Why Earth?

[ElCodeMonkey]

If Christianity is to be believed, why the whole Earth ruse? God knows everything that is and would be. With such knowledge, he would know what direction and decisions we'd make and thus whether or not we're "worthy" of heaven (either by our beliefs, works, or whatever). With all power, he could make up our brains and spirits or whatever to immediately be whatever we would have become without any past whatsoever and he could even make us believe we had the past without actually enduring it if that was somehow useful. So then, what's the point of Earth? What does God possibly gain from it? What could God possibly gain in general? It couldn't possibly be for him since God can have everything at the snap of a finger--it'd have to be for us. So what do we gain if God can make us our end-result without it? I can't see a useful reason for Earth in a Christian world. And anything that we could gain from it is useless for the unborn or those with early deaths. So what's the point?

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 15 by ttruscott]

So if indeed these are a training grounds, barring the fact that God could start us all out "trained" without need of a process, this would create a lot of "answers" for a lot of "why" things are the way they are. God does not make himself obvious because, if he did, we would feel compelled to do what is right rather than choosing it. Much like Paul, he essentially felt under obligation because he "knew" Jesus was the way because he saw him with his own eyes.

Now, I don't know how much you hold the belief in the importance of "right belief" regarding God and Jesus, etc, but if this is essentially a training grounds for learning to "behave," then I imagine the behavior is far more important than our beliefs. God wants us to "be good." If that's the case, then even atheists can potentially be saved so long as they still want what is "good". Being atheist is not synonymous with desiring evil. It is simply a statement that, given the available [lack of] evidence, we think it is unlikely that a God exists, and that is clearly by design to ensure we can make real choices to be good. So a good atheist is perhaps even better in God's eyes than a good Christian since an atheist chooses to be good without any promise or belief in reward. Would you agree?

[William]

[Replying to post 21 by ElCodeMonkey]

Would you agree?

Your question was to ttruscott but my answer is "Absolutely".


It is never what you self identify as, it is how you behave. A theist, atheist, or agnostic are altogether that way because of the knowledge of ideas of GODs. That is what created those positions in the first place.

Calling oneself any of those as some kind of self identifying label does not identify anyone on account of belief (or lack thereof), but on account of behavior. Behavior is what identifies the individual to other individuals, NOT what we might label our self.

[ttruscott]

Would you agree?

No sir. The best moral behaviour of any sinful human is as filthy corrupt rags: Isaiah 64:6 All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; ie, the unclean cannot produce that which is clean or profitable before GOD or to GOD.

What makes behaviour morally acceptable is the person who chooses it is a person morally acceptable to GOD - a demon cannot fulfill righteousness because at his core he is evil, ie, even if he does the most unselfish thing he is capable of doing, it will be tainted by his evil of not putting his faith in GOD, euphemistically referred to as 'believing' in HIM.

[ElCodeMonkey]

No sir. The best moral behaviour of any sinful human is as filthy corrupt rags: Isaiah 64:6 All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; ie, the unclean cannot produce that which is clean or profitable before GOD or to GOD.

Firstly, that passage is way out of context. He's lamenting that the people have become that way, not declaring that as a human condition. Apart from that, you're still free to believe this is the case, but are "sinful humans" all the elect that you're referring to? Or is it only the damned? Or is it both?

What makes behaviour morally acceptable is the person who chooses it is a person morally acceptable to GOD - a demon cannot fulfill righteousness because at his core he is evil, ie, even if he does the most unselfish thing he is capable of doing, it will be tainted by his evil of not putting his faith in GOD, euphemistically referred to as 'believing' in HIM.

What makes a person morally acceptable to God apart from simply being moral? The belief behind the morality is more important than the morality itself? Moreso than being loving toward one's neighbor, it is far more important to be loving to one's neighbor while believing it's because God commanded it? You're making it sound like the requirement to love and believing it thus makes it more moral than simply being of a moral fiber of the individual. As for the demon, you ultimately said that in trying to "be" good he'd simply fail and still "be bad." Thus it does not match the question I originally postulated. I postulated a person who actually does perform what is good and moral. If such a person could do it apart from belief in a God (which I'm now thinking you think is impossible) would that person be acceptable to God? Or, in the end, is the belief of God the trumping factor? If so, why is a belief which guides no action more important than action itself? What's so important about the belief?

[William]

[Replying to post 4 by ttruscott]

PCE Christianity contends:
this earth is NOT an expression of HIS original creation but is a response to the choice of some to be sinners and it is more of a prison for psychopaths and the rules and environment they deserve than an expression of greater holy society.

We were all created ingenuously innocent with an equal ability and opportunity to choose to be perfectly righteous or perfectly eternally evil. Then we chose. Then earth was created as a prison for those who chose to be sinners, and all sinners were sent here.

The proselytizing above moves away from the classic idea that the original GOD created the Earth to that of a Devil created the Earth, which allows for the argument that things regarded as 'evil' re the planet are 'explained' without having to 'taint the good name of [the PCE version] of the original GOD."

This is an idea made popular by Gnosticism, which has as a core belief the idea that all matter is evil and that the being who created this universe, is a false GOD.

Gnosticism (from Ancient Greek: gnostikos, "having knowledge", from gnsis, knowledge) is a modern name for a variety of ancient religious ideas and systems, originating in Jewish-Christian milieux in the first and second century AD. These systems believed that the material world is created by an emanation or 'works' of a lower god (Demiurge),...

...All matter is evil, and the non-material, spirit-realm is good
...The creator of the (material) universe is not the supreme god, but an inferior spirit (the Demiurge).

[ttruscott]

This is an idea made popular by Gnosticism, which has as a core belief the idea that all matter is evil and that the being who created this universe, is a false GOD.

Yes, and I am certainly Anti-Gnostic. Their modern view fits well into the reasoning I find that Satan used these same arguments to repudiate YHWH as GOD and the unforgivable sin which is the result.

[William]

[Replying to post 26 by ttruscott]

This is an idea made popular by Gnosticism, which has as a core belief the idea that all matter is evil and that the being who created this universe, is a false GOD.

Yes, and I am certainly Anti-Gnostic. Their modern view fits well into the reasoning I find that Satan used these same arguments to repudiate YHWH as GOD and the unforgivable sin which is the result.

The blatant hole I see in this particular proselytizing is that the quote below then becomes questionable in regard to the quote above as they are at odds with each other but come from the same proselytizing.

PCE Christianity contends:
this earth is NOT an expression of HIS original creation but is a response to the choice of some to be sinners and it is more of a prison for psychopaths and the rules and environment they deserve than an expression of greater holy society.

There is the clear implication that the idea of GOD PCE Christianity believes in, did indeed create this evil universe (specifically - of course - the planet Earth re the OP subject) and thus if the Earth is indeed evil - or rather - the product of an evil response, then by definition, the particular GOD which created this universe is "evil". Thus falls into the category Gnostic's favor..."...The creator of the (material) universe is not the supreme god, but an inferior spirit (the Demiurge)."

Arguing that "Satan used these same arguments to repudiate YHWH as GOD" becomes besides the point. One could even argue that the "not the supreme god, but an inferior spirit (the Demiurge)" YHWH created Satan specifically to throw humans off the scent. So to speak.