To those who believe in a perfect, all-powerful God

Great Debates
21

Most dictionary definitions of God are: “a perfect being.” Your question seems to be: is there such a being, and, if so, how can this being allow the suffering that goes on in the world? You might as well go ahead and add to these questions, “why does anyone have to die?”

I can give you the Biblical answer to the last two questions: sin and man’s sinful nature. It says, " Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for all have sinned." (Romans 5:12). In turn sinning and death produce suffering. Notice it doesn’t say “by God sin entered into the world…” The wickedness and deceipt that goes on in the world is explained by Jeremia 17:9: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperatly wicked, who can know it?” That, by the way, is speaking of the heart of man. Man is totally responsible for the condition of the world.

Why doesn’t a righteous, omnipotent (there’s a good Episcopalian term!) God just come on down here and correct this problem, so that death and suffering can stop? He has! He “made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in the fashion of a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” (Philippians 2:7,8) He identified himself on the cross with our plight, and because of this God has reconciled himself to us (1 Corinthians 5:19), and now offers anyone who will receive it, salvation from the penalty of sin, and the gift of eternal life (Romans 6:7,23). You see, the world’s problem is not suffering; the world’s problem is unbelief. Folks, by and large, don’t believe what I’ve just said. But God took care of the problem by taking on the form of the man Jesus Christ, went and died for our sins, was buried, and was raised from the dead for our justification (1 Corinthians 15:3,4; Romans 4:25)

Nobel prize winning physicist, Werner von Braun, said of those who would not believe there was a Supreme Creator of the Universe: “must we light a candle, in order for them to see the sun?” Accept Christ and what he did for you on the cross, and God will light your spiritual candle. You will then be inabled to see the truth, and “the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32)

22

That statement would a little shocking coming from such a strong Christian if I hadn’t also been aware that you have been, to my mind at least, the most balanced and non-judgmental individual on these boards when it comes to matters of belief. I don’t agree with your views generally, but I respect them, and have been given cause to rethink some of my conclusions because of them. Not to the extent of re-accepting Christiamity, however.

Exactly. And psychology is what drives the human pursuit of the supernatural, the super-human, if you will. The structure our brains, rather than some overarching “truth” drives us to (and sometimes away from) gods.

I agree.

I agree. Observation and reason told me that God as protector could not be true.

Also hideous atrocities.

Whence comes your picture of God, if not from the Bible? Doesn’t the Bible repeatedly expound the idea that God is omniscient (he hears your silent prayers, sees the sparrow, knows your thoughts), omnipotent (he defeats every enemy, can move mountains and creat great floods), and omnibenevolent (he is love)?

This was always stressed in the church in which I grew up. But, possessing only a lowly human mind, I can only equate the idea of God the Father with what I would hold to be a good, loving human father. I don’t see that in the biblical accounts. A loving human father might well allow his child to touch a hot stove once, giving the child the lesson that touching a hot stove hurts. But if that same father knowingly permitted his child to play with a box of kitchen matches in dry grass he would be held in any court in the world to be a criminal. A loving human father might permit his children to fight to some limited degree so that the consequences of both aggressiveness and and passivity can be learned. But if the father sees one child about to strike another with an axe, is able to prevent it, and fails to do so, he, not the inexperienced child would, and should be held responsible for the consequences. Permitting holocausts, general plagues and horrible diseases (especially in children), to my mind at least would make God (if he existed) responsible, not some nebulous idea of “original sin”. That is a concept that is consistent throughout the Bible, and one I categorically reject. The idea that one person can rightly suffer for the sins of another (or be absolved by the punishment of another, for that matter) is abhorrent to me.

We’re back on the same page. I don’t claim to know the infinite with my finite mind, but I have trouble with those who say they can.

Poly, you’re a poet!

23

As long as people are bringing up “original sin”, I might as well ask some questions about this. I have a lot of trouble understanding the notion of original sin. It’s one thing to say that God gave Adam and Eve free will, and they chose to eat the apple, so they had only themselves to blame for whatever consequences they received. But those consequences were still chosen by God, right? God chose to cast them out of Eden, and thus caused them and all their decendents to live in a world of suffering. But do you think it’s fair of God to choose a punishment that punishes the unborn decendents of Adam and Eve as much as the sinners themselves? Couldn’t God just as well have said “You two have to leave Eden, but your children are welcome to return as long as they can follow the rules?” Wouldn’t that have been more fair?

Some people will probably say who the heck am I to demand fairness from God, but that’s not the point. I’m not trying to complain about God being unfair, I’m asking how do you reconcile this seemingly unfair behavior with the idea that God is a “perfect being.” Or do you not consider it unfair to punish children for the sins of their parents? Or is it not accurate to say that the punishment was chosen by God?

24

Go through this thread and this thread.

A perfect, good, involved God is incompatible with reality. A perfect, good yet remote/removed God is compatible with reality.

Or one can consider/accept the notion that although God is perfect and good, He is in the end a mystery: it is impossible for us to understand Him or His ways. Furthermore, as the Supreme Being, He should not be questioned or judged. What God does is by definition good, right, and just. This does not change because of our failure to comprehend how this may be so.

Also, one needs to consider just how involved God is. Is everything His doing? Or does everything simply happen with His will? Or does He just let events happen as they do, without interfering?

WRS

25

The hope of redemption and an after life began long before 600 B.C. Job, who scholars say was a contemporary of Abraham (2200 B.C.), said: “For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth; and though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:…” (Job 19:25,26) Job is obviously looking to be resurrected into a physical body, “upon the earth.” Concerning Abraham, Hebrews 11:10 says:“For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.” Both of these “hopes” are for resurrection into an earthly kingdom, so it stands to reason that Jesus Christ, in his earthly sojourn, would proclaim this kingdom**(Matt. 4:17)** to Abraham’s “seed”, Israel (Matt. 15:24) **; and that his disciples, after his departure, actually offered to them (Israel) (see Acts 2:22,36; 3:19-25; 1 Peter 1:13). Israel’s “hope” is earthly (terrestrial), not heavenly (celestial). The only place in the Bible you can find a reference to the promise of anyone going to a heavenly realm is in the episltles of Paul, where he proclaims to those who are in “the church, which is his (Christ’s) body” (Eph. 1:22,23), that, “the Lord himself shall descend form heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” (1 Thessalonians 4:16,17)
Whereas Israel looks to be resurrected bodily into an earthly kingdom, the body of Christ (Romans 12:4,5; 1 Corinthians 10:16; 12:12; 27; Eph. 2:6; et. al.), looks to be resurrected bodily (see 1 Cor. 15:50-54; 2 Cor. 5:1-4), and taken *off this earth * to heaven. Paul also tells us where this heavenly realm is and who, presently, is there: “…our Lord Jesus Christ…who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, which no man can approach unto: whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen.” (1 Timothy 6:14-16)
Considering the whole counsel of Paul’s revelation (Ephesians 3:3), although no one but Jesus Christ occupies the heavenly realm now, those who are part of “the church, which is his body” will be there with him on “the day of redemption” (Eph. 4:30)

This, my friends, is what the apostle refers to as our “blessed hope.” (Titus 2:13) It is this hope that God offers the suffering world in what Paul called “The dispensation of the grace of God,” (Eph. 3:2) and herein lies the answer to the original inquirers question: “why doesn’t God stop suffering in the world?” Because we are under His grace. We’re are in a parenthesis in the Biblical time line called the dispensation of grace, wherein God is not counting anyones sins against them, because he put them on his Son, who was “made… to be sin for us, who new no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” (!2 Cor. 5:19, 21) God’s hands are off the world!
Therefore, the apostle told Timothy not to become entangled with the affairs of this life. (2 Timothy 2:4)** I take this to mean, “don’t get caught up in any of the “world improvement causes,” because that isn’t God’s current mission.” God’s present mission in the world is to save individual sinners by his grace (1 Tim. 1:15; Eph. 2:8) , for the above described “day of redemption.” The “good news” to the world today is that anyone can be saved, be “made the righteousness of God in Christ,” and have absolute assurance of their eternital destiny, by simply believing “on the Lord Jesus Christ,” (Acts 16:31) and his vicarious atonement for their sins. The ticket is to stop trying to please God by being a good person, but rather admit you aren’t, cease from your works, and trust the work that Christ did on your behalf at the cross as being all sufficient.(Romans 3:10; 4:4,5)

26

I appreciate your liberal use of the bible in a discussion about God.

Imagine that.

In fact your biblical posts outnumber all of the biblical cites in the 2 threads (50 or so posts) that WeRSauron cited above, combined. (Which incidentally, number zero.)

I agree with much of what you’ve said, and it is well put together and thoughtfully laid out. From a biblically POV, I would take exception to just the latter part of your post, quoted below.

It is absolutely true that we can never become “good” as it relates to our ability to “earn” our salvation. It can’t be done, no matter hard hard we work. (Ps 49:7,8 and others) Among many Christians, there is an all-or-nothing belief----that either my works can earn my way into salvation or there’s no point in trying. (Actually, no point in “trying”; there’s no need to try because of the redemptive value of Christs’s sacrifice)

If indeed the point of one’s “works” were to earn salvation, it would be pointless to try, and works would be futile. But that is not why we strive to live by Godly principles. It is important to realize that our works are an important part of our worship to God, and to understand the role that works in our relationship with God.

That is one of the prime issues James addressed in his letter. Many Christians felt that the undeserved kindness of Christ was sufficient for salvation and nothing more was needed. (In fact, would have been futile) (Rom 5:15-17) James helped then to appreciate that faith had to show itself by some form of action. Paul wrote, " Christ gave himself for us that he might deliver us from every sort of lawlessness and cleanse for himself a people peculiarly his own, zealous for fine works.” (Titus 2:14)

Christians who content themselves with a purely intellectual acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice overlook the reality that true faith has the power to move a person to make changes in his personality and his life and to do things for others in positive expression of that faith. For those who accept Christ on intellectual terms and see no need to conform their lives to Christian principles (which by definition requires action!) run the risk of being like the person Paul describes at 2Tim 3:5 , "having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power.”

James is not arguing against the doctrine that Paul esposes in Romans 3 & 4. (Rom 3:28) Rather, James points always rest on the basis of “the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Jas 2:1)

Through out Jesus ministry he gave clear instruction for those who would call them selves followers of his. Often they were matters of the heart. just as often, they were clear instructions on how one would live his life. He even gave instructions on the works his disciples would be charged with when he left them. (Matt 28:19,20) He indentified how true Christians would be indentified, by saying that the demonstration of love would be a defining mark for a Christian. The number of biblical cites from Jesus and Paul alone that indicate a requirement to shape one’s life/behavior/actions/works number in the hundreds, if not the thousands.

So, it is important to understand “works” within the context of one’s relationship with God. In someone is working to earn salvation they’re barking up the wrong spiritual tree. OTOH, one must realize that we have been commanded by Jesus to “walk the talk”, and that true faith would compel one to act upon the things that they’ve learned. The biblical cites that support that works, not as a means of earning salvation, but as a manifestation of our love and faith in God, number in the thousands. Works and faith are not an all or nothing proposition. Scrpitures like Acts 16:31 and others do not contextually say that simply believing in Christ is sufficient. One has to believe, and than manifest that faith by following Christ’s model. (1 Pet 2:21 ) (see Jas 2:18-20, Matt 7:21-23)

JMS@CCT said:

[quote…"The “good news” to the world today is that anyone can be saved, be “made the righteousness of God in Christ,” and have absolute assurance of their eternital destiny, by simply believing “on the Lord Jesus Christ,” (Acts 16:31) and his vicarious atonement for their sins. The ticket is to stop trying to please God by being a good person, but rather admit you aren’t, cease from your works, and trust the work that Christ did on your behalf at the cross as being all sufficient.(Romans 3:10; 4:4,5)[/quote]

27

My own two cents:

This statement is indeed subjective. “Right” and “wrong” are personal ideals. Ergo, whether or not God can do no wrong depends on 1) what you believe God has done, and 2) whether or not you believe any of (1) was wrong.

So, if you are a Christian and a Biblical literalist (that is, you interpret the Bible literally instead of metaphorically), review the works of God individually. I especially recommend the Old Testament, as God’s direct intervention with the world of man dropped off significantly after the birth of Jesus. If everything God did sounds perfectly all right to you, then you are a true Christian who believes God can do no wrong. If, however, you believe that any one of the dozens of times God killed people for failing to do his bidding was a little bit suspect, then you and your “God” have differing ideas of right and wrong.

You can choose to view this two ways. You can either dismiss it as a personal fault (“God made man imperfect, such that we cannot see the true Goodness of His ways”), or you can start to think that maybe there’s a kink or two in your belief system, since a disagreement between you and God about right and wrong is a fairly core-level problem.

Personally, I’m an agnostic. If I were a Christian, I would interpret the Bible as a metaphorical code that gives guidelines for a moral life (guidelines which, incidentally, I largely agree with). Reading through the Bible and interpreting it literally, however, I find God to be a bit of a self-righteous jerk. I do not care to worship self-righteous jerks. Arrogant? Not necessarily. For me to claim that I worship the Christian God, I would have to do one of two things.

  1. Revamp the entirety of my moral structure to agree with my interpretation of God’s. Not very likely, if at all possible. Besides, given my belief that all spirituality-based religious ideas are equally valid, I see no compelling reason to forcibly distort my being to agree with one system or another.

  2. Lie. Pretend to believe that I agree with God in hopes of being rewarded in return. Very possible (and, I think, widely practiced in some circles), but really, who would I be trying to fool?

The point of all this: if you believe in a God, and you believe he has taken actions, and you find you do not agree with His actions in their entirety, then you do not believe that God can do no wrong. Even if you decide that the problem is on your end (not the highest-probability conclusion in my opinion, but YMMV), that does not make it cease to exist. To truly adhere to the beliefs you claim as yours, you must find a way of resolving this problem. Failure to do so makes you critically ignorant at best, and downright hypocritical at worst.

28

:smack:

One not need to a believer to see the irony here.

If God does exist, it is indeed arrogant, in the exteme, to cite the need to conform your moral structure with your ,“interpretation of God’s” as an obstacle to believing in Him.

:smack:

29

I don’t see Roland’s dichotomy as necessarily valid.

There are quite a few things about the world, to say nothing of the text of the Bible, that make me distinctly uncomfortable.

But let me draw a parallel. I’m fascinated by Constitutional Law. I had one course in it as an undergraduate, back in the late Pleistocene. I’ve continued to read up on it in the decades since. But when Dewey or Bricker or minty green is expounding on it, not their particular system of jurisprudential exegesis but what’s actually been said and decided in regard to a particular point of law, I pay close attention and put my own viewpoint to one side to listen to what the experts that work with it regularly have to say. Because, quite simply, they know more than I do, and I’m willing to learn. It doesn’t mean I have to buy into their particular political or legal philosophies – it means that I can get the facts about what a particular doctrine means from them.

Now, move that over into religion. Presuming an omnipotent God, He will definitely have a much better knowledge of what will work out best in the end than I do. I rejoice in a couple of material losses I sustained, because of what they brought me in what truly matters to me in the long run. I can do the same thing in prospect as regards things that I with my limited perspective see as bad – God is quite capable of bringing good out of them, and I believe He will.

30

Why? If I believe that something God did clashes with my own sense of right and wrong, then even if the problem is that my sense of right and wrong is incorrect, it is still an obstacle to believing in his perfection.

In other words, the problem could very easily be on my end. It doesn’t change the fact that it’s a problem. Unless God wanted to make me “see the light” through direct intervention, I would indeed have to restructure my belief system to say that I truly, honestly and fully accepted God as a perfect being.

31

I should add that the above post was directed to the raindog, though it can be applied to Polycarp’s example as well. My understanding of Constitutional law could be insufficient for me form the correct beliefs regarding it, just as my sense of right and wrong could be fatally flawed to prevent me from seeing the true rightness of God’s actions.

There is no arrogance involved. Arrogance would be to say that my right and wrong is the ultimate Right and Wrong, and that God’s must therefore be incorrect if I disagree with it. That is not, nor does it have anything to do with, what I have said here. I readily admit that I could be the flawed one. My entire point is that, if this is so, I cannot say that my flawed mind accepts the “real truth” in its current, fatally flawed state. It doesn’t. It can’t.

A disagreement between my moral mindset, flawed or not, and the morality of the God I purport to believe in, is a contradiction that prevents me from being a true believer, regardless of whose problem it is, and whether I like it or not.

32

what if there was one less rape in the world? how do we know there isn’t? honestly, if god intervined and stopped a mugging or a rape from ever happening, how would we know about it? it didn’t happen.
another thing to think about is that evil-doers have free will. some nazi guy chose to kill jews rather than stand up and say it was wrong.
why don’t we see great godly miracles (e.g. lighting bolts and brimstone)? maybe God follows the reasoning that a good deed that goes unpraised/unrewarded is worth more. remember when Jesus preached in the bible about doing kind things unto those who couldn’t pay you back because they couldn’t? the best good deeds go unpraised. also, perhaps god wants us to make a leap of faith in believing he helps us. after all, to see the hand of god literally help you, doesn’t challenge you. if something really good happens to you and you don’t know why, maybe god is asking you to believe blindly in his influence. i don’t think expressed my ideas as well as i would have liked.
“an idea is only as good as you can express it”

33

With regard to whether or not it is right to question God:

It is one thing for someone who believes in God, and moreover who believes in a God who is infinitely wise and just (there’s no reason in principle why someone can’t believe in a God who has human flaws, but most modern day monotheists don’t), to say “God, you were wrong in this choice or that choice, and you should have done it this way instead”, would indeed be very arrogant. However, it is another thing for someone who believes certain things about right and wrong to say that they can’t accept that there is a God who doesn’t follow those rules of right and wrong, because that contradicts their pre-existing beliefs. Suppose I were to say “I have faith that killing for whatever reason is wrong.” (I’m not saying I believe that – it’s an example.) And then someone shows me the Bible, and it says God is perfect, but then I read a story where God kills someone or causes them to die, and I say “Sorry, I can’t believe that, because it conflicts with my pre-existing belief that killing is wrong.” That is no more arrogant than a Christian being shown a book of Greek mythology and saying “Sorry, I can’t believe that because it conflicts with my pre-existing belief that there is only one God.”

Perhaps, but the key phrase here is If God does exist. If I am certain that God exists and is as depicted in the Bible, then to suddenly say “No, God, I reject you because you don’t follow my moral code” might indeed be arrogant (or at least foolish, because how can I reject a God that I know exists.) But if, on the other hand, I am certain that a particular set of moral laws are true, but am uncertain about the existence of God (as Roland Orzabal presumably is, since he called himself an agnostic), then there’s nothing wrong with him saying he can’t believe in a God whose behavior is inconsistent with those moral laws.

Believing in a certain absolute moral law is no more or less a legitimate article of faith than believing in the existence of God, or believing in the literal truth of the Bible. Sometimes people try to tell me “How can you think you know better than a book people have believed in for thousands of years”, but you know, the Bible isn’t the only book that people have believed in for thousands of years, and some of them contradict it. So ultimately it just boils down to each individual deciding for themselves what they believe.

34

I appreciate your response. After re-reading mine, I though it rather strongly worded. I aplogize for that.

My point, then and now, is that the whole point of faith is the dedication of one’s life to do God’s will in some measure. (Relative to one’s circumstances and abilities)
(Eph 4:11-13, Mark 12:42-44)

Central to Jesus’s ministry was his unswerving dedication to do his father’s will, and he continually subordinated his own will (and by extension any selfish desires he may have entertained, even briefly) to do the will of his father. **(Matt chapter 4 **is a good example) Even in the night of his death he asked that he spared the agony he was about to suffer, but then added, “but let not my will, but yours take place.” (Matt 26:39) Routinely in his ministry he made it clear that he came to do his father’s will, and ascribed all goodness to his father. That takes tremondous humility, given how he was seen on earth and the sacrifices he was about to make.

And so what you frame up is qualitatively the same as the choice Eve faced, namely, are you willing to subordinate your own sense of right and wrong (including morality) to God? That is the central premise in the definition of faith. There is nothing remarkable in the “problem” as you describe it. You simply are indicating that you lack faith. (Which may, of course, be no accident. You may have weighed all the evidence and essentially repudiated faith as a valid force in your life)

There are two things that are clear though for anyone to have faith. (Or in my opinion, to have discernment as to what faith really is, even in a purely intellectual way)

  1. An accurate knowledge of God, His qualities and purposes are absolutely required to make an informed decision. (John 17:3) The study of the bible can’t be accomplished on a message board. (and not saying you have)
    It takes time and thoughful consideration. To the extent “light” exists for you to see, it has been provided in the bible, and through access to God through prayer. If ‘direct intervention’ is only the only acceptable way you wish your light to be delivered, I would say that this indicates un unwillingness to demonstrate faith. (or begin the process of developing it) God isn’t in the “direct intervention” business and if He was, faith wouldn’t be needed any longer. But, He wishes us to excercise our free will and choose to know Him by taking the time to know Him and by excercising faith. While this isn’t the only means to know Him, there is no substitute for reading the bible. That sentiment has earned me some derision, but it is clear to me that many people get their knowledge of God from places like this. That’s amazing to me. I can respect the person who has taken the time to thoroughly read the bible and repudiates it. (while profoundly disagreeing with him) But thread after thread after post after post indicates a stunning ignorance of the bible. There is just no substitute for accurate knowledge. You won’t get it here. (From me either) If you’re interested in the answers to the contradictions, it is incumbent that you pick up the bible and read it. At the worst, you’ll understand the contradictions better. At best, the contradictions will disappear as you get to know God better, His qualities, purposes and the reasons for his sense of morality. While not overnight, your appreciation for Him will grow, and your faith will grow as well. To the extent you may have flawed (your word) reasonings,they will become evident and you will mature spiritually. Of course, you may have no interest in that. Of course there’s still SDMB…:dubious:

  2. None of this is possible without humility. Anyone taking the time to both read and meditate on the life of Christ is struck by the tremondous humility that He displayed. Only the quality of love is more prominent. (Matt Chapter 5) History (especially bible history) is replete with people who had knowledge but because of pride and/or arrogance failed. (and often died…) If a person has a sincere desire to understand God, and some of the things he has done, or His requirements, a humble, prayerful mindset is required. So even if, "my [your] sense of right and wrong is incorrect" , increased knowledge, through humility and prayer, will eliminate those obstacles.

well… that’s my .02¢

35

tim314:

Mostly, the people whose thinking you’re summarizing got it wrong. Too many generations of people blindly parroting phrases and statements once made by people with insights, insights that the parroting people do not understand.

Transliteration:
The laws of physics and of the natural environment are immutable.

Joe the Natural Scientist says that the Nature thus described is a good place if we understand her laws. Therefore Nature is benevolent.

Joe the Natural Scientist says there is no force above and beyond Nature, that Nature is supreme. For any event, if you look behind it, you will see that Natural forces are responsible. Everything is caused by Nature. Nature is the cause of all.

{My Daddy said I should believe in Nature and Natural Science. I don’t understand it much but OK I’ll believe it to be true anyway. And I’ll teach my kids to believe in it too.}

It is wrong to allow people to suffer undeservedly if you have the power to stop it.
Nature is all-powerful.
Thus, Nature has the power to stop any suffering.
Some people in the world suffer undeservedly.
Thus, Nature allows some people to suffer undeservedly even though she has the power to stop it.
Therefore, Nature is doing wrong.

36

What had God to do with the providing of the Bible? The bible is a book, written by human beings - and it is impossible for us to know how good or evil they were, whether they were inspired or deluded, whether their motives were good or bad, whether they were even sane or insane.

The bible doesn’t prove the existance of God - if anything it is a historical/mythical record of the growth of a belief system over time. Explain to me how you can believe that the Bible is the Word of God.

37

me:

I should clarify. I do not mean to assert that the original Inspired People, Messiahs, Wise Ones, and so forth understood God to be what today’s natural scientists understand as the natural world, and certainly I do not mean to imply that they knew the same laws of physics and astronomy, sociopsychology and biology, meteorology and anthropology and so on that our scientists know today.

Point I was making was that even if you took our own modern understandings as a starting point and then viewed them through the murky lens of person after person repeating them from the prior generation without understanding it much, it’s pretty easy to end up with some godawful-silly beliefs that don’t stand up to scrutiny or logical evaluation.

38

I can appreciate that, the raindog. And no apology necessary – yours was the reaction I generally get if I don’t adequately clarify my statements on this topic.
To be clear, I respect those who have strong and unwavering faith. I sometimes wish I could be as adamant about some of my own beliefs. But examination and questioning of one’s faith is not, in my mind, tantamount to challenging or defying it. That is the only thing I would ask of the religious – think about what you believe, and make one hundred percent sure that you are comfortable in believing it.

What my statements in this thread boil down to is the difference between believing that God is perfect, and believing that you should believe that God is perfect. I would hope that any omnipotent and all-knowing God would accept the latter as being proof enough of faith, which, from the texts you provided, would seem to be the case with Christianity.

39

God allowed suffering so that we might be closer to him.

40

Wernher von Braun never won the Nobel Prize in Physics.