我信上帝，或說我信也許真有那麼個超自然的力量在左右一些事情。但我不信上帝的萬能。

in other words, you are agnostic. welcome, for that's what vast majority of people in our modern world believes. few can truly claim to be atheists and back it up with sound reasoning. i have a friend who can, but it's a rare gift. our famous Bach on this very bbs site, for example, is an agnostic, and/or pantheist. the bunch of buddhists and non-christians here who claim they are atheists, i have yet to see a good argument coming from them.

regardless of what you base your belief on, definition of a supreme GOD includes an omnipotent quality. without that quality, they do not deserve to be called GOD, and often referred to as god.

this difference is best illustrated by the hinduism belief. brahma-vishnu-shiva trinity (they are one and the same), is the supreme consciousness, the ultimate reality/GOD(s) who creates all, preserves all, and destroys all. these are infinite. whileas deities such as indra, are beings endowed with supernatural capabilities, but never more than that. these are finite.

evidence show that in all indo-european mythology (indians included), there used to be one supreme powerful being, along with a number of other, lesser beings. with time, some rose to prominence, others fade away, but almost invariably, lesser entities would assume the role of a supreme ruler. in greece/rome, god of thunder; in gaul, god of druids.

perhaps, they too, could not fathom a supreme, all-powerful GOD. after all, if humans are limited in what they are capable of, why should gods not be limited in the same way?

put it in a chinese context, 上帝 used to have an infinite connotation, such as Mozi's de????ion "I know Heaven loves men dearly not without reason. Heaven ordered the sun, the moon, and the stars to enlighten and guide them. Heaven ordained the four seasons, Spring, Autumn, Winter, and Summer, to regulate them. Heaven sent down snow, frost, rain, and dew to grow the five grains and flax and silk so that the people could use and enjoy them. Heaven established the hills and river, ravines and valleys, and arranged many things to minister to man's good or bring him evil." (from Book 7, Chapter 27 (aka 天志, "Will of Heaven"), paragraph 8)

but as the taoist/chinese heavenly system evolved, partially influenced by the buddhist pantheon, partially modelled after chinese royal court system, the quality of "infinity" was lost, to the point where even "元始天尊", an attempt to personlify TAO itself, became no more than a common deity.

my question for you is, when you said "我信上帝", do you mean that you believe in a supreme being, or do you mean that you merely believe in the existence of supernatural?

我不同意“不信上帝就進不了天堂”，因為我覺得上帝沒那麼小氣；不信上帝的人畢竟多於信上帝的人，讓大多數人進地獄應該不是上帝的德性。

i'm sure that, others on this board, a few specific people such as xinmin, is heck of a lot more qualified than i am in going thru the intricacies of sins, atonement, and salvation. but allow me a feeble attempt.

let's deviate from the topic above, since you have taken the issue away from a general "theism", to a specific "christianism"... although i cannot help but notice, that while you denied this supernatural being his "all-powerful" status, you nevertheless endowed him with an "all-good" quality. I wonder, if this entity in your belief is limited in one way, can he truly be unlimited in another?

but we digress.

similar to your belief, christian belief of GOD include an "all-good" quality, yet somehow, this must reconcile with the fact that humans, in contrast, is NOT "all-good". most of us can claim that we are "good enough", but how many of us can claim that we are "absolutely good" and "absolutely pure"? is "good enough" really enough when confronting with the "absolute"? can "good" and "not so good" exist together harmoniously? it's an important question, for good = able to be with GOD (another way of saying "heaven"); not-good = not able to be with GOD (another way of saying "hell")

anyway, most christians will tell you, "good" and "not so good" can exist together harmoniously, sort of. although, not without a price to pay. fortunately, the price is paid, by GOD himself, thru his death. so essential part of christianity then, is to agree that "i am not so good". and to accept JESUS dying for us, means that "i, as a person that's not so good, want to be given a chance to change all that". that's a very superficial way of explaining the christian belief. i hope it makes sense. cos i often do not.

now, how to embrace GOD, or GOOD, is something else altogether. while going to a poor country to serve the people is certainly an honourable thing to do, it's not necessarily "embracing GOD". i've seen people doing that to embrace their own vanity, their sense of supriority, or even sense of adventure. by the same token, nor is staying in this rich country of US of A, "embracing GOD".

embracing GOD, then, is not reflected from external actions, but internal desire and will to follow GOD, and give up oneself, and external action of actually doing so. the rest, whether it be participating in the local church, building a successful family, doing an honourable job at work, giving up personal belongings to the poor, or going to a third world country to serve those in need, are supposed to stem from that course of "embracing GOD". it's not an easy process, and each of us have our own demons to overcome, but each and every step counts, this is the beauty of an "all-good GOD".

now, how many of us "christians" are truly "embracing GOD", rather than "trading faith for good fortune", I cannot tell, nor is it up to me to judge. i just know there is ONE who does. i dont know, maybe you can tell. or can you?