burning flames

a friend of mine wrote this about rejecting god, but he is obviously a christian...:

You are addressing an important point in your responses, but I did want to be sure that, in principle (saying nothing about what rejecting God entails) you agree that, someone who is free in relation to God ought to be able to reject him. You seem to agree on this, so lets move on.
In my view you raise two basic issues. The first is the fact that, by rejecting God, we are punished. This doesn't seem fair--its like the choice isn't really there, because the consequences for not accepting God are tremendously bad.
The second issue has to do with knowledge. We are "playing a game with high stakes"; assuming it is even reasonable that we are given the choice to eternally reject God, why does he choose to do it in the way that he does. In particular, why isn't the choice more clear? Why doesn't God "reveal himself from the start?"

I think that both of these questions are extremely good ones and extremely deep, and they obviously interact on some level, particularly in your understanding, because you are trying to make sense of why God did things in the way that He did. But the first question is more theoretical, having to do with the nature of God and our relationship with him, while the second is more of a practical and historical matter, having to do with how God wrote salvation history. Lets tackle the first issue first; I think partial answers to the second will naturally emerge from this.

This issue is very interesting because it hinges, I think, on the concept of an absolute good. When you say that it is wrong for a person to be punished for rejecting God, you are applying a standard of right and wrong that must be large enough to encompass both God and his punishment, and bring judgment on it. This would be a standard of judgment higher than God himself, which contradicts God's nature, him being the absolute standard of right and wrong.

I realize that this raises the obvious issue: is something right or wrong, then, simply because God decides it is so? I think the answer to this is basically "no"--in the sense that God's choices must be consistent with his nature, and it is not in his nature to do certain things, in particular certain moral wrongs. But I make the point not to raise this philosophical question, but rather just to show that it is really not a matter of deciding whether or not God is "in the right" or "in the wrong" but rather whether or not a God who is absolutely good can self-consistently punish. If you say "God is not good" what you are really saying is "God is not God." This, I think, obscures in your mind the idea that punishment itself is entailed by the rejection of the God who is good, by definition of what he is.

To see this, what we have to do, I think, is start with the idea of a God who has the characteristics of infinite goodness and joy and peace and love, who is the giver of life and the source of all truth, who allows us to reject him, and then think about what that rejection would mean. I'm talking total rejection here: think of what an existence devoid of every positive quality (which all spring from God) would amount to, and you have some picture of hell.

My guess is that you tend to think of punishment as somehow "tacked on" to the crime--this, I think, comes from an analogy with human concepts of punishment, in particular the legal system. This is useful in some ways, but misleading in others. Its misleading because the punishment that we get from God is built in to the sin itself. When we sin we are telling God what sort of life we prefer: when we tell a lie, we are saying to God "I hate truth"; when we steal from others, or covet, we are telling God "I don't like the self-giving, mutual love for neighbor system you've set up as an expression of your love; I want to set it up in a way that makes me the center." Our punishment is simply the response to these attitudes: we get what we ask for. When reject truth, for instance, truth will be withdrawn from us. A person who lies suffers the punishment of eventually not being able to recognize or communicate truth. Lets think, for a moment, about what it is that God really wants to do with creation. He wants creation to be an amazing reflection of himself--in particular his love, his wisdom, his joy, and his beauty. God designed the world in a certain way; his vision for humanity reflects his nature, and when we go against the rules of the world he set up, we are rejecting him. The penalty for sin is eternal damnation because of this; what people, and you in particular, seem to have difficulty with is how going against God in one tiny little way means, ultimately, to go against him entirely. But this difficulty itself is a consequence of our double-mindedness. There is no such thing as a "tiny" sin. We are either faithful to God, or we are not. That's why Jesus said that you cannot serve two masters. It is literally impossible--it doesn't make any sense. We can only have one lord. When we sin, we are telling God, in no uncertain terms, that we don't want him as master. It is because of grace that we aren't simply cast out immediately, but are actually given a second chance of some sort. And that's where the living stand now.

The thing is that we are in the middle of the story, and not just in the middle of our own story but the middle of the whole human story, which is part of an even larger story involving nature and heavenly beings (angels and demons). In the story right now, those who are living right now are all sinners; we are part of a community known as mankind, and like it or not, you do share in Adam's first sin, at least in some sense, and are guilty of personal sin as well. It is in this story that the choices are made that affect our eternal destinies.

Quote:
was free will an escape clause thought up by later Christians to solve the problem of theodicy ("How could an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God have permitted such evil and human suffering to be part of His creation?").

where does the concept come from... is it in the bible?

how is free will defined?

In a sense, yes, free will theodicy is an attempt to "solve" the problem of evil; however, the concept of free will itself is philosophical and exists independently of the Christian revelation. But it is definitely a view of human nature that seems presupposed by the bible. Many of the OT prophecies are stated in a conditional nature, which would make little sense if there was no such thing as free will.

The bible does, however, discourage us from trying to create too definite a theodicy. In all likely-hood, when doing so, we will simply turn out to be wrong in some way, and misrepresent God in the process. In fact, many atheist objections, and your objections, to Christianity seem to be responses to a "straw-man theodicy" of some sort. We are asked to trust God that he is good, that it will all turn out well in the end, even if we can't understand why. That is the basic message of the book of Job: Job can't explain his apparently unjust sufferings. God basically says to him, "look, where were you when I made the earth? Can you even comprehend what I am capable of?" In other words, that Job should trust that God, in his infinite wisdom, will be able to bring about good out of every apparently meaningless or unnecessary evil, that there are things going on behind the scene that God is in control of, that even if we don't understand, we are to trust God on. God actually commends Job for asking the question, and rebukes his friends for providing what amounted to a simplistic theodicy, but refuses to give Job more information on the "problem of evil." I think this is because there will always be a gap between our understanding of this issue and God's understanding of it. We can grasp partial answers to the question, but a total answer probably requires omniscience, which only God has. But he does give us sufficient reason to trust him, and proves his faithfulness and good character to us, which should be enough for us.

Systematic theology and theodicy can often seem inhuman. I think you are not at fault for having this perception of them, and objecting. They may be accurate in their essentials, for all I know, but God is writing a human story, with human characters. At the end of time it will turn out to be the best story that could have been written. Have faith in that.

I probably could have answered some of this more thoroughly, but I'm going away for the weekend and wanted to give you what I have. Also, I'd like to address your comments about the ten commandments, and their relation to free will. For one thing, the ten commandments only tell you what not to do; this certainly leaves a person free to do quite a bit. And, furthermore, God tells us that disobeying the commandments does not lead to more freedom in the end (even though disobedience is made possible by freedom), but less:

John 8.31-36 wrote:
Jesus said to the people who believed in him, “You are truly my disciples if you remain faithful to my teachings. And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

“But we are descendants of Abraham,” they said. “We have never been slaves to anyone. What do you mean, ‘You will be set free’?”

Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave of sin. A slave is not a permanent member of the family, but a son is part of the family forever. So if the Son sets you free, you are truly free...

Betelnut

No, atheists aren't "rejecting" God. Are adults "rejecting" Santa Claus? Are the non-Irish "rejecting" leprechauns? (ha ha) Are the sexually active "rejecting" unicorns?

No. Those entities simply don't exist--"rejection" is not necessary.

Tigers!

I thought that John the Baptist said this rather than Jesus (John 3:30)?

peanutaxis

Job is probably a parable on the topic of Prosperity Doctrine. Aside from that I think your friend misses the point. The common religious consensus of the day was that if bad stuff happens to you, you must have angered God. Period. (This harks back to having gods of rain, fertility etc.) The whole point of the story is that "God is bigger than the common religious consensus of the day". Man will try to draw a line in the sand (Doctrine) and say "this is the line, don't cross it". The line in Job's day was: if bad stuff happens to you you must be a bad person. What your friend can't see is the application of the story to him/herself. They are drawing the line in the sand by claiming absolutes like Job's friends did. But God is bigger than that:

Jesus could see that God was bigger than the common consensus of the day too. Nowhere in the gospels will you find Jesus saying "This is the line, don't cross it" In fact he does the exact opposite: He eats with the prostitutes, and befriends the tax collectors. In fact, the people he rebukes are exactly those that do claim absolutes: The Pharisees. The intent of Jewish Law contained truth as a good way of living, but the Pharisees elevated the Laws themselves to the height of what they were intended for: a better way of living. As soon as people absolutise Laws we cannot improve our way of living, and this is why religious absolutism is a barrier to science, morality: progress.

If Jesus were alive today, he would behave a lot more like the Dalai Lama. He wouldn't pig-headedly argue with athiests, insisting on absolutes, he would befriend them.
Just like the Pharisees of Jesus' day, Christians have again absolutised ideas(Laws) into Doctrinal lines in the sand, and because of this they cannot witness their truth(for there are many good truths in Christianity) to athiests, evolutionists, pro-choicers as Jesus taught them to do! And in claiming these absolutes, they do not have the truth.

Jedi Mind Trick

Yeah, it would show a deep insecurity on the part of god if such a god existed.

Selsaral

And yet it makes perfect sense for ordinary humans trying to gain power and wealth over other humans. Getting other humans to believe that God told you to tell them what He wants them to do is one of the oldest and most successful scams in human history.

And just for the record, I've never been presented with a God to accept or reject. All I see are humans claiming that God told them to tell me that I had better believe them or He'll really get me after I die.

achristianbeliever

Fair enough! Give a short list of what it takes to accurately describe the God of the Bible. This way I can compare my own list and see how different it is from the Bible.

Ok? Why did he do it?

I didn't know there was an act in the Bible I ignored.

I decided to look at Gawen list:
Sell everything you have and give to the poor

(This begs the question. Who is more important Gawen or the poor?)

Eat Jesus's flesh and blood.
(Well clearly not true since we are actually eating bread an wine instead we are merely pretending to eat and drink it. Hey on video games we pretend to kill people. What exactly is the difference?)

Change and become like little children
(Most adults I feel have the maturity of little children so they are already 90% there.)

Born again of water and spirit.
(oh dear Lord no! Not water and spirit. Please say it aint so)

Your righteousness must surpass that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law.
(Would it be better if Jesus said your righteousness must be worse than the Pharisees?)

Acknowledge Jesus before men.
(doing that right now. Is it killing you? Are you dying a little inside?)

Do not prepare for the future.
(Should I prepare for an eternity as a rotting corpse?)

Poor in spirit
Pure in heart
(When I was just a little girl...I don't know for some reason these lines of yours brought up this song in my head)

Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you
(Yeah its much more loving to go midevil on their asses)

Follow Mosaic Law, both the letter and the spirit of it.
(You mean like do not murder, do not steal? This is bad advice?)

Practice strict nonviolent pacifism.
(unlike violent pacifism?)

Ask for nothing in return.
(Do you deserve anything?)

Do good works for the poor...stay away from the rich.
(Apparently the rich need more help than the poor.....actually that might be true just look at Paris Hilton)

Do not do your 'acts of righteousness' before men.
Give money in secret, pray in secret, fast in secret
(Because its much more honorable to scream proudly that you gave $100 to a charity)

Do not seek Honour
(Because anybody who seeks it ends up looking dishonorable George Bush, Fidel Castro, Jerry Springer)

Leave your houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for Jesus
(Who better to give it to....you?)

Do not be angry with fellow believers.
(Is this a joke?)

* "He [Jesus] must increase but I [believers] must decrease."
(Wow it only took you 20+ points to come up with a reasonable argument. Your right God doesn't want bigshots he wants underowers. Bigshot humans end up being jerks, underowers end up being honorable men)

I just acknowledged them and I have yet to see how this is not showing Jesus to be loving.

Johnny Skeptic

According to the Bible, God is a proven killer of babies and innocent animals, both discriminately and indiscriminately, in many cases with no apparent benefits for himself or for anyone else. That is good evidence that at best, he is mentally incompetent.

Your list is questionable. Even if Jesus rose from the dead, all that that proves is that someone had enough power to raise him from the dead. There is not a necessary correlation between power and good character. What has God done that indicates to you that he has good character?

God withholds evidence that would convince some people to accept him if they were aware of it. That is wrong.

achristianbeliever

That has nothing to do with the opening post which is what I'm referring to.

As such steamer has a requirement to describe to me this Biblical God so I can compare this list with my own to see how mine is different from the Biblical one.

Johnny Skeptic

Well, you said:

Do you want a list or not, and do you want to post your own list or not? Does all of your list come from the Bible, or partly from personal experience?

If a God exists, we can't be sure that the Bible tells us what he is like, but we can be sure that he refuses to protect women from rapists, and that all bad things happen because he causes them or allows them, often with no apparent benefit for himself or for anyone else. It is my position that if a God exists, at best, he is mentally incompetent.