With suffering and hell, how can God be thought of as fair or kind.

[thau]

A great barrier to anyone exercising faith is that they cannot accept a good God would allow so much suffering on earth. And by remaining in dissent they often refuse to consider all that has been manifested in history which cries out the God of Abraham is God. To many, these troubling affairs must first be satisfied or explained before they draw any nearer.

The following allegory tries to demonstrate the need for trials and suffering. A marriage is arranged between you and the most adorable girl, one who is kind and delightful beyond all measure. But she is forced to be your bride, she is given no choice in the matter. Similarly, in a second scenario, this same girl by chance finds you along the path of life and instead of being obliged to be your bride, instead falls in love with you and desires you for herself. She makes many efforts to please you and willfully suffers for you, fails often but seeks forgiveness. Which of these two would give you the greater joy? Perhaps when God said He created us in His own image that is partially what He was referring to? He, too, prefers one who chooses to love Him and sacrifice for Him and take risks, as opposed to creating a being incapable of making free will choices to want to love Him. As given in Scripture, Our Lord says man is higher than the angels for this very reason of free will. Our earthly trials merit these greater virtues and are more pleasing to God.

Life is a trial, a test, a means to an end. There is no honor if it requires no effort and no faith on our part. If that were the case, God may as well have just bypassed humanity and earth and made us all like angels incapable of sinning but also no valor in our beings. God allows suffering and evil to bring out a greater good in us. Another saint explained God also allows the suffering of the innocents to atone for the souls of great sinners. It will only be revealed how it all worked together in the hereafter. We are called upon to carry our cross and share in the sufferings Jesus bore for us.

Sirach 2:1-6
My son, when you come to serve the Lord, prepare yourself for trials. Be sincere of heart and steadfast, undisturbed in time of adversity. Cling to him, forsake Him not, thus your future will be great. Accept whatever befalls you, in crushing misfortune be patient; For in fire gold is tested, and worthy men in the crucible of humiliation.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Why must there be a hell, I submit, surpasses all mysteries of life, death and eternity. It seems apparent that answer is not for man to know this side of the grave and is as God so intended. Has not enough been revealed to us in order to know God exists, what He asks of us, and what He promises to those willing to accept it and try to live by the gospel? What right does one have to demand the answers to all of their questions before they accept all else which has been revealed? Is that not the great sin of the pride of man? Is this not where our faith is truly tested? “My ways are not your ways, sayeth the Lord.”

C.S. Lewis imagined what hell might be like in his intriguing novel “The Great Divorce.” A fantasy account of souls in heaven and in hell conversing with one another. In two of the final three chapters of this book Lewis suggests an explanation for hell, (my crude paraphrase) that being that nothing defiled can enter the kingdom of heaven (also declared in the Book of Revelation 21:27). God is pure holiness and heaven is immaculate and therefore cannot contain even the slightest defilement of even one single sin. (cue: a need for purgatory as well) So if those who rejected God cannot let go of their bad ways or selfish thoughts (as Lewis suggests is the condition of a soul in hell), then the heavens are compelled to repel the very idea that such a soul or condition could ever be allowed to defile the immaculate purity of God's kingdom. Such a man has rejected God so utterly on earth he cannot let go of his defiance or objection to God’s justice --- and God cannot allow that unrepentant soul’s present state to defile the pure holiness of heaven. The soul in hell says God’s punishments are unjust and demands some level of mercy because God created him, but even his demands are part of his unholiness. He expects God to change before he does. We are at an impasse.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Perhaps no one can say why there has to be an eternal hell for some souls, but I do have a question for those who may reject God for that reason. I am wondering now. But I believe God loves you enough where perhaps if you are not happy with the idea of being given the gift of eternal life because the possibility of hell also exists, then maybe you can appeal in a prayer? Ask God if at the moment you pass from this world, might he just turn you into a rock instead? Pure oblivion, no pain, no consciousness, no nothing. In that way you will not risk any suffering in hell -- which you never asked for, by the way, when He created you. Ok, that’s true. However, in so doing, neither will you ever be given the opportunity to know heaven or see your loved ones again or have any consciousness. That would have to be the bargain.

I am curious to know if this disturbance to the idea of hell is a primary reason many choose to not to think about God very much or do much about it? Perhaps understandable to a degree, but why would anyone still not be fascinated, if not obsessed, with what life and death is all about and what may lie ahead? The evidence can be found in so many places, in so many ways about this God which so many want to believe in yet keep at a safe distance just the same. The evidence for Jesus, Mary, the saints, the miracles, heaven, hell, purgatory, and redemption all can be known. I submit Christianity has given far more to this world than all of its failures combined. God can only work with sinners so is it fair to point only to the failures of this faith and ignore its virtues when judging the message and works?

God’s promise to the world is that heaven awaits those who seek Him, yet if you choose to be filled with pride and live this life only for yourself, its pleasures and its comforts --- and in so doing ignore His calling, even His existence, then perhaps an awful fate is possible? It is a risk, granted, but is it unfair? Would one prefer to be turned into a rock instead? Maybe God will honor your free will and grant such a way out? But who would choose anything so dour and final as that when there is so much to hope for and be grateful for? Nothing unfair or unloving about it in the least.

“God reveals His covenant to those who fear Him.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

[sandy whitelinger]

To begin with please show me in the Bible where the word fair is used to describe anything but weather and women. Next, why is it that God must only be one dimensional?

 

[thau]

To begin with please show me in the Bible where the word fair is used to describe anything but weather and women. Next, why is it that God must only be one dimensional?

I am quite certain God is referred to in the Bible as “just” in many places and ways. That is a primary definition of "fair" as I used the term.

What I do not consider to be “unfair.” Example: One innocent child gets cancer and another innocent child in her village does not.

I am not sure what you mean by why must God be one dimensional? I surely do not put limitations on Him. The purpose of my top post was, for one, to address so many posters and others elsewhere who are not thrilled about God (if he exists) because he allows suffering, and also, because the indications are some may end up in hell. And our best understanding of hell is that it is eternal.

 

[jeager106]

Gee whiz. Didja have to post such a loooooong disertation?
Wow.
If'n ya just did some study you would know "fair" ain't got nuthin' to do with nuthin'.
Hell does not exist as a place of damnation, never did.

 

[thau]

Gee whiz. Didja have to post such a loooooong disertation?
Wow.
If'n ya just did some study you would know "fair" ain't got nuthin' to do with nuthin'.
Hell does not exist as a place of damnation, never did.

You're right. It was lengthy, which is rarely welcome. But at least you made the attempt which I appreciate.

Be that as it may, it is broken up into three parts. And whether hell exists or not, hypothetically I would be curious what you think of part three? Fair or not fair?

 

[viole]

A great barrier to anyone exercising faith is that they cannot accept a good God would allow so much suffering on earth. And by remaining in dissent they often refuse to consider all that has been manifested in history which cries out the God of Abraham is God. To many, these troubling affairs must first be satisfied or explained before they draw any nearer.

The following allegory tries to demonstrate the need for trials and suffering. A marriage is arranged between you and the most adorable girl, one who is kind and delightful beyond all measure. But she is forced to be your bride, she is given no choice in the matter. Similarly, in a second scenario, this same girl by chance finds you along the path of life and instead of being obliged to be your bride, instead falls in love with you and desires you for herself. She makes many efforts to please you and willfully suffers for you, fails often but seeks forgiveness. Which of these two would give you the greater joy? Perhaps when God said He created us in His own image that is partially what He was referring to? He, too, prefers one who chooses to love Him and sacrifice for Him and take risks, as opposed to creating a being incapable of making free will choices to want to love Him. As given in Scripture, Our Lord says man is higher than the angels for this very reason of free will. Our earthly trials merit these greater virtues and are more pleasing to God.

Life is a trial, a test, a means to an end. There is no honor if it requires no effort and no faith on our part. If that were the case, God may as well have just bypassed humanity and earth and made us all like angels incapable of sinning but also no valor in our beings. God allows suffering and evil to bring out a greater good in us. Another saint explained God also allows the suffering of the innocents to atone for the souls of great sinners. It will only be revealed how it all worked together in the hereafter. We are called upon to carry our cross and share in the sufferings Jesus bore for us.

Sirach 2:1-6
My son, when you come to serve the Lord, prepare yourself for trials. Be sincere of heart and steadfast, undisturbed in time of adversity. Cling to him, forsake Him not, thus your future will be great. Accept whatever befalls you, in crushing misfortune be patient; For in fire gold is tested, and worthy men in the crucible of humiliation.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Why must there be a hell, I submit, surpasses all mysteries of life, death and eternity. It seems apparent that answer is not for man to know this side of the grave and is as God so intended. Has not enough been revealed to us in order to know God exists, what He asks of us, and what He promises to those willing to accept it and try to live by the gospel? What right does one have to demand the answers to all of their questions before they accept all else which has been revealed? Is that not the great sin of the pride of man? Is this not where our faith is truly tested? “My ways are not your ways, sayeth the Lord.”

C.S. Lewis imagined what hell might be like in his intriguing novel “The Great Divorce.” A fantasy account of souls in heaven and in hell conversing with one another. In two of the final three chapters of this book Lewis suggests an explanation for hell, (my crude paraphrase) that being that nothing defiled can enter the kingdom of heaven (also declared in the Book of Revelation 21:27). God is pure holiness and heaven is immaculate and therefore cannot contain even the slightest defilement of even one single sin. (cue: a need for purgatory as well) So if those who rejected God cannot let go of their bad ways or selfish thoughts (as Lewis suggests is the condition of a soul in hell), then the heavens are compelled to repel the very idea that such a soul or condition could ever be allowed to defile the immaculate purity of God's kingdom. Such a man has rejected God so utterly on earth he cannot let go of his defiance or objection to God’s justice --- and God cannot allow that unrepentant soul’s present state to defile the pure holiness of heaven. The soul in hell says God’s punishments are unjust and demands some level of mercy because God created him, but even his demands are part of his unholiness. He expects God to change before he does. We are at an impasse.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Perhaps no one can say why there has to be an eternal hell for some souls, but I do have a question for those who may reject God for that reason. I am wondering now. But I believe God loves you enough where perhaps if you are not happy with the idea of being given the gift of eternal life because the possibility of hell also exists, then maybe you can appeal in a prayer? Ask God if at the moment you pass from this world, might he just turn you into a rock instead? Pure oblivion, no pain, no consciousness, no nothing. In that way you will not risk any suffering in hell -- which you never asked for, by the way, when He created you. Ok, that’s true. However, in so doing, neither will you ever be given the opportunity to know heaven or see your loved ones again or have any consciousness. That would have to be the bargain.

I am curious to know if this disturbance to the idea of hell is a primary reason many choose to not to think about God very much or do much about it? Perhaps understandable to a degree, but why would anyone still not be fascinated, if not obsessed, with what life and death is all about and what may lie ahead? The evidence can be found in so many places, in so many ways about this God which so many want to believe in yet keep at a safe distance just the same. The evidence for Jesus, Mary, the saints, the miracles, heaven, hell, purgatory, and redemption all can be known. I submit Christianity has given far more to this world than all of its failures combined. God can only work with sinners so is it fair to point only to the failures of this faith and ignore its virtues when judging the message and works?

God’s promise to the world is that heaven awaits those who seek Him, yet if you choose to be filled with pride and live this life only for yourself, its pleasures and its comforts --- and in so doing ignore His calling, even His existence, then perhaps an awful fate is possible? It is a risk, granted, but is it unfair? Would one prefer to be turned into a rock instead? Maybe God will honor your free will and grant such a way out? But who would choose anything so dour and final as that when there is so much to hope for and be grateful for? Nothing unfair or unloving about it in the least.

“God reveals His covenant to those who fear Him.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This is Pascal wager with all those risks and stuff.

Are you not risking as well by not believing in Allah? Do you think Allah will honour your free will or your disadvantage by being born and indoctrinated, presumably, in a Christian area for reasons outside your control?

Who knows? You might burn in hell like the rest of us.

Ciao

- viole

 

[thau]

This is Pascal wager with all those risks and stuff.

Are you not risking as well by not believing in Allah? Do you think Allah will honour your free will or your disadvantage by being born and indoctrinated, presumably, in a Christian area for reasons outside your control?

Who knows? You might burn in hell like the rest of us.

Ciao

- viole

I do not agree. First of all, Pascal’s wager is obvious to a 12 year old, we need not give him any credit for some kind of marvelous idea or insight.

But in the third part, I do not ask “why would anyone take such a risk” at all. What I ask is if God offered you such an “out” of No Risk, but No Reward, would that be fair of Him? Yes or no. That has nothing to do with Pascal's wager.

 

[viole]

I do not agree. First of all, Pascal’s wager is obvious to a 12 year old, we need not give him any credit for some kind of marvelous idea or insight.

But in the third part, I do not ask “why would anyone take such a risk” at all. What I ask is if God offered you such an “out” of No Risk, but No Reward, would that be fair of Him? Yes or no. That has nothing to do with Pascal's wager.

It strictly depends on what the risks and rewards are.

What are they?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Rick O'Shez]

A great barrier to anyone exercising faith is that they cannot accept a good God would allow so much suffering on earth.

It's never made sense to me why a loving God would allow genocide, wars, crime, child abuse, murder, famine, poverty, disease, cancer and so on. It still doesn't I'm afraid.

 

[The Hammer]

It's never made sense to me why a loving God would allow genocide, wars, crime, child abuse, murder, famine, poverty, disease, cancer and so on. It still doesn't I'm afraid.

It's makes perfect sense if you consider the fact that the God Moses made a covenant with, was the Canaanite War-God of Israel. What would a God like that want, except more wars? Right?

 

[jeager106]

It's makes perfect sense if you consider the fact that the God Moses made a covenant with, was the Canaanite War-God of Israel. What would a God like that want, except more wars? Right?

Yeah, I gotta agree with that.
So get yerself a gun and learn how to use it it.

 

[thau]

It strictly depends on what the risks and rewards are.

What are they?

Ciao

- viole

Simply put, the risks are this.

God has revealed to those who can see or conceive that we are given free will and are on some kind of trial in our earthly life. How we will be judged is debatable, but is appears to me that those who have been given knowledge of the truth, of a savior, of His pleadings with us to accept this gift through faith but also exercise a degree of sacrifice and obedience, the promise of eventual heaven looks promising. If we choose to ignore God or reject God and do as we please then we risk divine punishments, possibly eternal.

Now to those who think it is highly unfair of God to put such a proposition before those of us who never asked to be created yet are now in potential peril from disobedience, then perhaps God will allow such a person a second option. If you do not want to risk eternal hell then ask God to blot you out of existence when you die. In that way you will not be subject to a possible hell, yet you will also forfeit the chance of being in heaven for all eternity. If you can choose non-existence upon death, then there is no risk of punishment. Would you choose that option? Why is that unfair of God?

 

[Kolibri]

Much is lost I feel when the Bible accounts are treated as myth or legend. The issues raised in the Garden of Eden created a detour not intended in the 7th day, the day of rest from God's creative works. We are still able to be confident that by the end of this Sabbath that God will be able to look and say "Yes, the earth is filled with righteousness. Sons and daughters of Adam do have the earth in balanced subjection and the whole earth is a garden of pleasure. Yes, it is very good."

What are the issues?
1) Would man be better off living independent from God? Was God really holding back anything good from Eve as the serpent suggested? Is God really a bad ruler? Time was needed to settle this issue. And for the most part God would need to temporarily take his hands off so as to not prove the serpent's assertion for him. By protecting man while he is living independent, he would be supporting the lie that Man can rule himself successfully.

2)Jehovah is showing confidence in his loyal ones by allowing them them to be tested - up to a point. When Job was tested, Satan made the charge: "Skin for skin. A man will give everything that he has for his life." All of us have the opportunity to prove Satan a liar in regard to our own personal integrity. That charge is still being made toward Jehovah's loyal ones as seen by Proverbs 27:11.
"Be wise, my son, and make my heart rejoice, So that I can make a reply to him who taunts me." - Proverbs 27:11

We are assured, however, that God "has set a day on which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness." (Acts 17:31) That unchangeable day is fast approaching, despite the fact that it is prophesied to take most people unawares, as if by a thief.

 

[The Hammer]

Yeah, I gotta agree with that.
So get yerself a gun and learn how to use it it.

Done and done.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I am quite certain God is referred to in the Bible as “just” in many places and ways. That is a primary definition of "fair" as I used the term.

What I do not consider to be “unfair.” Example: One innocent child gets cancer and another innocent child in her village does not.

I am not sure what you mean by why must God be one dimensional? I surely do not put limitations on Him. The purpose of my top post was, for one, to address so many posters and others elsewhere who are not thrilled about God (if he exists) because he allows suffering, and also, because the indications are some may end up in hell. And our best understanding of hell is that it is eternal.

Being just in reference to God has to do with what is morally or legally correct. Fair brings up the connotation of being impartial. In the application of Law God is just. Being omnipotent pretty much precludes being fair since how is fallible man going to compete with an infallible God? As to one dimensional, while God can be just it is not His only attribute. For example, how can a loving God be wrathful? He has more than one attribute.

Finally, just because you use a term in a certain way does not mean you are using it correctly.

 

[gsa]

Why must there be a hell, I submit, surpasses all mysteries of life, death and eternity. It seems apparent that answer is not for man to know this side of the grave and is as God so intended.

Seems mighty strange to leave it a big ol' mystery with things like eternity on the line. I mean, he was relatively clear about the need for the human sacrifice to atone for the sins of man, so he could be clear about the need to punish people with everlasting hellfire, one would think.

Has not enough been revealed to us in order to know God exists, what He asks of us, and what He promises to those willing to accept it and try to live by the gospel?

No. Quite the contrary, in fact: What can be discerned from nature and experience suggests that we cannot know that God exists, what such a being would ask of us (if it would even be interested, contra deism) or what the promises of such a being to man are. What can be discerned from history suggests that your god was a failed messianic claimant with theologically innovative followers who captured the zeitgeist for a time, and have now lost control of the most advanced economies as the crucified god recedes into myth and memory.

What right does one have to demand the answers to all of their questions before they accept all else which has been revealed? Is that not the great sin of the pride of man? Is this not where our faith is truly tested? “My ways are not your ways, sayeth the Lord.”

It would seem strange for a God of love not to want to answer those questions very, very clearly. I mean he could have just written parts of the gospel on the side of the moon, for example. I can think of all sorts of ways that we would not be left in the dark, dependent on the claims of curiously human institutions like your church.

The overwhelming evidence suggests that Christianity and the other revealed religions are false. Unless they are watered down to the point where they serve as nothing more than interpretive communities that use metaphor to make sense of the world.

 

[thau]

Being just in reference to God has to do with what is morally or legally correct. Fair brings up the connotation of being impartial. In the application of Law God is just. Being omnipotent pretty much precludes being fair since how is fallible man going to compete with an infallible God? As to one dimensional, while God can be just it is not His only attribute. For example, how can a loving God be wrathful? He has more than one attribute.

Finally, just because you use a term in a certain way does not mean you are using it correctly.

You suggest I may be using the term “fair” incorrectly, well I think what I expound on makes it clear what I mean. But in the first line of your response you attempt to define “just” in reference to God. Here I find your definition too narrow or strict. Why do you insist that man is in competition with God? God is fair in His gifts, His promises, His judgments. Most cannot conceive that, of course, so I attempted to suggest how that might be. I ask at the end, what is so unfair with the proposition I put forth?

To suggest an answer to your other question, a loving God can be wrathful as long as man allows God a deeper, more sublime or mystical understanding of what we perceive as wrathful. If you can accept what God has revealed then why can you not allow Him his omnipotence and deeper revelations to what the heavens and eternity may have to offer?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I am curious to know if this disturbance to the idea of hell is a primary reason many choose to not to think about God very much or do much about it?

Evening,

Actually, for me--in my noggin and in my heart--hell doesn't exist. It's actually defeating the purpose of God giving man the free will to choose Him and punish Him (directly or not) for the choice He gave man to begin with. Since God is never comfortable with the decisions He made on behalf of taking care of His Children and is not at least accepting that some will not love Him they way He wants them to, there will always be a force on the parent for His child to love Him (not a choice).

It is like a human parent telling a child, "oh you have a choice to play with anything in the play pin except for this knife here."

And the child is wide eyed and jumps....listening to his or her inner voice "what is that shinny thing over there... go see what it is"

As a child he touches the knife, and of course, he is punished for his disobeydience.

I don't believe in physical harm (by fire, ignoring, things like that) to punish people for their mistakes--that's just me. God is the opposite. We cannot learn to love and want to love Him when the only choices we have is to love Him or die.

That is not a choice, that is an ultimatum. That is not love.

Many non-christians who have this feeling may not feel love through an ultimatum. They may feel they have no freedom of choice and their freedom of choice is not given by their parent with whom gave them any choice to begin with.

It's a cycle. So it does not make sense to believe in a God (being) who sanctions punishment and sends people for hell for the simple act of disbelief.

It's natural for you to want someone else to know the love you feel with God. On the other hand, it has to be accepted that each person is different and what you feel is perfect, eternal, and nice is to another person bad, cruel, or unrealistic. (One man's trash is another man's treasure; visa versa).
---
I'm sure many non-believers accept that Christianity's doctrine is that all without Christ will suffer (either from an absence of Him or by literal punishment);

...they, just want Christians to accept their belief in hell not existing and accept they can feel the same amount of love you feel even though they personally don't get it from God.

 

[thau]

Seems mighty strange to leave it a big ol' mystery with things like eternity on the line. I mean, he was relatively clear about the need for the human sacrifice to atone for the sins of man, so he could be clear about the need to punish people with everlasting hellfire, one would think.



No. Quite the contrary, in fact: What can be discerned from nature and experience suggests that we cannot know that God exists, what such a being would ask of us (if it would even be interested, contra deism) or what the promises of such a being to man are. What can be discerned from history suggests that your god was a failed messianic claimant with theologically innovative followers who captured the zeitgeist for a time, and have now lost control of the most advanced economies as the crucified god recedes into myth and memory.



It would seem strange for a God of love not to want to answer those questions very, very clearly. I mean he could have just written parts of the gospel on the side of the moon, for example. I can think of all sorts of ways that we would not be left in the dark, dependent on the claims of curiously human institutions like your church.

The overwhelming evidence suggests that Christianity and the other revealed religions are false. Unless they are watered down to the point where they serve as nothing more than interpretive communities that use metaphor to make sense of the world.

Seems mighty strange to leave it a big ol' mystery with things like eternity on the line. I mean, he was relatively clear about the need for the human sacrifice to atone for the sins of man, so he could be clear about the need to punish people with everlasting hellfire, one would think.

Well if you ignore the promise of eternal life and just remain stubbornly in defiance because of a mention of a hell, then I can see you building a case for refusal to obey. However, that does not seem right for me.

Also, the mystery is not if there is a hell, but why God would have it? But as I said, the promises of eternity are so awesome who are we to dispute that which has not been revealed and ignore the gift?

No. Quite the contrary, in fact: What can be discerned from nature and experience suggests that we cannot know that God exists, what such a being would ask of us (if it would even be interested, contra deism) or what the promises of such a being to man are. What can be discerned from history suggests that your god was a failed messianic claimant with theologically innovative followers who captured the zeitgeist for a time, and have now lost control of the most advanced economies as the crucified god recedes into myth and memory.

Well a vast chasm of understanding remains between you and so many who have gone before you. They ( and I ) would vehemently disagree on almost all major points. 1) God absolutely has been revealed through nature and experience. 2) God has made clear what He desires of His creation. 3) I have no idea what you mean by God being a failure? How do you know? If everyone was in heaven after their earthly life would you call your trial on earth valueless or a failure? 4) Nothing suggests to me our civilization has “advanced” if you are only going to measure it on economic means or comfort means. Those hardly count in the greater scope of things.

It would seem strange for a God of love not to want to answer those questions very, very clearly. I mean he could have just written parts of the gospel on the side of the moon, for example. I can think of all sorts of ways that we would not be left in the dark, dependent on the claims of curiously human institutions like your church.

Yes, God surely could have written His message on the moon or in the skies but then what is the point of our earthly lives? If everything is crystal clear then there is no need for any faith. Nothing would be merited to our efforts or obedience. God may as well have just placed us in heaven like the angels and skip the whole trip. But I think I illustrated in my top post why there is a need for suffering and sacrifice and why it has real value and is pleasing to God on many levels. It also requires some degree of faith to pursue it to its end, but far from a blind faith. The biggest pieces are known.

The overwhelming evidence suggests that Christianity and the other revealed religions are false. Unless they are watered down to the point where they serve as nothing more than interpretive communities that use metaphor to make sense of the world.

The overwhelming evidence more than just suggests Christianity is true and Jesus Christ is the One and Only. I guess we have been down this road before.

 

[gsa]

Well if you ignore the promise of eternal life and just remain stubbornly in defiance because of a mention of a hell, then I can see you building a case for refusal to obey. However, that does not seem right for me.

Don't be ridiculous. If I thought there was a better than 50% chance that your beliefs were valid (i.e., true) I would be talking to a priest in no time. I’m not building up a case to disobey, because if there was a promise of eternal reward I would happily believe. Alas, the chances of Christianity being true are dismal. The bare assertions that Christianity offers eternal life do not move me any more than the Book of Mormon or the Quran. I won’t lose any sleep over Islamic hellfire or the threat of outer darkness, nor will I anticipate virgins and exaltation.

Also, the mystery is not if there is a hell, but why God would have it? But as I said, the promises of eternity are so awesome who are we to dispute that which has not been revealed and ignore the gift?

Right, that’s the central question: Why? And why are the reasons and explanations given by “God’s church” and the “Word of God” so muddled and unworthy of credence?

Well a vast chasm of understanding remains between you and so many who have gone before you.

Many of those people believed that the world was a dome and condemned geocentrism as heresy. They murdered people, often after torture, for the “sins” of atheism, apostasy, heresy, premarital sex, adultery and homosexuality. They thought that Jews engaged in cannibalistic rituals, and placed collective blame on them for deicide. They slaughtered Muslims who dared to occupy “their” holy land. Their moral and intellectual compass is about as trustworthy as Joseph Stalin’s.

They ( and I ) would vehemently disagree on almost all major points. 1) God absolutely has been revealed through nature and experience.

See what’s fascinating about this claim is that nature consistently reveals design, but no designer. I am not denying that there are emergent, complex properties, but they are explained without resort to an omnipotent Creator. Nature does not foreclose a certain kind of deity, but it does not mandate one either.

As for experience, it is almost always subjective, individual experience we are left to believe in these days. The testimony of cradle to grave believers, whose accounts predictably vary based on geography and religious upbringing. There are no djinn sightings in the United States, and very few appearances of the Virgin Mary in Thailand. The bible does recount amazing tales of collective experience of the divine, but these examples of God’s intervention miraculously recede as recording mechanisms improve and scientists and engineers map the contours of the unknown.

2) God has made clear what He desires of His creation.

So clear that he has not only divided the children of Abraham into three major traditions, but has further subdivided those traditions. Particularly Christianity, which has been divided from its inception. This is not exactly a model of clarity, and you certainly do not see this level of conflict over basic principles within other fields of inquiry (i.e., biology).

3) I have no idea what you mean by God being a failure? How do you know?

Not God in the abstract, which may or may not exist, but your Jesus god. He was just a failed messianic claimant, which were a dime a dozen during the Second Temple period. After he was executed his followers came up with a way of explaining his death, using innovative but tortured readings of a flawed Greek translation of Hebrew scriptures, and combining those “interpretations” with made up stories about his life. There was probably a skeleton of truth in some collected sayings and the passion narrative (temple, execution, burial), but that’s it.

If everyone was in heaven after their earthly life would you call your trial on earth valueless or a failure?

If I did not go to heaven as a result of my failure to believe, absolutely! It would mean that I was wrong, and that I missed out on a (literally) once in a lifetime opportunity. So yes. Of course, if we all go to heaven anyway and it is of no consequence what I believed or how I behaved, I probably wouldn’t be too upset.

Nothing suggests to me our civilization has “advanced” if you are only going to measure it on economic means or comfort means. Those hardly count in the greater scope of things.

Advanced economies, which does not necessarily imply anything about their level of moral and intellectual sophistication. That said, education has clearly helped drive a stake through the heart of Christian dominance.

Yes, God surely could have written His message on the moon or in the skies but then what is the point of our earthly lives? If everything is crystal clear then there is no need for any faith. Nothing would be merited to our efforts or obedience. God may as well have just placed us in heaven like the angels and skip the whole trip. But I think I illustrated in my top post why there is a need for suffering and sacrifice and why it has real value and is pleasing to God on many levels. It also requires some degree of faith to pursue it to its end, but far from a blind faith. The biggest pieces are known.

Praise and worship of the Creator, surely, is the point of this earthly vale of tears? I mean I am not sure what to take away from this kind of question, because you would seem to imply that if God’s message is sufficiently clear there’s no purpose at all to life, yet you just got done telling me that God is quite clear about revealing himself and his expectations of humanity. When I point out a much better method of communication, you resort to the need for faith. Then you say that the “biggest pieces are known,” but you’ve already implicitly conceded that they can’t be known because we need to have faith!

It is just a completely irrational way of looking at the world. You’re twisting and turning to accommodate a belief system that you can clearly see is riddled with holes.