In response to Autochron:
Quote:
So I need to go through some kind of litmus test in order for God to find out something that He should already know having created me, not to mention that I could probably just tell Him... but no, we have to do it His way. Seems kind of silly to me. Why must God put such flimsy conditions on part of His love? If He does, He's not omnibenevolent, is He?
|
To paraphrase Duns Scotus: God, being perfect, did have have to create. But being perfectly just, if he created, had to create beings whose end was Himself. However, there is no route such that we can say this necessarily (in the logically sense) the route to God; God picked the route to Him. Why did he pick the route He picked? We don't know; what's more, we can't know unless we fully comprehend both human and divine nature. So, in answer to your question, your question is unanswerable.
Quote:
And anyway, hell seems like a terrible thing to slap onto us just because we (theoretically) wanted it. God seems to be making a choice about the rest of our eternity based on the blink of an eye (relatively speaking) spent here in the world.
|
Well, the easy response is that, even this relatively short period of time, God can tell which way we're going. Of course, that leaves unanswered questions. Some theories that have been proposed:
1. Annihilationalism. That dead people are not tormented in hell for eternity, but rather simply done away with. This is, IMHO, compatible with scripture, but I think scripture best supports the traditional view.
2. Temporary Hell. That dead people in hell aren't necessarily condemned there for eternity, but if they repent, they can still make it into heaven. There are two parts to this; one is that the condemned remain in hell by their own choice. This isn't really controversial. What's more controversial would be any position that some of the dead in hell actually choose to go to heaven; even this has been suggested, at least, by no less a thinker than C. S. Lewis (it's unclear if he believed it though).
If these two seem unsatisfactory, I guess the only response is basically my guiding response throughout the thread; it's just necessary to trust God.
Quote:
To take another tack, posit that one or more newborn babies were killed in that earthquake (I'm sure it's happened at one point or another). Do you think their time on earth really could have been used to determine anything? If not, why were they killed so quickly?
|
No one really knows what happens to dead babies. I personally don't think reincarnation is out of the question. Some think that baptized babies go to hell, baptized babies go to heaven. Some think all babies go to heaven. But no one this side of the veil knows.
He goes on to make a comment that I find in poor taste, but will respond to anyway. God does not enjoy punishing us. He doesn't to it to prove who's boss. We are punished for two reasons; correction, or because it's necessary. Those who are in hell are there because they choose to be; they aren't the sort of people who would enjoy heaven anyway. I've often thought idly that perhaps heaven and hell are the same place; what could be worse for an imperfect person than to be in the light of a perfect God?
Of course, I don't mean to say that all bad things happen as punishment. The Bible is pretty explicity about this. So why did God create a world in which bad things happen? I don't know. See above re: trusting God. See also my above post. I'm not going to repeat myself.
Quote:
I'm confused. If God is omnibenevolent and all-powerful, why did He give us the capability to disobey Him?
|
This is part of a hard set of questions, among which are also "Why doesn't God just appear in such a way that I would believe?" The answer is somewhat complicated. If you just want a summary, see above re: trusting God. So, the problem is that, if we were unable to disobey him, we would be unable to obey him; that is, to truly give him our love and obedience. God wants sons, not slaves, and certainly not robots. So why doesn't he make it more obvious that he exists? Well, my answer is two-fold. First of all, it's clear he could make it more obvious, but it's not clear that that would help. If he sent you an angel, or someone back from the dead, what are the chances you would believe them, compared to the chances you would think you had just eaten some bad cheese? On the other hand, if he made it too obvious, you wouldn't have a choice anymore, and it's the choice he wants. Consider the emperor who falls in love with a village girl. If he showed up in all his finery, how much choice do you think she would really have? Well, at least some you would reply. But you can see how the apparent stature of an invidiual has a strong effect on those who see him or her, right? Now imagine a similar scenario, but where the relative stature of the two is much, much greater. That's part of the situation God's in. The other part is that God can't appear to us without blowing our minds. Consider when Ezekiel (I think -- it could be someone else) sees God. He doesn't see God. He sees the appearance of the likeness of something kinda resembling the Son of Man. Moses can only see God's back. And, in any case, God's kinda already gone out of his way to make sure you know he's around, sending his son down to suffer and die and everything. Are you perhaps asking for a little much?
One last thing about natural evils: God does not cause them. (At least, not usually). He created a world that acts according to certain rules, and sometimes those rules hurt us. He created a world such that we live on round balls of rock that have tectonic plates that sometimes rub up against each other. If we hadn't fallen, who knows? Maybe we'd have earthquake detectors. But that's all just speculation; the point is that God isn't just sitting up in heaven thinking "Hmm...where can I throw out an earthquake today?"