Point taken. And I concede that you are pointing out problems and asking questions that, it seems to me, almost all Christians have never considered in detail, and I have come to a position where I respect your straight forward thinking and your no nonsense approach to life.
I sadly rated you low because of your harshness when I first came here and have regretted it - I think it's a travesty that you and Uncle Al can be rated so low, and I am at four stars on a science forum. It would be best to do away with it and just have a crackpot rating instead so people could easily recognise those who don't think or those like HarriusChristus who think they are Christ reborn.
(Dan, I have just finished this and it?s long ? if you don?t have the time to give it I can?t blame you ? but these things are beyond a yes/no answer).
You have shot through all the tosh and grasped the heart of the matter - "Would a God create people who he foreknew would perpetrate such great evil , knowing also that the majority of them would end up in Hell?"
Most Christians I know are unable to answer this question effectively, and I think many would have their faith rocked or possibly destroyed if they were forced to confront it head on.
It is a question that has certain assumptions (like the nature & permanence of Hell) and relies heavily on not including the possibility that God has something he is achieving on an eternal scale that somehow has the ability to mitigate all suffering by eventually restoring all to him and bringing all to a position of restoration (the teachings of universalism). A question there, is ? ?is it is necessary to allow people to exercise their free will (with all of the crap that entails), so they can freely choose and work through the question of whether they want to be in relationship with their creator or not??
The question of whether it is possible to create people with free-will who will only do good may be a logical nonsense. As in the question, ?can God create a rock he cannot lift?? The Christian faith believes that all things are possible with God ? but this is just a statement of faith and not a philosophical imperative. Some things are obviously not possible with God because they are simply not possible per se, like the rock, or the unstoppable force that meets an immoveable object. Maybe creating sentient free willed creatures that do not commit evil acts is also of this order. Maybe there is something essentially inherent in created sentient beings that makes them protectionist and self serving. ? just a thought.
On any level your question is problematic and I can understand the issue you would have with anyone abandoning their reason and simply saying that 'we don't know but trust that God is good and He will make sense of it all eventually'. I also find this response to be an abdication of responsibility.
I am spending much time thinking through the question and that entails gathering all of the relevant factors and working through any assumptions it may contain.
For example: it seems to me that the most insidious outcome of evil is suffering. As I was thinking this through I came to the conclusion that suffering is a temporal issue. I am taking the liberty of thinking about this in an abstract nature ? separate from the issue that if suffering is downgraded, then religion may be pernicious and dangerous because it has the potential not to lift a finger to help those who suffer ?because God will make it better and after all, it isn?t as bad as you think it is? ? and besides, this is countered in Christianity by our clear understanding that we should do all we can for those in any kind of need.
But the fact remains, (and Aramanth if you read this, I hope you understand what I am really trying to say, because I know your suffering almost knows no bounds, and I am not making light of it ?here and now?, and realise that for you and many people, it may not be over while you are alive), that when pain is over, it is over. I have suffered from back pain from time to time and have experienced excruciating, thought stopping pain, where the only option was to collapse on the floor in public and try not to breathe because every breath was more than I could endure. But now I sit here and I?m completely unaffected by it. I don?t even have a clear memory of it, in the sense that I could not relive it or come close to experiencing the feeling of it.
So from an eternal perspective, (and I hesitate to say it, and will ready myself for your wrath), suffering is temporary and if seen from anything other than a time-bound perspective, becomes a completely different animal, and the growth of character, experience, even appreciation of a pain free state of existence, becomes more understandable in context.
I am not making an argument that this is indeed the case, but I am trying to show that the argument that the idea of a god who allows evil, is in fact a tyrant and in no sense could be considered good ? is not a value free proposition and comes dependent on certain assumptions. It fails to take into account that God?s interaction with us is relational and is headed somewhere, and is not just a simply defined ?if then? argument. It also cannot, by definition, accept the eternal into the debate, and therefore cannot see how the eternal nature of things could effect the sense of the argument.
The same can be said of your comparison of Christ? suffering with that of someone dying of cancer. If we accept that Christ?s only suffering was physical and psychological then you are spot on ? a couple of hours is an insult to those that suffer with real protracted suffering. But whilst ?The Passion of the Christ? may be solely about Christ?s physical and emotional suffering, it says nothing about what it means for a creator to put himself in the hands of his creation and encounter such a merciless end by being cursed and nailed to a cross. It says nothing about what goes on behind the scenes and whether a God pays a price that we know nothing of to take all sin on himself.
If a triune God cuts off a part of itself, (the cry from the cross, why have you forsaken me?), then can we even pretend to begin to understand the ramifications? There may even be a price that has to be exacted at some level beyond our fathoming for allowing evil to enter into existence. I know I am truly extending myself beyond all reason here, and I am trying to talk about things when I don?t even have a hook to hang them on. Heck, if I can?t understand Uncle Al or you sometimes, I have no problem believing that there may be concepts here that could be true, but beyond the grasp of my simple head.
Regarding the tyrannical, bloodthirsty nature of God in his dealings with us ? this also needs examining. One of my questions here is an extension of your, ?Why the hell did he create us then?? and it?s, ?Why doesn?t he destroy us all as a job gone wrong and either start again or give it all up?? Why would he show mercy to anyone when we are essentially self serving, and like Agent Smith says in the Matrix, - ?humanity is a disease organism that would replicate uncontrollably to destroy their environment?.
So I am still looking into your question and I can?t say it doesn?t make me feel uncomfortable. I will continue until it resolves itself one way or another.
Regards,
Blacknad.
