The Problem of Evil combined with the problem of Free Will

[SteveII]

See bold.  One person's life was significantly harder than the other, but why would you say it is easier for one to accept the gift? The outcome of the story was that Jamal was angry toward God about the hardship. God did not cause his suffering, so the source of his anger was that God did not intervene. But given the free will of everyone involved, how can we say that the greatest amount of good wasn't/isn't/will be achieved? Because of man's choices, Jamal and his family suffered for a finite time, but that is incomparable to eternity. God promises all throughout the Bible that he will be with them that call on his name--especially though adversity. A famous one comes to mind:

Psalm 23
A psalm of David.

1 The Lord is my shepherd, I lack nothing.
2     He makes me lie down in green pastures,
he leads me beside quiet waters,
3     he refreshes my soul.
He guides me along the right paths
    for his name’s sake.
4 Even though I walk
    through the darkest valley,[a]
I will fear no evil,
    for you are with me;
your rod and your staff,
    they comfort me.
5 You prepare a table before me
    in the presence of my enemies.
You anoint my head with oil;
    my cup overflows.
6 Surely your goodness and love will follow me
    all the days of my life,
and I will dwell in the house of the Lord
    forever.

What does any of this even mean? Which part of Jamal's life was God with him for, the part where his wife is raped or the part where his kids starve to death?

That you can lean on God and he will be a comfort even through the worst situations. God was always with Jamal. Notice these verses (or any other) do not promise miraculous intervention in your time of trouble. The promise is always spiritual support and/or peace.

---

In the Bible (1 Corinthians 10:13) there is a promise God won't let you be tempted more than you can bear. There is no promise that you won't be given more than you can handle. The authors could just look around and see that's not true, they would have been laughed out of town in a world where half your children were likely to die before they reached the age of five, women often died in childbirth, and any injury could get infected and kill you; not to mention plagues, war, and natural disasters.

You are very much confusing temptation to sin with the circumstances you find yourself in. Read from the beginning of the chapter.

---

See bold.  One person's life was significantly harder than the other, but why would you say it is easier for one to accept the gift? The outcome of the story was that Jamal was angry toward God about the hardship. God did not cause his suffering, so the source of his anger was that God did not intervene. But given the free will of everyone involved, how can we say that the greatest amount of good wasn't/isn't/will be achieved? Because of man's choices, Jamal and his family suffered for a finite time, but that is incomparable to eternity. God promises all throughout the Bible that he will be with them that call on his name--especially though adversity. A famous one comes to mind:

Psalm 23
A psalm of David.

1 The Lord is my shepherd, I lack nothing.
2     He makes me lie down in green pastures,
he leads me beside quiet waters,
3     he refreshes my soul.
He guides me along the right paths
    for his name’s sake.
4 Even though I walk
    through the darkest valley,[a]
I will fear no evil,
    for you are with me;
your rod and your staff,
    they comfort me.
5 You prepare a table before me
    in the presence of my enemies.
You anoint my head with oil;
    my cup overflows.
6 Surely your goodness and love will follow me
    all the days of my life,
and I will dwell in the house of the Lord
    forever.

So does your position boil down to [variable] shit happens in life but God's only promise is salvation? That that is the free gift that is on offer to all but there is no promise about reducing actual suffering in this life, on account of it being down to the free will of others, and that life is only a blip compared to eternity? [1] What of suffering that is not due to the free will of others, such as natural disasters and being born handicapped in some way... ie suffering that is neither the person's fault or any other person's fault? The point is, the suffering is variable, even taking into account the free will of others as one possible get-out clause, and the more someone suffers, the harder it is to accept and keep the faith. Therefore people receive the same offer but on different terms... some are never tested with real suffering or loss, whereas others experience both through no fault of their own or others. [2]

1. Yes. I would add that God promises to provide support to cope with the suffering.
2. This line of reasoning does not seem to be the case in the real world. The more suffering in the world, the faster Christianity grows. Christianity is growing at unprecedented rates in the third world even today. I am certainly not saying God causes suffering, but God seems to be more real to those in need. To supernaturally intervene ever time someone asked might not be the greatest good considering the "blip compared to eternity".

[Aroura]

So the answers I'm getting are:

God is not just.  We are all sinners, so if he saves anyone, then hurray.  He's not saving anyone on merit, either, but apparently picking them for reasons unknown to humans, as apparently even denying him isn't enough to send you to hell.  ?  Is this all correct?

So basically, God works in mysterious ways, he'll save those he chooses to save for his own reasons that we can't possibly understand.  Also, life isn't a test, yet it isn't Gods fault we suffer, even though he made us able to suffer in an unjust and uncaring universe?

None of this makes ANY sense to me.  How can you believe all these contradictory things, like that God is omni-everything, yet isn't responsible for our suffering?  Not all suffering (nor even most) is a result of human behaviors.  Drought, flood, earthquakes, disease, hunger, are most often the outcome of things humans have zero control over.  

If Life isn't a test, why are we put here to suffer, instead of just going directly to heaven, as some other beings supposedly got to do?

[John V]

So the answers I'm getting are:

God is not just.

No, God is just.

We are all sinners, so if he saves anyone, then hurray.

That's correct, especially to those of us who are saved.

He's not saving anyone on merit, either, but apparently picking them for reasons unknown to humans, as apparently even denying him isn't enough to send you to hell.  ?  Is this all correct?

He's saving people on the basis of Christ's atonement on the cross. You can accept it if you want, but you don't have to if you don't want to. If you accept it, that's smart of you, but you didn't merit it yourself - Jesus did.

[Harry Nevis]

That you can lean on God and he will be a comfort even through the worst situations. God was always with Jamal. Notice these verses (or any other) do not promise miraculous intervention in your time of trouble. The promise is always spiritual support and/or peace.

Spiritual support and/or peace. It's a shame no one can tell whether a god provides these vague items or not.

---

1. Yes. I would add that God promises to provide support to cope with the suffering.
2. This line of reasoning does not seem to be the case in the real world. The more suffering in the world, the faster Christianity grows. Christianity is growing at unprecedented rates in the third world even today. I am certainly not saying God causes suffering, but God seems to be more real to those in need. To supernaturally intervene ever time someone asked might not be the greatest good considering the "blip compared to eternity".

Or people get desperate for anything the more they suffer.

---

So the answers I'm getting are:

God is not just.

No, God is just.

We are all sinners, so if he saves anyone, then hurray.

That's correct, especially to those of us who are saved.

He's not saving anyone on merit, either, but apparently picking them for reasons unknown to humans, as apparently even denying him isn't enough to send you to hell.  ?  Is this all correct?

He's saving people on the basis of Christ's atonement on the cross. You can accept it if you want, but you don't have to if you don't want to. If you accept it, that's smart of you, but you didn't merit it yourself - Jesus did.

It sure isn't smart of anybody to believe such tripe.

[Aroura]

So the answers I'm getting are:

God is not just.

No, God is just.

We are all sinners, so if he saves anyone, then hurray.

That's correct, especially to those of us who are saved.

He's not saving anyone on merit, either, but apparently picking them for reasons unknown to humans, as apparently even denying him isn't enough to send you to hell.  ?  Is this all correct?

He's saving people on the basis of Christ's atonement on the cross. You can accept it if you want, but you don't have to if you don't want to. If you accept it, that's smart of you, but you didn't merit it yourself - Jesus did.

Ok, let's go back to the scenario then.

If one person has an easier time accepting it than another person, due not to choice but things outside of their own control, how is that just?

[SteveII]

That you can lean on God and he will be a comfort even through the worst situations. God was always with Jamal. Notice these verses (or any other) do not promise miraculous intervention in your time of trouble. The promise is always spiritual support and/or peace.

Spiritual support and/or peace. It's a shame no one can tell whether a god provides these vague items or not.

---

1. Yes. I would add that God promises to provide support to cope with the suffering.
2. This line of reasoning does not seem to be the case in the real world. The more suffering in the world, the faster Christianity grows. Christianity is growing at unprecedented rates in the third world even today. I am certainly not saying God causes suffering, but God seems to be more real to those in need. To supernaturally intervene ever time someone asked might not be the greatest good considering the "blip compared to eternity".

Or people get desperate for anything the more they suffer.

Well, instead of sitting on your hyper/pseudoskeptical ass and simply asserting millions of people's experiences are not real, why don't you find someone who has experienced suffering and God's peace and ask them. Find an article somewhere and post a comment.

[John V]

It sure isn't smart of anybody to believe such tripe.

Belief isn't an issue. It's a given in the OP that you meet god after death and get to make your choice then. I'd say that, in that situation, choosing eternal happiness is the smart thing to do.

[Harry Nevis]

Or people get desperate for anything the more they suffer.

Well, instead of sitting on your hyper/pseudoskeptical ass and simply asserting millions of people's experiences are not real, why don't you find someone who has experienced suffering and God's peace and ask them. Find an article somewhere and post a comment.

And I'm sure I will find the same stories attributed to any god there is.  Would that mean that all those gods exist?  Or would it make more sense to deduce that these experiences are made by the people themselves?

[Neo-Scholastic]

First, Christianity doesn't claim that anyone's salvation is JUST, remotely or otherwise. Salvation is a function of mercy and grace, not justice...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."

Except in the sense that Jesus suffered the penalty of sin on our behalf - an act of Grace that restores justice.

It seems to me that the injustice of the situation depends on the ultimate fate of the unsaved. I'm reading a very good book on annihilationism, "The Fire that Consumes". I'm not completely convinced but my initial impression is that Fudge's exegesis is very strong. If annihilationism is true (and again I'm not so sure) then the unsaved just die like any other animal. In one sense it is in fact a death sentence. But for those without faith that's what they already expect, so in that sense, they aren't losing anything at all. The only apparent injustice is that the unsaved don't get a gift they don't want anyway. Essentially, their complaint would be that God is generous to those willing to receive the gift. To me, that does not seem to violate any principle of justice. I suppose that concept could be extended for unending conscious torment if the unsaved are forever hardened against grace, though.

[Aroura]

So even the Christans here disagree as to the answers to these questions. Is god just? So far it looks like one yer, one no, and one equivocation.

How and why we are saved seems pretty damned important. It is eternal after all. It's a good thing the just god has given everyone an equal shot at it. Not.