Firstly, I don’t have a problem at all with the parameters established. These are the parameters applied to the God she is learning about, after all. There’s no reason to criticise her for asking what we would do in the same situation.

And it is indeed a very good question. If you were God, how would you ensure that your followers knew where your rules came from (without overwhelming them with your presence, as some have pointed out)?

I’ve got a couple of ideas on the subject, but this is the one that appeals to me the most:

I would choose a percentage of my people (say, about ten percent) to deliver my message. One night while these people slept, I would visit them all in their dreams and deliver my message (and any subsequent commandments). I would do this to each person at the exact same time, and I would choose these people from a wide variety of social classes and locations for maximum believability. After the initial reveal, I would “come out of the closet” in a manner of speaking, performing some great inexplicable task in a location easily accessible by several eyewitnesses (preferably hundreds). I would continue doing this sort of thing on a frequent basis (at least a couple of times per generation) to remind my people that I am indeed present and watching.

If anyone asked for my help (through prayer or whathaveyou), I would give them immediate assistance, no questions asked. I would follow through on my promise to provide adequate survival to anyone who believed in me, preferably by dropping food from the sky or some other obvious method. If someone chose not to believe in me, I would retract assistance and allow them to sink or swim based on their own ability; I would also not intervene in any affairs unless I was directly asked (or, as above, had promised in advance). (That means you name the person you want healed. Don’t give me a general statement like “heal the sick” or “end hunger for all.”) Most importantly, if someone asked me for a sign that I existed, I would give it to them following the same procedures as for prayer. No one who sought me would be ignored.

Ironically, this performs somewhat of a double function: it answers the age-old question, “What would it take for you to believe in God?” If I got even one direct response to a prayer, that would pretty much do it for me.

Which is so prideful, of course…pride being the ultimate sin…to think you know better than God…because it leads to you creating a wall between God and someone else.

I sometimes wonder why religious types get into these us v. atheists deals…who does this serve? More often than not, it’s an exercise in monumental pride…they’re essentially showing off, trying to “prove” how superior they are, congratulating themselves on their own cleverness (not that atheists don’t do this, too, but they’re usually the ones being put in the position of proving a negative, which tends to get people’s backs up).

I’m a big believer in “by their fruits you will know them”. If you stay quiet and pay attention, you can pretty much sort out what’s of God and what isn’t. A sure-fire sign that something isn’t is how ego-driven and ego-serving something is. If you’ve set out to oh-so-innocently (ha) enter an atheists’ forum and start poking them so you can then congratulate yourself on knowning better than they do, on being better than they are, and on how bloody brilliant you are, then that’s not of God. That’s pure pride and ego.

Isn’t denying the Holy Spirit supposedly the unforgiveable sin? And yet this is what the religious types who are out to convince, out to convert the rest of the world do all the time. They just can’t stop shouting down God in other people’s lives because God doesn’t look the way they want him to look, or the way they’ve created him in their own image.

It’s never about us even when it is about us, ya know?

I know exactly what you mean, but how to break the viscious cycle we are unwillingly affiliated with? I want to be as much like Christ as I can and it is strange how I am becoming less like my fellow Christian contemporaries as I grow closer to Him. Not that being with others who share my beliefs is hurtful, but it does gives us a closed perspective on truth until we begin to turn away from everything unfamiliar leading us to a worldview of beliefs that are far from the truth.

When talking about God revealing Himself, I like to think that He reveals Himself when He chooses, in ways that He knows are relevant to the person He is revealing Himself to, therefore it is accomplished in many ways. I think this is a biblical understanding although I’m sure it is not worded precisely this way.

We seem to misunderstand just how much God is still suffering because of our suffering. He always hurts when we hurt, is upset when we are upset, and cares for us when we are sick. He truly loves us and His suffering for us should not be confused with another man or woman’s religious, pious, and phony attempts to “suffer” like Him. Suffering should be action that comes only from an outpouring of internal suffering. I’m not sure that make sense. In other words if we are really suffering, it should start on the inside, in the depths of our emotion and when it gets to be too much to contain it becomes action.

Oh…absolutely! And it’s a great definition, as long as the action is real, is meaningful, and serves to alleviate the suffering of those around us. It’s when the action amounts to nothing but cheap mimicry for attention-garnering purposes that the whole thing gets out of hand.

To me, the purpose of the Christian story is that everything boils down to encounter, and especially our interaction with those who are suffering and are in need. The rest – the trappings, the ritual, the dogma – that’s people-stuff that serves very earth-bound, ego-driven needs.

It’s about encounter, service to others, not misery and one-up-manship in the suffering department. It’s never about us even when it is about us, ya know?

It’s hard to cover the full spectrum of definitions of God–right now I’ll focus on my distrust of this particular definition.

It can all be very confusing, I understand. I have some definitions of God I am struggling with myself. He has so many wonderful characteristics. The more I learn about Him the more I enjoy knowing Him. This makes the process all worth it.
Tcc wrote:

And his suffering was completely avoidable. So was it even real suffering?

Yes I believe He really suffered and that it was completely avoidable. He chose to suffer because He knew that the rewards were great. We are His reward.

The whole suffering on the cross story has been a disaster from the beginning. Very little good has come of it at all. In fact, I think more harm has resulted in the long run.

All of these examples of suffering you have given are disturbing and yes I agree that they are misinterpretations of truth. Perhaps the harmful actions do outweigh the helpful. The evidence definitely agrees with this conclusion.
We seem to misunderstand just how much God is still suffering because of our suffering. He always hurts when we hurt, is upset when we are upset, and cares for us when we are sick. He truly loves us and His suffering for us should not be confused with another man or woman’s religious, pious, and phony attempts to “suffer” like Him. Suffering should be action that comes only from an outpouring of internal suffering. I’m not sure that make sense. In other words if we are really suffering, it should start on the inside, in the depths of our emotion and when it gets to be too much to contain it becomes action. If this is a better definition for suffering, then it puts God’s suffering into perspective, internal overflowing to external.
I have never really thought about these things in this way before, so bear with me as I try to understand what it is I believe and why. And thanx for all the sharpening.

Is there a better way to demonstrate love for someone than to be willing to suffer in their place?

As miller said, perhaps not. But did Christ suffer in our place? People are still suffering. And his suffering was completely avoidable. So was it even real suffering?

The result of this story is that we now have Catholicism, which glorifies and worships suffering, and believes it has the right to impose it upon others, and we have people who can alleviate other people’s suffering, but don’t, because they think suffering is good.

We’ve also got the ascetic notion that if suffering is involved, the thing must be good, which is really twisted.

We’ve got cults (Opus Dei, for example) that play at suffering to try to prove to God that they’re better than other people – suffering that’s completely within their control, and happens on schedule, which, again, isn’t really true suffering.

We’ve got people who think if they give up the blue M&Ms for Lent, they’re not only joining Christ’s suffering on the cross, but that their “sacrifice” takes the place of things like feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless.

We’ve got people who think that God loves them more if they suffer more – that he imposes suffering on them because he loves them. Even when that “suffering” is really just the consequences of their own dumb actions or choices.

The whole suffering on the cross story has been a disaster from the beginning. Very little good has come of it at all. In fact, I think more harm has resulted in the long run.

Should God be held responsible for our misconceptions?

Not necessarily, but we are talking about things God could have done better, and alternate actions might have been preferable.

Since we are all pretty nasty customers at times, can and should we fully trust one another’s definition of who God is?

Nope. But it’s hard to cover the full spectrum of definitions of God–right now I’ll focus on my distrust of this particular definition.

Is there a better way to demonstrate love for someone than to be willing to suffer in their place?

Perhaps not. But I would think of this like someone paying extra money for my Christmas gift, when it could have been bought on sale. I respond, “Thank you, but you shouldn’t have.” Sure, it’s still a display of love, I’ll give you that.

This goes back to the biggest problem with Christianity being Christians.

If you’re going to go around telling people how you’ve got this One True Way and how it’s been soooooo amazing in your life, it had better show.

If you’re going to claim that this unprovable thing exists, and that you’re doomed if you don’t take this thing on faith and live accordingly, then you damned well better do the “live accordingly” part.

If Christians themselves don’t live as if they believe what they claim is The Truth, why would anyone else?

There’s something bizarrely wrong with people who claim that eternal life is at stake, and then live like they don’t give a damn about eternal life.

So what’s a non-Christian to think, eh? That the fact that so many Christians are such terrible people who, at best, don’t really live what they claim is this be-all and end-all One True Way, or, at worst, use membership in the One True Way Club to rip other people apart, murder their spirit, and promote themselves as superior people proves there’s a God?

Yes, we’re none of us perfect. And, since I’m not an atheist, I do believe that listening to what God is telling us (and, believe me, God has a lot to say if you can turn off your own ego and listen for a minute and a half) is necessary.

I just haven’t confused God with an institution, is all, nor do I bother with middlemen when I can go directly to God.

Atheists and Christians do not disagree on the notion that some people, regardless of what they claim to believe, are actually pretty nasty customers. If anything, that’s a point for the atheists. If you’re the sort who likes to keep score, anyway.

How does this provide evidence that there is no God? Do those who believe in God somehow achieve magical perfect person status?
I totally agree that perspective has a lot to do with how one would answer these questions. I would argue that our negative attitudes and behaviors would provide evidence of a need for some kind of help. I suppose we could try self-improvement and still achieve somewhat similar results as a believer depending on God for help, but I don’t see how this is a mark for either side. We all need help sometimes. It’s human nature. J
Miller wrote:

don’t you think God is just asking to be misinterpreted in deadly ways?

Should God be held responsible for our misconceptions?

God as you’ve defined him, is not all good.

Since we are all pretty nasty customers at times, can and should we fully trust one another’s definition of who God is?

Couldn’t God have thought a way of doing it without envolving a torturous death (which seems only symbolically related to the forgiveness of sins)?

Is there a better way to demonstrate love for someone than to be willing to suffer in their place?

I often see such questions, trying to make the point that no amount of evidence will suffice for atheists. Well, yes, it would require a lot of evidence, but I think if God, for example, wrote something on the moon, that would do the job well.

At the same time, some would never be convinced, because of perceived logical self-consistency problems with God as commonly defined. For example, I think it’s ridiculous to want people to be certain of one’s existence, and furthermore, provide little evidence.