Is a Suboptimal World a Problem?

[whag]

JimL, let me answer it in simple terms for you.

Murder is bad. Even if your victim goes to heaven. You cut out the rest of their entire life, everything good or bad they could have done. Possibly their children, and descendants for all time. Canceled every contact they could have had with hundreds and thousands of people. Stopped all of the good they could have brought to the world. Could that person have become President? Cured Cancer? Been the father of the person who first steps foot on Mars? People don't exist in isolation, they affect the rest of society good or bad, so when you murder someone you are not snipping a single thread, but an entire web of connections.

This is a dishonest argument, especially given your view that the road to salvation is narrow and the road to condemnation is wide. Given that view, the chances are more likely that the person would amplify the problems of the world rather than heal them.

I don't agree we should kill people to translate them to heaven, but your reply is a bad rejoinder.

Human life is precious. We don't exist just to go to heaven. We exist to care and love for one another, to do good. God wants us to help and love others, here and now. Otherwise he would just make us drop dead the moment we become Christians and poof us into heaven.

God poofed Enoch to Heaven.

So no, abortion is not "good" because the children go to heaven. They never even had a chance at life.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/slaug...the-canaanites

IOW, it isn't unreasonable to weigh the benefit of going to heaven against the sorrows of living on earth and being adopted by the Hebrews. Being adopted would've made the Amelekite children sad, I guess. =/

[whag]

Dunno... maybe he thinks emotional appeal is the only reason we believe that babies go to heaven?

No, but close. I think that certainly factors into it because the alternative colors your perception of God as loving.

I think that factors into all our opinions and doesn't necessarily mean we're expressing outrage. That's just a cheap way to deflect that Sparko is infamous for.

[Cow Poke]

This is a dishonest argument,

Adrift has started a thread on this.

God poofed Enoch to Heaven.

God didn't rip Enoch out of his mother's womb - he was 365 years old!

Gen 5:23 And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years: 24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

[Cow Poke]

BTW, how is what I said an argument from outrage?

You would better to ask the person who said that, rather than simply turn it around on them.

[Sparko]

If you can't accept that a loving God would send babies to hell, then you must think it would be a cruel act to condemn them, even despite their sin nature.


BTW, how is what I said an argument from outrage? Many learned theologians wrestled with the same question about enculturated people. This indicates critical thought, not the expression of outrage.

basically you are doing what you said I did with babies. You can't accept that a loving God would condemn people to hell just because they were encultured in a different religion. Outrage. But there is no basis for that belief.

God doesn't send us to hell just because of what religion we are. We don't deserve or not deserve hell because of what we know, or what we believe. We all deserve hell for the sins we commit. God says "Believe in my Son, who died for your sins and you will be forgiven" - and that is mercy. Something we don't deserve. So those that don't hear of it are not being treated unjustly. They will be treated justly and judged on their lives and sins. They have to go on "trial" - those who believe in Jesus, they are the ones who are being treated "unjustly" because they get to skip the "trial". Everyone else gets what we all "deserve".

This is one reason that Christians are so enthusiastic about spreading the gospel to the whole world, so that everyone will have the chance to be saved.

[whag]

basically you are doing what you said I did with babies. You can't accept that a loving God would condemn people to hell just because they were encultured in a different religion. Outrage. But there is no basis for that belief.

That's not outrage but critical thought that considers the totality of human experience, not just sins like lies and masturbation. Theologians asked the same thing, midrashing about it and, in some cases, even amending their beliefs to accommodate their knowledge of humanity. See, for example, Catholicity's view, which is more nuanced. Your problem is that you have more of a dichotomous view of things from soteriology to protology, which tends to sully your presentation at times.

This is one reason that Christians are so enthusiastic about spreading the gospel to the whole world, so that everyone will have the chance to be saved.

That's one of the reasons why I've considered the less dichotomous view: the "outreach" has been most disorganized and ineffective. Surely God has a merciful contingency plan to make up for preponderance of lame evangelism.

You're still ignoring the points summarized in the OP, #29, and #83 which can't be confused with arguments from outrage.

[Sparko]

That's not outrage but critical thought that considers the totality of human experience, not just sins like lies and masturbation. Theologians asked the same thing, midrashing about it and, in some cases, even amending their beliefs to accommodate their knowledge of humanity. See, for example, Catholicity's view, which is more nuanced. Your problem is that you have more of a dichotomous view of things from soteriology to protology, which tends to sully your presentation at times.



That's one of the reasons why I've considered the less dichotomous view: the "outreach" has been most disorganized and ineffective. Surely God has a merciful contingency plan to make up for preponderance of lame evangelism.

You're still ignoring the points summarized in the OP, #29, and #83 which can't be confused with arguments from outrage.

[whag]

seems pretty effective to me considering most of the world is Christian and you can't find anyplace that hasn't at least heard of Jesus and Christianity.

The world's population is 7 billion. 31% is Christian, which is less than half. And that's only assuming that all 31% is actually Christian, which I doubt you believe.

Most of Africa is evangelical, but the continent remains a hot mess. That's what I mean by ineffectual evangelism.

That's not a contingency plan. A contingency plan would use God's omniscience to determine whether the enculturated would respond if properly evangelized, then save them on that basis. Interestingly, the same would be possible to do with babies. Instead of populating heaven with untested people, God would be able to determine whether the baby would have become a Christian had she lived.

None of these scenarios are any more cruel or weird than the ones you've articulated.

Is there something about OP and my response to you in post 83 you don't understand? I can explain further.

[Sparko]

The world's population is 7 billion. 31% is Christian, which is less than half. And that's only assuming that all 31% is actually Christian, which I doubt you believe.

Most of Africa is evangelical, but the continent remains a hot mess. That's what I mean by ineffectual evangelism.



That's not a contingency plan. A contingency plan would use God's omniscience to determine whether the enculturated would respond if properly evangelized, then save them on that basis. Interestingly, the same would be possible to do with babies. Instead of populating heaven with untested people, God would be able to determine whether the baby would have become a Christian had she lived.

None of these scenarios are any more cruel or weird than the ones you've articulated.

Is there something about OP and my response to you in post 83 you don't understand? I can explain further.

I have heard some Christians propose the very things you do regarding the un-evangelized and even babies. Who knows? The bible doesn't say so it is a guess. The bible tells us that Jesus is the only path to salvation. I am sure God can do whatever he wants. He could send "deathbed visions" to people if he wanted to I guess. Or put the unsaved or babies into some temporary holding area like purgatory and let them decide there. That is kind of what the Catholics believe, right?

[whag]

I have heard some Christians propose the very things you do regarding the un-evangelized and even babies. Who knows? The bible doesn't say so it is a guess. The bible tells us that Jesus is the only path to salvation. I am sure God can do whatever he wants. He could send "deathbed visions" to people if he wanted to I guess. Or put the unsaved or babies into some temporary holding area like purgatory and let them decide there. That is kind of what the Catholics believe, right?

Yes. I think we've come to an understanding on this. Let's now move on to the OP and my response to you in post #83. This is a much more interesting issue and a sticking point for me.

[Sparko]

The world was never perfect, hence the point of this thread. Not only does God never declare it perfect, the evidence shows it was never perfect.
As mossrose said, it was never meant to be anything other than transitory.

Okay you keep saying to get back to post #83. here it is. Now what? I don't see any question?

[whag]

Okay you keep saying to get back to post #83. here it is. Now what? I don't see any question?

The question is implied and obvious in the OP and my response to you. I also restate my point in my reply to mossy:


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post342953


Basically, you're coming from the standpoint that the world was perfect, then corrupted by Adam and Eve. I'm responding by saying no, it wasn't perfect because there's no evidence of that perfection prior to human beings being introduced 100,000 years ago. The underlying assumption that A&E could have chosen the 'obedience fork" in the road is flawed because that state of affairs could only last for so long. Let's say it even lasted to this day (what a thought!). Even in that totally unrealistic scenario, the problem of Satan and the ever-present threat of evil would still exist and be suboptimal to God.

As such, it would seem that the expression of sin was both inevitable, given our physical makeup, and required to effect the ultimate world that God wanted. There's a real disconnect here. Even a creationist like you should see it.

[Sparko]

The question is implied and obvious in the OP and my response to you. I also restate my point in my reply to mossy:


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post342953


Basically, you're coming from the standpoint that the world was perfect, then corrupted by Adam and Eve. I'm responding by saying no, it wasn't perfect because there's no evidence of that perfection prior to human beings being introduced 100,000 years ago. The underlying assumption that A&E could have chosen the 'obedience fork" in the road is flawed because that state of affairs could only last for so long. Let's say it even lasted to this day (what a thought!). Even in that totally unrealistic scenario, the problem of Satan and the ever-present threat of evil would still exist and be suboptimal to God.

As such, it would seem that the expression of sin was both inevitable, given our physical makeup, and required to effect the ultimate world that God wanted. There's a real disconnect here. Even a creationist like you should see it.

I answered that way earlier with my "theory" as to God's plan with Adam and Eve, and their choice of sin. Better to catch it early than have a mixed bag.

As to whether the world was perfect or not, that is something I can't answer. I believe at least that the Garden was. To me that is a matter of faith. I am not an evolutionist.

After I posted that is when JimL went all strawman on me.

[whag]

I answered that way earlier with my "theory" as to God's plan with Adam and Eve, and their choice of sin. Better to catch it early than have a mixed bag.

As to whether the world was perfect or not, that is something I can't answer. I believe at least that the Garden was. To me that is a matter of faith. I am not an evolutionist.

After I posted that is when JimL went all strawman on me.

I'll look at your answer to Jim again to see how it relates.

[Sparko]

I'll look at your answer to Jim again to see how it relates.

the post is here http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post343620

but like I said it is just my theory. A guess really. I sure as heck don't think I am as smart as God and know what his plan was/is.