Board index ‹ God

[Newbie]

All too often, Christians tell me that because I am living a sinful life, I am choosing to go to Hell, and because God loves me, He will give me exactly what I want (which apparently is eternal pain and suffering). If I were to use a situation in context, I would put it like this:

A father has a son, and his son wants to shoot up heroin every weekend. It brings him a sense of euphoria and happiness. Does a loving father "give him what he wants" because he loves him? Or does a loving father stop him, punish him then and there, so his son is able to live a fulfilling life instead of a life of despair which would obviously come later (giving he is just a boy, he doesn't know the extent of the consequences in the end; his father does).

I ask this: If God truly loved us, wouldn't He stop us in our sinful ways rather than let us continue to blindly sin when we don't know the consequences at the end (I am an athiest, so I don't believe I will go to Hell)? I understand the whole "He gives us free will" and all that, but somethings are needed to be forced onto your loved ones, especially when you don't want them to spend all eternity in hellfire. That is what a human father would do, and I'm sure no one would be complaining that he didn't give us free will when it would save us from spending eternity in agony.

[jimwalton]

What the Bible says is that God IS doing everything in his power to stop you, as any father would go to any length to stop his son from destroying himself with heroine. God doesn't just "give you what you want," as you say. As you well know, despite a father's love and efforts, a son determined to shoot up will find a way. Even therapy, even if successful, can later be thwarted by a son who regresses.

God warned Adam and Eve of dire consequences, and he spelled them out. They chose differently.
God warned Cain of dire consequences. He chose differently.
God repeatedly warned the people through Noah of dire consequences. They chose differently.

The story of the Bible is God using different strategies (warnings, judgments, miracles, writings, speaking, visions, dreams, etc.) to explain to people who he is, what humanity is, what sin is, the relationship He wishes to have with people, and the consequences of their choices. Now, as an atheist you know as well as I that you are weighing the knowledge and evidence and drawing conclusions and guiding your life accordingly. So what part of this is unloving of God not to force you to love him (an oxymoron for sure)?

If God stopped you in your sinful ways, but you were determined, you'd find a way to sin anyway. The only way to truly stop you is to make a completely sufficient way for you to be free from your sins and invite you with every "fiber" of his being to pursue that way.

> some things are needed to be forced onto your loved ones

That's true, like interventions for alcoholics and drug addicts. But we've all learned the story of Lindsey Lohan: if your heart isn't in it (breaking the addictions), all the interventions in the world don't work. Lindsey has to WANT it, and that's nothing her dad or her friends can do for her.

[The Miller Man]

If we are exposed to God's glory physically through the second coming of Jesus or through some other way (He is The Almighty God, after all), I'm sure everyone would fall to their knees. The power of God would be so overwhelming. If people can do such with just a mere belief in Him, imagine basking in His physical light? At that point, I'm sure many, MANY people who do not yet believe would believe. Us atheists may not have the heart as of yet, but with such a contact from the great divine that is Jesus Christ, who sits at the right-hand of the throne in heaven, who spoke the universe into existence, I'm sure several people would find that heart. We are His children, after all.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for your comment. You made me smile. It's pretty ironic to read an atheist giving testimony to Jesus.

I do find myself disagreeing with you, though. When God displayed his power to Egypt (Ex. 7-10), it didn't do squat convincing people whose heart had already decided they weren't going to submit to him. The Israelites themselves witnessed the plagues, the parting of the Red Sea, the pillar of cloud and fire, the thunder and lightning over Sinai, Moses' glowing face, and they didn't fall to their knees. The Pharisees followed Jesus around, heard his teaching, saw his miracles, and it didn't do anything to bring most of them to belief. You'd think the more they got to see, the greater chance of belief, but that's not the way it worked at all. It’s seems that it's not the revelation that brings one to God (as Pharaoh and the Pharisees give evidence, and David in contrast, who never got to see anything), it’s the heart. Seeing God is not as important as knowing God. We learn from the Gospels and Epistles that revelation is a stumbling block. For those of a godly heart, revelation is a rock of evidence; for those of an ungodly heart, revelation is a rock of offense. It depends where your heart is whether the revelation helps you along the way or gets in the way.

[The Miller Man]

I am looking through the eyes of a Christian, contrasting the great descriptions they so commonly use with my disbelief.

I understand your argument, but my problem is... I don't believe everything in the Bible is true.

[jimwalton]

Let's talk about it. What in the Bible do you think isn't true? I'd love to dialogue with you.

[The Miller Man]

Well, simply accepting that Jesus is the son of God because the Bible states it is true. I mean, a whole belief system based off that and that only, with no evidence whatsoever. I believe he was a man that lived on earth, and I believe he was a very wise man. He taught many great things and I very much so respect him. Just because he adopted some of the greatest attributes of humanity and applied them in his teachings does not justify that he is the son of God.

I remember singing a song in Sunday school when I was young. "Jesus loves me, this I know. For the Bible tells me so." For the Bible tells you so? I believe in questioning, not blindly accepting.

[jimwalton]

> I believe in questioning, not blindly accepting.

So do I. Blindly accepting is nothing but blindness. If a belief can't stand up under questioning, it isn't worth anything.

> accepting that Jesus is the son of God because the Bible states it is true.

That's not why I (or I suppose anyone else) accepts that Jesus is the Son of God. You say "with no evidence whatsoever," but I say there is evidence, and that's what my acceptance is based on. You say Jesus was a wise man, and you respect him as a teacher. But he also claimed to be God, so I assume you also think he was either a liar or a schizophrenic. You'll notice in the Bible that God doesn't ask people to believe without evidence. Take Moses for example: God initiated with a burning bush miracle/phenomenon. He then displayed miracles to the Egyptians, and then also the Israelites. No one was expected to believe without evidence. And so it goes through all of Scripture. Jesus, too, didn't ask for belief without evidence. The men who approached him in Jn. 1.35-42 got to cross-examine for a whole day before they believed. Then Jesus did a miracle (water into wine, Jn. 2) and in v. 11, "his disciples put their faith in him," based on the evidence. That's what biblical faith is: Making an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make the assumption reasonable.

Now, as far as the evidence, if you believe the historicity of Jesus, and you believe the writings about the wise and respectable things he taught, then you also have to wrestle with the claims by the same authors of spectacular miracles. But the one there is evidence for is the resurrection. (There is obviously no evidence for things like walking on water or multiplying bread or healing a lame guy, etc.) The resurrection, however, is an event to be examined, weighed, and debated. I think the evidence is convincing beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, not because the Bible states it is true, but on the basis of assessable evidence.

[The Miller Man]

Respect to you, sir. You seem to be one of the few followers of Jesus Christ who understands and places importance on evidence. I hear all too often Christians that tell me it is all faith based. As that statement is true to an extent, it's good to see a follower still question and weigh up evidence.

>No one was expected to believe without evidence

Although, when Jesus appeared to Thomas after His resurrection, He told him "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." For the people of today, they will not believe without sufficient evidence for them, which will obviously include the physical form of God (Jesus, I guess...). God would know this is the case, so isn't it a bit much to ask of us that would need that form of evidence? That's not a flaw, it's just a personality trait.

[jimwalton]

Thanks. Very kind of you to say.

> blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed

This doesn't necessarily mean there is a dearth of evidence. Some people insist on visible evidence, and to me that's not the only or necessarily even the most convincing option. People can always turn a visual event into wondering if it was a hallucination or a dream. There are lots of different kinds of evidence, but they are not necessarily based in the senses. I don't think faith is ever blind—the proverbial "leap in the dark". Faith is always based in evidence. It's always a matter of sufficiency of what an individual considers to be convincing evidence so that they can come to the most reasonable conclusion.