The Christian Bible speaks to the ultimate choice and ultimate quests common to most individuals and cultures. The ultimate choice that confronts every intelligent human is: “what value system will be the guide for my decisions?” Failure to consciously formulate a value system usually results in people finding ways to justify whatever they want to do, even when it is obviously detrimental to others.An old-fashioned word for this is selfishness.A more contemporary word is Narcissism. Extreme Narcissism has been identified in most, if not all, brutal dictators.Extreme Narcissism is a pathology, with clinically labels such as sociopath or psychopath.

The chosen value system contributes positively or negatively to the functioning of individuals and communities.Historical and archaeological evidence supports that the ultimate choice of a value system for individuals and societies is driven by three ultimate quests.These quests are:

·the Quest for Security

·the Quest for Identity

·the Quest for Assurance of Existence after Death (the Afterlife)

The Christian Bible and resulting belief systems have contributed both positively and negatively to the lives of individuals and communities.Whether the contribution is positive or negative is influenced by the interpretation given to Bible passages.Some interpretations of selected passages of Scripture have been used to support slavery while alternate interpretations contributed significantly to abolishing slavery.

The Bible has many multiple accounts of the same event where the different accounts give different perspectives.This is common when there are multiple witnesses of an event.However, some Christians promote that God illuminates witnesses to prevents such conflicts.An analysis of Scripture suggests this is a presumptive and unsubstantiated viewpoint about how God relates to Scripture.The Bible is not written with the precision of a mathematics or science textbook.Further, the languages used across multiple times-frames and cultures adds a variety of problems for interpreters.

Interpretation of scripture which demonize God and consequently drive some toward atheismwere recognized by Thomas Jefferson.At the beginning of a 1823 letter to John Adams, Thomas Jefferson states:

This brings us to Calvin's theory of double predestination, which teaches that God has predetermined who will be saved and who will be damned. If double predestination is true, there is no room for a genuinely free will as regards our actions and choices. Those who study Calvinist beliefs in an objective fashion might well ask, "If our fate is sealed, what difference do our actions make? Does it matter if we go to church, or evangelize, or follow the Commandments or ignore them? What difference does it make if we contracept? If we have no control over our actions, but are merely puppets performing the drama of God's grace, then don't our actions become meaningless?"

The most important criteria for choosing between alternate perspectives of events or doctrines is how do the “paradoxical propositions” (possibilities) relate to the synthesis of God’s character found in Scripture. Throughout Scripture the righteousness of God is expressed in terms of His Justice, Love and Mercy. As “paradoxical propositions” are examined it is proposed that the “tiebreaker” be how the alternate concepts relate to the hallmarks of God’s character, Justice, Love and Mercy. 

This “tiebreaker” is applied to a number of important “paradoxical propositions” where one option makes God the ultimate vindictive torturer and/or pathologically narcissistic.These negative doctrinal positions create images of God that are the antithesis of justice, love, and mercy. They have slandered God’s character and deterred many honest seekers from becoming part of Christian communities.

There are alternative interpretations to scripture to those which demonize God and make human choices, endeavors and activities as meaningless as those of puppets.The examination of “the Ultimate Choice, the Ultimate Quests and the Good News” which follows, provides positive alternatives which emphases the hallmarks of God’s character- His Justice, Love and Mercy. 

The ultimate choice that confronts every intelligent human is: “what value system will be the guide for my decisions?”This ultimate choice establishes a belief system paradigm that affects everything you do. Most important, it guides you on how you will relate to others, your community, and your country.Will you place your needs and desires in a balanced perspective with the needs of others?Or, will you approach life in a narcissistic manner where the only thing that counts is what you want regardless of how you get it? Every religion and philosophy addresses this choice. 

The ultimate choice of a value system for individuals and societies is driven by three ultimate quests.These quests are:

·the Quest for Security

·the Quest for Identity

·the Quest for Assurance of Existence after Death (the Afterlife)

Some argue that humans do not reality have the ability to choose.Rather, they are electrochemical machines responding to electrochemical stimuli.With such a model if everything could be known about a person, their genetics, their history, and their current state of being, it would theoretically be possible to predict how the person would respond to any situation (electrochemical stimuli).This type of model is a reasonable outcome of an evolutionary perspective.And in fact, B. F. Skinner and Carl Rogers held classical discussions on the issue as to whether or not humans had choice?

A deterministic model is not unique to evolutionary theory.Some Christian scholars and communities view nature and human choice in a deterministic manner. This was, in part, a result of how some Christian scholars interpreted what the Scripture says about God and His creation.The deterministic concepts of evolutionary and Christian scholars appear to have also been strongly influenced by the increasing ability of Renaissance scientists to use mathematics to make correct astronomical and physical predictions.

The ability to use mathematics, physics and astronomy to explain and make accurate predictions about nature also presented theological challenges that reshaped traditional approaches to epistemology.The long-standing practice where theologians interpreted Scripture to declare how nature worked was replaced by the scientific method.The conservative Christian community’s response the Copernican Conflict contributed to the paradigm shift, where in scholarly communities scientific exploration and process took precedence over theologians’ declarations about how nature worked.

The ultimate question of origin is what is the uncaused-cause.Is there a “designer- creator” or are there only “evolutionary-processes?” 

Genetic adaptation to environmental circumstances can be observed.This is given as a rationale to support a more general evolutionary theory.However, the theory goes beyond what can be supported from scientific observation and experimentation.

Evolutionary theory does not account for: 

·The entire substance of the universe suddenly coming from a mathematical singularity which has no size nor mass (the Big Bang).

·There does not seem to have been enough time since the Big Bang to develop the chemical complexity needed for life.

·There is no rationale for having all the right ingredients needed for complex reactions in one place. 

Some would include a violation of the second law of thermodynamics in the above list.However, this seems redundant within the context of the Big Bang.

Those who believe in a Creator God have a simple answer for the above three items.God did it.God is the uncaused-cause.

The most abundant and diverse molecules found in living cells are proteins.Proteins are macromolecules composed of one or more polypeptide chains each having a characteristic sequence of amino acids linked by peptide bonds. Their molar mass is usually above 100,000. 

For the purposes of illustration concerning time and randomness a simple but important enzyme molecule Ribonuclease will be used, a nuclease that catalyzes the hydrolysis of specific phosphodiester linkages of RNA.Ribonuclease has 124 amino acid residues linked in a single chain. A residue is a single unit within a polymer, for example, an amino acid within a polypeptide chain. There are 20 different amino acids.Thus, this single chain has20¹²⁴ possible arrangements (20¹²⁴ = 2.12 x 10¹⁶¹). 

It is common to represent each amino acid by a different letter when illustrating their arrangement in a chain.An arrangement of Ribonuclease using this approach follows:

There are about 31,336,000 seconds in a year (60x60x24x365=31,336,000).Let’s suppose with some form of a super catalyst in an ideal amino acid soup it was possible to construct 10²¹ (an average more than 31 trillion arrangements per second) per year of the more than 2x10¹⁶¹ possible arrangements of the 124 amino acid residues. One lecturer noted the mass of this many alternatives would be more than the mass of our universe. To accomplish this it would take more than a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times as many years as the estimated age of the universe. ONE CELL MAY HAVE MORE THAN A THOUSAND ENZYMES of comparable of greater complexity. If there is a designer creator God than time is not an issue.

If first-life processes are only from random genetic mutations with survival of the fittest, thenevolutionary theory has failed too adequately addressed the issue of time.

The uncaused-cause issue has significant implications for selecting a value system.

·If there is only “evolutionary-process”, then ethical responsibility is to self.

·If there is a “designer-creator” then there is still ethical responsibility to self but ultimate responsibility is to divine authority.

Archaeological and other historical evidence indicates most human societies focused much of their energy and resources on the three ultimate quests: Security, Identity (including the attempt to understand origins), and Existence after Death.These quests were the concern of both political and religious leaders. 

Throughout history these quests resulted in processes (rituals, mystical rites, rules and secret knowledge) for appeasing or finding favor with the God(s) which were key to security, identity, and existence after death. Often the ruling-political classes worked hand-in-hand with the religious leaders.And, in some societies the religious and political leaders were the same individuals.Those who “understood” and performed the processes for appeasing and finding favor with the God(s) use their mystical relations with the God(s) to maintain a fearful control over the less knowledgeable members of society.Karl Marx cynically called such forms of religious control “the opiate of the people.” 

As societies became more sophisticated, the palaces and temples became the schools for training the special classes intended to be the future political and religious leaders.A secret and guarded curriculum of mystical control mechanisms was reserved for only the most elite. The secret-mystical knowledge was most controlling when it portrayed that Devine authority was bestowed to special individuals by the God(s).

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men . . . There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.(Lord Acton (1834-1902) British historian. . .'. Letterto Bishop Mandell Creighton, 5 Apr 1887)

Is there an exception to Karl Marx’s statement that “Religion is the Opiate of the People?”Karl Marx observation is made possible because of “gatekeepers.”In a religion gatekeepers have such titles as Priests, Witch Doctors, Shamans, Medicine Man, Mystics, Magician, etc.Such gatekeepers had special relations with God(s). They were go-between’s who could make a difference in this life and/or the afterlife.The ethics associated with a religion often justified the right of the ruling elite and the virtue of being satisfied with the status to which one had been destined via God(s).Collaboration for control between political rulers and religious gatekeepers has historically been the rule rather than the exception. Control mechanisms included religious induced fear combined with every variety of torture and death for heretics and/or political dissenters.

The atheisticpolitical systems which came after Karl Marx observations would have embarrassed him.The gatekeepers were now “party members.”Control mechanisms still included fear, torture or death for those who failed to speak, think or act “politically correctly.”In the 20^th century more people were killed (about 169 million) via “domicide” (governmental political murder and/or genocide) then in previous recorded history (approximately 140 million). Wrong thoughts or genes were dangerous and often fatal.

Human language has far less precision than most people recognize.This is why conversations are needed clarify ideas even for people sharing the same culture.Human language becomes ever less precise as people attempt to communicate ideas across different cultures.Still more ambiguity is added when ideas are from distant times and diverse cultures.How could an ancient writer describe to those living in his time scenes from a modern city, cars, airplanes, rockets, H?bombs, or a modern war?The languages used by Bible writers did not have words to describe such scenes. 

Even today, how would a primitive man from New Guinea who has never experienced civilization described the followingexperience?Someone who knows his language befriends him and convinces him to take a journey.The journey begins with a one day walk to a clearing; where, a helicopter takes the primitive man and his modern friend to a jetport.The primitive man is cleaned up and dressed so he will not scare people.Together he and his modern interpreter-friend and experience a commercial jet flight, a modern city, a spaceship ride, riding in an elevator to view Chicago from the top of the Sears Tower, modern warfare in Iraq, landing in a jet fighter on an aircraft carrier, parachuting from a plane, looking at our Milky Way through a telescope, scuba diving, traveling on a luxury liner through the Panama Canal, experiencing a variety of modern foods, walking on a glacier, speeding down the freeway only to be confronted with a modern traffic jam, . . . the list could go on and on.

Scripture gives a picture of a holy, just, loving and merciful God, who communicates through Scripture as one means of leading corrupt and degenerate humans into a healing/redemptive relationship with Him.His desire is to help humans take every possible advantage of his “good news” plan for leading them into a more abundant life now, and for eternity. 

Proposed Criterion for Judging Ethical and Scriptural Ambiguities: how do alternate ethical or spiritual ideas relate to the hallmarks of the Creator God’s character, His Justice, Love, and Mercy?God’s Holiness is the synthesis of His character including His Justice, Love and Mercy. God’s Grace is an expression of His Justice, Love, and Mercy granted to those who have faith in Him. When using such a criterion three questions need to be asked about alternate ethical, doctrinal, or spiritual positions:

·How well does the concept fit the love dimension of God’s character?

·How well does the concept fit the mercy dimension of God’s character?

·How well does the concept fit the justice dimension of God’s character?

A case can be made from history that, even when people do not believe in God, an examination of ethical/moral positions based on Justice, Love, and Mercy provides excellent and balanced criteria for selecting the best alternatives. Based on this criteria Communism had a noble ethical philosophy but failed because of human nature.

A historical synthesis of human behavioral, religious and philosophic writings supports a three level conceptual hierarchy of individual and societal relations. The three levels are:

·treat others the way you would like to be treated (The Golden Rule)

·an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth (treat others the way they treat you)

·hurts someone in my clan and we will genocide your clan (extreme vengeance)

For the sincere of heart, the Creator God of the Bible brings clarity about His expectations.This is a marked comparison to the ambiguity found in the god(s) and/or philosophies of other ethical systems. “God is a God of peace, not confusion. This is the way it should be in all of the congregations of the holy people!(1 Corinthians 14:33 ?? International English).” 

While at college I had a two-year independent study with Dr. Paul Quimby, a historian, who had lived for much of his life in the Orient.He had an experiential understanding of philosophy and world religions.It was my joy to explore various ethical systems with him.In the life and teachings of Jesus the Christ I found a life-sustaining ethical system where intelligent beings endowed withchoice could live together without self-destructing.It was the only approach I found that expected and promoted individuals making the most of their talents.Other approaches seem designed to maintain the position of a ruling elite while keeping those of lesser class in their place.For example the class systems of Hinduism, the “be content with your status in life” of Buddhism and the “privileged party member” class of atheistic communism or fascism.All ethical approaches seem flawed in comparison to what I found in the life and teachings of Jesus the Messiah which made possible the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:5 & 9), a kingdom of priests (Revelation 1:6). 

Some Christians ascribed a precision to the Bible that is difficult to support.Some go as far as suggesting verbal communication from God combined with almost perfect internal consistency.For the atheist, agnostic or sincere-seeker such positions are like paper tigers waiting to be blown over by the mildest breeze.

A similar but a different situation is where a collection of passages is used to support one interpretation of the doctrine while a second collection of passages can be used to support an alternate interpretation of the doctrine.There seemed to be two reasonable approaches to such situations:

·Judge the alternate interpretations by the criteria of God’s character where the hallmarks are Justice, Love, and Mercy.

·Put the alternate interpretations on the shelf of unanswered questions so long as the lack of response does not slander God’s character in a way that is detrimental to honest seekers.

I have been asked at many times what I think about the nature of Jesus the Christ.This question about Christ nature has produced extreme controversy and even bloodshed among professed Christians.My first response is that I believe that His nature is adequate for him to: be my high priest, be the perfect atonement for my sins, do all that is necessary and sufficient for me to be justified by faith alone and have assurance of salvation. 

Most people contemplate questions about human origin and rules for social behavior. With a majority of individuals the concept of God or gods becomes part of their consideration. Pascal did not think that the atheist or the believer would be convinced by his arguments concerning the existence or nonexistence of God.Instead, he proposed a “Wager Logic” to the curious and unconvinced.

Thus, I have everything to gain and nothing to lose by believing in God, and I have everything to lose and nothing to gain by not believing in God. On these grounds, one would be foolish not to believe.

A problem some have with Pascal’s Wager is his belief that if God exists and I do not believe, the results will be the eternal pain of Hell.Pascal likely came to this position because he was part of the Catholic community that believed in eternal Hell. This makes his “God concept” that of an eternal torturer. This seems inconsistent with the life and teachings of a loving Christ although some would argue otherwise. 

Philosophers struggles with epistemology and ontology have resulted in various schools of philosophy. Some philosophers concluded that a “formal” proof that God exists or does not exist is beyond the human capability. Those who take this position are still left with questions of an axiology, “what is the benefit or what is the value of God(s) versus no God(s)?” Questions about the value of God(s) versus no God(s) immediately lead to consideration of what type of God(s).A study of this question may also lead to understandings that help with “God questions” which relate to epistemology and ontology. 

When I was in college, the question I considered was: "if God is like this what is the implication?" This led to a variation of Pascal's Wager.With Pascal's Wager the alternatives are: if God exists: eternal joyful existence for those who accept God's offers and respond appropriately versus eternal torture for those who deny God's existence (if he really exists). The eternal torture alternative of Pascal's concept of God is difficult for many to accept.An issue important to thoughtful seekers who contemplate the possibility of a relation with a supreme being is “what is God like?”.

A disciple asked Jesus to “SHOW us the FATHER.”This question and His profound reply as found in John 14:8-10 KJV translation follows.

(8) Philip saith unto him, Lord, SHOW us the FATHER, and it sufficeth us.(9) Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?He that hath seen me hath seen the FATHER; and how sayest thou [then ], SHOW us the FATHER? (10) Believest thou not that I am in the FATHER, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the FATHER that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

1.If God does not exist I believe that the expectations for relationship and responsibility found in the life and teachings of Christ are superior to others I have studied and will help me have a more meaningful life now. It is a great placebo if nothing else.

10.If God exists and I chose not to invite him to be part of my experience, my perception of the teachings of Christ are that my eventual outcome will be eternal destruction not eternal torture.

Some concepts about God(s) have been and are now used to get “believers” to intimidate, coerce, torture, and/or kill others who do not believe or act “correctly.”This is detestable! The God who is part of my experience (real or imagined) is not like that. I have never regretted my decision to make the invitation to the God reflected in the life and teachings of Jesus to become part of my experience. 

A beginning to the important God quest is the third question of Table 1 (which follows) where generic questions of philosophy are applied to the examination of the God concepts.

 

Table 1.Philosophy and the Considerations about God
Area of Philosophy	General Question	God Specific Question
Epistemology	1. How Can we Know?	G1. How can we know if God exists?
Ontology (Metaphysics)	2. What is Real?	G2. Is God Real?
Axiology	3. What is of Value?	G3.What is the Value if “A GOD LIKE THIS” ?

To consider question G3, it is essential to define “A GOD LIKE THIS.” Different definitions for “A GOD LIKE THIS” will result in different answers to G3.

I have had the pleasure of being friends with a number of compassionate skeptical seekers.Some became part of a Christian community when they discovered that not all Christians viewed God in the same way. For example, an eternal torturer who deliberately creates people destined to eternal torture and others destined to eternal heavenly joy.

There are some “closet annihilationists.”A number of years ago at a convention, I atewith a Christian gentleman who belonged to a denomination that believed in eternal Hell.We enjoyed sharing our common beliefs.I told a story of parents who brutally punish their children for a minor infraction of a rule.He said “I think I know where you’re coming from, please go ahead.”I then asked him how he reconciled God being “just, loving and merciful” if He also tortured sinners in Hell for eternity, regardless of what they did in this flash of time we call life. He smiled and said “I have come to believe as you believe but it’s a little difficult to teach that in a seminary.”

Two references in the bibliography set forth for the position of annihilationism and a mortal soul in a manner that many would consider more reasonable than the traditional arguments used to support an eternal Hell (Fudge 1982 and West 2004).Appendix A has representative Scripture used by proponents of these alternate doctrinal positions.

The doctrine of Hell and eternal torture versus annihilation meet the conditions for the proposed “tiebreaker”: how do the alternate positions relate to the hallmarks of God’s character, Justice, Love, and Mercy? In the case of the annihilationism versus eternal torture in Hell the answer seems obvious.Eternal torture in Hell, regardless of what was done in someone’s lifetime, IS NOT just, loving, or merciful.

During my teens and early 20s I had opportunities that helped me grapple with thequestion: what value system will be the guide for my decisions?These opportunities included: (1) living near Stanford University where I had access to libraries and bookstores, (2) hiking in the Sierra where I interacted with wonderful atheists and agnostics about epistemology, origins, naturalism, and dealing with difficult and unanswered questions; and (3) a multi year study with a wonderful historian, Dr. Paul Quimby, who had spent the majority of his life in the Orient. This environment gave me a great opportunity to examine many challenging questions about the teachings of various religions and philosophies.

1.The Just, Merciful, and Loving Creator-God will torture beings in Hell forever, for their evil deeds committed in this flash of time we call a “lifetime.” This issue was discussed in the previous section with the response that a plausible interpretation of the Bible is that God will permanently destroy but not eternally torture sinners.

2.The Creator-God COULD BE Just, Merciful, and Loving while holding everyone accountable but not giving everyone an opportunity to respond to his redemptive salvation offer! 

3.The “Just, Merciful, and Loving” Creator-God creates some beings predestined to eternal torture in Hell and others predestined to eternal joy and happiness in heaven.Somehow this brings glory to Him and demonstrated that He is the Divine Righteous Sovereign of the universe!This concept seems to describe a Diabolical Puppeteer rather then the “Just, Loving, and Merciful,” Creator-God. 

Paul appears to recognize second Issue, a need for all to have opportunity, in Romans where he states “How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? (Romans 10:14 NIV).”Paul responds to his rhetorical question by quoting part of Isaiah 52:7.”And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written," How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news! (Romans 10:15 NIV).”The complete NIV translation of Isaiah 52:7 states “How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace, who bring good tidings, who proclaim salvation, who say to Zion, " Your God reigns! .””

If a contemporary Christian scholar generalized the application of Isaiah 52:7 as Paul appears to have done in Romans 10:14 and 15 they would likely be challenged for going beyond the contextual meaning of the passage. Peter might say some things Paul writes are difficult to understand, “. . . His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction ( 2 Peter 3:16 last part, NIV). 

Some argue that salvation requiresknowledge of Jesus’s life and teachings, “Christian exclusivism” or “particularism”(Samples 2004). (11) He is "'the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone. (12)'Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved"(Acts 4:11 & 12 NIV).An alternate interpretation of this passage is that the acts of Jesus the Christ makes salvation possible rather than knowing about the acts and/or a right “codename.” This alternate interpretation allows some to be saved without knowing about Jesus the Christ. Some might label this “Religious Inclusivism” (Samples 2004). Gravity works even if languages have no words to label it and science is unable to adequately explain it. 

God’s ways of accomplishing his Righteous acts of Justice, Love, and Mercy are sometimes beyond our conception.

Isaiah 55:8 (NIV)_(8) "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, " declares the Lord. (9) " As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. 

Dr. Quimby and I often explored ideas outside-the-box of traditional thinking because we recognized that God sometimes accomplishes things in unusual ways. The description of near-death experience where a person’s lifetime seems to rapidly unfold, motivated us to consider an outside-the-box idea.Our idea was God could use the episode of dying for the person to experience any knowledge or opportunity that might help him or her accept salvation.The opportunities and their responses could seem real. Today this might be called virtual-reality. Does the God who uses vision to bring spiritual understanding;also, use near-death virtual-reality experiences?If God does sometimes works this way, it makes “Christian exclusivism” versus “Religious Inclusivism”a mute Issue.

Perfect knowledge is not a prerequisite to conviction.Despite imperfect knowledge I believe in a personal holy Creator God who is true to His character hallmarked by Justice, Love, and Mercy.If “perfecttruth” is needed for salvation then at most, one can be saved for no two people agree on every point of doctrine.Demanding too much from “knowing,” can be a form of Gnosticism.