(May 23, 2017 at 7:24 pm)Aroura Wrote: How do theists justify the fact that people have different experiences, not under their own control in anyone's definition of free-will, and maintain that God is Just.
Let's play pretend.
Little Bobby is born in a nice western country. He is never hungry, goes to nice schools, and is taught about the glory of God and Jesus. He marries and has a wonderful, healthy family. 12 grandkids, all joyful.
He has some minor illnesses, but nothing major until whatever ends his wonderfully full life at age 89.
Little Jamal is born in a developing nation to a poor family, he is born with a major disability. He is often hungry, but his family scrapes by. His only education is in a hut by a foreign priest. He's lucky to have it at all.
He also is taught about the glory of Jesus and God his entire life. He goes to church, and is model. He volunteers in his community, shares what little food he has, etc. He maries, has kids, and then his wife is raped and murdered and his children die of starvation in a war dropped on his country that he aboslutely nothing to do with, when he was just trying to live well and get by.
He loses his faith, and dies in a ditch at age 45.
Now, let's even pretend that all of life is a test, and God will give every person a chance, after death, to recognize his glory and accept him. So even nonbelievers, fallen away believers, people of other faiths, etc, all get this sort of second chance to make this supposed choice.
If Jamal is so angry and upset by the fact that God allowed his family to suffer that he disavows God even after meeting him after death, but Bobby gets a straight ticket to heaven because he never had a reason to doubt OR to be upset at God, how is that anything remotely JUST?
There's a couple ways to respond to this.
First, Christianity doesn't claim that anyone's salvation is JUST, remotely or otherwise. Salvation is a function of mercy and grace, not justice. As both Bobby and Jamal are sinners, pure justice would be that both are condemned. If one or both are saved, that's a function of grace. As grace is by definition unmerited, it's nonsensical to complain that it's not just. Of course it isn't. That probably doesn't make sense to you. The Bible acknowledges that - "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing."
Second, I disagree that Jamal would be condemned in this situation. Peter denied Christ three times, and was restored. There's a reason that's included in Scripture, and other accounts of people failing in faith and being restored - David is a good example. As an unsaved human, you put all the emphasis on the human. But, God is sovereign, and if he wants to save Jamal, he'll save Jamal.
