The Problem of Evil combined with the problem of Free Will

[Amarok]

Because they can't address it they can only make excuses to get there god off the hook

And what a horrendous notion that god would put someone through that just to test there faith

Theists do not consider it horrendous that people suffer under the guidance of god.

And that is a problem.

And that just makes it more horrendous

[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? [1]

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? [2]

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?[3]

1. God is just and I don't know how you got that from anyone's answer. Why do you say "picking them"? In your scenario, you said Jamal rejected God because of his experiences. 
2. Why "for his own reasons" again? God could easily have created a universe without suffer. Obviously that was not his goal. Free will and the ability for people to love each other and love him seems to take precedence. 
3. There is no logical problem with the concept--let's call that the intellectual Problem of Evil (PoE) (which has largely been abandoned by professional philosophers). You objection is based on empathy/emotions or the emotional PoE. I fully agree and understand that this is one of or the biggest obstacle for an open-minded person to have when considering the God of Christianity. However, I do have a couple of points about a Christian perspective on this issue (adapted from a podcast I listened to):

a. The chief purpose of life is knowledge of God, not happiness. 
b. We are in a state of separation/rebellion against God and his purpose-spiritual evil can prevail for a time. 
c. This life is but a blip when considering eternity and God has that perspective that we often don't see/remember.
d. The knowledge of God is of immeasurable importance--and far outweighs finite suffering.

Bold mine. 
Could you kindly back up this assertion with a link or two?
I actually spent some time seeing if this statement had any basis in fact, and only come across many modern references to people STILL discussing it.  It is referenced in the "Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy", and I see conferences and meetings scheduled this very year to discuss it.  I have yet to find any claim that it has "largely been abandoned".  
There are modern philosphers even composing new arguments using the Problem of Evil, and of course, modern apologists right there to form there counter-arguments.  This hardly seems largely dismissed

[Foxaèr]

The theistic counter argument to people suffering under the guidance of a god who should prevent suffering is that god is above reproach of human understanding.

That is merely an apologetic stance.

A god who can prevent suffering yet refuses to do so is not a god worth worship by any sane standard.

The problem of god, of course, begins with the fact that god cannot be proven to exist.

Therefore, because theists rely merely upon faith they must also rely upon further and ever consistently elaborate Apologetic concepts to fill in the gaps of knowledge that simply are not provided in their supposedly holy book.

A reasonable mind can see what is happening with religion, and thus these people become atheists.

Unreasonable minds continue to cling to their faith for whatever reason they have decided to provide themselves.

[Aroura]

a. Then why doesn't everyone have an equal chance at "revelation"? Why were angels created and given an automatic in?
b. I did not choose to separate or rebell from anything. Why would I be punished for being created human?  I did not choose this state.
c. The amount of time we suffer does magically not eliminate the problem of evil
d. Then why not just give it to us in the first place?  And don't say he did, because there was literally nothing for thousands of years of human history.  Those people get a free pass, or not?  Having some people write down inconsistent stories that look idenditcal to many works of mythology hardly counts as revealing knowledge of himself.

I fully suspect this to go right back where I suspected, to supposed free choice.  As if many atheists didn't spend decades as theists doing their very best to believe.  It always, always comes down to victim blaming.

It's a really good thing it is just a mythology, no different than Zeus. At least ancient religions often recognized that their Gods were also monsters.

Hold on there cowgirl...in your scenario, everyone meets God at the end and then makes the choice, so everyone does have an equal chance at revelation.

You honestly think those people have an equal chance?  After having extremely unequal lives???

So, you are basically saying you don't think any past experiences affect our choices....?

[Amarok]

1. God is just and I don't know how you got that from anyone's answer. Why do you say "picking them"? In your scenario, you said Jamal rejected God because of his experiences. 
2. Why "for his own reasons" again? God could easily have created a universe without suffer. Obviously that was not his goal. Free will and the ability for people to love each other and love him seems to take precedence. 
3. There is no logical problem with the concept--let's call that the intellectual Problem of Evil (PoE) (which has largely been abandoned by professional philosophers). You objection is based on empathy/emotions or the emotional PoE. I fully agree and understand that this is one of or the biggest obstacle for an open-minded person to have when considering the God of Christianity. However, I do have a couple of points about a Christian perspective on this issue (adapted from a podcast I listened to):

a. The chief purpose of life is knowledge of God, not happiness. 
b. We are in a state of separation/rebellion against God and his purpose-spiritual evil can prevail for a time. 
c. This life is but a blip when considering eternity and God has that perspective that we often don't see/remember.
d. The knowledge of God is of immeasurable importance--and far outweighs finite suffering.

Bold mine. 
Could you kindly back up this assertion with a link or two?
I actually spent some time seeing if this statement had any basis in fact, and only come across many modern references to people STILL discussing it.  It is referenced in the "Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy", and I see conferences and meetings scheduled this very year to discuss it.  I have yet to find any claim that it has "largely been abandoned".  
There are modern philosphers even composing new arguments using the Problem of Evil, and of course, modern apologists right there to form there counter-arguments.  This hardly seems largely dismissed

It's not been abandoned theists are still coming up with defenses and atheists are still coming up with counters so how could it be abandoned more apologists hand waving.

[John V]

Hold on there cowgirl...in your scenario, everyone meets God at the end and then makes the choice, so everyone does have an equal chance at revelation.

You honestly think those people have an equal chance?  After having extremely unequal lives???

So, you are basically saying you don't think any past experiences affect our choices....?

You said, "Then why doesn't everyone have an equal chance at 'revelation'?"

Since, in your scenario, god fully reveals himself to everyone, yes - everyone has an equal chance at revelation, that chance being 100%. 

You're trying to change it to equal chance of salvation. We've already covered this. Salvation is a function of mercy and grace. Even if you can prove that God doesn't offer it equally, that doesn't make him unjust.

Justice would have been served by Chelsea Manning serving his full sentence. I don't hear you guys complaining that Obama let him out early. And hopefully you get that, being in the news a lot, Manning had a better chance at pardon or commutation than most other criminals.

[Little lunch]

In the church where Jamal goes to, he is the model and well liked by all, I suppose.
This guy has enough food that he can afford to share some.
A woman, who he knew well, was raped and not only that, she was then murdered.
Some children that he also knew very well, actually starved to death.
Why does this guy get all the breaks, what the fuck is god thinking, it's so unfair.

I think this is a shithouse atheist argument.
It's like, 'If your god was real, then why isn't everybody exactly the same as each other?'

[Harry Nevis]

1. God is just and I don't know how you got that from anyone's answer. Why do you say "picking them"? In your scenario, you said Jamal rejected God because of his experiences. 
2. Why "for his own reasons" again? God could easily have created a universe without suffer. Obviously that was not his goal. Free will and the ability for people to love each other and love him seems to take precedence. 
3. There is no logical problem with the concept--let's call that the intellectual Problem of Evil (PoE) (which has largely been abandoned by professional philosophers). You objection is based on empathy/emotions or the emotional PoE. I fully agree and understand that this is one of or the biggest obstacle for an open-minded person to have when considering the God of Christianity. However, I do have a couple of points about a Christian perspective on this issue (adapted from a podcast I listened to):

a. The chief purpose of life is knowledge of God, not happiness. 
b. We are in a state of separation/rebellion against God and his purpose-spiritual evil can prevail for a time. 
c. This life is but a blip when considering eternity and God has that perspective that we often don't see/remember.
d. The knowledge of God is of immeasurable importance--and far outweighs finite suffering.

Bold mine. 
Could you kindly back up this assertion with a link or two?
I actually spent some time seeing if this statement had any basis in fact, and only come across many modern references to people STILL discussing it.  It is referenced in the "Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy", and I see conferences and meetings scheduled this very year to discuss it.  I have yet to find any claim that it has "largely been abandoned".  
There are modern philosphers even composing new arguments using the Problem of Evil, and of course, modern apologists right there to form there counter-arguments.  This hardly seems largely dismissed

I'm sure he has his own definition of "professional philosophers".

[Drich]

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.

BECAUSE FREE WILL IS NEVER MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE!!!! IT IS A GREEK CONSTRUCT LATER ADDED TO "CHURCH DOCRTINE!"

Let's play pretend.  Sure let's pretend you know the difference between the Christianity set up in the bible and the one set up by men via things like 'church doctrine.' Let us also assume that you understand that church doctrine is often rife with contradictions, such as free will. But if you take what God actually says over that of what man says God said.. you get a completely different understanding of Christianity...

Let's play pretend you understand this but are going to ask your rehashed respun atheist standard question anyway.

Little Bobby is born in a nice western country.  

I think Chad or"zander" would be a better "white name."

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

Great name choice draws a very distinct picture.

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.

Quick question what of those born here in that same situation? Does geography really become that final straw for you?

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 absolutely 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.

@ 45 and in such harsh conditions this brother should have well more than simple faith between Himself and God. Not to say the test of loosing everything is not a test between you and God. It was the central test between Job and God. Meaning I think in this situation the man who has lived the harder life may be far more developed spiritually that the douche in america.

But let's just say he did and lost his will to serve God.. then died. Is it in your mind such a person is going to hell? So then what was this man's sin? was it to blaspheme the Holy Spirit? No not according to your narrative. As He life 45 years in communion with God. So then why would this sin not be forgiven like anyother? Not to say Christ could simply not forgive him because he was never chosen, but if he were then again why would their be any forgiveness for this man?

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.

This life is a test, so that we may know and be assured that if we wind up in Hell it is because our nature demands it. or vise versa. Our judgement is not so much about what we will or will not do. as God already knows the answer to it if and when given the chance. Christ will judge if you have or have not been given the chance and then what you decided or would have decided. Because at that point it will have already been done.

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?

Maybe just maybe Jamal loved his family more than God. Or even deeper, the soul who would become Jamal would always love his family MORE than God, And God knew this. So He placed the soul that would become Jamal in a situation that showed the soul why He could never be content in an eternity with God. So that when Jamal went to Hell Jamal knew that God was right and can find peace with the idea that he could never love God, as God has asked us to love Him, in the only two commands we actually have. (Love God with all of our being and love our neighbors as ourselves.) The whole rest of the law is satisfied if we can simply follow those two commands.

Then maybe Bobby's soul is exactly what God is looking for minus a few instances of sin. So he gets the easier life...

Or maybe Jamal Spirit wanted to be tested and be in a position to receive a higher reward, was tested and failed several times. Is failing God's test a sin? Not one that's can't be forgiven. If Jamal went in a believer there is still hope. it just depends on where his heart i in this matter.

---

In the church where Jamal goes to, he is the model and well liked by all, I suppose.
This guy has enough food that he can afford to share some.
A woman, who he knew well, was raped and not only that, she was then murdered.
Some children that he also knew very well, actually starved to death.
Why does this guy get all the breaks, what the fuck is god thinking, it's so unfair.

I think this is a shithouse atheist argument.
It's like, 'If your god was real, then why isn't everybody exactly the same as each other?'

Actually if your God is real why don't we all live in heaven?

[Foxaèr]

Or maybe The Bible is Bullshit.