Who is God?

[Doubt3312]

I posted this elsewhere on the site, but I think that this is also a good forum to discuss the question, and to get more variety in responses.

Okay, I'm just going to lay it all out on the table. Here goes...

God created mankind. Mankind has a sinful nature. Therefore, God created mankind with a sinful nature. Then, God tells mankind "if you sin, you'll go to hell" (whether he physically sends man there or not), or, as many have said, die.

Some have argued that we have a choice in the matter, that people choose sin and/or hell. Well, no one in their right mind would ever choose hell, or death. As for sin, how can someone be faulted for choosing something that is in his/her nature?

There is a strange double standard that exists here. God is "perfect," and he demands that humankind emulate him and also be perfect, but then he designs us to be imperfect? According to the idea of original sin, we're born imperfect!
Then, of course, the response is always that he has provided us a way out through the "death" of Christ. How many people died before that time, though? How many people live without ever hearing the gospel? If god loves every individual, then why doesn't every individual get an equal chance at making this supposed choice? We don't. Just being born outside of the Western world guarantees that this "choice" will be nearly impossible (I say nearly because there are always exceptions) to make, because it will require the person to radically alter their mind away from everything they've been inundated with since childhood.

If God hates sin so much that he's willing to deny the people he supposedly loves as his own children from having eternal life, then why create sin in the first place? Or, why create a sinful nature in humanity? Yes, I know the response that love is better if "chosen," and that he gave us a choice. But, don't you see, there is no choice either way. People who hear the gospel don't choose to hear it, other people choose to bring it to them. People don't choose the culture or the thought structure they're born into.

If god foreknew that people (whom he supposedly loves beyond our comprehension) were going to suffer, die, and end up in hell (whatever hell is), then why create them in the first place? Furthermore, why ensure those negative results by giving us a sinful nature?

If, as a parent, you knew your child would suffer throughout life and die a miserable death, would you still choose to have that child? If yes, why? To make yourself feel better? I frequently hear that god does things to reveal his glory... not only does that sound egotistic (which, by the way, egoism is in many ways opposite of love) but it contradicts the idea of him being benevolent and all loving. Part of the definition of love - true love - is putting someone (or many others) above yourself. Putting their concerns and well-being above your own.

So, if god created people with a sinful nature, then condemns them for sinning, then provides a single avenue for redemption that he knows few people will have access to, and he does all of this to prove his own glory (I can't help but wonder who he's trying to prove anything to), then I submit he is not benevolent. Either God is love, or he is the deity I've just described. He cannot be both simultaneously.

This leaves us with only two options. Either God does not exist, or our theology concerning him needs serious revision.

Responses?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So basically you want to discuss the problem of evil?

Problem of evil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[juvenissun]

If, as a parent, you knew your child would suffer throughout life and die a miserable death, would you still choose to have that child? If yes, why?

Among many other reasons ...

Suffering on earth is a type of blessing if the person is a Christian.

If that child becomes a Christian but suffered in all his life, he learned and will enjoy a glory eternal life (may even be more glorious than his parents).

If that child is aborted, he did not have a chance to receive the glory.

If that child not to become a Christian, it would not make any difference to the child whether he suffered on earth or not.

So, as a parent, give the child a chance. Help him to become a Christian, suffered or not. Even the child could only live one year on the earth, it is still his only chance to receive an eternal life.

 

[The Paul]

I posted this elsewhere on the site, but I think that this is also a good forum to discuss the question, and to get more variety in responses.

Okay, I'm just going to lay it all out on the table. Here goes...

God created mankind. Mankind has a sinful nature. Therefore, God created mankind with a sinful nature. Then, God tells mankind "if you sin, you'll go to hell" (whether he physically sends man there or not), or, as many have said, die.

Some have argued that we have a choice in the matter, that people choose sin and/or hell. Well, no one in their right mind would ever choose hell, or death. As for sin, how can someone be faulted for choosing something that is in his/her nature?

There is a strange double standard that exists here. God is "perfect," and he demands that humankind emulate him and also be perfect, but then he designs us to be imperfect? According to the idea of original sin, we're born imperfect!
Then, of course, the response is always that he has provided us a way out through the "death" of Christ. How many people died before that time, though? How many people live without ever hearing the gospel? If god loves every individual, then why doesn't every individual get an equal chance at making this supposed choice? We don't. Just being born outside of the Western world guarantees that this "choice" will be nearly impossible (I say nearly because there are always exceptions) to make, because it will require the person to radically alter their mind away from everything they've been inundated with since childhood.

If God hates sin so much that he's willing to deny the people he supposedly loves as his own children from having eternal life, then why create sin in the first place? Or, why create a sinful nature in humanity? Yes, I know the response that love is better if "chosen," and that he gave us a choice. But, don't you see, there is no choice either way. People who hear the gospel don't choose to hear it, other people choose to bring it to them. People don't choose the culture or the thought structure they're born into.

If god foreknew that people (whom he supposedly loves beyond our comprehension) were going to suffer, die, and end up in hell (whatever hell is), then why create them in the first place? Furthermore, why ensure those negative results by giving us a sinful nature?

If, as a parent, you knew your child would suffer throughout life and die a miserable death, would you still choose to have that child? If yes, why? To make yourself feel better? I frequently hear that god does things to reveal his glory... not only does that sound egotistic (which, by the way, egoism is in many ways opposite of love) but it contradicts the idea of him being benevolent and all loving. Part of the definition of love - true love - is putting someone (or many others) above yourself. Putting their concerns and well-being above your own.

So, if god created people with a sinful nature, then condemns them for sinning, then provides a single avenue for redemption that he knows few people will have access to, and he does all of this to prove his own glory (I can't help but wonder who he's trying to prove anything to), then I submit he is not benevolent. Either God is love, or he is the deity I've just described. He cannot be both simultaneously.

This leaves us with only two options. Either God does not exist, or our theology concerning him needs serious revision.

Responses?

Calvinism is so unpopular because it admits the problems you have pointed out.

Mainstream theology remarkably evasive.

 

[bricklayer]

I posted this elsewhere on the site, but I think that this is also a good forum to discuss the question, and to get more variety in responses.

Okay, I'm just going to lay it all out on the table. Here goes...

God created mankind. Mankind has a sinful nature. Therefore, God created mankind with a sinful nature. Then, God tells mankind "if you sin, you'll go to hell" (whether he physically sends man there or not), or, as many have said, die.

Some have argued that we have a choice in the matter, that people choose sin and/or hell. Well, no one in their right mind would ever choose hell, or death. As for sin, how can someone be faulted for choosing something that is in his/her nature?

There is a strange double standard that exists here. God is "perfect," and he demands that humankind emulate him and also be perfect, but then he designs us to be imperfect? According to the idea of original sin, we're born imperfect!
Then, of course, the response is always that he has provided us a way out through the "death" of Christ. How many people died before that time, though? How many people live without ever hearing the gospel? If god loves every individual, then why doesn't every individual get an equal chance at making this supposed choice? We don't. Just being born outside of the Western world guarantees that this "choice" will be nearly impossible (I say nearly because there are always exceptions) to make, because it will require the person to radically alter their mind away from everything they've been inundated with since childhood.

If God hates sin so much that he's willing to deny the people he supposedly loves as his own children from having eternal life, then why create sin in the first place? Or, why create a sinful nature in humanity? Yes, I know the response that love is better if "chosen," and that he gave us a choice. But, don't you see, there is no choice either way. People who hear the gospel don't choose to hear it, other people choose to bring it to them. People don't choose the culture or the thought structure they're born into.

If god foreknew that people (whom he supposedly loves beyond our comprehension) were going to suffer, die, and end up in hell (whatever hell is), then why create them in the first place? Furthermore, why ensure those negative results by giving us a sinful nature?

If, as a parent, you knew your child would suffer throughout life and die a miserable death, would you still choose to have that child? If yes, why? To make yourself feel better? I frequently hear that god does things to reveal his glory... not only does that sound egotistic (which, by the way, egoism is in many ways opposite of love) but it contradicts the idea of him being benevolent and all loving. Part of the definition of love - true love - is putting someone (or many others) above yourself. Putting their concerns and well-being above your own.

So, if god created people with a sinful nature, then condemns them for sinning, then provides a single avenue for redemption that he knows few people will have access to, and he does all of this to prove his own glory (I can't help but wonder who he's trying to prove anything to), then I submit he is not benevolent. Either God is love, or he is the deity I've just described. He cannot be both simultaneously.

This leaves us with only two options. Either God does not exist, or our theology concerning him needs serious revision.

Responses?

You're way off on some details, but I can still address your larger point.

You are closer to being correct than you may understand.

God's creation is His revelation about Himself. This is not a human or a creature centered creation; it is a God centered creation. God not only has a right to do with us as he wills, but he is right in doing so. God cannot do injustice to His creatures.

An author cannot be held responsible for an act committed by a character in his book, nor can God be held responsible for sin. God is literally always one person removed from sin, except on the cross where he took our sins upon Himself, because God chose the creation wherein He is hero.

 

[jayem]

An author cannot be held responsible for an act committed by a character in his book, nor can God be held responsible for sin.

But a character in a book has no choice. His acts are wholly determined by what the author wrote. In this sense, the author is totally responsible for what the character does.

If God gave us the ability to act on our own volition, then he at least shares responsibility, when he allows us to act in ways that harm other people. For example, suppose I know my son likes to play with matches. If I leave him alone without supervision, and with easy access to a box of matches, am I not also at fault if he burns my neighbor's house down? Would any court in the country not hold me responsible for damages?

The fact that God supposedly gives us a way to forgive our wickedness doesn't remove his responsibility for allowing the wicked acts in the first place. The more usual argument in God's favor is that God is perfectly just, so that whatever seems bad to us has a higher purpose, and will eventually be set right in God's timetable. But this also doesn't absolve God for his role. It just attempts to justify and mitigate it.

 

[AlexBP]

Then, of course, the response is always that he has provided us a way out through the "death" of Christ. How many people died before that time, though? How many people live without ever hearing the gospel? If god loves every individual, then why doesn't every individual get an equal chance at making this supposed choice? We don't. Just being born outside of the Western world guarantees that this "choice" will be nearly impossible (I say nearly because there are always exceptions) to make, because it will require the person to radically alter their mind away from everything they've been inundated with since childhood.

Your understanding of the Christian doctrine of salvation is incorrect. In fact, orthodox Christian does not teach and never has taught that salvation is impossible or nearly impossible for those who lived prior to Christ's time or those who never heard the gospel.

If god foreknew that people (whom he supposedly loves beyond our comprehension) were going to suffer, die, and end up in hell (whatever hell is), then why create them in the first place? Furthermore, why ensure those negative results by giving us a sinful nature?

God did not give us a sinful nature. It is the devil who is responsible for humanity having a sinful nature. It is God who is responsible for making it possible for us to shed our sinful nature and be restored to God's original intention of having a perfect nature.

If, as a parent, you knew your child would suffer throughout life and die a miserable death, would you still choose to have that child? If yes, why? To make yourself feel better?

Every parent who has a child knows that the child will suffer at some times in his or her life, and that the child will eventually die. Nonetheless all parents choose to have children. Clearly the mere fact that a child will undergo suffering is not an adequate reason to decide said child should not exist.

 

[bricklayer]

But a character in a book has no choice. His acts are wholly determined by what the author wrote. In this sense, the author is totally responsible for what the character does.

If God gave us the ability to act on our own volition, then he at least shares responsibility, when he allows us to act in ways that harm other people. For example, suppose I know my son likes to play with matches. If I leave him alone without supervision, and with easy access to a box of matches, am I not also at fault if he burns my neighbor's house down? Would any court in the country not hold me responsible for damages?

The fact that God supposedly gives us a way to forgive our wickedness doesn't remove his responsibility for allowing the wicked acts in the first place. The more usual argument in God's favor is that God is perfectly just, so that whatever seems bad to us has a higher purpose, and will eventually be set right in God's timetable. But this also doesn't absolve God for his role. It just attempts to justify and mitigate it.

You are correct to say that a character has no choice and a creature does.
An author cannot be held responsible for murder even though the author has 100% control over one character murdering another. The author is one person removed from the murder.
The author is just in doing what ever he wills with his characters that he creates for his purposes.

We do make choices.
This creation is eactly the creation God chose to create, with exactly this combination of our free will choices.

God is not objective; God is necessary.
To know a thing objectively is to know a thing as it is.
God does not need a thing to be to know it completely;
God know everything apart from its existence.

An author is finite, so are his characters; therefore, the difference between them is finite.
It may be humanly incalculable, but it is what it is and no more.
God is infinite. His creatures are finite. the difference between them is infinite.

If a finite author has every right to do with his finite characters whatever he wills,
the infinite Creator has the same right without limit.

 

[grasping the after wind]

But a character in a book has no choice. His acts are wholly determined by what the author wrote. In this sense, the author is totally responsible for what the character does.

If God gave us the ability to act on our own volition, then he at least shares responsibility, when he allows us to act in ways that harm other people. For example, suppose I know my son likes to play with matches. If I leave him alone without supervision, and with easy access to a box of matches, am I not also at fault if he burns my neighbor's house down? Would any court in the country not hold me responsible for damages?

The fact that God supposedly gives us a way to forgive our wickedness doesn't remove his responsibility for allowing the wicked acts in the first place. The more usual argument in God's favor is that God is perfectly just, so that whatever seems bad to us has a higher purpose, and will eventually be set right in God's timetable. But this also doesn't absolve God for his role. It just attempts to justify and mitigate it.

I don't think God shirks His responsibility in this. Nor does Christianity not recognize God's acceptance of His responsibility. Why do you think that Jesus is the Sacrificial Lamb to reconcile God and Humanity? He is fully human and fully divine the only one that could make restitution and reconcilliation for all responsible parties.

 

[jayem]

God did not give us a sinful nature. It is the devil who is responsible for humanity having a sinful nature. It is God who is responsible for making it possible for us to shed our sinful nature and be restored to God's original intention of having a perfect nature.

But wasn't it part of God's plan that Adam and Eve would sin? If they resisted the serpent's temptation, then there'd be no need for a redeemer. And if you believe Jesus was part of God's plan all along, then sin was also part of the plan. Whether a sinful nature was directly created by God is beside the point. God created man with the ability to sin. God allowed man to sin, because sin was necessary in God's grand cosmic scheme. By any kind of logic, God bears responsibility for sin.

 

[jpcedotal]

God created mankind.
True

Mankind has a sinful nature.
Today, man's nature is sinful. Not at Creation.

Therefore, God created mankind with a sinful nature.
False. God created man, in the beginning, with the freedom to choose. This choice was not of "right or wrong", but of "God's way or man's own way." Man's choice is what brought sin into the world, not God.

Then, God tells mankind "if you sin, you'll go to hell" (whether he physically sends man there or not), or, as many have said, die.
God gives man another chance to choose Him instead of "self".

Some have argued that we have a choice in the matter, that people choose sin and/or hell. Well, no one in their right mind would ever choose hell, or death.
Unsaved man chooses "self" over God. He chooses not to follow God. Hell, a real place, is simply a place where God is not. This is what people choose...to be where God is not....Hell.

As for sin, how can someone be faulted for choosing something that is in his/her nature?
Because GOD is stronger than one's own nature. Because we are not like the animals, we are made in God's own image. We have a consciousness about who we are, where animals do not.

There is a strange double standard that exists here. God is "perfect," and he demands that humankind emulate him and also be perfect, but then he designs us to be imperfect? According to the idea of original sin, we're born imperfect!
God wants us to simply put Him FIRST in our lives. To make Him LORD of our lives. He knows we can not be perfect. He also will not allow sin to be in His presence. BUT, HE LOVES US MORE THAN HE HATES SIN, so He Himself came down to earth as a man, as His own son, and lived the perfect life so He could die for us...because He simply loves us more than anything else He has ever created.

Then, of course, the response is always that he has provided us a way out through the "death" of Christ. How many people died before that time, though?
The Cross is a time thing. Time does not limit God. We can not even comprehend what this means. Who knows what is the "first" thing we see after we die? Or better yet, who knows what time era the world is in that next moment after death... In other words, when I die and when Noah died, may be the same next moment because time no longer restrains us...like being with Jesus when He comes back to earth. There may not be any "in between" time there.

How many people live without ever hearing the gospel? If god loves every individual, then why doesn't every individual get an equal chance at making this supposed choice? We don't. Just being born outside of the Western world guarantees that this "choice" will be nearly impossible (I say nearly because there are always exceptions) to make, because it will require the person to radically alter their mind away from everything they've been inundated with since childhood.
This is a legitimate question from a man standpoint. But that's where faith comes in...the same faith God asked the people of Israel to have when they sent spies into Canaan and found out that "the sons of Anak" lived in the land and that there was absolutely no way possible to defeat them. But that is the easy answer. How about, because God tells us that NO ONE who is supposed to be in Hell will be in Heaven and vice versa. Also, God says everyone will get chance to shoose Him. If I believe God never lies, then this is good enough to me. But it really is a faith thang.

If God hates sin so much that he's willing to deny the people he supposedly loves as his own children from having eternal life, then why create sin in the first place? Or, why create a sinful nature in humanity? Yes, I know the response that love is better if "chosen," and that he gave us a choice. But, don't you see, there is no choice either way. People who hear the gospel don't choose to hear it, other people choose to bring it to them. People don't choose the culture or the thought structure they're born into.
Is it harder for some to hear the Gospel...absolutely. Do some people get more chances than others of accepting Christ as their Lord and Savior...absolutely. As a Christian, I must leave that to God. He only wants me to reach out to as many people as He puts in front of me and other Christians are to do the same. God has got this under control. He doesn't need us for anything. He wants us to just love Him first and tell others about this love.

If god foreknew that people (whom he supposedly loves beyond our comprehension) were going to suffer, die, and end up in hell (whatever hell is), then why create them in the first place? Furthermore, why ensure those negative results by giving us a sinful nature?
The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God. God gives a true purpose in life. With Him, my life is full. I am not searching for some "thing" that will make me happier. I am now at peace with myself and the world.

If, as a parent, you knew your child would suffer throughout life and die a miserable death, would you still choose to have that child? If yes, why? To make yourself feel better?
Christian make this choice every day by just deciding to have a child. They know how screwed up this world is...how full of pain and hurt this world is and still, we believe love is stronger, we KNOW God is stronger.

I frequently hear that god does things to reveal his glory... not only does that sound egotistic (which, by the way, egoism is in many ways opposite of love) but it contradicts the idea of him being benevolent and all loving. Part of the definition of love - true love - is putting someone (or many others) above yourself. Putting their concerns and well-being above your own.
We are the creations, He is the Creator. Who am I to question His motives? I would not exist without Him. The real underlying problem is that each of us want to be "little gods". God came down to earth, He allowed Himself to be limited inside a man, man who felt hunger, thirst, pain, agony...and then He was nailed to the cross and died...for us. There is nothing else that sounds more like love to me....nothing. He showed us that He is not asking us to do anything that He Himself would not do...willingly.

So, if god created people with a sinful nature, then condemns them for sinning, then provides a single avenue for redemption that he knows few people will have access to, and he does all of this to prove his own glory (I can't help but wonder who he's trying to prove anything to), then I submit he is not benevolent. Either God is love, or he is the deity I've just described. He cannot be both simultaneously.
Actually, He is neither. God is God. Love is the closest thing we know of that most fully describes Him, and God is love, but love IS NOT God.

This leaves us with only two options. Either God does not exist, or our theology concerning him needs serious revision.
Focus on Jesus for a while and get off the god-king slant you are on. If you want to know who God is look at Jesus.

Responses?

In my own studies of the word I have always came to the same conclusion. There is a point where intellect falls short, where one must just have real, true faith in God.

 

[The Paul]

I love analogies like this...

An author cannot be held responsible for an act committed by a character in his book...

...because they betray mental truth of theologians.

They like to pretend their positions are something other than the result of indoctrination, that they have studied and considered things the common nay-sayer has never even imagined, that they are uniquely qualified to speak on matters of religion.

But theology is just further indoctrination. Mainstream believers are indoctrinated into believing certain things about their god and their religion. Theologians are further indoctrinated into believing certain arguments justify the first set of beliefs.

But when they try to actually explain their position, we end up with nonsense like (and I'll quote it again, because I love it!)

An author cannot be held responsible for an act committed by a character in his book...

It must seem both reasonable and insightful to someone who has been trained to consider it to be so, but to those of us able to actually consider the idea, it's perfectly obvious that an author is responsible for every act of each of his characters.

 

[AlexBP]

By any kind of logic, God bears responsibility for sin.

If anyone assigns responsibility, the one assigning must have the authority to hold the other person to account. If my boss decides that I'm responsible for completing a certain task, that means that my boss has authority over me. If a court assigns responsibility in a lawsuit, that means that the court has authority over the parties in the lawsuit. No human being can assign responsibility to God unless that human being has authority over God, and no human being has authority over God.

 

[Doubt3312]

He's not assigning responsibility, he's recognizing it.

This is another one of those analogies "The Paul" loves so much.

The potter is responsible for the shape of the clay ... the pot doesn't need to assign responsibility, it can't, the potter takes responsibility himself by forming the clay in the first place. We are the clay and god is the potter, how can he condemn us for how he formed us?

There is no choice, choice is an illusion; it is limited by the circumstance of the position one finds oneself in. If we are born sinful, then we didn't choose to be sinful...

To respond to jpcedotal, it is not simply a choice between God and "self." Many people choose God - not only Christians, but also Muslims, Jews, Hindus (god(s) in their case), etc.. They want a relationship with God just as strongly as any Christian does. They also have legitimate experiences that convince them of their religious "path." Yet, christianity asserts that to die as anything other than a christian is to deserve hell.

If God is loving, wouldn't he accept all of his children who are seeking/worshipping him?

Other than this, I think jayem summed up my point quite well.

Oh, and my previous statement about choosing not to have a child is not about abortion... it seems some posters were confused about that. I was attempting to imply that it would be better for something you love to never exist in the first place, then to suffer, die, and go to hell. If god foreknew we'd choose against him, the loving thing to do would be to spare us by not having created us in the first place.

 

[quatona]

An author cannot be held responsible for an act committed by a character in his book, nor can God be held responsible for sin.

Not?
So who else can be held responsible for an act committed by a character in a book if not the author?

 

[Tuddrussell]

Who is god? Liam Neeson, that's who.

 

[bricklayer]

Not?
So who else can be held responsible for an act committed by a character in a book if not the author?

An author is not held responsible for murder even though his character commits murder.
An author is one person removed from the acts of his characters.

 

[Lynxxus]

I know for a fact that God created us with free will. That said, he also foresee's everything that will happen. So even though we have the right of free will, God has already seen and planned what will happen ahead of time. Meaning...if you choose to murder, rather then just walk away, then God had seen that coming.

 

[The Nihilist]

I know for a fact that God created us with free will.

I do not think the word "know" means what you think it means

That said, he also foresee's everything that will happen. So even though we have the right of free will, God has already seen and planned what will happen ahead of time. Meaning...if you choose to murder, rather then just walk away, then God had seen that coming.

If God knows what is evil and can stop it but doesn't, then he is not benevolent.

 

[quatona]

An author is not held responsible for murder even though his character commits murder.
An author is one person removed from the acts of his characters.

You forgot to answer my question.