Are there ways in which God is like us?
Yes. God loves, hates, plans, creates, thinks, builds, achieves, expresses Himself, takes pleasure in beauty and diversity, is disgusted by cruelty and evil.
God communicates.
God enters into relationships. (Source: Pastor Steve’s Beliefs)

In a sense, the author is correct. God, according to the Bible, is and does all of those things. But I think the author is a bit sloppy: He has the direction backwards.

No, God is not like us. We are like God. Not in the New Age sense of being gods or even “god-like”, but instead being made in God’s image so we reflect a portion (albeit sometimes a tiny portion) of His glory. If we were to say that God is like us, we would be anthropomorphizing God, making Him like us. We should try to think in the right direction (top-down rather than bottom-up) regarding God.

For example, when we refer to God as “Father” we have a tenancy to apply our conceptions of our own father to God … which of course is quite backwards. To use Platonic terms (hopefully correctly) God is the Form, and our fathers are the forms. Or to put it another way, God is the mold, and our own fathers (as wonderful or as miserable as they may be) are the clay, which imperfectly represent facets of the original.

Of course, such similarities of God are marred (but not erased) by sin, which causes us to feel separated but not entirely estranged from our heavenly Father.

Related: How does sin estrange us from God? And what is God’s answer to the problem?

So, does Christianity rob you of your freedom? Yes and no.

This question is emotionally charged because Westerners typically value personal freedom above all else, although historically and culturally around the world this has not always been the case. In some areas of the world the rights of the community still take precedence over personal freedoms. However, maybe before we can really talk about “freedom” we should explore a bit about what it means to “be free”.

Dr Victor Shepherd comments regarding freedom:

Most people think that freedom is having several alternatives to choose from. A young person goes to an ice cream parlor and finds that there are twenty-seven flavors available … “What freedom,” she thinks, meaning, “How fortunate I am to have so many choices.” … What the child calls “freedom” - one choice among twenty-seven - is really indeterminism … that is, no power external to her is coercing her [to choose a particular flavor].

Consider the paradox of anarchy. Anarchy is sort of the most extreme version of this common conception of freedom (an extreme version of indeterminism): No rules. The paradox of anarchy is that a total lack of rules will often result in less personal freedom, not more. Think of most of the freedoms that you cherish: To be treated fairly, to have the right to speak and vote, to own possessions without constant fear of having them taken, to living a life of liberty “in pursuit of happiness”. All of these are guaranteed and facilitated by having rules which restrict certain “freedoms” (like being free to steal other peoples’ property or to silence others from speaking) in favor of others (like the right to own property or have free speech).

So then, while we can all agree that a dictatorship will encroach on a person’s freedoms, going to the other extreme of anarchy will similarly result in loss of freedom. This freedom that is lost in both cases is just the type of freedom that Jesus promised. Dr Shepherd continues:

When the Bible speaks of freedom, however, it means something entirely different; it means the absence of any impediment to acting in accord with our true nature … The free person is simply the person for whom there is no impediment (inner or outer), no obstacle to her living as the child of God that she is by faith. (Victor Shepherd, Do you love me? And other questions Jesus asks, 35-36)

When Jesus said “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:31-32) he wasn’t talking about indeterminism or anarchy. He was referring to how knowing the truth about God and His creation allows us to become truly free to become everything we were meant to be. Without knowing where we came from, where we are going, and who we are, we cannot achieve our full potential as human beings, and thus remain chained, unable to achieve full freedom.

If this makes sense, maybe it’s time, right now, today, to reconsider the claims of Jesus and learn how the truth can set you free?

Over at his blog Fides Quaerens Intellectum Christian philosopher Johnny-Dee writes:

I think the objection goes like this: It is wrong for you to believe that your belief is true because it implies those who adhere to other religious beliefs are wrong. This objection is rife with problems in validity and soundness, but I’d like to ignore all of that for now. Consider what the objector is suggesting: Christians should have a belief that they do not think is true. [Full post]

Sometimes when a person expresses offense when Christians claim that Christianity is true (not just “true for me” but absolutely and objectively true for everyone) they may indeed object because they hold to an incorrect and inappropriate conception of tolerance, as I’ve commented on previously (see Tolerance and Stating Facts != Hating). But more often they are objecting because of a similar but subtly different reason, namely that they are making what I’ll call a category error regarding religious truth claims.

When some people express offense that a Christian believes Christianity to be really true, they are conceiving of Christianity as being in the realm of personal (relative) opinion rather than objective truth. That is, they see choice of religion as being like choosing your favorite ice cream flavor: A person isn’t “wrong” because they prefer vanilla over chocolate. So too, the erroneous argument goes, a person isn’t “wrong” because they prefer Baha’i over Christianity. Greg Koukl talks about this using the ice cream / insulin analogy:

There is significant confusion on this point. Americans think of God, religion, and morals like ice cream and not like insulin. They choose religious views according to tastes, according to what they prefer rather than according to what’s true. [Full post]

Of course, this raises the question of whether choice of religious belief is really like choosing our favorite ice cream flavor. Hmmm, after adding the picture above I really crave ice cream … Ahem. Like I noted in my article Aren’t there many different paths to God? for From Today On (also posted here):

If someone is dying and needs medicine, you need to give them what will heal them, not what they like best. In the same way, Jesus gives us what we need, and ultimately what is best for us. There are many different paths, but they don’t all eventually lead to the top of the same mountain. Some veer off to the left and the right; others climb entirely different mountains! And if God is real, truth about God is not like ice cream; it’s like medicine, and only what is true can heal.

Further reading: Three Tough Questions and Their Answers by philosopher Michael Horner, including “Aren’t all religions the same?”

Streaming video: Dr William Lane Craig speaks about the properties the cause of the universe must possess. I have commented on natural theology before and the attributes God must possess, and in fact add a few others to Craig’s list that he does not mention, but I think his brief talk is quite well done as far as it goes. (After the break, 2:22 long.)

Watch the video »» (more…)