How Do Christians Reconcile The Following Question Regarding Their Faith?

[Hockeycowboy]

I'm glad you've joined the conversation, Hockeycowboy. I will be looking forward to comparing beliefs with you. You've told Buttercup what you believe about the Fall of Adam. I haven't done so yet, but will tomorrow. I've gotta get to sleep, too!

Thank you.

 

[prometheus11]

If I may ask you a question: growing up, how do you know it was wrong of you to disobey your Mom and Dad? (As an example Were you told that, if you touched your Dad's prized model airplane, you'd get in trouble? There were many other models he had, and you could play with them; but that one, you couldn't touch.

Would it be wrong of him to 'lay that law' down? No....as your Dad, he was the authority figure. He had the right to tell you what you could and couldn't do. You needed to recognize that.

Now, your parents would spank you for 'breaking the law.' God's punishment was more severe! Why?

I'll get into that later. Life beckons!

Take care.

Please answer my question.

Adam did not have knowledge of good and evil before eating the fruit of the tree that gave him knowledge of good and evil. So how could Adam know disobedience was evil before he had the ability to know what good and evil was?

 

[Katzpur]

I have considered that. It had the opposite effect: http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/extremes-of-atheism-vs-theism.159432/page-11#post-3661671

Now that doesn't make sense to me at all! In that post, you said:

I wondered for a long time how people like you could be so sure that God exists while people like me could see no reason whatsoever to believe. I think I finally figured it out, though: both sets of people's mental models work very well generally. You (probably) function quite well in the world assuming that God is behind everything and are rarely or never confronted wuth things that are incompatible with this assumption. But here's the thing - and you'll have to take my word for it - this is true for people who assume that no gods exist at all; they don't encounter things that are incompatible with THAT assumption either.

That's essentially what I was saying. We're both seeing the same evidence and interpreting it differently. You've used the phrase "mental models" and I agree that my set of mental models works very well for me, whereas yours (which is completely opposite from mine) works just as well for me. The thing is, neither of us can say with absolute certainty how that "mental model" came to be. I tend to think it's inborn and you don't.

While I agree that this is staggering and literally awesome, it doesn't so much as nudge me toward God as an explanation. I don't think that "God-of-the-gaps" arguments are reasonable in the first place, and I think the time to ask whether a particular mechanism might have been responsible for something is after the existence of the mechanism has been established.

So since it doesn't nudge you towards God as an explanation, what "particular mechanism" does it nudge you toward. It's easy for you to dismiss the existence of God, but that's all you've really done so far. You haven't offered any kind of an alternative. "A particular mechanism" might be one if you could explain what it was.

I'm careful not to use the term "prove" myself. Proof is for math. But I think that for a belief to be reasonable, it should be justified, so I don't think it's out of place to ask for that justification. I think this is especially true with religious beliefs, because when it comes to religion, we're not usually dealing with a level of certainty like "I lean slightly towards this being true"; we're dealing with a level of certainty like "I'm so convinced that this is true that I'm going to devote my life to it."

My husband and I had a conversation a while back. I said that we can't just "choose" to either believe or disbelieve something because of what someone else tells us. He kept insisting that he had made the conscious "choice" to believe Mormonism. I think that, in a way, we were both right. Certain things, things, concepts, etc. just resonate with certain people and don't with others. They feel right; they ring true. There's really no explanation as to why, any more than there is an explanation as to why I love emerald green and don't like teal in the slightest. But once you identify something as feeling right to you, there's still the problem of it being unprovable -- either to you or to anybody else. At that point, if it works with your "mental model," you take the next step and accept it as something you want to live with. Certain religions (Mormonism is definitely one of them) require that you devote your life to them. They aren't Sunday-only religions but a way of life you make a decision to accept and embrace. And if you can't do that, you don't become a Mormon. Inherent in the religion itself is the concept of sacrifice, and that concept definitely doesn't fit with some people's mental models of what life should be like.

I also think that there's an additional level of responsibility for justification that comes with evangelism. Anyone who goes up to another person and tells them that they should set aside their beliefs in favour of the belief system being evangelized to them ought to be able to answer the question "why should I?" Even if you weren't a missionary personally, considering the degree of evangelism that the LDS Church as a whole engages in, they ought to have justifications galore that you would have access to.

I don't know how you differentiate between a "proof" and a "justification," or what kinds of "justifications galore" you're thinking of. For the most part, Mormon missionaries are looking for people who are looking for something that a belief in the gospel of Jesus Christ will provide for them. If it works with their mental model, it seems to be a perfect fit and they end up being happier and more content with life than they ever have been. Questions that have been nagging at them for years are finally resolved with clarity. If, on the other hand, they try to force it to work for them when it doesn't naturally happen, they end up miserable.

Well, I think you know that I don't believe I can count on being able to investigate deep questions in any kind of afterlife, so I wouldn't find that approach to be satisfying.

I realize that, but you may just find that you're faced with those questions again after death. Sooner or later, you might just have to resolve them with some degree of conviction.

... and in the meantime, I think we can both agree that in whatever earthly life I have left, what I believe will affect my actions, and the more correct my beliefs are, the better my chances of acting in good ways and not in bad ones.

Yes, we can agree on that.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Held accountable? How silly.
God made us. He made the world. So who, exactly, would God be accountable too? You?

You're right - God needn't be accountable to anyone at all - which is a somewhat scary proposition, honestly. I don't feel this statement really works toward your end of the argument. God being infinitely capable, with complete impunity makes any action he makes "right" - and that is regardless what any human's take is on the situation. In other words, what any of us consider "evil", may not be, if God were behind it. The problems with this are presented in my reply to the next bit of your post below...

The problem with questions like these is you automatically assume you have the moral high-ground, but you don't.

The problem here is that no one was arguing that they "had the moral high-ground". The only claim made was that God basically breaks His own definitions of morality quite often - the ones He passed down to us. And He expects us to follow Him after doing so? Now that is silly. It's akin to a parent demanding their child not use profanity when every other word out of their mouth is a curse. Except that instead of using vulgar, but otherwise harmless curse words we're talking about murder and all the atrocities of war.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I was a devoted Christian for a very long time, 25 years or more - a Trinity believing Protestant taught that our creator God is omniscient (all-knowing) omnipotent (all-powerful) and omnipresent (present everywhere at the same time). This creator designed and created men and women fully and completely all by 'himself'.

What I don't understand, is if this creator purposefully designed and unleashed upon the earth a creature capable of rape and murder, why isn't 'He' to blame for these atrocities? Why would you construct a being with the potential to do so much harm to his fellow humans? What was the motive?

If my son murdered a human and I supplied the gun knowing ahead of time he'd shoot someone, I'm held accountable for my part in the homicide. How much more so should God be held accountable for DESIGNING a creature that he KNOWS ahead of time (he's omniscient, remember) will murder a fellow human?

There is no intellectually honest and satisfying answer which is consistent with an omnimax god who cares about us.

 

[McBell]

But why would the standards that He gave us then apply to Him?
Do the rules and standards we give our pets apply to us?

By what standards are we to judge god?

I will not accept that he is beyond judgment.
That is your crutch, not mine.

 

[InChrist]

The fact you are perfectly willing to tell people you don't even know whether or not they were a Christian speaks volumes.

Well, just as there are requirements which must be met for one to claim they are a medical doctor or an airline pilot there are specifications concerning what it means to claim the name of Christ. I wouldn't hesitate to determine that someone is not or never was a real pilot or doctor if they had failed to meet such requirements, despite how emphatically they made such a claim. Everyone makes judgments concerning the claims of others to a certain degree. It would be foolish to get on a plane or go to a doctor who made a claim, but didn't actually meet any of the necessary requirements. The scriptures are clear that a Christian or one who truly places their faith in Jesus Christ is born again becoming a new creation. This transformation to new life cannot be reversed where someone decides hey are no longer a "Christian". What can and does often happen is that someone may decide they no longer want to live their life in accord with the Lord, but prefer their own sinful lifestyle. In this case, they need to repent. Either way, whether someone never was a Christian or whether they are a Christian who needs to repent is sometimes difficult to differentiate, but I think their claim is nullified if they are living apart from God, never really knowing Him, or in living in rebellion.

 

[InChrist]

But why would what she did be immoral?

I understand that you think that she violated God's command, and probably that she will be punished for it, but if she guaranteed that her children would end up in Heaven and not Hell, isn't what she did the most selfless act imaginable?

Well, your said it yourself, she violated God's commandment against murder. Secondly, God alone as the Creator has the only right to take life. Third, since God said not to murder and she did she was not being selfless at all, but selfish thinking her wisdom to be above God's in relation to the lives of her children. By placing herself in a superior position to God on the matter she was easily influenced to commit such an atrocious crime against her children by satan who desires and does all he can to destroy life.

 

[Forgemaster]

Well, just as there are requirements which must be met for one to claim they are a medical doctor or an airline pilot there are specifications concerning what it means to claim the name of Christ. I wouldn't hesitate to determine that someone is not or never was a real pilot or doctor if they had failed to meet such requirements, despite how emphatically they made such a claim. Everyone makes judgments concerning the claims of others to a certain degree. It would be foolish to get on a plane or go to a doctor who made a claim, but didn't actually meet any of the necessary requirements. The scriptures are clear that a Christian or one who truly places their faith in Jesus Christ is born again becoming a new creation. This transformation to new life cannot be reversed where someone decides hey are no longer a "Christian". What can and does often happen is that someone may decide they no longer want to live their life in accord with the Lord, but prefer their own sinful lifestyle. In this case, they need to repent. Either way, whether someone never was a Christian or whether they are a Christian who needs to repent is sometimes difficult to differentiate, but I think their claim is nullified if they are living apart from God, never really knowing Him, or in living in rebellion.

For the sake of this conversation just give us the benefit of the doubt. I, and the others here, were christian, truly, but decided we didn't like the god we came to know and instead chose other paths. what then? can you blame me when the god you worship is responsible for the pain and evil in the world.

 

[prometheus11]

Well, just as there are requirements which must be met for one to claim they are a medical doctor or an airline pilot there are specifications concerning what it means to claim the name of Christ. I wouldn't hesitate to determine that someone is not or never was a real pilot or doctor if they had failed to meet such requirements, despite how emphatically they made such a claim. Everyone makes judgments concerning the claims of others to a certain degree. It would be foolish to get on a plane or go to a doctor who made a claim, but didn't actually meet any of the necessary requirements. The scriptures are clear that a Christian or one who truly places their faith in Jesus Christ is born again becoming a new creation. This transformation to new life cannot be reversed where someone decides hey are no longer a "Christian". What can and does often happen is that someone may decide they no longer want to live their life in accord with the Lord, but prefer their own sinful lifestyle. In this case, they need to repent. Either way, whether someone never was a Christian or whether they are a Christian who needs to repent is sometimes difficult to differentiate, but I think their claim is nullified if they are living apart from God, never really knowing Him, or in living in rebellion.

So, according to you, people who believed they were saved for thirty or forty years before becoming an unbeliever were never really believers? Someone could believe in God and the plan of salvation wholeheartedly yet not be saved?

Doesn't that make your god a jerk? Someone believes for most of their life, but God doesn't care?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, your said it yourself, she violated God's commandment against murder.

Why would that necessarily be immoral?

Secondly, God alone as the Creator has the only right to take life.

Says who?

Third, since God said not to murder and she did she was not being selfless at all, but selfish thinking her wisdom to be above God's in relation to the lives of her children.

You think that consigning yourself to Hell can be viewed as selfish? Bizarre.

By placing herself in a superior position to God on the matter she was easily influenced to commit such an atrocious crime against her children by satan who desires and does all he can to destroy life.

If eternal life is the one that really matters, can what she did be considered "destroying life"? By her beliefs, she was doing the exact opposite: ensuring that life would be protected.

 

[InChrist]

I was also a Christian, truly born again. But as I got further and further in I began to see that if your God exists then I want nothing to do with him. As stated before, he's selfish, cruel, and I find him to be rather petty. So you can't say I didn't know God, I did my best to do what was pleasing to him, yet here I am, a heretic, and loving every minute



And yet here we are, you follow aimlessly and without question but that's what I saw. There's so much about "the living God" that is so wrong, why differentiate between God and Satan at all? They seem to have similar traits.

If you are truly' born again then you need to repent of your rebellion against Him. It sounds to me that you didn't really know God though by the statement you made saying, " I did my best to do what was pleasing to him". Someone who is born again doesn't "try" to please God as if attempting to meet some standard by their efforts and then become disillusioned. That sounds like religion minus a relationship with Christ because in a loving relationship with Christ there is rest and peace and living a life that is pleasing to the Lord is a joyful desire.

 

[InChrist]

So, according to you, people who believed they were saved for thirty or forty years before becoming an unbeliever were never really believers? Someone could believe in God and the plan of salvation wholeheartedly yet not be saved?

Doesn't that make your god a jerk? Someone believes for most of their life, but God doesn't care?

If you are saying that someone can believe they were saved and then become an unbeliever I don't get how that makes God the jerk or uncaring one????

 

[prometheus11]

If you are saying that someone can believe they were saved and then become an unbeliever I don't get how that makes God the jerk or uncaring one????

What's the difference in believing you believe in God and Jesus' sacrifice and simply believing in God and Jesus' sacrifice?

If God is allowing people to believe they are saved when he isn't saving them or treating them as a believer in his atonement, and the bible claims to extend salvation "to them that believe," isn't he a huge jerk?

 

[Forgemaster]

If you are truly' born again then you need to repent of your rebellion against Him. It sounds to me that you didn't really know God though by the statement you made saying, " I did my best to do what was pleasing to him". Someone who is born again doesn't "try" to please God as if attempting to meet some standard by their efforts and then become disillusioned. That sounds like religion minus a relationship with Christ because in a loving relationship with Christ there is rest and peace and living a life that is pleasing to the Lord is a joyful desire.

So me trying to do good works to please God isn't how it works? I knew the standard and knew it couldn't be reached, it's a loving relationship so I tried to feel that love but no, that didn't happen, the more I prayed the more I knew I was talking to the sky, theres no love there. I wasn't trying to earn heaven, I was taught that's my how it works, I was doing it cause I thought it would make your God happy but obviously that's not how it works, slowly the bad aspects of God came forth and I decided I could no longer accept him, so I moved on. And I fail to see how that makes me the bad guy.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Please answer my question.

Adam did not have knowledge of good and evil before eating the fruit of the tree that gave him knowledge of good and evil. So how could Adam know disobedience was evil before he had the ability to know what good and evil was?

Of course he knew what was good and bad; he was created in God's image. And as a perfect creature, he was designed to always do good! He actual had to force himself to disobey. That's why the penalty was so heavy, and why the serpent (who was Satan -- Revelation 12:9) went to Eve first, being the easiest to deceive, and using her to get to Adam.

As was mentioned, they only had one prohibitive law. If they hadn't known good from bad, there would have been a lot more laws. "Don't beat the animals", "Don't pee in your food", etc.

And the penalty? He knew what death was. He had seen animals die. He knew what it meant!

 

[Forgemaster]

Of course he knew what was good and bad; he was created in God's image. And as a perfect creature, he was designed to always do good! He actual had to force himself to disobey. That's why the penalty was so heavy, and why the serpent (who was Satan -- Revelation 12:9) went to Eve first, being the easiest to deceive, and using her to get to Adam.

As was mentioned, they only had one prohibitive law. If they hadn't known good from bad, there would have been a lot more laws. "Don't beat the animals", "Don't pee in your food", etc.

And the penalty? He knew what death was. He had seen animals die. He knew what it meant!

But if he knew good and evil then why eat the fruit at all? Wasn't that the point? And I don't think animals died because isn't death the punishment so there is no way he saw animals die.

 

[prometheus11]

Of course he knew what was good and bad; he was created in God's image. And as a perfect creature, he was designed to always do good! He actual had to force himself to disobey. That's why the penalty was so heavy, and why the serpent (who was Satan -- Revelation 12:9) went to Eve first, being the easiest to deceive, and using her to get to Adam.

As was mentioned, they only had one prohibitive law. If they hadn't known good from bad, there would have been a lot more laws. "Don't beat the animals", "Don't pee in your food", etc.

And the penalty? He knew what death was. He had seen animals die. He knew what it meant!

So, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil gave no insight whatsoever to Adam on the concepts of good and evil?

If your answer is "yes," then you must also admit that it was a lie for God to name the tree as he did.

Why did God lie in naming the tree the way he did?

 

[InChrist]

What's the difference in believing you believe in God and Jesus' sacrifice and simply believing in God and Jesus' sacrifice?

If God is allowing people to believe they are saved when he isn't saving them or treating them as a believer in his atonement, and the bible claims to extend salvation "to them that believe," isn't he a huge jerk?

According to the scriptures God does save all those who believe, therefore He keeps His word and is not a jerk. The question is what does it mean to believe? Is it some flippant expression "I believe this" "I believe that" and then one goes on their merry way? Or is it a real heart and mind changing belief where one agrees with God concerning sin, self, etc and such belief impacts ones life. Lots of people say they believe but either give little heed to God's perspective on matters of life or else go the other extreme and impose lots of their own religious rules because they think they know more than God. Either way, life is about trusting self first rather than God.

 

[InChrist]

So me trying to do good works to please God isn't how it works? I knew the standard and knew it couldn't be reached, it's a loving relationship so I tried to feel that love but no, that didn't happen, the more I prayed the more I knew I was talking to the sky, theres no love there. I wasn't trying to earn heaven, I was taught that's my how it works, I was doing it cause I thought it would make your God happy but obviously that's not how it works, slowly the bad aspects of God came forth and I decided I could no longer accept him, so I moved on. And I fail to see how that makes me the bad guy.

Again, you are expressing you misunderstanding of what it means to be a Christian. Of course, YOU could not meet the standard. Only Christ can and has. Love and peace is found only in resting in Him. When you say you did not "feel" love what were you looking for? Obviously, you did not believe God's word which states plainly He does love those who belong to Jesus Christ.