The most essential element in understanding how and why God acts is to know and understand this.
That eternity is eternally more important than the temporal.
God does not have to do any miracles to save anyone from temporal death as God could simply rearrange circumstances to save them without anyone even realizing that they were in danger.
But the only way to enter into the eternal is to turn to God.
All of the miracles of the Bible are in fact sign posts pointing to God, pointing to God’s ability to forgive, save and heal.
But the strange truth of the matter is, those who are beaten and even killed for their faith in God grow stronger and have more followers than those who prosper while following God.
While those who are poor have more reasons to rely on God than those who are rich.
For when we succeed and grow rich how often do we simply pat ourselves on our own backs while ignoring God.
Now some will never turn to God no matter what happens to them or to others around them.
But most who do turn to God notice the consequences of our combined actions and then realize that they do not want to go with the flow and thus they turn to God. For no one can see their need of God without first living through the consequences of our rebellion against God.
The atheist view:
Well you certainly put the story in a much better light. But, as with every story involving God improving over time, it does chip away at the notion that He is perfect already in every regard. A learning/improving God fits better with my conception of what it is which gives rise to God belief.
As to your meme with the screed about what ATHEISM is and what it means, have you not chosen to live your life by the standards you do? Surely you have at least chosen the God and denominational system to which you submit. Everyone must judge and choose, atheism is no exception.
With the quotation of Hellen Keller, is that an endorsement of the teachings of Emanuel Swedenborg?
Your strawman is not any definition of the atheist view. The only thing defining atheism is that these people see no good reason for believing in any kind of deity… much like the Buddhists. And the vast majority have adopted this position because they simply cannot find a good reason to believe in the devil some people calling themselves Xtian seem to worship.
It is not God who grows smarter or dumber, but ourselves.
While God defines those who live according to the principal of love as being perfect, not those who lack nothing nor need nothing! For love itself produces a need for what is loved, does it not?
This is why God needs us, because God chose to love us.
As for choosing, is this not the basic component of free will?
In any classroom every student may indeed get a different answer.
In simple mathematics this clearly proves that all but one are wrong answers.
Even if most of the answers may be close to the correct one.
As for denominational systems, arguing about whether to have pegs on the walls or not or the color of carpeting is rather trivial?
While there are quite a few Christians who will still,all too often, follow the, “wisdom of men,” while ignoring the clear instructions of God, especially upon the many minor points of the Bible.
Sometimes I want to go even farther and say that the purpose of suffering is to bring us closer to God and it is necessary until that day when we are at one with God. Those suffering are brought to the point where they can experience the blessings of the 1st and 2nd beatitude. Those observing the suffering are moved to love and compassion, prayer and action.
Agreed. My comment was about the purpose of prayer, but I think that you are right. I think that one purpose of suffering (maybe “purpose” is not the right word, possibly “consequence”) is to draw us closer to God. It is a Romans 8:28 kind of situation. As well, if we are looking for a positive consequence of suffering, the ability to empathize and aid others in similar experiences should not be missed. The skeptic might say, though, that if God avoided the problem to begin with, then there would be no need for such empathy. But I disagree, because I do not believe that free-will could exist in such a controlled world.
So we see more as we are ready to see more? I think that is a good answer though it does raise more questions as it implies that knowledge of God is perspectival. This is what I think too. There is something which gives rise to and supports belief in God or gods. I’m willing to agree to that much. But what it is which gives rise to that belief is something we all approach as blind men to an elephant.
Of course Christians have what they believe is the word of God. Many seem to think it holds the answer to every question. That I would dispute as I suspect plenty of Christians would as well. That a culture has such a book through which all interpret their subjective experience allows for the creation of an inter-subjective reality which can be a great aid to any community.
I’m not sure if I’m following you here but I think I agree with you. Love can inspire great effort.
I do think that which gives rise to God belief needs us and cannot support and inspire our efforts unless those also serve His needs. There is real reciprocity in this and realizing it is crucial to becoming less shallow as a person.
So what matters most, that we agree on how to define whatever this is -or- that it matters to us? I’d say the latter.
Love would have no meaning if there were no suffering, because that would mean that we live in a controlled environment. I think that one could not know the difference between love and the illusion of love. Just how I see it.
That may be oversimplified? Parents playing with a child, a father with a newborn (mom has suffered in bearing and birthing, so that may confuse the issue), love for an adopted child… I don’t think suffering is implicit in those loves or that they denote the necessity of suffering.
The purpose of suffering is to bring us closer to God but this is only part of it.
The purpose for suffering is also to make us stronger.
And the purpose for suffering is to force us to see the consequences of our own actions.
Without suffering, reality would simply be a video game in which we could all grow up in worthless affluenza, without bothering to become good, for real good would not even exist, if that is, there were no real, visible, tangible, consequences for doing wrong!
As for our need of God and what motivates us towards God.
The important points in this are.
God’s reality.
and
The fact that seeking after God is rewarded.
We can argue all day and all night over what motivates us to seek God.
But if there is no God, there is no eternity and ultimately it does not matter.
While if there is a God who will not heed nor reward, then we are all still but dust and;
once again it does not matter.
Only if God is real and God is a rewarder of those who seek Him, is the issue of, not just real consequence, but eternally and thus vastly important consequence.
God has placed within all of us a need of Himself.
God has created this world to show us what is truly valuable and what is not.
While God has given us true life and self awareness through our ability to choose.
What is right.
or
What is wrong.
But can you even imagine the insanity of trying this, before a human judge, to claim that it is the law that is evil and the judge that is therefore guilty.
If a flawed human judge will laugh at you and then commit you to prison.
How much more will a perfect, holy God be able to condemn you for living your way and hurting everyone you have and will hurt, in your rebellion against God.
Only someone who sees God as a devil can make these two claims.
All have sinned. All are condemned. So you are saying that you fail to see your own guilt and of course you will condemn God. Jesus did warn us that our own judgments would condemn us.
It is no wonder that so many self-righteous people have God and the devil interchanged, willing to worship the one with evil character if it will get them what they want.
But I know these claims you have made are false. I know I have sinned and know I am condemned but I will never condemn God or what is good. And do not confuse God and the devil in the slightest. Because God is defined by His good character, and not by some legalistic formula by which people have deluded themselves that they have God as their personal tool to direct as they choose. How do we know what God is like? Jesus told us in John 14:9. “He who has seen me has seen the Father.”
When you are using religion as a tool of power, however, then of course you need to change God over to something more like a mafia godfather and the gospel into a protection racket, extorting people by fear into obedience in order to make them save themselves from the wrath of the terrible godfather.
Easily, because there are many times in history when the government, law, and judges were completely evil. So it is not by calling themselves a judge that makes them right and good, but the defense of what is right and good which shows which side they are on. Likewise it is not by calling themselves Xtian that makes someone a spokesman for God and dispensing God’s judgment. God speaks for Himself. And we know it is God because of what He has said.
It is by His character and love that you will know the one true God and not by whether He saves or condemns you. That is why those playing a Pascal’s wager are so foolish. Human justice may be blind but God sees the truth of what we are behind the words we say.
I know heaven and hell exist because I see them in world already, but these are not things which God does but which people do. The earth is a paradise, but people make it into hell by what they do. Thus it is people there which make the difference between heaven and hell. And it is not the religionists and Pharisees who are making it heavenly. Jesus made it clear which side they are on in Matthew 23.
And what does that tell us about heaven and hell? Does hell make us stronger? Does heaven make us weaker? I don’t think so.
So I say… hell is our heart’s desire and heaven is God’s desire for us. There is no purgatory because there is no human being without sin. The place where we have our sins cut out of us is the only heaven with any human beings in it. Where you get a free pass to a comfortable place with sins ignored is the place called hell, and there you can expect your sins to seduce and devour you until there is nothing left. The point is there is only two directions to go in whatever you call them.
Guaranteed. I said it, so it’s simple. But I think that you misunderstand what I was saying. I’m not saying that suffering is implicit in specific instances of love. What I was saying is this:
a) God creates a world where there is no suffering, no “why me??”, then,
b) Love cannot have any meaning, because,
c) I believe that true love can only exist in a realm where free will also exists. And I don’t believe that free will can exist in a realm where cause and effect are not fully in play.
So I’m always curious when people use this line of reasoning…
When God creates that world that, as best we understand, will have no suffering (“There will be no more mourning, nor crying, nor death, nor pain”)…
Will we simultaneously have no free will when we enter into eternal life in paradise? Or will love have no meaning in that eternal life where there is no suffering?
I think that paradise is only for those that have chosen to love God before themselves or that have fallen in love with God. Once we see things as God does, I don’t think we would want to go back.
Don’t you struggle with the problem of pain? Don’t you wrestle with issues that are challenging until you get to a point where you can live with them? Or do you never experience cognitive dissonance?
So you want to compare heaven to earth? This is a false equivalence. But, to sort of respond to your issue with my opinion, there is a reason that we must be forgiven from sin in order to enter heaven. I believe that being in the presence of God, no one will want to choose to sin. So, yes, I believe that there will be free will, though no one will choose to sin.
Will love have no meaning in the presence of God? You can answer that one yourself.
So, just to clarify, you do in fact believe that God can create a realm with no suffering (no “why me”), but where people do yet have free will, and where love indeed has real meaning?
Yes, as do you. But, clearly, there are differences between heaven and earth, the main one being that, in heaven, God is physically present. Not just present, but ever-present. This alone defines the situation for me. On earth, the conditions are such that we want to sin. In heaven, they will not be so. We cannot understand now, but something about being in the physical presence of God, we’ll not want to sin and not even consider it. So, as you are trying to show that my statement is not logical, please note that the two realms are entirely different, and that, in one alone is God physically present. Because heaven can exist doesn’t mean that the rules are the same here on earth, or that the possibilities are even the same. (And, remember, this is my opinion. This is how I navigate the problem of pain. I believe this position to honor scripture, as well, but others will deal differently with the issue.)
