Why Earth?

[TheProcess]

Jesus spoke more about Hell, than He did about heaven.

Sounds like a nice guy.

I'm sure Christians will say that he wanted to "warn" people...

[Copper Scroll]

The future does not exist, so how can it be known? Now, God can decide to act at a future time, and because He is all-powerful, nothing can stand in His way... Plus, God knows everything that is occurring and everything that has occurred, which makes Him exceptional at predicting future events. But what I will decide in the future cannot be known... unless God decides to make me act in a certain way.

So if a prophecy is given in the Bible about how someone will act in the future, then God has to coerce man to behave in such a way to fulfill the prophecy?

I don't know if God has to coerce man in that situation, but God can. (I don't see any reason why He can't. There are instances in the Bible that suggest that God has done this.) We also must keep in mind that God knows everything... down to the very content of our minds and hearts. He knows us better than we know ourselves... and most of us act quite predictably most of the time. These, I think, makes God an exceptional predictor... perhaps so good at prediction that we say "God knows the future," even if (taken literally) this statement is somewhat absurd.

Did God make Herod kill lots of babies to fulfill a prophecy?

I don't know. I suppose it's possible.

[secondeve]

I don't know if God has to coerce man in that situation, but God can. (I don't see any reason why He can't. There are instances in the Bible that suggest that God has done this.) We also must keep in mind that God knows everything... down to the very content of our minds and hearts. He knows us better than we know ourselves... and most of us act quite predictably most of the time. These, I think, makes God an exceptional predictor... perhaps so good at prediction that we say "God knows the future," even if (taken literally) this statement is somewhat absurd.

One of the big things people have said to me in answer to my original question - why did God put us on Earth to begin with - is the argument that he wants us to have free will and choose him, even if it means we make the wrong choice and go to hell. So if, as you say, there are Biblical instances of God coercing man to do his bidding, doesn't this invalidate the idea that he wants each and every one of us to choose for ourself?

Speaking of that free will argument, though. If God wants us to choose him, why make that as difficult as possible by not showing himself to us? Why move mysteriously, rather than showing up from time to time or speaking directly to us? How is proving his existence to us less important than making us choose blindly, when the stakes are our eternal souls? The way free will has been used in this argument implies that God showing up and saying, directly, 'Hey, I exist,' would somehow rob us of choice, which is ludicrous. I believe that dogs exist because I can see them and touch them; knowing something for certain, rather than choosing to believe it, does not prevent us from having free will. If I am crazy or foolishly obstinate, I can choose to disregard the evidence of my eyes and say that dogs don't exist, or that what we percieve to be dogs are actually other things. This is still a choice. It's just less obvious.

Edited July 19, 2006 by secondeve

[Copper Scroll]

One of the big things people have said to me in answer to my original question - why did God put us on Earth to begin with - is the argument that he wants us to have free will and choose him, even if it means we make the wrong choice and go to hell. So if, as you say, there are Biblical instances of God coercing man to do his bidding, doesn't this invalidate the idea that he wants each and every one of us to choose for ourself?

God coercing a person in one instance or even several instances, I don't think, amounts to God completely stripping that person of his/her freedom or capacity for choice. There are nearly infinite moments in our lives when we have to choose. God manipulating a few of these does not qualify as depriving us of free will.

Speaking of that free will argument, though. If God wants us to choose him, why make that as difficult as possible by not showing himself to us? Why move mysteriously, rather than showing up from time to time or speaking directly to us? How is proving his existence to us less important than making us choose blindly, when the stakes are our eternal souls? The way free will has been used in this argument implies that God showing up and saying, directly, 'Hey, I exist,' would somehow rob us of choice, which is ludicrous. I believe that dogs exist because I can see them and touch them; knowing something for certain, rather than choosing to believe it, does not prevent us from having free will. If I am crazy or foolishly obstinate, I can choose to disregard the evidence of my eyes and say that dogs don't exist, or that what we percieve to be dogs are actually other things. This is still a choice. It's just less obvious.

Perhaps, God, in some way and to some extent, reveals Himself to everyone. Whether that revelation will satisify a person is ultimately up to the person. This might be particulary difficult for a person with certain experiential and ideological distractions in his/her life that draw his/her attention away from God's revelation. Such a person might demand further "proof".

Christianity emphasizes the salvific value of faith. If a person requires "proof" of God's existence above and beyond whatever (small) proof God has already provided in order for belief, then the belief is not based on faith really. Truly, faith is the foundation of all knowledge and understanding. As I have been saying regularly in my correspondence with atheists, we all hold onto truths that are unvalidated and unproven. These assumptions typically provide a ground upon which a system of thought can be built and newly acquired knowledge can be integrated. These assumptions make our personal and social lives sensible and meaningful. That God lives, created the universe, and loves us are among these foundational concepts for me. I can't "prove" these are true any more than I can prove that life has intrinsic worth or that all human lives are of equal worth. But certainly, just as belief in the instrinsic value of life and in equality among the human race are rational beliefs, belief in God too is rational. I can't "prove" it, because God (unlike a dog) is not an object. All I can do is defend this belief in argumentation.

[sylvan3]

One of the big things people have said to me in answer to my original question - why did God put us on Earth to begin with - is the argument that he wants us to have free will and choose him, even if it means we make the wrong choice and go to hell. So if, as you say, there are Biblical instances of God coercing man to do his bidding, doesn't this invalidate the idea that he wants each and every one of us to choose for ourself?

God coercing a person in one instance or even several instances, I don't think, amounts to God completely stripping that person of his/her freedom or capacity for choice. There are nearly infinite moments in our lives when we have to choose. God manipulating a few of these does not qualify as depriving us of free will.

Speaking of that free will argument, though. If God wants us to choose him, why make that as difficult as possible by not showing himself to us? Why move mysteriously, rather than showing up from time to time or speaking directly to us? How is proving his existence to us less important than making us choose blindly, when the stakes are our eternal souls? The way free will has been used in this argument implies that God showing up and saying, directly, 'Hey, I exist,' would somehow rob us of choice, which is ludicrous. I believe that dogs exist because I can see them and touch them; knowing something for certain, rather than choosing to believe it, does not prevent us from having free will. If I am crazy or foolishly obstinate, I can choose to disregard the evidence of my eyes and say that dogs don't exist, or that what we percieve to be dogs are actually other things. This is still a choice. It's just less obvious.

Perhaps, God, in some way and to some extent, reveals Himself to everyone. Whether that revelation will satisify a person is ultimately up to the person. This might be particulary difficult for a person with certain experiential and ideological distractions in his/her life that draw his/her attention away from God's revelation. Such a person might demand further "proof".

Christianity emphasizes the salvific value of faith. If a person requires "proof" of God's existence above and beyond whatever (small) proof God has already provided in order for belief, then the belief is not based on faith really. Truly, faith is the foundation of all knowledge and understanding. As I have been saying regularly in my correspondence with atheists, we all hold onto truths that are unvalidated and unproven. These assumptions typically provide a ground upon which a system of thought can be built and newly acquired knowledge can be integrated. These assumptions make our personal and social lives sensible and meaningful. That God lives, created the universe, and loves us are among these foundational concepts for me. I can't "prove" these are true any more than I can prove that life has intrinsic worth or that all human lives are of equal worth. But certainly, just as belief in the instrinsic value of life and in equality among the human race are rational beliefs, belief in God too is rational. I can't "prove" it, because God (unlike a dog) is not an object. All I can do is defend this belief in argumentation.

I understand your faith and hope it works for you. You have to decide if it is the right thing.

People of other religions also have faith that what they believe is true. People of no religion have faith that other faiths are false.

The problem is that I can say that freely. Christians (correct me if I am wrong on this) have to say that other faiths are wrong. However, they have no evidence of this.

[Copper Scroll]

Christians (correct me if I am wrong on this) have to say that other faiths are wrong.

I don't say that other faiths (meaning, other religions) are wrong. Some Christians interpret passages where God says something like "You shall have no other gods before Me" as dismissing other religions... but I disagree with this interpretation for two reasons:

1. It is very likely that the God concept of other popular religions refers to the same God as Christianity, granted the many commonalities in attributes.

2. Things like money and material possessions (for example) can serve as focal points in a person's life of higher priority and status for that person than God. From my experience, I have seen these operate as idol gods that distract one from the One Most High True and Living God. They are man-made things that some people pour most of their spirit and energy into serving. They are "gods" that many place before the One God, breaking a very important commandment.

[Copper Scroll]

1. It is very likely that the God concept of other popular religions refers to the same God as Christianity, granted the many commonalities in attributes.

And as I tried to ask you three thousand times, why couldn't the real religion be the Muslim religion and Christianity a misunderstanding?

I don't know that much about Islam, but (as far as I know) it does not offer any way for humanity to be reconciled with God. I don't really know how it deals with this issue. I think that Islam holds that a human being can be righteous before God according to his works. This contradicts Christ's teaching that this not really possible for a human being. (And the Gospels show us why this is not possible.)

All of this does not mean that Islam is not a "real religion" in its own way or is not true in some ways. If anything, it only means that it is incomplete. Perhaps, every major religion is "real" and true in its own way. That is why I don't reject them.

Bah. You don't listen. "Nooooo I don't reject other religions, I merely think I'm the only one who got it right!! I don't reject ENTIRE religions, only the parts that contradict mine!!" And let's not forget my favorite, which is off-topic here but I'm going to post anyway because I'm a bastard: "No that's not BAD special pleading, it's GOOD special pleading!!"

You do know that "special pleading" only counts as such when the reason for a subject to be considered special is either unclear or unreasonable. I did explain what makes God special. You apparently have no answer for that explanation. Until I am shown how my position is unreasonable, I have to conclude that you (the one who has jumped out of and back into a debate with baseless accusations of irrationality) are the one being unreasonable.

[thepreacher]

I've been thinking lately, and have come up with a question that I'm curious to hear some answers to. Here it is:

According to the Bible, all souls originate with/are created by God. Christianity also states that God is omnipresent and omnipotent - he both makes and knows all things. Genesis tells us that Sin, God's punnishment for the actions of Adam and Eve, was permanent, so that the whole world after the Fall would be tainted by it. Human beigns are born, live and die on Earth, after which time - if they have been righteous - their souls are returned to God; if not, they are damned to Hell. Heaven is the reward/home of those who are true to the faith; the Bible specifically states that Heaven, regardless of what else it might entail, constitutes 'being with' or 'a closeness to' God. Presumably, when a soul is with God, the Devil can have no hold over it. So if God creates all souls - but can potentially keep them safe from Satan by not making them incarnate - why bother with Earth at all? If God can do everything, then he can surely make us in such a way that we exist peacefully in Heaven without our having to have been born or died. Why allow new babies to be born every day - thousands of them! - if all this does is place their souls temporarily in a Sinful world and provide the opportunity for the Devil to take them irrepairably from him?

Secondeve,

Why does God do it his way? God says for his own good pleasure.

Yes God could have done things in any number of different ways mankind might imagine, but he didn't. Any amount of wondering about it won't change things.

For example if you don't like the fact that God made it so you have to breathe to live. You could stomp your foot and yell all day long and rebel against God and say "I don't believe in this restriction so I am not going to breathe anymore, he should or could have done it some other way". If you can stop yourself from breathing then you will die.

If you never believe in the truth or stop believing then you will die. Another requirement from God. Just because he wanted to for his own good pleasure.

[Copper Scroll]

You never justified the special exceptions you have to make. You say that God needs those exceptions, but that' sthe problem, not the solution. One needs to show that those exceptions are justified in their own right. One has to show that it's reasonable to make them no matter what the argument is.

I did... repeatedly.... God is not an object. Pink walruses are objects. The following are all excerpts from previous posts:

-I can explain why God is special, and it will be up to you whether you accept what I say or not.

-God's existence does not need to be proven, because God is not an object.

-At times, when we have assigned names and faces to God, we sought to make an object out of Him. Perhaps, this made Him more comprehensible. But those are just ideas... tools we use in our attempt to capture the Almighty with our finite minds. God is not an object.

-The last time we conversed I think I demonstrated to you why the idea of God's existence does not require "proof" (the way we normally understand "proof"). God is not an object. Asking for proof of God's existence is like asking me for proof of my own consciousness.

-For you, this correspondence is enough to prove my consciousness.

-The claim that God exists in not about the existence of "something ". The claim that God exists is about the existence of someone . Just as you accept my consciousness based on something so flimsy and suspect as this correspondence, I accept the existence of God based on our correspondence--the Bible--and His works in my life.

And, also as I've said before, if you don't accept this explanation, you will call this special pleading. I assume that you don't except it, but you have failed to demonstrate why. When it came time, you gave up... as you had once before.

[secondeve]

God coercing a person in one instance or even several instances, I don't think, amounts to God completely stripping that person of his/her freedom or capacity for choice. There are nearly infinite moments in our lives when we have to choose. God manipulating a few of these does not qualify as depriving us of free will.

I've made this same argument to others on the board. If God can do this, and if he doesn't want us to go to hell, why not use this power as a last resort, to effect the final conversion and save us from our own bad decisions when every other alternative has failed?

Perhaps, God, in some way and to some extent, reveals Himself to everyone. Whether that revelation will satisify a person is ultimately up to the person. This might be particulary difficult for a person with certain experiential and ideological distractions in his/her life that draw his/her attention away from God's revelation. Such a person might demand further "proof".

But surely God knows exactly what kind of sign would be required in every instance to best or most obviously reveal himself to us, so that we would know it was him beyond all doubt? If he can read our individual minds and hearts, then surely he would know how best to appear to us, unquestionably? But if he doesn't do this, and knows we are flawed, can we be entirely blamed for a human failure to understand what we have experienced?

Christianity emphasizes the salvific value of faith. If a person requires "proof" of God's existence above and beyond whatever (small) proof God has already provided in order for belief, then the belief is not based on faith really.

Why is faith better than cetainty? The former implies the latter, but cannot be substantiated externally. Surely a significant part of the problem now is that Christians cannot convince non-Christians of the validity of their morals precicely because the truth of them must be assumed, rather than demonstrably proven? What good is there in claiming that morality is absolute, applying to everyone, but that the reason for those morals will be apparent only to those who choose them (and God) for themselves?