A loving God torments majority of children forever

[Kurieuo]

Nothing I have read in these posts or the links helps me to go back with any confidence to debate with my atheist friend who seems to have thought these things through more thoroughly than most Christians. He will simply counter much of what has been said here, as he has already when I have argued the same points.

Perhaps you should be search for books on this issue. I can tell you there are many responses by many great Christians. There was a debate on this very issue between Craig and Bradley at http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcrai ... dley0.html, but currently this link is down (hopefully it will come up again).

I believe that Christianity is going to come under a massive concerted attack from anti-theists over the next few decades and beyond. You only need to look at the internet to see how it has galvanised atheists and is allowing them an effective forum to exchange ideas and bring their collective knowledge together to reinforce what they believe (infidel.org and 'church of reality etc.). It is the reversal of the 'Tower of Babel'. Mankind is being reunited and barriers to communication are being removed and the net will eventually provide universal translation allowing the exact situation that forced God to 'confound their language because their wickedness will know no bounds.

Going to come under attack? These arguments have been around for some time, and I feel have been adequately responded to by Christians. One just needs to stroll into a Christian bookstore, go to the apologetics section (where you will find many great Christian thinkers experienced with such questions), and pick up the book of your choice.

Now if anything, I see within the area of philosophy things are actually beginning to go towards the favour of Theists. Yes, Atheists are more vocal, but in my opinion also tend to regurgitate the same things. This has given Theists the time to respond, and produce arguments of their own, and indeed there are many arguments for Theism and against Atheism, just as there are many against Theism. I see that secular rationalism peaked in the 20th century, and now holes are being seen in the idea that this secular position is somehow more objective and unbiassed. It needs positive grounds for affirmation just like Theism. Yet, a dilemma is formed, for there appear to be equally rational people on both sides who entirely disagree. Reason in the hands of humanity has failed to prove either side objectively beyond doubt. What is one to do? It is a deadlock. Thus, as you observed earlier, influences upon our heart play a large role as to what people on either side find acceptable and what they don't...

Now despite this, some concepts I think believers need to explore to deal with this issue you presented at the beginning in an effective manner include:

1) The concept of Hell;
2) Whether life even apart from God, is better than no life at all;
3) Whether God doesn't have the right to create a world wherein only a few would choose Him.

I am quite happy for God to play God. It is God's perogative to create, and if He creates free beings who He desire to love Him, He is not responsible for their decision not to love Him.

Now the thing about arguing against God's existence based upon what is good and bad, or what is or isn't God's right to do, is that these concepts are only have real meaning if they are absolute in some way. As CS Lewis wrote:

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe [or Hell] with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple.

Kurieuo
* Updated as felt my tone was too sharp, and wished to update my third paragraph.

[August]

Blacknad, thanks for your last response. I don't have time right now to respond fully, but I want to make one quick point. The atheist cannot pick and choose which part of the Chistian worldview to "borrow", because that is precisely the point. If he picks one part of the worldview to justify his case, then he should accept the whole of the worldview, which basically says that God has a morally justifiable reason for everything that happens, and the atheist's argument collapses.

I will expand on this later today.

[bluesman]

I have recently started reading the FREE magazine "Tomorrow's World"
http://www.tomorrowsworld.org

I can't say I subscribe to all their beliefs, but some of the articles are very interesting read. Such as the article in the Jan-Feb 2006 issue titled "Who is Burning in Hell?"

Its says "most people have the idea that souls in the lake of fire will writhe in agony for all eternity". .....

it goes on to say the soul is not immortal and uses
Matthew 10:28
Jesus warned us: " and do not fear those who can kill the body, but not the soul. But rather fear HIM who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell"

This destroying of the soul is called the second death , to which God has not had finally victory over yet. In the end, death will be destroyed.

Mike

[bluesman]

Which Hell are we talking about?????????

There is 4 words in the bible translated as Hell ,but the Hebrew and Greek words have different meanings.

Sheol (Hebrew) means grave or pit (KJV translated as Hell)

so use the NIV which translation as grave.

Greek:
Hades: means simply GRAVE !
Imagine that ! The world really misunderstands that one!


Tartarus : Condition of restraint
this for fallen angels only .

Gehenna: which is the one Greek word that means what we think of as hell

So you can see the confusion that could result in "what is hell ?"

Mike

[Canuckster1127]

I have recently started reading the FREE magazine "Tomorrow's World"
http://www.tomorrowsworld.org

I can't say I subscribe to all their beliefs, but some of the articles are very interesting read. Such as the article in the Jan-Feb 2006 issue titled "Who is Burning in Hell?"

Its says "most people have the idea that souls in the lake of fire will writhe in agony for all eternity". .....

it goes on to say the soul is not immortal and uses
Matthew 10:28
Jesus warned us: " and do not fear those who can kill the body, but not the soul. But rather fear HIM who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell"

This destroying of the soul is called the second death , to which God has not had finally victory over yet. In the end, death will be destroyed.

Mike

This group is an offshoot of Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God.

Here's a link with some information about them. Obviously from a group that is not impressed with them.

http://www.exitsupportnetwork.com/artcls/meredith.htm

[bluesman]

This group is an offshoot of Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God.

Here's a link with some information about them. Obviously from a group that is not impressed with them.

I was quite aware of the connection as I did watch the show sometimes even back then. I even was aware of much of what is in the website.

Thanks for making it clearer that I don't support joining this Church. However, I even read those booklets from Jehovah Witnesses.
You can find truth in many places you just have to throw out that which doesn't make sense.

I happen to agree with most of the article I mentioned in my other posts.
I don't agree with their view that if you don't follow the "Worldwide Church of God" then your not yet saved. This is also how the Jehovah Witnesses a Muslims , and some others feel. I believe God can see into a persons heart , to see their true nature. A persons desire and love to serve God is what counts and not his denomination.

Mike

[Blacknad]

Blacknad, thanks for your last response. I don't have time right now to respond fully, but I want to make one quick point. The atheist cannot pick and choose which part of the Chistian worldview to "borrow", because that is precisely the point. If he picks one part of the worldview to justify his case, then he should accept the whole of the worldview, which basically says that God has a morally justifiable reason for everything that happens, and the atheist's argument collapses.

I will expand on this later today.

- Sounds good August. I look forward to reading it.

Thanks.

Regards,

Blacknad.

[Kurieuo]

Blacknad,

The previous link I provided appears to be back online (read the debate regarding the compatibility of a loving God and hell at http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcrai ... dley1.html). There really is some good content to be gleaned from Craig's words relevant to the issue you present. To quote just a portion:

In order to receive forgiveness, we need to place our trust in Christ as our Savior and the Lord of our lives. But if we reject Christ, then we reject God's mercy and fall back on His justice. And you know where you stand there. If we reject Jesus' offer of forgiveness, then there is simply is no one else to pay the penalty for your sin--except yourself.

Thus, in a sense, God doesn't send anybody to hell. His desire is that everyone be saved, and He pleads with people to come to Him. But if we reject Christ's sacrifice for our sin, then God has no choice but to give us what we deserve. God will not send us to hell--but we will send ourselves. Our eternal destiny thus lies in our own hands. It is a matter of our free choice where we shall spend eternity.

Now if this scenario is even possible, it follows that no inconsistency has been demonstrated between God's being all-loving and some people's going to hell. For given that God has created us with freedom of the will, it follows that He cannot guarantee that all persons will freely give their lives to Him and be saved. The Bible makes it very clear that God desires every person to be saved, and by His Spirit He seeks to draw every person to Himself. The only obstacle to universal salvation is therefore human free will. It's logically impossible to make someone freely do something. God's being all-powerful doesn't mean that He can do the logically impossible. Thus, even though He is all-powerful, God cannot make everyone freely be saved. Given human freedom and human stubbornness, some people may go to hell despite God's desire and efforts to save them.

Moreover, it is far from obvious that God's being all-loving compels Him to prefer a world in which no one goes to hell over a world in which some people do. Suppose that God could create a world in which everyone is freely saved, but there is only one problem: all such worlds have only one person in them! Does God's being all-loving compel Him to prefer one of these underpopulated worlds over a world in which multitudes are saved, even though some people freely go to hell? I don't think so. God's being all-loving implies that in any world He creates He desires and strives for the salvation of every person in that world. But people who would freely reject God's every effort to save them shouldn't be allowed to have some sort of veto power over what worlds God is free to create. Why should the joy and the blessedness of those who would freely accept God's salvation be precluded because of those who would stubbornly and freely reject it? It seems to me that God's being all-loving would at the very most require Him to create a world having an optimal balance between saved and lost, a world where as many as possible freely accept salvation and as few as possible freely reject it.

Kurieuo

[Blacknad]

Kurieuo,

Hey, no need to tell me off. I'm certainly not lazy and have spent time reading about the issues surrounding this subject.

I just thought the stuff people had posted wasn't really hitting the spot.

However, the Craig/Bradley debate was absolutely first class and I am greatful that you posted it for me. Thanks.

Regards,

Blacknad.

[Kurieuo]

Blacknad,

I wasn't telling you off, although I noticed my tone was quite sharp (I didn't have time to revise). However, I revised since I first posted and before your last post, so please re-read. I didn't intend to cause offense. It just came out wrong in my rush.

I just thought the stuff people had posted wasn't really hitting the spot.

I'm inclined to agree, but then I simply wished to point out there are some very good responses regardless of whether people here can provide them. I did also feel you took it a step further as I felt a sense of "I'm not getting replies I want so... (throws in the towel)", and this is likely why my posts were originally sharp. Perhaps the people here aren't as equipped to answer your questions, but I still feel each person is capable of researching and looking for answers rather than so easily throwing in the towel. I'm not now saying this is what you did (as seems apparent from your further posts you were only trying to draw out better responses), but this is what it came across as to me as I rushed through my post.

However, the Craig/Bradley debate was absolutely first class and I am greatful that you posted it for me. Thanks.

Glad you liked it. Bradley appeared to do well, but I felt for Bradley's arguments to work he had to disallow other possibilities (e.g., other perspectives on hell, those who don't hear about Christ may still be saved on account of Christ based upon a response to God's natural revelation, and ignoring the possibility that some worlds are not feasible for God to actualise given people are truly free to respond and be saved). Thus, I felt Bradley's arguments were somewhat strawmanish, and certainly the conditions Bradley required for his arguments to work need not be accepted given there are other possibilities.

Getting back to an issue you raised of why did God create given the suffering many would incur, sadly Bradley does not pay much attention to this. Yet Craig still defends against it nonetheless, pointing out it is by no means obvious that God shouldn't be allowed to create a world wherein some people are saved while others aren't:

"Moreover, it is far from obvious that God's being all-loving compels Him to prefer a world in which no one goes to hell over a world in which some people do. Suppose that God could create a world in which everyone is freely saved, but there is only one problem: all such worlds have only one person in them! Does God's being all-loving compel Him to prefer one of these underpopulated worlds over a world in which multitudes are saved, even though some people freely go to hell? I don't think so. God's being all-loving implies that in any world He creates He desires and strives for the salvation of every person in that world. But people who would freely reject God's every effort to save them shouldn't be allowed to have some sort of veto power over what worlds God is free to create. Why should the joy and the blessedness of those who would freely accept God's salvation be precluded because of those who would stubbornly and freely reject it?"

And then at the end Craig summarises this point again:

I also argued that, in any case, God's being all-loving does not necessitate God preferring a world in which everybody is freely saved over a world in which some people are freely damned--particularly if the worlds that have universal salvation have overriding deficiencies. Dr. Bradley never attempted to show that that assumption was necessarily true. So I think that he has failed to show any sort of logical inconsistency between God's being all-loving and some people freely rejecting God and being lost forever.

I think Craig puts any Atheist who argues that God should have refrained from creating in a hard spot. Does God's all-lovingness compel Him to only create a world wherein all are saved or none at all? It seems far from clear, and as Craig implies, if such worlds were possible they would be likely vastly underpopulated. Perhaps there isn't even one feasible world which has a population of one person wherein that person would freely respond and be saved. After all if the ratio is against one being saved, say one person saved for every four lost, then perhaps the minimum feasible world wherein one person is saved requires a population of five people. Finally Craig comments: "Does God's being all-loving compel Him to prefer one of these underpopulated worlds over a world in which multitudes are saved, even though some people freely go to hell?" Craig doesn't think so, and I don't think so, and in any case the answer is far from obvious. It seems to me God's all-lovingness only requires He desires all people.

Now an insight I would add myself is that God's all-lovingness may even compel God to create a world despite only being able to actualise a world wherein many are lost. For if God is so loving that His lovingness overflows, His all-lovingness begs for Him to create more beings to love. Thus, God can not refrain from creating for His lovingness demands He loves and therefore creates free beings to love, even if sadly within any feasible world many of those people whom He loves freely choose to reject Him. Thus, we turn a negative argument against God's all-lovingness into what I feel is a powerful and positive argument.

Kurieuo

[Gregory]

I might have missed something here, but surely Gods omnipotence allows him to do anything he wants, including making worlds where science is changed so pathogens don't have to exist, or create a nicer version of earth with all naturally nice people, which all go to heaven?

After all, if we claim he is restrained to the laws of physics, a pre-existing code of morality, etc. we get one half of the Euthrythro dilemma? Where did the laws which made these worlds feasible come from?

If God's hands aren't tied by anything external, then presumably he could do anything we can conceive, not to mention probably many things we can't. So, correct me if I am wrong, we can either say that God has to act with fidelity to certain other principles which cause him to make an inperfect world (suffering, people destined to hell...) or that God has made the best of all possible worlds, which we can discover with our powers of reason to be the case, finally you could say that God created a world which wasn't perfect to our understanding, but is really.

To clarify the second argument, the bad stuff (pain, suffering, and so on) are really illusionary good things. The problem I find is that doesn't really square with the world around us. Some people suffer arbitrarily, and a lot. So, at least on our terms, it seems hard to justify that suffering is really good for all of us. If nothing else, the 'problem of evil' is undoubtedly a factor in why many Atheists are Atheists, and Agnostics Agnostic.

The far more powerful argument (as I see it) is the one August has been outlining. So what if the world doesn't seem how it should be if God had done it? How on earth are we supposed to know what a perfect world is meant to be like? Ultimately, any attempt to show that the world is not how God means it to be can be argued equally well to be due to our ignorance as opposed to Gods non-existence. So whilst out of all the worlds we can conceive of we think we could do better, in reality, there aren't.

In short, this argument is more 'consistent' in a logical sense. I am pretty sure that if you assume certain things in Christainity true, the rest can be deduced without introducing inconsistency. But I have a problem with some of this.

Firstly is the argument that reason is somehow 'limited.' Surely by definition logic cannot be shown to be limited, at least without unreliability.

Let us suppose I have logical line of argument showing the limits of argument.

The Conclusion of this, logic is limited, hence affects the original argument.

So the argument is limited.

This might be something that can be got around - for example you could say that these certain principles state that logic is limited in areas which do not effect the original principles of the argument. The difficulty is that self-referencing is bad idea for argument, and hence pretty much needs to be avoided at all costs.

Perhaps also the implied point is that God need never be accountable to us. So, there is no need to offer 'logical' explanations (or perhaps explanations from an 'Atheist worldview') at all.

The question which is begging to be asked is then what separates Christianity from the 'crowd' of other beliefs? You can make up probably an unending number of Axiomatic systems which means whenever we think things don't work, they really do work but we are just too ignorant to realise it. Whilst 'invisible pink unicorns' and Santa claus are absurd (like this website states) due to empirical evidence, and in the former case a contradiction (how do invisible things have colour?) The problem is the answer can be logically consistent is as follows:

Ah yes, you might think that invisible pink unicorns cannot exist because it is contradictory by definition. However, this is actually true, because these invisible pink unicorns say they exist, and they are omniscient, and so know what they are talking about. You aren't, so I am going to take them at their word.

The problem, as I hope I have illustrated is that whilst claiming Christianity in particular is beyond simple logical justification, it problematically allows lots of other principles in general to be just as justifiable.

[Kurieuo]

CS Lewis wrote in his The Problem of Pain:
<blockquote>It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.</blockquote>So for example, the feat of God creating a rock so big He can't lift, may seem valid upon first glance; however, it is really in the category of nonsense Lewis describes above. Just because I can say a cat is lying on the mat while running doesn't mean I've said anything meaningful. Thus, God's creating a world wherein all beings freely choose Him may actually be unfeasible for God to do, not on account of a lack of power, but on account of the logic involved which is God can't force someone to freely choose Him.

Some other links you might like to read are:
- Can God Make a Rock So Big He Can't Lift It?
- Can God Create a Rock So Heavy He Can't Lift It? - Can God Truly Be Omnipotent?

Kurieuo

[August]

Gregory, check your pm please.

[LowlyOne]

Blacknad,

I see you are interested in a solid biblical answer and response to this problem. Well, here you go, see the following. It may be best to go to a local library and print it out, for it is long, 5 parts to be exact if I am correct.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gr5part1.html

It's open to anyone else as well. Dig in!

[Canuckster1127]

Gregory,

Welcome! I appreciated the tenor and thinking of your post.

I would make this observation about logic as you are presenting it.

Logic is not an absolute in and of itself. Logic is a tool which processes and orders information in such a way as to make it internally consistent. What you derive from a logical process is only as good as the premises upon which the construct rests.

You have to keep both these elements in mind when you examine something logically. Internal logic is the easier of the two to deal with as in that instance you are dealing, for the most part, with standards that are accepted and you can break things down elementally for analysis.

External logic, particularly as it deconstructs toward baseline presuppositions, such as the the existence or non-existence of God and the corollary premise of absolutes, may provide answers that are perfectly internally consistent but in the end are accepted or rejected based upon the predisposition of the listener to accept the premises upon which they rest.

Pretty elementary stuff, I know, but I think that helps to bring some clarity to your statements in terms of an appeal to logic. Logic in the end is simply a tool. The outcome is only as valuable and reliable as the premises, implicit or explicit upon which the arguments rest.