A few questions for any Christian

[emeraldgirl]

So how do we know it is God? Open doors that sometimes leads us to a place that we do NOT want to go.

Thanks for sharing your story, Wayne, and for your service to God in this way. I do know what you're talking about. This kind of thing has happened to me in ways, too.

Cell, thanks for your kind words.

[RustyAngeL]

Our humaness ,our flawed nature, makes it hard enough. All people have difficulties but i am comforted by the fact that i dont go through it alone. Yes us Christians have problems we are no diiferant from anyone else except that God is there with us to encourage us to guide us during those difficultys. God does make a differance. He saves us from ourselves. I love to pray for others and whatever the need is. It is a special time to draw close to God.

This is an excellent point. We all have problems, God never promised us an easy time, He did promise however to walk with us through the tough times.

[secondeve]

God's love is unconditional. God does expect you to live up to a certain moral code before He will accept you.

This is a contradiction in terms. Unconditional means that there can be no requests, requirements or restrictions placed upon it; and adherence to a moral code is such a condition. I think, though, that this has become confused. What's really being argued is this: does unconditional love equate to unconditional salvation? What you seem to be saying is that God loves us all no matter what we do (unconditional), but that our salvation depends upon our willingness to believe in the Bible and to submit to a moral code (conditional).

I think this is an important distinction to make, because asking about God's love in light of it becomes a different question. If God loves everyone unconditionally, how can he ask that we do or become a particular thing before he saves us for eternity? If his love really was unconditional, how could he place us in what is essentially a legal double-bind: that he will love us regardless of what we do, but let us perish despite that love if we disobey? This requirement seems to contradict the idea of, if not unconditional love, then of what God's love actually is. Is it love which requires that God not let heathen sinners into Heaven - is Hell then for our own good? Does he love us so much that, like the saying, he 'lets us go?' If so, in human terms, does this constitute an abandonment? Saying that a parent has tried all in their power to curb an errant child's misdeeds but has failed nonetheless is one thing; but we are talking about a supposedly omnipotent being. God can do anything: if this is true, he can effect the ultimate salvation and keep us from hell. If he will not, then he is like a parent who, faced with a child whose behaviour has become life-threatening, stops their efforts at protection one step short of what is necessary; and unlike the parent, God does not have the excuse of not knowing that the extra effort was needed, because God knows everything.

So: if God loves even those who go to hell, why does he not pardon them - unconditionally, as it were - and let them into Heaven? We humans often believe that actions speak louder than words; God might say he loves the sinners and non-believers, but if he does not demonstrate that love by saving us unconditionally - regardless of whether or not we have accepted the death of Christ - then, if he were a person, would we not say that he was without love? Imagine a mother whose daughter commits a crime, but has the fate and punnishment of that daughter given into her hands. If the daughter professes no sorrow or regret at what she has done, the mother may either forgive her despite her lack of remorse and invite her back into her house, or cast her out to the wolves. Unconditional love would be, we think, the former; some might argue that she would still love her daughter in the latter example, but the love here would be untempered by compassion: the harsher punnishment was, in the mind of the mother, necessary, despite its being - if we bring the metaphor back to God and to Hell - irreversable. If you are God, then, it is better to punnish a sinner than to forgive them at the last - and that, I don't think, can be easily denied.

Edited July 11, 2006 by secondeve

[pamjane]

So, if you are a Christian, and you're bold enough to say so, what tenents of the faith, or verses/stories/concepts in the Bible do you find troubling? Or wish you could understand? Qualify your answer by telling how long you've been a Christian, please. Also, have you read the entire Bible?

I first accepted Jesus as my Savior when I was in 7th grade, but I very rarely attended church. I began an intimate, personal relationship with God in fall 2001 during my freshman year of college. For 4-1/2 years I centered my life around Christ and devoted myself to knowing and loving him and the Church. Until March I even seriously considered going into fulltime ministry. I've probably only read about 1/2-3/5 of the entire Bible.

A few things that I've found progressively troubling with the God of the Bible:

**I know the depths of the darkness of my heart and the depravity of my mind. If I am a created being, then my Creator must be even more evil than me to have created my evilness. I understand the idea of free will, and that God created us good and we choose to do evil. But this does not negate the fact that God must have created this evil that we are free to choose.

**How do I know I can trust the modern Protestant version of the Bible? There have been so many versions of what was considered canon at the time, not to mention dozens of other gospels, hundreds of other epistles, and many different revelations that never made the canon cut. This is coupled with the disparity of scripture that other posters have mentioned. If there are some mistakes (and possibly some intentional changes of events or words) in scripture, then how could we possibly trust that what we consider "God-breathed" scripture today is God's true word.

**Radical Muslims have got me thinking about how our fathers of faith have killed and waged war in the name of our God. I'm not talking about the Crusades or the Inquisition or the KKK, which can all be attributed to people misunderstanding or grossly perverting the message of the Bible. I'm talking about the Old Testament heroes who heard messages straight from God. Today, radical Muslims genuinely believed that they are hearing from God and accomplishing his will by sacrificing their lives to bring justice to what they see as godless and tyrannical nations. Is there really much difference between the faith of Joshua or David and the faith of Ziad or Ahmed?

Edited July 11, 2006 by pamjane

[sylvan3]

God's love is unconditional. God does expect you to live up to a certain moral code before He will accept you.

This is a contradiction in terms. Unconditional means that there can be no requests, requirements or restrictions placed upon it; and adherence to a moral code is such a condition. I think, though, that this has become confused. What's really being argued is this: does unconditional love equate to unconditional salvation? What you seem to be saying is that God loves us all no matter what we do (unconditional), but that our salvation depends upon our willingness to believe in the Bible and to submit to a moral code (conditional).

I think this is an important distinction to make, because asking about God's love in light of it becomes a different question. If God loves everyone unconditionally, how can he ask that we do or become a particular thing before he saves us for eternity? If his love really was unconditional, how could he place us in what is essentially a legal double-bind: that he will love us regardless of what we do, but let us perish despite that love if we disobey? This requirement seems to contradict the idea of, if not unconditional love, then of what God's love actually is. Is it love which requires that God not let heathen sinners into Heaven - is Hell then for our own good? Does he love us so much that, like the saying, he 'lets us go?' If so, in human terms, does this constitute an abandonment? Saying that a parent has tried all in their power to curb an errant child's misdeeds but has failed nonetheless is one thing; but we are talking about a supposedly omnipotent being. God can do anything: if this is true, he can effect the ultimate salvation and keep us from hell. If he will not, then he is like a parent who, faced with a child whose behaviour has become life-threatening, stops their efforts at protection one step short of what is necessary; and unlike the parent, God does not have the excuse of not knowing that the extra effort was needed, because God knows everything.

So: if God loves even those who go to hell, why does he not pardon them - unconditionally, as it were - and let them into Heaven? We humans often believe that actions speak louder than words; God might say he loves the sinners and non-believers, but if he does not demonstrate that love by saving us unconditionally - regardless of whether or not we have accepted the death of Christ - then, if he were a person, would we not say that he was without love? Imagine a mother whose daughter commits a crime, but has the fate and punnishment of that daughter given into her hands. If the daughter professes no sorrow or regret at what she has done, the mother may either forgive her despite her lack of remorse and invite her back into her house, or cast her out to the wolves. Unconditional love would be, we think, the former; some might argue that she would still love her daughter in the latter example, but the love here would be untempered by compassion: the harsher punnishment was, in the mind of the mother, necessary, despite its being - if we bring the metaphor back to God and to Hell - irreversable. If you are God, then, it is better to punnish a sinner than to forgive them at the last - and that, I don't think, can be easily denied.

I like almost all of what is being said here. I am perplexed, though, at the last sentence which states that it is "better to punish a sinner than to forgive them at the last--and that, I don't think, can be easily denied."

I think it easily can be denied on two counts:

1) Most of the sane world agrees that punishment can be an appropriate response in the correction of behavior. For example, a child is punished with the intent that their punished behavior will not occur again. Humans, not being omnipotent, have found it necessary to employ this, lest inappropriate behavior run rampant. Unfortunately, punishment frequently does't work. Ergo, it is an imperfect, though at times necessary, way of attempting to correct behavior. It's use also reveals the fallibility of the users.

Most of the sane world would also agree that revenge is different--and much less acceptable--than punishment. Revenge is done to satisfy anger of someone who has felt offended. This has been frowned upon by civilized society. Revenge also reveals the fallibility of the one perpetrating the revenge.

Of course, the problem is that, by definition, God is infallible. By definition, God, due to omnicscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence, would then never need to punish or exercise revenge--the act of punishment or revenge reveals infallibility. It is, therefore, completely illogical to believe that he would engage in punishment or revenge.

2) Humans are supposedly sinners because of the violation of free will. The misuse of free will is what God uses to justify punishing sinners. There is only one small problem with this line of thinking: God had free will before he gave it to humans. He CHOSE to give man free will in the same way that humans CHOSE sin after God gave them free will. God, therefore, would bear the responsibility for sin being in the world. His free will was present prior to mankind's.