Figuring Out Religion

[MediumTex]

One item I would like to comment on relates to the idea that we hold the validation of the Jesus story to an unfairly high standard.

Here's the thing, though: If you ask me to believe that God impregnated a virgin, that the resulting son Jesus was actually God in mortal form, that Jesus performed all sorts of supernatural acts as a way of bolstering his ministry, that when the authorities executed him he suffered but then walked out of his grave three days later, that a bunch of other people popped out of their graves as well when Jesus came back to life, that Jesus travelled around for a bit after rising from the dead, that Jesus finally ascended into the heavens to sit at the right hand of God (or maybe re-commune with God), and that my fate through all of eternity rests on my correct understanding of all of these events, I'm going to subject it to more scrutiny that I would an account of what Abraham Lincoln had for breakfast on a given day.

I think that it's perfectly reasonable to subject more farfetched claims to greater scrutiny, with the starting assumption that claims involving the supernatural are false. 

[Kshartle]

If faith is a gift from God, why has He not seen fit to give it to me?

I used to just think he chose me because I was special for some reason. I, again, took it on faith. I didn't question his motives because who am I to question the motives of the creator of the universe?

It's when I started questioning those motives and looking at what I considered to be the complete immorality of the concept that I came to the conclusion it can't be true. Something can't be so contradictory and still be true. If I am truly loved regardless of what I do then why am I to be tortured for eternity? Why do I have to suffer every indignation here without opposing it? If someone strikes me on the right cheek I should offer my left? Who would give such advice to their children they loved? If you love me then why do you think I should be abused by others or by you dad?

It seemed to me like the morality of God or Jesus was not up to the standard of even some of the worst parents here and so how or why would they deserve my love? Why would I owe them? Do your kids owe you anything? You made them. You are responsible for them for a time. You owe them. Anything you get back in return is great but they don't owe you because you did your job. If humans, especially little ones are hurt and suffer horribly, what does that say about God as a parent? Tell me again why those people owe him?

The morality is so contradictory I just concluded it couldn't be real or true. It has to have been something for slaves to console themselves with (the meek shall inherit, the rich will be punished in the afterlife) or something to enhance the power of the rulers (render unto Ceasar, trust that God is in control and put your king/president in place....)

I hope no one takes offense. I'm just expressing the rationale for the conclusions I came to, just 3-4 years ago in fact. It actually started when I started studying philosophy and logic/morality. My "conversion" is not evidence that I'm right and anyone else is wrong.

[Pointedstick]

But mountaineer, don't believers of every denomination think that theirs is the only faithful preaching of the gospels? How am I to know that Lutherans have it right but Presbyterians or Catholics or Jews or Muslims don't? Is the rightness of the Lutheran version supposed to just radiate from the minister as though it was self-evident?

I have attended the religious services of many Christian denominations as well as those of various flavors of Judaism, the religious tradition I was brought up in. As an adult on a spiritual quest, I feel like I have been very open to receiving whatever truths revealed themselves to me, but none ever have. It's all just seemed like a bunch of nice, albeit self-referential stories paired with warm communities of friendly people.

I kept looking but nothing was revealed, and I kept asking and nobody could give me answers whose truth did not depend on my belief in other things I did not already believe.

[Kshartle]

One item I would like to comment on relates to the idea that we hold the validation of the Jesus story to an unfairly high standard.

Here's the thing, though: If you ask me to believe that God impregnated a virgin, that the resulting son Jesus was actually God in mortal form, that Jesus performed all sorts of supernatural acts as a way of bolstering his ministry, that when the authorities executed him he suffered but then walked out of his grave three days later, that a bunch of other people popped out of ther graves as well when Jesus came back to life, that Jesus travelled around for a bit after rising from the dead, that Jesus finally ascended into the heavens to sit at the right hand of God (or maybe re-commune with God), and that my fate through all of eternity rests on my correct understanding of all of these events, I'm going to ubject it to more scrutiny that I would an account of what Abraham Lincoln had for breakfast on a given day.

I think that it's perfectly reasonable to subject more farfetched claims to greater scrutiny, with the starting assumption that claims involving the supernatural are false.

So what happens when you make this argument MT, as far as I've seen, is it can be dismissed by saying God is all-powerful. It doesn't matter that they can't explain how something happend. They don't have to prove that something happened to make it true. And I actully agree with that argument. Nothing is false just because I can't or haven't proven it. It's irrelavent if I believe it or can't explain how it works. This is the ultimate argument for the supernatural acts and what not. While I don't think it's a very convincing argument....the premise is at least consistent (God is all-powerful).

That's why I take the moral inconsitency approach. We know that consistency is preferably to inconsistency. To argue the opposite is to say that it's preferable to consistently apply the rule that inconsistency is preferable....this is a FAIL. So if belief in God requires a lot of "faith" in inconsistant principles and actions, particularly from him.......can he really exist? Can he be God and be inconsistant, or would that just make him an all-powerful sadist?

[moda0306]

Xan,

I respect the heck out of you for coming to my rhetorical aid as a Communist Atheist Redistributionist Statist Fascist

You left out socialist puppy-killer.

J/K

There you go!

[Mountaineer]

If faith is a gift from God, why has He not seen fit to give it to me?

k.
I used to just think he chose me because I was special for some reason. I, again, took it on faith. I didn't question his motives because who am I to question the motives of the creator of the universe?

It's when I started questioning those motives and looking at what I considered to be the complete immorality of the concept that I came to the conclusion it can't be true. Something can't be so contradictory and still be true. If I am truly loved regardless of what I do then why am I to be tortured for eternity? Why do I have to suffer every indignation here without opposing it? If someone strikes me on the right cheek I should offer my left? Who would give such advice to their children they loved? If you love me then why do you think I should be abused by others or by you dad?

It seemed to me like the morality of God or Jesus was not up to the standard of even some of the worst parents here and so how or why would they deserve my love? Why would I owe them? Do your kids owe you anything? You made them. You are responsible for them for a time. You owe them. Anything you get back in return is great but they don't owe you because you did your job. If humans, especially little ones are hurt and suffer horribly, what does that say about God as a parent? Tell me again why those people owe him?

The morality is so contradictory I just concluded it couldn't be real or true. It has to have been something for slaves to console themselves with (the meek shall inherit, the rich will be punished in the afterlife) or something to enhance the power of the rulers (render unto Ceasar, trust that God is in control and put your king/president in place....)

I hope no one takes offense. I'm just expressing the rationale for the conclusions I came to, just 3-4 years ago in fact. It actually started when I started studying philosophy and logic/morality. My "conversion" is not evidence that I'm right and anyone else is wrong.

No offense taken.  I know you hate answering questions with questions, but consider this one.

If a parent tells his son or daughter not to run into the street without looking both ways but the child disobeys and runs into the street because his neighbor friend says "Did your dad REALLY say not to run into the street?  I've done it several times and nothing bad happened."  The child then gets hit by a passing car and is severely injured.  Are there consequences to disobeying the parent?  Did the parent really love the child in the first place?  Does the parent try to correct the situation?  Does the parent tell his other children what happened?, or just say, that whole scenario does not make sense ... I told him not to run into the street ... therefore, he can suffer on his own without me there to comfort him. 

 

[Mountaineer]

But mountaineer, don't believers of every denomination think that theirs is the only faithful preaching of the gospels? How am I to know that Lutherans have it right but Presbyterians or Catholics or Jews or Muslims don't? Is the rightness of the Lutheran version supposed to just radiate from the minister as though it was self-evident?

I have attended the religious services of many Christian denominations as well as those of various flavors of Judaism, the religious tradition I was brought up in. As an adult on a spiritual quest, I feel like I have been very open to receiving whatever truths revealed themselves to me, but none ever have. It's all just seemed like a bunch of nice, albeit self-referential stories paired with warm communities of friendly people.

I kept looking but nothing was revealed, and I kept asking and nobody could give me answers whose truth did not depend on my belief in other things I did not already believe.

If you have already tried my suggestion about LCMS churches and found them lacking, my appologies.  If not, give it a shot.  All you have to lose is some time, and it might even be useful.  Who knows, you might find some nice friends even if you do not end up believing as they do. 

In my experience prior to joining the LCMS (Methodist, long dry spell, Presbyterian, Baptist, Episcopalian, Methodist again, ELCA, Evangelical) I felt a lot like you are describing.  But then again, remember I said it is not about me or my journey:  it is only about Jesus coming, living, dying, raising again to redeem mankind and, God reveals himself as much as He wants us to know through his Word (Scripture and Sacraments).  He reveals all we need to know for salvation but not everything we would like to know.

[Kshartle]

No offense taken.  I know you hate answering questions with questions, but consider this one.

If a parent tells his son or daughter not to run into the street without looking both ways but the child disobeys and runs into the street because his neighbor friend says "Did your dad REALLY say not to run into the street?  I've done it several times and nothing bad happened."  The child then gets hit by a passing car and is severely injured.  Are there consequences to disobeying the parent?  Did the parent really love the child in the first place?  Does the parent try to correct the situation?  Does the parent tell his other children what happened?, or just say, that whole scenario does not make sense ... I told him not to run into the street ... therefore, he can suffer on his own without me there to comfort him. 

Questions are a perfectly fine way to formulate an argument when they lead somewhere. If you ask a question to understand where a person is coming from, to clarify, to get them to agree to a certain truth that you can show requires them to make contradictory statements to support their arguments etc, this is all good. The argument by question that I've alluded to is when a person never states their position, or point of disagreement, they just keep asking more and more questions endlessly requiring the other person to demonstrate knowledge of everything in some attempt to show they don't know everything so how can they know anything. I mean we've gotten to the point where people want to argue about atoms and biological differences of humans and gorillas. It's argument by endless question that's tiresome.

With regards to the street/car example.....The parent might very well love the child, it's not 100% clear. Why is the child in a position to run into the road? You see once the child is old enough to understand the consequences of being hit by the car, there is no need for them to take anything on faith. They have reason and free will. They don't need threats of spanking or other punishment. Until they are at this point they are not responsible...the parent is. If the parent is relying only on the fear of punishment or the hope that child won't run into the road....this is not a good parent. This is a parent who is not demostrating love.

If God gives us the free will to choose whether or not to believe in him.....but then says if we choose to not he will torture us for all eternity....this is sadistic. Why would a being do such a thing and how is this demonstrating love? This is the moral equivalent of telling your kid to not run out into the street but when they do you want or cause a car to come along and hit them. Where is the love?

[Libertarian666]

One item I would like to comment on relates to the idea that we hold the validation of the Jesus story to an unfairly high standard.

Here's the thing, though: If you ask me to believe that God impregnated a virgin, that the resulting son Jesus was actually God in mortal form, that Jesus performed all sorts of supernatural acts as a way of bolstering his ministry, that when the authorities executed him he suffered but then walked out of his grave three days later, that a bunch of other people popped out of ther graves as well when Jesus came back to life, that Jesus travelled around for a bit after rising from the dead, that Jesus finally ascended into the heavens to sit at the right hand of God (or maybe re-commune with God), and that my fate through all of eternity rests on my correct understanding of all of these events, I'm going to ubject it to more scrutiny that I would an account of what Abraham Lincoln had for breakfast on a given day.

I think that it's perfectly reasonable to subject more farfetched claims to greater scrutiny, with the starting assumption that claims involving the supernatural are false.

So what happens when you make this argument MT, as far as I've seen, is it can be dismissed by saying God is all-powerful. It doesn't matter that they can't explain how something happend. They don't have to prove that something happened to make it true. And I actully agree with that argument. Nothing is false just because I can't or haven't proven it. It's irrelavent if I believe it or can't explain how it works. This is the ultimate argument for the supernatural acts and what not. While I don't think it's a very convincing argument....the premise is at least consistent (God is all-powerful).

That's why I take the moral inconsitency approach. We know that consistency is preferably to inconsistency. To argue the opposite is to say that it's preferable to consistently apply the rule that inconsistency is preferable....this is a FAIL. So if belief in God requires a lot of "faith" in inconsistant principles and actions, particularly from him.......can he really exist? Can he be God and be inconsistant, or would that just make him an all-powerful sadist?

If God is all-powerful, can he make a stone so large he can't lift it?

[Kshartle]

One item I would like to comment on relates to the idea that we hold the validation of the Jesus story to an unfairly high standard.

Here's the thing, though: If you ask me to believe that God impregnated a virgin, that the resulting son Jesus was actually God in mortal form, that Jesus performed all sorts of supernatural acts as a way of bolstering his ministry, that when the authorities executed him he suffered but then walked out of his grave three days later, that a bunch of other people popped out of ther graves as well when Jesus came back to life, that Jesus travelled around for a bit after rising from the dead, that Jesus finally ascended into the heavens to sit at the right hand of God (or maybe re-commune with God), and that my fate through all of eternity rests on my correct understanding of all of these events, I'm going to ubject it to more scrutiny that I would an account of what Abraham Lincoln had for breakfast on a given day.

I think that it's perfectly reasonable to subject more farfetched claims to greater scrutiny, with the starting assumption that claims involving the supernatural are false.

So what happens when you make this argument MT, as far as I've seen, is it can be dismissed by saying God is all-powerful. It doesn't matter that they can't explain how something happend. They don't have to prove that something happened to make it true. And I actully agree with that argument. Nothing is false just because I can't or haven't proven it. It's irrelavent if I believe it or can't explain how it works. This is the ultimate argument for the supernatural acts and what not. While I don't think it's a very convincing argument....the premise is at least consistent (God is all-powerful).

That's why I take the moral inconsitency approach. We know that consistency is preferably to inconsistency. To argue the opposite is to say that it's preferable to consistently apply the rule that inconsistency is preferable....this is a FAIL. So if belief in God requires a lot of "faith" in inconsistant principles and actions, particularly from him.......can he really exist? Can he be God and be inconsistant, or would that just make him an all-powerful sadist?

If God is all-powerful, can he make a stone so large he can't lift it?

So that settles that. The inconsistency of the argument proves it's false.

"God is all-powerful so he can make a stone so large he can't lift it".

- but you said he was all powerful.

"Well his own power nullifies himself".

Wow. Perfecto logic. Gracias. Can't be all-powerful. It's like me arguing that I don't exist. The form of the argument destroys itself.

[Mountaineer]

If God gives us the free will to choose whether or not to believe in him.....but then says if we choose to not he will torture us for all eternity....this is sadistic. Why would a being do such a thing and how is this demonstrating love? This is the moral equivalent of telling your kid to not run out into the street but when they do you want or cause a car to come along and hit them. Where is the love?

Maybe I'm off base here, but the way I see it (remember my two kingdoms discussion - vertical that deals with God and horizontal that deals with life here on earth):  we have free will only in the earthly kingdom because God loves you enough to not make you a puppet.  Your statement above, in my opinion, is dealing with the horizontal.  So, if you choose not to believe what God is saying via his Word, I believe you, living here on earth, have made the choice for eternal punishment of yourself.  God does not choose that for you, he offers you eternal life (vertical kingdom), you made the choice and thus your punishment is a consequence of your rejecting the gift.  As with many bad things that happen to us (certainly not all by a long shot) "we do it to ourselves".  So, God indeed does love us, we just choose not to love God.

[MediumTex]

In my experience prior to joining the LCMS (Methodist, long dry spell, Presbyterian, Baptist, Episcopalian, Methodist again, ELCA, Evangelical) I felt a lot like you are describing.  But then again, remember I said it is not about me or my journey:  it is only about Jesus coming, living, dying, raising again to redeem mankind and, God reveals himself as much as He wants us to know through his Word (Scripture and Sacraments).  He reveals all we need to know for salvation but not everything we would like to know.

If you know that there is an all-powerful immortal being that created you and everything else in the universe and that this being has certain hopes and expectations for you, how could you possibly have a "long dry spell" when it came to your relationship with this being?  That is incomprehensible to me.

If I were certain that God existed and that the Bible was basically an accurate guide to understanding his nature and expectations of me, I would do nothing but study my Bible and hang out at church.  It would be impossible to think about anything else.

This is one matter that troubles me about many Christians.  They often don't really act like what they believe is true.  Contrast the casual nature of many Christians' religion to the way Muslims approach their faith, which seems to involve far more discipline and commitment and frequently even provides a rationalization for suicide and murder under the pretext of simply following God's will for their lives.

***

It would be kind of amusing to have a Muslim join this discussion at some point and basically say: "Well, folks, I've got some bad news--you're both wrong, and worse, if you persist in your infidelity you're going to be punished severely both in this life AND in the afterlife for your failure to see that Islam is the one true religion."

[Pointedstick]

Maybe I'm off base here, but the way I see it (remember my two kingdoms discussion - vertical that deals with God and horizontal that deals with life here on earth):  we have free will only in the earthly kingdom because God loves you enough to not make you a puppet.  Your statement above, in my opinion, is dealing with the horizontal.  So, if you choose not to believe what God is saying via his Word, I believe you, living here on earth, have made the choice for eternal punishment of yourself.  God does not choose that for you, he offers you eternal life (vertical kingdom), you made the choice and thus your punishment is a consequence of your rejecting the gift.  As with many bad things that happen to us (certainly not all by a long shot) "we do it to ourselves".  So, God indeed does love us, we just choose not to love God.

This makes sense from the perspective of God being the master and basically offering us two choices, and then cosmically saying, "Welp, it's not my fault if you chose eternal torture."

However, I hope you can see how this does not make for an especially appealing version of God that I am very inclined to believe in. Things that spring to mind include questions about how exactly we make the choice to go to heaven. Do all Christians avoid hell, or only Lutherans? Do Evangelicals go there? What about non-Christians? Are all the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists all going to hell? Don't nearly all religious people make this same claim about their own religion and afterlife? Are they all just wrong?

[Kshartle]

If God gives us the free will to choose whether or not to believe in him.....but then says if we choose to not he will torture us for all eternity....this is sadistic. Why would a being do such a thing and how is this demonstrating love? This is the moral equivalent of telling your kid to not run out into the street but when they do you want or cause a car to come along and hit them. Where is the love?

Maybe I'm off base here, but the way I see it (remember my two kingdoms discussion - vertical that deals with God and horizontal that deals with life here on earth):  we have free will only in the earthly kingdom because God loves you enough to not make you a puppet.  Your statement above, in my opinion, is dealing with the horizontal.  So, if you choose not to believe what God is saying via his Word, I believe you, living here on earth, have made the choice for eternal punishment of yourself.  God does not choose that for you, he offers you eternal life (vertical kingdom), you made the choice and thus your punishment is a consequence of your rejecting the gift.  As with many bad things that happen to us (certainly not all by a long shot) "we do it to ourselves".  So, God indeed does love us, we just choose not to love God.

If I point a gun at someone and say give me your child or I will shoot you....was their refusal really the "choice" of getting shot? Do they really have free will at this moment? If they don't, can the kidnapper claim they gave them a choice?

He doesn't offer you enternal life. He offers you eternal life or eternal suffering. No rationale person would choose the latter, and yet wide is the gate..........

If he does exist.....and you really will burn forever if you don't believe.....then I have to conclude he's sadistic. If he really wanted everyone to believe then he would come down and show himself quite clearly. Since he doesn't do that he must at least want some to "choose" to burn. Being all-powerful he would know in advance who would choose it also so it just becomes one big exercise in human torture.

If the argument is made that he wants us to choose it without proof from him and just take it on faith....this is again just giving us free will (now in the God stuff which I think you said you disagree with) but damning us if we exercise it. It's telling your kid to not disobey and play in the road without ever explaining why or preventing them from going if they are too young to understand the explanation. If they do out and get hit.....well....hey they deserved it....they should have obeyed. They had free will to obey or die. This is not good parenting and you'd think he'd be the perfect parent right?

Not trying to be a jerk, but how can God want to see humans be tortured and still make the claim he loves us? It's the inconsitency that tells me something is not right here.

[MediumTex]

As a very basic matter, on what basis would someone conclude that he was immortal in the first place?

Even in the Old Testament, I don't recall any discussion of human immortality.  In fact, in Ecclesiastes Solomon talked about how when you die you die and that's it, as if this was something that everyone understood.

I would like to be immortal, but I don't think that I can become immortal by simply declaring that I am immortal.  I am not suggesting a higher standard of proof than I would apply to other things, but concluding that I am immortal based upon the writings of an anonymous author from 2,000 years ago (when human immortality was a common belief in many religions) seems like a stretch.

[Kshartle]

This makes sense from the perspective of God being the master and basically offering us two choices, and then cosmically saying, "Welp, it's not my fault if you chose eternal torture."

However, I hope you can see how this does not make for an especially appealing version of God that I am very inclined to believe in.

It makes me think it can't be true because it means we're supposed to love and worship someone who created a pit of fire to burn us in. How can an all-powerful being do something like that. If a human did it.....we would call them barbaric and even the most strident anti capital punishment person would call for their execution. I can't square this circle.

[Kshartle]

I would like to be immortal, but I don't think that I can become immortal by simply declaring that I am immortal.

You don't think so? Ah-ha I kid I kid.

[MediumTex]

This makes sense from the perspective of God being the master and basically offering us two choices, and then cosmically saying, "Welp, it's not my fault if you chose eternal torture."

However, I hope you can see how this does not make for an especially appealing version of God that I am very inclined to believe in.

It makes me think it can't be true because it means we're supposed to love and worship someone who created a pit of fire to burn us in. How can an all-powerful being do something like that. If a human did it.....we would call them barbaric and even the most strident anti capital punishment person would call for their execution. I can't square this circle.

Was there a Hell in the Old Testament?  I don't remember anything about anyone going to Hell.  As I recall, if you did something bad in the Old Testament you would either be attacked and destroyed by a Jewish army or have to deal with some supernatural curse like a nasty disease or swarm of locusts.  If you were Jewish and you did something bad you might have to wander in the woods for the rest of your life or maybe murder someone you loved to demonstrate your belief in the goodness of God.

The saddest story in the Old Testament, to me, is Job.  All Job ever wanted to do was love God, but for whatever reason God chose to do a "Trading Places"-style test of Job's faith that involved killing his children and taking everything from Job, including the fruit of his labor and his health.  After watching him suffer long enough, he gave most of Job's stuff back, though you can't give back dead children, so I guess that was just water under the bridge.

[MediumTex]

I would like to be immortal, but I don't think that I can become immortal by simply declaring that I am immortal.

You don't think so? Ah-ha I kid I kid.

Well, maybe I can.  I will give it a try.

[Mountaineer]

If you know that there is an all-powerful immortal being that created you and everything else in the universe and that this being has certain hopes and expectations for you, how could you possibly have a "long dry spell" when it came to your relationship with this being?  That is incomprehensible to me.

If I were certain that God existed and that the Bible was basically an accurate guide to understanding his nature and expectations of me, I would do nothing but study my Bible and hang out at church.  It would be impossible to think about anything else.

This is one matter that troubles me about many Christians.  They often don't really act like what they believe is true.  Contrast the casual nature of many Christians' religion to the way Muslims approach their faith, which seems to involve far more discipline and commitment and frequently even provides a rationalization for suicide and murder under the pretext of simply following God's will for their lives.

MT, good questions.

There are two types of sin that we all have: 
Original or imputed - a result of Adam and Eve and the trusting of themselves vs. trusting God and the subsequent curse.
Actual - all those things we do every day knowingly or unknowingly.  Every thing from the biggies like murder to the "little" ones like looking at a woman lustfully without ever acting on it, or not helping my neighbor when he needs it.
They are both equivalent in God's eyes.  Thank God we have Jesus who paid for all of our sins for all time (except the unpardonable sin .... bait for a future question).

We humans, due to imputed sin, rebel against God at every opportunity; we cannot help it.  So, as for my long dry spell ... I'm just so very thankful it ended and I hope I do not fall into unbelief and do it to myself .........

My long dry spell was precipitated by all the hypocricy I saw in the church.  I was not mature enough to understand it.  I finally realized we are all hypocrites and worse.  Some are just more honest and open about showing it.  It is not about me or the other hypocrites, it is all about God.  I am just so very thankful I finally heard  his Word.

How did Adam and Eve fall into sin?  They walked in the presence of God and still did it.  Man surely has a powerful, maybe genetic, longing to understand everything, think everything can be explained by reason, and place himself above all else ... including God.  We sing the same song, just a different verse, every day.

[Mountaineer]

Was there a Hell in the Old Testament?  I don't remember anything about anyone going to Hell.  As I recall, if you did something bad in the Old Testament you would either be attacked and destroyed by a Jewish army or have to deal with some supernatural curse like a nasty disease or swarm of locusts.  If you were Jewish and you did something bad you might have to wander in the woods for the rest of your life or maybe murder someone you loved to demonstrate your belief in the goodness of God.

The saddest story in the Old Testament, to me, is Job.  All Job ever wanted to do was love God, but for whatever reason God chose to do a "Trading Places"-style test of Job's faith that involved killing his children and taking everything from Job, including the fruit of his labor and his health.  After watching him suffer long enough, he gave most of Job's stuff back, though you can't give back dead children, so I guess that was just water under the bridge.

Think about the first testament (OT) this way.  God created everything and it was good.  Man chose to go with his own knowledge instead of trusting God (the fall).  Death entered the world.  The point of the rest of the OT is to show how man, over, and over, and over, and over, cannot achieve righteousness on his own and thus show the need for a savior.  Events spiral downward.  God gave his story (man did not listen - Noah, rebirth via water (flood)), God chose Abraham and then Israel as the people to bring him to the world.  God gave his law (10 Commandments).  Man still did not get it.  God gave kings, judges, prophets.  Man still did not get it.  The downward spiral continued.  God decided to come to earth himself and brought Jesus to save man from himself.  The NT is all about Jesus (as is the OT when you learn to read it through his lens).  Many men still do not get it. 

Story of Job - In spite of Job's "friends", Job finally realized God is in charge and so far above us men that he is incomprehensible.  Through the whole sad story of Job and his suffering, God did not abandon him.  Contrary to how everyone abandoned Jesus throughout his suffering, culminating with an agonizing death on the cross where He defeated death for all who accept the gift.  The good news is that Satan no longer has access to God in God's presence (like he did in Job) and we have a mediator with God (Jesus).  The devil now just roams around on earth spreading his lies, tempting us to doubt, and creating havoc.  Thank God he has been defeated (on the cross).  I have to try to think outside of time to even have a small glimpse of this ... God's time is not like our time.  God created time just as he created everything else and can do anything with time He chooses.

Think of Christ's gift this way.  I give you a gift at Christmas.  You can take it as offered.  You can reject it if you wish.  The gift still exists and is offered either way.

[Gosso]

Here is Fr Barron's take on Hell (9 minutes): http://youtu.be/dmsa0sg4Od4

So Hell is not something that God does to us but rather the pain and loneliness of not being with God.

Also I have always enjoyed this dramatized conversation between CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien about Christianity being the one true myth (9 minutes): http://youtu.be/NzBT39gx-TE

I find Christianity fascinating but I have greatly distanced myself from the literalistic Christianity preached in most North American Churches.

[MediumTex]

How did Adam and Eve fall into sin?  They walked in the presence of God and still did it.  Man surely has a powerful, maybe genetic, longing to understand everything, think everything can be explained by reason, and place himself above all else ... including God.  We sing the same song, just a different verse, every day.

Humans are more curious than cats.

Surely God knew that if he put some magic trees in front of us, we were going to check them out.

That would be like putting a "Raiders of the Lost Ark" sized ball of catnip in front of a cat and expecting the cat to leave it alone.  I would expect a cat to be surprised to learn that because he checked out the ball of catnip he screwed it up for all future cats for all of eternity.

Was there really a choice there, or were humans ultimately just acting according to their nature?  I don't mean their evil nature, I mean their curious nature.

[Pointedstick]

Think about the first testament (OT) this way.  God created everything and it was good.  Man chose to go with his own knowledge instead of trusting God (the fall).  Death entered the world.  The point of the rest of the OT is to show how man, over, and over, and over, and over, cannot achieve righteousness on his own and thus show the need for a savior.  Events spiral downward.  God gave his story (man did not listen - Noah, rebirth via water (flood)), God chose Abraham and then Israel as the people to bring him to the world.  God gave his law (10 Commandments).  Man still did not get it.  God gave kings, judges, prophets.  Man still did not get it.  The downward spiral continued.  God decided to come to earth himself and brought Jesus to save man from himself.  The NT is all about Jesus (as is the OT when you learn to read it through his lens).  Many men still do not get it.

If God is all-powerful, I don't understand why he had to bother with all this indirection. It seems like God had the contradictory aims of steering man in a certain direction He preferred while simultaneously preserving man's free will (since I assume God could simply cause us all to do what He wanted due to his omnipotence). Why bother sending his son down to offer to save man? Why not offer to save man himself, or even just save us without the offer? Why not create a new kind of man that doesn't need to be saved? What is the point of free will if He knows what he wants from us and has the power to make us all do it if He really wanted to? I'm finding myself agreeing with Kshartle that it seems like He sort of enjoys seeing certain men suffer.

[MediumTex]

Think about the first testament (OT) this way.  God created everything and it was good.  Man chose to go with his own knowledge instead of trusting God (the fall).  Death entered the world.  The point of the rest of the OT is to show how man, over, and over, and over, and over, cannot achieve righteousness on his own and thus show the need for a savior.  Events spiral downward.  God gave his story (man did not listen - Noah, rebirth via water (flood)), God chose Abraham and then Israel as the people to bring him to the world.  God gave his law (10 Commandments).  Man still did not get it.  God gave kings, judges, prophets.  Man still did not get it.  The downward spiral continued.  God decided to come to earth himself and brought Jesus to save man from himself.  The NT is all about Jesus (as is the OT when you learn to read it through his lens).  Many men still do not get it.

If God is all-powerful, I don't understand why he had to bother with all this indirection. It seems like God had the contradictory aims of steering man in a certain direction He preferred while simultaneously preserving man's free will (since I assume God could simply cause us all to do what He wanted due to his omnipotence). Why bother sending his son down to offer to save man? Why not offer to save man himself, or even just save us without the offer? Why not create a new kind of man that doesn't need to be saved? What is the point of free will if He knows what he wants from us and has the power to make us all do it if He really wanted to? I'm finding myself agreeing with Kshartle that it seems like He sort of enjoys seeing certain men suffer.

I also wonder about God's choice of leaders in the Old Testament.

If the best you can do is a homophobic rapist like Moses or a cad like David and his spoiled womanizing son Solomon, it sort of makes it look like you don't have good judgment in the people you select as leaders.

It's sort of tempting to think that some of the stories in the Old Testament were created to help smooth over grumbling about what was basically incompetent leadership, especially when it came to David.

Also, and this is a minor point, but what's up with some of the guys in the Old Testament living hundreds of years?  That just doesn't make any sense at all to me.