Hard Questions

THE HARD QUESTIONS

When I was first investigating religion, I encountered several things that didn’t make sense to me. And often, when I asked people my hard questions, they would fall back on the cop out: “There are some things about God that we just can’t ever understand.” I refuse to accept that answer. I know the argument. Our brains are finite, so the things we can understand are limited. But that kind of argument simply doesn’t help me at all.
So, when I was trying to decide if God existed, some of my questions made it hard for me to believe in God. In particular, I had a question that appeared to contradict God’s existence. So, even while God was showing me a personal miracle (see my testimony), this question conflicted with my desire to believe. The rational side of me refused to accept the existence of God as long as this question remained unanswered. I was finally able to believe, because I argued that, even though nobody knows the answer to my question right now, people could figure it out in the future. The human race continues to learn new things every day. Why not accept the miracle as sufficient evidence for me to believe in God, and then I’ll continue trying to figure out the answer to my question.
And, a year and a half later, I came up with an answer that satisfied me!
That question and its answer can be found on this page, along with other hard questions that I have struggled with. For some of them, I offer possible answers.

QUESTIONS


I have been told that God is good. He’s not just good, but He is pure good. He is completely incapable of sinning. In fact, by His very nature, He must oppose sin wherever He sees it. If He didn’t, that lack of action would be sinful.
I have also been told that God is omniscient. He sees everything in our universe as clearly as we can see things in our field of vision. Actually, he can probably see better than 20/20. I expect His vision is more like 20/-5.
In addition, I have been told that God is timeless. He lives outside of time. He doesn’t move forward through time like us. He can always see every moment of time that will, did, or does exist in our universe. (I have more to say about the timelessness of God.)
If that’s not enough, I’m told that God is perfect. He cannot make a mistake.
And of course, I have been told that God created the universe and everything in it. There is nothing in our universe that God is not responsible for.
If you accept these five premises, then you must face a very difficult question: Why did God create humans? He should have known that humans would eventually start sinning, because He is timeless. And, since He is omniscient, we can’t argue that He just wasn’t paying attention, and he didn’t realize that we would sin. In fact, since He’s perfect, He is unable to make a mistake. So, since He created humans, and He is incapable of sin, it must therefore have been a good thing to create humans. But by creating humans, we can’t get around the conclusion that God indirectly created sin, even though that shouldn’t be possible. Maybe he didn’t create very much sin. Perhaps the human race is just a miniscule speck when viewed relative to the entire space-time continuum. But how could God even create a speck of sin.
I have been told that God is perfect. He never makes a mistake. However, the Bible says:
The word of the Lord then came to Samuel: “I regret that I made Saul king, for he has turned away from Me and has not carried out My commands.” I Samuel 15:10-11x
TNK
If God cannot make a mistake, how could he ever have cause to regret?
In the red letter edition of the NIV Bible, everything Jesus says is printed in red, while the rest of the text is black. My question is, why aren’t the quotes of the Father printed in red? Is the Son somehow more important than the Father? There are so many of God’s quotes in the Old Testament, but they’re all printed in black. In fact, the Father even speaks in the New Testament:
Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again.” John 12:28
NIV
But this quote is not printed in red.
What is the big deal about God’s name? Throughout the Bible, you can find “in God’s name,” “in Jesus’ name,” “in the Lord’s name,” etc. In fact, one way to refer to God in Hebrew is Hashem (The Name) or simply Shem (Name). For example:
“‘... when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death...’” Leviticus 24:16y
NIV
The Bible has a strange way of using the word, “in”. Jesus tells his disciples:
“On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.” John 14:20
NIV
“If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given to you.” John 15:7
NIV
What does the phrase, “in Jesus’ name”, mean? Christians generally end their prayers with, “in Jesus’ name, Amen.” Also, Jesus tells his disciples:
“And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name and I will do it.” John 14:13-14
NIV
Most people claim that the Trinity is something that cannot be understood by humans. I refuse to accept that. According to Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology, the Trinity is described by three facts:
  1. God is three persons.
  2. Each person is fully God.
  3. There is one God.
How is this possible?
For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. I John 5:7-8
NIV
But in the King James Version of the Bible, the same verses say:
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. I John 5:7-8
KJV
How can both Bibles be complete?
Many people claim that the Bible is the directly-inspired word of God, and therefore it is inerrant. If that is true, how can Peter write:
For in Scripture it says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” I Peter 2:6
NIV
From the context preceding this verse, it appears that the stone is meant to represent Jesus, because of the phrase “trusts in him”. But the verse that Peter is quoting, Isaiah 28:16 actually says (in the very same version of the Bible):
So this is what the Sovereign LORD says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who trusts will never be dismayed...” Isaiah 28:16
NIV
This verse is significantly different. How could God misquote Himself if He doesn’t make mistakes? And notice that the word “him” is not found here, so it is less clear that the stone represents Jesus. Now here is a Jewish Bible’s translation of Isaiah 28:16.
Assuredly, Thus says the Lord GOD: “Behold, I will found in Zion, Stone by stone, A tower of precious cornerstones, Exceedingly firm; He who trusts need not fear...” Isaiah 28:16
TNK
This is quite a difference! Now it is quite clear that this verse is not talking about Jesus at all, since there are many stones instead of just one. So it seems that Peter misquoted and misinterpreted the verse. I wouldn’t expect to find such mistakes in an “inerrant” Bible.
I have been told that all of the words in the Bible are the Lord’s words, and it is all true. If that’s the case, then how should we interpret this:
To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother... I Corinthians 7:12x
NIV
If this is true, then “If any brother...” is not said by the Lord. However, since it is in the Bible, it is said by the Lord. So we have a logical contradiction. How can this be resolved?
I have been told that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are not sexist religions. Men and women are considered to be equal. It’s just that men and women have some significant differences, and so it is appropriate for them to have different roles. For example, men cannot give birth to and nurse babies, two things that tend to create a very strong bond between a mother and her child. So it makes sense for women to have the role of taking care of the children. And, men tend to be stronger and faster than women, so it makes sense for men to have the role of hunting for food. And I can accept that argument that to a certain extent. But then how can the Bible verses shown here be explained?
Often people remember the last words a person says before dying. So what were Jesus’ last words before he died on the cross? Well let’s look at the four gospels.
And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. Matthew 27:50
NIV
With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last. Mark 15:37
NIV
Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father,into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last. Luke 23:46
NIV
When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. John 19:30
NIV
According to Matthew, Jesus ended his life with a scream. And Mark agrees that he screamed and then died immediately. Then Luke gives us some more information. He says that Jesus didn’t scream, “Aaaaaaaaaa!!!” Instead, he screamed, “Father!!! Into your hands I commit my spirit!!!” But it seems strange that Matthew and Mark would fail to mention the specific words that He screamed.
But then John disagrees with Luke on what Jesus’ last words were. Can they both be right?
I have been told that the reason Jesus died was to pay the price for the sins of all mankind across all time. For this to be true, it’s important for Him to be God, rather than a man, because:
For the wages of sin is death... Romans 6:23x
NIV
So Jesus’ death, if He was merely a man, could only pay for one man’s sins. Oh, it’s true that he suffered extreme torture, but how many deaths could that be worth? 20? 100? Certainly not the number of people who have lived or will live across all time. However, if He is God, then His life has infinite value, so His death was worth more than the finite number of deaths of all people across all time.
But here’s the problem: God never died. The human body of Jesus may have died, but God continued to live. Even during the three days that Jesus’ body was dead, The Apostles’ Creed says that the divine part of Jesus was still alive, visiting hell. This appears to be based on I Peter 3:19.
After being made alive, [Jesus] went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits... I Peter 3:19
NIV
In addition, if God died, then who resurrected Jesus? So, the only price that Jesus actually paid was the death of His body, which would seem to have no more value than the death of a single human.
So how can we argue that Jesus has paid the price for the sins of all people across all time?
Orthodox Jews work hard to follow the laws of the covenant of Moses, as specified in the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) and other later writings (such as the Mishnah and the Talmud). For example, they go to tremendous lengths to prevent dairy products from coming into contact with meat, by using two different sets of dishes. Some even use two dishwashers, as they are concerned about traces of meat being left in the dishwasher after the meat dishes are washed, and then if the dairy dishes are washed in the same dishwasher, that meat could come into contact with the dairy.
However, despite this adherence to the laws in such an extreme manner, there are some laws in the Torah that Orthodox Jews do not follow today. For example, they don’t sacrifice animals. I have heard the claim that this is because animal sacrifices are supposed to be made at the Temple in Jerusalem, but the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, and it has not been rebuilt. But I think this is a weak argument, because the laws of the Torah don’t say that animal sacrifices should be made at the Temple. It says they should be made at the tabernacle. And I don’t see any reason that a tabernacle cannot be built today.
Can Orthodox Jews simply pick and choose which laws they’re going to follow?
In some parts of the Bible, God does not seem to follow the “Let the punishment fit the crime” philosophy. In the following passages, He imposed the ultimate penalty for crimes that we might not think are so severe.
Then the LORD said to Moses, “Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. Say to the Israelites: ‘If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible; anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the name, he must be put to death...’” Leviticus 24:13-16
NIV
While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day... Then the LORD said to Moses, “The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.” Numbers 15:32,35
NIV
What are we supposed to learn from these examples? Should we be imposing the death penalty for many more crimes than we do?
The Bible tells us to submit to those who have authority over us:
Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors... I Peter 2:13-14x
NIV
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Romans 13:1
NIV
Obey the king’s command, I say, because you took an oath before God. Ecclesiastes 8:2
NIV
My question is, what if the authorities are corrupt? Is a German Jew living in Nazi Germany required to submit to a Nazi soldier? The soldier certainly has authority over the Jew, but when he says, “Come with me,” is the Jew forbidden to flee or to shoot the soldier? And what about the future time when the antichrist is supposed to rule the world? Should Christians follow all of his laws in accordance with this command?
I am told that Jesus never sinned. But what about this:
Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. Matthew 21:12
NIV
I don’t think that the money changers and salesmen were violating any of God’s commandments. But even if those people were doing something sinful, there were certainly more peaceful ways for Jesus to deal with the problem. Doesn’t his behavior seem to be sinful? I understand that anger is not a sin, but acting on it can be sinful. Are we justified in doing similar things to any people that we catch committing sins?
The following passage warns us about false prophets.
If there appears among you a prophet or a dream-diviner and he gives you a sign or portent, saying “Let us follow and worship another god” — whom you have not experienced — even if the sign or portent that he named to you comes true, do not heed the words of that prophet or dream-diviner. For the LORD your God is testing you to see whether you really love the LORD your God with all your heart and soul. Deuteronomy 13:2-4
TNK
Could this be talking about Jesus? After all, He told people to follow a God that they had not experienced, namely Himself. But the God that He claimed to be is the same God that the people already knew. Can we get another clue to help us determine when the above verses apply? Well, we can look at the surrounding verses. (Note that, in the NIV version of the Bible, these verses correspond to Deuteronomy 12:32 and 13:4.)
Be careful to observe only that which I enjoin upon you: neither add to it nor take away from it. ... Follow none but the LORD your God, and revere none but Him; observe His commandments alone, and heed only His orders; worship none but Him, and hold fast to Him. Deuteronomy 13:1,5
TNK
This makes it clear that we are supposed to follow God’s commandments exactly as He gave them to us. Since these verses are found in Deuteronomy, they must be referring to the law of Moses. This suggests that a false prophet might try to change the laws. Did Jesus do that? Well, Christians today certainly don’t see any need to keep all of the laws of Moses. They don’t observe Passover. They don’t do the ritual washing before meals, and neither did Jesus on at least one occasion:
But the Pharisee, noticing that Jesus did not first wash before the meal, was surprised. Luke 11:38
NIV
Also, Jesus did “add to it [the law of Moses]”:
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives... I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.” Matthew 19:8x,9
NIV
So was Jesus was a false prophet?
I am told that God is omniscient. He knows everything that has happened, everything that is happening, and everything that will happen. He knew all this, before humans even existed. Well, that’s rather disconcerting. It means that God knows exactly what words I’m going to type next. I’m going to type it, regardless of what I want, how I feel, and what I think. It is already decided long before I am aware of my decision. I am completely powerless to prevent myself from doing it.
On the other hand, I am also told that God gave us free will. That means we have the freedom to make our own choices. So I get to decide what I will type next. God lets me make that decision on my own.
How can this contradition be resolved? Is everything already determined, or do people have free will?

ANSWERS


Here is my answer to this question.
Suppose you are a fan of a Major League baseball team. One year, your team has all of the most skillful players in the league. So, it’s not at all surprising when they dominate all season long, winning their division by a huge margin and winning every game in the postseason to become the World Series champions. And, of course, this is all very good, and you are very happy with your team.
But imagine another scenario, where, at the beginning of the season, your team is predicted to be a big loser. And, as the season begins, they quickly fall deep down into last place. But, over the course of the season, they get better and better, shocking everybody when they just barely manage to sneak into the playoffs. You are absolutely thrilled! And then, even though your team is predicted to lose every game of the playoffs, they do the impossible, managing to pull off just enough wins to become the World Series champions. The games are all extremely close and you scream a lot.
Can you agree that, although both scenarios are good, the second scenario is much better than the first? Isn’t it so much more exciting to see a very weak team improve to just barely achieve the highest goal than to see a very strong team achieve the goal without there ever being any question of its success?
So, God is like the strong team. He is perfectly good, and, without question, everything He does will always be good. We certainly like to root for God, since He always wins. But with the result never being in doubt, it lacks something.
Alternatively, humans are like the weak team. They are expected to lose the competition of good, and they nearly always fulfill that expectation. But imagine that, over the course of the millennia, they improve, and they begin to win more often. If they can go on to pull off the most amazing feat of all, becoming perfectly good, wouldn’t that be so amazingly awesome?
The thing that humans have that God doesn’t, is the ability to improve. God cannot get better, while humans can potentially become more and more good. So, although God is perfectly good, it is an even greater good to improve from sinful to perfect goodness. The greater the distance that is traveled, the more rewarding the final prize is.
I do not yet have an answer to this question.
I do not yet have an answer to this question.
Here is my answer to this question.
A name is a way to represent something or someone in written or oral form. For example, when somebody writes your name on a piece of paper, they aren’t merely writing a sequence of letters. They are referring to you, the real person. To put it another way, when you hear the name of somebody you know, what comes into your mind? Do you think of the sounds of the name? The letters of the name? The syllables of the name? No. You think of the person. Various attributes of the person comes to mind as you become consciously aware of an image of that person in your brain that is similar to the one that you would form if you were actually looking at the person. So the person’s name is a representation of the person, himself. In effect, the name and the person are interchangeable. The name is the person.
That means whatever you do to a person’s name, you do to the person. If you curse a man’s name, you curse the man. If you blaspheme God’s name, you blaspheme God.
As I understand it, in the time that the Bible was written, people were much more aware of the equality between a person and his name. We still have some remnants of that in our language, as we can say things like, “You’re giving him a bad name.”
Here is my answer to this question.
Consider two people on opposite sides of the world. Then they begin moving toward each other. After a very long time, they are only one mile apart. Certainly, they are much closer than before. They continue moving toward each other until they can see one another. Now they have achieved a higher level of closeness. Before too long, their hands are touching, so they are closer still. Then, when they hug each other, they are very very close. Now imagine that they continue moving toward each other so that their bodies intersect. Now that’s really close. And finally, they are occupying the exact same space. This is the ultimate closeness.
Of course, people cannot really occupy the same physical space. So instead of the people, let’s talk about souls. Since souls are not physical, we must imagine them moving toward each other in some kind of spiritual space. And when they reach the ultimate closeness, they are really “in” one another.
Based on the verses quoted in the question, we see that it is possible for words to be in a person. I expect that can only happen if the words are spiritual in nature.
What about asymmetrical in-ness? Can Jesus’ words be in me, even if I am not in those words? And, if Jesus is in me, but I am not in Jesus, does that mean that Jesus is smaller than me?
Here is my answer to this question.
The answer is clear once you understand what “in” means and what “name” means. (See the question and answer for “in”, and the question and answer for “name”.) Putting them together, “in Jesus’ name” should make sense. When we say, “in Jesus’ name” at the end of a prayer, we are claiming that our words are infinitely close to Jesus in a spiritual sense. This is an asymmetrical in-ness, so you should also look at this question and its answer.
Here is my answer to this question.
The Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son, the Spirit is in the Father and the Father is in the Spirit, and the Spirit is in the Son and the Son is in the Spirit. (To understand what “in” means, read this question and its answer.) So, although they may be separate persons with separate personalities and knowledge, that doesn’t prevent them from being ultimately close in the spiritual sense. And in that sense, they are one entity, which we can call “God”.
Here is my answer to this question.
When people say that the Bible was written by God and is complete, they aren’t talking about the New International Version, and they’re not talking about the King James Version. They are referring to the original version, before it was hand-copied and translated many many times over the centuries. The book, Misquoting Jesus, says that the part about the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, “... which scholars have called the Johannine Comma, ... [cannot] be found in the oldest and superior manuscripts of the Greek New Testament.” But much later, in the sixteenth century, Desiderius Erasmus published a version of the Greek New Testament that included the Johannine Comma, and it “...became the standard form of the Greek text to be published by Western European printers for more than three hundred years.” The Johannine Comma is very important, “... since it is the only passage in the entire Bible that explicitly delineates the doctrine of the Trinity... Without this verse, the doctrine of the Trinity must be inferred from the combination of a variety of passages... This passage, in contrast, states the doctrine directly and succinctly.”
So this is how I would answer the question. The apostle John never wrote the Johannine comma. Rather, Jerome, the author of the official Latin translation of the Bible (the Vulgate), added that verse about 300 years after John died. Over the next eleven centuries, the Christian church adopted the doctrine of the Trinity based on that single verse.
By the time Erasmus published the Greek standard, the Trinity had become such a fundamental part of Christianity that the Johannine Comma had to be included, even though it couldn’t be found in any of the older Greek versions of the New Testament. Erasmus’s Bible was then translated to make the King James Version of the Bible. About 300 years later, when it was generally accepted that the Johannine Comma couldn’t be found in any copies of the Greek New Testament that were written before Erasmus made his version, the authors of the New International Version of the Bible decided not to include it, except in a footnote.
The conclusion then is that the Johannine Comma was not written by God, and without it, the doctrine of the Trinity becomes very difficult to defend based on the Bible. This suggests that, if it weren’t for Jerome’s creativity, the Trinity might never have become a doctrine of Christianity.
My answer to this question can be found here.
Here is my answer to this question.
If the Bible really is the word of God, then the question reveals a conflict between what God has said and what logic tells us. The simple way to resolve this conflict is to declare that at least this part of the Bible isn’t really the word of God. However, let’s try to find another solution. Consider the following hypothetical situation. (Note that, to my knowledge, none of it is true.)
Suppose you toss a ball in the air and when it comes down, it stops and hangs in the air at the level of your eyes for three seconds before falling to the ground. What are you going to make of that? Your eyes told you that the ball hung in the air, but science tells you that that is impossible. Which do you believe? Your senses or science? Well, since you know that your senses are fallible, and your eyes can be deceived by optical illusions, you might decide to rely on science instead of your senses.
Now suppose that you are reading a new scientific paper written by a famous physicist in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. This paper claims that, under a very very rare set of circumstances, a ball may hang in the air, and it goes into a detailed mathematical analysis that specifies precisely what those circumstances are and presents a proof of the scientist’s theory. This paper disagrees with what science has told you. So which do you accept now? Well, you know that the scientific method is not logically valid, and scientific theories have been changed in the past. For example, Newton’s laws were accepted as scientific truth for centuries before Einstein convinced the world that they were not entirely accurate. So you might accept the claims of this paper over the scientifically-accepted theory.
But suppose that, when you read the proof in the paper very carefully, you discover that it includes a logical contradiction. Now you must choose between the paper and logic. Which do you consider to be the higher authority? If you believe, as many do, that logical reasoning is infallible, you will surely rely on the logical conclusion over the paper’s theory.
And now comes the big one. Suppose that, reading the Bible, you discover that God says a ball can indeed hang in the air. Now you must decide what is the supreme authority? Logic or God? If only one can be right, and the other must be wrong, which do you rely on when they disagree? Although it may be inconceivable to imagine that logic could ever be flawed, is it even harder to believe that God might be mistaken? If you decide to put the greater trust in God, then you can accept that the Bible could be God’s word, despite any logical contradiction that you might encounter in it.
I talk about my struggles with this answer here.
I do not yet have an answer to this question.
I do not yet have an answer to this question.
I do not yet have an answer to this question.
Here is my answer to this question.
The answer is: Yes. Orthodox Jews can simply pick and choose which laws they’re going to follow. However, this must be a consensus decision of all of the Orthodox Rabbis. Even still, it seems very strange that humans should have any right to disobey God’s laws under any circumstances.
I will say this much. An Orthodox Jew has a clear and strict code that he follows. And he does not simply follow a personal moral code, as most people do. He follows the same code that many many other people around the world also follow. I think this is far more admirable than the way most people decide how they personally want to live their lives and then change their minds at any time based on their circumstances.
I do not yet have an answer to this question.
I do not yet have an answer to this question, but I have more to say about it here.
I do not yet have an answer to this question.
I do not yet have an answer to this question.
I do not yet have an answer to this question.
Here is my answer to this question.
The answer is: Yes and yes. Everything is already determined, and despite that, people have free will. God knows what I will type next before I make my decision, but He doesn’t make the decision for me. Even though he knows my decision before I do, the decision is still mine. God lets me make the decision.
The strange part is that these events are occurring in the wrong order. First God knows what my decision is. And then I make my decision. The effect occurs before the cause. How is this possible?
It just is. There’s no contradiction. This is because God doesn’t act on my decision. If He did, then our time line could get messed up. For example, suppose God sees that I’m about to type something that reveals a secret about God that He doesn’t want me to tell anyone. So, just before I make the decision to type it, He causes me to have a heart attack and die. That would be a problem of the form: X causes Y which causes Z which causes not-X. X is my decision to type the secret. That causes Y, which is God learning that I’m going to type the secret. That, in turn, causes Z, my heart attack. And my heart attack causes me not to type the secret, which is not-X. Therefore God doesn’t learn I’m going to type the secret (Y), so He doesn’t give me a heart attack (Z), and so I do decide to type the secret (X), and so on.
But as long as God doesn’t act on my decision by changing something in my past, there is no contradiction.
An alternative answer to the question can be found here.
References

Notes