Thanks for posting!

OMGwhy? is now finished so we're not taking any more questions on the blog.

We will answer the questions we have currently (hopefully all by the end of next week) and if you have any more questions then come and talk with us either by joining in Introducing God (not too late!) and ask your questions with other people or come to God Talks - held every week in the cellar room Tuesdays 1-2pm.

We sincerely hope that the answers we gave helped you unwrap some of the obsticles in understanding who Jesus is and what he did for you.

Hope to see you around on campus,
-Monash Christian Union

Is God omnipotent?

Hi! Kirrily answered this question eariler in the blog as a response to "If you are willing but not able then you are not omnipotent. If you are able but not willing then you are malevolent. If u are both able and willing then whence cometh evil. If u are neither able nor willing then why call u God?" on Tuesday 1st June.

oh my god, why do you go to such great lengths to hide yourself from the world today when you showed yourself so readily in the past? where have the miracles gone? you yourself?

And

Why would God show him to you but not to me? I've asked him too.


First of all I just want to encourage you both as you seek God – it’s really great that you are so keen to know him, and a wonderful place to start to ask him to reveal himself to you.

But I want to ask whether you are asking God to show himself to you on your terms, or on his.

The Bible says that although in the past God spoke to his people in lots of different ways, in this present time he has spoken to us through his Son, Jesus. In other words, Jesus is the final word on how we can know God. Jesus himself said that whoever knows him, knows his Father. [Hebrews 1:1-2; John 14:6-11]

But if you’re like me, you want God to show you a flashing neon sign in the sky, saying “Yes, I do exist!” People wanted the same thing from Jesus – they wanted him to perform a miraculous sign for them. He had been teaching the people, healing the sick, raising the dead and claiming to be God’s Son, and yet they still wanted a sign! But Jesus tells them that he himself is the sign that they are looking for – the miraculous sign God will give them is Jesus’ death and resurrection. [Matthew 12:38-40]

I sympathise with you – I too would like a neon sign sometimes! Although I have been a Christian for a long time, not long ago I went through a period of doubt, where I felt like God was far away and silent. I decided to re-read John’s account of Jesus’ life, because I wanted to investigate again whether I could believe Jesus really lived, died and was raised from the dead. And God did reveal himself to me as I spent time and effort investigating Jesus’ claims.

The way to know God is by getting to know Jesus – and God has provided lots of first-hand information about Jesus in the Bible! You could start with any of the four accounts of Jesus’ life, written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

So I want to keep encouraging you to let God reveal himself to you on his terms – rather than expecting him to speak through an amazing sign, check out the amazing sign he has already provided in Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. As you read, keep asking God to reveal himself to you and he will.

And of course if you want to read the Bible with someone else, I or any of the other CU’ers would be more than happy to read about Jesus together with you! Come along to Introducing God, catch us at God Talks, or email us at contact@monash.cu.org.au!

Answered by Kirrily

Oh my God...do you know what I am going to do before I do it?

Yep, He does. The Bible tells us God is the creator of the universe, and is completely sovereign over it, and this includes time. Here's one example, but there are many:

^{Acts 4:27}Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. ²⁸They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.

- answered by Dan

Does God want me to believe and go to Heaven? If so, why not show me evidence of his existence? Why can't God make it easier for me to believe in him by revealing himself more obviously? (Rather than in a bounded document that was written many many many years ago.)

God certainly wants you to believe and be saved. He pleads with people (often though his messengers) on numerous occasions for them to be saved: Deuteronomy 30:19; Ezekiel 18:32; Mark 1:15; Acts 2:40; 2 Peter 3:9.

I contend he has given us adequate evidence.

I don't deny we would like it to be clearer, but I believe it is sufficient.

Jesus once told a story about a man who died and went to hell, and then begged for somebody to be sent back to warn his family so they didn't make the same mistakes and disbelieve and suffer the same fate. The man's request was refused on the grounds that his family already had enough evidence to make their decision, and seeing someone rise from the dead wouldn't make them change their mind. (Luke 16:19-31)

I think that phenomenon is alive and well. People claim that they would believe if such-and-such happened, but actually, they're more likely to explain away any new evidence they receive.

Rather than asking for more evidence, why not take seriously, and with an open mind, the evidence we do have? We have ancient documents about Jesus which are much more reliable than those about other ancient figures. We have a lot of well-thought-out and well-researched arguments about the evidence. We have claims of God's intervention in the world today. And more. I think there is enough to draw a sensible conclusion.

P.S. It is interesting that there are more reports of visions and other supernatural occurrences in poorer countries, where people are less well educated. Though this could be written off as superstitions of uneducated people, it also makes sense that perhaps God reveals himself in these ways to these people because they don't have access to the resources we have. He provides sufficient evidence for them, but in a different form to the evidence that we have.

Answered by Ben

How do you know God is good and Satan is bad?
and
If Satan hates God, why would he punish us for disobeying God?

Well, the first thing to clear up is the idea that Satan punishes. He doesn't, in fact. Hell is not Satan's realm where he gleefully inflicts pain and suffering on those who disobey God. Hell is where God's right and just punishment is administered to all who deserve it, including Satan. Satan is, in fact, the first to be punished. In pictorial language, God's justice is described in Revelation 20.

Satan is not just God's enemy, but ours, too. He is described as "[our] enemy the devil [who] prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour" (1 Peter 5:8). The best way for him to hurt us is to drag us down with him, to cause us to have the same fate as he will have, by encouraging us to reject God and come under God’s judgement.

Apart from being our enemy, Satan is also just intrinsically evil. He lies and he murders (John 8:44). God, on the other hand, is intrinsically good. He supports life (John 10:10) and love (1 John 4:10). Both these lists could be extended considerably.

If you're questioning why love, life, etc. are good, and why deceit, murder, etc. are bad, check out the other questions on this blog that address morality.

Answered by Ben

was jesus black ?

Well he was from the Palestine area, so it's fairly safe to say he had the same skin colouring as a native from that area. Does his skin coulour really make a difference to his message?

answered by Rosey

Most evidence of gods existance from the bible is written by people who already believe in god. Is it not a circular logic to use evidence for the existance of god that already assumes god exists?

Hi, thanks for the question. I see what you're saying ... let me try to respond.

Let's imagine we want to know the PM Julia Gillard. There would be a number of ways to proceed. We could read newspaper articles about her, watch her on the TV show Q&A, perhaps even speak to a friend of hers from primary school. But the best way for us to know Ms Gillard would be to actually speak with her. However, given her lofty position, it's unlikely we can just rock up to her front door and decide that we'd like to have a chat. Because she's the PM the initiative would need to come from her side. She would have to decide that she wanted to speak to us.

Scale that up an infinite amount and you see the problem we have in knowing if God exists, and what God may be like. There is simply no way for us to discover God, perform an experiment on him, or whatever. If God exists, he has complete freedom whether he will reveal himself to us or not. He could keep us in the dark forever, or (as has happened) he may decide to speak, and reveal himself to us.

In your question I guess you're looking for some "external" evidence that points to God, which doesn't appear in the Bible itself. Such evidence may work for a human being we are investigating, but by his very nature no such evidence will ever suffice for God. He needs to take the initiative and speak to us. He has done so. The collected words of God are now called the Bible. And this is where we need to go for the truth about God - He himself has told us what he is like.

*********

PS: You may be heartened to know that there is external documents written by people who weren't Christians which back up things that we know from the Bible. So there is some "external support" for what the Bible is saying. For example, if we confine ourselves to the writings of Josephus (Jewish scholar ~ AD 80), Tacitus (Roman historian ~ AD 115), and the Talmud (Jewish writing ~ AD 100s), we read that Jesus was a real man, who lived in Palestine, was an influential teacher, apparently had supernatural powers, was killed by crucifixion by Pontius Pilate the Roman governor, was claimed to have been seen alive following his crucifixion, and that people called him "the Christ". All this is supported without opening a Bible, and from authors who were not Christians.

- answered by Dan.

God is said to sacrificed himself, to himself, only then to be raised from the dead, sent to Heaven, where he gets to live for eternity and be God - tell me, how is that a sacrifice at all?!?!

Yep, you’re right. The sacrifices made by God seem to be temporary. As far as we can tell, everything that was given up, he restored in the end. So let’s look into that a bit more.

The word “sacrifice” can be used in different ways, so I want to clarify what you mean first. One concept of sacrifice is that it’s something you give up (usually for a good cause). So if I’ve just done the 40 hour famine, I’ve sacrificed food for the sake of charity. Or if I don’t buy a coffee every day, I’ve sacrificed a luxury in order to save money. I think this is the meaning you are intending – the idea of giving up something valuable.

When you say that God sacrificed himself to himself, you are partly right and partly not. Jesus is God, and he is also an individual, a different person from God the Father (check out Rosey’s answer to “is God a spirit or a being” in earlier posts for more on the Trinity). This differentiation is important because the Father and the Son both gave something up.

God sacrificed his Son; Jesus sacrificed himself. Jesus gave up his place at the Father’s side in heaven to live as a man on earth [Philippians 2]. Jesus also chose to give up his life, to die a humiliating, painful death on the cross [John 10:18].
Another thing that was given up (by both the Father and Jesus) is that intimate relationship between them. This Father and Son have been interrelated since before the beginning of time [John 17:24], and at the cross their relationship was broken. Jesus cried out from the cross “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” [Mark 15:34].

And yet you are right. Jesus was raised to life again. He returned to the Father’s side in heaven. The relationship between Father and Son was restored. And Jesus is King over all creation forever. You are right in asking, has anything really been given up?

I would say that we’re looking at it from a limited (human) perspective. The issue isn’t how long these things were given up for; the issue isn’t whether they were restored in the end. The issue is the size, the magnitude of what was given up, and for whom.

We can’t really know the depth of what went on at the cross. We can’t know the full effect of Jesus losing his life, losing his relationship with his Father, in that instant. We can know from Jesus’ words on the cross that it was painful, devastating, not just physically but spiritually. Something significant enough in magnitude that all the wrongdoing and sin of all humanity was punished in that one moment, and the full force of it borne by one person.

For us.

"For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God." (1 Peter 3:18a)

Answered by Ben & Kirrily

Lets talk morals! Do you think people get their morals from God and the Bible? Are the innate, a product of your time, society and culture, or something you have decided for yourself?

Christians certainly don't believe morality is relative. Rather, we believe God gives objectivity to morality. He has the right to give moral commands, and the right to judge us by the morality of our actions. Many philosophers, Christian and atheist alike, agree that morality has no objectivity without some kind of god. Christians sometimes argue further, that objective moral values are observable in the world (i.e. many moral values are the same across cultures), and this therefore suggests God exists.

There are some relative aspects to God's commands, though. The Law, or Torah, in the Bible, contains a number of different commands. Traditionally these are taken in three categories. The moral commands are considered to be always applicable (even before they were given); these are commands such as not murdering and so on. However, the judicial commands ('case law', such as how to treat slaves and so on) and ceremonial commands ('religious rites', such as worship and sacrifices, and ceremonially clean foods) are considered to be relevant to a particular time and place. Furthermore, that time and place is believed to have passed, for the laws were part of an old agreement ('covenant', 'testament') between God and his people. Jesus fulfilled all these commands, and ushered in a new agreement between people and God. (Mark 7:18-19, John 4:19-26, Colossians 2:13-17, Hebrews 8:6-13)

It is a challenge for all people to use their brains and consciences (which Christians believe come from God, to some extent) to take what we innately know, and what God has revealed, and apply and extend it in our own time and place. This doesn't define morality, though. Rather, our efforts will be judged by God against his objective standard. (2 Corinthians 5:10)

Answered by Ben

You say God created us to love and worship him...that that is our purpose in life....doesn't that just make him an arrogant, self-absorbed, self-obsessed sycophant using us to get his ego boost? How can you respect some one/thing like that?

I'm sorry to say it, dear questioner, but your question captures exactly what is wrong with this world. This is the heart of the problem. I'm sorry to point the finger in your direction - but don't worry, I do it too, in fact we all do. The idea of "God" we have in our mind is far, far too small. We see this God seeking his own glory, asking - no, demanding! - that we worship him, and we think "what an arrogant, self-absorbed, so-and-so".

And if we were talking about a human being, we'd be exactly right. We'd be right to say "Who do they think they are?"

But we're dealing with God now. Not a made-up god. But actual God. He not only claims that he is the most awe-inspiring, wonderful, gracious, magnificent, mighty and majestic person in existence. He actually is. So when it comes to giving him all glory, all honour, all respect, all worship, ... giving him our entire lives ... this is utterly appropriate. What other way could it be? If God wasn't deserving of all our praise and worship, what kind of a God would he be? A pretty poor one.

And so we are to delight in God, and to spend our whole lives living to bring him glory and honour. This is what we were made to do. (And, I might add, it also happens to bring us the most fulfilled and happy life we could ever dream of.) And God Himself also delights in Himself, and spends eternity seeking his own glory and honour. This is not inappropriate egoism. This is thoroughly appropriate. What else is there for God to glory in? ... Us!? LOL! That would be for him to commit idolatry, worshipping something less than himself. No, he does what is good and right. He does the same thing that we all must do. He seeks the glory of God.

- answered by Dan.

Check out this talk John Piper gave called "Is Jesus an Egomaniac?" given at the start of the year...

John Piper - Passion 2010 Main Session Talk - "Is Jesus An Egomaniac?" from Jacob Marlowe on Vimeo.

Do you KNOW a god exists? If so, how? WHY do you believe in God?

Thanks -- these are excellent questions. If I read rightly, I think these are questions that many of us ask ourselves, or others (directly, or indirectly) at some time in our lives.

I guess, at heart, these questions prompt us to ask, how do we 'KNOW' anything at all?

Let me give you some examples. In mathematics, we are able to 'prove' something since we use the laws of logic to show how some initial set of (unchallenged) assumptions must imply a certain outcome. This procedure is called a 'proof'.

Do 'proofs' exist in any other science, or field of knowledge? No. A 'proof' only makes sense within the restricted laws of logic of Mathematical deduction.

So what other types of 'knowing' are there? In courtrooms, the law requires different 'burdens of proof'. It could be 'the balance of probabilities' (which is quite weak), or 'beyond reasonable doubt' (which is somewhat stronger).

In life, we are actually making claims to knowing things all the time, but we often don't think about it. For example, when I walk along the street, I believe that the ground beneath me will not suddenly disappear. When I vote for a party in the Federal Elections coming up this weekend, I will believe that one party is better at governing than another. Or closer to home, when I married my wife almost eight years ago, I made commitments to her and she to me, and now each day, we each believe that we will be faithful to each other. Or alternatively, when I do science in my work, I put together evidence (in my case, economic data), I build models of the part of the economy under question, and I try to show that my belief that my model fits the data well is justified.

In any of these cases, have I 'proved' that my beliefs are true? No. Proof is just not available to me outside of deductive logic. But am I convinced of my beliefs? Yes. On what basis? It depends on the question at hand. Like courts of law, my own 'burden of proof' depends on the seriousness of the question, or the size of the consequences of my answer. For instance, I don't do experiments to determine whether my wife will be faithful, rather, I consider her character and have come to hold a deep trust in her love for me. In this case, it is the trustworthiness of the person that builds my belief.

So what of a 'belief in God'? Or how do I 'know' that God exists? You are asking me why I hold the world-view that I do. This is a valid question for any of us. Why do you hold your own world-view?

Here's what I look for in my world-view: 1) That it make sense of the world that I live in (otherwise it would be a pretty useless world-view!); 2) That it be internally coherent and consistent (because I think things should 'make sense'); and 3) (if possible) that I can verify it by some kind of evidenced-based analysis (because I'm that kind of guy).

I can't and won't speak for any other religion, but in Christianity, I find 'yes' to all three of these questions. Let me share with you why from the bottom to the top.

Christianity is externally verifiable

The central claim of Christianity is that Jesus lived in ancient Palestine, died on a cross at around the age of 30 and rose to life three days after, and crucially, that these events were foretold, planned and purposed by a loving God who sought to bring us back into right relationship with him, despite our rebellion. A prominent historian, John Dickson, has said of these events that unlike any other major religion, it is as if 'Christianity has put its head on the chopping block of history and invited anyone to take a swing'. What he's saying is that all of this happened in human recorded history. The books are open, so to speak -- anyone (you and I included) can investigate, test, reflect and come to some conclusion on the historicity of Jesus. No other major religion offers this test.

Internal Coherency and Consistency

Second, Christianity points to a God of order. In the Bible, we find a God whose character of faithfulness is consistent, whose plan for the world is unchanging, and whose will cannot be stopped. Unfortunately, many people characterise the Bible as having 'two gods', claiming that there is an Old Testament 'god' and a New Testament 'god'. This would be a challenge to coherency and consistency. However, after much reflection and time in the Scriptures, I cannot agree with them. Instead, I see a purposeful, holy, just and merciful God dealing with a rebellious mankind through both 'testaments'. I feel that this 'two gods' hypothesis is a misunderstanding. There are plenty of other answers on this blog that speak to this point, and I encourage you to consider them.

Making sense of the world in which I live

Finally, Christianity makes sense of my world. Life, death, sickness, pain, suffering, joy, wisdom and knowledge, nature, true spirituality, my own failings, relationships, abstract nouns (Justice, Love, Truth) ... the list goes on. All of these are given a satisfactory explanation in the Bible. Furthermore, as I live my life (now married, now with an 8 month old daughter), work as a scientist, teach younger students, enjoy past-times, gather with my church, make mistakes, hurt people and am hurt myself, rejoice at births, birthdays, weddings and milestones ... The gospel of Jesus, and the Biblical account keep on giving a wholistic worldview that makes sense of all of this complex life.

So, in short, that is why I believe in the God of the Bible, the God who visited our soil, lived in our history, and who's desire is for us to reach out to him and know him.

... answered Dr Simon Angus

WHY do you believe in God?

People believe in God for many different reasons. Here are some that I know of:

• They see the difference God has made in others' lives and are convinced God is real and loving.
• They read the Bible and are amazed by the Jesus they discover, and want to follow him.
• They investigate the historical evidence for Jesus, especially concerning his resurrection, and conclude that he is who he claimed, and thus should be followed.
• They see how prophecies from centuries before are fulfilled by Jesus Christ, and how this affirms him and his message.
• They experience some kind of answered prayer.
• They have some kind of spiritual experience.
• They see a vision from God.
• They hear an audible voice from God.
• They are simply brought up to believe and see no reason to change.

For many people it will be a mixture of these, and perhaps others!

For me personally, I was brought up to believe, but later went through a time of doubt which gradually ended as I had some spiritual experiences I didn't feel I could deny. Since then I have also become convinced there are adequate historical and philosophical reasons to believe in Jesus.

It might make an interesting poll - chat to Christians you know (or come and survey us at God Talks!) and find out what led them to believe in God! Might also be interesting to ask some non-Christian friends what has led them NOT to believe in God!

You could try the Introducing God course on Tuesday nights, 5-7 Menzies East Wing room 353 for a good cross-section of opinions and some robust discussion!

Answered by Ben

Will Jesus love me even though I'm gay?

Jesus already loves you "even though you're gay" and he loves me even though I'm a self-centered, comfort craving, all to ready to run headlong into rebellion against authority (although I don't like to admit it!). Jesus' love is not dependant on what I do (thank God!) but he loves us anyway. Talk about undeserved!

To follow Christ (be a Christian) does mean change though. This can be seen in the bible most pointedly in the changes of his twelve closest disciples. They started out as fishermen, tax collectors, and religious Zealots. (what a bunch!) These men were shaped by being in the presence of Jesus and listening to his words. They couldn't help but be changed as they started to apply his teachings and with his authority started to "drive out evil spirits, heal every disease and sickness" (Matthew chapter 10 verse 1) Speed forward till after Jesus' death and resurrection these once cowardly men (Mark chapter 14 verses 16-72) stand up and address the very court that convicted Jesus to die and accused them of murder! (Acts chapter 4 verses 1-22) This was made possible because of the Holy Spirit (the spirit of God) coming to live in their bodies just a few days earlier. We too have this promise of being 'sealed by God' with His Holy Spirit when we become followers of Jesus. We are being made more and more like him.

The implication is that continuing to live in a life that is not pleasing to God is not an option. To follow Jesus means his mission comes first, everything else comes a far distant second. That it is a joy to serve and happily hand over our desires to see Jesus come back, judge the nations and live with him forever - taking as many people with us as possible! This was the attitude of the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians from gaol,

"Now I want you to know, brothers, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel. As a result, it has become clear throughout the whole palace guard and to everyone else that I am in chains for Christ. Because of my chains, most of the brothers in the Lord have been encouraged to speak the word of God more courageously and fearlessly." Philippians 1:12-14

I would like to make it plain here that people who have same sex tendencies can indeed follow follow Jesus and be full and active participants in His kingdom work. The difference is that like those who are not in a biblically defined marriage, (single heterosexuals) they choose to be celibate for the sake of following Christ and honoring his plans. Having outlined to those listening that a man and woman are married for life and divorce is not an option the disciples responded that it was better then not to get married (and a few of them were!).

Jesus replied to them, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven." [emphasis added] Matthew chapter 19 verses 11-12.

Sexual expression is not the be all and end all. There is a life yet to come and it's going to be far better than this one now (despite how awesome it can be here!)

So the summary of all that discussion is: yes Jesus loves you, enough to die for you. To follow him it will cost you practicing homosexual relationships. (see "is God queerphobic" questions on this blog for further explanation) but you can live a full life and look forward to the riches of heaven in the next one! Check out Revelation 22 to see what heaven will be like!


We really hope you made it to the OMGwhy "queerphobia" talk which really unpacked a lot on this topic. Please check out the rest of the blog as there are other questions on homosexuality.

answered by Rosey.

Why is this god better than Allah?

Good question. In a world of many religions, why should you believe in one instead of another? But it would be a mistake to not look into them seriously and try to understand each belief system on its merits, especially when it comes to the two largest religions, Christianity and Islam, which together cover over half the population of the world.

Christianity and Islam both teach many similar things about God (or Allah): that he is the Creator, the Sustainer, he is all-knowing, all-powerful etc. But it is important to understand that there are fundamental differences between the view of God in the Qur’an and the Bible. I’ll mention three related aspects in particular and briefly summarise why I believe that the Christian understanding of God is greater:

1. God as Trinity

Both Christianity and Islam teach monotheism, that there is only one God. Christianity goes further and says that in the one God, there are three persons: Father, Son and Spirit. Muslims argue that this is not pure monotheism and that the Trinity is illogical (1+1+1=3 etc.) Christians agree that this is not simple to understand, but we shouldn’t expect God to be simple, and it would be foolish reject truths about God just because we don’t immediately understand them.

The Trinity (three persons/one God) is no less logical than saying:

- a triangle has three sides yet is only one triangle,

- that 1x1x1 still equals 1,

- or that a ray of white light contains many colours (though these analogies have their flaws).

The beauty of this teaching about the Trinity in the Bible is that at the heart of ultimate reality is Love: the Father loving the Son, the Son loving the Father etc. In one of Jesus’ great prayers he says: ‘Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.’ (John 17:24). Both Muslims and Christians believe that God is self-sufficient (he doesn’t need anything), the Trinity shows us that God didn’t need to create a universe to express his love, he is loving within himself.

2. God become man

Because of the Trinity, it is possible for God to become a man in the person of Jesus. The great thing about this (the Incarnation) is that it is possible to relate to God and know him personally. He is not a distant transcendent deity but a God who draws near to us in times of need. It also dignifies our human nature: we are not so distant from God that he cannot dwell amongst us, and also points to the future hope of paradise with humanity living with God forever. Muslims argue against the Incarnation, saying that it is improper for God to be limited in any way by human nature: eating, drinking, tiredness etc. is not fitting for God Almighty. Christians agree that such teaching is shocking but we affirm that, though it is a profound mystery, nothing is impossible for God. Muslims believe that God is so great that he cannot become man. Christians believe that God is so great that he can become man.

3. God as Saviour

Because God can become man, it is possible for him to be our Saviour. The Bible is clear that humanity is incapable of earning forgiveness by ourselves. Without God intervening, Paradise would be empty. But the great message of the Bible is that God came down to earth and achieved victory and forgiveness for us through Jesus’ death and resurrection. Because he was God, his sacrifice was infinitely valuable and effective; because he was man, he was a fitting substitute and representative for us. The idea of God working actively to rescue humanity is absent from Islam, but is foundational to Judaism and Christianity. God in the Bible is more than merely a Master, but he will be praised as a loving Saviour throughout eternity.

God - Are there any elements of today's Church that you don't agree with or would change? Has anything you said or intended become 'skewed' since you last visited Earth all those centuries ago?

Dear questioner,
Your question was answered Tues 17th @ 1-2pm in the cellar room. Sorry for the late notice and hope you made it. In case you didn't (or for other readers), here's the gist of what I said...

It's a hard question to try and answer, because it really is addressed to God - and the last thing I want to do is put words in his mouth! But there are a couple of things that can be said with confidence.

First, the possibility of going off-track and skewing God's message is a real one. We know this because when Jesus came to earth the first time he really got stuck into the religious leaders of the time. He rebuked them because they had twisted and skewed God's message in the Old Testament. (For example, the wonderful day of rest and worship called the Sabbath had been turned into a legalistic day of judging people if they "worked" by walking too far or even helped people who needed assistance.) So we need to be aware of the danger today as Christians that it is possible to get things wrong and skew God's message.

Second, then, we want to make sure we stick as close to God's word as possible, and constantly go back there to make sure we're reading things in context, and not majoring on topics the Bible thinks is unimportant, nor neglecting the topics the Bible seems really interested in. This is one reason why we take the reading and study of the Bible so seriously at Christian Union. We don't want to assume we've got it all right with no room for improvement. We don't want to blindly follow the traditions of a particular denomination or a pope or other church leader, without checking out what they're saying. Instead, we try to go back to God's Word again and again, to minimise the chance of skewing God's intentions.

As for actually naming things which are off-track today ... some I think are fairly clear. Groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Mormons have obviously departed from biblical Christianity. Yet they continue to tell people that they're Christian, which I think is pretty misleading. I'm sure there are others as well. If you'd like to talk more about this, get in touch with us at Christian Union.

- answered by Dan.

What denomination is the 'right' denomination?

Hehe, thanks for the question.

I don't think there's such a thing as a "right" denomination; and most Christians would say the same thing. Perhaps it's a little like asking "What bank is the "right" bank?"

The differences between denominations are pretty minor, and do not touch any of the main teachings of Christianity. Anglicans, Baptists, and Presbyterians (just to take 3 examples) all agree that Jesus came to earth as a human being, lived a perfect life full of love and compassion, died on the cross in order to save people from their sins, and rose to life again on the third day so we have the hope of life beyond the grave. The differences they do have are quite peripheral (exactly how baptisms should be performed, and how the local church should be governed). That is why Christian Union is non-denominational, we don't think it's such a big deal.

When groups or churches do have fundamental differences on the centrals Christian beliefs we cease calling them denominations and instead might refer to them as a sect, because the differences have become so major it's clear we're not talking about mainstream Christianity anymore. Hope that helps.

- answered by Dan.

Why do you believe despite a total lack of evidence?

You’re asking the right sort of question.

How can we believe anything? How do you know that this website isn’t a figment of your imagination?

As I’m sure you probably already know empiricism (the belief that knowledge is gained through sensory experience; observing, hypothesising, testing) has become the dominant “epistemological” (theory of knowledge) category in contemporary society. Empiricism is good! It is useful in helping us understand how the world works. It has its limitations, however. An experiment conducted in the empirical method is meant to be open to challenge. The history of science is full of examples of theories that have been overturned.

How do we derive meaning about ourselves? Where we fit in? What has gone on before? How can infer where life might lead us? Enter from stage-left the historical method, which (again in a nutshell) involves the use of various source material to help us understand what happened in the past and what meaning we can derive from it.

Biblical Christianity affirms that God’s supreme revelation of Himself has been by He Himself coming to the world, in history, in human form through Jesus.

Using the historical method we need to examine the evidence for the existence for Jesus. I encourage you to explore The Centre for Public Christianity, which provides a good overview of this issue historical evidence for Jesus. In a nutshell, there is very strong evidence for Jesus’ existence on the criteria of multiple attestation from people who were both hostile to and supportive of Jesus’ claims to divinity and reports of his miracles. It is important to remember we cannot possibly expect to have the same quantity of material about Jesus that we have for contemporary figures. We have to use the standards of ancient historical research to investigate the life of Jesus; a man who lived in antiquity. We know a great deal about other contemporary and earlier figures in history (like the Caesars) based on far fewer manuscript copies of documents about their lives and other historical sources (such as those gathered from archaeological excavations). If you are going to doubt Jesus’ existence on the basis of not having enough source material you will have to doubt the existence of every human being and every society we know about before him (and a great deal after him too). The Centre for Public Christianity have articles and presentations exploring these issues in more depth.

Then there are the specific claims of Jesus: that he was divine. How can we expect to see miraculous and supernatural events as historical? The crux of the issue is the resurrection. If Jesus did in fact rise from the dead it proves that he was who he claimed to be, the truth of the resurrection validates his miracles and his claims, including that he was the promised Messiah and that the events in the Old Testament were true. How persuasive is the historical evidence for the resurrection? In broad terms there is (i) the credibility of the Gospel accounts (given that they were recorded close enough after the crucifixion and reported resurrection to have been invented (ii) the number of manuscript copies available of the Gospels and New Testament letters within a relatively short time span of the events taking place by the standards of ancient history, (iii) the historical events surrounding the resurrection; the empty tomb, the number of and variety of witnesses to the resurrection, the implausibility of a hallucination hypothesis.

I could expand on all those topics, but I encourage you to explore the Centre for Public Christianity and the website of the Christian philosopher William Lane Craig if you are genuinely interested in exploring for yourself. You are also more than welcome to come to our Introducing God course that explores the claims of Jesus, and where there is opportunity to explore these issues further.

To finish up, I would say the evidence for the Christian faith is rationally persuasive and that there is no plausible explanation for the events of 2000 years ago at Calvary consistent with the New Testament record being false. You can always, however, choose to deny anything. You need to at least be open to the possibility of a God out there and that if he does exist that he will work through his Holy Spirit (which Jesus promised in history) to make himself clear to you as you read his Word (Romans 10:17) then read the New Testament. There is a book in the New Testament called Hebrews which describes. Christian faith as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see”. The opposite of faith is not reason or evidence; it is sight. Faith in the Bible always connotes trust and dependence. Christians trust that even though they cannot see Jesus physically now, he was God in human form who came as was prophesied, who lived, who died and rose again in history and that he is therefore coming back as he said he would.

answered by Alex

What if you're wrong??

I guess this question is aimed at Christians, right? "What if you - convinced Christian person - are wrong??"

Fair question. Let's run with it.

What if I'm wrong? Well, I'd be pretty devastated to be honest. It would mean that I've put my trust in a God who isn't there, and put my hope in a Jesus who (it turns out) didn't die for my sins after all. In addition, it would mean I'm expending a lot of energy for a cause which is pointless ... starting with this blog entry! It would also mean that Christians around the world are facing persecution and even death for a belief which is ultimately empty. In fact, Paul makes this very point in the Bible, see 1 Corinthians 15:16-19. He says that if we're wrong, we should be pitied more than anyone.

But, to be balanced, let's turn the question around. What if you - my dear atheist or agnostic on campus - are wrong?

Well, it means you will live your life by guesswork when clear answers were actually available. You will have missed out on the deepest and most satisfying relationship that was offered you: the one with your Maker. The deep questions like "Why am I here?", or the desperate pleas "If only I could start over!" will seem to have no answer ... when in fact God guides us and is in the business of fresh starts. And at the end of your life you will face an existence cut off from God and cut off from all the good things of God (food, friendship, family, etc). It's pretty serious.

That is why we encourage everyone to examine these questions while they have time at uni. Life will be too busy once we're working full-time or starting a family. These things are too important to get wrong. And far too important to say "oh, I couldn't be bothered". Our Introducing God course (see advert on this page) is all about checking these things out for yourself. It's a no-pressure look at Jesus, where you can ask any question - sceptics welcome! At least then, whether you decide to be a Christian or not, you'll be able to say with integrity "I've examined the evidence myself, and this is what I concluded ..."

- answered by Dan.

Is believing in God a requirement to get into Heaven? Would I be sent to Heaven or Hell if I lived my life in perfect accordance to Christian doctrine, but didn't believe in the existence of God?

That's a great question ... I guess at heart, you are asking the question that many of us ask, "Is my life good enough for God?" (let alone 'perfect'). (I'll come back to 'perfect according to Christian doctrine' ... bear with me!)

Get ready for a surprising answer ...

The key here, of course, is what is the 'perfect life'? Outside of God, it is actually very difficult to know what is the 'perfect life'. Philosophers have wrestled with this question for thousands of years. However, without an external, objective, standard of perfection, I'm afraid us humans are left with our own definitions or conventions of what is 'good' and 'right' and 'true' about life. Our track record of such answers is pretty poor -- consider the terrible regimes of Stalin, Pol Pot or the great famine under Chairman Mao. Of course, after the fact, the vast majority of us humans recognise these events to be completely terrible and abhorrent, but sadly, during these regimes, there were many people who agreed that things were happening under the banner of 'right living' or 'the good'. And of course, the international human rights movement is wonderful as it seeks to protect and cherish each and every individual. I pray that it continues to be what humans think of as the minimum standard of 'good treatment' when it comes to our fellow human beings. But then again, what will tomorrow bring??

Thankfully, God has revealed himself to us in the person Jesus, and through his word, the Bible. And God has a right to declare what is 'right' and 'true' and 'good' in our lives, doesn't he? If he did really create the world and us, then shouldn't the maker know precisely what is good for us? So in answer to the last bit of the question, acknowledging the real and living God is the first step to understanding the 'perfect life'.

Unfortunately, the consistent message of the Bible is that we can never actually live such a 'perfect life'. By nature and choice (e.g. Romans 3:10ff, or Luke 11:13) we choose not to live the way that God created us to live. Essentially, like a rebellious son to a father, we keep not doing the things that God desires and wishes for us to do, even though he gives us this standard of living because he knows it is good for us.

... That's all except for one man. In any of the four accounts of Jesus of Nazareth's life, we find a compelling and astonishing person. Jesus is presented as the one man in all history who has lived a truly 'perfect' life. A life in full obedience to the Creator, God, even until death.

And here's where 'Christian doctrine' comes in. Christine doctrine is called 'Christian' because it is all about following the 'Christ', that is, the king, or anointed one. It is the Bible's claim that Jesus is this man. The amazing message of the first followers of Jesus, was that we don't need to have lived a 'perfect' life to find relationship with God and have the hope of heaven. Because Jesus did live this perfect life of obedience, died on the cross in our place, and rose to new life, conquering death, we can be counted 'perfect' in him. This has nothing to do with our own imperfect lives, but everything to do with the perfect life of Jesus.

And that is wonderful news! It means that we can come to God just as we are. There is no rebellion that is not forgiven in Jesus. Even the worse forms of human behaviour and evil. When a person turns from their own way, to come back to God, they are accepted on account of Jesus' life, not their own. They are forgiven their rebellion because of Jesus' obedience. The central message of Christianity is that Christians are not perfect people, they are a saved people. And their salvation does not depend on themselves, their own morality, their own history or lifestyles, rather, it depends on a rock-solid foundation of the one perfect life in all of history, Jesus.

So in the end, living 'perfectly by Christian doctrine' simply means accepting Jesus as your Lord and savior. Since in him, we indeed are 'perfect'!

Romans 5:8-11 says "God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11 More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation."

... answered by Dr Simon Angus

View follow-up comments

Do you think people NEED to believe in something like god?

Yes! ... because he is living and active, and desires relationship with us, and has sent his son Jesus to die in our place that we might have life, and the hope of heaven in him. Indeed, whether we believe in him or not, he exists and desires relationship with each and everyone one of us.

... But I suspect that this was not quite what you were asking. I think you might have been asking, 'Do you think that people *need* to believe in something like god SO THAT they feel whole/complete/alive/normal/loved? Or put another way, that we can *explain* a person's belief in God as simply them using God as a 'crutch' to help them get through life which most of us would agree can be a pretty difficult and trying experience. Or sharpening it even more, 'do people believe in things like 'god' simply to help them get through life' .. Here, God is something like an imaginary friend that many young children have, who brings joy and fun to their play, but is after all, imaginary.

It is impossible to speak for every one -- it may be that there are many people who believe in a god like this. But this is not Christianity. For Christians, there is a real, live, majestic person we call God. Indeed, this God defines for the universe by his word and his character what is good, right and true. And it is because of this, that this God is not 'safe' like our imaginary friend might have been. Far from it, before this God, we are who we are. We are our essential selves. Our failings, our contradictions, our inner-most thoughts and feelings are laid bare to this God. He looks at our inner self. And here we all have a problem. Because we do not wish to acknowledge God as God, because we do not live right and good lives all the time as he would desire for us, in short, because we rebel against him, in justice, we stand before this God as people in the wrong.

So the God of the Bible is really not a God that you want to conjure up just to feel better about life. Far from it, you'd want an easy going god, one who overlooks injustice, selfishness, and all kinds of evil. In short, you'd want an imaginary friend.

But I'm thankful that the real and living god doesn't leave it here. No way, Christians praise God because despite the way we have treated him, God shows his great love for us by taking our wrongs on himself in the god-man Jesus. In Jesus we have a just God who does what we could never do ourselves .. forgiving us and healing the broken relationship with him.

Of the major religions, Christianity is unique since its central claim is that God visited our earth, walked the dusty streets of Palestine, cried real tears, died a real death, and was raised to real life again. All of this left behind witnesses, written accounts and lives remarkably turned around. It is all open to investigation, and we'd encourage you to have a look with us at the evidence and claims of this real and living god. Indeed, the Bible teaches that God would like nothing better than for each of us to come back to him. He's waiting.

... answered by Dr Simon Angus

What denominations of Christianity are predominant in the Christian Union?


It's hard to be absolutely sure because it's a non-denominational group.

The criteria for being part of the group is that people believe that: Jesus lived, died and was resurrected for our sin. Obviously there are some implications in this very short statement. Eg Jesus is God, sin is declaring autonomy from God, Jesus' death brings us to God by substituting for us.

Having said that: I personally know members who attend Baptist, Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, Brethren, Charismatic and Independent churches. I guess you could say were represent a pretty broad range of people. We also have people who come every week and don't attend church but are investigating Christian faith.

Check out the Introducing God page on this blog if you are also interested in investigating who Jesus is.

Answered by Karen

Why are priests not allowed to marry? Wouldn't having a wife and children enable priests to relate better to families in their community?

Hi, thanks for the question.

To be honest, I couldn't agree more. You may not be aware, but different church groups have different opinions on this one. Roman Catholics, in particular, believe that their priests must remain celibate (ie not marry). Most other (Protestant) denominations have no problem with their leaders being married or single. (For example, I attend a Baptist church, and our pastor is married with three kids.)

Why the different opinions then? Well, it depends on where your ultimate authority lies. We believe that the ultimate authority for a Christian is God's Word, the Bible. It's clear that human beings (Christian or not) make all kinds of mistakes. So rather than rely on church councils, traditions, popes, etc, which have all contradicted each other over time, the Bible is the place to go.

What then does the Bible say on the matter of priests marrying? Answer: it actually expects that many church leaders will be married (see Titus 1:5-9), and is quite concerned about anyone who might tell people that marrying is somehow wrong (see 1 Timothy 4:1-3). Hope that helps.

- answered by Dan.

Why not allow women to become priests?

Hi, some church groups do...

but check out our answer on "why the gender imbalance in church hierarchies?" (which was one of the first questions we answered so you may need to look at 'older posts') for a bigger picture of the issue.

Who/what created God?
Short answer: Nothing.
Anticipated follow-up question: How is that possible?

Well, brace yourself...this could make you dizzy! It has that kind of effect on me! It's time to delve into Philosophy.

Ordinarily, we think of creation as an action. At some point in time an object didn't exist, then someone or something acts to cause that object to come into being—they create it.

This often works great, but when we consider deeper things of the universe, we run into problems. For instance, the prevailing scientific theory about the origin of the universe is the Big Bang Theory. It holds that both space and time came into being at a point known as the Big Bang. Since time itself begins here, there is no concept of a time before the Big Bang, so there can be no action in the sense above that caused the Big Bang, created the universe.

However, there may be some kind of realm in which there is no time at all: things that simply exist, regardless of whether or not time (and space) exist. We could view these things as also existing at all points in time (and space).

We can also think of causation differently. For instance, two things may cause each other with neither preceding the other. Consider a balanced see-saw. The person on the left is causing the person on the right to remain suspended. Simultaneously, the person on the right is causing the person on the left to remain suspended. These things cause each other, but neither necessarily occurred first, so we need no concept of time to explain this.

However, even without ordering in time, we can have logical ordering. Say there's some fundamental law that all cats are arrogant, and consider two facts: Felix is a cat, and Felix is arrogant. In this case, we could say that Felix' cat-ness causes his arrogance. On the other hand, his arrogance doesn't cause him to be a cat (and indeed, an arrogant crow would not be a cat). So, logically, one thing precedes and causes another (and not the other way around), but again, without any need for a concept of time.

Now, does time itself need a cause? The Big Bang as well as Special and General Relativity suggest that it does, for it seems time is not unchanging, or even necessarily existent. So does Mathematics, which suggests an infinite sequence of events or causes is impossible, and thus that the universe had some kind of beginning. Whatever causes time must be outside of time, and must logically precede time (for something inside time could not cause something outside time, existing at all points in time).

A further argument can be made that whatever causes time must be personal—some kind of agent. For without some kind of will, there would be no reason for something timeless to cause time. If the timeless cause of time were merely some law of nature, as long as the law of nature existed (which it always would, being outside of time), time would also exist, and therefore time itself would be timeless – obviously this is an impossibility!

(By the way, this timeless cause must also exist apart from space, so must be non-physical. Science, firmly rooted in the physical world, cannot necessarily discover it.)

Christians believe this timeless personal non-physical cause of time is God. The Bible speaks of God creating everything, and promotes a view of God that is so big that he is indeed beyond time and space—he is unchanging and somehow present in all places (Hebrews 1:10-12, Psalm 139).

Now, back to the question! How can God be uncreated? Well, a cause is only necessary for things inside time (and for time itself, but we already covered that). Only inside time is there a change between non-existent and existent necessitating some action of creation. Outside of time, we may have a logical cause, or simultaneous causes, but we don't need any cause, so it is perfectly logical for God to be uncaused, uncreated.

For a different presentation of some of this reasoning, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aebOVjgmZJM


Answered by Ben

OMG Please explain...




and


It seems to me that the reasoning of the video clips boils down to this: If Christianity is true and the Bible is reliable, then God is a monster (he is immoral, violent, unjust).

This reasoning is false because if Christianity is true and the Bible is reliable, then God is moral, loving and just. The Bible says this directly in many places, for instance Deuteronomy 32:3-4, Psalm 103 and 1 John 4:7-10.

The presenters' actual argument is more along the lines of: If the events recorded in the Bible can be taken at face value, and God exists, but the rest of Christianity is false and we judge by our own morality, then God is a monster. This may be logical enough, but it does nothing to oppose Christianity or the Christian God, as it attacks a straw man.

Behind their accusation, though, is a big and important question, and one Christians have wrestled with through the centuries. How can these events that are seemingly so immoral be performed or condoned by God if he has the character the Bible claims?

Books have been written about this kind of thing. Let me just raise a few issues for thought and consideration.

How sure are we that these stories can be taken at face value without careful consideration of the context?

For instance, when the Israelites drove out the Canaanites in their conquest of the promised land, God made it clear the killing, although performed by the Israelites, and partly resulting in them gaining land, was due to the wickedness of those they were driving out (Deuteronomy 9:4-5).

Another example is Lot. We do not know that Lot was really considered 'good' by God. We know that there were less than 10 'good' people in Sodom before it was destroyed, and that Lot and two daughters were 'mercifully' saved. But that's about it. With a bit of careful reading and thought, it seems that Lot was influenced by the evil around him in Sodom, and for that reason suggested his daughters sleep with the city's men (who actually wanted to rape his male guests). God was merciful in spite of Lot's not being entirely good. Lot's daughters were also influenced by the evil around them, so they later got their father drunk and slept with him (this is not entirely Lot's fault!). (Genesis 18-19.) Perhaps these and other stories need more than a cursory reading before judging them.

Why call God unjust for these episodes of killing, yet not for the way he kills many people through old age? (That old age death is due to God is established in Genesis 3:22.)

Part of Christianity is accepting that God is the one with authority to give and take life. This follows logically from the fact that he is the creator.

Part of Christianity is accepting that God is just, and that we cannot fully understand his ways. (Ecclesiastes 11:5)

God makes it clear repeatedly that he does not grant his favour and life because people deserve it. (Deuteronomy 9:6, Ephesians 2:8-9)

In what sense does anyone 'deserve' life, since life is a gift from God? Furthermore, isn't it fair that sin (any 'wrongdoing' that opposes God and his will) should trigger revocation of that gift? And isn't it true that everybody sins? (Romans 3:23, 6:23)

God understands the magnitude of death, for he himself died, on the cross. Isn’t it ultimately merciful of God to allow us to live at all – since we don't deserve life in the first place, but because of sin, we deserve death? Isn't it particularly loving of him to allow us life, when it cost him so dearly? (Romans 5:6-8)

The Bible raises the concept of eternal life, which continues after our physical death. Is our perspective too limited when we are so focused on the removal of physical life?

answered by Ben

View follow-up comments

OMG...you say you gave us free will...the right to choose how we live and what we do during our life time....and yet you threaten us with eternal and ever-lasting punishment? really? tell me, if I were to say to you 'do this thing, this exact way, or I will burn you alive'...am I really giving you a choice?

Thank you for your thoughtful question: let me begin by suspecting that such a question has (and still does) undoubtedly baffle theologians and philosophers alike. I can but offer my simple 2 cents on it.

It seems that by 'free will' God lets us choose between two paths: the path he intends, and the path he does not. Let us call the former the ‘good path’ and the latter, the ‘bad’.

I would have to say that God does not punish us directly for choosing the bad path – rather it is the punishment is the very nature of the bad path itself. The bad/wrong path is itself a punishment. Why is it punishing? Because it is wrong/bad. Therefore it is a tautology (circular definition). In the bible the wrong path is often depicted as ‘the way of the world’. Therefore the right and wrong path can be characterised as choosing between the way of God versus the way of the world. For example:

“1 John 2:15-17 : Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passes away, and the lust thereof: but he that does the will of God abides forever. “

Therefore hell or everlasting punishment is a choice that the individual makes. At this point you will ask “but why would anyone choose the path of punishment, let alone everlasting punishment? Is God trying to trick us into choosing the wrong path by making it so attractive?”

When we choose the world instead of God’s ways, we are saying we are content (if not happy) with what the world offers, and therefore we don’t need God. This choice in itself IS in some sense, the punishment, because we’ve accepted the world we live in as it is, with all the suffering, problems and pain in it and we are quite content to let it lead the way. Therefore many describe hell or eternal damnation as separation from God, which is the eternal punishment. It is not simply a consequence of the choice, but rather, is the very thing we choose. For example, being involved in a divorce causes great anguish and suffering by the nature of the choice itself – there is no need for a third party to come in and ‘punish’ one of the parties. Similarly, choosing the path that is not God’s is itself the punishment. Of course from the perspective of the punished, it may not look too much like punishment.

I guess the choice that God lays forward to us is are we content and happy with what the world offers – though it does offer much joy, would we let it lead you and guide us for eternity in all its unjustness, pain and suffering? God tells us there is a better way. This is far from a definite answer, but I hope it has at least deepened the thought process.


answered by Aaron.

Do you believe that I deserve to go to hell for rejecting God?

and

OMG why praise someone/thing that would torture you eternally for not loving them?

Thanks for the questions. They are vitally important ones.

Both questions contain the idea that there is some form of injustice in God that is shown explicitly in the existence of Hell. This is, of course, only a problem if we think that God is supposed to be just or loving. And yet the source of all these ideas is the bible. Heaven, Hell, Love Justice are all clearly described in the bible. And in the bible it is very clear that God is both loving and just.

For some strange reason we think we can choose one idea, and reject the other. We think we can have the God of love who cares for us and is intimately concerned about our world without having the God of justice who says that the way we treat Him, others, ourselves and the world must have consequences. This God of justice and love says that we should be in relationship with him. He says that we need to come to him so that he can pay the fine for declaring autonomy from Him.

So God is not being unfair in any way when he says we all deserve hell. The Bible says: For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; (Romans 3.23). We clearly do not deserve to be let off. We all reject God, hurt others, hurt ourselves and damage our world. And what's more we are unable to compensate God in any way.

The only way that we can be in a relationship with God is if he takes the initiative, if he reaches out to us. And he does- he chooses to pay for our rejection and sin Himself. Jesus dying on the cross is that payment.

You see the passage above For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; continues: they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, (Romans 3.23-24)

It is saying that the only way we can be justified is through a gift from God.


Therefore we can accept that we have stuffed up and welcome the gift of Jesus death for us or we can choose to refuse that gift. But in choosing to reject, we accept that we spend eternity without God. He will allow you that choice. He isn't making you chose that.

...answered by Karen

How old is the Earth?

and

Are theistic evolutionists compromisers?

The short answer is, 'No'. ... But that needs a bit of explanation since this question assumes a fair bit of background!


First, for the benefit of all, let's understand the question. I presume 'evolution' here is meant to refer to 'Darwinian evolution': a scientific theory that suggests that the variety in life forms we see today (and is apparently reflected in the paleontological record) is the result of modification by 'natural' selection. Importantly, since helpful mutations (changes to the DNA of life-forms that increase reproductive success) arrive so infrequently, the theory suggests that many many (thousands of) years would be needed to produce the kind of diverse life-forms (including us) we see today from the kind of basic mineral and chemical constituents thought to make up primitive Earth.


So what is 'theistic evolution', then? 'Theism' is the belief that God is alive and well, and that He is not only the Creator of the world (see Genesis 1) but he is also in direct and active control of the entire universe. It is the perspective that is strongly upheld by Jesus (e.g. check out Matthew 6:25-34) and the rest of Scripture.


Putting them together now, 'theistic evolution' is the belief that God is Creator and active sustainer of the universe, and importantly, the way that he brought you and me into the world, and any other life form, for that matter, is through his direct, active, and intentional use of modification by 'theistic' selection. To square with the Biblical account, the Christian 'theistic evolutionist' also must believe that the first man (let's call him Adam) was formed as a special, unique and precious life-form at a particular moment in time. This is consistent with scientists who accept a range of 'ape-man' or 'man-ape' (hominid) life-forms existed as contemporaries to the arrival of the very first human like us (homo sapien), who exhibited majestic abilities of thought, sociality and problem-solving not evident in the other non-human contemporaries. Mind you, there are plenty of scientists who are also 'theists' or even Christians (e.g. Simon Conway Morris).


Now we can address the question ... why would 'theistic evolution' be a 'cop-out'? Well, theistic evolution is only one perspective held amongst Christians on how God made all living things. There are many alternatives! One prominent perspective (probably on the mind of the questioner) is that of the so-called 'creationist' camp. Here, a literal interpretation of the Genesis account (see Genesis 1:1-27) is understood: after three days of creative activity God began making plants, then animals, and finally, the pinnacle of his creative activities, mankind (on the sixth day). For creationists, God made the world in six literal days, not over thousands of years as in the theistic evolution camp.


So why isn't 'theistic evolution' a cop-out? For two reasons. First, there are sincere, faithful, prayerful and gospel-minded people who have come to be convinced of each perspective. And they are still Christian. That is, being Christian means believing in Jesus Christ as Lord. Must you also believe one particular perspective of how God created the world? No. There are examples of both.


Why do I think there is freedom here? Because we must always ask 'What did the writer intend in this text (in Genesis)?' There are several elements that are rock-solid in our reading: God created the world out of nothing by his word, God made all living things, God made mankind alone with a special nature (in God's 'image') and purpose (to steward the creation) and in close and perfect relationship with Him. Why are these non-negotiable? Because the rest of Scripture interprets Genesis time and again like this, resting on these truths. But the actual *method* of creation? We are just not told in detail, and it does not seem important to the writer, or to God. If the method of Creation were important for us to know, God would have been more explicit as he caused Scripture to be written. So whilst there is evidence for both perspectives inside and outside of the Bible, the answer is a matter of personal conviction within the Christian family.


You might also be interested to read this article on the interaction between science and christianity: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/schaefer/docs/scientists.html


... posted by Dr Simon Angus

I was raped repeatedly as an 8yr old...why?

To whomever you are, we are shocked that you were violated in such a brutal manner. We will answer your question on the blog but if you would like to speak with us in person then we would love to see you cared for and listened to. Our concern for you is great and our God is both our creator and healer spiritually, mentally and physically.

For now, I hold onto this passage and this is the hope in what is to come that those who follow Jesus have.

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."
He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" Then he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true." Revelation chapter 21 verses 1-5

Anonymous said...
You didn't answer my question....Why did this happen to me? Why would God *allow* this to happen to me? What did I do to deserve it?

I haven't weighed into this discussion until now because I couldn't work out how to show the depth of compassion I wanted to in this medium. There is no way to communicate via a blog how appalled and saddened I am by what was done to you. Please contact us( or me, Karen) to talk.

Having said that, your questions are very real. I will attempt to answer.

Why did this happen to me? The simple reason is that it was pure evil. The person who did it was an abuser of the worst kind, and there is no explanation that can explain it away. In a world where right and wrong seem to be reduced to personal decisions, God says clearly in the Bible that there are things that are WRONG! This is one of them.

What's more if the perpetrator 'gets away with it' God will still call them to justice. The idea of a judgement day is firmly established in the Bible.

"While God has overlooked the times of human ignorance, now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will have the world judged in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” Acts Chapter 17 Verses 30-31

Why would God 'allow' this to happen to me? I genuinely don't know. Except this: God allows evil to happen because when the time comes to finish all evil, that will be the end of time. It will be the end because each one of us has wronged other people, God, ourselves and even the world. And so the judging of all evil will be the judgement of us all. That doesn't explain why this specific thing happened to you. I am sorry there's not a clearer answer.

What did I do to deserve it? This question breaks my heart- YOU DID NOTHING THAT DESERVES THIS. THIS WAS AN EVIL ACT.

Jesus says: “If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea'. Matthew chapter 18 verse 6

That sounds appropriate to me.

PLease contact me. Karen





View follow-up comments

Dear God, what did Judas do that was so wrong?

The big ones: Embezzlment and betrayal.

Embezzlment: John chapter 12 verses 4-6 records, "But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, "Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages." He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it."

Betrayal: Consider that the teachings of Jesus threatened the authority of the religious leaders of the day, and that the accounts of Jesus' life say that in many places they were trying to kill him eg. "Then he said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus." Matthew chapter 12 verses 13-14 It was from their stand point a political move to remove Jesus from the picture. Matthew 26:14-16 further records, "Then one of the Twelve—the one called Judas Iscariot—went to the chief priests and asked, "What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you?" So they counted out for him thirty silver coins. From then on Judas watched for an opportunity to hand him over." (different sources of the same account are in Luke 22 and Mark 14)

So Judas stole money and deliberately, for profit, sold Jesus out to the priests (who from the build up of the accounts weren't planning to throw him a party...) then he goes and lies about it to Jesus' face!

"Jesus replied, "The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."
Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, "Surely not I, Rabbi?"
Jesus answered, "Yes, it is you." "Matthew chapter 26 verses 23-25

And to establish that it was indeed a crime, Judas confirms his own guilt by first confessing with his own lips, "I have sinned...for I have betrayed innocent blood." (Matthew 27:4) and then committed suicide. (verse 5)

...answered by Rosey

PS. just interested... what made you think he was innocent of a crime?

View follow-up comments

What's more important: follow the Lord or not disappoint your body?

Following Jesus is definitely the most important! But are they mutually exclusive? Does following Jesus mean you must disappoint your body? Yes and no!

First the “yes” part. There is a cost to following Jesus, and it does involve giving up some self-satisfying habits. In chapters 5 & 6 of Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus outlines how his followers are to live differently from the world around them: loving others, being generous to the needy, seeking to please God rather than people. He talks about living differently in a fairly extreme way!

Anything that causes you to sin (in other words, to not live according to God’s way) needs to be dealt with – in Jesus’ words, it needs to be “gouged out”! The things that Jesus uses as examples here are lust, adultery, ungenerosity, hypocrisy, greed and people-pleasing (for a start!). Some of these things probably seem to satisfy your body, but you need to get rid of them if you are a follower of Jesus. The consequences of continuing in sin are also extreme – better to get rid of sin than to be thrown into hell!

(I am NOT saying that you can get rid of these things from your life yourself and so earn your way into God’s good books – you can only be right with God by trusting in Jesus’ death for you on the cross, and any changes in your lifestyle come as a result of you and God working on it together!)

Jesus goes on to say that God will provide for the needs of the body – not necessarily the wants. We don’t need to spend all our energy worrying about food, drink and clothing, because God will make sure we have what we need. But followers of Jesus should spend their energy on “seeking God’s kingdom and his righteousness”. In other words, spend energy on the things of God, not the things of the body.

Now we come to the “no” part. Following Jesus ultimately leads not to the disappointment of your body, but to its perfect satisfaction. Jesus said he had come so that we could “have life, and have it to the full”. [John 10:10] Looking at Jesus’ outline of how his followers are to live differently, living his way is actually better and more enjoyable than the way the rest of the world lives! And in the life to come, we look forward to a new creation where our bodies will be fully satisfied in Jesus – the way they were meant to be. [Revelation 21:1-5]

Your body was made for something better than what’s on offer in this imperfect world, so ultimately living to please your body will be unsatisfying. But living to please God by faithfully following Jesus will result in you having life to the full, both now and in the life to come.

Answered by Kirrily