6. If it was always God's plan to provide salvation through Jesus, why didn't he send Jesus from the very beginning, instead of confusing and misleading generations of people by setting up a religion called Judaism which he knew in advance would prove to be inadequate?
He didn’t set up a religion called Judaism. He set up a people called Jews. People make religion, God makes relationships. He established a covenant (a relational promise) with the Jews to have relationship with them, but that relationship wasn’t fulfilled until Christ came because we needed to see the difference between what was available without Christ and the greater with Christ. Christ didn’t abolish the previous covenant, He made it better. He renewed it to a greater covenant by fulfilling its requirements. His covenant with the Jews was not misleading; it was leading all the while up to Christ. It was pointing to Him. Remember the Church began with Jews. These were Jewish people that saw the fulfillment of everything they had been waiting for in Christ. Some rejected it and clung to laws instead to the reason for the laws. Jesus rebuked them for missing the point of the laws and the Prophets. He came to show them bodily what everything since the beginning of time had been leading up to. He, Himself was born as a Jew and His disciples were Jews. There are many Messianic Jews because they are seeing the truth of Christ in their own Scriptures. It isn’t something separate, it is part of the same faith.
7. Since the Bible states that God does not desire that anyone perish, but also states that the majority of humankind is going to hell, doesn’t this show that God's plan of salvation is a failure even by his own standard? If this outcome is a success, what would count as a failure?
Jesus spent very little time speaking about hell. There are only a few verses where it is even mentioned in the whole of Scripture. I think the Church has made a mistake to spend so much time talking about something Jesus spent so little time talking about. I’ve noticed that the atheists reading my blogspot spend lots of time ranting about hell, when I seldom brought up the subject. The only time I have written on it is in response to their demands that I address the subject. Maybe some churches still spend a lot of time on the subject, but in my lifetime I have not heard it addressed very often and I have read hundreds of Christian books and have been immersed in Christian culture my whole life, still I have never heard so much about hell until I started talking to atheists and hearing how much they bring it up. Jesus is establishing a Kingdom of people who have life in Christ and who are inheriting everything of heaven that belongs to Him. He came to share the good news. He came to give life and give it abundantly. He came to show us how to live the good life. He didn’t come to condemn us. He didn’t come to make our lives darker and more depressing. He didn’t come to oppress. He came to set free, to heal, to love to forgive. This is His message. This is the reality of what He offers.
8. Why didn't God create human beings such that they freely desire to do good, thus removing the need to create a Hell at all? (If you believe this is impossible, isn't this the state that will exist in Heaven?)
If God created humans who freely desire to do good, would not this mean that they cannot do bad? As soon as something is good, that which is not that something is be default bad or evil. So a choice is created. If the choice is removed, freedom is removed.
No, in heaven we have arrived at the fullness of freedom from the bondage of sin because it was dealt with on earth by freely accepting Christ gift of salvation. The chains of sin are broken here and we start learning to walk that that reality now on earth.
The Bible speaks far more about the Kingdom of God and life in Christ than it does condemnation or hell. I think this shows what is important to God is giving us life. He isn't desirous of our not finding life.
9. Is it fair or rational for God to hide himself so that he can only be known by faith, then insist that every single human being find him by picking the right one out of thousands of conflicting and incompatible religions?
God put the desire for Him in us and He put the reality of His existence all around us. Moreover He tells us all about Himself in the Bible. And He came into our world bodily to further show Himself to us. He also shows Himself to the world through each believer. He tells us to go out and be witnesses for Him showing the world His truth.
However, despite all that there is truth to saying He is hidden. Have you ever seen the joy on a child’s face when they find a treasure? The path to God is full of treasures and He wants us to share in all that glory of discovery.
Religions have sprung up because of man’s desire to be connected to God. We have funneled this desire into things that do not satisfy. We invent ways to earn God’s favor and God is all the while telling us we have His favor we just need to learn that we can belong just as we are without earning anything and His love will provide all we need to live life. Religion shows man’s deep desire for God. It proves we have a God need. But it is inadequate to bring us home to Him in life. He gives life, He gives it to anyone who wants to drink of it.
There are many reservoirs of water. If you try and drink the oceans salty water it will not satisfy. If you try to drink from a bitter spring it will not satisfy. If you drink from water that’s full of bacteria it can cause dysentery or worse. But water is necessary for life. But all reservoirs of water are not equal. You need to find the good water in order to have life giving water. It is the same with “religion” you need to find the right source to drink from in order to find what will be good. God provided that source in Jesus and He gave us much evidence of its veracity and goodness. Will we drink up His life or will we choice a substitute source? He doesn’t force our choice. We are free to make that for ourselves.
10. If you had the power to help all people who are suffering or in need, at no cost or effort to yourself, would you do it? If so, why hasn't God done this already?
God has done this and is doing this still. He’s doing it through each believer. He’s doing it directly as well. Muslims are having dreams and visions of Christ and are coming to know Him without ever hearing the Gospel from a missionary. Christians are going into some of the most hostile of territories and bringing healing, miracles, and life to the people and they are hungry for more. Many groups are providing food, drinking water, hygiene instruction, education, jobs, employment training, homes, health care, etc.
A Christian woman named Heidi Baker and her husband Roland went to the poorest country to the most poor people in that country and risk their lives regularly to help the orphans there. They hear about the worse crime ridden neighborhoods and it is there they go to bring life. They raise the dead, they see miracles, but most of all they love the ones society has not loved.
I listened to Rick Warren the other day address a group of Muslim dignitaries and politicians from various nations on CSPAN. He spoke to them about merging efforts to help the poor and needy world wide. He spoke about working together despite our theological differences and aiding this world in a grassroots effort to bring relief to the suffering. His church is doing much toward this end.
A church in
There are thousands and thousands of such stories in the world today.
18 comments:
Not only did you not answer question 10, but what you did provide actually harms your argument more than helps it.
I think you have to agree that god can heal all of our ills and stop all suffering, else god is not omnipotent. Further, since god is omnipotent, this would incur no cost to god. It would literally take no effort on god's part.
So, the question is whether you would alleviate suffering if you could do so at no cost to you. Most people would say, "Yes." If you would answer "Yes" to that, then you have to wonder why god does not do that, since god would have that ability.
In your "answer" you spoke not of god's actions, but of the actions of humans. Humans of all faiths and no faith strive to alleviate suffering. People give to charity, people volunteer their time at hospitals, etc. People work on finding live-saving cures for illnesses, etc. This is all done at some cost to the person in terms of time or effort or something else. No human has the ability to alleviate suffering at no cost to themselves. (Note, it is true that we do it because we see benefits to it, either personal or societal, but it does take some personal cost to realize these benefits.)
So, here's the part that undercuts your argument. You wish to argue, "god has done this and is doing this still." But, that simply is not true. god has not stopped all suffering or disease, etc. even though he can do so at no cost to himself. All the examples you give are actually people going out and trying to alleviate suffering at cost to themselves. Instead of defending god, you've shown that people are more apt to care and do things for other people than god, and with more to lose in the process!
Epic fail.
Number 9:
"God put the desire for Him in us and He put the reality of His existence all around us. Moreover He tells us all about Himself in the Bible."
Ah, but there are many other competing religions out there to choose from. You don't address this. Simply stating that the Bible is the correct book does nothing to dispell the question.
"However, despite all that there is truth to saying He is hidden. Have you ever seen the joy on a child’s face when they find a treasure?"
Do you really wish to argue that god is hiding himself from us (and thereby putting us in mortal danger of hellfire) so that we can be happy if we find him?
"Will we drink up His life or will we choice a substitute source? He doesn’t force our choice. We are free to make that for ourselves."
This isn't about being free to make choices, it's about god not giving us information so that we can make informed choices! How is one to decide between one religion and another? Even if one decides to be Xian, how does one decide on the correct denomination? Your argument about water that is diseased UNDERSCORES the questioner's point! Once again, you've scored an own goal. Epic fail.
Anon, citing that God hasn't ended world suffering doesn't negate the healing testimonies I have given. One doesn't infer the other as you think it does. You turn everything I say around to be another charge in your book against God. You seem to have great animosity toward someone you consider non-existent.
If what I have said reflects badly in your opinion on my argument then you will see that I am not trying to hide anything from you. I am simply speaking what I know to be true.
I don't believe the only reason people aid the suffering is because it benefits themselves. That doesn't explain why people will sacrifice their needs for another. Why someone will take the bullet for another, even some times a stranger. The universal desire to do help another shows a moral understanding and doesn't negate my assertions.
Anonymous, I don't think you have said I have given one answer yet to anything, so I'm doubting your credibility every time you say I haven't answered something. There is a difference between answering something and that answer being what you think is satisfactory or true. I have given an answer. You disagree with it, you counter it, and that's all good, but please quit saying I haven't answered.
Question 8:
"If God created humans who freely desire to do good, would not this mean that they cannot do bad? As soon as something is good, that which is not that something is be default bad or evil. So a choice is created. If the choice is removed, freedom is removed."
god could have created humans that naturally desire to do good, without violating free will.
"No, in heaven we have arrived at the fullness of freedom from the bondage of sin because it was dealt with on earth by freely accepting Christ gift of salvation."
IOW, freedom is slavery. Once you make the choice to go to heaven, are you able to do anything bad, or is all good? If heaven can only be good, then all people are forced to be good. So, for instance, you would not be able to see a loved one burning in hell and decide that hell is an evil place, because then you would not be eternally happy, etc. The good of heaven would be interrupted. And, according to your argument, this must mean that you have no free will in heaven, because your potential choice to do evil in heaven is denied to you. If you can do evil in heaven, then heaven is not thoroughly good.
So, at this point, is it possible for humans to naturally choose good and have free will or does one give up one's free will in heaven? Which is it?
"Anon, citing that God hasn't ended world suffering doesn't negate the healing testimonies I have given. One doesn't infer the other as you think it does."
I never said it did. IT'S A COMPLETELY SEPARATE QUESTION! Are you really having that much difficulty understanding the plain words that are being spoken?
"You turn everything I say around to be another charge in your book against God."
No, I'm just noting that you completely failed to answer the question, and in doing so you actually strengthened the questioner's argument.
"You seem to have great animosity toward someone you consider non-existent."
Ah yes, when in doubt play this card. Except it simply isn't so. It's impossible to be angry at something that doesn't exist, as I've already explained to you. Don't get mad because you can't defend your own ideas.
"If what I have said reflects badly in your opinion on my argument then you will see that I am not trying to hide anything from you. I am simply speaking what I know to be true."
Except that I don't think you realize that you've scored an own goal.
"I don't believe the only reason people aid the suffering is because it benefits themselves."
That's immaterial to the question.
"The universal desire to do help another shows a moral understanding and doesn't negate my assertions."
Are you asserting that god is helping to alleviate suffering by forcing us to have a universal desire to help others? A simple yes or no will suffice.
"Anonymous, I don't think you have said I have given one answer yet to anything, so I'm doubting your credibility every time you say I haven't answered something."
Except that I give reasons why I make that statement when I give it. You can either simply ignore what I say and prove that I'm right that you do so, or you could address the arguments given. Your choice.
"There is a difference between answering something and that answer being what you think is satisfactory or true. I have given an answer. You disagree with it, you counter it, and that's all good, but please quit saying I haven't answered."
OK, so if I ask you what is 2+2 and you say, "god is good," should I take that as an answer to my question? If someone asks why god doesn't do X, and you "answer" that god loves us without actually addressing whether god does X and why, how is that an answer to the question?
Question 7:
It doesn't matter how much time Jesus spent talking about hell (and we disagree on how much he talked about it) for the purposes of the question. If he only talked about hell once, that's enough for the question to have merit. The Bible says that most people will go to hell. If god doesn't want people to go to hell, how is this not a failure? Do you understand why this question is unanswered? And, if you think god is succeeding, then what would it take for it to be considered a failure?
Question 6:
This is the closest you've come to actually answering the question. But, you don't address why god had to wait in order to have Jesus arrive or why god would wait to improve our standing (as I've noted before in another comment thread). You started to touch on this when you said...
"...but that relationship wasn’t fulfilled until Christ came because we needed to see the difference between what was available without Christ and the greater with Christ."
Considering that only people alive during the time of Christ would be party to this knowledge, I don't see this as a compelling argument. How do you know what a relationship with god was like before Christ? Can you honestly claim that this makes sense?
Anonymous, regarding #6, they had the Old Testament Scriptures during the time of Christ and the Jews were great at keeping records of their history, they knew full well the traditions and ways God related to their people before Christ and we have those records today.
Does anyone want me to elaborate on any of my answers to these questions in a separate post?
This is in response to question 6:
I agree that religion is the handiwork of people. I think the covenant was also a human invention. But......if I'm wrong and if there is a god and he really did make a covenant, it is the framework for Judaism. The 613 laws were supposedly transmitted from god, through Moses, to the people, just like the ten commandments. The details of the priesthood and its rituals (isn't that what makes up religion?) are spelled out in detail by god through Moses. Sound like god created religion to me.
If god were building relationships, as you assert, there would be no need for a religion. Needs would be met, questions would be answered and there would be no confusion as to IF he exists, or who he is and what he expects. Instead this plan of salvation is encrypted in an old collection of writings from an era past. The responsibility for its care and dissemination is laid upon human beings whose example was anything but holy. The history of the church indicates to me and many others that many of the fruits of this belief system are rotten. The vast majority of human history came before Jesus and even now millions will never have the opportunity to hear the gospel. Millions more will never be in a position to accept this gospel because they are already steeped in other religious traditions that, like Christianity, discourage listening to other messages. If this is a plan to save humankind, it appears to me to be a poor one that will leave more people out than it will include.
"Anonymous, regarding #6, they had the Old Testament Scriptures during the time of Christ and the Jews were great at keeping records of their history, they knew full well the traditions and ways God related to their people before Christ and we have those records today."
But you keep telling me that it's a relationship with god. How does one have a relationship with historical records? How can you or I feel what it was like to be in relationship with god before Jesus arrived on the scene? This is why I find it to be rather weak argumentation. You can't emphasize the traditions and ways that god set down as how to be a good religionist and act as if that satisfies the assertion and then turn around and assert that it's not about traditions and ways, but about tangible relationships. Again, you can't have it both ways. This has been a common refrain from me lately, but your contradictory theology is twisting your story into knots, and you're being forced to contradict yourself to keep afloat.
In response to #7
According to the gospels, Jesus spent very little time talking about hell. So true......BUT. The amount of time spent talking about a place of eternal torment does not erase it from the scriptures. The point is this: God reputedly created this place of eternal torment. As far as I'm concerned, this invalidates him as a god of love, mercy and compassion even with all of Jesus' good work. Let me give this a more human face: If my neighbor is a great guy, pillar of the community who does all kinds of good things and helps those less fortunate, while at the same time imprisons "bad" people in his basement where they are deprived of any comfort or dignity, they are left in darkness where they will cry and gnash their teeth forever. Does he still qualify as a good guy? Just because Christian culture glosses over hell doesn't make it go away. This kind of monstrous cruelty is condemned when done by humans, yet somehow its OK for god. The overall message I hear is that god rewards his friends and punishes his enemies. How very small and how very human that is. The church doesn't need to mention hell very much; just believing you could possibly end up there is enough to keep a subtle, low-level fear within. I discovered this fear in myself when I began to seriously question god's existence. What if I'm wrong? What if god does exists and I am found faithless on judgment day? According to scripture nothing I do, think, or say counts for anything if I don't have faith. Seems incredibly unjust to me.
Anonymous, I appreciate your vigor in responses, could I bother you to shorten what you want me to respond to a few concise follow up questions?
Here's a concise question:
God is love..........agreed?
So tell me..........
How can love cast a sentient being into eternal torment, as is suggested by the Bible?
He doesn't send us there. He saves us from any need to ever go there. We send ourselves there. I've explained this before. Please refer back to the post I have written on the subject.
"He doesn't send us there."
So, are you saying that all people have decided to go to hell on their own, and only after god comes and changes our hearts do we decide that we don't want to be tortured eternally after all?
"He saves us from any need to ever go there."
After setting up the initial conditions whereby we are destined for hell unless he comes and saves us.
"We send ourselves there."
By being born and not living up to an unattainable perfect standard?
"I've explained this before."
And, you've never answered the objections to it.
Post a Comment