Introduction
With all the injustice & suffering in this world I never used to believe that a God of love could possibly exist as some people insisted. Surely, a God of love couldn’t allow such things to occur! But, of course, I still hoped that somehow I was wrong. How wonderful it would be if, somehow, there was a loving God somewhere. But I wanted to know for sure, so I decided to examine the subject more seriously, hoping I could find an answer, one way or the other. I decided that if an unloving God existed, that would be no better than no God at all, so I concentrated on the possible existence of a God of love. I expected to prove by logical reasoning that a God of love couldn’t exist. After all, if a God exists, He (or She!) was obviously doing nothing to stop all the terrible things happening in the world, so if I could simply show that there could not be any loving excuse for this lack of action, that would be enough to prove that He could not be a God of love.
However, after thinking about the subject very deeply, in a desperately unbiased manner for many years, I eventually realised to my surprise that I may have been too quick to dismiss the possibility of a God of love.
The Meaning Of Life
Have you ever wondered about the meaning of life? Where did we all come from? Why are we here? Did we get here just by evolution, or could we have been created by a God of some kind? Could a God really exist? What sort of God would abandon us here like this? Could there really be a God of love? What about reincarnation; is it a plausible theory? Do we just die when our lives on earth are over, or could we live forever some how? Could we really be immortal?!
Immortality is the natural desire of mankind, but if no God exists, what chance of everlasting life can there be? Even if tomorrow a cure for every disease including old age were to be discovered, allowing us to live for unimaginable lengths of time, it would still be inevitable that sooner or later each of us would meet with a fatal accident. If left to chance, accidents will eventually happen. Understandably then, many people believe that their only hope for an everlasting life is the existence of a loving God to care for them. However, after witnessing the violence and cruelty so abundant in this world, is it any surprise that so many people ask in frustration, “What kind of God would allow such terrible things to occur? How could there possibly be a God of Love who cares for us?”
Although many religions have tried to answer the above questions, their explanations have been both illogical and contradictory. Here we will examine the questions in a deeply logical and critical manner, and although the conclusion may surprise the atheist and shock the believer, it will be nevertheless undeniable. Never before, have such fundamental questions been given such clear, unbiased and reasoned answers. Of course, there will always be those with closed minds who will continue to deny the undeniable, but it is not the intention of this article to “convert” anyone who already has a firm belief. Rather, it is aimed at those with open, enquiring minds who have found traditional religions unbelievable, and simply wonder if a sensible answer to the above questions really exists. The explanation presented here should not be seen as an attempt to start a new religion, although some religions seem to have less sensible foundations; instead it should be regarded simply as a logical, commonsense possibility.
God Of Love / God Of Hate
If you are prepared to accept that God may be a spiteful being, or even a God of hate, then the number of possible logical theories to explain our existence here on Earth becomes endless. For example, it may be possible that every religion in the world, although conflicting with each other, might all be, in fact, the true word of God. He may have invented them all just for the sick ‘pleasure’ of watching us all fight each other over religious differences; and He may have produced natural disasters just to watch us suffer even more! This is only part of just one of a large number of logical theories which would easily explain our existence here on Earth, if a God of hate exists.
But if a God of love exists, then there are countless cruel things that He just could not possibly do, because His behaviour would have to follow a loving pattern. So, by examining every possible move He could make, in a deeply logical way, it should be possible to discover whether a God of love could really exist, given the conditions we find here on Earth. But, with all the terrible things that happen on Earth, whilst God (if He exists) does nothing to stop them, how could He possibly be a God of love? This is the question most people find unanswerable! But with a deep enough logical examination of the subject, an answer really can be found. And surprisingly perhaps, the quick answer is that a God of love could exist! Whether or not He really does exist is impossible to say because there always remains the possibility of the existence of a God of hate instead. Or if the theory of evolution is true there might even be no God at all.
Okay, so if a God of love could exist, the question is, how? The reasoning behind this will be examined next.
Disasters And Doubts
Earthquakes, cyclones, floods, volcanoes, wars, plane crashes, terrorism, illness... the list goes on. Disaster comes in many forms, both mass disasters and untold numbers of personal disasters, and yet if there is a God who truly loves us then why doesn’t He prevent such things from happening? As discussed earlier, it would be very easy to understand how a “God of Hate” could allow such things to happen! But if He really is the kind of God that we could consider loving, then He certainly would prevent such things from happening, unless there was a compelling reason why these disasters must be allowed to happen. A God of love could only allow such terrible things to occur if it was absolutely unavoidable for some reason. That being the case, what could the reason be? Traditional religion could help to explain why man-made disasters must be allowed to happen, basically by stating that we need to learn from our mistakes, but it has great difficulty trying to explain logically why natural disasters are necessary.
In order to answer this particular question it is first necessary to consider another question: If God exists, why has He chosen to keep His existence a mystery? Traditional religion, of course, would argue that He has not kept His existence a mystery! But if God wants us to know that He exists, why hasn’t He shown Himself to us, so that there is no doubt in our minds of His existence? Once again, traditional religion would answer by stating that He has shown Himself, and they would point to “evidence” such as the Bible, etc. However, if a God, capable of creating the entire universe and everything in it, then merely wanted us all to know of His very existence, don’t you think we would all know?!!! The Bible does not present any hard evidence that God exists. One undeniable fact is that many people have studied the Bible as thoroughly as it is possible, and yet remain genuinely unconvinced. This simple fact means that either the Bible was not intended to convince everyone, or the author, a supposedly all-powerful God, was incapable of providing us with a convincing book! The same kind of criticism could also be directed at non Bible-based religions since every religion in the world has been found unconvincing by many people. Yet, there are many ways that an all powerful God could have easily convinced us all if He really wanted to. The mere fact that we are not all convinced of His existence clearly proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that if an all-powerful Creator exists, He obviously doesn’t want us all to be convinced of it. (See Note 1 below) This is an undeniable fact!
However, a second undeniable and perhaps, more surprising fact is that we would have no alternative but to accept that a creator must exist, unless a credible alternative theory to creation was available for us to consider instead. Therefore, if God wanted us to have doubts about his existence, and He obviously did, then He would have been forced to provide us with the opportunity to invent an alternative theory to creation. To this end, God would have been compelled to design the world in such a way that it would appear as if it just might have evolved by chance and without the need of a creator, ie: by evolution, since this is the only possible alternative theory to creation. (See Note 2)
Now, if God had created a world so perfect that no natural disasters ever occurred then practically no one, not even scientists, could believe in evolution, as the world would simply be too perfect to have evolved by chance. Moreover, a world that might have evolved would be expected to show signs that it might have evolved, such as volcanoes, etc. It would appear then, that natural disasters would be necessary if there had to be an alternative to the theory of creation, and this would be necessary if God wanted us to doubt his existence. If He didn’t want us to doubt His existence then there would be no need for natural disasters. Traditional religion has trouble explaining why God allows natural disasters to happen because it refuses to accept that God might want us to doubt His existence. But why, you may well ask, would a God of love want us to doubt his very existence? Surely, He would want us all to know and love Him, unless, once again, there was some compelling reason why we must not.
As we have already seen, it is an undeniable fact that God, if He exists, does want us to have doubts about his existence. And we’ve also seen that natural disasters are necessary in order for us to doubt His existence. So, if He’s prepared to stand idly by and watch so much suffering occur just to ensure that we have doubts, even though He’s a God of love, then it must be utterly imperative that we have these doubts! So why would He consider it so essential for us to have doubts about His existence? To answer this question it would be helpful to consider what would happen if we had no doubts about His existence:
If all the people of the world were truly certain that a God existed, any kind of God, this would have such a startling affect that it would certainly alter the course of human history. Undoubtedly, many people would drastically change the way they behaved: They would no longer attempt to do whatever they pleased; instead they would do what they thought would bring them favour from God. So they would behave according to what they considered were God’s wishes, instead of just following their own desires. This is a third undeniable fact.
But God chose not to convince us of his existence, so the above must be what God does not want to happen. Therefore, it follows that He must want a large proportion of us to behave, not according to His wishes, but according to our own hearts. This surely must be the reason why it is imperative that many people doubt his existence. But if so, then why would God go to such lengths to ensure that the course of human events is determined by our own hearts? Why is it so important?
It is clear from the above commonsense reasoning that God must be very interested in how we would manage, running our own lives without His guidance, in other words, ruling ourselves. But if God created us, wouldn’t He already know our capabilities, and therefore, know how we would manage on our own? Yes, He probably would. So could it be that He’s trying to convince someone else of how we would manage on our own. If so, who? This brings us to a very important point:
A God that we could consider loving would not put us through the pain and suffering so often experienced in this world unless it was for our own benefit. (Undeniable fact, number four!)
That being the case, could it be that we, ourselves are the ones being convinced of how we would manage if allowed to rule ourselves? This makes sense, but if it is so, then what exactly is God trying to convince us of? It must be something of immeasurable importance and benefit to us to justify all the suffering we face in this world.
Well, whatever it is, if God considered that we were capable of ruling ourselves reasonably successfully, He could have just provided us with a world in which to live, and let us get on with it. It wouldn’t be necessary for natural disasters to occur, or for us to doubt His existence. It wouldn’t matter to a God of love whether we behaved according to our own hearts or according to His wishes if either way would be successful.
So apparently then, if a God of love exists, He must consider that we are incapable of ruling ourselves successfully, and the monumental purpose of our attempting self-rule is surely to convince us that this is the case.
Summary
If a God of love exists, then He would only put us on this world for our own benefit. The purpose of our being here could well be to convince us that we are not capable of ruling ourselves successfully without God’s guidance. In order to convince us of this it would be necessary for us to attempt ruling ourselves according to our own hearts and not according to God’s wishes. To ensure that we don’t all “cheat” by living the way we think God would wish us to; doubt would have to be cast on the very existence of God, the creator. But the only alternative to believing in a creator is the theory of evolution. So, in order to make this seemingly improbable theory equally believable it would be necessary to make the world appear as though it may have evolved by chance, by providing it with volcanoes and other natural disasters, and generally making everything imperfect.
Notes
1. Traditional religion would argue that God wants us to believe that He exists, and that He should not have to prove His existence to us! But is that really the way that a loving creator (or even parent) would wish to behave? Keeping his children guessing about their father’s very existence! Surely, he would wish to show himself, and be a part of their lives (as was the case in the story of Adam and Eve) if at all possible. Clearly, for some reason He has decided that we must not be sure of His existence.
2. Regarding creation and evolution, it may occur to some readers that a third alternative exists, namely a steady state universe, and that if God had designed the world so that it appeared to be part of such a universe, then natural disasters wouldn’t be necessary. Surely, it would seem that a God of love would choose to create this kind of universe, in order to save us from natural disasters, which would not need to be present in such a universe. However, upon closer inspection it will be realised that convincing us of the possibility of perpetual existence would not be an option. There are many reasons for this. For example; if we had existed “forever” we would have had a “very long time” to develop our society and we would have kept very detailed records of our history dating back many billions of years, in fact an eternity. But these history records would be inexplicably absent. And if you have read the whole of the above section you will also realise that God could not “invent” an independent eternal history for us since He doesn’t believe that we are capable of ruling ourselves eternally. So, if He did provide a history for us it would have to explain that we lived by rules that God would approve of, but we could surely not believe that we would choose to live by those rules eternally and never try any other ways of life. We would therefore conclude that the records were incorrect or incomplete. And since they would undoubtedly have been stored in duplicate form in several different parts of the world it would be impossible to believe that the mistakes or missing parts could be coincidental, therefore convincing us that they had been tampered with. But who would want to tamper with them in such a way as to make it appear that we had lived a “Godly” existence? The whole idea is absurd! We would consider it impossible for the records to be wrong, and yet they clearly would be unbelievable! This is just one example of the many things, which would not make sense in a supposed steady state universe, making the whole concept nonsense.
The Bible - Fact or Fiction?
The Bible, if inspired by a God of love, would seem unlikely to have been written for the purpose of misleading us, so why are there so many things written in the Bible which simply do not seem to make sense in the context of a loving God? For example; the Bible states that in Noah’s time, God considered the world to be so corrupt that a fresh start was needed, and so everybody except loyal Noah and his family were drowned. But what was the purpose of causing such unnecessary suffering by drowning, when God could have simply put all unworthy people painlessly to sleep? It would have saved poor, loyal Noah a lot of trouble building the Ark, too! And what about all the completely innocent animals in the world that were supposedly drowned for no reason at all?!!
The Bible makes no attempt to explain why a supposedly loving God would act in such an unloving and callous manner. Instead, it portrays God in a similar unloving way on many occasions. Are we to believe that God is in fact this cruel, uncaring being? Some people would insist that the Bible is completely true, and that God only appears cruel to us because we are looking through mortal eyes; and that the apparently cruel things described in the Bible, if viewed through God’s eyes, are not really cruel at all! But as well as contradicting commonsense, this theory even seems to contradict the Bible itself, which states that we were made in God’s image, and that we have acquired the knowledge of good and bad. Therefore, according to the Bible itself, it would seem that our idea of right and wrong should be basically similar to God’s. So, if something seems obviously wrong to us, then it surely is wrong! That being the case, if God is in fact a God of love, then many parts of the Bible cannot possibly be true. On the other hand, if He is not a God of love then the Bible is wrong when it states that He is! Either way, some parts of the Bible clearly appear to be untrue. Furthermore, even if the Bible is, in some unfathomable way, completely true, why would a God of love allow the Bible to be written in a way, which could so easily appear contradictory? Even Bible-based religions would agree that the Bible is often difficult for many people to understand, but why should this be so? Clearly then, the Bible does not really even attempt to convince everyone.
However, this should not come as a great surprise after reading the “Disasters & Doubts” section of this article (above), in which it was stated that God does not want to convince us all of His existence.
So, could the Bible really have been inspired by a God of Love if He had no wish to convince us of His existence anyway? But if it was, then what could be its purpose?
First of all it should be pointed out that some of the things spoken of in the Bible are in broad agreement with the theory outlined in the “Disasters & Doubts” section of this article (above). For example: Bible-based religion would agree that at least part of the reason for our being here is to prove once and for all that we are not capable of ruling ourselves without God’s guidance. And the Bible itself states, in its usual, cleverly cryptic fashion, that God warned Adam and Eve that if they chose to live a life independent of Him, then they would not survive. So parts of the Bible do, of course, make sense and may in fact be true to some degree. It also makes sense that a God of love would want to tell us as much as possible about why we are here. But for reasons given earlier in this article, it would be essential that not too many of us were convinced, so we should not be surprised to find that parts of the Bible don’t make sense. A God of love would have had no option but to ensure that the book was written in an unconvincing way, and what better way of achieving that, than surrounding the true message of the Bible with various things that would seem unbelievable?
However, some people say that we must either believe the whole of the Bible or none of it, arguing that a God of love would not allow parts of the Bible to be written inaccurately, as He would not wish to mislead us with false information. But this is not really a problem because, although parts of it may be wrong, the Bible, if taken as a whole, could not be considered misleading. After all, if it had never been written in the first place, then most people seeking religious enlightenment would simply have found some man-made religion in which to believe instead, and that would have been based completely on fiction. So, by providing us with a book that is based even partly on fact, God would have been providing us with a measure of the truth that we would not otherwise have received at all. He would certainly not have been misleading us. Remember, it had to be unconvincing, so a book like the Bible with all of its contradictions would be the best that could have been written, and better than writing no book at all.
It would seem then, that the Bible may have been written simply for the purpose of providing as much truth and comfort as possible to those of us who choose to believe, and yet without actually proving God’s existence. The Bible puts it like this: “Blessed is he who believeth, and yet does not know.” This short passage from the Bible implies that it was not intended to provide proof. (Of course, any Bible-based religion could quote passages from the Bible that seem to support their views, but their interpretations of the Bible lead them to believe that God is capable of apparently cruel acts. The view of the Bible as offered in this article, on the other hand, portrays God as a genuinely loving being.)
This does not prove, of course, that the Bible is the word of God, but simply that it is possible. And even if it is the word of God, it is not intended to prove God’s existence.
Before The Beginning
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth........ This is how the Bible begins, and apparently the beginning to which it refers is the beginning of this world in which we live. But what happened before the beginning of this world, and why would a God of love choose to create it?
First, let’s examine traditional religion’s explanation:
Right or Wrong
According to traditional religion, God’s purpose for creating the world was to provide a place for a multitude of His children to live. They were intended to multiply and fill the Earth, and live happily together in accordance with God’s will. Also, we are apparently led to believe that it must have been most important that they should not acquire the knowledge of right and wrong, since Adam and Eve were supposedly sentenced to death for eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, and not repenting.
Believers of traditional religion further insist that God’s purpose will eventually be fulfilled after the resurrection, but how can they imagine this to be so, for we now have the knowledge of good and bad which God warned Adam and Eve not to acquire. So in order to fulfil His purpose, God would have to take away this knowledge from us (seemingly not a very loving thing to do), or could it be that maybe God doesn’t really mind if we have this knowledge after all? But if He doesn’t really mind, then why would He have sentenced Adam and Eve to death for acquiring this knowledge? Are we to believe that a God of love would sentence his children to death simply for disobeying him over something that didn’t really matter to Him anyway?! And how could they be expected to know that disobeying was a bad thing when at the time they didn’t even possess the knowledge of good and bad? Furthermore, why would a God of love place temptation in their path knowing that they were ill equipped to resist it? Does this really sound like the actions of a God of love?
By now you may be wondering why this section is entitled ‘Before the Beginning’ when all of this happened after the beginning of the world. Well, maybe it didn’t! Consider the following theory:
Before this universe was created, it’s quite possible that God may have wished to create a paradise with a multitude of people living happily together. But what would be the best way to achieve this; what sort of people should He create? Well, He could have created people without the knowledge of right and wrong (as claimed in the Bible), which would have allowed them to live happily provided that they always obeyed Him. But He would have known that people who have no sense of right and wrong were bound to be innocently disobedient from time to time just like young children, thereby causing trouble, occasionally very serious, which would spoil the paradise for everyone else. So, this plan would not work unless everyone was watched closely every day, to ensure that nobody caused any serious trouble. Of course, such regular surveillance may not sound much like paradise, but to people with no sense of right and wrong it would seem perfectly acceptable.
The alternative, of course, would be to create them with the knowledge of right and wrong. Seemingly a much more loving approach, although it would also have it’s problems: God would have known that if they had this knowledge they would feel oppressed and unhappy being ordered how to rule their own lives, unless they were absolutely convinced that God’s way of ruling was the best. A God of love would, of course, prefer to simply allow them to rule themselves without question. But He would also have known that if they attempt to rule themselves they would make so many mistakes that their world would never become a paradise as originally intended. In fact, they may even completely destroy themselves. So it would be essential that they live by His, presumably loving, rules. However, a loving God would not have wished to behave like a cruel dictator, keeping his children constantly miserable by denying them the right to rule themselves. Therefore, if they were to have the knowledge of right and wrong, it would be essential to somehow totally convince them all that His way of ruling was best, so that they would have no desire to introduce new rules for themselves.
As we will see later, such absolute convincing would involve a very great deal of suffering and destruction, and a God of love would simply not wish to inflict such suffering on his people. So He would have had no option but to create them without the knowledge of right and wrong. However, because this knowledge is so precious, He would have felt that they had the right to gain it if they so wished. Therefore, they would have been given the opportunity to gain this knowledge, although they would have been warned of the consequences, namely suffering, death and destruction. Interestingly, the Bible would seem to fundamentally support this theory with its story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.
If anyone, who went ahead and acquired the knowledge, then genuinely wished they hadn’t done so, the knowledge and any memory of it could simply be erased from their minds, and no mention of it made to them later so they wouldn’t feel tempted again. And if they chose to keep the knowledge, a God of love would certainly not punish them for acquiring it; however, it would then become necessary to convince them all that they couldn’t rule themselves successfully.
The Testing Ground
With an eternity on their hands, it was perhaps inevitable that sooner or later many people would choose to acquire the knowledge of good and bad, if only out of curiosity and in spite of the warning. And since few, if any, would wish to lose this knowledge, it would then become necessary to completely convince them that God’s way of ruling was best. How should this be done?
Now, since God wished to create people and not ‘robots’ they would surely have been created with greatly varying personalities and characters. Therefore some would be much more difficult to convince than others. Some would readily accept God’s rules whilst others would never be convinced without actually attempting to rule themselves. And some would be convinced by observing the results of others who were making the attempt. Still others might change their minds and later realise that they need to experience self-rule also. This means that in order to ensure that everyone is completely convinced; a place would have to be created which would serve as an acceptable testing ground where people could go to experience life under self-rule if and when they wished. So, by creating this “testing ground” God would be able to convince the people, and by giving them the option of whether or not to try living there He would be sparing many people unnecessary suffering; truly the hallmark of a God of love. However, giving people this option would present one more obstacle to overcome:
If the results of this testing ground were to be conclusive, then the people choosing to live there would have to truly practise genuine self-rule. But a considerable proportion of the people would feel loyalty to their creator, and would therefore not put their full heart into self-rule whilst in the testing ground. In other words, they might not behave truly the way they want to because they wouldn’t wish to displease God by ignoring His advice. This would mean that after returning from the testing ground they would always feel that they had never properly attempted self-rule, and would therefore always be (at least secretly) less than completely satisfied with living under God’s rules. Now the only way for them to truly practise self-rule would be if they felt no loyalty towards God, their creator. But how could it be possible for them not to feel at least some loyalty towards their creator, a God of love, who had given them everything, even permission to disobey His wishes. Well, it would only be truly possible if they didn’t know He even existed! Also, as we’ve learned from an earlier part of this article, other people would have to be uncertain of the existence of God so that they could not be accused of “cheating” by living the way they believed God would want them to. But they all knew God before they chose to go to the testing ground, so how could they be “uncertain” of His existence while they were there?
The only solution to this problem would be for everybody choosing to enter this testing ground, to enter without his or her previous memories! Of course, this would have to be a strictly temporary arrangement since few (if any) people would wish to lose their memories permanently. So, it would seem likely that they would only wish to remain in the testing ground for a relatively short period of time, and they would certainly insist that when they leave, they would automatically regain their memories. (See note at end of this section) This solution may seem bizarre, but the alternative would be to create them directly in the testing ground, an often-unpleasant place without any prior consultation at all, which would seem to be an unnecessarily unloving thing to do. It is obviously far more loving for them to be allowed to choose for themselves whether or not to be “born” into this often unpleasant testing ground.
So, in order to convince the people that God’s rules were best, this “testing ground” would have been created so that anyone could be born into it whenever they desired to practise self-rule, and thereby see for themselves how unsatisfactory it was. The testing ground referred to is, of course, this world in which we now live: A world created in its own universe, completely separate in space and time from the “real” world where we will return to when we “die.”
These two universes would have to be separated in space for obvious reasons, but also separated in time (unsynchronised) so that a person could pass from one to the other (i.e. birth and death) from any time period of one universe to any required time period in the other.
Note
It’s interesting that some people who were revived after a near death experience have spoken of “feelings of calm and sometimes of great knowledge” whilst clinically dead. This supports the theory spoken of above. Of course, they would not be allowed to bring back to this world any specific memories or knowledge that would prove the existence of God, if the theory presented by this article is correct.
After The End
According to the theory presented by this article, the world in which we find ourselves was created as a testing ground for the purpose of convincing us that we are not capable of ruling ourselves successfully without God’s guidance. If this theory is correct, then life in this world will always be less than ideal as long as mankind attempts to rule himself. Many different forms of self-rule have been tried, from dictatorships of all different kinds through to western style democracies, and although many people are generally happy with the lives they are living, few (if any) would consider the world as a whole to be ideal. And it must be remembered that a very large number of people are living very unhappy lives, sometimes in very miserable conditions, and the governments concerned seem to offer little hope of improvement. If this situation does not improve dramatically, especially now with modern technology at our disposal, then mankind’s attempt at self-rule must be considered a failure. According to the Bible the world will end in catastrophe, but whether or not this is the case is irrelevant if life under mankind’s rule is still less pleasant than life would be under God’s rule. But could God really do any better under the conditions here on Earth?
In order to answer this question, when mankind’s attempt to rule has finally ended, it would be logical for God’s rules to be applied on Earth for a period of time so as to show whether His rules are truly better. At the beginning of this period of time it would also be possible for all the people to regain their former memories even though they may wish to remain on Earth, as it would no longer be essential for them to behave according to their own hearts. Indeed, they would have to obey God’s rules. Now, under God’s guidance the world may well become a paradise, and a wonderful and happy place in which to live. But even so, there will be some people who will say that mankind could have done just as well if only they had been given a good start, and if God really loved them He would allow them to rule themselves again. Now, this is a valid point. If they were shown the way to rule themselves and given a good start, then maybe, with knowledge of the bitter experiences they’ve already had, they could now rule themselves successfully. And now that they knew of God’s existence, it was probable that many people would still live largely in accordance with God’s rules, so they would at least have a better chance of success.
So, this demand would have to be allowed, in order to prove once and for all, whether God’s rule is best. Accordingly, mankind would once again be handed control but as usual, it would only take a few selfish people to spoil the paradise for everyone else. So, the quality of life for people generally would start to go downhill until the trend became clear to everyone, including those who demanded to try self-rule again. At this point, absolutely everyone would be utterly convinced that God’s rules were best, and most people would be ready to return to paradise. But nevertheless, there are sure to be a few hard-nosed people who would still demand to rule themselves even though they now knew it was not the best way. Now, a God of love would have no option but to grant their demand, and allow them to live in what might eventually become their own self-made hell! This, a God of love would allow, knowing that many (and perhaps all) of them would eventually change their minds and genuinely wish to return to paradise when their existence became unbearable. But where would this “hell” be? Either a new world would have to be created, or they could continue to live on Earth, since everyone else could return to the original paradise that was intended for them. Remember, according to this theory, Earth was only created as a testing ground, and not everybody would have chosen to go there. Those who chose not to go there would be living happily in the original paradise, in accordance with God’s rules, all of the time while we are on Earth, the testing ground.
Destiny
Especially during, perhaps, the first few millions years of eternity living in God’s paradise, many people will surely have countless ideas about how paradise could be improved, so how could God prove to them that their ideas would not work? Simple; since the Earth was created in its own universe, in a different dimension in space and time from paradise, people could go to Earth at any time desired and try out their ideas. Of course, as explained earlier, they would have to be ‘born’ on Earth without their former memories. So, in order to enable them to try out their ideas on Earth when they have no memory of them, it would be necessary for the people to be placed in a position which would lead them to be confronted with the ideas they had wished to try out. To this extent, it would be the destiny of those people on Earth to try out their particular ideas. But the outcome of the ideas if put into practice would certainly not be pre-determined, and neither would anything else which would prejudice the outcome of the testing ground. Generally speaking, destiny is an ill-conceived idea, as it would rob us of control over our own lives, whereas, according to the theory presented here, the whole purpose for being on Earth requires that we control our own lives.
Jesus, Son Of God?
Is it really possible that a supposedly loving God would send his perfect, blameless and only begotten son to die on Earth in the way the Bible portrays? The obvious answer to this question is: Of course not!!! But the question justifies more than just a simple answer. Let’s take a look at the story surrounding this subject:
According to traditional religion, this subject is linked to the story of Adam and Eve. We are told that Adam was originally created as a perfect man, and because of his sin of “eating from the tree of knowledge of good and bad” and not repenting, he, his wife Eve and all his descendants were sentenced to death. Now, apparently God decided that Adam’s descendants on Earth should be saved, but the only way they could be saved was by sacrificing (also on Earth) the life of another perfect man because Adam was a perfect man. And since there was no other perfect man on Earth, God sent his perfect son, Jesus, to be slaughtered there!
Now, if all this sounds a little stupid to you, congratulations, your sense of logic is alive and well! Just think about the absurdity of the story: First of all, for reasons given earlier in this article no one should have been sentenced to death as no crime had been committed. Secondly, if Adam was created so perfect, why was it possible to tempt him into eating from the tree of knowledge? And thirdly, why did God decide the only way to save the descendants was to kill another perfect man? This seems to be a completely arbitrary decision based on no logic or justice whatsoever! If God wished to spare the lives of the descendants, that’s perfectly understandable. Obviously their fate should be based on their own actions, not Adam’s. There’s no logical need for anyone to die in order to save the descendants, or even Adam and Eve for that matter!
However, returning to the theory presented here, it’s likely that a God of love would have felt very bad even suggesting that his people suffer the terrible tribulations that sometimes would occur on Earth. Especially loyal people who would have been somewhat reluctant to risk disappointing God by deciding to go to Earth to try self-rule, and may have needed a little gentle persuasion. Therefore, He may have wanted to demonstrate to His people that He wouldn’t even suggest they do anything that He wasn’t prepared to do Himself. To prove this point, He just might have actually come to Earth Himself! Therefore, it is possible that Jesus was in fact the manifestation of God Himself on Earth! Of course, in order to show that He was prepared to suffer every indignation this world can offer; He would have had to be born on Earth without his memories, too! Amazing, but logical. Although on reflection, perhaps it’s not quite so amazing. After all, the concept of a Holy Trinity, whereby the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all one, is well known in traditional religion! Probably the main argument that Christians have against the Holy Trinity theory is that when Jesus was on Earth, He didn’t consider Himself to be God. But this is quite understandable, since without His former memories, He would have actually been unaware that He was God!
Not Only Christianity
Not only Christianity seems to contradict itself regarding it’s belief in a God of love. It’s difficult to see how some religions can even claim to believe in a God of love at all. For example, leaders of at least one religion even today actually speak of holy wars and martyrs! Is it the religion which is responsible for this, or the leaders’ interpretation of the religion? Unfortunately, it would be unwise to make any comment about this “religion” since one could be sentenced to death for doing just that. It must be left for the reader to decide what kind of religion this must be!
Then there are religions that believe everybody is automatically reincarnated over and over again. And that the quality of each incarnated life is dependent upon the kind of life led in his or her previous life. For example: If a person leads a “bad” life, he will come back next time with some disadvantage or disability. Supposedly, after many life cycles they will then learn to become spiritually better people. But how is this possible? Most people don’t even remember their previous lives (if any even exist), so how can they learn anything from them? If they did remember their previous lives and deeds, then maybe they would eventually learn to behave themselves differently, if only for selfish reasons. They would learn which things would bring them a good life next time around! But with no knowledge at all of their previous lives there is no reason why they would behave any better after their one hundredth incarnation than after their first. Obviously therefore, it would be pointless to continually punish and reward people for deeds performed in their previous lives when they can’t possibly learn any thing from it, making the whole idea seem more like a cruel joke!!! No wonder believers of these religions long for an end to this relentless series of re-births! Perhaps some believers may argue that they do actually learn something from each life, but only sub-consciously. But there are two arguments against this. Firstly, since this system of reincarnation was supposedly “set up” by an all powerful God you would expect it to serve its purpose, in which case you would expect people in general to be spiritually better than they used to be a long time ago. Is this the case? Secondly, they would certainly learn to become better people much more quickly if they could remember their past lives, so what is the purpose of prolonging their apparent misery by robbing them of these memories? Not something you would expect from a God of love! Of course, if a God of hate exists, rather than a God of love, then this religion or, as mentioned earlier, any other religion may be true. However, this article is only concerned with discovering whether a God of love could exist.
With this in mind, it has to be said that automatic reincarnation does not seem to be compatible with the existence of a God of love. However, reincarnation in itself is not such a bad idea if it’s voluntary. It is, in fact, very likely that the same person would sometimes choose to be born into this world more than once. Especially if his first life was unexpectedly cut short before he achieved his “purpose” on Earth (as mentioned in the section “After The End” under “Destiny” above). Interestingly, a high percentage of reincarnation stories that we hear about involve previous lives that came to an end unexpectedly early! This also seems to support the theory presented here.
© Bruce Evans 2008