Figuring Out Religion

[Gosso]

Gosso,

If God is all-powerful and all-knowing, what is with him "wondering why Israel won't listen to him" or "how to fix the fallen humans?"

That sounds like the thought process of a man, or at leat a fallible God. 

Do you think God is NOT all-powerful then?

Yeah, exactly. Couldn't He just fix us if He didn't like how we'd turned out? And if He didn't want to kill us or alter us, couldn't He in fact go back in time and have already fixed us such that there was no problem to begin with?

If He could do these things but just doesn't want to for some reason we humans can't comprehend, then why would He be upset at the present state of affairs when the capacity to fix it was within His hands?

I figured that would get peoples attention.

Is a parent all powerful over their child?  Is an author all powerful over the characters and plot in their book?  Is an artist all powerful over their painting?  In a way, yes, in another no.  There are rules, techniques, raw materials, etc that need to be consistent.  God cannot go around converting bullets into flowers without destroying any kind of consistency in the laws of nature and physics.  Is it possible that God could setup rules that He chooses not to violate, even if it causes pain and suffering to the creatures He loves the most?

Think about video games.  Don't they become immensely boring once the cheats are enabled.  It is initially exciting but then there is no challenge, it loses all enjoyment.

To answer the question "Why does God not simply fix the world and humans to His liking now?", I'll have to turn again to CS Lewis's Mere Christianity, page 64-65:

"Another possible objection is this.  Why is God landing in this enemy-occupied world in disguise and starting a sort of secret society to undermine the devil?  Why is He not landing in force, invading it?  Is it that He is not strong enough?  Well, Christians think He is going to land in force; we do not know when.  But we can guess why He is delaying.  He wants to give us the chance of joining His side freely.  I do not suppose you and I would have thought much of a Frenchman who waited till the Allies were marching into Germany and then announced he was on our side.  God will invade.  But I wonder whether people who ask God to interfere openly and directly in our world quite realize what it will be like when He does.  When that happens, it is the end of the world.  When the author walks on the stage the play is over.  God is going to invade, all right: but what is the good of saying you are on His side then, when you see the whole natural universe melting away like a dream and something else - something it never entered your head to conceive - comes crashing in; something so beautiful to some of us and so terrible to others that none of us will have any choice left?  For this time it will be God without disguise; something so overwhelming that it will strike either irresistible love or irresistible horror into every creature.  It will be too late then to choose your side.  There is no use saying you choose to lie down when it has become impossible to stand up.  That will not be the time for choosing: it will be the time when we discover which side we really have chosen, whether we realize it before or not.  Now, today, this moment, is our chance to choose the right side.  God is holding back to give us that chance.  It will not last for ever.  We must take it or leave it."

I will admit that this passage makes me squeamish, but it is part of the Christian story.

Personally I focus on how God acts on my unconscious and conscious mind (this is ultimately the only thing I have some control over), and leave all the metaphysical, Heaven & Hell stuff as an interesting thought experiment.  If the metaphysics of Christianity bother you then drop it for now and focus on another aspect of the Christian message, perhaps the personal relationship with Christ.

[Lowe]

@ Gosso

Children aren't born broken.  They're born in need, and not just for food and shelter.  They need understanding, patience, affection, and at least some wisdom.

People don't provide those to their children, when they hit their children, euphemistically referred to as spanking, when they yell at or berate them, or when they neglect them.  Unfortunately these practices not only exist, but are the predominant way of raising children.  Sometimes they are even praised by supposed moral authorities.

Those practices are the reason for the brokenness of adults, who would have otherwise grown into strong, wise, understanding people, competent to the task of raising children themselves.

I admit I am broken by my past, in several ways, but only I can fix that.  I try, and it is hard.  However pretending there is an powerful, external spirit who can help me, is a projection of my inner world on the outer.  It is not real.  I am genuinely sorry there is no god to help you.  That doesn't mean your spirit can't do the job, though.

There are many sources of information on this topic.  The late Alice Miller, a world renowned psychologist and writer, authored several related books.  Also there is the psychologist Peter Gerlach, who himself professes to believe in a greater power, though he is unclear on what it is.

There is also Stefan Molyneux, who hasreleased a number of podcasts relating to self-knowledge and relationships.  He also discusses subjects related to anarcho-capitalism, if that interests you.  The therapist Barbara Rogers comes to mind as well, and the former therapist Daniel Mackler.  Both of them have discussed the projective nature of religious beliefs.  Mackler has also written on the shortfalls of programs like AA, which encourage dependence on outside authority.

[Kshartle]

@ Gosso

Children aren't born broken.  They're born in need, and not just for food and shelter.  They need understanding, patience, affection, and at least some wisdom.

People don't provide those to their children, when they hit their children, euphemistically referred to as spanking, when they yell at or berate them, or when they neglect them.  Unfortunately these practices not only exist, but are the predominant way of raising children.  Sometimes they are even praised by supposed moral authorities.

Those practices are the reason for the brokenness of adults, who would have otherwise grown into strong, wise, understanding people, competent to the task of raising children themselves.

And they grow up believing that authority stems from physical violence or the threat of it. The State is a legitimate use of force on them. It is the "parent" of everyone. We won't be rid of this stuff (the State, religion), until parents give up on hitting their kids and see them as people in an unequal relationship they didn't choose and can't leave.

We don't tolerate a man hitting his wife, but she's the one who hitched her wagon up to him and can leave. The kids are not responsible in any way for their situation and are the most important humans in the world.

[Mountaineer]

My comments are a bit off the current theme of the thread (Santa Claus, child beatings, etc.) but I hope additive. 

I sometimes ponder why for many of our problems we tend to do the following:
* Medical issues - seek a skilled doctor,
* Home repair issues - seek a plumber, electrician, roofer, carpet installer, etc.,
* Car repair issues - seek a skilled mechanic,
* Skills issues - seek a vocational school, college, university, etc.,
* Financial issues - seek the help of financial experts (e.g. this forum),
* Marital issues - seek skilled counselors,
* And so forth.

Yet, when we have issues about religion, some are so very reluctant to seek the advice of Theologians or go to where God has promised to meet us - in the means of grace - by hearing his Word rightly preached and the Sacraments rightly administered.  We are indeed a strange bunch of characters, wanting to pridefully think all the answers lie within ourselves when it comes to religion instead of outside of ourselves as it is in so many other areas of life.

... Mountaineer

[Gosso]

@ Gosso

Children aren't born broken.  They're born in need, and not just for food and shelter.  They need understanding, patience, affection, and at least some wisdom.

People don't provide those to their children, when they hit their children, euphemistically referred to as spanking, when they yell at or berate them, or when they neglect them.  Unfortunately these practices not only exist, but are the predominant way of raising children.  Sometimes they are even praised by supposed moral authorities.

Those practices are the reason for the brokenness of adults, who would have otherwise grown into strong, wise, understanding people, competent to the task of raising children themselves.

I admit I am broken by my past, in several ways, but only I can fix that.  I try, and it is hard.  However pretending there is an powerful, external spirit who can help me, is a projection of my inner world on the outer.  It is not real.  I am genuinely sorry there is no god to help you.  That doesn't mean your spirit can't do the job, though.

There are many sources of information on this topic.  The late Alice Miller, a world renowned psychologist and writer, authored several related books.  Also there is the psychologist Peter Gerlach, who himself professes to believe in a greater power, though he is unclear on what it is.

There is also Stefan Molyneux, who hasreleased a number of podcasts relating to self-knowledge and relationships.  He also discusses subjects related to anarcho-capitalism, if that interests you.  The therapist Barbara Rogers comes to mind as well, and the former therapist Daniel Mackler.  Both of them have discussed the projective nature of religious beliefs.  Mackler has also written on the shortfalls of programs like AA, which encourage dependence on outside authority.

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was physically/mentally abused as as I child...I wasn't...at least as far as I can tell.  My childhood was generally pretty boring.  I never went to church or had any belief in God.  My mom is a very nice and quiet lady.  My dad is also a nice guy.  I don't want this to turn into a therapy session, so I'll spare everyone the details.

Maybe "broken" is the wrong word to use.  Perhaps "incomplete" is better.  I truly wish that modern psychology or philosophy could provide this "completeness", but I have found them unsatisfactory.  There is some strange desire within me for something that this material world cannot provide.  I both hate and love this desire.  I wish it would just go away.  Maybe I should simply numb myself to it, which seems to be the path most people take.  For some reason I don't want to do this.

But is it not strange that we should have this desire and then not have something to satisfy it.  We become hungry and there is food to satisfy it.  We thirst and there is water to quench the thirst.  Just about every society or culture that has ever existed has created some sort of mythology to satisfy this desire.  Are they all delusional?  Maybe they are all wrong and we really are alone in the universe - we should just man up and stop playing make believe.  I have tried this and all I felt was this sort of sinking feeling.  Somehow the mythology of egoism seems wrong to me.

Lowe, have you read any of Carl Jung's work?  He was a student of Sigmund Freud, but recognized how the death of faith was damaging his patients.  He saw the dangers of living a life without some sort of mythology to provide us with a solid foundation for life.  Here's a snippet from Carl Jung's Man and His Symbols:

I stress this point because, in our time, there are millions of people who have lost faith in any kind of religion. Such people do not understand their religion any longer. While life runs smoothly without religion, the loss remains as good as unnoticed. But when suffering comes, it is another matter. That is when people begin to seek a way out and to reflect about the meaning of life and its bewildering and painful experiences.
It is significant that the psychological doctor (within my experience) is consulted more by Jews and Protestants than by Catholics. This might be expected, for the Catholic Church still feels responsible for the cura animarum (the care and welfare of souls). But in this scientific age, the psychiatrist is apt to be asked the questions that once belonged in the domain of the theologian. People feel that it makes, or would make, a great difference if only they had a positive belief in a meaningful way of life or in God and immortality. The specter of approaching death often gives a powerful incentive to such thoughts. From time immemorial, men have had ideas about a Supreme Being (one or several) and about the Land of the Hereafter. Only today do they think they can do without such ideas. Because we cannot discover God's throne in the sky with a radio telescope or establish (for certain) that a beloved father or mother is still about in a more or less corporeal form, people assume that such ideas are "not true." I would rather say that they are not "TRUE" enough, for these are conceptions of a kind that have accompanied human life from prehistoric times, and that still break through into consciousness at any provocation. Modern man may assert that he can dispense with them, and he may bolster his opinion by insisting that there is no scientific evidence of their truth. Or he may even regret the loss of his convictions. But since we are dealing with invisible and unknowable things (for God is beyond human understanding, and there is no means of proving immortality), why should we bother about evidence? Even if we did not know by reason our need for salt in our food, we should nonetheless profit from its use. We might argue that the use of salt is a mere illusion of taste or a superstition; but it would still contribute to our well-being. Why, then, should we deprive ourselves of views that would prove helpful in crises and would give a meaning to our existence?

I absolutely love this stuff!  It is exactly what my atheistic upbringing was lacking.  I can never again go back to the cold dark world of pure reason.

[moda0306]

If there are "some ways" that god isn't all-powerful, then he's not all-powerful. It's an absolute term. And if he's all-knowing and can see the future, nothing should disappoint, anger or confuse him.

Now this isn't to say he should try to change the course of events by intervening, but he certainly shouldn't be burdened by the way events roll out if he's all powerful and all knowing. He shouldn't have had to sacrifice his son to save our souls if he is all-powerful.

[Libertarian666]

My comments are a bit off the current theme of the thread (Santa Claus, child beatings, etc.) but I hope additive. 

I sometimes ponder why for many of our problems we tend to do the following:
* Medical issues - seek a skilled doctor,
* Home repair issues - seek a plumber, electrician, roofer, carpet installer, etc.,
* Car repair issues - seek a skilled mechanic,
* Skills issues - seek a vocational school, college, university, etc.,
* Financial issues - seek the help of financial experts (e.g. this forum),
* Marital issues - seek skilled counselors,
* And so forth.

Yet, when we have issues about religion, some are so very reluctant to seek the advice of Theologians or go to where God has promised to meet us - in the means of grace - by hearing his Word rightly preached and the Sacraments rightly administered.  We are indeed a strange bunch of characters, wanting to pridefully think all the answers lie within ourselves when it comes to religion instead of outside of ourselves as it is in so many other areas of life.

... Mountaineer

For the same reason that we don't seek the help of phrenologists or flat-earthers when we have problems that fall in their domains.

[Jan Van]

To answer the question "Why does God not simply fix the world and humans to His liking now?", I'll have to turn again to CS Lewis's Mere Christianity, page 64-65:

....God is holding back to give us that chance.  It will not last for ever.  We must take it or leave it."

But that again doesn't make sense when hold up against the whole All_Knowing All-Powerful narrative. He is holding back to give us a chance to do whatever he already knows we will do or not do. So why wait again?

[Kshartle]

Free will.

The idea is God has given us free will. That means even if he knows what we're going to do, it's still our choice and that's the point of all of this testing. The worthy ones make the kingdom because of their faith in the sacrifice of the son. If we didn't have free will to choose it wouldn't be worth anything. Having so many reject the offer can still dissapoint God and having people blaspheme or pervert his creation can still anger and I don't think any of that is inconsistent with the concept of God.

As to being all-powerful, we would probably have to really explore what that means. Tech brought up "Can God create a boulder so heavy he can't move it"? I don't know if that's enough to slam the door on the concept of being "all-powerful".

[Gosso]

If there are "some ways" that god isn't all-powerful, then he's not all-powerful. It's an absolute term. And if he's all-knowing and can see the future, nothing should disappoint, anger or confuse him.

Now this isn't to say he should try to change the course of events by intervening, but he certainly shouldn't be burdened by the way events roll out if he's all powerful and all knowing. He shouldn't have had to sacrifice his son to save our souls if he is all-powerful.

Moda, if you are interested in this topic then I suggest you read The Problem of Pain by CS Lewis.  It's only 160 pages and quite easy to read.

I personally see no contradiction in an all-powerful being holding back some of His power so that a stable and consistent universe can exist.  When throwing a dart at a dartboard do you use all your strength or do you harness your strength and coordination to match the requirements for throwing the dart.  Maybe God could have made the Universe a little bit nicer, but then we would still complain about how that world was not perfect enough.  A perfect world is a world that cannot exist...sadly.  Maybe Heaven is that perfect world, but I don't even pretend to know what Heaven will be like.

God has also decided to give us free will.  He cannot at one moment give us free will and then take it away once we abuse it, if He did then we no longer have free will.  By giving us free will He was willing to accept that we would abuse it and create evil in the world.  Once God intervenes then He can never again stop intervening...it will be the end of the world as we know it.

Now this brings up the issue of miracles.  If they do occur then they are either extremely rare or not obvious to us.  The only miracle that a Christian is required to believe (as far as I know) is the Resurrection.  But as Ludwig Wittgenstein said "only love can believe in the Resurrection."  For better or worse that is the way God wants it, the only way to Him is through the heart.  It took me a long time to figure that out (and still learning the importance of this).  This unfortunately requires a kind of death on our part, or a surrender, which is both horrible and lovely.

[moda0306]

Gosso,

What Jan said... it's not just about intervention because bad things will happen... it's that the entire narrative implies a God that isn't all-powerful and isn't all-knowing (all-powerful implies all-knowing IMO... the inability to inquire some sort of knowledge about something is a lack of power).

The fact that God would get frustrated, curious, angry, or would have to sacrifice his son to free our souls, implies that there are a certain set of rules that are hindering his ability to control or predict/control what will happen.  Also, if he has chosen to intervene with "natural law" (Jesus walking on water, curing others, turning water to wine, flooding the entire world, letting a man split a sea in half, speaking to people telling them to kill their son, build a boat, establish 10 rules to live by), he is making certain value-judgements along the way when "free choice" within the bounds of the physical/biological rules that he set up at the outset simply aren't good enough, and that he should intervene.  I don't expect a creator to explain his interventions to me, but he has intervened in some very random ways in the past, so "free choice" combined with the natural physical world he set up obviously isn't always good enough.

Now this doesn't mean there is no God.  It just means that if he does exist as most Christians say he does, he simply is not all-powerful and all-knowing.  I find a God that has imperfections (such as ones that put him in a position where he had to sacrifice his son to free our souls) to be far, far more admirable than one who literally knew how this game woul play out.

In fact, an otherwise mostly powerful God probably coul get bored with his power, and may have "invented" humans simply as a way to take some control out of his hands.  Similar to why we enjoy watching our puppy play or baby play, rather than have a stuffed animal or doll that we can fully control, he may have just simply been bored with the lack of mystery in his life, and decided to give life to others to add that mystery back, but this had all-sorts of unexpected consequences that made him angry, curious, frustrated, and maybe even regretful at having to sacrifice his son.

[moda0306]

If there are "some ways" that god isn't all-powerful, then he's not all-powerful. It's an absolute term. And if he's all-knowing and can see the future, nothing should disappoint, anger or confuse him.

Now this isn't to say he should try to change the course of events by intervening, but he certainly shouldn't be burdened by the way events roll out if he's all powerful and all knowing. He shouldn't have had to sacrifice his son to save our souls if he is all-powerful.

Moda, if you are interested in this topic then I suggest you read The Problem of Pain by CS Lewis.  It's only 160 pages and quite easy to read.

I personally see no contradiction in an all-powerful being holding back some of His power so that a stable and consistent universe can exist.  When throwing a dart at a dartboard do you use all your strength or do you harness your strength and coordination to match the requirements for throwing the dart.  Maybe God could have made the Universe a little bit nicer, but then we would still complain about how that world was not perfect enough.  A perfect world is a world that cannot exist...sadly.  Maybe Heaven is that perfect world, but I don't even pretend to know what Heaven will be like.

God has also decided to give us free will.  He cannot at one moment give us free will and then take it away once we abuse it, if He did then we no longer have free will.  By giving us free will He was willing to accept that we would abuse it and create evil in the world.  Once God intervenes then He can never again stop intervening...it will be the end of the world as we know it.

Now this brings up the issue of miracles.  If they do occur then they are either extremely rare or not obvious to us.  The only miracle that a Christian is required to believe (as far as I know) is the Resurrection.  But as Ludwig Wittgenstein said "only love can believe in the Resurrection."  For better or worse that is the way God wants it, the only way to Him is through the heart.  It took me a long time to figure that out (and still learning the importance of this).  This unfortunately requires a kind of death on our part, or a surrender, which is both horrible and lovely.

Gosso,

This isn't a question of "why would God create such a cruel world and not help people more," this is an observation that IF God is truly all-powerful, then he knows or should have known exactly how his actions would pan out for everyone, and he controls the game, so he shouldn't have "had to" sacrifice his son for the sake of all of man-kinds souls.  He set up every single rule.  I'm not asking him to have made things "nicer."  I'm wondering why he would be "surprised" by anything, or "had to" do anything. Maybe the only "niceness" I would ask is that once people die (fairly or unfairly), simply allow their souls to fizzle away, and not spend an eternity in suffering damnation.  I'm not asking everyone to be born with above-average health, 40 acres and a mule.  But when setting up rules for potential outcomes, didn't he see eternal suffering to be something that wasn't very neutral?  Any earthly suffering I can see as collateral damage to free will.  Eternal damnation for good people seems morally unacceptable to me.  He intervened in the physical world to allow Jesus to turn water into wine.  Why not change the rules so when a little muslim boy dies from a smart bomb or a IED, his soul just fizzles away, and isn't sent to hell for eternity?

[Pointedstick]

When throwing a dart at a dartboard do you use all your strength or do you harness your strength and coordination to match the requirements for throwing the dart.

What would be the point of playing darts if you were capable of hitting the bullseye at will with every throw, if you so wished?

[moda0306]

PS,

I wonder if he's saying that an all-powerful God decided to create free choice and, even though he COULD have used his power to predict future events, actively chose NOT to foresee said events.  This would give him feelings that an all-powerful being probably couldn't have felt (though does that limit his true power?  Are we trying to divide by zero here?)

Imagine being an all-powerful being.  Wouldn't it get boring eventually?  I think one thing I would eventually want to do would be to set up a set of events where other "free-will" entities with limited power act out their life, and I choose to stay willfully ignorant as to the "spoilers" of what would happen.

However, he still has chosen to "short-circuit" natural law and free will when he sees fit at a few times.  One would think he'd limit the rules allowing us to go to hell within a more reasonable behavioral criteria, after seeing how things ended up (kids going to hell... good people going there as well... eternal damnation sorta stuff).

Also, if he gave us logic and free choice, as well as some sort of internal moral center, I would assert that abandoning these things to take things on "faith" is not what he'd want from us.  Especially considering there are various takes on what we should take on faith.  If we are to follow logic and reason, we have a set of tools through which to determine if people are using God as a tool. 

I guess I'd have to ask whether religious folk see faith as a choice, or as something we are not in control of, or some combination of the two.

[Jan Van]

... flooding the entire world ...

That reminds me of the rainbow...

[Gosso]

Gosso,

This isn't a question of "why would God create such a cruel world and not help people more," this is an observation that IF God is truly all-powerful, then he knows or should have known exactly how his actions would pan out for everyone, and he controls the game, so he shouldn't have "had to" sacrifice his son for the sake of all of man-kinds souls.  He set up every single rule.  I'm not asking him to have made things "nicer."  I'm wondering why he would be "surprised" by anything, or "had to" do anything. Maybe the only "niceness" I would ask is that once people die (fairly or unfairly), simply allow their souls to fizzle away, and not spend an eternity in suffering damnation.  I'm not asking everyone to be born with above-average health, 40 acres and a mule.  But when setting up rules for potential outcomes, didn't he see eternal suffering to be something that wasn't very neutral?  Any earthly suffering I can see as collateral damage to free will.  Eternal damnation for good people seems morally unacceptable to me.  He intervened in the physical world to allow Jesus to turn water into wine.  Why not change the rules so when a little muslim boy dies from a smart bomb or a IED, his soul just fizzles away, and isn't sent to hell for eternity?

It seems obvious to me that God is not all-powerful in the way you are thinking of Him.  He clearly is not all-powerful over our free will.  This is basically what the entire Bible is about - getting us to submit our free will to His will, so that we can share in His love.

If God wanted to create Heaven does it not follow that there must also be a non-Heaven.  Given free will there is the choice to not accept Heaven, therefore there must be a non-Heaven.  I agree that Hell is by far the worst of all Christian doctrine...I wish it didn't exist...I wish Jesus had not made it crystal clear that there is a non-Heaven which will not be any fun.  However it is impossible to know exactly what the experience will be like.  Jesus does describe Hell as a place where souls are sent to be destroyed, but He also describes it as everlasting punishment, and as everlasting darkness and loneliness.  It is possible that souls in Hell will be broken down into their original parts and simply forgotten about (like burning a log into ash).  But what kind of experience would that be?  Would we even experience anything, or is the punishment that Jesus spoke simply the pain of not being with God during our life time?  I don't know.

Re: The death of Jesus.  This is something I still struggle with.  Joseph Campbell said the best explanation he heard was that it evoked the compassion in the hearts of us self-centered humans.  Here is God going to a horrible and embarrassing death, so that we can somehow be saved.  How can you not be moved by that.  It would be like a parent taking on its child's cancer, if they had the ability to do it.  But if God is all-powerful then why was this required?  This is one of the fascinating mysteries of Christianity.  I'm afraid I have to type out another passage from Mere Christianity, since Lewis is far more articulate than I am (you guys should just read the freaken book ):

Now before I became a Christian I was under the impression that the first thing Christians had to believe was one particular theory as to what the point of his dying was.  According to that theory God wanted to punish men for having deserted and joined the Great Rebel, but Christ volunteered to be punished instead, and so God let us off.  Now I admit that even this story does not seem to me quite so immoral and so silly as it used to; but that is not the point I want to make.  What I came to see later on was that neither this theory nor any other is Christianity.  The central Christian belief is that Christ's death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start.  Theories as to how it did this are another matter. 
[...]
I will tell you how I think it is like.  All sensible people know that if you are tired and hungry a meal will do you good.  But the modern theory of nourishment - all about the vitamins and proteins - is a different thing.  People ate their dinners and felt better long before the theory of vitamins was ever heard of: and if the theory of vitamins is some day abandoned they will go on eating their dinners just the same.  Theories about Christ's death are not Christianity: they are explanations about how it works.  Christians would not all agree as to how important those theories are. 
[...]
But I think they will all agree that the thing itself is infinitely more important than any explanation that theologians have produced.  I think they would probably admit that no explanation will ever be quite adequate to the reality.

So again, it seems God is not all-powerful in the sense that many people assume He is.

If you are looking for a religion that is perfectly rational then Christianity will likely not work for you.  Christianity is designed to open the heart which as we all know is not purely rational.  But that is not to say Christians cannot be very rational as well, it is just that we include some faith and love to go along with that reason.

When throwing a dart at a dartboard do you use all your strength or do you harness your strength and coordination to match the requirements for throwing the dart.

What would be the point of playing darts if you were capable of hitting the bullseye at will with every throw, if you so wished?

But He does, doesn't He?  The laws of nature and physics seems pretty consistent to me.

If you are asking why doesn't He just create a perfect world, well, it's because a perfect world is impossible to create, at least if the creatures are to have free will.  These creatures need to be given just enough information to believe and just enough to not believe...or else they lose their free will.  They are placed on the edge of a sword and they decide which way they fall.  There needs to be a consequence for either side.

Maybe it would be better if there was nothing at all, but here we are.  Either life has no meaning (or create your own meaning), or there is a creator that is deeply concerned with our development.  Using Pascal's Wager, it would make sense to wager on the latter.

[Gosso]

PS,

I wonder if he's saying that an all-powerful God decided to create free choice and, even though he COULD have used his power to predict future events, actively chose NOT to foresee said events.  This would give him feelings that an all-powerful being probably couldn't have felt (though does that limit his true power?  Are we trying to divide by zero here?)

Imagine being an all-powerful being.  Wouldn't it get boring eventually?  I think one thing I would eventually want to do would be to set up a set of events where other "free-will" entities with limited power act out their life, and I choose to stay willfully ignorant as to the "spoilers" of what would happen.

However, he still has chosen to "short-circuit" natural law and free will when he sees fit at a few times.  One would think he'd limit the rules allowing us to go to hell within a more reasonable behavioral criteria, after seeing how things ended up (kids going to hell... good people going there as well... eternal damnation sorta stuff).

Also, if he gave us logic and free choice, as well as some sort of internal moral center, I would assert that abandoning these things to take things on "faith" is not what he'd want from us.  Especially considering there are various takes on what we should take on faith.  If we are to follow logic and reason, we have a set of tools through which to determine if people are using God as a tool. 

I guess I'd have to ask whether religious folk see faith as a choice, or as something we are not in control of, or some combination of the two.

Moda, you're getting very close.

Remember that you are forming a relationship with God.  I'm going to save myself from a large amount of typing and link to this YouTube clip from Fr. Robert Barron on what faith is and isn't (11 minutes).

If you are looking for a religion that is perfectly rational then Christianity will likely not work for you.

Yeah, if you are looking for ANY religion that is perfectly rational then good luck in your search.

Very true.  Religions and spirituality should be forcing people to poke their heads outside the stuffy box of rationality, and sniff the warm/dewy/sweet air outside of it.

[moda0306]

Gosso,

This isn't a question of "why would God create such a cruel world and not help people more," this is an observation that IF God is truly all-powerful, then he knows or should have known exactly how his actions would pan out for everyone, and he controls the game, so he shouldn't have "had to" sacrifice his son for the sake of all of man-kinds souls.  He set up every single rule.  I'm not asking him to have made things "nicer."  I'm wondering why he would be "surprised" by anything, or "had to" do anything. Maybe the only "niceness" I would ask is that once people die (fairly or unfairly), simply allow their souls to fizzle away, and not spend an eternity in suffering damnation.  I'm not asking everyone to be born with above-average health, 40 acres and a mule.  But when setting up rules for potential outcomes, didn't he see eternal suffering to be something that wasn't very neutral?  Any earthly suffering I can see as collateral damage to free will.  Eternal damnation for good people seems morally unacceptable to me.  He intervened in the physical world to allow Jesus to turn water into wine.  Why not change the rules so when a little muslim boy dies from a smart bomb or a IED, his soul just fizzles away, and isn't sent to hell for eternity?

It seems obvious to me that God is not all-powerful in the way you are thinking of Him.  He clearly is not all-powerful over our free will.  This is basically what the entire Bible is about - getting us to submit our free will to His will, so that we can share in His love.

If God wanted to create Heaven does it not follow that there must also be a non-Heaven.  Given free will there is the choice to not accept Heaven, therefore there must be a non-Heaven.  I agree that Hell is by far the worst of all Christian doctrine...I wish it didn't exist...I wish Jesus had not made it crystal clear that there is a non-Heaven which will not be any fun.  However it is impossible to know exactly what the experience will be like.  Jesus does describe Hell as a place where souls are sent to be destroyed, but He also describes it as everlasting punishment, and as everlasting darkness and loneliness.  It is possible that souls in Hell will be broken down into their original parts and simply forgotten about (like burning a log into ash).  But what kind of experience would that be?  Would we even experience anything, or is the punishment that Jesus spoke simply the pain of not being with God during our life time?  I don't know.

Re: The death of Jesus.  This is something I still struggle with.  Joseph Campbell said the best explanation he heard was that it evoked the compassion in the hearts of us self-centered humans.  Here is God going to a horrible and embarrassing death, so that we can somehow be saved.  How can you not be moved by that.  It would be like a parent taking on its child's cancer, if they had the ability to do it.  But if God is all-powerful then why was this required?  This is one of the fascinating mysteries of Christianity.  I'm afraid I have to type out another passage from Mere Christianity, since Lewis is far more articulate than I am (you guys should just read the freaken book ):

Now before I became a Christian I was under the impression that the first thing Christians had to believe was one particular theory as to what the point of his dying was.  According to that theory God wanted to punish men for having deserted and joined the Great Rebel, but Christ volunteered to be punished instead, and so God let us off.  Now I admit that even this story does not seem to me quite so immoral and so silly as it used to; but that is not the point I want to make.  What I came to see later on was that neither this theory nor any other is Christianity.  The central Christian belief is that Christ's death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start.  Theories as to how it did this are another matter. 
[...]
I will tell you how I think it is like.  All sensible people know that if you are tired and hungry a meal will do you good.  But the modern theory of nourishment - all about the vitamins and proteins - is a different thing.  People ate their dinners and felt better long before the theory of vitamins was ever heard of: and if the theory of vitamins is some day abandoned they will go on eating their dinners just the same.  Theories about Christ's death are not Christianity: they are explanations about how it works.  Christians would not all agree as to how important those theories are. 
[...]
But I think they will all agree that the thing itself is infinitely more important than any explanation that theologians have produced.  I think they would probably admit that no explanation will ever be quite adequate to the reality.

So again, it seems God is not all-powerful in the sense that many people assume He is.

If you are looking for a religion that is perfectly rational then Christianity will likely not work for you.  Christianity is designed to open the heart which as we all know is not purely rational.  But that is not to say Christians cannot be very rational as well, it is just that we include some faith and love to go along with that reason.

When throwing a dart at a dartboard do you use all your strength or do you harness your strength and coordination to match the requirements for throwing the dart.

What would be the point of playing darts if you were capable of hitting the bullseye at will with every throw, if you so wished?

But He does, doesn't He?  The laws of nature and physics seems pretty consistent to me.

If you are asking why doesn't He just create a perfect world, well, it's because a perfect world is impossible to create, at least if the creatures are to have free will.  These creatures need to be given just enough information to believe and just enough to not believe...or else they lose their free will.  They are placed on the edge of a sword and they decide which way they fall.  There needs to be a consequence for either side.

Maybe it would be better if there was nothing at all, but here we are.  Either life has no meaning (or create your own meaning), or there is a creator that is deeply concerned with our development.  Using Pascal's Wager, it would make sense to wager on the latter.

Gosso,

If he's not all-powerful in every way imaginable, than he is simply not all-powerful... in fact many have pointed out that the term is pretty self-contradictory.

It's like saying "To infinity, and beyond!!"

So if it's logically impossible for anything to be all-powerful, we need to establish what his powers are.

But even if he kept his powers of fore-sight and intervention in check for this thing called humanity, he STILL has decided to intervene at random times, and once to sacrifice his son for the souls of (some of) mankind.  It seems like how he went about saving our souls was to intervene in a very arbitrary way.  If he's just keeping his limitless power in check, why, if he was going to intervene, did he do so in a way that required the death of his son?? So people knew how much he loved them?  Or expected from them? 

And even if this is all the case, for all the poetic beauty of it all, how do we know it's even true?  How do you know that the bond of "faith" you have in yourself isn't some other feeling playing a trick on you?  A lot of people seem to have this thing called "faith."  Many terrorists have a ton of it.  How can we be so sure any feeling of "knowing God" isn't just some weird part of our brain that isn't fundamentally different from anyone else's "faith" in their God?  How do you know you're special?

I'm glad there's some question as to "how bad" hell is though.  It should either be "not that bad" or take a lot of evil to go to. 

I probably won't read the book for a while .  Sorry .

[Mountaineer]

Eternal damnation for good people seems morally unacceptable to me.  He intervened in the physical world to allow Jesus to turn water into wine.  Why not change the rules so when a little muslim boy dies from a smart bomb or a IED, his soul just fizzles away, and isn't sent to hell for eternity?

Your very wording indicates that you want to be in charge ... not God.  The word "good" is what I'm talking about.  Good by whose standards - yours or God's?  And "morally unacceptable" - by whose standards - yours or God's?

I realize it is VERY difficult to give up control and turn it over to God (e.g. have faith in God's promises).  But, there is always hope.  However, even though it may be a real downer for many, only God can remove the "something like scales" from ones eyes and let them see the real truth.  Until those "something like scales" are removed, there is absolutely nothing the believers can do to help unbelievers see the light.  The basic unanswerable question is "why some and not others" when it comes to belief.  That is trying to understand the mind of God - we are not capable of doing that while on this earth.

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

Do you have ANY doubt in your faith at all?  When you see the billions of humans that have been just as sure as you are but in a different religion, do you question whether that feeling inside you isn't really a faith in an actual God (and take on what he wants us to do), but instead is just an odd mental condition no different than anyone else believing in something to their core that just simply ain't true?

I really apologize if that cut in any way.  I'm just curious how sure you are of your faith.

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,

Do you have ANY doubt in your faith at all? 
NOT REALLY.  I CAN'T SAY THAT I'VE NEVER DOUBTED, BUT IT IS BECOMING VERY, VERY INCREASINGLY RARE AS I GET OLDER AND RECEIVE GOD'S WORD (PREACHING, SACRAMENTS, SCRIPTURE STUDY) MORE AND MORE.  I AM AS CLOSE TO 100% SURE OF MY ETERNAL SECURITY AS I COULD POSSIBLY BE AS A SINFUL HUMAN BEING.

When you see the billions of humans that have been just as sure as you are but in a different religion, do you question whether that feeling inside you isn't really a faith in an actual God (and take on what he wants us to do), but instead is just an odd mental condition no different than anyone else believing in something to their core that just simply ain't true?
NO.  I JUST FEEL SORRY FOR THOSE WHO HAVE NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR THE WORD OF GOD; IT IS NOT UP TO ME TO DECIDE WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THEM - THAT IS GOD'S BUSINESS.  FOR THOSE WHO HAVE HEARD GOD'S WORD AND REFUSE THE GIFT, I FEEL VERY SAD.  BUT I BELIEVE THERE IS ALWAYS HOPE THEY WILL BELIEVE IN THE PROMISES OF GOD BEFORE THEY EXPIRE, OR BEFORE JESUS RETURNS FOR FINAL JUDGEMENT, AND SUFFER THE ETERNAL CONSEQUENCES OF THIER UNBELIEF. 

EDITED TO ADD THIS STATEMENT:  AS TO THOSE OTHER RELIGIONS, I BELIEVE IN THE ONLY RELIGION WHOSE SAVIOR AND GOD JESUS RAISED FROM THE DEAD AND LIVES (THE RESURECTION IS A WELL DOCUMENTED FACT).  ALL OTHER RELIGIONS HAVE DEAD OBJECTS OR DEAD PEOPLE FOR THIER LEADER.  THAT WOULD NOT BE VERY COMFORTING FOR ME TO BELIVE IN DEAD THINGS AS MY TICKET FOR SALVATION.

I really apologize if that cut in any way.  I'm just curious how sure you are of your faith.

No apology necessary, you always ask politely even when it is obvious you have a different set of presuppostions than I do.  See my response in CAPS above in your original post.

... Mountaineer

[Pointedstick]

(THE RESURECTION IS A WELL DOCUMENTED FACT).

Would you be willing to provide links or citations in support of this well documented fact that are not a part of the Christian canon itself?

[Mountaineer]

(THE RESURECTION IS A WELL DOCUMENTED FACT).

Would you be willing to provide links or citations in support of this well documented fact that are not a part of the Christian canon itself?

I just did a very quick Google search and here are links from that.  I did not read every word so if there are more questions, feel free to ask.  You can do more research easily if you wish.  Hope this helps.

http://www.xenos.org/classes/papers/doubt.htm

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-there ... aig-ehrman

http://witness.lcms.org/pages/wPagex.as ... IssueID=32

http://witness.lcms.org/pages/wPage.asp ... IssueID=32

... Mountaineer

[Gosso]

Gosso,

If he's not all-powerful in every way imaginable, than he is simply not all-powerful... in fact many have pointed out that the term is pretty self-contradictory.

It's like saying "To infinity, and beyond!!"

So if it's logically impossible for anything to be all-powerful, we need to establish what his powers are.

I think we have established that God can be all-powerful but has decided to set rules for his power so that a stable and predictable Universe can be established.  If He started turning bullets into flowers then it would be so obvious that God exists that we would have no choice but to obey Him.  But this is not what God wants, it seems what He desires more than anything is to have creatures with free will that have decided to love Him.  The free will makes the love meaningful and powerful, for both God and humans.

But even if he kept his powers of fore-sight and intervention in check for this thing called humanity, he STILL has decided to intervene at random times, and once to sacrifice his son for the souls of (some of) mankind.  It seems like how he went about saving our souls was to intervene in a very arbitrary way.  If he's just keeping his limitless power in check, why, if he was going to intervene, did he do so in a way that required the death of his son?? So people knew how much he loved them?  Or expected from them? 

Simple answer, I don't know.  My guess is that it helped to solidify the mythology of Jesus as a sort of "true myth" that actually occurred in the material world.  There are many other myths that involve dying and rising Gods, but no one actually believes these events were historical.  Christianity tells us the death and resurrection of Jesus was an historical event.  This is shocking.  Jesus was the main event, while these other myths are echos or shadows (emerging from the collective unconscious) of what God did through Jesus.

And even if this is all the case, for all the poetic beauty of it all, how do we know it's even true?  How do you know that the bond of "faith" you have in yourself isn't some other feeling playing a trick on you?  A lot of people seem to have this thing called "faith."  Many terrorists have a ton of it.  How can we be so sure any feeling of "knowing God" isn't just some weird part of our brain that isn't fundamentally different from anyone else's "faith" in their God?  How do you know you're special?

I believe Christianity because it has been backtested over the past 2000 years (4000 years if you include the Old Testament).

Actually, I'm amazed Christianity hasn't died out.  It is a very weird religion, I doubt humans would have purposely created such a strange and challenging religion.  This is actually what attracts me to Christianity.  All the other religions/spirituality seem too easy and boring.

As for terrorists, it is indeed easy to be brainwashed and have your faith placed in something evil.  But this isn't a problem just for religions, anyone can be brainwashed for any purpose.  Just turn on your TV.  The German people under Hitler.  It's unfortunate that faith which was designed for good can turn evil.

Why is a Christian's faith in God different than (say) a Hindu's faith in their God?  Well, personally I don't see much difference.  If the Pope is right in that Jesus died for every human, then all we have to do is figure out how we are to accept that gift.  Saint Paul tells us we must be baptized, have faith in Jesus Christ, and possibly perform good works.  But if the Hindu has centered his life around God and is moving towards a "Christ-like life" even though he has no (or limited) knowledge of Christ then it seems to me that God would still be very pleased with him.  Perhaps God's mercy is greater than most of us think...I guess we won't know for sure until we get to the other side.  I'm still very new to Christianity so I need to learn more about this topic.  Does the search for truth ever end?

[Mountaineer]

Does the search for truth ever end?

My quick response:  At our death?  At Judgement Day?  Whose truth?

My very slighty pondered response:  In this life it may depend on whether one believes the truth is within (e.g. postmoderns) or external (e.g. moderns and premoderns) to themselves as well as on whether one has a curious mind.

... Mountaineer