@TBG, I was joking with my titan remark, of course.

What does He owe you that you have a right to ask Him for "mercy" here? Is it possible that love sometimes involves pain? Who are you to dictate what the mercy of God should be?

If God had never made the claim to 'love' us, I wouldn't be here arguing the point right now. Sure, love involves pain, but it would be worth it if everyone's pain (everyone whom God 'loves') would eventually end. Heck, I would even take 51%.

I recall something about "An object at rest likes to remain at rest." The default position is to do nothing.

We do things all the time that we don't like to do. Oftentimes we're acted on by other causes anyway. If I decided to sit around in a field doing nothing forever, how long would it be before hunger kicked in to act upon me? Of if there was a hail storm, my pain receptors would cause the action to be more desirable than no action in my mind.

All you've given me here is the materialistic cause.

Well, that's the only one there is.

For what Nietzsche is saying is that God was a convenient hypothesis for a while, but now we're all grown up and don't need Him anymore. Yet I find God immensely inconvenient: He keeps me from doing what I want, holds me to standard, and forces me to build virtue rather than vice.

You've been saying all along that God doesn't force you to do anything, and you're as free to choose hell as I am. Obviously, if I was Spock I would choose heaven. But I have emotions too, ones that would make me want to spend eternity as far away from the creator of the mess as possible. Logically, the epitome of stupidity, but how can you spend eternity worshiping someone you disdain?

Here you go again: judging God, and by what standard? God is about the business of making new men, or rather of making men new. You don't like God's revelation?

I'm judging God by his own set of standards, not mine. Obviously, since I don't personally have one. The Bible sets up its own standards for God and his followers, and that's what I'm judging. Again, my assertion is this: The revelation of God has caused more men to go to hell than will ever be saved. It's an unfalsifiable conjecture, so I'm not going to go around trying to prove this, but I believe it is quite reasonable and a stand can be taken here.

Sure, I'll just change the definition of a degree. It's an arbitrary unit of measurement which is there for our convenience. Here you are mistaking the shadows of geometry upon the world for the way that the world actually is---unless of course you admit that there just might be a transcendent standard here.

Even if you change the size unit of a degree, you'll still be bound by a set number of degrees per angle. Even if the word "degree" has no more value that "good," it represents a very real idea (unlike "good"). By transcendent standard, I agree that there is objective facts we are all bound by. It's sort of a self-evident truth, since skepticism and relativism can't even assert themselves on their own standards. Relativism is just a politically correct way of saying you agree that there are no morals, anyway.

do you dare to accuse Christ upon the cross of being unmerciful? Of being an insufficiently great Deity? Here God suffers and dies for His creation and you say it is not enough! Can you have a greater sacrifice than an infinite?

I feel like I tackled this point earlier. God screwed us over and tried to make up for it. I don't have a greater sacrifice because none is needed; man has never done anything "wrong," or right for that matter.

This still doesn't explain Rembrandt, Michelangelo, Constable, or Picasso. Not to mention, of course, Beethoven, Bach, and Tallis, or George Herbert, T.S. Eliot, and Emily Dickinson.

What possible survival value does poetry have in a prosaic world? Or performance music?

For one thing, everyone you mentioned obtained at least fame and often fortune (even if they later blew it or lost it)with the exception of Emily Dickinson (and maybe Herbert, who was of a wealthy and prominent family, though a younger son in an age of primogeniture.)

Byron, Cellini, Mick Jagger- and I bet Justin Beiber doesn't have any problem getting a date to the prom- pretty adaptive, I would think.

What possible survival value does poetry have in a prosaic world? Or performance music?

I tend to agree with those who say that while our (comparatively) massive brains enabled us to triumph over our physical environment, a major driving force, especially after the development of language, was the need to compete with equally smart rivals in our own group.

Ability to appeal to and influence the emotions and inclinations of others would have been quite a useful skill.

We've been swept up in runaway cultural progress, from stone choppers to nuclear missiles; brush shelters to St. Paul's and the Sydney Opera House; red clay daubings to Picasso- and from Ugh-Ugh the smooth talker who first explained why it was only right that he got the pick of the females after the attack on the Ones-Across-the-River to Hitler and Stalin.

I'll use sex because, with the exception of MD I believe we're all guys and can relate (not that this doesn't apply to women, but you know what I mean). Jesus said if we look at a woman with lust in our eyes we have already committed adultery with her in our heart. I would imagine that in heaven, the lustful desires are nonexistent. Sex itself would be useless since we won't be reproducing = no sex drive, no sexual thoughs = no sexual sin. I'm guessing this would apply to everything. .

Well, I've already caused enough trouble talking about sex so I should probably keep my big mouth shut, but I think that there would be very few Christian thinkers who would agree with you on that. Lust, no; blissful sexual union with your beloved (wife or husband, of course), transcendant

Responses to MD

First in reply to MD's posts: why are you letting real life get in the way of a vital thing like NarniaWeb? Seriously, though I definitely believe these discussions are vital, I also understand this is a cyber-world.

If you like I can put those questions in summary form for convenience:

1. How does a "just be true to yourself" ethic apply, not just to yourself personally, but other people, given the world's diversity and the fact that different sorts of people have different priorities?

5. From where did the notion come from that the main reason to Do Good Things, or say you're sorry to God, or anything else, was to Get Out of Hell Free?

One parallel: following that notion would be like me saying to my wife, "Whew, thank goodness we are married; now if I'm faithful to you, there's no chance of me contracting certain diseases I could catch if I did wrong things with other people." Yes, that's certainly one secondary benefit of monogamy and marriage, but is it the main reason why I love her? No! I love her because she's incredible!

Finally, my remark about being sheltered related more to being sheltered from the consequences of a mere "just be true to yourself"/"be happy" belief system. You only have the freedom to do that in a nation with (mostly) good laws and benefits, thanks to men and women who believed in Christian ideas of freedom, morals, even economics and government.

Responses to Andrew

Definitely, in fact one of my favorite pastimes is intellectually destroying people who claim Christianity but don't believe certain important things, like the divinity of Jesus. Well, if he wasn't the Christ, what are you, an -ian? And what's so great about Jesus anyway, his volunteer humanitarian work? I can't think of any Christians on here who are like that, which is great because you all present true challenges to my own philosophy.

I've known a few, but they've been in the past and you've missed them. Please, don't voice regret to that — it'll just jinx the place! — as I said, I prefer debates with non-Christians that might actually go somewhere.

This, by the way, is one reason why "mainline" denominations are grinding into the dirt, which pundits don't often talk about. Why in the world do I need to go to a Christian-in-name-only church if I can get the same self-esteem man-and-his-good-deeds-exalting nonsense with even fewer religious stigmas at the community center, or United Way, or the Peace Corps, or just sitting at home watching Oprah?

Like Fencer said, I've always imagined a lot of people in choir robes surrounding the base of God's throne and singing old hymns with angels.

I think all people, Christians, non-Christians and "former Christians" alike, have had that assumption. But I wonder where it comes from?

I think now it would be a lot more similar to a person actually living as a true Christian on earth, but without the stumbling blocks we now have

That's part of it, I think, and it's incredible enough to think of life on this earth, free of sin, natural disasters and such. Yet of course, the informed Christian would also know that he/she will have a resurrected body, not only free of sin but free of many physical limitations (some we can't know), and much stronger and more incredible than before.

Does that mean Christians believe they're destined to have superpowers? I doubt it, and I also hope not — "God mode" in a video game gets boring after a while, reducing the challenge; and as Syndrome from The Incredibles remarked: "When everyone's super, no one will be!"

I would imagine that in heaven, the lustful desires are nonexistent. Sex itself would be useless since we won't be reproducing = no sex drive, no sexual thoughs = no sexual sin. I'm guessing this would apply to everything. So I suppose we would do all things, praying without ceasing, and we would be doing it for God's glory because we have seen him and know his glory.

First let me express my appreciation, as a moderator, for the way you've worded this, Andrew.

(Mod hat off) Scripture would hint that this is part of the reason why human marriage would cease, something that Jesus strongly hints in (checks the reference) Matthew 22: 30-32, and also in Mark 12: 24-27. Yet Ephesians 5 helps fill in more of what Paul calls the mystery behind marriage: it was always meant to be a parable of Christ and His Church (which God had planned first, before human marriage). Thus after Christ has come to reunite with His Bride — the imagery from Revelation 21 — the institution of human marriage will have been fulfilled.

That being said, my wife and I like to remind one another of something that I seem to recall my own parents saying: we will at least, forever into eternity, be best friends, going on new adventures for God's glory in His remodeled universe of wonders. Yes, I'll go ahead and quote it: "I have been, and always shall be, your friend. ..."

2. How do you define "praise"? What action(s) do you think this entails?

2. I would say giving someone credit for their actions, and this could take a lot of forms.

Or as Scripture says: "Ascribe to the Lord ...

"... O clans of the peoples, ascribe to the Lord glory and strength!"
— 1 Chronicles 16:28

"... the glory due his name; worship the Lord in the splendor of holiness."
— Psalm 29:2

"... O families of the peoples, ascribe to the Lord glory and strength!"
— Psalm 96:7

"... the glory due his name; bring an offering, and come into his courts! "
— Psalm 96:8

(Which would seem to question the idea that God does not "demand" praise, though that — as Lewis said in Reflections could be taken wrong, and would be wrong for anyone but God to do. More later.)

I love how Fencer repeated the truth that this "ascribing" (giving due credit) indeed takes many forms. (Keep in mind that this is just relating to humans; many passages, especially in the Psalms, tell of how creation, even suffering under sin, cries out how amazing God is. If rocks and oceans and things like that can praise without literally singing a word, it's no stretch to think that a redeemed human can do the same.)

raising God for eternity is not limited to singing songs. We can praise God without our lips but with our actions. I praise God in every fencing competition. I'm not talking about visually giving God glory before and after every bout. I'm talking about the way I go about living.

[...]

Praising God from a Christian perspective goes far beyond just the songs and hymns. As Jackie Chan says in the new "Karate Kid", (which should be "Kung Fu Kid"), "Kung Fu is in everything we do, in how we put on the jacket and take it off..." (I know I messed that quote up.) For a Christian, praising God is similar only much deeper. We are to give praise in everything and through everything.

Amen times ten. And any critic (Christian or otherwise) who claims that praising God forever in Heaven sounds "boring" ought to consider this.

This is not just a System imposed on Scripture. It's what Scripture says.

[W]hatever you [Christians] do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

[...] Slaves, [not a racial slavery; the Greek means "bondservant," a more-intense version of today's contracted employee] obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ.

Colossians 3: 17, 22-24 (boldface emphasis added)

See also Ephesians 5, for a similar keystone passage on Christian vocation.

After a lengthy discussion about how eating meat sacrificed to idols is not sinful, but could legitimately hurt a novice Christian, Paul says:

But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

Romans 14: 23

Conversely, whatever does proceed from faith (defined elsewhere as true faith, based on the true God, Who He is and what He has done) is not a sin, but rather gives glory to God, as described above.

I got more Biblical proof that worship encompasses all a Christian does and does not simply entail singing (how limited!). Anyone want it?

And from the perspective of a Christian visionary fiction reader and author I can add this: all the parts of Lord of the Rings that speak of awe and transcendent beauty; all the things we love about the creativity and technology of science fiction such as Star Trek; all the best parts of Doctor Who about visiting other worlds and other alien cultures; and even the whimsical wonder of Harry Potter — all these, to me, are incidentally reflective of the awesomeness awaiting Christians in the New Heavens and New Earth. Not just singing. Living. Working. Creating. Researching, learning, reading. Being. All for His glory and our delight.

3. I've heard a lot about this from preachers, mostly it goes along the lines of the song "I can only imagine."

I think some Christians stop at "we can't imagine what Heaven would be like," and forget that while the present-day domain of Heaven is indeed left with little description in Scripture, we get a lot more about New Earth. It's almost a lie-by-omission to discuss only the After-world's "I can only imagine" parts and leave out the "here's what we do know" parts.

4. I think I've already given my reasons to not praise God, even if he existed.

And which The Black Glove keeps staying up until nearly midnight Greenwich Time to rebut in very pithy ways I can only aspire to emulate. Also, each objection seems grounded in either personal inconsistency or else borrowing from the Christian worldview just enough to attempt debunking it and claiming its self-inconsistency. ... Anyway, not to end on a negative note, but there are my thoughts on all that.

Responses to Food for Thought

As to what you said, Dr. Ransom, I think we agree, though I am not sure. It seems that you are implying that God is demanding praise, which I do not think he does.

Thus far I think we agree too, but we are phrasing it differently! Have you tried that link I included before, and especially the excerpts from Piper's Desiring God, with his own excerpts from Lewis's Reflections on the Psalms chapter called "A Word About Praise"? Those include not only logical derivations from Scripture, but specific references that exhort worship toward God because of Who He is. I think the passages above provide just a small sampling of that. Yes, people wrote them, but based on the Christian belief that men were carried along by the Spirit to write God's words, it was ultimately God Himself saying it.

Is God worthy to demand praise? Certainly, yes. He is the reason for my existence. Does He need to demand it from me? Nope!

Indeed, God needs nothing. What you'll find in the Psalms, and expounded upon in works such as Piper's and Lewis's books, is that God demands praise because of Who He is, and to give Himself to His people — the greatest gift He could give, the most loving action He could do.

I cannot think of a verse off the top of my head that says He "demands" praise, only ones that says that He is worthy. He has earned my praise, He has not demanded.

Rebutted, I think, but certainly a friendly rebuttal! I've loved your posts and already it seems you've been part of the Christianity discussions ever since their beginning, Food for Thought.

Perhaps a better phrasing would not be either my "God demands praise" or your "God has earned praise," but rather He has proved His already existing characteristics and actions, revealing them to His people, about why we should love and praise Him and thereby "get" more of Himself.

As TBG said, though God did not need to die for His own rebel creatures, He did so to restore the relationship and begin uniting all things to Himself. That's the greatest proof of his worth and love He's done.

Further reading on why God demands worship and proves He's worthy, and why His love and self-glorification are intertwined:

The Goal of God's Love May Not Be What You Think It Is

Christian Hedonism

Finally, for all the articles and resources and Biblical passages I reference in here, I've still not read through a single book by G.K. Chesterton. Again and again, Black Glove, you prove that I need to pick up a copy and, perhaps, thus pick up some brilliance.

Not really, most of the wars and massacres in history were caused over religious reasons.

A fair amount, certainly, especially among the Abrahamic religions.

Still, most were fought over greed and fear, and the history of the 20th Century shows that atheists can be at least as murderous as their religious fellows.

Communism, whcich killed tens of millions, was dogmatically atheist. Nazism, more problematic- many followers of the Nazis were at least culturally Christian, but Nazism as an ideology was resolutely opposed. Hitler had a personal belief in providence, but was otherwise a materialist who believed in "science" and "progress". He personally ridiculed his neo-pagan followers like Himmler and Rosenberg.

*pokes head in*
I've just been reading the last few pages, and I wanted to say this, mostly to Andrew. You complain about all the horrible things that the church has done, and you reproach God for keeping you alive (I definitely understand how that feels). But what if there is a Greater Purpose that he has for this world, and for you personally, something you can't see?
This quote from the book Christ among other gods, by Erwin Lutzer, sums it up well. It goes something like this - "If I was given the power of God for one day, there are a whole lot of things I would change. But if I was given His wisdom along with His power, then I would leave it all as it is".

*pokes head back out*

Andrew, you may say Christianity has caused nothing but trouble, but in fact, it has done much good. America was originated by the Bible, and without it, the U.S.A wouldn't be what it is today. Yes, you can say that it had ruined that nation, but look at other places with dictators and other types of laws. America became sucessful all those years ago because of God's influence. Even the founding fathers put their trust in God. Without Christianity, America might as well be a worse place to be.

Christianity has stopped things like slavery, mistreatment of women and children, and other unfair things around the world. You can say Christianity does bad, but did you ever think that the reasons things like that occured because someone "claimed" to be doing God's work, but aren't really in the end? Some supposed Christians do bad things and say it was for God's glory, but it's obvious that they don't mean what they say.

So far, at least, methodological naturalism has not run up against any limits

Unless you count theoretical physics, which goes more and more toward philosophy by the decade.

Not that the scientific paradigm necessarily conflicts with Christianity or any other religion as long as they are not making truth claims about the physical universe that conflict with it.

Are you referring to miracle claims here?

For one thing, everyone you mentioned obtained at least fame and often fortune (even if they later blew it or lost it)with the exception of Emily Dickinson (and maybe Herbert, who was of a wealthy and prominent family, though a younger son in an age of primogeniture.)

You've missed my point entirely---the question is that of why we enjoy it. Why do we find pleasure in the skillfully-worded sonnet, the complex fugue, or the beautiful painting? What possible survival value do I get from listening to Bach, reading Herbert, or going to the Pre-Raphaelite exhibit? Why does the creation of such things even have survival value?

If God had never made the claim to 'love' us, I wouldn't be here arguing the point right now. Sure, love involves pain, but it would be worth it if everyone's pain (everyone whom God 'loves') would eventually end. Heck, I would even take 51%.

Andrew, you seem awfully fixated on Hell, this idea that one can reject God for all eternity, yet it is what you yourself would do. Is it really that unfair that your refusal to submit to God's love, to embrace it, should result in your wish being granted? You're talking about a love that you never wanted in the first place! And now you're complaining about possibly being granted your wish? Or are you just trying to stick it to God, because it won't work---He doesn't need you, you know.

All you've given me here is the materialistic cause.

Well, that's the only one there is.

Well that's the question, isn't it? Are you more than material? All that the material cause tells you is "how," not "why."

You've been saying all along that God doesn't force you to do anything, and you're as free to choose hell as I am. Obviously, if I was Spock I would choose heaven. But I have emotions too, ones that would make me want to spend eternity as far away from the creator of the mess as possible. Logically, the epitome of stupidity, but how can you spend eternity worshiping someone you disdain?

Well I can only pray that God changes your heart and shows you Himself. I can only lead you to water, I can't make you drink. To drink, you'll need a heart transplant.

As for disdaining God, you won't: when you come up to the throne, you will either be praising God in joy or in fear. But that's your choice to make, and I pray that God changes your heart before it's too late.

I feel like I tackled this point earlier. God screwed us over and tried to make up for it.

Trying to blame God for your actions ain't going to get you far. You are to blame for your actions and you know it. God doesn't "screw up" and He doesn't mess people up---if you end up in Hell, you've no one to blame but yourself---you built it, after all.

TBG

I do not want this to seem like the Christians are just ganging up on you Andrew, since there are indeed a lot of us throwing questions/arguments/rebuttals at you. However, I will echo what TBG has been saying again and again, something which you don't seem to be able to really answer. Other things will be mixed in as well.

So God shouldn't have revealed himself in the way he did. Obviously he doesn't understand how we tick, since he made a world full of things far more enticing.

He understands fully well how we work. However, why should a glorious and perfect God choose to reveal Himself in a different way? The only way which is perfect is God's way. For God to choose a way to "better" reveal Himself to Man would mean He would need to do something that was imperfect, just to suit Man's desire to not have to think about the "problem of evil".

I believe I and others have offered forth some arguments which reconcile the problem. It would appear that God has revealed Himself in a perfect way, for those who seek Him. Andrew, if you look at a religion with a twisted and hateful (towards God) gaze that you (seem to) do, you will certainly get a twisted perception. I do not know why anyone would think differently. If you truly wish to understand Christianity and what it teaches, you need to seek it. You cannot just yell and scream "UNJUST!" at seeing that people will burn in Hell.

Where does your sense of justice come from? Why can you judge?

You have to choose to try and understand. What I am saying is nothing new, Jesus says the same. Knock and the door shall be opened. I see you, Andrew, as someone who is at the door and looks at the sign above it which is labeled "God". You choose to protest the door, you choose to kick at the door, and you may even seek to rip the door down. I would ask that you first knock.

I do not intend to sound mean or condescending, but I am simply concerned. The simple action of reading the Bible (and probably in a biased manner) or going to Church is not enough to be called "seeking God" or "knocking". While both of these things are great, for a thinker as yourself it takes much more than that. When I was seeking God, I drove myself to exhaustion in my search. It is not something you can do easily, so keep at it, if you do!

I have to go at the present moment, I will be back to respond more directly to other posts.

I've known a few, but they've been in the past and you've missed them. Please, don't voice regret to that — it'll just jinx the place! — as I said, I prefer debates with non-Christians that might actually go somewhere.

I would welcome them back, it's fun to lay back and take pot shots at them.

That's part of it, I think, and it's incredible enough to think of life on this earth, free of sin, natural disasters and such. Yet of course, the informed Christian would also know that he/she will have a resurrected body, not only free of sin but free of many physical limitations (some we can't know), and much stronger and more incredible than before.

I can't argue with that. You might enjoy my post on the thread "Prayer Journal," if you have time to read it. The idea that most interests me is having a perfect intellect. I mean, I could barely pass pre-algebra Of course the drawback to me is how you get there in the first place, if it even existed. It's a fun idea to entertain, though.

Amen times ten. And any critic (Christian or otherwise) who claims that praising God forever in Heaven sounds "boring" ought to consider this.

I cannot believe in a God who wants to be praised all the time.

Also, each objection seems grounded in either personal inconsistency or else borrowing from the Christian worldview just enough to attempt debunking it and claiming its self-inconsistency.

I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to here - could you give specific examples?

Anyways, I liked the Christian hedonism article. It's makes sense to me, reminds me of the verse "Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it." I believe the original translation means that children should be trained to use their natural talents for God's glory.

But what if there is a Greater Purpose that he has for this world, and for you personally, something you can't see?

Looking at that from my point of view, all I can say is "who cares," but maybe I'm becoming dogmatic about lack of purpose. If humans are tools for worshiping God, sure. But then we don't have the freedom to choose him. Calvinist heaven, sure, but makes God look like even more of a jerk.

Andrew, you may say Christianity has caused nothing but trouble, but in fact, it has done much good.

Assuming good is an operative word for ideas society deems as good, I can agree that the church has done a lot of good things. But since society itself is a useless artificial system, so what? It's like building a society to build a church to fix problems built by society.

Or are you just trying to stick it to God, because it won't work---He doesn't need you, you know.

You say that God loves me and will chase me down, but then when I state my feelings on Him you retreat and say he doesn't need me. Well sure, I don't need him obviously. I do to go to heaven, but that's it.

Trying to blame God for your actions ain't going to get you far. You are to blame for your actions and you know it. God doesn't "screw up" and He doesn't mess people up---if you end up in Hell, you've no one to blame but yourself---you built it, after all.

I agree I'm responsible for my actions, but I can only act because I was born. And you're saying I was only born because God created me, so who is ultimately to blame? Who's to blame for the thousands who just died in Japan, their emperor? No, it was a natural disaster of the natural system which you claim God created.

Anyways, thanks for the prayer. Not because I believe, but I appreciate the concern. You'd have to hate me quite a bit to not want me in heaven with you.

While both of these things are great, for a thinker as yourself it takes much more than that. When I was seeking God, I drove myself to exhaustion in my search. It is not something you can do easily, so keep at it, if you do!

I'm always searching. Not for God, but the truth. Jesus said, "I am the way, THE TRUTH, and the life...." If I was convinced of that, I would believe. I'm just convinced of something else.

You say that God loves me and will chase me down, but then when I state my feelings on Him you retreat and say he doesn't need me.

If He so pleases, He will. The fact is, God has no need of anyone other than Himself---He is wholly self-sufficient. You are not.

Well sure, I don't need him obviously.

If you're looking for truth, you do. Why is it so obvious?

I agree I'm responsible for my actions, but I can only act because I was born. And you're saying I was only born because God created me, so who is ultimately to blame?

You are. If I make an axe for felling trees and someone steals it and uses it for murder, do you blame me? God made you and gave you gifts, yet you throw them back in his face. Are you seriously going to try and pin that on God? It's childish.

I'm always searching. Not for God, but the truth.

Why not search for God?

TBG

If I make an axe for felling trees and someone steals it and uses it for murder, do you blame me?

Actually I would, if you were omniscient and knew that the murder would not have occurred had you not made the axe. But this goes back to Andrew's original argument, which is that it seems contradictory for a an all-loving God to create an immeasurably flawed, sinful, hateful, beautiful world. He could have declined to create the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but he did so, fully realizing the consequences. He wanted to play a game, to see if he could get lesser beings to worship him without forcing them to do so. His emotions at times seem entirely human, and not representative of an eternal deity; what use does a god have for jealousy? Of course, man was created in his image.

I suppose that's the reason athiests want no part in Him. Being created in His image, they don't want to be constrained to wrath, jealousy, and whimsical destruction, as He is.

(I)t seems contradictory for a an all-loving God to create an immeasurably flawed, sinful, hateful, beautiful world.

And yet without belief in the Biblical God, do these categories even make sense? One person's "sinful" action may be another person's "beautiful world." The best argument, then, would seem to be that the Christian worldview is internally self-consistent. At that point the Christian would likely vex a non-Christian by suggesting — and best of all, proving even in the midst of suffering and dying — that the same God Who defines love and beauty is worth trusting, because He will bring ultimate good from it all.

One reference: the quotes from Job that The Black Glove often cites.

Looking at that from my point of view, all I can say is "who cares," but maybe I'm becoming dogmatic about lack of purpose. If humans are tools for worshiping God, sure. But then we don't have the freedom to choose him. Calvinist heaven, sure, but makes God look like even more of a jerk.

Oh, how totally true! From the point of view of a faulty, foolish, human we would all say "Who Cares! All I can see now is the present, and I don't like it. I will never acknowledge that someone might know better than me". But if we could see beyond it, from God's view, then "Oh my God - you are amazing". We won't be able to in this life. So we have to trust that there is more than we can see, as the Bible tells us.

He could have declined to create the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but he did so, fully realizing the consequences. He wanted to play a game, to see if he could get lesser beings to worship him without forcing them to do so.

The trouble here is, of course, that you fail to see that in so doing, God is creating something so much grander, more beautiful, and more glorious than before. You cannot have ultimate redemption or ultimate consummation unless there is a fall from the original state of creation.

TBG