GL, my humblest apologies for that frustrated search. The post I referenced, which was apropos of this thread as well as the one it was actually posted on, was in SqrlCub’s “Friend or God Convert Me” thread, and is found at http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=665206#post665206
I am really sorry to have put you through trying to find something I erroneously thought I’d posted in this thread, forgetting the context that made it appropriate to respond to Sqrl with it.
Slythe, I grant that the “unambiguous evidence” isn’t. But divorced of the insane claims made by some of the fundamentalist contingent and the hyperskepticism of the extreme-left Bible scholars, I think there are some pretty strong reasons for accepting that something extraordinary happened around 30 AD in Jerusalem, and that that event changed the lives of a number of now famous but then unimportant Jews of the time. And events have continued to accrue that are less than explicable in the absence of God. Take the Joan of Arc story. The accounts of this are as sober as those of the Lancaster-York civil war 30 years later. And they allege that some peasant girl, ignorant of military strategy and tactics, “heard the voices of saints” (aha – must be a mental problem!) and following their instructions led the French armies to within a hair’s breadth of throwing the well-captained British and Burgundian armies out of France. Bizarre, to say the least!
I don’t propose you take the Gospels at face value; there is definitely some special pleading going on in each. But divorced of the miraculous and the apparent urban legends each contains, there is a core account that appears to point to extraordinary events that strongly suggest the intervention of a real God in the world.
It would be completely out of line for me to say, “I won’t accept the theory of punctuated equilibria unless S.J. Gould or Niles Eldridge explains it to me in person.” Their rejoinder, a fair one, is, “We’ve written extensively in both tecnical and popular literature on the subject – if you want to understand it and are not just trolling us, go read them.” I feel that people who reject the entire corpus of the Bible and every account of God supposedly intervening in the world, a la the Joan of Arc story, and then say that there is no good evidence, are pulling a similar attitude.
Certainly there are things that require “believing seven impossible things before breakfast” in the Gospel accounts and most of the saint/miracle stories. Pluck the urban-legend weeds out of the Little Flowers, and you’re left with a St. Francis who apparently did do some surprising things for the love of a God whom he evidently knew personally. Same for the Gospels…there is something left when you strip out the moving star, the dead rising from their graves as the temple veil is ripped, and all the other paraphenalia that they carry. And that something is the life of a man that I think is outstanding, anytime in history. And I maintain that the something that I have experienced is the living presence of that man, 1970+/- years later. I’m as capable of self-delusion as the next guy, but trust me that I have analyzed this from the point of view that it could be self-delusion and come up with the idea that if it is just me, I’m a precognitive psychic that should be trying for the Randi prize. And I don’t believe I am.
Polycarp, I understand what you are saying. My arguement is with FoG and others of his ilk. They claim that they have the one true path to heaven, and want us to dismiss all other evidence on their sayso alone. Also, how are we to determine which religious stories to be taken as fact and which as aligory? And have you done any studies on the historical background of other religions? Are all the others built on total fluff, while the Christian religion is the only one to have an historical basis?
Even leaving atheism totally out of the picture, to be fare one must study the background of other religions as thoroughly as you study your own, if you wish to bring up history as a reason to believe, don’t you think?
Well, there are all kinds of extremely nasty supernatural beings, gods, and spirits from various mythologies around the world.
The Aztecs believed that the Gods desired blood. If they were not satisfied with the gifts of blood cut from the bodies of thousands of prisoners the Gods would not allow the sun to return, dooming humanity.
Or the Norse. I’ve always been fascinated by the figure of Odin. In order to gain knowledge from Odin, you would hang a sacrificial animal from a tree…a horse was an extreme sacrifice, but a human sacrifice was the highest there could be. But how did Odin get his knowledge? He wanted to understand the secret of poetry…so he hung himself from Yggdrasil, sacrificed himself to himself for his knowledge…kind of creepy. And then there is the concept of Ragnarok. Everyone knows that the giants will eventually attack the Aesir, and as Odin is the greatest chieftan of the gods, he must have as many warriors as possible (although he knows it will not be enough). So Odin is the god of warriors and kings, he makes them clever and strong in battle. But of course, Odin can only take those warriors who die in battle…so Odin must also see to it that the most valiant warriors must die, so he can employ them in his doomed attempt to defeat the giants.
Or the story of Baldr…I could go on…but if there was ever a culture as harsh, as bloody-minded, as fatalistic as the Norse, I’d like to see it. Unless it was the worshippers of Kali in India. Or maybe…well, the point is that human beings are quite capable of making up the most horrendous stories to explain why horrible things happen. Some people have the idea that Christians are somehow uniquely horrible. But that’s silly, it just because most of the theists you meet are Christians. If you think pagans were less, say, misogynistic than Christians you’re not paying attention.
Greetings everyone! I hope you had a good Monday. I’m going to try once again to get caught up on these posts. It will be a lot easier to follow this discussion if I am responding to recent posts instead of ones posted 2 or 3 days ago!
Near the bottom of page 5 of the original post
My response to Dr. Lao
I described God’s Holiness as a reflex reaction that causes instant destruction in the presence of sin. You said:
I actually did a good bit of thinking about this because I really want to explain it better. I realized upon thinking about it that I erred in one respect. God’s Holiness is not really part of His personality, it’s a part of who He is. In other words, it’s in the same category as His omnipotence.
So in one sense, it has nothing to do with whether God is good or not. Think about this: we know that one aspect of God is that He is everywhere. That factor has nothing to do with His goodness or any other personality trait. What He does with this capability reveals His love, mercy, judgement, and other personality traits.
So in the same respect, God’s Holiness is part of who He is. And in fact, I can say for myself that I want God to be Holy! Who wants to serve an impure, imperfect God? But the result is, because He is the essence of purity, anything impure gets consumed just by being in His presence. It just happens by virtue of the fact that God is Holy.
Again the issue is what God does with this capability. Rather than just throwing up His hands and saying, “Oh well, I guess no one can ever get to know me”, His love and mercy take over and provide us with the means to enter His presence safely, through the blood of Jesus.
I hope that clarified the point a little better, but please let me know if you still disagree or aren’t following me.
Your statement “anything less than this (being in God’s presence) would be a significant punishment” stands out. You are right, and in fact, many people believe that this is the sum total of what hell will be … separation from God’s presence. But it is more than that in one sense – people will realizefully the benefits they could have had by living in God’s presence, but it will be too late. The agony of being out of God’s presence forever, realizing what you could have had, will be hell enough. Just thinking about it gives me shivers.
There is one phrase in your first paragraph I’d like to challenge. You wondered why God needed a “torture chamber to deal with the souls that don’t make the cut as being worthy to be in his presence?” This is a common misunderstanding, but the essence of the Christian message is that no one makes the cut. No one is worthy to go to heaven.
In essence, the reason Christians are sooo grateful to Jesus is that without His incredible sacrifice, no one could go to heaven. Because of His sacrifice, all have the opportunity to go to heaven.
One other thing you said I wanted to comment on: you are right about the devil. He is a separate entity. There are HUGE misconceptions about satan, mostly planted by satan himself to keep people deceived about him.
For example, nowhere in the Bible that I know of does it say that satan’s current “home base” is hell, and that all the demons fly out in formation at different intervals throughout the day. The Bible seems to indicate that demons and the devil are headquartered in the air, from what I can tell (hence the title ‘prince of the power of the air’). satan will one day be thrown into hell himself.
My point is … preconceived notions based on Christian paintings throughout the centuries are not necessarily accurate. satan is not “in charge” of hell.
Next, I described God’s love as rescuing us from the punishment we so richly deserve. You responded:
I truly believe that not seeing the depth of our own sinfulness is the root reason why people do not come to Christ. I am speaking of a daily lifestyle of sin that we are all guilty of until coming to Christ, and even after that we have to constantly battle against it!
This is another entire thread I want to do, but to give you a somewhat capsule summary: every time I think a lustful thought … every time I say a curse word … every time I get mad at someone for cutting me off in traffic … every time I yell at my wife in anger … every time I think hateful or rude thoughts toward a coworker … I am in sin.
(*note for you literalists out there: I’m not married, I don’t hate my coworker, etc. This is an illustration :))
We sin dozens of times every day and don’t even realize it half the time. Little white lies, snide remarks, lustful looks all add up to a criminal record that is quite damning.
The problem is … we all love to justify our own sins and convince ourselves that what we do isn’t so bad. Then we look at someone else and say (sometimes out loud) “I can’t believe such and so did or said such and so!!” We try to magnify other people’s guilt and shrink our own. It’s human nature.
As soon as this post dies down I will probably do a post on this very topic, but hopefully that’s food for thought for the moment.
To answer your specific questions: regarding babies, there’s a verse that seems to indicate that babies are taken to heaven if they die before they reach a certain age. Some theologians call it the “age of accountability” which is different for each individual child.
Regarding how God can forgive all our sins, it’s truly amazing but He can. He is above time and can see past, present, and future. The verse I absolutely love that summarizes this is Hebrews 10:14 -
Our spirits are made perfect forever, but our souls are constantly being “made” perfect day by day. Again, this is a whole teaching that could take pages by itself.
I can only reiterate what I’ve said to the others: God didn’t create inherently sinful creatures. Stop and think about it … why would God do that?
Let’s follow the story. God creates a fabulous and beautiful playground (planet Earth) and wants to share it. He creates Adam and Eve and puts them in charge! He gives them one rule, but good grief, other than that they have total freedom! Why would He have done that if they were sinful or imperfect in any way?
Remember, we are created in God’s image. Stop and think: if you created something and wanted to share it with others, wouldn’t you try to make things go well? As few restrictions as possible? You’d want it to be fun! That’s what God wanted! That’s why He said it was “good stuff!” (Okay that’s a slight paraphrase ;)).
So anyway, God never wanted this to go sour! He gave them only one simple restriction! How easy is that? You said something about God “stacking the deck in his favor” … but realize God didn’t want sin to enter the picture! Why would He?
It’s not that we all “must” sin. It’s not that God sits in heaven and forces us to sin or says we have to sin. It’s that we are all born with a tendency to sin, and in fact each of us are born with a tendency toward specific sins. For example, one person might be born with a tendency toward alcoholism, another toward pornography, another toward anger, etc etc.
You might say “that’s not fair”, and indeed in some ways I could say I agree. It’s not fair, but it’s reality. Life isn’t fair. But there is a solution.
Here’s a simple way to understand original sin. I’m sure you’ve all seen cases where someone with a particular vice passes that same habit on to their kids, and sometimes it gets worse in the kids. This can be, again, alcohol, smoking, drugs, cursing, etc etc. Original sin is just the same thing on a large scale. Adam and Eve sinned, and their sins were carried on to their kids, and then on to theirs, and all the way to us.
So we don’t have to sin, but we are born with a tendency toward sin which is a problem that must be fixed. God in His love provides a solution to the mess we got ourselves in to in the person of Jesus Christ.
I agree that there are coincidences and then there are interventions by the Lord and they are two different things. I guess what you’re saying is you could look at all such situations and call them all coincidences, so this type or level of proof isn’t enough for you.
As for God doing something that can’t be explained through physical laws, I would have to say He does do such things in this day and age (see my later comment on my suggestion to go to a godly miracle crusade). But when you say it must be repeatable, what does this mean? Are you saying that, for example, if God uses me to heal a girl of blindness and a man of broken bones, that we must then have two people with similar ailments in an adjoining room and they must be prayed over and get healed too? I’m not trying to be sarcastic, I really want to find out what you mean by “repeatable”.
I guess what concerns me is the stringent requirements. Why would it not satisfy you to see God heal one person? Or ten people of various different ailments? Or maybe it would satisfy you and I’m misinterpreting what you said.
I encouraged you to consider the possibility of God being involved in people’s lives, and you responded:
I agree that being open to the possibility isn’t evidence … but my main point was that if you aren’t even open to the possibility, then no evidence would ever be enough. That’s why I’m glad you are indeed open.
This makes sense. I guess I wasn’t really thinking of a skeptic as much as someone who is determined to not believe in God rather than honestly look at the evidence.
Regarding my stories of people getting money at the last minute that met their needs, you said:
The “statistically unlikely” comment to me is more realistic. There are always exceptions to the rule, but I have seen countless cases of God backing people financially that were called to missions trips.
As an example, from the fall of 1991 to the fall of 1995, a ministry I used to be a part of hosted 12 week ministry training schools. During the course of these schools, all of the students had to raise money to cover the costs of them going on a 1 to 2 month missions trip after the school was over (my brother was one of these in 1993). This was anywhere from 20 - 40 people per semester. In 4 years of this, I never once heard of a person who didn’t raise the money.
Now I’ll admit I don’t know all the details. There probably were a few exceptions here and there (although I could be wrong! Maybe everyone got to go). And you might say, “Well, was it really God or was it just their efforts at fundraising?” All I can say is … these were mostly people who had NEVER done fundraising in their entire lives.
I mentioned that I was concerned that your standards might be too high and you said:
I really think if you got around a bunch of faith filled believers for a few months, you would find that you would have enough evidence to go on after a while.
Finally, regarding going to a healing service you said:
Well, in a nutshell, be sure that any church or ministry you attend …
…is submitted to a spiritual covering. That is, the pastor or leader has to submit to someone if he gets out of line. If they say, “Oh we just submit to God”, look elsewhere.
…is full of godly people. Not perfect people, but people who are loving and desiring to please and serve God. This is a reflection on the type of leaders in that church.
…believes in the Bible as the Word of God. Even though you might not believe this, if you want to check out authentic Christianity, you need to find a church that believes this!
That’s three biggies off the top of my head. I would add that, since you are wanting to see supernatural evidence, it makes sense that you should find a group that believes that God works supernaturally in this day and age! Churches that believe this routinely have guest speakers that are particularly anointed by God in healing, prophesy, etc etc.
Okay, whew! Well Dr Lao once again I hope I’ve given you some food for thought. I won’t have time to get to anyone else tonight, but Satan and Spider Woman, I saw your wonderings earlier about my responding to your posts. If you’ll read this one, you’ll see that i partly addressed your questions/issues about hell. When I get to your individual posts, I’ll elaborate on any particular points you brought up.
OK, just making sure you weren’t waiting on me, for the very same reason!
Somebody (FoG and maybe DoctorJ?) was discussing the Randi challenge. I see that the standard excuses have already been used – that it would cheapen the miracle and whatnot. This is utter baloney. I also saw that somebody mentioned how well-known it is. Just FYI, it was even a recent question on “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.”
Re: God’s holiness
This makes more sense to me. I can see how a loving God might need to surround himself with purity as part of his nature. However, why doesn’t everybody get a chance to become pure on their own time? Why do we have a finite time on this Earth in which to decide? Presumably, people who are now bound for heaven were once bound for hell. These people changed, and since God shouldn’t play favorites, everybody has the ability to change. So why doesn’t he give us the time to change if we want to. God shouldn’t care, he is infinite and waiting for millions of years shouldn’t bother him. So why does he make life so short? He should make it so people live as long as they want until they become pure within God’s eyes by turning to Jesus Christ. Then they would immediately ascend into heaven to be with God. That seems fair to everybody, and keeps God pure.
Well…if God weren’t pure then you wouldn’t have much of a choice in the matter. If you believed in him you would have to serve him, impure and imperfect he may be. I think you were trying to say that an impure God doesn’t make sense since he makes the rules for purity. An impure God would imply that there was a higher standard of purity we could judge God by.
Re: Sin and free will FriendofGod said:
I think you misunderstood me. I agree! It doesn’t make sense. That’s why I wanted you explain mankind’s apparently sinful nature. Here’s where it comes into play. You also said:
The point of this quote is the definition of “we”. I think it appropriate to say that “we” can include everyone in the history of the world. The scientist in me wants to scream, “This must tell us something about human nature, we are sinful (by the common Christen definition of sin)” It is all well and good to claim that there is an option to be sin free, but if no one has taken it, that seems like it wasn’t there in the first place.
And I think the option had to be there for Christ’s sacrafice and free will to mean anything. Correct me if I’m wrong (but I don’t think I am, I’ve learned a lot about Christen philosophy the past few days) we let God down with our sinning so he sacrificed Jesus so that we could be made pure again by believing in him. However, if we truely are sinnful in nature, then we never let God down because we never had the choice of being sin free. So there was no free will. And if the mistake of Adam and Eve fundimentally change people to make us sinful, why doesn’t God change us back and give us the chance to make the original choice again. I think the world would be a lot better place if God removed original sin. If he has the power to remove sin, he should do it. I think that would be a better choice than creating the whole Jesus situation. Then he wouldn’t have to worry about the pygmies in Africa hearing about Jesus.
I can only conclude that original sin made us all sinful in nature since no one has chosen to be sin free since (and don’t give Jesus as an example of someone who choose to be sin free. He didn’t have much of a choice in the matter, IIRC. He had a pretty overbearing father ). So we all need saving from what Adam and Eve did. You are right, it isn’t fair, and I think we should be cut some slack on the matter.
Re: The evidence
What do I mean by repeatable? Let’s use the faith healer example. This guy says he can heal people by praying to God. We must be able to take this person and give him a healing to preform. The need for the healing must be legitamite (he says he can heal a broken leg, the leg must be confirmed to be before broken). The heal must be conclusive (the leg must be confirmed to be healed afterward). Then he must be able to do it again with another group of researchers who are attempting to duplicate the effect observed in the first experiment. In fact, the healer should be able to work whenever somebody who found a flaw in the methodology of the other researchers. The results, of course, must be published in a peer reviewed medical journal where it would be open to the scruitny of the scientific community.
Yes, but not all of them had the last minute trouble then last minute help you described. You also said that they weren’t skilled in fundraising. I think commitment and motivation are the most important things in successful fundraising. People believing they are doing the work of God, whether or not he exists, excel in both those areas.
I think you should take it upon yourself to document some of these cases. You suggested I go to church, I think maybe you should do some scienctific research. Look at something that appears unlikely to happen, but does happen everytime (or nearly so) when people trust in God and rarely happens when people don’t trust in him. Post your methodology and results and we can help you improve them to see if you have evidence of a real effect. I don’t expect a perfectly designed study right off the bat, but I’m sure the scienetists on this board could help you refine it.
Thanks for your suggestions on churches where I could observe the supernatural first hand. However, I have every expectation of being told to take a hike when I ask, “I am here to observe God working miracles on Earth today, can you work one into the service.” And if they do let me in I’ll be kicked out in short order after I bombard the pastor with blasphemous questions, like the ones I ask you ;). It is only fair that I give it a shot, though.
y’know, maybe this ain’t the right thread to discuss this in, and maybe it’s just watching “Devil’s Advocate” too much, but…
what if Satan’s not so bad?
what if Satan, and Hell, (assuming they exist) are not so wickedly damnably evil, and all that bad stuff about 'em is just propaganda on God’s part trying to get you on his side?
Maybe God had the whole Bible written, with ALLLLL that bad stuff about Satan, before Satan could get any Pro-Lucifer pamphlets out, thereby ruining his reputation and pretty much screwing him over for any credence with the populace.
Maybe neither is good, or bad.
Maybe they’re just old poker buddies betting on who can get the most souls.
Our teacher in a Geography class gave an excellent summary of this while we were studying the Middle East…let me see if I can remember it correctly…
Three of the biggest religious groups in the world, Christians, Jews and Muslims all had the same ancestor: Abraham. Abraham is mentioned in all three Holy Books. (The Bible, Torah (Which is basically the first 5 books of the Bible) and Koran (sp?). In all three books, Abraham was spoken very highly of, and has blood ties to all three religions. IF I remember correctly, you can trace his bloodline down through Jesus, Mohammed, and all the Jewish tribes. And if you look closely at the religions, while the practices may be different, they send many of the same messages and rules. Many of their stories are similar. In the Koran, it speaks of a great flood, just as it does in the Torah and Bible. (I believe that was the example given in class)
This is all off the top of my head, so if anyone can point out any inaccuracy (which I’m sure many of you can) please post them.
I beg you, please do not make the mistake of associating God, Who is Love, with that political machine called the church. If you want to see God, do not look for Him where evil men plot against Him for their own purposes. Look inside yourself.
Yes, God can be found within the church. There are people there who are oppressed and unloved. If you must look for God in the church, then seek out those whom the leaders and politicians reject. In their hearts, you will also see God. Do not look for a god who is a genie. Rather, look for God Himself, Who is the Love Everlasting.
Sorry to confuse you, Lambda, and I hope I haven’t offended you.
I was quoting you because your post ‘sparked’ mine: I’ve been reading this thread and it’s precursor for quite a while and trying to actually come up with an honest answer to the OP. Your statement about ‘predictive and explanatory power’ hit the nail on the head - what it actually would take to prove God’s existence to me. My point - if I had a point - was that it would take so much, that I don’t see how it could be proved.
God is Love.
Love is an Emotion.
Emotion is a Thought.
Thought is a Concept, not a Reality.
God is not Real.
God is Love.
God killed his own son.
I love my son, so…
God is Love.
God is omnipotent.
Let’s take away the bullet-proof vests from the S.W.A.T. teams and give them a hug and really care about them-That should stop the bullets.
The point is, Lib, is that when you try to define one vague term(God) with another vague term(Love), all you get is a bumpersticker. Your god seems to be, by the typical Christrian definition, Love, Vengeance, Retribution, Punishment, All Knowing, All Seeing, etc. etc. etc.
It sounds too much like the old, “Well, my dad can not only beat up your dad, but he’s also richer and better looking and taller and…” taken to it’s ultimate rediculous extreme.
(Sorry, I know it’s old, but I saw slythe’s message, above, and it just kind of popped into my head and from there onto my screen, going thru my fingers in between.)
Yes, take the Joan of Arc story…please! Sorry, couldn’t resist. Polycarp, this is my first contribution to this lengthy, lengthy thread, but this is the first item I’ve wanted to respond to that no one else has covered.
If you evoke Joan of Arc as evidence of God’s intervention in human affairs, you’re opening a huge can of worms. Are you seriously going to suggest that God saw fit to intervene in one of the countless, petty Anglo-Franco squabbles over the past thousand years, but left us to our own devices for the Inquisition, the Holocaust and many other perils orders of magnitude greater than a pointless war? This begs many more questions than it answers, and you shouldn’t need me to point this out. Child prodigies are a well-observed phenomenon and it’s easy enough to call Joan one and leave it at that. Nevermind that calling her God-directed would seem to specifically validate Catholic Christianity, which I’m pretty sure was not your intent.
And since I’m posting to this thread anyway, I’d like to add my voice to slythe’s in asking this question (which he directed to FriendOfGod but which I’m addressing to you, Libertarian and all other Christians here:
What sin or crime (or decision) could possibly be deserving of an eternity in hell (whatever hell is)? Most of us are only here for three score and ten years, after all. That’s an eyeblink, no, it’s not even a measurable span of time, when weighed against eternity. Do you understand that? Even the worst villain imaginable couldn’t commit enough crimes or hurt enough people or kick enough puppies to deserve that.
Yet the Christian assertion is that we all deserve it. And unless you can demonstrate that in some way, then I can never accept Christian dogma in any way. Shape. Or form. Maybe we’re all sinners, but no one living a finite lifetime could possibly be that bad.
Apologies for gratuitous and strident use of underlines, bolding and italics.
I claim no authority for these views, nor any other character of them but that they are my thoughts.
If a mortal soul might, by seeking the love and nurture of an infinite God, become itself infinite that might be viewed by a mortal being as Heaven. If that were so, for that mortal soul to perish, because it chose not to seek the love and nurture which could make it immortal, that might be viewed as Hell.
The penchant of humans to dwell most poignantly upon the direst of outcomes might well be a characteristic of man, not a revelation of the nature of God. While man lives, he has the chance to grow into immortality by knowing God. When a man dies, that chance ends, not because it is a rule in a game, but because the man dies.
To God, all sins are the same, except the one sin for which there is no forgiveness. That is the sin that denies forgiveness. It is not because it is the most heinous, or the most hurtful to other men, or even the most hurtful to God. It is unforgivable because it will not seek to be forgiven. Mortality is the nature of man, and therefore death is his natural final state. God can lead him beyond that, into a greater being. The choice is Man’s to make, and the loss of every soul that turns away is the choice of that soul.
Perhaps it would comfort you more to have God be a capricious arbiter, delighting in the torture of innocents. Despising God without knowing him might be easier to defend, with logic. I choose to seek what is best in man, and look into the heart to know that God is that image. You can probably show my belief to be absurd under analysis by reason. None of that troubles me. God is not the Divine Weasel, but the true spirit of love. That is what forever is for.
Let me make sure I understand you correctly. You are saying that the choice is not between a hell of infinite torture and a heaven of infinite bliss, but rather between a human’s “natural final state” (death of the body and soul) and becoming immortal after death “by knowing God” (so death of the body, but immortality of the soul).
If I understood you correctly, then that is the best answer to the false choice question that I have seen. Thank you so much for your perspective.
Having just had several paragraphs full of rational argument go down the tubes…
Thank you, Tris. If that does not make the point, nothing will.
Joan of Arc? I dunno. Even as an Anglophile, I could make a case for God wanting to save England from being enmeshed with internal French dominance games, as she had been for the past 300 years, and using Joan to kick her royal Plantagenet bottom out (granted they still held Guienne, they lost it in less than 30 years, and the port of Calais, the last English possession on the continent, in Bloody Mary’s reign.) I brought her story up because it is one where sober historians record what appears to be a supernatural intervention of the sort skeptics are asking why we have no evidence for. Was God interested in petty Anglo-French squabbles? Is he interested in petty SDMB/GD squabbles? I seem to recall something about “knowing each sparrow that falls” attributed to him. The stubbed toe of that three-year-old isn’t petty to him. And it isn’t to God either.
I thank you for this thought-provoking and thoughtful answer. I still have difficulty with this version also. If you sort of stick with the God-as-a-loving-parent analogy, how could this all-loving parent stand the loss of a child? Although the unknowableness of this god does not really allow this kind of comparison, I will make it anyway:
My parents lost a child to an illness. I was too young to remember or understand what had happened. But from later realizing the effect this had on the lives of my parents, I don’t understand how an all-loving god could allow the souls of his mortal children to perish. I believe my parents would have died in exchange for my sister’s life, had that been possible.
And yet this all-loving, all-knowing Christian god culls the defective souls (who supposedly choose not to live up to his expectations) and only keeps those who please him. That doesn’t sound very loving or nurturing either. It sounds selective and exclusive
To me, whether you are talking about a hell of fire and brimstone, or a hell of eternal death or separateness, it doesn’t fit with the image of a god of unconditional love. In the end, is this god incapable of forgiveness?
I wasn’t planning on going to a church to find God. I wanted to see if I could verify some of the stories FoG was talking about: examples of miraclous healing and prophecy. FoG is convinced these are everyday occurrences at Godly churches. I expressed skepticism toward this and he extended a challenge of sorts to observe these things for myself.
Rest assured, I am aware that there is human politics at work within the church, as well as human politics at work within the bible. I wouldn’t take what I hear or read in a church or the Bible at face value (face value equals the word of God). You have already expressed, quite eloquently I might add, that it is a mistake to look to others to find God. I agree with you on this point.
Be that as it may, I still thought it was unfair to dismiss FoG examples of miracles without trying to witness one on his terms. I appreciate your concern, but my faith does not hang in the balance here. I am merely being a curious scientist :).
This is what I would infer from the Great Guilt Trip, also known as John 3:16–
(Sorry if I butchered that–it’s from memory.)
The party line of mainstream Christianity, on the other hand, seems to say that we all will have everlasting life, whether we believe in the divinity of Jesus or not–it’s just that the heathen nonbelievers will spend that eternity in Hell.
So which is it? Do we all have everlasting life, or just those who believe? What’s the standard rejoinder for this little discrepancy?
(Oh, and I’m speaking to those who believe in a literal Hell, with sulfur and fire and a big red guy with a pitchfork–not those who take a more spiritual, metaphorical tack.)
Yikes!