out-of-hell-free card in some theological versions of Christianity. But once the missionary unloads his or her "testimony", then the non-Christian loses that excuse and must either accept Christ or burn.
Of course, things only look that way from within a belief system, a particular interpretation of Christianity in this case. There's no reason why an individual who stands outside that system and who doesn't share its beliefs needs to acknowledge the obligations that the system might ascribe to them.
This is the point of contention, though.
no.
(answer based on the use of the word 'obligate')
this theist does not.
testimonies are evidence, not proof. each of us draws our own conclusions from the evidence, as it should be.
Nooooo!
Testimonies are opinion.
no.
Then they are obligatory?
um..which of my no's are you refering to?
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
The way I see it, if God exists, then presumably God is going to do whatever it's going to do. It's like a force of nature, except even more implacable and irresistable.
If there are any expectations, obligations or demands applicable to me personally in that, then they are coming direct from God him/her/itself, not from any 'theists' that I meet.
They and their beliefs about what I should be doing are basically irrelevant to the whole thing.
All that matters to me is what I believe (since that will presumably be what governs my actions), whether there's some supernatural reason why I should be doing something in particular, and how I can possibly know it if there is.
Hmm, okay.
How is a "testimony" different from an opinion?
it is the difference between
this is why i believe in God
and
this is what i think God wants.
Socratic Spelunker
Registered Senior Member
I bet there are some who feel that way, but I would disagree.
I think a "testimony" is evidence (NOT proof), but only for the person who receives it.
I liken it to a person who looks into a box a sees what's inside. By just telling you what's in the box, I can't PROVE it to you. It's just my word. I could be lying or I could be mistaken, but I think the hope is that the person you're talking to will be curious enough to look for themselves.
But both remain personal opinion.
I.e. the reason for the belief is still based on non-provable "reasons".
Why some believes in god (their testimony) is still an opinion. It may be disregarded by others as it is not an incontestable fact.
good analogy..
testimonies are the statements of those looking into the box describing what they see, with enough ppl looking into the box,(even with differences in description) one will begin to utilize that evidence to determine what is in the box without actually looking..
Interesting!
I am amazed, truly! Thanks.
What you are saying actually ties in with the theistic doctrine of the Holy Spirit or the Paramatma ('God in the heart').
There is the idea that it is impossible to act against God's will; because everything that happens is due to God's will; everything everyone does is actually in line with God's will.
Of course, the attitude you express is directly opposed to proselytizing.
I'll have to think about this some more!