I think any one of His attributes even standing alone would make Him worthy of worship.

Worshipping a rock is not worshipping God in the “wrong” way, it is worshipping something other than God which is idolatry. Nobody is going to hell because they worship the God of the Bible using guitars and chorus sheets rather than hymnals. The Bible is not real clear that there is a “right” way to worship God.

I am not a Catholic because I disagree with them on a number of doctrinal issues. However, there are plenty of Catholics who trust in Christ, and they will be in heaven alongside their protestant brothers in Christ.

Using the fact God does not lie to demonstrate He is loving is not circular at all.
Why would you assume God was talking of only physical death? At the moment of Adam’s disobedience all mankind died a spiritual death, mankind lost the direct connection he had with God and became “dead in sin”. This sin would also eventually lead to Adam’s physical death as well. So the serpent was not telling the truth at all, we all died that day.

So when a Governor pardons one criminal, he is somehow obligated to pardon them all? You have an interesting concept of justice my friend. You are missing the point that both sets of children are getting better than they deserve.

Well only the elect are God’s adopted children, the non-believer is merely His creation. So let’s run with the cookie analogy keeping that in mind. If I knew that my adopted child would learn something from his disobedience and I would later sent my own son to pay for these sins and solidify the cookie-eater’s eventual eternal salvation and glorification I do not believe the 1 year old would complain one bit that I gave him so much grace. In fact, I can’t think of one dark time in my life that didn’t eventually lead to better times for me. All things work for the good of the believer (Romans 8). So I guess I just disagree with your assertion that God’s foreordaining events to take place makes Him the guilty party. After all, you’re going to have trouble finding a judge that holds authority over God. :-P
Now that we come to that point, could you please tell me where you get your concepts of what is and is not fair and just? How do you look at an action and determine whether it is fair or not? I think that may help us in this discussion, because I think we are defining our terms differently. Thanks!

(May 23, 2011 at 12:59 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: So if we can't make sense out of any of the bible or Christian beliefs in general, that means we won't be judged and get a free ticket to heaven? Cool!

According to Statler Waldorf's doctrine, not at all.
If you've read his signature, this is the brief description of his doctrine:

Quote:Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perserverance of the Saints

First means: The man is initially extremely wicked.
Second means: God chose, most surely before the creation of the earth, all man which He would "save" (i.e. make Christians of the right doctrine), but that choice is based on nothing, it's only a random thing God did. The others go to hell.
Third means: If you are one of those elected (or, chosen) by God before the Creation of the world, then you will finally convert to the right Christian doctrine (Reformed Christian, or something similar to that), and finally go to heaven.
Fourth means, if I am not wrong: After you have been converted to the right Christian doctrine, you persevere in a holy life.

P.S. I've wrote some posts so far (like the one in which I've explained my view on the unbelievers and hell subject, in this same thread), but I feel as if I'm being ignored - didn't receive any reply, feedback, whatever. I was curios about a feedback, something. Not for christians' feedback, as I ignore them: what they write really doesn't matter to me, nor what they disagree to what I said. The only christians that I'm not ignoring, however, are tackattack, and for the time being, also fr0d0.

You grossly mischaracterize my theological position and then say you are going to ignore me if I respond? What's up with that?

(May 25, 2011 at 6:17 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You grossly mischaracterize my theological position and then say you are going to ignore me if I respond? What's up with that?

If you insist that I've mischaracterized your theological position, then let's hear! (so I would not appear as unfair)
i.e. I'll make an exception on this topic: you show your theological position that I've mischaracterized from your signature, and we'll talk about it.

---

(May 22, 2011 at 4:25 pm)Cinjin Cain Wrote:

(May 21, 2011 at 10:12 pm)RDK Wrote: From that experience, and the others which followed, I began to search out reasons for all of the problems we encounter everyday. I'm sure that many of the things which have happened to me were what I needed as proof that someone was listening and interacting. It is different for everybody, but there are others I have met who have experienced amazing things in their life which do not seem reasonable to others. Nonetheless, these events are real for me.

I have no doubt that those "events" are real FOR YOU. That doesn't make them real to those of us here in the land of logic.

Hearing someone who's claiming supernatural every day makes me worry for his sanity. Especially when it throws everything in the realm of "mystery".
And the calling is funny: it's like, "come in the land of MAGIC!"

Thank you kindly, appreciate it.
I will put what you said in quotes and then what the position is, you were close on some of it.

Quote: First means: The man is initially extremely wicked.

Total Depravity is not so much about man being wicked (even though he is), it has to do with man’s moral ability. His will and moral ability are wholly affected by sin. So if left to his own devices he is utterly incapable of responding to the gospel in a positive manner. He is dead in sin, and requires regeneration by the Holy Spirit before any spiritual life will be found.

Quote: Second means: God chose, most surely before the creation of the earth, all man which He would "save" (i.e. make Christians of the right doctrine), but that choice is based on nothing, it's only a random thing God did. The others go to hell.

This one is a little off. Yes, God chose whom he would grant saving grace to before the foundation of the world. However, it was not only those of a certain Christian doctrine, we believe he has sheep in the catholic church as well as the protestant church. All those whom he chose do come to and trust in Christ. This choice is unconditional in the fact that it is not based upon anything in man, or foreseen faith or actions. Though it I would not say it is random, it is according to the kind intention of His will and His purpose (Ephesians 1-2).

Quote: Third means: If you are one of those elected (or, chosen) by God before the Creation of the world, then you will finally convert to the right Christian doctrine (Reformed Christian, or something similar to that), and finally go to heaven.

I think you are referring to the “I” here and not the “L”. The “L” represents the belief that Chris atoned for the sins of God’s elect on the cross and this atonement was perfect in intention and merit. He did not waste any atonement on those who would not be saved. The “I” represents the fact that God’s grace is powerful enough to overcome even the most depraved individual, He never fails in saving. Neither of these things has to do with a “right” Christian doctrine though.

Quote: Fourth means, if I am not wrong: After you have been converted to the right Christian doctrine, you persevere in a holy life.

Again, close but not only those believing a certain doctrine. Pretty much God’s grace helps believers persevere until the end, so all of those whom He elected die as believers.
Thanks for letting me respond!

I much prefer Proverbs 5:18&19 if we're quoting Proverbs. Much more loving and kind pair of verses. Proverbs 5:18 & 19: "Let thy fountain be blessed; and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Let her be as the loving hind and the pleasent roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love."

---

(May 18, 2011 at 9:06 pm)RDK Wrote: If God designs a universe where everything in it is planned, then no one else could be responsible but the designer of it all.

One could also postulate that a design of the Universe by God was ordered by a higher-up. In such an instance, God might not be responsible for how it turned out (as God was just working "under orders."

everythingafter Wrote:God: "I created man, and it was good. Now, I'm going to put you in the garden where the devil will inevitably tempt you. I will allow the devil into my wonderful garden so you can prove your obedience to me. Unfortunately, you will fail. I knew you would fail beforehand, but I chose to create you anyway. Even though I have cursed you and every other human that will come after you, I love you and Eve. But take heart, I'm sending my son to die a horrible death for you. That makes it better, right? In retrospect, I guess I could have prevented the whole ugly scenario in the first place, but I, in all my lucidity, chose to begin the slow death march of humanity. Some of you, I admit, will think on these things and probably reject me. Oh well. Sorry about that. I'm all-powerful and all-loving, but there's nothing I can do there. My omniscient hands are tied. But I do love you. You know that, right?"

That is quite a good question.
From the knowledge I have of the bible and how I understand it (most surely, most to all christians would say that I'm wrong, but whatever, not that I care). I will say my view and perhaps it would be in some way useful to you, or to anyone else.

For the explanation I use the premise which I believe that it is also according to the Bible: that God does not know the things that are absurd to be known (like, if after 30 years will be born a man with name X, and all the things that he would do, and if he would deserve heaven or hell after he dies). And I also use the premise that God did not predestined people to heaven/hell before the creation of the world.

OK, though I believe it was impossible for God to know for sure what choice Adam & Eve would have made, I do believe that there was a high probability (don't know how high) for the man, or the woman, or both, to do that wrong thing. And, inevitably, God should have expected this to happen.

I'll first address the issue of suffering (as it's mainly about this):
There are verses in the Bible that seem to suggest that God had chosen sufferings for His people (what to say now about the other people...): we start from the Jews in Egypt. God said to Abraham that they would be slaves there for 4 centuries and that they will be treated harshly there (so it was God's decision to be so), Gen 15.13. We also know that "good" people were decided to be left in the hands of evil people (like Daniel 11.31-35, which seem to describe the period when the Seleucid Empire conquered the land where Jews lived, from the Ptolemaic Empire). We also have Job (and here, again, I believe God could have not known 100% sure what the reaction of Job would have been, and the sufferings he was going to pass through were the only ones who could have proven how faithful to God Job really is).

Now, if we look upon the New Testament, it seems stronger highlighted that sufferings are meant for the people (verses like Matthew 10.16-36, Romans 8.18, 2 Corinthians 1.5, Collosians 1.24, 1 Peter 5.9). We also see from the NT that Jesus' sufferings and death were something regarded as honorable, as in Hebrews 5.8-9 (and also says that Jesus has been "perfected" by them, which makes a bit hard to understand what this "perfect" should mean). Other verses that claim that the sufferings are "good" are Hebrews 2.10 and Hebrews 11.35-40. And yes, in the Bible it is stated that God loves His only Son (i.e. Jesus), but that did not make God deny Jesus live unpleasant experiences.

So my conclusion is that God doesn't care too much about people's current sufferings (perhaps, especially because, for an eternity, maximum 80 years is quite a little... and, because He seems to take an eternally long afterlife into consideration).

But, to get back to why God did not chose a better plan (which could have been, such as, create us like angels, all at once, and who did something wrong/evil, to throw him to a trash container): It appears that as He made us free, with free will, the same way He left us develop naturally, rather than force upon us attributes, i.e. to be/become in a way (wiser, with more patience, kinder, etc.) by a "hocus pocus" (which is, unnatural). And the way we can become like this, naturally, is by experiences we pass through, here. Also, this chaotic way how things are now is letting everyone prove how he is, his worthiness, thoroughly. For instance, if there was no man to do evil to (by an evil man), then the evil man could have not chosen to be how he wanted to be like and could have not proven his worthiness, or actually, the lack of it, in order to be rewarded afterwards correctly. The same way, a man passes through experiences that test him, and when I say "experiences that test him" I mean problems, even great problems, which allows him to decide how he wants to be, and strengthens him on that path. Thus a man can prove his worthiness, and receive his proper reward afterwards. But, if there was no evil man to cause problems/evil, then the man could have not proven correctly and wholly his worthiness afterwards.

Also, from the Bible it seems that God made man with the intent to rule over His whole creation (Gen 1.26, Psalm 8.4-9). "man" was made like God (i.e. in His likeness): free, with the power to judge, to chose, to be how he wanted, to rule over the things that were created - and the things that were created were created for man, i.e. men were created like gods (well, only that not gods for other men, but gods as masters over all the earth and all that is in it). That's why it is even written that men that belong to God are "heirs" (Romans 8.17, Galatians 4.7). So that might be yet another reason why free men had to pass through experiences (like, unpleasant experiences), that would form a character in them and to be proven worthy for that, when they are about to 'inherit' His Kingdom. And perhaps He wanted the man to 'work' for his reward, rather than receiving everything in the blink of an eye, without doing anything for it, just so, easy as pie.

P.S. feedback appreciated (as for the christians, only if tackattack or, fr0d0).

(May 26, 2011 at 11:37 am)Zenith Wrote: OK, though I believe it was impossible for God to know for sure what choice Adam & Eve would have made, I do believe that there was a high probability (don't know how high) for the man, or the woman, or both, to do that wrong thing. And, inevitably, God should have expected this to happen.

If it was impossible for God to not know for sure what choice A&E would make, then he is not omniscient. Further, if he has some "impossibility" imposed upon him, he is also not all-powerful. Some Christians (Calvinists) would disagree with you about the predestination thing. But I wasn't talking about predestination. Condemning certain people to perdition and rewarding others in the afterlife before they are born is a little different than merely knowing which choice people will make beforehand. I was referring to the latter scenario.

(May 26, 2011 at 11:37 am)Zenith Wrote: We also have Job (and here, again, I believe God could have not known 100% sure what the reaction of Job would have been, and the sufferings he was going to pass through were the only ones who could have proven how faithful to God Job really is).

Quote:What God supposedly did to Job (all because of a wager with Satan) was ghastly and almost on its own accord, makes a strong case that this god is a) not real or b) unworthy of worship at all. But again, Job reads as if God was unsure how Job would react to the various "tests" placed on him. But if he was indeed unsure, he is not omniscient and thus, does not conform to the accepted notion of the Jewish or Christian god.

[quote='Zenith' pid='140310' dateline='1306424271']
We also see from the NT that Jesus' sufferings and death were something regarded as honorable, as in Hebrews 5.8-9 ... in the Bible it is stated that God loves His only Son (i.e. Jesus), but that did not make God deny Jesus live unpleasant experiences.

Fair enough point about suffering. But I would say that if God has that little regard for human life, he shouldn't have bothered creating this vale of woe in the first place just so that millions would fail to accept the story and only a scant number of all people ever born would actually come to believe in Jesus. Also, if god is real and we are his beloved creation, he must be a very sad deity indeed. If he is only concerned with the afterlife, it seems like our humans lives would be a sheer waste of time. Surely, if God was all-powerful, he could have created all of us in an adult state, perhaps at the same time as Adam and Eve, presented us with the choice to obey or not, and make his judgment, saving us and himself a lot of trouble.

[quote='Zenith' pid='140310' dateline='1306424271']
It appears that as He made us free, with free will, the same way He left us develop naturally, rather than force upon us attributes, i.e. to be/become in a way (wiser, with more patience, kinder, etc.) by a "hocus pocus" (which is, unnatural).

But he displays all kinds of unnatural attributes and actions in the Bible. It doesn't seem to be the case that God is too concerned with maintaining the natural order, which is why it's so baffling that nothing like occurrences in the Bible have taken place in 2,000 years. God was unconcerned with the natural order then. Why is he now? Did he change? If so, God is not the same yesterday, today and forever.

On free will: The options to follow him and go to heaven or not and go to hell is not free will but a divine imposition to believe or face the fire. Prisoners do not have free will in the same way. They can either be model citizens in jail with the hope of an early parole or be a deviant and remain locked inside. For the prisoner, like us, there is no third option.

I know I didn't make your Christian feedback list, but I was just wondering how you get to your open theism (God does not know all future events) position by using scripture? Thanks!

---

Well that’s not a very fair representation of Calvinism, but be that as it may, even if God only knows future events you can’t get away from predestination. If God’s knowledge of your future actions is perfect, and he knows you will never trust in Christ. Is there anything you can do then to trust in Christ? Can you make any choices that would change this outcome? If God’s knowledge is perfect, then the answer is no. I would argue that not only does God have knowledge of future events, but he practices a preordination of them. This is why open theism arose, it is a way of trying to preserve man’s freedom of choice, I think it is unbiblical but it pops up in churches nonetheless.
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/A...rib_04.htm

We are in the New Covenant, where after He sent His son, God became less directly visible to man. I find it interesting though that even when God was visible and very active there were people who disobeyed His commandments. A prime example is when the Israelites complain about having to eat manna all the time in the desert. Here they have been rescued from bondage by God and they have the nerve to complain about the fact they don’t like the food that God is giving them to survive?

(May 26, 2011 at 4:32 pm)everythingafter Wrote: If it was impossible for God to not know for sure what choice A&E would make, then he is not omniscient. Further, if he has some "impossibility" imposed upon him, he is also not all-powerful. Some Christians (Calvinists) would disagree with you about the predestination thing. But I wasn't talking about predestination. Condemning certain people to perdition and rewarding others in the afterlife before they are born is a little different than merely knowing which choice people will make beforehand. I was referring to the latter scenario.

Well, I have heretical (i.e. different, not widely accepted) views of the Bible.

First off, know (or, remember) that in the Bible you will not find the words "omnipresence", "omnipotence", "omniscience".
About omnipresence (the fact that God is everywhere), we find an explanation in Psalm 139.7-12.
About omnipotence (or, all-powerful - it is about power, not "can be weak" or "can be stupid" or other things for which we use the word "can"; and I'm not sure if "almighty" meant "with absolute power" or simply "most powerful", but it doesn't matter too much), we have Gen 17.1, 18.14, Matthew 19.26, which suggest God's power.
As about omniscience, there is a forced interpretation of Psalm 139.4 (which actually says that God knows the thought when you think it), and there are also prophecies that are understood as "God's foreknowing" when most surely, for most of them there was actually "God's decree to be so" and things that could have been known (i.e. it was not logically impossible to know them) - "impossible to be known" exists for me, because I don't believe in time as an object or an entity or something, to watch the "time" at some point and see what will happen.

So, sorry for asking, but... what is the actual question here?

Quote:But I would say that if God has that little regard for human life, he shouldn't have bothered creating this vale of woe in the first place just so that millions would fail to accept the story and only a scant number of all people ever born would actually come to believe in Jesus. just so that millions would fail to accept the story and only a scant number of all people ever born would actually come to believe in Jesus.

If you've read the post previous to the last one, and also read the verses I mentioned, when I talked about "believing in Jesus" (the very fact about who believes and who doesn't believe and what happens to them) you would have noticed that I don't agree with that theory as it is widely preached. That post is on page 9 of this thread, it's post #81.

Also (after you've read that post of mine), look at the following situation (as described in the Bible): man has fallen, countless generations follow (perhaps they also worship other gods, among other things). The flood comes and kills most and Noah & some of his kin survives. Now all men that follow are descendants of Noah. Countless generations follow, again, and they get to worship lots of gods. Then we have Abraham to whom God has revealed Himself, and it appears that God pretty ignored much of the rest. We get from Abraham to Jacobs (i.e. Israel) and his sons who go in egypt and serve the egyptians gods. Then Moses is sent by God to get them out and to give them laws to keep - they were a small people, comparing to other peoples, and God simply ignored all the rest. And it follows, for perhaps more than 1000 years in which the Jews somehow, sometimes keep the laws and care about this God - and all the rest are ignored. And then Jesus comes, who is not concerned about converting pagans (He being sent to the people of Israel) and after He dies the apostles come, and two of the apostles say "who in bygone generations allowed all nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness." (Acts 14.16-17). And it followed a lot of time until pagans (and only a few of them could have) heard the gospel from the apostles. Isn't it now strange to imagine that exactly after Jesus said "he who does not believe is condemned" every pagan that died (even before the apostles were sent) without hearing the apostles to have gone to hell? Anyway, read the post that I have written on page 9 of this thread to see how I understand John 3.18 and others alike. Perhaps it would make some logic.

The point is (and... I forgot to mention): About belief in Jesus, as I see in the bible it is not a mere auto-suggestion, i.e. forcing yourself to believe something and start acting accordingly. We see in verses such as John 6.44 and John 6.65 about the 'authentic' belief/faith in Jesus that it is given by God. Also, we (or at least, I) note in Acts 8.37 that it says "If thou believest with all thine heart", i.e. is not a mental process (i.e. forcing your mind to something) but something coming from the heart. So it can't be something like "ok, let's believe!" (and twist your mind to believe and then say "that's it!"). OK, now that we know that this 'belief' comes from God, the question is: "whom does God chose?" and, contrary to what Calvinists and others say, it is based on the person - and we have verses that say the person is guilty for not believing in John 5.44 and the explanation given in John 3.19-21 and even Hosea 5.4. In other words, a wicked man (i.e. that loves doing evil, it's not about being improperly educated, it's about his 'heart') won't come to believe the gospel (and all that means with that) because that would mean for him to cease doing the evil/wicked things he does (things like adultery, fornication, deceiving others, drunkenness, etc. which are condemned by the bible) and he doesn't want to leave them. Well, there is also the blockages people have, like misunderstanding things (e.g. a twisted interpretation with whom the catholics have indoctrinated their adepts) and stuff alike that cannot allow a man to believe - i.e. you can't believe something that sounds totally illogical, and unlike many christians imagine, God does not force people to believe something they see illogical, to make them both believe illogical things and still see that the things they believe are illogical. But this is something quite different, and I didn't see this problem as condemnable in the bible. The condemnable part of unbelieving is described in John 3.19-21.

Quote:Also, if god is real and we are his beloved creation, he must be a very sad deity indeed.

Perhaps it's out of context, but I don't think God really feels sadness.

Quote:Also, if god is real and we are his beloved creation, he must be a very sad deity indeed. If he is only concerned with the afterlife, it seems like our humans lives would be a sheer waste of time. Surely, if God was all-powerful, he could have created all of us in an adult state, perhaps at the same time as Adam and Eve, presented us with the choice to obey or not, and make his judgment, saving us and himself a lot of trouble.

Yeah, but even Adam and Eve did not escape the experience of life, and from what happened afterwards to them it doesn't appear as if God forsake them for good (i.e. to say something like "hell expects you! ha ha ha!!"). Probably because Adam & Eve did not do it in rebellion against God, but because they had been somewhat deceived. As about the solution you proposed, I imagined the effect/result would have not been the same as it is how things are now. And for God there could have been no trouble... well, at least I can't imagine a God falling to His feelings (of rage, frustration, lack of patience, whatever). And, as I've said/suggested in the previous post, I believe these experiences work more at transforming us than if we had been put in a posture, where isolated, we did not have to do anything, and when somebody did something bad, to be suddenly cut off. And perhaps this struggle of ours works at shaping us and makes us worth receiving something, comparing to doing nothing and receiving everything. If I missed what you meant, then sorry.

By the way, from what I can tell from the Bible, it seems that God does not care only about afterlife (though mainly about it). It seems that God also cares for our development (for us to become good, merciful, etc.) and things that help us to help others (e.g. like wisdom, which can help at that). As about healings and personal needs & desires... I don't know what to say... if I look in the Bible, except Jesus, miraculous healings were really rare (and even Jesus tells the people that which you read in Luke 4.25-27). As about asking things to God, it appears that there is a big difference between how God is described in the Bible and how He is preached and traditionally understood. You know, in the Bible God is the "lord" and people are His servants/slaves, while it is widely preached as if man is the "lord" and God is the "servant" - standing at man's whim. In the Bible the man is taught to do what God wants him to do, while everywhere it's preached that God should do what the man wants Him to do.

Quote:But I would say that if God has that little regard for human life, he shouldn't have bothered creating this vale of woe in the first place

I think I should understand "human life" as "human existence" (i.e. not only until we're buried).

Perhaps I got it a bit out of context, but... just want to explain this.
We'll have the situation with "people doing good" and "people doing evil" in mind.
Think it like this: you are a farmer in a secluded far away place, and decide to plant wheat. You know that if you plant it, you'll get to have a lot of flour. But you also know that you'll also get a lot of straw, that you wouldn't need (nobody wants it to buy it from you, and you don't have cattle, etc.) and which you would burn in fire. So, doesn't the work worth for the flour? or you would not plant at all because there would also be a lot of straw?

Quote:

(May 26, 2011 at 11:37 am)Zenith Wrote: It appears that as He made us free, with free will, the same way He left us develop naturally, rather than force upon us attributes, i.e. to be/become in a way (wiser, with more patience, kinder, etc.) by a "hocus pocus" (which is, unnatural).

But he displays all kinds of unnatural attributes and actions in the Bible.

If you look in the Bible you will see that God has always allowed people to develop naturally and the methods used for changing people were not a "hocus-pocus", but experiences, bad experiences, etc. they passed through. Anyway, a difference that I notice between this "experience yourself" and "forcing upon you the things that He knows that are good" is something like: you have a child. you don't teach him to walk, you put him on a wheeled chair. (As the years pass) You know what food is best for him, you never let him eat what he wants. You know who are the kids that it is best for him to play with, you drag him after you to those kids to play with them, and never let him chose whom to play with. You know the things that he should know: you tell them to him and ask him to blindly believe them, and never let him think for himself, never let him seek and never let him get himself to conclusions, because you already know the truths, much better than what he could find himself. Now, why would you not allow your child to learn for himself and experience for himself things? Why would you force all those things to him and never let him understand anything alone?

Besides that, imagine this situation: a rich man is arrogant and despises the poor. He hears that arrogance is "bad" and prays to God "God please make me be arrogant no longer!" and when he's on the road towards home, he sees a poor child begging and he spits on him and insults him. The question is: does that rich man really want to be arrogant no longer? How can you tell? Should God force him to be in a way he does not want to be? If yes, then perhaps everybody on earth should say a quick, short "God please make me be according to your own will" and go to heaven (because God listens and forces them to be so), but that would be against freedom of choice, personal development, proving your own worthiness, etc. So a way to see if the man does indeed want to be so, would be to pass through some experiences that can change him (an experience does not force you to be in a way, it only allows you to be in that way, if you want it). For instance, the rich man may become poor and see for himself how being a poor means and suffering himself the despise of others. Passing through this experience, he may insult/swear God (what a proof of devotion to God...) for doing that to him and never care and think about the poor he despised, or he may start to feel sorry for how he treated the poor. In the latter case, having learned by that experience, he would despise the poor no longer and stop being arrogant. It was the experience that both tested him (tested his "heart") to see how he really is, and changed him accordingly. And it seems that in the Bible God puts men to pass through experiences, in order to test them, to teach them, and in order to change them (which can happen).

Quote: It doesn't seem to be the case that God is too concerned with maintaining the natural order, which is why it's so baffling that nothing like occurrences in the Bible have taken place in 2,000 years. God was unconcerned with the natural order then. Why is he now? Did he change? If so, God is not the same yesterday, today and forever.

As often as it happened to a common person to see something supernatural, between Abraham to Jesus or even until after, I can't have hopes. But if something happens, it may be in a secluded place where I won't hear about it (and if I hear, I'd doubt it was authentic... because of the many fallacies flying around).

Then, if you look quickly at one page and another, you may see many special things at once. But if you consider how often in people's lives and how widespread they were, then you would not see a God so eager for doing supernatural things. Also, I guess only two persons in the whole Bible are most 'special' in that matter, and two men only: Moses (Deuteronomy 34.10-12), and Jesus Christ (whom mostly healed people). And, by the way, it seems like in the Bible, whenever possible, God used more 'natural' methods rather than special effects, fire bolts, etc. For instance, God brought the Jews that got out of egypt, birds for meat (which, as I've read in "The Bible as History" be Werner Keller, those where/are migratory birds that pass through that region) rather than make special effects and make appear among different lights and colors cooked bird meat. Also, according to what I've read in the same book, it appears that it is a very high probability for the walls of the city of Jericho (in Joshua 6.20) to have fallen because of an earthquake (which is less SF than a "hocus-pocus"). Also, in wars - when the jews had to face enemies, God did not use meteors or SF bulls of fire with special effects to hurl at the enemies. Instead, even if God decided to help them, it still looked like an ordinary battle. And as about prophets, they usually (or, mostly) received revelations in dreams or visions (which are, in mind, not something that everybody sees and gets very exalted and says "wooooow! miiiiiracleees!"). And they did have good purposes.

By the way, from the bible it appears that whenever something miraculous was done, it was a need of it and had a good purpose (other than to make people say "woooow!"), and apparently the most non-spectacular method possible (except perhaps some events with Moses and Jesus), and when something very astonishing happened, it was quite secluded.

Quote:On free will: The options to follow him and go to heaven or not and go to hell is not free will but a divine imposition to believe or face the fire. Prisoners do not have free will in the same way. They can either be model citizens in jail with the hope of an early parole or be a deviant and remain locked inside. For the prisoner, like us, there is no third option.

If we have "doing good" versus "doing evil", and being rewarded accordingly, do you believe that would be a freedom of choice? (and we know that if one choses evil, then he calls a "lie" and "falsehood" everything that condemns him) And I don't understand why compared us with people inside the jail and not with those outside of it.

Anyway, the jail is not as much a "reward" for bad deeds as an attempt to help people change. If all the possibilities to change had been given to a man here, but he didn't cease doing evil nonetheless, would an unpleasant reward be unfit?

P.S. I'm quite tired now, I should go to sleep. I use to write a lot, sorry for the size. And I hope I wrote something useful.