Science is an attempt to explain the universe not to interpret. It also tries to predict some things based on things already known. Anything having to do with guessing, interpreting, wondering, hypothesizing, is more related to faith. Science doesn't deal too much in faith, faith might be involved in the hypothesis drafting process, but this is a human tendency of course.
There are instances that lift might be lost in special circumstances (engine fail, turbulence?), however my faith is complete that in normal conditions the mechanism of lift will be upheld. Of course my level of faith will drop when I'm in space in a ship because we have less experience with that. Science relies on repeated testing to increase understanding to the point where you will have complete understanding in a mechanism, there will of course be exceptions when variables are changed, but for a specific set of variables, if tested enough, can be 100% proven, like lift, or if I drop something it will fall, or the sun will rise.
Don't try to artificially insert uncertainty in inappropriate places.
Science is merely man's attempts to understand the existence of everything that exists. There is no such thing as experimental proof; by Science's own laws just because you have not yet experienced a result does not mean you never will. This makes Science as a whole quite open-minded (pay attention, anyone who wants to use Science to put down Religion, and anyone who wants to use Religion to put down Science): just because Science has not yet experienced a proper result dictating that there is such thing as (real) Religion does not mean that is does not exist, it merely means there is no proof of it yet. This means that should evidence - repeatable, testable, empirical evidence - occur in the future, Science can and will embrace Religion.
To a point.
Science will continue to test to find faults with Religion, even if it is proven; that is merely what Science is. Anything else, and it wouldn't be Science.
Science is an attempt to explain the universe not to interpret. It also tries to predict some things based on things already known. Anything having to do with guessing, interpreting, wondering, hypothesizing, is more related to faith. Science doesn't deal too much in faith, faith might be involved in the hypothesis drafting process, but this is a human tendency of course.
Science comes from facts.
Facts come from conclusive evidence.
Conclusive evidence comes from interpretations of said evidence.
Interpretations of said evidence comes from assumptions based on observations.
Assumptions based on observations come from faith in said assumptions based on observations.
Faith in said assumptions based on observations comes from the individual mind.
In conclusion, science relies on faith in assumptions based on observations.
Faith is:
"Complete trust or confidence in someone or something."
If we believe that universal constants exist, and we are putting our trust and confidence in that belief, we are using, at least to some degree, a level of faith in believing that statement.
It is also important to note, that according to this reasoning, absolutes or universal constants would be necessary for faith to exist, as faith, being the abstract concept of putting complete trust in someone or something, relies on there being an opposite or contrasting concept - distrust. This is similar to opposites and contrasts such as good and evil, dark and light, negative and positive, and so on. Of course, this statement relies on the presence of opposites and contrasts in our universe, which I doubt anyone would dispute.
There are instances that lift might be lost in special circumstances (engine fail, turbulence?), however my faith is complete that in normal conditions the mechanism of lift will be upheld. Of course my level of faith will drop when I'm in space in a ship because we have less experience with that. Science relies on repeated testing to increase understanding to the point where you will have complete understanding in a mechanism, there will of course be exceptions when variables are changed, but for a specific set of variables, if tested enough, can be 100% proven, like lift, or if I drop something it will fall, or the sun will rise.
The key phrase there is "a specific set of variables". I agree that, for a specific set of variables and with a selective area of study, the complete understanding of a mechanism can be attained or at least attempted. However, my point is that science cannot account for all of the variables in our universe, because the knowledge of all of the universe and its mechanics are impossible to learn. That is why, in the real world, all areas of science require some degree of faith from the individual in order to be trusted or held as fact.
These beliefs are not artificially inserted because they rely on the natural laws to work and to be absolutes.
These beliefs are not uncertain, but they rely on the uncertainty of everyday living.
Define which places would be considered inappropriate to "artificially insert uncertainty".
Define inappropriate in this context.
- - -
Tell me if I'm making any sense. I wrote this late at night and haven't had my coffee.
Haha, you misunderstand me. Science, by its very definition, its sole essence, will have to make every attempt possible to disprove anything considered true, or it cannot be called Science. Just because some scientists will choose to focus their work elsewhere does not mean Science as a whole will. Even as we speak, there are scientists attempting to prove gravity does not exist as we 'know' it.
How is that pretentious? I stated (maybe a bit vaguely) my view that universal constants (truth) do not change, but the world's subjective opinions and ideology change throughout cultures. I am not attempting to convert people who are not interested. I do not know where you got that idea from.
"The problem though is that some Roman Catholics believe in good works will get you to heaven. Which contradicts the Bible." - Admiral
"Yes, and this is unfortunate." - me
Where did I state that good works are bad? I didn't.
In reference to Admiral's post, I said it was "unfortunate" because "Catholics believe good works will get you to heaven". As a Christian, I believe there is only one way to heaven, and that is through Jesus Christ. Good works are nice, but I don't believe they will ever be enough for a holy and perfect God. You should think about how Catholicism compares to Christianity. True Catholics have different doctrine or "paths" towards heaven than Christians. With this said, in a Catholic's point of view, a Christian would NOT enter the kingdom of heaven, because he is going the wrong way. If you believe both Christians and Catholics are both going to heaven, then that is another subject entirely because it is about universal salvation or "all roads lead to heaven", if you will.
Again, how is this pretentious? I stated my beliefs as how I believe them. If you categorize that Christianity being the only way to heaven is a pretentious belief, then according to that reasoning, it would be pretentious to believe any religion had the claim for the only way to heaven.
The real question is, "Do I believe in heaven?" But that's another story, and I don't want to get bogged down in anything.
Now, in terms of Christianity (in terms I think you will relate to);
I believe that Catholics and Christians of other creeds are both going to heaven. Moreover, I believe that everyone has the ability to go to heaven. You know your John 3:16?
I really don't want to get into a discussion about Catholism vs. Protestantism, or anything of the like. So please, let's not go there. We (as in you and I, me being Catholic, and you being of another form of Christianity) are all Christian, and everyone on Earth are sons of God.
I don't want to talk about tolerance or inter-faith relations, because I don't want to be pretentious, or debate further. I think it's silly people come to loggerheads over these sorts of things. No one person is better than the other. Let's leave it at that.
...And answer my previous 'magnum opus'-y post, mmkay?
I really don't want to get into a discussion about Catholism vs. Protestantism, or anything of the like. So please, let's not go there. We (as in you and I, me being Catholic, and you being of another form of Christianity) are all Christian, and everyone on Earth are sons of God.
I won't discuss if you don't want to, but something like this is really important. One of us may not be saved. A discussion would prove our assurance. Again, we don't have to. However, if you are ever interested, again, we can do it privately if it so suits you.
I don't want to talk about tolerance or inter-faith relations, because I don't want to be pretentious, or debate further. I think it's silly people come to loggerheads over these sorts of things. No one person is better than the other. Let's leave it at that.
You wouldn't be pretentious, you would be learning more about your faith and being able to defend it. You're right; no one person is "better" than the other. Beliefs are a different story. Again, I won't discuss if you don't want to.
Exactly. If you want to go off the Bible, then so be it - I don't see anything in the Bible that says "Only Catholics can go to heaven." So there. Eat that, sectarians.
Literally everyone. God gave us free will. If someone chooses to believe in God, woudn't they be saved? If, say, for arguement's sake, a Hindu converted to Christianity, wouldn't they be saved?
However, I do believe that there are other ways of achieving a 'higher order'. As a Christian, you believe that heaven is the ultimate 'goal', as it where? Well, people of other faiths don't believe heaven to be their ultimate goal. Buddhists (do not neccessarily) strive to go to heaven. They strive for enlightenment. Thus, for them, going to heaven or hell is not an issue, as they simply do not believe in it.
Going to heaven or not is subjective, and only matters if you care about it. If you want to go to heaven, then so be it! Be the best you can, and follow the word of God. If not, then that's awesome too. To each his own.
I won't discuss if you don't want to, but something like this is really important. One of us may not be saved. A discussion would prove our assurance. Again, we don't have to. However, if you are ever interested, again, we can do it privately if it so suits you.
Thanks but no thanks. I don't need an excessive amount of religious debate in my life, and I personally think it's stupid that there's such a divide between these different churches of Christianity. Aren't we all Christians? Etc.
Anyway, I'd rather not quibble any more. Debates like this are always a wee bit tense on forums, and I certainly don't want to upset anyone unintentionally.
You wouldn't be pretentious, you would be learning more about your faith and being able to defend it. You're right; no one person is "better" than the other. Beliefs are a different story. Again, I won't discuss if you don't want to.
It could be argued that nothing is indeed something. A lack of something could be interpreted as an abundance of nothing. Zero, although it has no magnitude, still has a value. In fact, the concept of 'zero', or a 'lack of something', is crucial to many mathematical concepts. (It's probably applicable to many other fields, but I'd like to speculate as little as possible.) But I digress.
I thoroughly believe in the concept of the Big Bang. But does that make me atheist? Not really.
How about I put this to you:
What if the Big Bang is real, and God is as well? Many believe that the Big Bang is the antithesis; the 'disapprover' of God's existence. What if the Big Bang was caused by God? What if the Big Bang is the rationalization of God's presence? No-one really knows how the Big Bang was created. Likewise, no-one truly knows how God came about, or how he made the universe. Perhaps the Big Bang and God are one and the same. It's an explanation as good as any. And why not? God works in our lives in amazing ways. Perhaps the Big Bang is purely evidence of God's work?
Science and religion need not be at loggerheads. Science is God's way of presenting us with new perspectives on our world and inspiring us to explore our cosmos, and thus, learn about God better.
I'm living. And that's fucking excellent, to be perfectly honest. And in my mind, my world can be whatever I want it to be. It's ultimately up to me to discover what my purpose is. If there is indeed an absolute purpose for the human race - moreover, life on Earth - then it is up to us to find it. But perhaps the purpose is to have no purpose? Let's use God as an example again. God has given us the power to choose what we believe in. If we choose to believe in him, that's fine and dandy as long as everyone's happy and no-one gets hurt. Heck, if I chose to be a Pastafarian, it would be perfectly O.K, as long as I was happy, everyone else was happy, and I didn't hurt anyone, or force my opinions on others.
Absolutes exist in our universe. In a few million years time (not sure on the exact date, but that's fine, retrospectively) our Sun will explode. (Once again, I'm not exactly sure on the astronomical effect the Sun will actually do. Maybe it will become a supernova? But really, the specifications don't matter at the moment, as they are irrelevant.)
Our world will be burn to a crisp and cease to support life.
Our lives are a mystery. It could be argued that all actions in the world are a result of God. And if we truly believe in God, then we must follow that.
I would rather that you don't misconstrue my comment about atomics into something dispelling evolution. While it's true that miracles can come only through God, it's less absolute then that. If science is a creation of God, designed to actually further prove his existence rather than dispel it, then why can't science be a miracle? What I talked about is explained through science. But if science is the work of God, then they are truly one and the same. If God is science, then sure. God makes all miracles. And these miracles can be explained through science.
Not to mention, things may not be explainable through science, but as God works more and more into the lives of men, we will find a way to explain these concepts logically. Nothing wrong with that. If it's something that will both let us better know our universe, and hence, our God, then that can only be good.
Science and religion need not be opposites. Science is the direct creation of God.
The Theory of Evolution and Atheism are two very different things.
I can believe in the Theory of Evolution and not be an Atheist. Hence, an Atheist may not believe in the Theory of Evolution.
Once again, I think you are under the misconception that concepts of science such as the Theory of Evolution disprove God. They don't. Simple as that. In fact, I think they support God's existence.
Think about the Theory of Evolution in a less literal sense. Many allegories can be drawn from the Theory of Evolution, other concepts of science, and, let's say, Genesis.
Now, I'm only dealing with these concepts in a very simplified sense; that being said, I've got my Bible out here in front of me, and I'm reading it so I can get the facts straight.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, when God created the universe, the earth was formless and desolate. The raging ocean that covered everything was engulfed in total darkness, and the Spirit of God was moving over the water. Then God commanded, "Let there be light" -
Think about this ocean as the nothingness before creation - total darkness, much like in space, perhaps? Think not of the Earth as in the planet we know today, but rather as matter, or a lack of matter in this case - formless and desolate.
Perhaps God commanding 'let there be light' is the Big Bang? God starting off the creation of the universe?
Genesis 1:9 Then God commanded, "Let the water below the sky come together in one place, so that the land will appear" -
The Big Bang didn't instantaneously create everything. Hydrogen and oxygen, as well as many other gases and elements rather just floated around in an endless, seething mass. Perhaps God created gravity, and allowed these gases to combine together to make water? And this sky. There was no depth before gravity. As God creates gravity, he defines a sky, and makes water whole. The introduction of gravity allows different elements to come together. Carbon and iron and many others come together and form masses that become planets. Water is attracted to their gravitational pull, and the land can be formed, and the water surrounds it. Like Earth, no?
Genesis 1:20 Then God commanded, "Let the water be filled with many kinds of living beings"...
This supports Evolution. The earliest forms of life were said to be microscopic, waterborne beings, which evolved into more complex beings such as trilobites.
Genesis 1:21-22 So God created the great sea monsters, all kinds of creatures that lived in the water, and all kinds of birds. And God was pleased with what he saw. He blessed them all and told the creatures that live in the water to reproduce and fill the sea, and he told the birds to increase in number.
This also supports the existence of marine dinosaurs such as plesiosaurs, and avian dinosaurs such as pterodons. And evidently, God liked 'em too. Also, his commanding to them to reproduce further supports evolution. As dinosaurs reproduced, evolved and adapted, they became closer to creatures that exist nowadays. This brings me to my next point:
Genesis 1:24 The God commanded, "Let the earth produce all kinds of animal life: domestic and wild, large and small" -
And as these dinosaurs from the seas reproduced and evolved, they became more refined forms of life. Perhaps creatures such as apes?
We shouldn't think of these 'days of creation' as actual hours. God is timeless, so perhaps these days are millions of years? Which connects to my final point:
Genesis 1:26-27 And now we will make human beings; they will be like us and resemble us. They will have power over all the fish, the birds, and all animals, domestic and wild, large and small. So God created human beings, making them to be like him. He created them male and female...
Once again, this supports evolution. Over another million years or so, these more illustrious animals evolved into humans. And then God bestowed upon us power over all the animals - giving us independent thought, and many other unique abilities. He also made us male and female; further supporting evolution and its cycle of reproduction. We are beings in God's image, formed over millions of years. However, millions of years in God's eyes can be mere days, as he is all-powerful. Wouldn't you agree?
I'm purposely being vague here. But the fact of the matter is that science and God are closer than we think. This is all just a concept - take it with a pinch of salt. I used the word 'perhaps' a lot, because it's ultimately up to the individual to choose what they believe.
May I just say that I’m a Catholic. Sure, not a practising one, but a Catholic, and a Christian nonetheless. I try and keep an open mind as much as possible. I can’t explain away everything in my world, and many others cannot either. I know people of many different denominations, and of many different beliefs. There are some universal truths that are applicable to both faith of all descriptions and to people who don’t believe in any one faith. It can be universally said that the virtues of kindness, generosity and humility are all good. Ask a Buddhist, a Muslim and a Lutheran if they think that honesty is a virtue, and they will all say ‘yes’. Ask an Atheist, a Jew and an Agnostic if they believe that grace is something that we should all aspire to, and they will all say ‘yes’.
Sure, their answers may be different, but they all ultimately mean the same thing.
Back to the point.
Not believing in God, or another inexplicable presence in our lives could be considered a hindrance. It could also be argued that believing in a being which doesn’t directly manifest itself in our day-to-day lives could be a hindrance. Both points are easily debateable, and are sore topics for both sides. It’s not to me to pass judgement.
Not to me, no. Personally, I believe in some force which I can’t explain which governs my life. Sure science can explain many things, but all of these things must have stemmed from somewhere. And God seems to be the perfect explanation for that. There doesn’t need to be any other rationalization. And in terms of accountability – I can see how others have issues with understanding God. It’s not an easily graspable concept, in many ways. People like to have power over their own lives, which is fine. I think that way too. Difference being, I believe my right to govern my own live is a gift from God. That’s what sets apart Christians from Atheists, in my opinion.
If I lived in a universe where there was no God, or ethereal force that controlled my life, then I probably wouldn’t care. I wouldn’t be concerned with it. But if I had the choice, I’d probably say that I’d prefer to live in a universe where God does exist. God inspires many with hope and confidence, and supplies a reason to why many things are the way they are. His people do great work in this world. Never mind that in the past, God’s followers have done bad things, such as the Crusades, or the Spanish Inquisition. It is human nature to sin. However, through the gift of discernment bestowed upon us by God, we are able to identify sin in our lives. God has also given us the ability to atone for our sins. If we didn’t have that, then our lives would be much more complicated, to say the least.
That’s just my opinions. Feel free to keep going; I’m perfectly happy to continue.
The Theory of Evolution and Atheism are two very different things.
I can believe in the Theory of Evolution and not be an Atheist. Hence, an Atheist may not believe in the Theory of Evolution.
Once again, I think you are under the misconception that concepts of science such as the Theory of Evolution disprove God. They don't. Simple as that. In fact, I think they support God's existence.
Think about the Theory of Evolution in a less literal sense. Many allegories can be drawn from the Theory of Evolution, other concepts of science, and, let's say, Genesis.
Now, I'm only dealing with these concepts in a very simplified sense; that being said, I've got my Bible out here in front of me, and I'm reading it so I can get the facts straight.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, when God created the universe, the earth was formless and desolate. The raging ocean that covered everything was engulfed in total darkness, and the Spirit of God was moving over the water. Then God commanded, "Let there be light" -
Think about this ocean as the nothingness before creation - total darkness, much like in space, perhaps? Think not of the Earth as in the planet we know today, but rather as matter, or a lack of matter in this case - formless and desolate.
Perhaps God commanding 'let there be light' is the Big Bang? God starting off the creation of the universe?
Genesis 1:9 Then God commanded, "Let the water below the sky come together in one place, so that the land will appear" -
The Big Bang didn't instantaneously create everything. Hydrogen and oxygen, as well as many other gases and elements rather just floated around in an endless, seething mass. Perhaps God created gravity, and allowed these gases to combine together to make water? And this sky. There was no depth before gravity. As God creates gravity, he defines a sky, and makes water whole. The introduction of gravity allows different elements to come together. Carbon and iron and many others come together and form masses that become planets. Water is attracted to their gravitational pull, and the land can be formed, and the water surrounds it. Like Earth, no?
Genesis 1:20 Then God commanded, "Let the water be filled with many kinds of living beings"...
This supports Evolution. The earliest forms of life were said to be microscopic, waterborne beings, which evolved into more complex beings such as trilobites.
Genesis 1:21-22 So God created the great sea monsters, all kinds of creatures that lived in the water, and all kinds of birds. And God was pleased with what he saw. He blessed them all and told the creatures that live in the water to reproduce and fill the sea, and he told the birds to increase in number.
This also supports the existence of marine dinosaurs such as plesiosaurs, and avian dinosaurs such as pterodons. And evidently, God liked 'em too. Also, his commanding to them to reproduce further supports evolution. As dinosaurs reproduced, evolved and adapted, they became closer to creatures that exist nowadays. This brings me to my next point:
Genesis 1:24 The God commanded, "Let the earth produce all kinds of animal life: domestic and wild, large and small" -
And as these dinosaurs from the seas reproduced and evolved, they became more refined forms of life. Perhaps creatures such as apes?
We shouldn't think of these 'days of creation' as actual hours. God is timeless, so perhaps these days are millions of years? Which connects to my final point:
Genesis 1:26-27 And now we will make human beings; they will be like us and resemble us. They will have power over all the fish, the birds, and all animals, domestic and wild, large and small. So God created human beings, making them to be like him. He created them male and female...
Once again, this supports evolution. Over another million years or so, these more illustrious animals evolved into humans. And then God bestowed upon us power over all the animals - giving us independent thought, and many other unique abilities. He also made us male and female; further supporting evolution and its cycle of reproduction. We are beings in God's image, formed over millions of years. However, millions of years in God's eyes can be mere days, as he is all-powerful. Wouldn't you agree?
I'm purposely being vague here. But the fact of the matter is that science and God are closer than we think. This is all just a concept - take it with a pinch of salt. I used the word 'perhaps' a lot, because it's ultimately up to the individual to choose what they believe.
May I just say that I’m a Catholic. Sure, not a practising one, but a Catholic, and a Christian nonetheless. I try and keep an open mind as much as possible. I can’t explain away everything in my world, and many others cannot either. I know people of many different denominations, and of many different beliefs. There are some universal truths that are applicable to both faith of all descriptions and to people who don’t believe in any one faith. It can be universally said that the virtues of kindness, generosity and humility are all good. Ask a Buddhist, a Muslim and a Lutheran if they think that honesty is a virtue, and they will all say ‘yes’. Ask an Atheist, a Jew and an Agnostic if they believe that grace is something that we should all aspire to, and they will all say ‘yes’.
Sure, their answers may be different, but they all ultimately mean the same thing.
Back to the point.
Not believing in God, or another inexplicable presence in our lives could be considered a hindrance. It could also be argued that believing in a being which doesn’t directly manifest itself in our day-to-day lives could be a hindrance. Both points are easily debateable, and are sore topics for both sides. It’s not to me to pass judgement.
Not to me, no. Personally, I believe in some force which I can’t explain which governs my life. Sure science can explain many things, but all of these things must have stemmed from somewhere. And God seems to be the perfect explanation for that. There doesn’t need to be any other rationalization. And in terms of accountability – I can see how others have issues with understanding God. It’s not an easily graspable concept, in many ways. People like to have power over their own lives, which is fine. I think that way too. Difference being, I believe my right to govern my own live is a gift from God. That’s what sets apart Christians from Atheists, in my opinion.
If I lived in a universe where there was no God, or ethereal force that controlled my life, then I probably wouldn’t care. I wouldn’t be concerned with it. But if I had the choice, I’d probably say that I’d prefer to live in a universe where God does exist. God inspires many with hope and confidence, and supplies a reason to why many things are the way they are. His people do great work in this world. Never mind that in the past, God’s followers have done bad things, such as the Crusades, or the Spanish Inquisition. It is human nature to sin. However, through the gift of discernment bestowed upon us by God, we are able to identify sin in our lives. God has also given us the ability to atone for our sins. If we didn’t have that, then our lives would be much more complicated, to say the least.
That’s just my opinions. Feel free to keep going; I’m perfectly happy to continue.
Exactly. If you want to go off the Bible, then so be it - I don't see anything in the Bible that says "Only Catholics can go to heaven." So there. Eat that, sectarians.
Literally everyone. God gave us free will. If someone chooses to believe in God, woudn't they be saved? If, say, for arguement's sake, a Hindu converted to Christianity, wouldn't they be saved?
However, I do believe that there are other ways of achieving a 'higher order'. As a Christian, you believe that heaven is the ultimate 'goal', as it where? Well, people of other faiths don't believe heaven to be their ultimate goal. Buddhists (do not neccessarily) strive to go to heaven. They strive for enlightenment. Thus, for them, going to heaven or hell is not an issue, as they simply do not believe in it.
Going to heaven or not is subjective, and only matters if you care about it. If you want to go to heaven, then so be it! Be the best you can, and follow the word of God. If not, then that's awesome too. To each his own.
To the first part, yes. I just believe there is some "predestination" combined with that freewill but that is not a fundamental Christian belief so it's only opinion.
Before I reply to these, I just want to note that I'm replying to just what is quoted here rather than the concepts in context as I forget what was being discussed earlier.
I would rather that you don't misconstrue my comment about atomics into something dispelling evolution. While it's true that miracles can come only through God, it's less absolute then that. If science is a creation of God, designed to actually further prove his existence rather than dispel it, then why can't science be a miracle? What I talked about is explained through science. But if science is the work of God, then they are truly one and the same. If God is science, then sure. God makes all miracles. And these miracles can be explained through science.
Not to mention, things may not be explainable through science, but as God works more and more into the lives of men, we will find a way to explain these concepts logically. Nothing wrong with that. If it's something that will both let us better know our universe, and hence, our God, then that can only be good.
Science and religion need not be opposites. Science is the direct creation of God.
First, a quick question ahead of time: do you believe in evolution?
Moving on, I tend to disagree a little. While I do believe that God can work miracles through science, and that the existence of science in of itself is a miracle, I do not believe that science can produce its own miracles apart from God because God, being the one and only divine being, is the sole giver of miracles, not something He created. I may be misunderstanding what you are trying to say, though.
What are these "concepts" you speak of? Are you referring to physical or metaphysical concepts? I agree that is good to know about science because it is one of the ways God explains His creation.
Science is directly created from God, yes. However, I believe science and religion do have differences. For example, science is used to explain our universe while "religion" (although I believe Christianity isn't a religion but a relationship with the God of the universe, but I'll use that term if you prefer it) helps us to come to terms with it. If science and religion were the same thing, that means I could simply explain my way to Heaven, rather than repent and commit to God to do the explaining for us when we stand before Him after we die.
