Predestination and Free Will

[sferrari17]

I read some of the responses to the Free Will topic, and I thought many of them raised interesting questions.  I was going to answer them there, but I thought that they merited a new topic.

The first question presented by atheists and others was, "There is biblical evidence for predestination, so how do we have free will?"

I don't believe in predestination, and many of the biblical references that were shown were taken out of context.  However, the Bible is very clear that God knows the future, he knows everyone's personalities before you are born, and that he has a plan for everyone's life.  However, that doesn't mean that there isn't an element of free will.

Allow me to give you a couple of examples.  I'll use some school examples, just cause that is the first thing that popped into my head. 

Let's say that you know one of your friends is getting bullied and is very upset about it.  However, he hasn't been able to get any help from the administration because the bully is the child of a teacher at the school.  You happen to know that the bully has a very confrontational personality, so you come up with a plan to help your friend.  You and your buddy go up to the bully on the same hall that the school office is and you tell him to leave you friend alone.  He get's up in your face and starts yelling at you and threatening you, right as a teacher walks out of the office.  He gets in trouble, and you've helped out your friend.

Did the bully have free will in that situation, or not?  You knew that he had a very explosive personality, and you also knew that if a teacher saw him blow up, he would get in trouble and have to leave your friend alone.  However, the bully still had the choice to not blow up.  Although he was set up, he could just as well have said, "I'm sorry, I was just messing around.  I didn't realize you would take it so seriously."  Just because you knew what he would do, doesn't mean that he didn't make the choice.

Here's another example.  You have another friend who is really kind and helpful.  However, she is very shy as well, and could use a boost in her self esteem.  You know that there is an administrator who walks the halls and looks for people who are acting kind.  He looks for students to put up as a candidate for student of the month.  One day you are walking with your friend, and you see the administrator walking by.  You deliberately drop the armful of books in your hand.  Your friend immediately bends downs and picks them up for you.  The administrator notices, and next time they are discussing people for the award, your friend is at the top of the list.

Did the girl have free will?  You knew that she was kind, and you also knew that she needed some help with her confidence and self esteem.  Although you set up the scenario, she could have just as easily kept walking and said "I'll catch up with you later!"  She made the choice to help you herself; you didn't make her do it.

This is how God works in our lives.  Just because he knows our personalities and can predict what we are going to do doesn't mean that we can't make our own choices.


Another concept that I think it is important to understand is that linear time is a creation of God.  I don't believe that God is stuck in time the same way we are.  I don't have any particular Bible reference in mind when I say that, but it makes sense that God would not be limited by his own creation.  Therefore, God knows what's going to happen, no because he has planned it all out in advance, but because he is there, just as he is here now.  To be perfectly honest, I don't know if that is doctrinal or not.  I'd like a confirmation or rejection of that particular theory, with Biblical or logical evidence to support. 

A question that has been raised is, "Would you believe what you believe if you had been raised in a different environment?"  I think the answer is an emphatic no.  If I had been brought up in Iran, I'm pretty sure I would be Muslim.  I will freely I admit that I believed most of what I believe long before I had a logical explanation for it.  I have gone to the same church since I was born, and I became a Christian at nine years old.  Since then, however, I have questioned and searched for the truth and refined my beliefs.  I think everyone should be honest with themselves about where they have come from and how that has affected their beliefs.  Most atheists claim to have disproved the existence of God.  In reality, they assumed that God did not exist before they reasoned it out.  If you don't believe me, then answer this question.  When you seek to prove/disprove the existence of God, do you approach the issue with the attitude "Prove to me that God exists" or "Prove to me that God doesn't exist" ?  Either way, you have already decided before you started, and whether you admit it or not, there are logical arguments for both, depending on how you begin.

I sincerely believe that every human being on the planet is offered a chance at salvation before they die.  That is why I don't believe that only Christians will go to heaven.  Every person does have an option to reject or accept  God's grace, even if they don't recognize it as such.

[jacknky]

This is a long post but I will try to address some of it.

"This is how God works in our lives.  Just because he knows our personalities and can predict what we are going to do doesn't mean that we can't make our own choices."

Frankly, your examples are a little superficial when the question is about whether human souls "deserve" to be tortured for all eternity. There is no logical or human justification to rationalize that people will knowingly and willingly choose eternal torture. "Free will" can't apply here. It is basic human nature that we will do anything possible to avoid suffering and we would never freely choose eternal suffering.

Most humans haven't heard about Jesus. They grew up in other religions. 30,000 souls a day die of starvation or other preventable disease, too poor or weak to even care about "predestination" and the finery's our human minds can create in our leisure. Some of us simply cannot see anything supernatural in the world so we're consigned to torture too. You simply can't explain with a strong argument how a loving, all-powerful Creator would create imperfect humans and then condemn them to eternal torture for their imperfection.

"God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie." (II Thess 2:11)
--------------------------------------------------
"Since then, however, I have questioned and searched for the truth and refined my beliefs.  I think everyone should be honest with themselves about where they have come from and how that has affected their beliefs." 

You may have questioned and searched but your search, frankly, was probablythrough the colored glass of what you had been taught. The majority of theists stick with the first belief system they learned which indicates that religious belief has a very large cultural component.
------------------------------------------------------------
"Most atheists claim to have disproved the existence of God.  In reality, they assumed that God did not exist before they reasoned it out.  If you don't believe me, then answer this question.  When you seek to prove/disprove the existence of God, do you approach the issue with the attitude "Prove to me that God exists" or "Prove to me that God doesn't exist" ?  Either way, you have already decided before you started, and whether you admit it or not, there are logical arguments for both, depending on how you begin."

I prefer the term "non-theist" to atheist or agnostic because it covers the gamut of those who don't believe in the existence of the supernatural. And you're wrong. Non-theists tend to believe that there is unsufficient evidence of the existence of gods to believe in their existence. Many or most don't claim to have "proof" that gods don't exist because most of us have enough sense to not fall into the logical trap of trying to disprove a negative.

IMO, there are no rational arguments for the existence of the supernatural without making assumptions not based on what is observable. Mental machinations such as El's "We exist and that proves God exists." rational is a perfect example of the kinds of assumptions that must be accepted to provide a rational for the existence of a god.

And then, even if one accepted that assumption then you'd have to deal with which of the thousands of different versions of God's is correct. To a Muslim, you're as much an infidel as I am. The only difference between us is you blieve in one theistic system more than I do. We both reject thousand more.
------------------------------------------------------------
"I sincerely believe that every human being on the planet is offered a chance at salvation before they die."

You are free to believe what you want, just as I am. That's the nature of belief. It doesn't have to justify itself in the natural world.

[jacknky]

I should have proofed that post better. sorry. I hope you get the gist.

[Daldianus]

Freewill is an illusion.

We're determined by our subconscious and our previous experiences.

[jacknky]

"Freewill is an illusion."

Thank you. much more succinct than my post.

[sferrari17]

Hold up.  How can you say that you aren't free to make choices?  You don't believe in an otherworldly being that makes your decisions for you, so who controls you?  Your subconscious is a part of yourself, so how can you say that you don't have free will?  It's up to you whether you want mayo on your sandwich or not.  I don't think anybody is forcing you to.

@jacknky

Let me ask you a question.  You seem to have a problem with God creating imperfect human beings and then sending them to hell. First of all, God doesn't send anybody to hell.  It's your choice.  Now, if God truly created people and placed them in situations where they had experiences and personality defects that left them with no option but to reject God, then we'd have a problem.  Fortunately, that's not the way things are.  Everyone has a choice;  maybe not a choice between Christianity and something else, or a choice between something you'd consider a God and something else, but everybody has a defining decision in their life that determines whether they go to heaven or hell.  Everybody has the option to accept, and God has made it as easy for us as he can.

Now, about the concept of free will.  How is it possible to create something perfect and not give it free will?  If you don't have the option of doing something other than what is right, how is there a choice?  God gives us the choice of choosing him or choosing to reject him; it just so happens that by rejecting him, we reject everything good, because he is everything good.  It's not like he said "Well, if you don't want me to be your god, then I'm gonna make you miserable!"  By rejecting him completely, all that you have left is the emptiness of your own sinfulness and failures.  Hell won't we a happy place.

I think I've heard you say before that no one would deliberately choose what is bad for them.  Well, a child can't understand why he shouldn't have as much ice cream as he wants.  From his point of view, it tastes really good, so there can't be anything wrong with it.  He just doesn't know that lots of sugar will give him make him crash and burn, and that if he continues, he will become addicted, which can lead to diabetes, obesity, and other problems.  It's the same way with us.  Sometimes doing what is right, or doing what is best for us, seems much less attractive than doing something less rewarding.  If you haven't read C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce, you should.  It's short enough to read in an hour or so, and it illustrates this principle beautifully.  Of course, it contains some notions that aren't necessarily Biblical, such as purgatory.  However, it's still a great read and also gives real insight into human nature.

As to you assertion that I look at life through a colored lens, I guess I can't really affirm or deny that.  Obviously, somebody looking through rose tinted glasses doesn't realize that things aren't really that color.  However, I don't really feel a need to be 'enlightened'.  I have stayed with the faith of my parents because that is what I believe is right.  Don't think I haven't been exposed to atheism in all its glory; my sister became an atheist, right before she left the house.  However, she also became enlightened by picking up smoking, drinking, cursing, and everything else.  She nearly ruined her life with her enlightenment with a hasty marriage.  Luckily, she ended up marrying a really great guy, even though they got engaged three months after she'd met him.  They been going just great for more than two years and she's given up most of her bad habits, and her hostility.  Not everyone ends up so well, though.  The reason I continue to be a Christian is because I trust in my parents and see how strong there faith is.  I trust in the leaders of my church, and see how God has made a difference in there lives.  And ultimately, I trust in God, and how he has made me a better person and a better instrument of his will.

[Daldianus]

Hold up.  How can you say that you aren't free to make choices?  You don't believe in an otherworldly being that makes your decisions for you, so who controls you?  Your subconscious is a part of yourself, so how can you say that you don't have free will?  It's up to you whether you want mayo on your sandwich or not.  I don't think anybody is forcing you to.

Whatever controls you, it's obvious not your conscious self.

[sferrari17]

ok...

[jacknky]

17,
"First of all, God doesn't send anybody to hell.  It's your choice." 

Think about it. Would anyone in their right mind choose eternal torture? If they do choose eternal torture, aren't they NOT in their right mind? Aren't they filled with ignorance? Should they be tortured for human ignorance? The punishment doesn't fit the crime.

When I was a lad I picked some flowers from a neighbor's yard and brought them home to my mother as a gift. I was ignorant of the rules of property. my mother made me return the flowers and asplogize to the neighbor. She didn't take me to the basement and string me up by my thumbs and slowly peel away my skin and break my bones. Her punishment fit the crime.

"Everybody has the option to accept, and God has made it as easy for us as he can."

Well, if God were trying to make it easy I wish he'd part some seas or raise some folks from the dead every few years to make it as easy on us like it used to be.

I have a skeptical nature about the supernatural. I was raised a Christian and tried very, very hard to believe as I had been taught but I honestly could not believe no matter how hard I tried. I studied the Bible, I went to church several times a week. I re-dedicated my life to Jesus but finally I had to accept that I just couldn't believe it.

 I'm sure you will doubt that statement and insist that I chose not to believe. All I can do is tell you from the depth of my heart that I tried and I couldn't. It was as though the Bible says the sky is red but when I look I see blue. The Bible says there is a Big Daddy in the sky pulling the strings but when I look I see a natural world not a supernatural one.

So if the Christian story is true I'm doomed to eternity without God. Yet I didn't ask to be born. I didn't ask to be given the genes that don't allow me to see God. If God is my father then this is a hell of a way to treat his child. (pun intended)

Of course another example is that many people never hear about the Christian god because they are raised in other religions. But there are also many humans who live in such abject poverty that making a choice about which god is true is out of the question. They're just struggling to survive. Every DAY 30,000 humans die of starvation or other preventable causes and the Christian god allows them to die horrible deaths and having never heard this true version of him. Either God is a sadist, doesn't care or is not omnipotent.

"I think I've heard you say before that no one would deliberately choose what is bad for them.  Well, a child can't understand why he shouldn't have as much ice cream as he wants.  From his point of view, it tastes really good, so there can't be anything wrong with it.  He just doesn't know that lots of sugar will give him make him crash and burn, and that if he continues, he will become addicted, which can lead to diabetes, obesity, and other problems.  It's the same way with us."

Thank you for making my point. In most ways a child is ignorant and not expected to be able to make "free" decisions for himself. That's why there is no death penalty for children. And to an omnipotent god, aren't we all children?

"Don't think I haven't been exposed to atheism in all its glory; my sister became an atheist, right before she left the house.  However, she also became enlightened by picking up smoking, drinking, cursing, and everything else.  She nearly ruined her life with her enlightenment with a hasty marriage."

Christians as a group are capable of doing all the bad things you mentioned. Christians can lie, cheat, steal, beat their wives and molest their children just like non-Christians can. And non-Christians are capable of realizing that such behavior is harmful and to be avoided just like Christians can.

Should I extrapolate the morality of Christians from the priests who molested children or from the several Baptist ministers I've interviewed who were child molesters? If not then please don't read too much into your sister's journey. She may wind up just fine. we all need structure in our lives but a structure based on a Supernatural Being isn't the only one.

"And ultimately, I trust in God, and how he has made me a better person and a better instrument of his will."

I'm truly happy for you. I personally can't trust something I can't see. It's not in my makeup.

[sferrari17]

@jacknky

You didn't follow where I was leading with my points. 

You still can't seem to understand how you would choose something other than perfection.  Obviously, I can't explain it in a way that makes since to you.  I implore you to read C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce.  It's only 164 pages long, so you can read it in an hour or two, and it brilliantly shows what I am incapable of showing.

You ask why God won't perform miracles like he did in Biblical times.  Well, if he did, would you believe me?  There are all kinds of people who come back inexplicably from the brink of death and have a miraculous recovery.  There are people who claim to have prophetic visions, and people who claim to be able to perform miracles.  Neither you nor I would take those claims seriously unless we saw them firsthand, and perhaps not even then.  You simply can't rely on rumors, and you might not believe your eyes if you saw a miracle.  I am constantly amazed by the human ability to rationalize.  I don't think that having miracles performed constantly would solve humanity's skepticism.  The ancient Israelites were very skeptical, even though God consistently provided for them.  Jesus' own disciples had their doubts, even though they watched him perform miracles. 

Also, I said in my original post that my sister has turned out ok.  However, she got lucky.  She could have just as easily ruined her life.  I wasn't necessarily blaming atheism on her problems.  You are right in that there are Christians who have those problems.  Might point was, you asserted that by sticking with the faith of my parents, I was merely looking through a 'colored lens' and not thinking for myself.  The reason I mentioned was my sister was to point out that rebellion is not necessarily a good thing.  Why fix something that ain't broke?  I think my parents have things correctly, so I see no reason to change my beliefs just to spite them.

You might not have deliberately rejected God.  There are people who sincerely give Christianity an effort but don't find what they think they are looking for.  However, that might mean that you need to redefine what you are looking for.  Many people have the end goal in mind before they ever begin searching, and consequently reject things because they don't fit in with their worldview.

It seems that the main problem you have is with human suffering.  You can't seem to grasp why God would allow people to suffer.  Well, if there is no pain, than how can there be pleasure?  You can't identify something as good without something bad to compare it against.  And if the threat of pain was really an empty one (i.e., people didn't really die in accidents or from disease, etc..), then there would be no reason to fear those things.  Everyone is going to die, some people in worse ways than others.  However, someone who is born in a middle class home and dies in a resting home after a long, easy life, will not be as rewarded in heaven as someone who spends their whole life in poverty. 

The only way things like poverty, sickness, and pain could be eliminated would be to eliminate the possibility of sin.  The ability to sin is an important part of free will, and without free will, we would just be robots.  I think God has made it pretty easy for us.  He has given us a world full of pain and joy, and then told us that all we have to do in order to have eternal joy is to follow him.  He tells us that everything thing is going to be alright, that there is more to this life than pain and sorrow.  He can't help you if you won't follow his teachings and accept Christ's sacrifice.  If you continue to allow your sinful human nature to rule your life, there is no way for you to enter a placed that has no sin.  It is as simple as that.  God doesn't torture you for choosing not to follow him.  It's just not possible for someone to go to heaven and be with God if they don't accept there sinful nature and ask God to forgive them.  Without God, there can be no joy.  That is why hell seems like torture; God isn't there, so no joy is found there.

Also, the pain and suffering we endure is used to test us.  Ever heard the proverb "No pain, no gain" ?  Pain is part of the process of maturing;  that's why they are called growing pains.

[gluadys]

As is often the case, arguments depend heavily on correct definitions.  In this conversation we need to discriminate carefully between three ideas that often sound the same, but are not.

determinism
predeterminism
predestination

Many people think of predestination and predeterminism as the same thing and that is why predestination is seen as inconsistent with free will.

But it is determinism and predeterminism, not predestination, that are inconsistent with free will.

The difference between these two of course is a matter of time.  When Daldianus says our choices are determined by our subconscious and past experience, it doesn't mean that our choices were written in stone before we were born.  Daldianus is describing determinism.  And it is interesting that in this form of determinism, even though our choices are not "free" they are still our own.  It is our own subconscious and our own past experience that determine our apparently free choices.  Yet the choice is not actually made until the moment of decision.

Predetermination implies that one's choices are made not by oneself, not even subconsciously, but that one's life has been scripted in advance of one's birth.  This is more a belief in fate than anything else. 

What distinguishes predestination from both determinism and predeterminism is that it is not about all choices.  It is only about one "choice".  That is the choice to be with God or to live without God.

Predestination has no effect on one's choice of college or career, or marriage partner or whether or not to have kids, or where to take one's vacation this year or any other decision large or small. 
In all these respects, we may or may not have free will, but it has nothing to do with the biblical concept of predestination.

A second distinction to be made is between Calvin's doctrine of predestination and the biblical presentation of predestination.  A Calvinist,  of course, will say they are the same, but there are differences of opinion on that score.  Without doubt, the Calvinist version is much more complete and detailed than the biblical presentation.

It is the Calvinist teaching that predestination precludes free will--though still in the restricted sense of choice for or against God.  Calvin may or  may not have been right on that point, but it is not spelled out in scripture.

What, then, is Calvin saying?  One of the things we should be clear on is that he is not saying that God decides who will be saved and who will not be.  What Calvin is saying is that due to sin, which affects our will as much as anything else in our nature, we are not capable of choosing God. We are only capable of choosing against God.

If this is the case, how can any be saved?  Calvin's answer is that what we cannot do ourselves, God can help us do.  By God's power and grace, we can become capable of choosing God.  And anyone to whom God extends that grace, overcomes their inability to respond positively to God.

Another facet of Calvin's teaching is that God's grace is irresistible.  Again, this may or may not be biblical.  It is not spelled out in scripture.  It is spelled out by Calvin.  In short, according to Calvin, God's grace does not just bring a person to a neutral point, where they are then free to choose for or against God.  God's grace brings them to the point that they do choose God.  So everyone who is assisted by God's grace to turn toward God is necessarily saved. 

So some comments on the preceding conversation in light of this background.

First of all, God doesn't send anybody to hell.  It's your choice.

Technically, that is right, but Calvin's point is that a sinner left to their own devices has no ability to choose anything other than hell.  It's a choice, but a forced choice since they are incapable of choosing the good apart from God's grace. 

Think about it. Would anyone in their right mind choose eternal torture?

Again, that makes sense.  Calvin's point is precisely that we are not in our right mind.  In his terminology, our mind, our spirit is depraved.  We choose hell because we are not the healthy, normal people God originally created.  So apart from God's grace, we choose what no one in their right mind would choose.  That is why those to whom grace is extended don't just come to a point where they rationally assess the options.  They necessarily choose for God because that is what a person in their right mind does. 

So if the Christian story is true I'm doomed to eternity without God. Yet I didn't ask to be born. I didn't ask to be given the genes that don't allow me to see God. If God is my father then this is a hell of a way to treat his child. (pun intended)

Of course another example is that many people never hear about the Christian god because they are raised in other religions. But there are also many humans who live in such abject poverty that making a choice about which god is true is out of the question. They're just struggling to survive. Every DAY 30,000 humans die of starvation or other preventable causes and the Christian god allows them to die horrible deaths and having never heard this true version of him.

Actually, if one follows Calvin right through, this is not true.  It comes from confusing Christians with the elect.  Christians, of course, are those that have professed a belief in Christianity and connect in some way with the Christian church.  This doesn't mean a thing as far as being one of the elect.  In Calvinism it is expected that many of those who profess Christian belief are not actually saved.  As in Jesus' parable, the wheat and the weeds grow together.  Membership in a church, participation in Christian ritual, including "making a decision for Christ" and being baptized, none of this is a guarantee that God has included that person among the elect.

By the same token, one cannot assume that anyone outside the church is not one of the elect. God is sovereign and perfectly able to extend his saving grace to atheists, Buddhists, Muslims and thousands of others even if they have never heard a Christian missionary.  Jesus told us we would be very surprised to find who was joining in the heavenly feast with us.

Along this line as well, we cannot even say that God has not extended his saving grace to all.  I am going beyond Calvin here.  He clearly believed that God chose not to assist some to salvation.  In fact a strict 5-pointer Calvinist believes in "Limited Atonement".  This is the view that Christ did not  die for the sins of all, but only for those whom God chooses to save.  And a good many Calvinists believe God chooses very few to be saved.

Yet there is nothing in the doctrine of predestination that requires this. All it tells us is that God's elect will be saved.  It tells us nothing about who the elect are or how many there are. For all we know, everyone is elect.  Predestination may be universal. 

Finally, I have emphasized Calvin for predestination is so strongly associated with his teaching that it is difficult to imagine a non-Calvinist version of predestination.  Yet, Calvin was an interpreter of scripture, not an author of scripture.  It is no disrespect to him to suggest that he may not be entirely right in his interpretation.  Obviously there are Christians who don't adhere to the Calvinist view of things in terms of predestination and free will.

Currently, I am reading Dante's Divine Comedy, which offers a medieval Catholic view on the topic.  It is interesting that in this perspective it is understood that the denizens of hell do indeed freely choose their fate.  From that perspective God's grace is freely available to all and the smallest positive response is met with God's enduring salvation.  Hell is not for those who were simply born in the wrong place and time. It is for those who actively and willfully reject the good.  God's grace is so free, so powerful, and so eager to save that one actually has to work at it to be damned. 

C.S.Lewis, whom sferrari has recommended seems to take a similar stance.  And that is just as Christian a view as Calvin's. 

 

[jacknky]

17,
"You didn't follow where I was leading with my points." 

LOL. I do that a lot.

"You still can't seem to understand how you would choose something other than perfection." 

"Perfection" in the religious sense is an intellectual concept. It seems to me that the natural world is "perfect" enough without having to create supernatural worlds. And that does not come from my intellect but from my gut.


"You ask why God won't perform miracles like he did in Biblical times.  Well, if he did, would you believe me?...  Jesus' own disciples had their doubts, even though they watched him perform miracles."

Yes, I think you are right in general but I would more likely believe a miracle if it were verifiable. If someone could perform miracles under controlled conditions it would go a long  way. For example, if someone were to raise a dead person to life who doctors certified was clinically dead that might be a different thing. But "miracles" always seem anecdotal and unverifiable. I started a post awhile back, probably before you joined us, on the topic of, "if God wants to heal sick people, why are those sick people never amputees?" In other words, if God grew an amputee a new leg that would be verifiable. But that never happens.

To me, anecdotal information has very little value. If you take the right psychedelic drugs under the right conditions you can have a near-death or out-of-body experience. Astronauts in training report near death experiences when they pass out on a centrifuge machine. The point is, if one is inclined toward belief on gods they can find plenty of rationale. and vice versa.

"Might point was, you asserted that by sticking with the faith of my parents, I was merely looking through a 'colored lens' and not thinking for myself."

I didn't mean to imply that you're not thinking for yourself. You are obviously a very thoughtful person. But your religious beliefs do color the way you view the world just as my lack of belief colors mine. Surely you can see that?

"The reason I mentioned was my sister was to point out that rebellion is not necessarily a good thing.  Why fix something that ain't broke?  I think my parents have things correctly, so I see no reason to change my beliefs just to spite them."

That works for you. It didn't for your sister. There's no one path that works for everyone. This is one place where I think Christianity has it all wrong. It just won't work for everyone... me, for example.

"You might not have deliberately rejected God.  There are people who sincerely give Christianity an effort but don't find what they think they are looking for.  However, that might mean that you need to redefine what you are looking for.  Many people have the end goal in mind before they ever begin searching, and consequently reject things because they don't fit in with their worldview."

"redefining" what I'm looking for doesn't appear to be an option because to accept God I first must see God and accept that there even is a God. Even then the issue would become whether the Christian version of a god makes more sense than any of the others.

It seems that the main problem you have is with human suffering.  You can't seem to grasp why God would allow people to suffer."

It appears to me that there are two human responses to human suffering, especially suffering caused by the fact that eventually we will lose everything. One is to create gods who will take care of us after we die and who will watch over us while we live despite all the evidence to the contrary. (That's why faith is the biggest virtue in these religions. If we believe hard enough we can live our lives as though we'll live forever.)

The other way is to deeply accept that it is the way of the Universe that everything changes and that all things that live die. This acknowledgement leads to acceptance, release, and hopefully a profound joy in the moment.

"The only way things like poverty, sickness, and pain could be eliminated would be to eliminate the possibility of sin.  Also, the pain and suffering we endure is used to test us. .. Ever heard the proverb "No pain, no gain" ?  Pain is part of the process of maturing;  that's why they are called growing pains."

With all due respect, do you really think you would feel that way if you were one of the millions on the earth right now starving and living in abject poverty? Do you think you'd sit with your stomach shriveling, your children dying, and say "oh well, no pain no gain"? I think that's the kind of thing those of us who live in  a land of plenty can sit around and contemplate, not those for whom suffering is an extreme we can't imagine.

What your religion calls "sin" is merely being human. If all it took was acknowledging that I make mistakes, that my actions can harm others, then I'm going to heaven. But your religion requires more. For some reason what we do and who we are counts for nothing. Everything depends on something as serendipidous as "belief". There are Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist and all kinds of other  religions with their versions of Mother Theresa's who, according to the Christian story, will not be with God because, what? They believed in the wrong supernatural story.

That may make sense to you but not to me.

[sferrari17]

So, in your point of view, it makes more since for a starving person to accept their position and find 'joy' in their acceptance of the fact that they and their children will be miserable, than to have peace of mind in knowing that one day all of their efforts and hard work are going to pay off?  Your absolutely right when you say that I would have a hard time holding the same views if I lived in poverty.  But I believe that if I had been born to poverty, I would have a greater trust in God than I do now.  Sometimes it becomes hard to think about God when I'm constantly surrounded by new gadgets, popular people, and really beautiful girls.  It takes a lot of effort to make God number one in your life, and I still haven't achieved that yet.  If God is all you have, your faith becomes much stronger.  That reminds me of a story I heard about a popular Christian contemporary artist.  He did a tour in Russia recently, and he got a great response from the growing Christian community there. However, at the end of one of his concerts, he talked to an elderly lady, who said, "It must be so hard to be a Christian in America.  I'll be praying for you."  The guy couldn't figure out what would make her say that; in America, every religion is tolerated.  His interpreter finally explained it to him; from her point of view, it must be much harder to focus on God in a land of such plenty.  I'm inclined to think she was right.

Obviously, the way I was raised has affected my worldview.  I will readily acknowledge that; I became a Christian long before I had a logical or rational explanation for it.  However, in my short lifetime, Christianity has never let me down, and neither has my God.  I would like to hope that nothing will ever shake my faith; we will have to wait and see on that count. In the meantime, I will continue to believe.

By the way, if you think the natural world is perfect the way it is, why do complain so much about the suffering there is in the world?  You don't think the world would be a better place without rape. abortion, poverty, war, and corruption?  I'll have to seriously disagree with you on that count.  If you think that this world is perfect, I don't want to here anymore about how unfair it is that people have to suffer.

[jacknky]

17,
"His interpreter finally explained it to him; from her point of view, it must be much harder to focus on God in a land of such plenty.  I'm inclined to think she was right."

Me too. It is a well known phenomena that people become more religious when times are hard. When folks are suffering they tend to reach for any relief they can find.

"In the meantime, I will continue to believe."

That's good. My motivation, BTW, is not to make you doubt your faith but to explain why this particular heathen doesn't believe. I think believers need to understand that we non-theists don't have horns on our heads or bite the heads off babies. I think believers need to understand that not believing in God is not choosing evil.

"By the way, if you think the natural world is perfect the way it is, why do complain so much about the suffering there is in the world?  You don't think the world would be a better place without rape. abortion, poverty, war, and corruption?  I'll have to seriously disagree with you on that count.  If you think that this world is perfect, I don't want to here anymore about how unfair it is that people have to suffer."

I was trying to use your concept of "perfect" but didn't do it well, obviously. I tend not to think in concepts of "perfect" or "imperfect". The world is what it is and it's "perfect" because it couldn't be any other way right now. I'd like to eliminate rape, poverty, war and corruption as much as you and have faith we're marching slowly, too slowly, in that direction.

My point about suffering was not that it is "unfair" but rather that the fine points of theology like "free will" probably have little meaning for many in the world. They probably have little concern about whether they believe in the "right" god and are less likely to change beliefs than you are. So if they are Hindu or Muslim I doubt they care about Jesus. Frankly, it was in response to your fairly cavalier statement about "no pain, no gain" and meant to remind you that there are millions of people in this world right now for whom we might as well be on another planet to be discussing theology by computer, well fed, wel clothed, a roof over our heads.

[sferrari17]

"I think believers need to understand that we non-theists don't have horns on our heads or bite the heads off babies. "

wow....you just completely shattered all of my beliefs about non-theists...