1. Each of those souls also has the free will to choose its final destination. God must have felt that the risk that a soul would choose damnation was worth its having free will. The Bible is clear that Hell was created for the fallen angels, not for humanity, but humanity can choose to go there by rejecting God. "Shall not the judge of the whole earth do right?"

2. If the Bible is mostly a man-made work, how do we even know that the quotes of Jesus are accurately portrayed? Either the Bible is divinely inspired, and completely trustworthy, or it is completely unreliable as a spiritual guide.

3. God is not mocked, and He is the best judge of the sincerity of "11th hour prayers." Ho...

1. Each of those souls also has the free will to choose its final destination. God must have felt that the risk that a soul would choose damnation was worth its having free will. The Bible is clear that Hell was created for the fallen angels, not for humanity, but humanity can choose to go there by rejecting God. "Shall not the judge of the whole earth do right?"

2. If the Bible is mostly a man-made work, how do we even know that the quotes of Jesus are accurately portrayed? Either the Bible is divinely inspired, and completely trustworthy, or it is completely unreliable as a spiritual guide.

3. God is not mocked, and He is the best judge of the sincerity of "11th hour prayers." However, it seems likely that 11th hour prayers will be prayed mostly out of fear of punishment, and not out of true repentance.

4. As a history major, one of the first things I was taught is that history is not objective. Humans simply do not have the ability to verify every truth claim that is presented to them. Does this mean all those claims are false? No. The Bible is clear that faith is a key element of salvation. "For by grace are ye saved through faith..." Not through reason, or by believing obvious truths.

5. Perhaps signs and wonders are all around us, and we're just too blind to see them. Or perhaps God doesn't feel like giving circus performances to prove Himself when He has given us His written word.

6. God is love, but He also hates sin. He hates it now just like He did then, but right now He is "storing up wrath" for the day of judgment. Perhaps He showed more mercy to the wicked in the past by annihilating them so they could not commit even more wickedness. Again, "shall not the judge of the whole earth do right?" Life is not fair, and God does not deal with us all in the same manner.

7. Jesus came to earth to live a perfect life as a man. There are some things that are not appropriate for men to do, but nothing is forbidden to the God who owns everything. Jesus set us an example of how a perfect man would live and act.

8. You can pardon a murderer, but if he does not accept your pardon, and continues to kill innocents, then your pardon has done nothing for him and means nothing. An old catechism says, "in Adam's fall, we sinned all." The Bible does not exactly tell us how that works, but it makes it plain that all human beings are sinners. Repentance, or turning away from that sin, is necessary for salvation. Salvation is a gift, but it cannot be forced down any...

7. Jesus came to earth to live a perfect life as a man. There are some things that are not appropriate for men to do, but nothing is forbidden to the God who owns everything. Jesus set us an example of how a perfect man would live and act.

8. You can pardon a murderer, but if he does not accept your pardon, and continues to kill innocents, then your pardon has done nothing for him and means nothing. An old catechism says, "in Adam's fall, we sinned all." The Bible does not exactly tell us how that works, but it makes it plain that all human beings are sinners. Repentance, or turning away from that sin, is necessary for salvation. Salvation is a gift, but it cannot be forced down anyone's throats without compromising their free will. And God will not do that.

I was lost on number 1.

1. Each of those souls also has the free will to choose its final destination.

False. Which destination did this child choose?

What information did it have to make an informed choice about a belief that would send it to hell or to heaven?

The question...

1. Why would an omniscient God create billions of souls, knowing full well the vast majority of them would burn in Hell for eternity?

...contains the answer that an all knowing god ALREADY knows even WHICH souls would go to heaven before he makes them.

This fact of logic (supposing omniscience) denies the existence of free will. Th...

I was lost on number 1.

1. Each of those souls also has the free will to choose its final destination.

False. Which destination did this child choose?

What information did it have to make an informed choice about a belief that would send it to hell or to heaven?

The question...

1. Why would an omniscient God create billions of souls, knowing full well the vast majority of them would burn in Hell for eternity?

...contains the answer that an all knowing god ALREADY knows even WHICH souls would go to heaven before he makes them.

This fact of logic (supposing omniscience) denies the existence of free will. The question, containing the given "knowing full well the vast majority of them would burn in Hell" indicates not a loving, just being...

...but the extreme opposite. Could a devil devise a plan as evil as this -- to create souls for the express purpose of making them suffer for eternity?

God must have felt that the risk that a soul would choose damnation was worth its having free will.

Free will denied. But supposing god is NOT omni present or knowledgeable, and that we DO have free will..

In what way can we actually know of these alternatives? God is invisible to our senses! This means anything anyone has ever said about god is arguably false. Otherwise god could simply tell us himself. Duh.

The Bible is clear that Hell was created for the fallen angels, not for humanity, but humanity can choose to go there by rejecting God.

This begs the question: "How?" In all of existence, there is no place an omnipresent being is not. So, exactly how does one actually do that? (Closing the eyes, making random sounds with the mouth, while covering and uncovering the ears real fast?)

To suppose the god of the bible, is to suppose an ignorant tyrant as a god. Does that seem right? Then why reference the bible at all? It is clearly the word of ancient s

jstates1, I was with you right up to Answer No. 6. This is not the
picture I have of God. I believe sin hurts Him, but I do not think He
is "saving up wrath". Remember, after He annihilated the wicked, he
made a covenant with Noah that he would not do that again. He has been
clear that on Judgement Day the evil shall be punished, but I ask you:
if your child has done wrong, doesn't it hurt you to punish him, even
if you know you are doing the right thing? I am sure that on that day,
God will be close to tears, but He will do what He has to do. Not
angry, but hurt. Seriously hurt.

Jaycer17, maybe you should go and read the Bible, especially Revalation instead of relying on peop...

jstates1, I was with you right up to Answer No. 6. This is not the
picture I have of God. I believe sin hurts Him, but I do not think He
is "saving up wrath". Remember, after He annihilated the wicked, he
made a covenant with Noah that he would not do that again. He has been
clear that on Judgement Day the evil shall be punished, but I ask you:
if your child has done wrong, doesn't it hurt you to punish him, even
if you know you are doing the right thing? I am sure that on that day,
God will be close to tears, but He will do what He has to do. Not
angry, but hurt. Seriously hurt.

Jaycer17, maybe you should go and read the Bible, especially Revalation instead of relying on people who claim to be Christians.
God, of course, will be hurt (He sent His own Son just to save the people born into a sinful world; doesn't that prove He'll care/cares?), but He has righteous anger (illustrated in the life of Jesus when He overturned the sellers' tables in the temple) which He'll pour out onto the people who totally refused Him & His grace.. By the end of times, everyone will have heard the Gospel so they'll have no excuse.

Perhaps I owe an apology. Though I attacked no one (except referring to the ancient writers of the bible as superstitious) it appears that at least two others feel that I did.

It may also be that I referred to the god of the bible as an ignorant tyrant, indistinguishable from that of a devil. (An interesting challenge, isn't it?)

But for those that believe this being exists, I can understand why you'd wish to defend him.

And you are right. I should respect that you have these beliefs, and can be offended by reason that undermines the validity of those beliefs.

To you, I owe a greater sense of tact. I apologize.

To the person that posed these questions, however, it is clear he is no...

Perhaps I owe an apology. Though I attacked no one (except referring to the ancient writers of the bible as superstitious) it appears that at least two others feel that I did.

It may also be that I referred to the god of the bible as an ignorant tyrant, indistinguishable from that of a devil. (An interesting challenge, isn't it?)

But for those that believe this being exists, I can understand why you'd wish to defend him.

And you are right. I should respect that you have these beliefs, and can be offended by reason that undermines the validity of those beliefs.

To you, I owe a greater sense of tact. I apologize.

To the person that posed these questions, however, it is clear he is no longer satisfied with the "text-book" answers.

I was responding to a text-book answer, pointing out why that answer was disingenuous from the start.

It seems evident the author is in a clash between faith and truth. And what good is a faith that isn't true?

For some here, I must keep in mind that faith is more dear to them than truth. My style of uncovering the truth clearly undermines that faith, and that's why it can appear offensive.

I believe I can do better.

Thanks for pointing it out.

Sincerely,
AcesLucky.

I think it's funny we think we can describe god apart from what we see in ourselves, and we can't see much. Each soul can choose it's destiny, but the destiny is not an objective. There can be an aim, but reaching that aim choices are presented that we must make decisions on, that can steer the course. We will be judged by our own standards. If we can be honest with ourselves, we can see the value in being honest with other people. If we lie to ourselves, we lie to others to maintain an illusion, and can even forget who we are.
Jesus was a man. When asked if he was the son of god, he said "As we are all children of God". When he announced his title it was "Son of Man."
I believe Jesus Always...

I think it's funny we think we can describe god apart from what we see in ourselves, and we can't see much. Each soul can choose it's destiny, but the destiny is not an objective. There can be an aim, but reaching that aim choices are presented that we must make decisions on, that can steer the course. We will be judged by our own standards. If we can be honest with ourselves, we can see the value in being honest with other people. If we lie to ourselves, we lie to others to maintain an illusion, and can even forget who we are.
Jesus was a man. When asked if he was the son of god, he said "As we are all children of God". When he announced his title it was "Son of Man."
I believe Jesus Always had a choice. he suffered the same temptations as everyone else, but chose not to follow them. He was there to point out that the Faith of the Hebrews had become institutionalized to the point where they were playing Charades. Where Pharisees had stopped being representatives of God and used the implied power they had as a means of gathering wealth and gaining prestige. Since we couldn't see god we could never imagine him, but we might if we talked to someone who had. We can't see a picture,because there isn't one, only a description, and action of someone who knew. The crucifixion, was as a result of being falsely accused, and he refused to accept any testimony but the truth, even if it meant they were going to execute him. To show that is the extent to which truth is worth fighting for, since it accompanies freedom.. He didn't have a 'god like' ability to resist capitulation, he made a choice to prove that could be done. Lies can seem a natural, and so necessary part of life, but we don't realize how fundamentally they corrupt our thinking. By not sinning when he died his spirit and soul maintained their integrity not being weighed down by guilt and bitter reflection.
Adam and Eve? Don't blame the fruit, or the snake
Sure they felt guilty.
Then they tried to pass the buck

False. Which destination did this child choose?

Unfortunately, children usually suffer because of others' wickedness. I believe, however, that God gives most children (who, after all, are not always mentally developed enough to make an informed decision) the benefit of the doubt. Christ's death covers all sins, past, present, and future, voluntary and involuntary. Up until a point, children sin involuntarily, because it is part of their nature to do so. At some point, however, they become responsible for their actions, and sin voluntarily. Prior to that point (which many Christians call the "age of accountability"), however, I do not believe God holds children accountabl...

False. Which destination did this child choose?

Unfortunately, children usually suffer because of others' wickedness. I believe, however, that God gives most children (who, after all, are not always mentally developed enough to make an informed decision) the benefit of the doubt. Christ's death covers all sins, past, present, and future, voluntary and involuntary. Up until a point, children sin involuntarily, because it is part of their nature to do so. At some point, however, they become responsible for their actions, and sin voluntarily. Prior to that point (which many Christians call the "age of accountability"), however, I do not believe God holds children accountable for the sins they unknowingly committed. Some people, including perhaps the mentally retarded, may never reach an age where they are fully able to comprehend the concept of sin or accept responsibility for their actions.

This child you mention has suffered horrifically. I don't think it's possible to see a picture like this without wanting to cry. But consider the plight of this child and others like him if there is no God. This incident becomes not a horrible travesty, but just another part of "natural selection," "survival of the fittest," etc. You and I may not like the fact that such things occur, but surely, if there is not God, that is just a matter of our preference. There may be others who love to see such suffering, and in a godless world, that's an equally justifiable position.

Could a devil devise a plan as evil as this?

In a godless world, your use of "evil" ultimately becomes meaningless as well, except to describe things that you or your society don't like. The sense of outrage that you and I feel when we see a child in such a predicament is part of our God-given moral compass.

This fact of logic (supposing omniscience) denies the existence of free will.

The fact that events occur in a sequence we call "time" makes our free will compatible with God's omniscience. Just because God knows what choices we will make before we even do does not mean we are any the less responsible for our choices.

In what way can we actually know of these alternatives? God is
invisible to our senses! This means anything anyone has ever said about
god is arguably false. Otherwise god could simply tell us himself. Duh.

Excellent question. Nature itself is (according to the Bible) sufficient to show that there is a Creator. But as to specifics about Him, we ...

This fact of logic (supposing omniscience) denies the existence of free will.

The fact that events occur in a sequence we call "time" makes our free will compatible with God's omniscience. Just because God knows what choices we will make before we even do does not mean we are any the less responsible for our choices.

In what way can we actually know of these alternatives? God is
invisible to our senses! This means anything anyone has ever said about
god is arguably false. Otherwise god could simply tell us himself. Duh.

Excellent question. Nature itself is (according to the Bible) sufficient to show that there is a Creator. But as to specifics about Him, we need furthur revelation. This is where the Bible comes in. God has indeed told us certain facts about Himself and about the world He created, and those facts are embodied in the Biblical Christian faith.

To suppose the god of the bible, is to suppose an ignorant tyrant as a
god. Does that seem right?

Just because something seems counterintuitive does not mean that it is wrong. Besides, I think if there is free will, as I believe, God is not really a tyrant. He simply lets us choose our eternal destiny. That's what everyone really wants, right? "I am the captain of my fate..."

Then why reference the bible at all? It is
clearly the word of ancient superstitious men.

Though written by about 40 authors over a period of 1500 years about the most controversial subject in the history of the world (religion), the Bible presents a unified message about God, His creation, and our relationship to Him.

The Bible is the number one bestselling book of all time. (The second bestselling book, interestingly, is Pilgrim's Progress, John Bunyan's book about the Christian faith.) The Bible is the most influential book of all time.

If it is simply an interesting work of antiquity, then we ought to study it simply because so many others felt it was significant

I believe, however, that God gives most children (who, after all, are not always mentally developed enough to make an informed decision) the benefit of the doubt.

I would certainly hope that a kind and benevolent god would agree with you.

I do not believe God holds children accountable for the sins they unknowingly committed.

I would certainly hope that a kind and benevolent god would agree with you.

"But consider the plight of this child and others like him if there is no God. This incident becomes not a horrible travesty, but just another part of "natural selection," "survival of the fittest," etc."

I understand where you're coming from. Yo...

I believe, however, that God gives most children (who, after all, are not always mentally developed enough to make an informed decision) the benefit of the doubt.

I would certainly hope that a kind and benevolent god would agree with you.

I do not believe God holds children accountable for the sins they unknowingly committed.

I would certainly hope that a kind and benevolent god would agree with you.

"But consider the plight of this child and others like him if there is no God. This incident becomes not a horrible travesty, but just another part of "natural selection," "survival of the fittest," etc."

I understand where you're coming from. You're wanting the child's life to have value beyond the cold finality of nature. Me too.

But surely, how would this horrible travesty be different if there was no god?

"The sense of outrage that you and I feel when we see a child in such a predicament is part of our God-given moral compass."

That might be true. And if it is, how come our compasses always seem to reflect the social and traditional norms of each culture? (Instead of a universal, common direction every culture agrees with throughout time?)

Clearly our morals are not the same. Eternal punishment, for instance, for not holding a certain belief that can't even be proved?

I honestly can't see how this concept came from a morally kind, benevolent god. How could that which is unjust be moral?

Clearly our morals are not the same.

C.S.Lewis deals with this extensively in his book "The Abolition of Man."

No, the morals of all cultures are not the same. But all cultures have morals. That, in and of itself, is significant. Also, there are certain values that are cross-culture: courage in battle, for one. There has never been a culture that embraced cowardice (or if there was, it certainly wouldn't have lasted long). All cultures (in the words of Lewis) have rules dictating when it is appropriate to take a woman to wife, and no culture allows anyone to take any woman at any time he pleases. You really ought to read Mr. Lewis; much of what people throw (by way of a...

Clearly our morals are not the same.

C.S.Lewis deals with this extensively in his book "The Abolition of Man."

No, the morals of all cultures are not the same. But all cultures have morals. That, in and of itself, is significant. Also, there are certain values that are cross-culture: courage in battle, for one. There has never been a culture that embraced cowardice (or if there was, it certainly wouldn't have lasted long). All cultures (in the words of Lewis) have rules dictating when it is appropriate to take a woman to wife, and no culture allows anyone to take any woman at any time he pleases. You really ought to read Mr. Lewis; much of what people throw (by way of argument) at Christianity he dealt with in books written fifty years ago.

@jstates1

"All cultures (in the words of Lewis) have rules dictating when it is appropriate to take a woman to wife, and no culture allows anyone to take any woman at any time he pleases."

The god of the bible would disagree with you. To cite the passage, however, could be offensive. Research the key words "keep alive for yourselves". And then look into how they can be made wives. (Hint: They get 30 days to grieve.)

There's more. You can TAKE a wife by raping her, if she is not already betrothed. And of course there's slavery.

"But the Bible is the Word of God, we must read and obey it or suffer the eternal damnation of our souls. I'd say that's good reason to re...

read more»

@jstates1

"All cultures (in the words of Lewis) have rules dictating when it is appropriate to take a woman to wife, and no culture allows anyone to take any woman at any time he pleases."

The god of the bible would disagree with you. To cite the passage, however, could be offensive. Research the key words "keep alive for yourselves". And then look into how they can be made wives. (Hint: They get 30 days to grieve.)

There's more. You can TAKE a wife by raping her, if she is not already betrothed. And of course there's slavery.

"But the Bible is the Word of God, we must read and obey it or suffer the eternal damnation of our souls. I'd say that's good reason to reference it."

Ahh, that would head directly into question 2.

@ AcesLucky:

I think you know that I meant God gives children the benefit of the doubt concerning their final spiritual destiny. Unfortunately, the wickedness of human beings has certain negative effects on reality: suffering, pain, death.

I think you're actually letting God off a little easy, here. We are talking about the sovereign God of the entire universe. Since He is sovereign, He has complete control over everything. This means that all of the billions of human beings who have died in the past either were allowed to die by God or were directly killed by Him. Come to think of it, He also allows all the suffering and pain that we see in the world around us. He allowed the Holoca...

@ AcesLucky:

I think you know that I meant God gives children the benefit of the doubt concerning their final spiritual destiny. Unfortunately, the wickedness of human beings has certain negative effects on reality: suffering, pain, death.

I think you're actually letting God off a little easy, here. We are talking about the sovereign God of the entire universe. Since He is sovereign, He has complete control over everything. This means that all of the billions of human beings who have died in the past either were allowed to die by God or were directly killed by Him. Come to think of it, He also allows all the suffering and pain that we see in the world around us. He allowed the Holocaust to occur; He allowed the atom bomb drops on Hiroshima and Nagasaki; He allowed all the wars and famines and plagues that history has known.

So a more relevant question than the one you ask is perhaps, "Why is there death at all?" Or, "Why is there suffering at all?" The blame for that falls squarely on human beings. This is, as someone once said, "a man's world." The world today is what humanity has made it to be. "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the ends thereof are the ways of death." "The wages of sin is death." "For as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for all have sinned."

The entire course of history is God's way of showing us what happens when we get our own way. If you don't like this world, blame humanity. If you believe the Bible, then it is obvious that we people are to blame for our own troubles. If you don't believe the Bible, and don't believe in God, then there's no one else to blame, anyways.

You might try to blame God for giving humankind free will. But consider this; the concept of free will itself implies that whatever outcome was chosen, the chooser is responsible for it.

Let us suppose that there is a man who owns a sporting goods store. He sells a baseball bat to a young man who walks into the store one day. The store owner intends only that the young man use that bat responsibly to playing baseball, for exercise or for pleasure. But the young man is trying to get into a gang, and he chooses to use that bat as a weapon to carry out his initiation killing.

Is the sporting goods store owner morally responsible for the young man's crime? No reasonable person would say h...

You might try to blame God for giving humankind free will. But consider this; the concept of free will itself implies that whatever outcome was chosen, the chooser is responsible for it.

Let us suppose that there is a man who owns a sporting goods store. He sells a baseball bat to a young man who walks into the store one day. The store owner intends only that the young man use that bat responsibly to playing baseball, for exercise or for pleasure. But the young man is trying to get into a gang, and he chooses to use that bat as a weapon to carry out his initiation killing.

Is the sporting goods store owner morally responsible for the young man's crime? No reasonable person would say he was.

God has given us the gift of free will. He desires that we use our free will for good, but there is also the possibility that we will use it for evil. We cannot blame Him for our misuse of His gift.

Perhaps an even more relevant question would be, "Why does God allow anyone at all to live?" And the answer to that is that God "is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." So you, AcesLucky, are alive right now (presumably), and the very energy you use to question God is itself a gift from Him. I hope you find the answers to all your questions, and having found them, that you give God the glory and turn back to Him.

Yes; I've heard it all before, and believed most it all before. But my personal integrity no longer allows me to pretend things that I know cannot be true.

Neither can my character purposely accept a god who can't even keep the morals he supposedly expects of us. Worse, who has kept moralities unacceptable even to us.

I cannot accept that a god needs blood sacrifice, of animal or man, to somehow make things better.

I cannot accept harming the innocent as payment for the guilty. I need not kill my own son in order to forgive you of a crime committed by your ancestors.

I cannot accept a god would need to sacrifice himself to himself to save his own creation from himself.

And I cannot ...

Yes; I've heard it all before, and believed most it all before. But my personal integrity no longer allows me to pretend things that I know cannot be true.

Neither can my character purposely accept a god who can't even keep the morals he supposedly expects of us. Worse, who has kept moralities unacceptable even to us.

I cannot accept that a god needs blood sacrifice, of animal or man, to somehow make things better.

I cannot accept harming the innocent as payment for the guilty. I need not kill my own son in order to forgive you of a crime committed by your ancestors.

I cannot accept a god would need to sacrifice himself to himself to save his own creation from himself.

And I cannot accept an all knowing creator torturing souls for eternity because they didn't believe he existed when all he has to do is SHOW UP.

And I don't mean "pretend" show up like in a story. I mean in REAL LIFE. Just show up! to everyone at once, if necessary, so there can be no possible mistake.

But instead he writes a book in which he claims the stars were made three days AFTER the earth?

If the universe is his creation. Then the universe is his book. Because it is from the universe that we gain REAL knowledge, in physics, chemistry, electronics, all the things about this universe that make us smarter.

But from your book written by man, claiming to be god's word...? What knowledge have we gained that can't be summed by the word "kindness", or by the phrase "treat others the way we would want others to treat us"...?

Or the platinum rule: treat others the way they want to be treated.

jstates1, I understand where you're coming from. But I'd have to lie to myself to stay there. And to "my" god, that would be morally wrong.

@jstates1

We've been talking for a long time. And if you're willing, give me just a few more minutes of your time. I'd like to ask you your opinion about something.

And there's no right or wrong answer about this, it's not about morality or religion or any of that other stuff. It's just your opinion on how to go about solving something.

(And I don't want you to relate this to religion, because I want the answer to come from YOU, not something you've been taught to say, or got from some other source. I want the benefit of your own thoughts about this. Fair enough?)

jstates1, tell me; how would you teach a child, your own daughter for instance, to distinguish t...

@jstates1

We've been talking for a long time. And if you're willing, give me just a few more minutes of your time. I'd like to ask you your opinion about something.

And there's no right or wrong answer about this, it's not about morality or religion or any of that other stuff. It's just your opinion on how to go about solving something.

(And I don't want you to relate this to religion, because I want the answer to come from YOU, not something you've been taught to say, or got from some other source. I want the benefit of your own thoughts about this. Fair enough?)

jstates1, tell me; how would you teach a child, your own daughter for instance, to distinguish the difference between the real from the imaginary?

What would you say to her, or show her, or tell her, to get her to be able to distinguish one from the other? Be specific.

And what would you ask her, or have her do, to confirm that she understands?

I appreciate your response, and I will not comment no matter what. I suspect 10 different people will give ten different answers. I'm just curious how "you" would go about it.

Thanks in advance, jstates1, it's been a pleasure hearing your thoughts.

@ AcesLucky: I must also say it has been a pleasure talking with you.
You seem to have thought these issues out carefully; I think we may
have to part ways agreeing to "respectfully disagree on this issue."

(And I don't want you to relate this to religion, because I want the
answer to come from YOU, not something you've been taught to say, or
got from some other source. I want the benefit of your own thoughts about this. Fair enough?)

To be honest, it may be impossible for me to separate my thoughts concerning this issue from my religious perspective. I have been taught many things, and have studied many for myself, but what I believe becomes part of me. I...

@ AcesLucky: I must also say it has been a pleasure talking with you.
You seem to have thought these issues out carefully; I think we may
have to part ways agreeing to "respectfully disagree on this issue."

(And I don't want you to relate this to religion, because I want the
answer to come from YOU, not something you've been taught to say, or
got from some other source. I want the benefit of your own thoughts about this. Fair enough?)

To be honest, it may be impossible for me to separate my thoughts concerning this issue from my religious perspective. I have been taught many things, and have studied many for myself, but what I believe becomes part of me. I am not, in all honesty, an objective observer in any sense of the word. Perhaps none of us are... What makes this even harder is that I am not married and have no kids, so I haven't ever really thought too much about this before.

That said, I'll try to answer the question.

jstates1, tell me; how would you teach a child, your own daughter for instance, to distinguish the difference between the real from the imaginary?

The difficulty with answering this question is that each and every one of us have a personal worldview that is based primarily on assumptions. The most basic assumption we all make is the understanding that what we are getting through our senses really does represent a real world that is "out there," or separate from us.

And from that assumption, we make even more assumptions, and so on; each assumption allows us to understand and interact with reality more and more, but they also make our conclusions (our worldview) ...

jstates1, tell me; how would you teach a child, your own daughter for instance, to distinguish the difference between the real from the imaginary?

The difficulty with answering this question is that each and every one of us have a personal worldview that is based primarily on assumptions. The most basic assumption we all make is the understanding that what we are getting through our senses really does represent a real world that is "out there," or separate from us.

And from that assumption, we make even more assumptions, and so on; each assumption allows us to understand and interact with reality more and more, but they also make our conclusions (our worldview) more questionable.

Every normal human being would trust their senses, more or less. That is a good place to start with a child; indeed, it is such a good place to start because it is completely instinctive and intuitive, and you don't really need to teach a normal child to trust their senses at all. By default, they will.

Interestingly, part of maturity seems to be the ability to admit that something our senses might be telling us very strongly is actually wrong. Certainly no reasonable person would argue that their senses are reliable all the time. Especially not after a shot or two of "the good stuff," whatever that means.

Many of our assumptions beyond the basic sensual assumption are made on someone else's say-so. It is true that if someone teaches their child that the Bible is true, that the child is more likely to believe it (at least until the teenage years, when kids generally start to question things).

Most parents would therefore teach their children (either directly or indirectly) to examine sources of information before deciding to trust it. We teach them not to talk to strangers, because they cannot vouch for the good character or the good intentions of a stranger.

CTD from above:

At the same time, it is important to teach a child that even the most credible source in the world can *still* be wrong about something.

Teachers, in general, are reliable (at least in the sense that they usually present concensus views), but it is amazing how often my little brother comes home from school telling us about "what Teacher said," and often "what Teacher said" is completely wrong.

Where does that leave us? I guess we've come to what my philosophy prof. would have called a "healthy skepticism." But because we have based what we "know" on so many assumptions, if we hold to a pure, unbiased, objective skepticism we will end up not believing or claiming to know ...

CTD from above:

At the same time, it is important to teach a child that even the most credible source in the world can *still* be wrong about something.

Teachers, in general, are reliable (at least in the sense that they usually present concensus views), but it is amazing how often my little brother comes home from school telling us about "what Teacher said," and often "what Teacher said" is completely wrong.

Where does that leave us? I guess we've come to what my philosophy prof. would have called a "healthy skepticism." But because we have based what we "know" on so many assumptions, if we hold to a pure, unbiased, objective skepticism we will end up not believing or claiming to know anything at all. I will point out that since no one is an objective observer (everyone has a stake in reality), a pure, unbiased, objective skepticism is probably an impossibility. We all employ skepticism on some level, but rarely do we turn it upon our dearest hopes and beliefs and conclusions.

But an objective skepticism gets us exactly nowhere. So reasonable people tend to believe what they feel are the most reasonable conclusions. And since each of us inherently feels that we are reasonable (and thus that anyone whose opinions do not fit ours is not reasonable), our judgments on reasonability are subjective and subject to question.

It seems that we are now stuck on free will as the defining factor in what we believe reality consists of.

And how can we define reality? Most of us would agree that the natural world is reality. Some of us say there is a supernatural. But how can one determine if there is a supernatural or not? The supernatural is outside of nature, and thus is not subject to empirical inspection. It cannot be felt, or tasted, or smelt, or seen. The only way we can experience the supernatural (I'm afraid I'm back at religion, aren't I?) is through its effects on the natural (if it has any). How do we recognize the effects of a supernatural on the na

Again, the answer to that is highly subjective.

The best I can come up with is what C. S. Lewis concludes:

If the supernatural is part of reality, then we ought to have a sense of what ought to be. Not necessarily of what is, but a sense of how things should be.

And that is how C. S. Lewis starts his book.

I'm afraid that doesn't even answer the question tolerably well.

The best I can come up with (as I have said above) is that we:

(1) Assume our senses reflect reality *to some degree.* However, our senses can be easily fooled, and cannot be trusted.

(2) Verify sources of information. However, sources of information are not always reliable, and there seem to be more bad sources t...

Again, the answer to that is highly subjective.

The best I can come up with is what C. S. Lewis concludes:

If the supernatural is part of reality, then we ought to have a sense of what ought to be. Not necessarily of what is, but a sense of how things should be.

And that is how C. S. Lewis starts his book.

I'm afraid that doesn't even answer the question tolerably well.

The best I can come up with (as I have said above) is that we:

(1) Assume our senses reflect reality *to some degree.* However, our senses can be easily fooled, and cannot be trusted.

(2) Verify sources of information. However, sources of information are not always reliable, and there seem to be more bad sources than good ones around these days.

I personally will teach my children (if God chooses to bless me with a family) what I believe is true. That means I will teach them the Bible. You might say that religion is an awful thing to teach a child who is not old enough to make a decision about religion. But a child is a vacuum, and if you do not teach them what you believe to be true, someone else gladly will.

When my children are old enough to realize that I am just another infallible human being, they will be old enough to begin to make up their own minds about things. I can only pray that they follow truth.

My own parents are both Christians, and raised me in a Christian home. As a child, I believed without question. As a teenager, I doubted, despaired, experimented, investigated. After about eight years of turmoil and searching, I am now more fully convinced that the Bible is true than I ever was as a child. And now I have reasons why I believe.

Have I been brainwashed? Perhaps. But if you say yes to that question, you must also seriously consider whether or not you have been brainwashed yourself, whether through what your parents taught you, or through what they didn't. Through what you have experienced, or through what you haven't.

Who can say but God?

AcesLucky, I found your question interesting, so decided to answer it for myself. Unfortunately it is a loaded question.

I would explain to my very young daughter that "REAL" is something you can see, hear and feel. And "IMAGINARY" is when you pretend to see, hear or feel something that isn't really there.

It's a loaded question because there are things that are REAL that you can't see, hear or feel with your own, unassisted natural senses. Like infrared light or low level radiation or argon gas or the planet/moon Pluto. Before we had tools to measure or examine these things, did they not exist? Of course they did.

But I doubt my daughter is going to wrap her head around these abstr...

AcesLucky, I found your question interesting, so decided to answer it for myself. Unfortunately it is a loaded question.

I would explain to my very young daughter that "REAL" is something you can see, hear and feel. And "IMAGINARY" is when you pretend to see, hear or feel something that isn't really there.

It's a loaded question because there are things that are REAL that you can't see, hear or feel with your own, unassisted natural senses. Like infrared light or low level radiation or argon gas or the planet/moon Pluto. Before we had tools to measure or examine these things, did they not exist? Of course they did.

But I doubt my daughter is going to wrap her head around these abstract ideas... so that's why I would simply state that "REAL" is what you can see, hear and feel. "IMAGINARY" is when you pretend.

If she then asked if God was "REAL" I would answer yes, because I can see signs that he is "REAL" in the world around me... just like I can see footprints in the snow and know that a "REAL" person walked by making those prints... even though we don't see them at the moment.

The specific example I would use to explain REAL and IMAGINARY...

I would ask my daughter to take an imaginary journey with me, having her sit side-by-side with me in a chair as I describe our adventure.

I would speak about the magical train ride we were taking through a lush forest loud with the sound of chirping birds and the rustling of leaves in the Autumn wind. I would describe the way the sun pierces the veiled canopy of pine needles, seeming to dance in flickers and flashes of light on the dusty dirt floor.

At the end of our journey I would ask her if we "REALLY" took a train ride, or were we always in her pink room sitting in two plastic chairs. I would explain that while we were in "REALITY" sitting in her room, we "IMAGINED" a wonderful journey through a forest.

So how would I explain God (whom you can't directly touch, see or hear) as being "REAL?"