Is a Suboptimal World a Problem?

[whag]

sure it is. They are still sinners. We all are sinners. God gives us a "way out" - to be saved. He certainly doesn't OWE us salvation, because we are all sinners. The only thing he owes each and every one of us is judgment on our sins. Yet he is merciful and provides a way out, by sending his son to pay for our sins and all we have to do is accept that sacrifice and choose him as our Lord and Savior. If you want to follow Ginesh, or Mohammad, or the Spaghetti Monster instead, then you will get what you deserve: judgment. The only ones getting unfair treatment (if you want to call it that) are those that accept God's free gift of salvation. They get out of the judgment that we all deserve. But the way is open to everyone, so instead of complaining, accept it and be saved.

This doesn't even attempt to address the problem of enculturation. God also doesn't owe babies or the retarded salvation. The enculturated are no different, especially when considering the pressures of some societies and lack of education--North Korea is an extreme example but still applies to the discussion, the citizens thereof being "free human beings" and all.

Please discuss the subtleties of this and use another example such as Sikhs in India or Mormons in Utah.

[Sparko]

This doesn't even attempt to address the problem of enculturation. God also doesn't owe babies or the retarded salvation. The enculturated are no different, especially when considering the pressures of some societies and lack of education--North Korea is an extreme example but still applies to the discussion, the citizens thereof being "free human beings" and all.

Please discuss the subtleties of this and use another example such as Sikhs in India or Mormons in Utah.

God would have been perfectly just in not sending Jesus at all and condemning us all to hell. He doesn't owe us anything. That is why it is called mercy. Is it God's fault that entire cultures forgot about him and turned to other Gods, teaching their children to follow those other Gods instead of the real God? Does that change the fact that those people are just as much sinners as everybody else?


This is not a great analogy, but if I decide to give away a free $1000 to anyone who asks me for it, and I post that on facebook and say "share it with your friends!" - 1. I am not obligated to give anyone any money, I am doing it out of the goodness of my piratical heart. 2. Nobody actually deserves my money. 3. If you never hear about my free offer and don't get any money, you can't complain it isn't fair to you.

[stfoskey15]

You are sinning against an infinite God. You are rejecting God for all time. Should God force you to be with him anyway? I think if you reject God and basically say "I would rather do what I want than what God wants" then God let's you. For eternity. And that is hell. He separates you from him just like you want.

But it's not exactly as if the existence of God as described in the Bible is obvious. Why should he be surprised if we sin against him considering he hasn't spoken to most people? Wouldn't most people come to God if they were given some kind of proof of his existence? If I and other non-Christians could glimpse heaven and hell and hear from the Lord about how you can get into either one by what you believe, my opinions would probably change.

Is it God's fault that entire cultures forgot about him and turned to other Gods, teaching their children to follow those other Gods instead of the real God?

No, but he had the power to stop them from doing so and refused to use it.

[whag]

God would have been perfectly just in not sending Jesus at all and condemning us all to hell.

I addressed this in OP and posts #29 and #83.

He doesn't owe us anything. That is why it is called mercy. Is it God's fault that entire cultures forgot about him and turned to other Gods, teaching their children to follow those other Gods instead of the real God?

In the anthropomorphic sense--which is the principle way in which God's described--yes. I'd feel guilty for not properly judging the character of a family I entrusted to adopt my child if that family then molested my child. Moreover, there's no epistemic justification whatsoever to presume monotheism antedated animism. The earliest cultures arose with a riot of gods.

Does that change the fact that those people are just as much sinners as everybody else?

There's no epistemic justification to call you an equal sinner to Charles Manson or equal saint to Enoch.

But let's say there's a penitent Hindu or Muslim who's mostly righteous who sins occasionally like you. You go to heaven and she gets punished eternally for being enculturated to believe her particular religion. Yup, that's weird.

This is not a great analogy, but if I decide to give away a free $1000 to anyone who asks me for it, and I post that on facebook and say "share it with your friends!" - 1. I am not obligated to give anyone any money, I am doing it out of the goodness of my piratical heart. 2. Nobody actually deserves my money. 3. If you never hear about my free offer and don't get any money, you can't complain it isn't fair to you.

I'll let that hideously unparallel analogy speak for itself and await the response to the above points.

[Catholicity]

Yes, this is getting to my point.



But maybe it wasn't a possibility without human beings triggering the redemptive events that ultimately make things right. Maybe he couldn't have perfection without evil first being expressed then vanquished through the process that Christians say took place. This seems to be the implicit message of Christianity.




Christians would respond that we're made perfect through Christ. It might not make sense, but that's the dogma they'd retort with.

Actually Whag, I would respond to this with we are still imperfect until are actual salvation from this world which is when we are with Christ in Heaven. We strive to live like Him, but we will mess up, screw up and sin, and that's the point of our need for participating in the Redemption of Jesus Christ. We will never be made perfect until the final resurrection which will save us from ourselves.

[Catholicity]

I addressed this in OP and posts #29 and #83.



In the anthropomorphic sense--which is the principle way in which God's described--yes. I'd feel guilty for not properly judging the character of a family I entrusted to adopt my child if that family then molested my child. Moreover, there's no epistemic justification whatsoever to presume monotheism antedated animism. The earliest cultures arose with a riot of gods.



There's no epistemic justification to call you an equal sinner to Charles Manson or equal saint to Enoch.

But let's say there's a penitent Hindu or Muslim who's mostly righteous who sins occasionally like you. You go to heaven and she gets punished eternally for being enculturated to believe her particular religion. Yup, that's weird.



I'll let that hideously unparallel analogy speak for itself and await the response to the above points.

Personally I am not a universalist but an inclusivist. I believe that there are those who have not heard but may receive heaven through Christ's work on the cross because they lived according to their conscience. But it would only be Because of Jesus.

[whag]

Personally I am not a universalist but an inclusivist. I believe that there are those who have not heard but may receive heaven through Christ's work on the cross because they lived according to their conscience. But it would only be Because of Jesus.

Though the concept of a baby requiring a human sacrifice so that it doesn't go to hell seems very strange to me, I find this view more in accordance with human experience. Obviously, enculturation claims victims who are powerless. How Sparko can deny that, I have no idea.

[Cow Poke]

Though the concept of a baby requiring a human sacrifice so that it doesn't go to hell seems very strange to me,

It's strange to me, too.

[whag]

It's strange to me, too.

It's strange for many reasons, but principally because God restricts himself by imposing that level of anguish on himself. Secondarily, it's strange because the blame is on human beings, yes even babies, when a fall of sorts was required to trigger the eschaton. Without fall, no eschaton.

[Cow Poke]

It's strange for many reasons, but principally because God restricts himself by imposing that level of anguish on himself. Secondarily, it's strange because the blame is on human beings, yes even babies, when a fall of sorts was required to trigger the eschaton. Without fall, no eschaton.

It's strange to me because I don't believe it. Babies, in my understanding, get a pass.

Next topic.

[whag]

It's strange to me because I don't believe it. Babies, in my understanding, get a pass.

Next topic.

I was commenting on Catholicity saying that baby salvation was still dependent on a propitiation or extreme appeasement, which implies that the baby's actual innocence still wouldn't be sufficient for salvation. Or did I misunderstand?

[Cow Poke]

I was commenting on Catholicity saying that baby salvation was still dependent on a propitiation or extreme appeasement, which implies that the baby's actual innocence still wouldn't be sufficient for salvation. Or did I misunderstand?

I can't speak for her, but I think many (most?) of us believe babies go to heaven, because they're incapable of making a decision. In my own opinion, the same is true of the mentally retarded.

[JimL]

I can't speak for her, but I think many (most?) of us believe babies go to heaven, because they're incapable of making a decision. In my own opinion, the same is true of the mentally retarded.

So, that would mean abortion is a good thing for babies, correct?

[Cow Poke]

So, that would mean abortion is a good thing for babies, correct?

Every once in a while, you reach a new low.

[Christianbookworm]

So, that would mean abortion is a good thing for babies, correct?

Christians will go to heaven. Does that make murdering Christians okay just because we will end up in a better place????