Act Of God - Part 2

The Jury Selection

The Jury Selection


So, who is eligible to serve on this human jury?

Now many of those that make negative claims against God are genuinely disturbed by what they see in the world, and they have sincere objections to religion because of this. However, there are also many people who reject any authority by God, and refuse to acknowledge a higher power, because they do not want their own lives restricted, or to have God's moral standards imposed upon them. Even if their objections were to be overcome, they would still not accept God and his ways.

There is a paradox, or contradiction which is often used by people to condemn God. Many who deny the existence of God claim that they do so because of perceived cruelty, or injustice by God. Yet this is not a viable or logical statement. If a person does not exist, he cannot be good or bad, kind or cruel, for the very reason that he does not exist. To illustrate - it would not be logical to accuse Jack of being a murderer of giants, a thief, and a beanstalk destroyer, because Jack is a fictitious character from a story. One can either accept the existence of God and then accuse him of being unjust or, one can deny the existence of God, and accuse him of nothing. Badness, cruelty or injustice are not a valid basis for disbelief, they are simply a basis for judging the moral standards of the one who exists.

Furthermore, before one holds God responsible for the evils perpetrated by the religions of mankind, would it not be fair and reasonable to find out what God actually instructs religious people to do? Can we hold the craftsman who makes an ornate bread knife responsible if, instead of using that knife to cut bread - as intended by it's creator - it is instead used to stab someone? Obviously the craftsman is not at fault.

To have the right to question God's teachings and moral standards, a person acting as a juror would need to be in a position of freedom of speech, that is to say, unhypocritical. No decent human court would place a murderer or deliberate lawbreaker on it's jury. For example, it would hardly be fair for an Jihadist terrorist to criticize God for judging and sentencing a group of people who broke his laws, when the behaviour of such terrorists is often extremely hypocritical, inflicting rape on women and girls, stealing from innocent victims, and murdering those who do not agree with their religion. Likewise it would be hypocrisy for nations, including those in the so-called “Free world” to condemn God for judging and executing someone, while those nations have their own imperfect justice systems which can lead to execution for the (supposedly) guilty. Furthermore, those nations have, (and continue to), bombed whole cities and buildings, murdering innocent men, women and children, and those nations allow people, including children, to suffer or die due to lack of nutrition or medical care. It is a shameful fact that human beings, of all nations, abort between 70-80,000,000 (Yes – seventy to eighty million) unborn children every year. If we are to question God's actions and motives, we need to be free of accusation ourselves. This is perfectly expressed by the words of Jesus Christ who said “Let him who is without sin be the first to cast a stone.” The fact of the matter is that almost all human beings are guilty of hypocrisy, to a greater or lesser degree. We may be appalled by the actions of religious terrorists yet, when we vote for and support the national policies of our nations, are we not complicit in the systemic interference of deprived nations, and the indiscriminate bombing of innocents in our so-called “Just” wars and conflicts? When a citizen votes for a government, they cannot pick and choose which policies or actions they support, they can only vote for the person, along with all their policies - good and bad. Yet, by voting for that person, we have empowered them to carry out all of their policies, even the ones we disagree with, or are uncomfortable with.

People often describe God as a “Vengeful God.” It is a very fashionable cliche that we hear time and time again in arguments, books, speeches, films, music, and TV programmes. Yet, it is a great irony that, the very thing people habitually accuse God of – vengeance - is the subject of a large percentage of entertainment and activity of human beings. The most popular films, programmes and music are about vengeance, and the public laps it up and rejoices over it. In fact, it seems like the world can't get enough revenge. Also, most military action, even by those self-appointed as “Free” and “Right” are done for retaliation, because someone killed their people, or stole their land. So, it seems to be fine, and even desirable for humans to seek vengeance but, for God, who according to the Bible is able to “Discern thoughts and intentions of the heart,” to execute justice against those he knows are evil, is unacceptable and evil.

So, our jury would need to meet certain requirements.

They would have to believe in God, or at least the possibility that He exists. A juror cannot judge someone who they do not believe exists.
They would have to be free of serious crimes themselves – such as murder and rape.
They would have to be completely honest, free of all kinds of robbery and deceit, (including tax evasion and stealing from employers).
They must be without prejudice. They could not swear by Almighty God to tell the truth. Also, any juror known to have a prejudice against the accused would not be permitted to serve.

Now, critics might argue that a religious person is biased, because they already believe in God, but the issue here is not about God's existence, but his moral standards. Many religious people often question God, and many lose their faith when faced with personal tragedy, or see cruelty or suffering.

So, who fits this eligibility criteria? There are many characters who may come to mind – people who are universally respected and trusted. One person stands out above all others – Jesus Christ. Surely, we can rely on the testimony of Jesus? Who else, from the past and present, could we consider?

1 - Jesus
2 - Albert Einstein is universally recognised as a humanitarian, and possibly the greatest scientific mind in history.
3 - Gandhi is widely known as a man of peace, integrity and courage.
4 - Abraham Lincoln is famous for his stand on equality and law.
5 - Mother Theresa is widely regarded as a model of humanitarian unselfishness.
6 - Tom Hanks was voted one of the most trustworthy people in the world, by US citizens.
7 - Queen Elizabeth II was highly respected for her loyalty and decency.
8 - Neil Armstrong is highly regarded in the world of science and exploration.
9 – Charles Darwin is one of the most respected names in both science and natural philosophy.
10 – David Attenborough was voted one of the most respected and trusted people, by a survey in Britain.
11 – Desmond Tutu was considered an upstanding man of peace.
12 - Dr Martin Luther King was famous for changing American history, and winning rights for black people. He did this using non-violent protests.

Let us therefore use these famous people as a our jury – drawing on their life and thoughts. After presenting the evidence and the witnesses, we will consult the jury to see if they decide if God is guilty or not guilty.