Why Earth?

[TheProcess]

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.

You seem to have said yourself that future free choice can't be known. In that circumstance, I'm not sure that God could even know that Herod would be born, let alone that he would carry out a massacre of babies. Your position does seem to create a possible problem for Bible prophecy. (With certain prophecies in the Bible, at least.)

You suggest that God may be an "exceptional predictor". How well free choice could be predicted by a Deity I have no idea. (Remember that God would have to make predictions about people who don't even exist at that time.) However, lets imagine that God would be highly accurate. This still seems to create a problem. Would it be acceptable if God gives a prophecy that has a 99% chance of being fulfilled? Would the Christian be happy with the Bible if it gets most of its prophecies correct? If you want to say that God can predict the future it seems you would need to say that he is always correct?

[TheProcess]

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.)

This looks to be a possibly question-begging response. Do the gospels provide an argument that a non-Christian should reasonably accept? (That a person can't be, "righteous before God according to his works".)

Also:

In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechari'ah, of the division of Abi'jah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. (Luke 1:5-6 RSV)

What do you make of these verses?

[Copper Scroll]

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?

Faith is up to the individual person. I don't see how God would be able to make a person have faith. If God coerces a person, it is not the person who is acting--it is God. So I don't see how coercion could save a person.

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?

I don't think God appears to anyone unquestionably. First, what is unquestionable is completely relative. A person can question anything. It wasn't very long after God saved Israel from Egypt, having used all types of miraculous acts, that the people started demanding more signs from Him. If God intervened more in the world and did it more obviously, there still would be people who would either doubt His existence or His benevolence or His wisdom. The bottom line is that the faithful don't need an excess of "signs", and it is faith that saves.

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?

I have done a lot of wrestling with the subject of faith, and I'm probably not done yet. What is apparent to me is that faith, as I stated before, is the foundation of all knowledge and understanding. It gives our lives meaning, a reason to think and act, and a will to live eternally like our Father. So the faithful will have meaningful lives, will think and act in accordance with God's will (to the best of our abilities), and will live eternally. Faith isn't better than certainty. Faith is certainty. What else is certain? What do you mean by "certainty"?

I'm not sure if I completely understand your questions about morality. But that morality is absolute speaks to the nature, character, and will of God as absolute and as holy. It stabilizes our relationships with one another and with God. If it were relative and ever-changing, we would constantly risk "backsliding"; society would be (as perhaps it is) unstable and we could not begin to reconcile ourselves with a God who is holy and doesn't change.

Again, I'm not sure if that answers your questions. But you are correct in saying that moral truths cannot be proven. Most of us, even atheists, will accept that murder is wrong in the absense of "proof" that it is wrong--the same sort of proof they demand as verification of God's existence.

[Copper Scroll]

You seem to have said yourself that future free choice can't be known. In that circumstance, I'm not sure that God could even know that Herod would be born, let alone that he would carry out a massacre of babies. Your position does seem to create a possible problem for Bible prophecy. (With certain prophecies in the Bible, at least.)

You suggest that God may be an "exceptional predictor". How well free choice could be predicted by a Deity I have no idea. (Remember that God would have to make predictions about people who don't even exist at that time.) However, lets imagine that God would be highly accurate. This still seems to create a problem. Would it be acceptable if God gives a prophecy that has a 99% chance of being fulfilled? Would the Christian be happy with the Bible if it gets most of its prophecies correct? If you want to say that God can predict the future it seems you would need to say that he is always correct?

Remember that God can intend for certain things to happen and make them happen.

This looks to be a possibly question-begging response. Do the gospels provide an argument that a non-Christian should reasonably accept?

Most everyone would agree that no human being is perfect but God is perfect and holy. How then can an imperfect human being live with Holy God for all eternity? Holiness cannot tolerate the presence of sin. No sin is slight. The question becomes Is it possible for a human to live eternally with God? and How? I'm not sure how other religions handle these questions.

What do you make of these verses?

Yes, there are other passages that suggest that a person can be righteous. And that a person can be righteous is obvious. Even atheists can be righteous. So my original wording was not exactly correct. I was speaking in reference to what I said in the last paragraph. The difference is between being righteous and conscientious and being perfect and holy. The presence of God and entrance to His Kingdom require holiness, which no human being possesses on his own. Humans need to be redeemed and saved from our fate--death--which we deserve. And out of love, God has done this.

[TheProcess]

Remember that God can intend for certain things to happen and make them happen.

Yes. But if God caused a massacre of babies to fulfill prophecy is that really satisfactory? Does it not look morally questionable?

[TheProcess]

Most everyone would agree that no human being is perfect but God is perfect and holy. How then can an imperfect human being live with Holy God for all eternity?

Perhaps we can eventually become perfect by our own effort? Or perhaps we can become perfect by grace? (Without the Jesus sacrifice.)

I have already given this John Hick quote but I will do so again. It seems to make far more sense as a view of salvation than does the Jesus sacrifice:

Suppose we think of salvation in a much more concrete and empirically observable way as an actual change in men and women from natural self-centredness to, in theistic terms, God-centredness, or in more general terms, a new orientation centred in the Ultimate, the Real, as conceived and experienced within one's own tradition. Salvation in this sense is the central concern of each of the great world religions. Within Christianity it is conceptualized and experienced as the state in which Paul could say, 'It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me' (Gal. 2:20, RSV). Within Judaism it is conceived and experienced as the joy and responsibility of life lived in accordance with God's Torah. Within Islam it is conceived and experienced as a personal self-surrender to God in a life lived according to God's revealed commands. With Advaitic Hinduism it is conceived and experienced as a transcending of the ego and discovery of unity with the eternal reality of Brahman. Within Buddhism it is conceived and experienced as a loss of the ego point of view in a discovery of the Buddha nature of the universal interdependent process of which we are all part. And in each case this transformation of human existence from self-centredness to Reality-centredness is reached by a moral and spiritual path.

John Hick (2001) 'The Theological Challenge of Religious Pluralism' in John Hick & Brian Hebblethwaite (eds) Christianity and Other Religions: Selected Readings (Oxford: Oneworld Publications)

[LightofJesus]

ccording to the Bible, all souls originate with/are created by God.

This appears to be foundational for your premise. Can you please show where in the Bible it says that "all souls originate with/ are created by God"?

the Bible specifically states that Heaven...constitutes 'being with' or 'a closeness to' God.

Again, I am curious to know where it "specifically states" such a thing. Please give the verse(s).

It appears to me that the foundations for your questions sre presumptions about what the bible says, or at least misinformation about what the Bible teaches concerning creation and what heppens after we die. I don't think that your questions can be fairly addressed without your first having a clear understanding about what the Bible really teaches.

That is the problem I constantly encounter with those who seek to find fault with God. They don't really know what the Bible says. They attribute to the Bible, things it does not say, and then opertate from faulty positions. They are essentially criticizing the Bible over something it does not say. Instead of actually having the integrity to do REAL research into the biblical claims, it is easier to condemn the Bible over what they THINK the Bible says.

To answer where in the bible it tells God made man is in Genesis 1:27;

So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Then in chapter 2:7;

And the Lord formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The rest is hstory!!

[Guest Thomas I Believe]

It's like you are comparing man to God.

Of course God does not need evil.

Man does so that we can recognize good when we see it.

The struggle with sin makes us stronger and when we defeat it, we are closer to God.

God created man. If we "require" evil to have choice and to comprehend good, and if God created everything, then our requirement of evil only exists because God made the world that way. That's what I meant.

God created everything. He allowed for a balance of all things thus good and evil. It is us that failed Adam and Eve in the begining and God sent His Only Son Jesus to fix what we messed up. Jesus mended our ways. He opened the gates of Heaven for us to enter.

[Copper Scroll]

Yes. But if God caused a massacre of babies to fulfill prophecy is that really satisfactory? Does it not look morally questionable?

I strive to trust God's judgment more than I trust my own. Ideally, I would not question the morality of any of God's actions. To be honest, this subject has caused a great deal of trouble for my beliefs in the past. I now understand the wars of conquest documented in the OT as paving the way for the salvation of all humanity. But sometimes I even have doubts about this. I question whether the way could have been paved another way. Only God knows the answer to that really.

I understand the entire Bible as a collaborative effort between God and humans--a correspondence--divinely inspired literature. I emphasize "inspired" as a reminder that the muse is not the artist, even though the work of art might have never happened without the muse. A teacher gives a lecture and a student takes notes. Can the teacher be said to be the author of the student's notes? Yes, in a way, even though the student (perhaps) tailored the teacher's message to suit his own purposes. I'm inclined to think that these analogies can be applied to God and human beings with regards to the writing of the Bible.

Anyway, I've strayed too far off topic.

Perhaps we can eventually become perfect by our own effort? Or perhaps we can become perfect by grace? (Without the Jesus sacrifice.)

I would never discourage anyone from striving for perfection. But if there is some special set of human beings that can be just like Jesus (minus the sacrifice), I'm sure that set is extremely small... and that minute elite group would be the only ones who get to see the Kingdom.

As to being made perfect by God without the sacrifice, I see that resulting in people taking salvation for granted. The truth is that we are being saved from death. The sacrifice gives us some idea of what death is. If we had no idea of what death is, we would not know what we are being saved from. Having an idea of what we are being saved from deepens our appreciation and love of our Savior. It, perhaps, inspires a relationship with God in the first place.

I have already given this John Hick quote but I will do so again. It seems to make far more sense as a view of salvation than does the Jesus sacrifice.

Everything in that quote sounds really neat, and I do think that the common threads between religions deserves attention. But the common thread I see there has to do with founding and building upon a relationship with God--not living with God for all eternity. These are definitely connected, but I don't know if they are the same thing. Only God knows that. I won't pretend to know exactly who will enter the Kingdom and who won't. I do hope that this is possible for people of all religions, but, perhaps, it's not. Thanks for sharing the quote.

[TheProcess]

I would never discourage anyone from striving for perfection. But if there is some special set of human beings that can be just like Jesus (minus the sacrifice), I'm sure that set is extremely small... and that minute elite group would be the only ones who get to see the Kingdom.

Well perhaps we have more than this life to achieve perfection?

Anyway, according to William Law:

But you will say, Do not all Christians desire to have Christ to be their savior? Yes. But here is the deceit; all would have Christ to be their savior in the next world, and to help them into heaven when they die, by his power, and merits with God. But this is not willing Christ to be thy savior; for his salvation, if it is had, must be had in this world; if he save thee, it must be done in this life, by changing and altering all that is within thee, by helping thee to a new heart, as he helped the blind to see, the lame to walk, and the dumb to speak. For to have salvation from Christ, is nothing else but to be made like unto him; it is to have his humility and meekness, his mortification and self-denial, his renunciation of the spirit, wisdom, and honors of this world, his love of God, his desire of doing God's will, and seeking only his honor. To have these tempers formed and begotten in thy heart, is to have salvation from Christ. But if thou willest not to have these tempers brought forth in thee, if thy faith and desire does not seek, and cry to Christ for them in the same reality, as the lame asked to walk, and the blind to see, then thou must be said to be unwilling to have Christ to be thy savior.

William Law, The Spirit of Prayer

http://www.ccel.org/l/law/prayer/prayer.html

If we only have this life, then I would say that most Christians aren't going to be saved if William Law is correct.