Response to Part 1: Stoves and Stuff

Another long post. I think I'll break it up, as you did your comments. Again, I'll just respond to what you have said.

“I will do my very best to be as sensitive to your belief structure as I can.” --> It is much appreciated.



“Without this sacrifice we supposedly would go to hell. This makes it a requirement from a supposedly all-loving God who requires a sacrifice to forgive. If He was truly all-loving, he would not need to have a blood sacrifice. And on top of this, He supposedly made the rules.” --> Yes, without sacrifice, there would be no way for us to progress. But where does it say God made that rule? “Doth God pervert judgment or doth the Almighty pervert justice?” (Job 8:3). No, he does not. As I said in my last post, I think God, like the rest of us, works around the natural laws of a universe in which choices and consequences are two sides of the same coin. In other words, he created this plan in order to satisfy justice. He came up with a plan that would make it possible for as many of his children as possible to learn how to make their own choices without having to suffer eternal consequences when they make the wrong ones. Seen in that light, the death of Jesus Christ was the most merciful act...ever.


“...many Christians feel you need the Bible to be moral.” --> That’s bologna, in my opinion, even if you equate morals with ethics. I mean, you can go to a completely isolated society with zero Bible background and find families loving each other, friends sticking together, and bullies being punished. Of course, you seem to be of the same opinion, so I don’t need to worry about this anyway. I’m glad we agree on something. :)

“By admitting that morals do not come from the Bible, it takes that off the table... except as a study of how ancient man perceived the world.” --> Well, not necessarily. If the Bible, as far as it is correctly translated, is true, it is far more valuable to us than other books (philosophy, history, etc...), which are true only as far as their authors understood.



“The flaw in this scenario is that the stove is real and can be proven. God can't." --> God’s not the oven, so it doesn’t really matter whether or not we can prove whether the oven is real. Before you say Bobby can prove Mommy’s real, let me change the scenario a bit. Let’s say Bobby comes down one morning and finds a note by the stove that says, “Don’t touch this stove, or you’ll get burned.” Now Bobby can’t prove whether it was written by a calculating sibling or a loving parent, or whether it was written last week or a couple minutes ago. It’s just -- there.

“The parent also didn't make the rules. They were already present and they are just informing the parent what the unavoidable outcome would be if they touch the hot stove. On the other hand, God created the stove with the knowledge that millions of children would touch it and burn themselves because he didn't provide any proof of his existence. Very sloppy work on Gods part and shows that He either isn't omniscient or is just inept.” --> I guess where I differ is that I don’t think God made the oven. He just happens to know what will happen if someone touches it. So to rephrase your objection the way I believe it: The mom didn’t make the rules. She was already present and, because she loved her kid, she told him the unavoidable outcome of touching the stove. But even in this scenario, the mom knew there was a chance the kid could touch the stove. In the same way, God did not choose the consequence of sin. He just knew it was one of the natural laws of the universe that sins are tied to eternal consequences. But he loved his children too much to keep them from learning to make responsible choices. Therefore, he has granted them bodies and sent them to earth to learn how to make choices. But, because he loves them, he warns them of the consequences of sin in the hope that they will listen to him and not make stupid decisions.

“God created the stove with the knowledge that millions of children would touch it and burn themselves” --> First, I don’t think God created the stove. But also, of course he knew that millions of children would touch it and burn themselves! Even in the scenario above, the mother knows Bobby might just touch the stove. She hopes he won’t, but she knows he might. That doesn’t mean she’s going to chain him in a corner so that he can’t touch it. If she did that, he’d never learn to trust her or to make good decisions. In the same way, God told Adam that he was not to eat of one of the trees in Eden, yet he allowed Adam the chance to choose because he valued Adam’s agency more than anything else.

“...with the knowledge that millions of children would touch it and burn themselves because he didn't provide any proof of his existence.” --> It’s true, even were I the best lawyer on the planet, I could never provide enough proof of God’s existence to convince everyone in the world that God exists. But even if I could, what difference would it make? In my mini-parable, even if Bobby’s mom were right there, standing next to him, telling him that he should not touch the stove, there is still a very real possibility that he would touch it. In the same way, even though there are warnings on cigarette packs, people still smoke. Even though there are speed limit postings, people still speed, even when they are in no hurry. Even though parents tell their children to do their best in school, students still skip classes and fail classes. And there are consequences for all those actions.