The Problem of Evil combined with the problem of Free Will

[Aroura]

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?

[emjay]

Indeed... why 'test' some people more than others when presumably all souls are supposed to be created equal?

[Minimalist]

Poor Jamal.  He lost his "faith" and failed the test.

God is a dick.

[Mystical]

Where's the free will part, of your question Aurora?
Or is there none, like reality would be under such an unjust setup?

[Aroura]

Where's the free will part, of your question Aurora?
Or is there none, like reality would be under such an unjust setup?

There is no meaningful free will in my example, and that is the problem. Theists of all stripes like to use free will to explain away the issue of god sending people to hell, saying we choose separation from god, laying the blame squarely on the shoulders of the victim.  But when a person suffers literally thousands of times more than another without having caused it themselves through supposed freewill, then what does free will even matter when their god is inherently unjust?

Seems like a problem to me.

[Paraselene]

An ironic quote from scripture is that "god does not give you more than you can handle."

Utter bullshit.

[Neo-Scholastic]

For some people, great hardship strengthens their faith.

[SteveII]

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?

First, I would challenge the premise that "all life is a test". I don't believe that to be the case at all. Life is the experiences and development of a person, the purpose of which is to "glorify God and enjoy him forever" as the catechism says.  A test implies that there is an unknown outcome to be determined. There is not--if life were a test, we would have failed long ago. So really it comes down to your response to God--which I don't think you can characterize as a 'test'. 

I don't think you are using the term justice correctly. Justice is an impartial, objective application of the law.  If all have sinned and fallen short, then justice is that everyone is guilty and must bear the consequences. It is only the free gift of salvation that can pay that penalty. In your scenario, one chose to take that free gift and the other to accept the consequences that were otherwise coming to both of them.

[Harry Nevis]

For some people, great hardship strengthens their faith.

And others wake up from their fantasies. So?

[emjay]

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?

First, I would challenge the premise that "all life is a test". I don't believe that to be the case at all. Life is the experiences and development of a person, the purpose of which is to "glorify God and enjoy him forever" as the catechism says.  A test implies that there is an unknown outcome to be determined. There is not--if life were a test, we would have failed long ago. So really it comes down to your response to God--which I don't think you can characterize as a 'test'. 

I don't think you are using the term justice correctly. Justice is an impartial, objective application of the law.  If all have sinned and fallen short, then justice is that everyone is guilty and must bear the consequences. It is only the free gift of salvation that can pay that penalty. In your scenario, one chose to take that free gift and the other to accept the consequences that were otherwise coming to both of them.

Test... development... what's the difference? Whatever you choose to call it, why should it be easier, right from the very get-go of life sometimes, for some people to find God and keep God than others? Ie why should some people be born with a metaphorical silver spoon in their mouth, in relation to life and/or in relation to God, whereas others are born into misery and real hardship from the outset? Even if we accept what you say... about being born unsaved in either case and having salvation as a free gift on offer to both... why should it be easier for one over the other to accept that free gift, when the only difference is the luck of the draw, where and what situation they've been born into?