Originally Posted by Laureate
Wouldn't you agree that this is an incredibly inefficient way of "being with God"? Besides, aren't you closer to God in Heaven?
I don't know if I would call it "inefficient". creatures on this whole planet get to "evolve" and get better as time goes on, but God's word isn't allowed to change and get better in response to the way people are and what works for them?
In the OT stuff, whether you call them stories, histories, whatever, people kept telling God "we can do it, just give us a chance". None of those people ever stuck to it and actually followed what he asked for any period of time. So God, at some point, decided it was impossible, and took away the burden of action and sacrifice, which would be Jesus' role according to the Bible.
I usually take a Leibnizesque stance on it thinking "well, if he could have done it more 'efficiently', he would have". It's as efficient as possible. As for why and when he decided to do such, I don't know. It's like getting angry at the sky for being blue. It is what it is, and maybe one day we'll be able to understand why its that way. Probably not in the scientific way we've discovered why the sky is blue, but some form of knowledge.
Whether or not the faith is placed correctly, we'll all find out one day. But I will say, I've seen what happens when people actually follow Jesus, or try to mimic him, and its pretty good for people in general, so I can't fault the Bible for that.
I agree that believing in all of it is at least slightly less sensical than other things. But as we've discussed before, simply being bound to rationality isn't a very good reason to trust it, etc etc. but I think I may be part of that .17% you're talking about. or not, since I still don't believe it. I come off as a lot more pro-Christianity on here than IRL.