Is God really Just?

[Pedronicus]

I got to stop entering these religious threads (which, for the most part, I do avoid) - I will never understand why full grown adults will continue to prescribe to lunacy.

I'm like you Jake, but I have a read (from time to time) to maintain my belief that all people who believe in religion are as mad as a box of frogs.

[The1exile]

You're rating a person with a good life as somehow more deserving of heaven.

Yes.

It's pretty clear in scripture that no good deed or deeds is enough to get into heaven, but everyone who has ever done a single thing wrong is unable to stand before a Holy God.

And this is justice? I don't buy it.

God's standard is absolute perfection. Since none of us can reach that standard,

...because, in your view at least, he knows we won't be and/or he made use so we wouldn't...

he allows us into heaven if we admit we are not holy or perfect, and accept Christs death as the substitution for our punishment. Of course, if we do this, we'll be grateful enough to God that we attempt to do things that are right, but the key is to always remember that no one can earn it on their own.

So you're saying that traditional "goodness", rather than being the aim of christianity, is merely a helpful byproduct?

I find that I would have to refer you back to the murder on the deathbed thing, and find that not just.

So no matter how good or bad a person is, accepting their own depravity and turning to Christ cleanses them. To a certain degree, however we can see how sincere that decision was based on their actions after that. IF a person claims to have repented, but continues to live a life in rebellion to God's standards, we have to question whether that decision was true or not. Turning to Christ is a life changing decision, it impacts your actions, your words, even your thoughts. If a person has truly committed themselves to Christ, they are going to change for the better.

Again, I just can't see justice in this. There's no consistency and it all goes down to Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, which is imo the stupidest tenet of xianity.

And, by the way, which philosopher who killed God actually thought the world was beautiful? It seems to me that everyone who does the hard work of working out the effects of a godless world comes back with a handful of despair and little more. I think the beauty you see in this world is by focusing on the flower while refusing to acknowledge the prison around you.

I find I can I consider the world beautiful, or think that the universe is beautiful, without having to subscribe to a belief system. Love and altruism ftw. God ftl.

[PLAYER57832]

I find I can I consider the world beautiful, or think that the universe is beautiful, without having to subscribe to a belief system. Love and altruism ftw. God ftl.

You are almost certainly a nice person to be around, an asset to this world, but the definition of a Christian is not a "good person", it is one who is saved because of a belief in Jesus Christ (with some variations). You can see it as ironic, hypocritical or just plain wrong, but that is how it is.

I will add to this that I have a personal belief that the truly good will somehow be saved, but that is an esoteric argument and not a matter of practical relevance.

I believe, in the largest part, that we should follow God's laws because it will give us a better live overall. Not necessarily an easier life, by any means, but a better life overall. I get my reward for that "directly". Why do some people face greater struggles? The Bible tends to say because they can handle those struggles better... and that is one reason why we cannot really judge that person as "better than" this other person. Someone may do terrible things, but because they had terrible life experiences. Another may live a good life, but not have faced any real challenges. Which is really the greater person? Only God can say.

That leads me to yet another answer to "why sin". Why is it that my cousin's child was born without hearing, without use of his limbs and only minimal vision, while my 2 sons were born healthy and whole? I don't know. It is cruel. And yet, the challenges my cousin is facing are leading her to be a better person, are leading her to struggle with and make changes that have benefitted many other children, including my own sons.

Sometimes God's grace is shown not in the individual, but in the responses to the individual. The challenges are necessary for the saints and heroes to exist.

[The1exile]

You are almost certainly a nice person to be around, an asset to this world,

Thank you

but the definition of a Christian is not a "good person", it is one who is saved because of a belief in Jesus Christ (with some variations). You can see it as ironic, hypocritical or just plain wrong, but that is how it is.

Well, I'm seeing it as unjust - hence, the thread title. I, too, would like to believe that nice people are rewarded in some way ("saved, if you like) and horrible people aren't, but I think that's generally a natural consequence of the world.

[CrazyAnglican]

Basically, would a murderer who repents and asks for forgiveness be 'allowed' into heaven over someone who spent their life as a charity worker or ran another social programme but didn't happen to be religious at all?

Where's the justice in that?

This seems a little too general to be useful doesn't it? One can't sum up two entire lives in one sentence like this. You seem to be inviting us to see the virtuous unreligious person and the repentant, evil convert. If the murderer truly repented and was a great guy afterward, why shouldn't he have salvation? If this didn't happen he won't be there anyway.

Is charity work alone sufficient for entrance into heaven? What if your charity worker beat his wife and kids? The charity worker and the murderer had equal opportunity. Do you suggest that murderers not being allowed to repent is more fair than only admitting those who outwardly look virtuous?

[PLAYER57832]

but the definition of a Christian is not a "good person", it is one who is saved because of a belief in Jesus Christ (with some variations). You can see it as ironic, hypocritical or just plain wrong, but that is how it is.

Well, I'm seeing it as unjust - hence, the thread title. I, too, would like to believe that nice people are rewarded in some way ("saved, if you like) and horrible people aren't, but I think that's generally a natural consequence of the world.

I think you hit the nail on the head here. Worldly consequences and God are just two seperate things. At times the two concure, but they are still seperate.

As a Christian, I do believe that for every action you have at least 2 choices and at least 1 is the "godly" or "correct" choice and at least one is not. Taking the Godly choice will not necessarily make things easy, particularly in the short run, but it will be better overall. That is just what I believe, but I also don't expect everyone else to necessarily agree.

One point I will make, though. It is interesting how similar the morals of various religions and even the "non religion" of atheism tend to cooincide. Murder, rape, etc are pretty universally bad. Not necessarily relevant, but an interesting aside.

[joecoolfrog]

I got to stop entering these religious threads (which, for the most part, I do avoid) - I will never understand why full grown adults will continue to prescribe to lunacy.

I'm like you Jake, but I have a read (from time to time) to maintain my belief that all people who believe in religion are as mad as a box of frogs.

Thats just downright offensive

[stuart133]

The way i look at this is that there probably is a god or more likely gods, not all powerful but with supreme power over the universe. I think that they set in motion the events to create this universe, the big bang or whatever, and then they sat back and watched the show, including all inhabited planets. Maybe they might spice things up a bit by throwing a meteor at a planet every so often but really they have little control over the peoples of the universe. Also at the end of life that is it, there is nothing. The gods are not perfect, they commit what we would consider crimes and they are unlike those that we believe rather blindly.

[MR. Nate]

If this 'God' was so intent on letting souls be saved, then couldn't he just erase all memories of evil, magically prevent all future evil-acts, and give us all a clear and comprehensive tutorial on how to go about freely repenting were we minded to do so?

Sounds like a fairly limited God who can only go about getting rid of evil by either letting us do our own thing, or by nuking everybody who ever touched the stuff. I'd have thought an omnipotent being would have been able to be a bit more subtle than all that fire+brimstone stuff.

You're a lovely man Nate, but I can't help but think that all this "Here's what I imagine God's plan might be; but despite being all powerful, he's still bound to go about fulfilling it in the most convoluted and inefficient way possible" is a bit straw-clutchy really. Also, is it in the bible, or is it more speculation?

DM, don't underestimate the Holiness of God, and don't underestimate God's willingness to forgive. God is so perfect that He cannot bear sin at all, this is not a shortcoming, it's actually part and parcel of perfection, utter separation from evil. And perhaps I didn't make the whole 3rd option thing clear. God has provided, through the death of Christ, the opportunity for any individual to be free from sin, it's just that you have to actually let go of "me doing something" and make it "me realizing I can't do anything and trusting". If you refuse to take the way of escape that God has offered to you at no cost to you, why would you blame Him for nuking you? I'd nuke you too if I offered you a chance to be saved through the death of another and you ignored it.

As for me making it up, here's what I can say absolutely from the Bible (if you want chapter and verse, let me know)
1. God is all powerful
2. God is all knowing
3. God desires all men to come into a relationship with Him.
4. God will not force us into relationship with Himself.
5. Man is despicable and cannot do anything good in and of himself
6. Man bears the responsibility for the broken relationship, and for the existence of evil in the world, which includes death.
By the way, DM, seeing as you are not all knowing, for you to decide that it's convoluted or inefficient means absolutely nil. Nothing personal, sorry.

No one has really answered this yet, I suspect because it is unanswerable. Omniscience is an absolute quality, it can;'t mena one thing to you and another to someone else. It is what it is. If god is omniscient then free will is bullshit, for the reasons neo put forth.

if god knows what choices we are going to make, if those choices are pre-made, then free will is an illusion.

We've been around this before, I think. I'll leave my former example standing. Absolute knowledge on God's part does not change the fact that we freely choose. God knows our minds better than we do, He knows all the intricacies of our thoughts, even when we're not aware. After all, he created us. So, for him to know all the possible options, know exactly which one our limited minds will choose is not difficult. But he still allows us the freedom to do whatever we choose. He doesn't force us into anything; He simply knows the choice we make before we do it.

Nate
Correct me if im wrong but briefly you are saying;

1) One can lead a good and fruitful life,be a credit to their community but be barred from heaven if not accepting Jesus.

2) One can be a immoral murderous rogue but providing they accept salvation they will be saved. Now I see no time frame here so one can be a monster for 70 years and then repent
on ones deathbed ( not difficult to be pious and sincere for a day or 2 if the time of reckoning is fast approaching )

Frankly it doesn't add up does it, an omnipotent God could easily judge a persons overal life in a milisecond and that would guarantee that only the worthy entered heaven. Of course that would close a lot of second/third chance loopholes and mean less pennies for the church coffers, better marketing I agree but not the best way to sort out the truly deserving. However if we stretch a point and accept that this dogma is purely designed to give everybody countless opportunities to repent and be saved, how then does this gel with the zeal of the religious right with regard to Capital punnishment. After all if leeway is given to all and sundry on the entry qualification to heaven then why no opportunity to repent on lowly earth and be saved from execution.

You're rating a person with a good life as somehow more deserving of heaven.

Yes.

You're missing God's holiness. This "overall life" judgment damns everyone to hell immediately. That's it. End of story. God's perfectly Holy, none of us are. If only the worthy were in heaven, it's just God and the angels. That's why Christ died, to offer us the opportunity to get into heaven despite the fact that none of us deserve it.

It's pretty clear in scripture that no good deed or deeds is enough to get into heaven, but everyone who has ever done a single thing wrong is unable to stand before a Holy God.

And this is justice? I don't buy it.

God's standard is absolute perfection. Since none of us can reach that standard,

...because, in your view at least, he knows we won't be and/or he made use so we wouldn't...

he allows us into heaven if we admit we are not holy or perfect, and accept Christs death as the substitution for our punishment. Of course, if we do this, we'll be grateful enough to God that we attempt to do things that are right, but the key is to always remember that no one can earn it on their own.

So you're saying that traditional "goodness", rather than being the aim of christianity, is merely a helpful byproduct?
I find that I would have to refer you back to the murder on the deathbed thing, and find that not just.

You and I are sinful beings, so to us, sin is no big deal. But to a perfect, Holy God, every sin is despicable. Which disobedience to you tell your kids is OK? None, if you didn't think it was a big deal, you wouldn't have told them not to do it. God knows we can't meet that standard, but, as I've said several times, He's provided a way for us to be saved from judgment anyway. Fair is nobody getting into heaven, so you're saying it's not fair that some people who "deserve" it don't get in is simply not possible. No one deserves it. Not you, not me, not anybody. And yes, actually, traditional goodness is not the focus of the Christian life, people don't convert to christianity in order to lead good lives. They convert because they realize they want to enter into a relationship with the God of the Universe. After that, they realize that God is perfect, and wants us to be like him, so they try to clean up their lives, but that is not the goal.

So no matter how good or bad a person is, accepting their own depravity and turning to Christ cleanses them. To a certain degree, however we can see how sincere that decision was based on their actions after that. IF a person claims to have repented, but continues to live a life in rebellion to God's standards, we have to question whether that decision was true or not. Turning to Christ is a life changing decision, it impacts your actions, your words, even your thoughts. If a person has truly committed themselves to Christ, they are going to change for the better.

Again, I just can't see justice in this. There's no consistency and it all goes down to Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, which is imo the stupidest tenet of xianity.

That's wrong, it's not outside the church, it's outside of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. The church is just a collection of people who are striving to build their relationship, not the arbiter of who is saved and who is not.

And, by the way, which philosopher who killed God actually thought the world was beautiful? It seems to me that everyone who does the hard work of working out the effects of a godless world comes back with a handful of despair and little more. I think the beauty you see in this world is by focusing on the flower while refusing to acknowledge the prison around you.

I find I can I consider the world beautiful, or think that the universe is beautiful, without having to subscribe to a belief system. Love and altruism ftw. God ftl.

Read the philosophers that agree with you, you'll be surprised.

The way i look at this is that there probably is a god or more likely gods, not all powerful but with supreme power over the universe. I think that they set in motion the events to create this universe, the big bang or whatever, and then they sat back and watched the show, including all inhabited planets. Maybe they might spice things up a bit by throwing a meteor at a planet every so often but really they have little control over the peoples of the universe. Also at the end of life that is it, there is nothing. The gods are not perfect, they commit what we would consider crimes and they are unlike those that we believe rather blindly.

Welcome to CC. I hate to be mean, but all I can say is that's a nice opinion. Got a particular reason for that, or is it simply something you came up with on your own?

[n00blet]

These are very good points, which lay the basis for the main reasons why I cannot believe in the Christian god. However, one of the interesting points behind the Islamic faith is that Allah, the Islamic god, created this world as a test; thereby, all of the 'evils' in this world are not necessarily 'evils', rather they are, through one's avoidance or endurance of them, they are gateways to salvation.

This is very much part of Christianity. It is just one that some people try to ignore. Christianity and Islam share the same God, they differ primarily in the interpretations of the rules we must follow, not in who God/Allah is.

Don't mistake a few people's interpretation of a religion for the religion itself. If you will judge, you need to study each fully... or at least more than superficially (full study of any religion probably takes many lifetimes, but you can do more than just look at the surface).

Don't take my comments as a statement of ignorance; there was a point in my life where I attended church and studied the Bible regularly, but never found anything hinting that the life was a test. Moreover, it seemed that it was just a precursor to another life, whose destiny was determined by ones knowledge and acceptance, or lack thereof, of Christ. On that note, what of the people who never find out about Christ's existence? They do not know him, and have not acknowledged his existence, therefore they would not be saved. That does not seem just.

[CrazyAnglican]

Nate
Correct me if im wrong but briefly you are saying;

1) One can lead a good and fruitful life,be a credit to their community but be barred from heaven if not accepting Jesus.

2) One can be a immoral murderous rogue but providing they accept salvation they will be saved. Now I see no time frame here so one can be a monster for 70 years and then repent
on ones deathbed ( not difficult to be pious and sincere for a day or 2 if the time of reckoning is fast approaching )

Mr. Nate is spot on with his assessment. To be flippant about it, It's basically like two dogs that have been out in the mud. Sure one isn't as dirty as the other, but you wouldn't want either on your sofa. God, in his kindness, allows the one who wants in to come in and even washes him off really well.

Your bit about deathbed conversions is shaky theologically. If you would like ask ten Christians if it's a good idea. Probably the majority will say no.

Frankly it doesn't add up does it, an omnipotent God could easily judge a persons overal life in a milisecond and that would guarantee that only the worthy entered heaven.

see dirty dogs above

Of course that would close a lot of second/third chance loopholes and mean less pennies for the church coffers, better marketing I agree but not the best way to sort out the truly deserving.

Sure if the only way to heaven is through Christian Churches. Nate said quite clearly that it's through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

However if we stretch a point and accept that this dogma is purely designed to give everybody countless opportunities to repent and be saved, how then does this gel with the zeal of the religious right with regard to Capital punnishment. After all if leeway is given to all and sundry on the entry qualification to heaven then why no opportunity to repent on lowly earth and be saved from execution.

I'm not one of those that's big on the death penalty so there are probably others to answer it better. I would add though that from birth to execution there probably are many chances both within and outside of the legal system. It isn't as if people are carted into a back room and shot the first time they step out of line, at least that isn't the way that it's portrayed in the US.

[Ntetos]

What I have learned for my religion, by priests, by religion class in school(yes we have religion subject in schools) is that anyone who is a good person and follows Christ's orders will go to heaven even if he is Jew, Muslim, Buddhist or anything else. Christians who don't follow His rules won't be saved. Christians actually must put even more effort in being good people for the exact reason that they have learn about Christ. Simply believing is not good enough.
For those that died before Jesus and never learned about him: When Jesus died, during his stay in Hades every dead that believed in him was saved (among them there were Adam and Eve) and they went to Heaven.

[n00blet]

What I have learned for my religion, by priests, by religion class in school(yes we have religion subject in schools) is that anyone who is a good person and follows Christ's orders will go to heaven even if he is Jew, Muslim, Buddhist or anything else. Christians who don't follow His rules won't be saved. Christians actually must put even more effort in being good people for the exact reason that they have learn about Christ. Simply believing is not good enough.
For those that died before Jesus and never learned about him: When Jesus died, during his stay in Hades every dead that believed in him was saved (among them there were Adam and Eve) and they went to Heaven.

If you're in hell....how could you not believe in Jesus? lol you'd have to be pretty stupid to say "I want to stay in hell."

[Ntetos]

What I have learned for my religion, by priests, by religion class in school(yes we have religion subject in schools) is that anyone who is a good person and follows Christ's orders will go to heaven even if he is Jew, Muslim, Buddhist or anything else. Christians who don't follow His rules won't be saved. Christians actually must put even more effort in being good people for the exact reason that they have learn about Christ. Simply believing is not good enough.
For those that died before Jesus and never learned about him: When Jesus died, during his stay in Hades every dead that believed in him was saved (among them there were Adam and Eve) and they went to Heaven.

If you're in hell....how could you not believe in Jesus? lol you'd have to be pretty stupid to say "I want to stay in hell."

You are right I didn't say it correct. I meant that by going to Hades he managed to restore our original purity and regain our right relationship with the God. Christ's sacrifice worked as salvation to all the good people from the sin who lived before him. Only the righteous could go to Heaven.

[The1exile]

You're rating a person with a good life as somehow more deserving of heaven.

Yes.

You're missing God's holiness. This "overall life" judgment damns everyone to hell immediately. That's it. End of story. God's perfectly Holy, none of us are. If only the worthy were in heaven, it's just God and the angels. That's why Christ died, to offer us the opportunity to get into heaven despite the fact that none of us deserve it.

OK, so I can see that you could argue from this point of view that God is nice, yes? But nice doesn't mean just, at least not in this case. It definitely means "inconsistent" if we go with the "no-one' allowed into heaven, fair is fair, except when jesus died, OK then you can get in". (hate to oversimplify but that is basically it, yes?)

It's pretty clear in scripture that no good deed or deeds is enough to get into heaven, but everyone who has ever done a single thing wrong is unable to stand before a Holy God.

And this is justice? I don't buy it.

God's standard is absolute perfection. Since none of us can reach that standard,

...because, in your view at least, he knows we won't be and/or he made use so we wouldn't...

he allows us into heaven if we admit we are not holy or perfect, and accept Christs death as the substitution for our punishment. Of course, if we do this, we'll be grateful enough to God that we attempt to do things that are right, but the key is to always remember that no one can earn it on their own.

So you're saying that traditional "goodness", rather than being the aim of christianity, is merely a helpful byproduct?
I find that I would have to refer you back to the murder on the deathbed thing, and find that not just.

You and I are sinful beings, so to us, sin is no big deal. But to a perfect, Holy God, every sin is despicable. Which disobedience to you tell your kids is OK? None, if you didn't think it was a big deal, you wouldn't have told them not to do it. God knows we can't meet that standard, but, as I've said several times, He's provided a way for us to be saved from judgment anyway. Fair is nobody getting into heaven, so you're saying it's not fair that some people who "deserve" it don't get in is simply not possible. No one deserves it. Not you, not me, not anybody.

Again, it's Just vs Nice. And your argument falls down here if only because of the parent-kid analogy. You simply can;t compare it - kids don't worship their parents, they can usually seek constant and affirmable advice from them, the parents aren't omniscient, omnipotent or even omnibenevolent. And while you an think God created us and so did our parents, there's a difference between the design-creation of what God did (or we presume he did, or could have done - omnipotence at its finest) and the much more basic screw-and-then-bring-up-while-working-with-what-you-got method of humanity.

And yes, actually, traditional goodness is not the focus of the Christian life, people don't convert to christianity in order to lead good lives. They convert because they realize they want to enter into a relationship with the God of the Universe. After that, they realize that God is perfect, and wants us to be like him, so they try to clean up their lives, but that is not the goal.

I'd love to agree but I think a lot of christian's don't convert (or, better said - don't hold their faith, I can't really speak with any expertise about converts) for that reason.

So no matter how good or bad a person is, accepting their own depravity and turning to Christ cleanses them. To a certain degree, however we can see how sincere that decision was based on their actions after that. IF a person claims to have repented, but continues to live a life in rebellion to God's standards, we have to question whether that decision was true or not. Turning to Christ is a life changing decision, it impacts your actions, your words, even your thoughts. If a person has truly committed themselves to Christ, they are going to change for the better.

Again, I just can't see justice in this. There's no consistency and it all goes down to Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, which is imo the stupidest tenet of xianity.

That's wrong, it's not outside the church, it's outside of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. The church is just a collection of people who are striving to build their relationship, not the arbiter of who is saved and who is not.

OK, so outside Jesus there is no salvation then? Would it not just be easier (bad term for an omnipotent being but still) and fairer all round - especially for those who haven't had xianity impact on their lives - to not actually judge in this life, but rather as it were at the gates of heaven itself?

And, by the way, which philosopher who killed God actually thought the world was beautiful? It seems to me that everyone who does the hard work of working out the effects of a godless world comes back with a handful of despair and little more. I think the beauty you see in this world is by focusing on the flower while refusing to acknowledge the prison around you.

I find I can I consider the world beautiful, or think that the universe is beautiful, without having to subscribe to a belief system. Love and altruism ftw. God ftl.

Read the philosophers that agree with you, you'll be surprised.

I don't know which philosophers do agree with me, at least not entirely (of course Nietzsche is famous for saying "god is dead" but even he meant that a lot more complicatedly than it's usually portrayed). If you could name names then I'd look them up, I don't read enough philosophy as it is anyway.

[PLAYER57832]

These are very good points, which lay the basis for the main reasons why I cannot believe in the Christian god. However, one of the interesting points behind the Islamic faith is that Allah, the Islamic god, created this world as a test; thereby, all of the 'evils' in this world are not necessarily 'evils', rather they are, through one's avoidance or endurance of them, they are gateways to salvation.

This is very much part of Christianity. It is just one that some people try to ignore. Christianity and Islam share the same God, they differ primarily in the interpretations of the rules we must follow, not in who God/Allah is.

Don't mistake a few people's interpretation of a religion for the religion itself. If you will judge, you need to study each fully... or at least more than superficially (full study of any religion probably takes many lifetimes, but you can do more than just look at the surface).

Don't take my comments as a statement of ignorance; there was a point in my life where I attended church and studied the Bible regularly, but never found anything hinting that the life was a test. Moreover, it seemed that it was just a precursor to another life, whose destiny was determined by ones knowledge and acceptance, or lack thereof, of Christ. On that note, what of the people who never find out about Christ's existence? They do not know him, and have not acknowledged his existence, therefore they would not be saved. That does not seem just.

To some extent, it is probably a matter of "shading" or semantics. But, sometimes "minor" differences can actually be quite profound when carried deeply.

In Christianity we talk of suffering and trials and tribulations, etc. We also talk of folks being given different tasks and such.

Both Islam and Christianity talk of work here to prepare for the afterlife of heaven or hell. Islam lays out a lot of laws .... more than Judiasm (in some cases, different than Judiasm), whereas Christianity tends to emphasize faith over works. (debateably .. but as opposed to both Judiasm and Islam, yes).

Some Islamist refer to this life as a "trial", just as some Christians refer to the "suffering in this life" in either preparation for or partial pennance toward the future. The Roman Catholics have purgatory so one can more or less "get over"/"be punished for" your sins. Protestants, however don't believe in purgatory.

I still say that while there are a lot of differences between Islam and Christianity, that is not one ... but perhaps I just don't know enough about Islam. (I do know that the Black Muslim and Arab-based Islamic Shiite, Sunis and Sikhe are all 4 different).

As far as those who never find out .... Depending on the version, either they will all get a chance to hear Christ in his second coming (raised from the dead, go some versions) or in some other fashion they will have the chance to know Christ.

I will say that the Church of Latter Day Saints goes a bit further and wants everyone made a member of their church, will "marry" dead people to Mormons and will posthumously Baptize them. This is why they have such extensive Geneological Libraries.

[Neoteny]

Assuming I have a soul, god knows exactly what's going to happen. I'm rejecting him (or whatever it is that pisses him off, according to whatever religion), and I'm going to hell.

God does know all. He might know that you are going to change at some point in the future. He might know that, whether you are "saved" or not, some contact you will have will cause other people to be saved.

Why was Hitler allowed to exist ... or Charles Manson ... or ???

Maybe the ultimate good is greater than woud exist were those horrible events not to happen.

Particularly, as his creation, my soul, or my personality, or whatever, was made and foreseen by him. How is this free will? If that were the case, it's only an illusion. And a sick one at that.

It is as much a conundrum as trying to understand what the nature of the universe really and truly is. How can there be anything before time? How can it not end and begin?

The closest I can come, other than the parenting analogy, is just to say that what he foresaw overall was greater than if it did not exist ... including the evil and harm. As for how he could see all this and yet we still have free will...it is the difference between laying out a plan and knowing what will happen and actually manipulating things. Does God know? Yes. Does God intervene at times? Yes. Do we have choices? Yes. Is everything "equal" or "fair" per human terms? No. But, in the end, we must believe in free will or we must believe that everything is ordained already. That choice, too, is yours.

Your parent analogy is one that is often brought up to explain this, but the difference between god and a parent, is that a parent might have an idea about what the child might do, but he or she does not know for sure. Of course, you try to instill positive values and such into a child, but there is a big difference that the analogy fails to explain.

It is definitely not exact, but it is as about as close an explanation as we can get as humans.

Does a reflection show a true image of you? yes. But, there is much more. God is more than humans. He is so much more that we have trouble at times even grasping how much more. So, the analogies will be imperfect. That is all they are ... analogies, not perfect explanations.

The true similarity probably takes being a parent. Because in a lot of ways, we do dictate and control what our children do and say and even think ... to a point. BUT, then they grow up ... and we find that either we did a decent job or we did not. Sometimes the hardest thing of all perhaps is knowing that we did the best we could and still failed. If we, as humans, feel that pain, then how much greater must God's be? How much greater his pain since all he has to do is intervene. There must be a reason he has put these constraints upon himself. The only answer is that the end result must be worth it.

Maybe another analogy is better. My husband is a firman. When the whistle goes off, there is a chance he might not come home. Is that a good outcome? Of course not. BUT, what would happen if there were no fireman.

Could there be a time when he might have to decide to leave someone inside, because the risk is just too great? I sure don't want to be in his shoes then. I do not know what his answer will be. Will he come home, wracked with guilt ... or will he not come home at all? As a human, we think relatively simply. God's answers, problems are, of course so much more complex than those "simple" choices. So, as a fireman, they try to spend a fair amount of time educating the young and communty adults in fire prevention. BUT, we are ultimately grateful for the fire team ... and, though I might give you a different answer "after" a different result ... I do think it is worth it.

So, it seems that you are restricting yourself to a "we will never or cannot understand" position. But that is what most religions claim over other religions. "We do understand what god wants and we are the ones who are right." If there's one thing quite a few god worshiping institutions have in common is the idea that they are right, and others are wrong (this, of course, is not universal). But if we as a species can't decide what god wants us to do, how does one expect nonbelievers to take anything else theists claim as truthful? If we can't fully understand god, why bother? What if we misunderstand? What if god is wrong? I think these questions, though superficially perhaps absurd, cut a difficult argument to reject. And without these questions being soundly answered, I can't even begin to get into his master plan without concluding that god is a sadist.

Back to free will. I think a better example to describe the relationship between man and god is that between computer and programmer. It's more similar to giving the computer instructions to randomly go to one of two coordinates on a line, one positive (leading to heaven, of course), and the other negative. But then, as the programmer, if you already know that the computer is going to pick positive or negative, there has to be some other conditions you put into play that is affecting the choice, and it is no longer random. I've simplified the analogy by adding randomness, but I think even with the addition of "free will" to the mix the argument stands. If the notion is preconceived elsewhere by someone else, then it, by definition, is not free will.

[CrazyAnglican]

Back to free will. I think a better example to describe the relationship between man and god is that between computer and programmer. It's more similar to giving the computer instructions to randomly go to one of two coordinates on a line, one positive (leading to heaven, of course), and the other negative. But then, as the programmer, if you already know that the computer is going to pick positive or negative, there has to be some other conditions you put into play that is affecting the choice, and it is no longer random. I've simplified the analogy by adding randomness, but I think even with the addition of "free will" to the mix the argument stands. If the notion is preconceived elsewhere by someone else, then it, by definition, is not free will.

Hi Neo,

The problem here, again as Mr. Nate pointed out and Heavycola alluded to is this. There is a fundamental disagreement upon what omniscience is. If you say that it means knowledge of everything past, present, and future then there could be something to your argument, but the alternative and equally plausible definition is knowledge of everything past, present, and all possible futures. In this case your argument breaks down. Your argument isn't against the existence of God, or even against the idea of omniscience. It's instead against predestination which isn't a big part of that many Christian theologies. If God knows every possible future, he's still omniscient and still allows free will.

[MR. Nate]

OK, so I can see that you could argue from this point of view that God is nice, yes? But nice doesn't mean just, at least not in this case. It definitely means "inconsistent" if we go with the "no-one' allowed into heaven, fair is fair, except when jesus died, OK then you can get in". (hate to oversimplify but that is basically it, yes?)

So, you're OK as long as God damns everyone to hell? God has this other attribute, besides justice, and it's called love, which I think we've mentioned before. God loves us and doesn't want to damn us to hell, so Christs death provided a payment for our sin.

I'd love to agree but I think a lot of christian's don't convert (or, better said - don't hold their faith, I can't really speak with any expertise about converts) for that reason.

(referring to having a relationship with God)
I would agree with you here. A lot of people are in church trying to be good people, they're probably not going to heaven. The ones that want a personal relationship with Christ are.

OK, so outside Jesus there is no salvation then? Would it not just be easier (bad term for an omnipotent being but still) and fairer all round - especially for those who haven't had xianity impact on their lives - to not actually judge in this life, but rather as it were at the gates of heaven itself?

I would say that bye and large, those who have not had Christianity impact their lives have had it remain inert by choice. Notice that those who do have a choice about this (notably in this forum) are remaining uncommitted.

I don't know which philosophers do agree with me, at least not entirely (of course Nietzsche is famous for saying "god is dead" but even he meant that a lot more complicatedly than it's usually portrayed). If you could name names then I'd look them up, I don't read enough philosophy as it is anyway.

Try Sartre, Heidegger. Both will make you want to commit suicide. Or Lyotard maybe Derrida. Those guys will convince you that nothing even exists. For a perhaps more positive, God aware philosopher, read Schaeffer, he's my personal favorite at the moment.

[FabledIntegral]

I think the point I'm trying to make more than anything else - is why would God create humans with the beforehand knowledge that many of us would go to hell in the first place.

In a sense, he knew prior to our creation that he would be creating humans with flaw. Before Adam and Eve, he knew everything that was going to happen. So my point is, why create us? He knew that some people, in terms of "free will" would be weak. He knew that some of his creation would turn from Him. Yet he still chose to create them anyways. That is my problem with God. He created something that is flawed, and sinful by his definition. I mean, why did God make homosexuality evil? The act is NOT intuitively evil, it is a learned evil, unlike murder, where one gains a sense from an early age that it is wrong. Yet God, for one reason or another, made it evil for a man to lie with another man... and ALSO gave a large percentage (how many are homosexual? 5-10%? Those are the numbers from what I'm aware that have been shown in studies, although EVEN if it was a mere 0.5%, it's still a large percent when taking the overall population). The fact that God created certain people with the urges to act homosexual is nothing more than his fault - he created humans with sexual urges in the first place!

So my point is, why would God be so selfish to create us in the first place? His "plan" was to make a flawed creation and thus punish the creations that he created flawed? Sounds ironic to me. This has nothing to do by the way with any sort of "free will," discussion concerning "he wants those who choose to be with him." That may be a very valid point, for ANOTHER discussion. What I'm trying to hit home with is, what God is so cruel to create a flawed creation and condemn them because SOME are flawed enough that they don't meet up to his standards (which apparently are merely accepting him).

[CrazyAnglican]

So my point is, why would God be so selfish to create us in the first place? His "plan" was to make a flawed creation and thus punish the creations that he created flawed? Sounds ironic to me. This has nothing to do by the way with any sort of "free will," discussion concerning "he wants those who choose to be with him." That may be a very valid point, for ANOTHER discussion. What I'm trying to hit home with is, what God is so cruel to create a flawed creation and condemn them because SOME are flawed enough that they don't meet up to his standards (which apparently are merely accepting him).

Hi,

There is a concept of Hell here as a place that God sends you. If it's a room and God says "Bad boy! It's Hell for you!" Then maybe I guess. Most of the ideas I've heard about it are merely this. Hell is choosing to be forever separated from God. You can choose to be with or reject any being. Hell is that ultimate rejection of God. It's a consequence of his existence not necesarily a nasty place he dreamed up to through people.

Put it this way. Surely you've met someone that was miserable and rejected any overtures that anyone makes to help them? That's kind of a glimpse at Hell. Yes, God created us with flaws (and the ability to overcome those flaws with his help). Homosexuals (use your example), adulterers, masturbaters, nose pickers, the lot. Everybody gets flaws, everybody. He's prepared to forgive us all of any sin, all we have to do is ask. No need to drop tons into the collection plate or even go to church as long as you truly repent and try to enter into a relationship with him (his goal all along as I understand it). How much more just could you get? Hell is the choice to not be with him (a natural consequence of his existence) and all you have to do is say "I don't want to go there let's be friends God".

[FabledIntegral]

So my point is, why would God be so selfish to create us in the first place? His "plan" was to make a flawed creation and thus punish the creations that he created flawed? Sounds ironic to me. This has nothing to do by the way with any sort of "free will," discussion concerning "he wants those who choose to be with him." That may be a very valid point, for ANOTHER discussion. What I'm trying to hit home with is, what God is so cruel to create a flawed creation and condemn them because SOME are flawed enough that they don't meet up to his standards (which apparently are merely accepting him).

Hi,

There is a concept of Hell here as a place that God sends you. If it's a room and God says "Bad boy! It's Hell for you!" Then maybe I guess. Most of the ideas I've heard about it are merely this. Hell is choosing to be forever separated from God. You can choose to be with or reject any being. Hell is that ultimate rejection of God. It's a consequence of his existence not necesarily a nasty place he dreamed up to through people.

Put it this way. Surely you've met someone that was miserable and rejected any overtures that anyone makes to help them? That's kind of a glimpse at Hell. Yes, God created us with flaws (and the ability to overcome those flaws with his help). Homosexuals (use your example), adulterers, masturbaters, nose pickers, the lot. Everybody gets flaws, everybody. He's prepared to forgive us all of any sin, all we have to do is ask. No need to drop tons into the collection plate or even go to church as long as you truly repent and try to enter into a relationship with him (his goal all along as I understand it). How much more just could you get? Hell is the choice to not be with him (a natural consequence of his existence) and all you have to do is say "I don't want to go there let's be friends God".

No - you're missing the point. No one would truly wanted to be separated from God. To even fathom something as such is ridiculous. Or even, if simply ONE person didn't want to be separated from God, yet was separated due to circumstance, than the entire system goes to crap, correct?

It doesn't matter how much you say "everyone has equal opportunity to believe and reach heaven," etc. Although I disagree with that statement, whether or not the statement is TRUE is irrelevant.

I'll use myself as an example. If I was convinced that God was real, of course I would want a relationship with him. However due to the circumstance of my environment, my own personal logic has made me conclude that the Christian God does not exist. Because of my upbringing or whatnot - I have been raised to learn alternative possibilities such as the Theory of Evolution. I would love to have such a relationship with God if I personally found him likely to exist. I was a devout Christian for at least 3 years and never felt any difference inside than when I wasn't. I've read the Bible through and through. However, in the end, I came to the conclusion that God wasn't real.

For God, if he was real, to be so cruel as to mask his existence from us, yet PROVE his existence to others such as Moses, makes him unjust in that sense. Not only is he favoring others, he's making others become separated of him because of HIS actions, not ours. By this I'm not referring to my "choice" not to have a relationship with God, I'm referring to HIS choice to create us with such a doubtful environment. His choice to create us with the ability to doubt him in the first place.

You can't blame us now for what humans have done in the past - that would be God's fault for putting us in this environment, not our own. The simple fact he chose to create mankind in the first place shows his cruelty.

[Simon Viavant]

To me god seems like a whiney 10 year old who got put in a position with way too much power.

[Neoteny]

Back to free will. I think a better example to describe the relationship between man and god is that between computer and programmer. It's more similar to giving the computer instructions to randomly go to one of two coordinates on a line, one positive (leading to heaven, of course), and the other negative. But then, as the programmer, if you already know that the computer is going to pick positive or negative, there has to be some other conditions you put into play that is affecting the choice, and it is no longer random. I've simplified the analogy by adding randomness, but I think even with the addition of "free will" to the mix the argument stands. If the notion is preconceived elsewhere by someone else, then it, by definition, is not free will.

Hi Neo,

The problem here, again as Mr. Nate pointed out and Heavycola alluded to is this. There is a fundamental disagreement upon what omniscience is. If you say that it means knowledge of everything past, present, and future then there could be something to your argument, but the alternative and equally plausible definition is knowledge of everything past, present, and all possible futures. In this case your argument breaks down. Your argument isn't against the existence of God, or even against the idea of omniscience. It's instead against predestination which isn't a big part of that many Christian theologies. If God knows every possible future, he's still omniscient and still allows free will.

Howdy. It's been awhile.

That's just playing with words. If he doesn't know which of all those possible futures is going to happen, that doesn't make him very godlike...

[CrazyAnglican]

Howdy. It's been awhile.

It has been a while,

How's everything?

That's just playing with words. If he doesn't know which of all those possible futures is going to happen, that doesn't make him very godlike...

If he knows which of all those possible possible futures is going to happen (assuming that the future is static) then he's a jerk? If he doesn't he's not godlike? Knowing every possible outcome, of every possible choice, that every being in the universe can make certainly sounds all-knowing and godlike to me. It also doesn't make predestination necessary and allows for free will.