Originally Posted by
trachemys 
But, that's how it's always been. As a matter of fast, the salvation clause never goes beyond belief. "Whosoever believes in him..."
That's something I don't understand. If a person is secure in their faith, why are they scared of the afterlife? (Notice how that question answers itself?)
In particular, IF you had secure faith, and IF you lived your life in accordance with that faith, how would it differ from a life lived as if there were no afterlife?
Trach, I love discussion. This is great.
As to your first point, although the skeptic views it this way, and sees the clear delineation between faith and empirical evidence, I have found that 100% of Christians I speak to view the religion as fact, not belief.
To your second point, human beings typically react with apprehension when approaching the unknown. Be it a new bite of food, or a thrill ride, one tends to get anxious when they don't know what to expect. The afterlife is like this to me.
See, if religion was an empirically proven fact, and the afterlife was an empirically proven fact, and where you ended up there was a proven fact, then there would be little to fear. However, when one is aware of just how little "fact" there actually is behind Christianity, it is a bit like visiting the sausage factory. And this applied to all tenets of the faith.
So if one is convinced that Christianity is a fact, and addresses it as such (versus being an unproveable faith), then they can have confidence in the way they lead their lives and the afterlife. The can also confidently tell me that I better get things figured out before I die, or I'm going to Hell (no lie).
I am almost observing a pattern of willfully "blind" faith. I find this more interesting in those who are obviously intelligent and rational people, who see the flaws in their faith, yet illogically deny these flaws, or refuse to acknowledge that what they do have is faith. Unfortunately, I have been given a pretty good brain, and I have difficulty in self-deluding myself into believing faith is fact.
Mind you, if you have had something presented to you as fact your entire life, it takes a very strong person to state, "Yes, I acknowledge there is some circumstantial, and little to no empirical knowledge that supports my faith. However, I still choose this faith as it is what I believe. It is not fact. It is faith."
To your last point Trach, possibly I've spent a little too much time with denominations that protest how pious and Christian they are. And my experience has been that the louder the protest, the less their lives match the piousness they espouse. But if we acknowledge we sin, but can be forgiven for it, I guess this means we can sin, right?
Whereas someone who lives without this final atonement is forced to do as good as they can by whatever set of morals they have for their lives. They don't have Jesus falling on the sword for them. In some ways, I think some atheists I've met make better Christians than some of the Christians I know (at least in action, if not faith).
In fact, yesterday I had a very wealthy very pious man explain to me that the use of the term "eye of a needle" as most famously used in Matthew 19:24 (And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.) may refer to a desert rock formation that would be tight for a Camel, but that it could make it through.
My logical brain struggles with this. Not just for the empiricism, but for the malleable subjectivity that I hear from others.