Did God Create the Best Possible Universe?

[clem456]

The way he handled so compassionately the near extermination of his chosen people from 1939-1945 shows how trustworthy and reliable he is. God is inept at being a decent god. He is a father to the fatherless? Of course he’s not. Creating only people who are minimally happy to be alive would be my first decison as a god. i’d be more of an interventionist type. I’d make Tony mean it when he says, “God is so good!” Unfortunately we’ll have to settle for the “good” God who thinks eternal agony is a just and reasonable sentence for a human being.

What do you think it means to be “chosen”?

 

[soulfree]

What do you think it means to be “chosen”?

“Chosen”, “elected”. God chose Israel and his people as some sort of laboratory, the result was meant to show the rest of the nations what a people living in God’s friendship looks like.

Do you think now would be a good time to start God’s impeachment process?

 

[Cimachol]

Don’t you think I know the answers?! The answer: God does everything to bring a greater good. He is just and awesome, and worthy of dulia. He is perfect, omnibenevolent, and questioning him or his attributes (or rather, what people claim his attributes are) is silly. I’m past that now. I think it’s dumb for the curse to be extended to all the descendants of Adam and Eve. I don’t marvel at Christ’s incarnation, I think if Adam and Eve had not disobeyed, God would be scratching his head wondering how he’s gonna pull off the deus ex machina (drum roll…Jesus). But planting a serpent right in the middle of the garden was a very good start. Making the tree readily available was very crafty. God, at heart, is a bad novelist. Many are unwilling characters in his inane book. I think Tony is incapable of anything but knee-jerk reactions. Religion seems to churn out people like that.

Wow. It seems you’ve decided that you’re smarter than every Christian who ever lived and more good than God. Your hostility toward God reveals a lot of inner pain. There’s no point in discussing this with you if you’re convinced that you have all the answers, but I’ll pray for you. (Actually, I already have.)

 

[soulfree]

Wow. It seems you’ve decided that you’re smarter than every Christian who ever lived and more good than God. Your hostility toward God reveals a lot of inner pain. There’s no point in discussing this with you if you’re convinced that you have all the answers, but I’ll pray for you. (Actually, I already have.)

It’s rather i see a chasm between how God is painted as and how God really is. “Inner pain” is what it’s about, though, can’t deny that. It’s dumb to put someone thru something which will make him miserable, and expect gratitude and permanent tear-filled praises. My father and mother have at least human ignorance on their side. They couldn’t foreknow, unlike God, that I was going to be a tormented loser with despair as a semi permanent companion.

 

[clem456]

“Chosen”, “elected”. God chose Israel and his people as some sort of laboratory, the result was meant to show the rest of the nations what a people living in God’s friendship looks like.

Do you think now would be a good time to start God’s impeachment process?

You see chosen-ness as something forced on people by God?

 

[soulfree]

You see chosen-ness as something forced on people by God?

An experiment whose result may or may not be according to what had been planned. Not sure I understand your question. If Abraham or all the others after him had said a definitive no to God, then God would have needed to set his eyes on some other nation. Since Abraham was cooperative, his descendants as numerous as the stars above get to be on board with God’s covenant with the Jewish people.

 

[Tomdstone]

What do you think it means to be “chosen”?

Not sure. But a few Orientals that I have spoken with seem to think that it was unfair that God did not choose them. Why did God leave out the Chinese and not choose them?

 

[Aloysium]

Not sure. But a few Orientals that I have spoken with seem to think that it was unfair that God did not choose them. Why did God leave out the Chinese and not choose them?

ah, just a heads up:
“oriental” is a term like “eskimo” that people do not like because it is applied by others to ones race
the preferred term, similar to “afro-american”, would be “asian”
and Chinese =/= non-Christian
people get touchy about terms that refer to race because most of us have experienced discrimination, some much more than others, clearly
i have never, ever heard anyone remark that it was unfair that God did not choose their race
i’m not disputing your credibility, but most people involved with their religion are happy with it
on the other hand if you go up to someone and ask how they feel about God not choosing them, you will get a negative reply; i would think it would be a reaction to your asking rather than the question itself

:twocents:

 

[clem456]

Not sure. But a few Orientals that I have spoken with seem to think that it was unfair that God did not choose them. Why did God leave out the Chinese and not choose them?

Can’t help but think of Sunday’s Gospel, and wonder who the chosen people are in this parable. Which one of these are given the best possible gift?

Jesus told his disciples this parable:
“The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner
who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard.
After agreeing with them for the usual daily wage,
he sent them into his vineyard.
Going out about nine o’clock,
the landowner saw others standing idle in the marketplace,
and he said to them, ‘You too go into my vineyard,
and I will give you what is just.’
So they went off.
And he went out again around noon,
and around three o’clock, and did likewise.
Going out about five o’clock,
the landowner found others standing around, and said to them,
‘Why do you stand here idle all day?’
They answered, ‘Because no one has hired us.’
He said to them, ‘You too go into my vineyard.’
When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman,
‘Summon the laborers and give them their pay,
beginning with the last and ending with the first.’
When those who had started about five o’clock came,
each received the usual daily wage.
So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more,
but each of them also got the usual wage.
And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner, saying,
‘These last ones worked only one hour,
and you have made them equal to us,
who bore the day’s burden and the heat.’
He said to one of them in reply,
‘My friend, I am not cheating you.
Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage?
Take what is yours and go.
What if I wish to give this last one the same as you?
Or am I not free to do as I wish with my own money?
Are you envious because I am generous?’
Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

Note that vs15 translates more literally like this:

15Or, is it not lawful for me to do what I will? is thy eye evil, because I am good?

 

[Achilles6129]

If I can be blunt, there are two things I’m unhappy with: God’s immortality and God’s existence. Make it three: his wonderful capacity to tolerate suffering, human suffering that is.

Remember that God has offered a way out of suffering and death:

“24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. 25 The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on rock.” Mt. 7:24-25 (NRSV)

" who gave himself for our sins to set us free from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father," Gal. 1:4 (NRSV)

Etc., etc.

Surely, if God is perfect, good and love, then there can’t be an instance where he is not either of these things.

I would say that statement is true. The question now is: What is “perfect,” “good,” and “love?”

This can’t be the best possible universe

Quite possibly it isn’t, as I said in my OP. However, I would ask again: How is God’s goodness affected by the actions of free creatures?

The people who are in hell had no business being created.

God’s will wasn’t for them to go to hell, but they were justly sent there. No-one goes to hell for any unjust or unfair reason: God’s justice is always fair and righteous. So what you’re witnessing with hell is God’s justice personified.

God’s disregard for human misery, both temporal and eternal, is perplexing.

Read the passages I quoted above. God has offered a way out of suffering and death; all it takes is obedience to his commands.

Even Jesus said Judas should have never been created.

No, he said it would have been good for him never to have been created. Again, however, I would ask: How do Judas’s actions affect the goodness of God?

Smearing the stain of original sin on humankind as a whole when only two poeple had disobeyed God is not justice

No-one’s original sin is stained on anyone in the context of divine wrath and punishment. We all make our own choices as far as obedience or disobedience is concerned; Scripture is very clear on this. This is a mischaracterization of theology.

Hence Jesus’ incarnation becomes a deus ex machina to correct a situation that God unjustly brought about.

On the contrary, Christ’s incarnation is necessary to satisfy God’s justice in light of the fact that human beings are responsible for their own choices. In other words, Christ makes it just for God to judge humanity (“For judgment I came into the world,” etc.) because he offers the human race a way of obedience to God’s commands. Obedience/disobedience is something brought about by the individual, not by God.

The way he handled so compassionately the near extermination of his chosen people from 1939-1945 shows how trustworthy and reliable he is.

The Israelites aren’t any more God’s chosen people than anyone else - this is a basic fact of the NT. As far as Holocaust theology is concerned, I would submit that God can allow unjustified suffering/evil to occur because God, unlike a human being, can undo unjustified suffering/evil (i.e., he can undo actions - human beings can’t).

So, for example, it would be evil of me to sit by and watch the Holocaust happen if I could stop it without any danger to myself because for me once an action happens I can’t undo the action. So once the Holocaust occurs, there’s no way for me to undo it. God, however, can undo actions. This is a part of Biblical theology and is a part of the doctrine of forgiveness of sins (how else could he forgive sins?). So I would submit that God can sit by and watch unjustified evil/suffering because he can undo these things; human beings cannot.

i’d be more of an interventionist type.

I should remind you that God will intervene and has plainly said that he will all over Scripture. Just because there’s a delay in divine intervention doesn’t mean that there will be no divine intervention.

Unfortunately we’ll have to settle for the “good” God who thinks eternal agony is a just and reasonable sentence for a human being.

In that case he must have some pretty good reasons to think that. I would submit that those reasons are written all over Scripture and also all over reality.

 

[Achilles6129]

1/3 of the Angels became Demons and the Devil. They also had a free choice and many choose against Him even given a fully developed intellect and all the necessary information to make a free choice.

Correct - so God is capable of creating a world where the significant majority (2/3) of free creatures freely choose to obey his commands. The question would then follow: Why didn’t he do that with this world?

How can you be sure that it was exactly 1/3.

Well, approximately 1/3:

“3 Then another portent appeared in heaven: a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. 4 His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth.” Rev. 12:3-4a (NRSV)

V.4 is commonly taken as a reference to approximately 1/3 of the angels following Satan.

 

[Achilles6129]

Perhaps he did. Perhaps most human beings who have lived and died are in heaven or on their way to heaven. We cannot know for a certainty either way.

Well, we know for certain that comparatively speaking few human beings will go to heaven:

“13 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy[d] that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. 14 For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it.” Mt. 7:13-14 (NRSV)

We also have troubling implications from Scripture regarding the numbers of those saved: for example, Noah was the only person on the planet who obeyed God’s commands in Gen. 6. Lot was the same in Sodom/Gomorrah. Joshua/Caleb were the only men who obeyed God’s commands out of nearly 600,000 Israelites, and so on.

There are some people who think they would make a better God than God has proven himself to be. But it’s a very dangerous business to judge God when God will be judging us.

I would agree with this statement.

 

[clem456]

Correct - so **God is capable of **creating a world where the significant majority (2/3) of free creatures freely choose to obey his commands. The question would then follow: Why didn’t he do that with this world?

Well, approximately 1/3:

“3 Then another portent appeared in heaven: a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. 4 His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth.” Rev. 12:3-4a (NRSV)

V.4 is commonly taken as a reference to approximately 1/3 of the angels following Satan.

I would just like to note that the bolded statement is problematic.

 

[Aloysium]

Correct - so God is capable of creating a world where the significant majority (2/3) of free creatures freely choose to obey his commands. The question would then follow: Why didn’t he do that with this world? . . .

What you are saying is that free-will is a chance phenomenon, like rolling dice.
Two sides would read hell and four would read heaven.
In that case He should have made a die with six heaven sides.

Consider that when you make an important decision, when you love someone in fact, that it is not by chance.
You do not give yourself completely to something other by something external to you.
To love, one has to decide to risk all.
How can you be made to give yourself - you have to do it yourself or else it is forced and meaningless.
It would not be love and God is all about love.

This isn’t something you can program into existence.

Think about yourself, your life, the joys and sorrows - pretty amazing, no?

 

[clem456]

What you are saying is that free-will is a chance phenomenon, like rolling dice.
Two sides would read hell and four would read heaven.
In that case He should have made a die with six heaven sides.

Consider that when you make an important decision, when you love someone in fact, that it is not by chance.
You do not give yourself completely to something other by something external to you.
To love one has to decide oneself that one is prepared to risk all.
How can you be made to give yourself - you have to do it or else it is forced and meaningless.
It would not be love and God is all about love.

This isn’t something you can program into existence.

Beautiful.
God does risk all. He is infinitely good beyond our understanding, and what he creates is good beyond our understanding. He creates us to return his gift to him in a covenant relationship. We fail to return that gift. But yet he still loves us completely, risking himself entirely, to the point that

God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son

Asking what God is capable of is judging the un-judgeable, when he has given himself completely. It is putting God to the test.

 

[Achilles6129]

I would just like to note that the bolded statement is problematic.

Why?

 

[Achilles6129]

What you are saying is that free-will is a chance phenomenon, like rolling dice.
Two sides would read hell and four would read heaven.
In that case He should have made a die with six heaven sides.

Not at all. What I’m saying is that God can create a world where the significant majority of free creatures freely choose to obey his commands. This is obviously true in heaven, so why didn’t he do the same for our world?

Let me re-state what I’m saying again: prior to the creation of any world, God has perfect foreknowledge of what will happen in that world. God can choose to create it or he can refrain from creating it. Therefore, God should in theory be able to pick a world where the majority of creatures freely choose to obey his commands. He obviously did this with heaven; why not this universe?

How can you be made to give yourself - you have to do it yourself or else it is forced and meaningless.
It would not be love and God is all about love.

This isn’t something you can program into existence.

This isn’t about forcing anything at all. Rather, it’s about foreknowledge. God foreknows what his free creatures will freely choose in each possible world, so why couldn’t God create a world where he foreknows that they will choose good?

 

[Tomdstone]

God has perfect foreknowledge of what will happen in that world.

If God has perfect foreknowledge, why did God the Son pray to the God the Father “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.”
Matthew 26:39
Luke 22:42

 

[clem456]

Not at all. What I’m saying is that God can create a world where the significant majority of free creatures freely choose to obey his commands. This is obviously true in heaven, so why didn’t he do the same for our world?

Let me re-state what I’m saying again: prior to the creation of any world, God has perfect foreknowledge of what will happen in that world. God can choose to create it or he can refrain from creating it. Therefore, God should in theory be able to pick a world where the majority of creatures freely choose to obey his commands. He obviously did this with heaven; why not this universe?

This isn’t about forcing anything at all. Rather, it’s about foreknowledge. God foreknows what his free creatures will freely choose in each possible world, so why couldn’t God create a world where he foreknows that they will choose good?

The best analogy for this is marriage.
Two people united in marriage know from the beginning their partner will hurt them (for better or worse). It happens to everyone. Despite that foreknowledge, because they love, they give. Its the nature of love to give, to pour one’s self out completely.

What I’m trying to point out is, when you parse what God is capable of, you deny his nature. God is love. He creates. It is presumptive and nonsensical to say that he could have done better. He offers us himself in eternal happiness. What else is there?

On your 50th wedding anniversary, ask your spouse why she didn’t do better at loving you, when he/she has offered her whole life as a gift. It’s an ingratitude of hellish proportions.

 

[soulfree]

Remember that God has offered a way out of suffering and death:

“24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. 25 The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on rock.” Mt. 7:24-25 (NRSV)

" who gave himself for our sins to set us free from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father," Gal. 1:4 (NRSV)

Etc., etc.

I would say that statement is true. The question now is: What is “perfect,” “good,” and “love?”

Quite possibly it isn’t, as I said in my OP. However, I would ask again: How is God’s goodness affected by the actions of free creatures?

God’s will wasn’t for them to go to hell, but they were justly sent there. No-one goes to hell for any unjust or unfair reason: God’s justice is always fair and righteous. So what you’re witnessing with hell is God’s justice personified.

Read the passages I quoted above. God has offered a way out of suffering and death; all it takes is obedience to his commands.

No, he said it would have been good for him never to have been created. Again, however, I would ask: How do Judas’s actions affect the goodness of God?

No-one’s original sin is stained on anyone in the context of divine wrath and punishment. We all make our own choices as far as obedience or disobedience is concerned; Scripture is very clear on this. This is a mischaracterization of theology.

On the contrary, Christ’s incarnation is necessary to satisfy God’s justice in light of the fact that human beings are responsible for their own choices. In other words, Christ makes it just for God to judge humanity (“For judgment I came into the world,” etc.) because he offers the human race a way of obedience to God’s commands. Obedience/disobedience is something brought about by the individual, not by God.

The Israelites aren’t any more God’s chosen people than anyone else - this is a basic fact of the NT. As far as Holocaust theology is concerned, I would submit that God can allow unjustified suffering/evil to occur because God, unlike a human being, can undo unjustified suffering/evil (i.e., he can undo actions - human beings can’t).

So, for example, it would be evil of me to sit by and watch the Holocaust happen if I could stop it without any danger to myself because for me once an action happens I can’t undo the action. So once the Holocaust occurs, there’s no way for me to undo it. God, however, can undo actions. This is a part of Biblical theology and is a part of the doctrine of forgiveness of sins (how else could he forgive sins?). So I would submit that God can sit by and watch unjustified evil/suffering because he can undo these things; human beings cannot.

I should remind you that God will intervene and has plainly said that he will all over Scripture. Just because there’s a delay in divine intervention doesn’t mean that there will be no divine intervention.

In that case he must have some pretty good reasons to think that. I would submit that those reasons are written all over Scripture and also all over reality.

The a priori that God is just, good and perfect is inherently problematic. It all boils down to: God can do no wrong. Which boils down to: eternal agony in hell cannot be unjust or overly harsh because God cannot be unjust or overly harsh. Circular reasoning, just like a dictionary is supposed to be circular. You have to twist “justice”, “love” and “perfection” to the point where they are no longer recognizable to apply these attributes to God. To you, God’s binary system of love-me-and-go-to-Heaven or love-me-not-and-go-to-eternal-agony makes perfect sense. Can’t you at least imagine a system where Heaven is the prize and natural death with nothing afterward is the natural consequence of living and not attaining the prize? If you’re worried about justice, send impenitent souls to a temporary “place” of suffering and expiation, then let them cease to exist. Would 5 billion years of intense suffering for the likes of Hitler, then annihilation, satisfy you?

What does “undo” mean in the context that you use it? I hope it’s not the confounded “to bring a greater good” nonsense?