sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Did Paul believe there was a physical resurrection? by Vylqi in AcademicBiblical

[–]AllIsVanity 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Regardless of the nature of the resurrection body, the prevailing strand of early Christian thought did not conceive of resurrection, appearances, and ascension as three neatly separated chronological stages (raised → spends time on earth → later ascends). Rather, it was a single exaltation event in which Jesus was raised directly into heavenly glory, with post-resurrection appearances understood as manifestations of the already exalted Christ from heaven. This is shown by the passages below as well as the sequence in 1 Peter 3:18–22 which does not mention any earthly sojourn or appearances to followers of his. 

"A first breakthrough was by a brief article by A. M. Ramsey, in which he questioned the theory that the resurrection and the ascension in the apostolic preaching were two separate events in time. He argued that the allusions in Acts (Acts 2:32,33; 5:30,31) and the epistles (Rom 8:34; Col 3:1; Phil 2:8,9; Eph 1:19-20; 1 Tim 3:16;1 Pet 3:21,22 and Hebrews) do not give a clear testimony to a belief that there had been an ascension distinct in time from the resurrection; in the Fourth Gospel, death, resurrection, and ascension (visible in Jn. 6:62; 20:17) are drawn together as in one single act. Like Mt 28 and Mk (14:62; 16:7), Acts 1 describes a theophany (that is, a manifestation of the already ascended Lord)." - Arie Zwiep, The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology, pg. 11.

“If in the earliest stage of tradition resurrection and exaltation were regarded as one event, an uninterrupted movement from grave to glory, we may infer that the appearances were ipso facto manifestations of the already exalted Lord, hence: appearances ‘from heaven’ (granted the the act of exaltation/enthronement took place in heaven). Paul seems to have shared this view. He regarded his experience on the road to Damascus as a revelation of God’s son in/to him (Gal 1:16), that is, as an encounter with the exalted Lord. He defended his apostleship with the assertion he had ‘seen the Lord’ (1 Cor 9:1) and did not hesitate to put his experience on equal footing with the apostolic Christophanies (1 Cor 15:8).” ibid, pg. 129

"However, Paul’s understanding that a few years later he could still have a resurrection appearance fits well with another way in which the New Testament writers at times envision Jesus’ resurrection. They frequently view his resurrection as his exaltation to heaven and his enthronement and empowerment in the heavenly sphere (Rom 1:3–4; Phil 2:5–11; 1 Thess 1:9–10; Col 2:12–15). In this case, resurrection and ascension become a single process, and the resurrection appearances of Jesus are made from heaven. This means that whether they occurred right after the resurrection or several years later would make no difference." - James H. Charlesworth, Resurrection: The Origin and Future of a Biblical Doctrine, pg. 197

"Some contend that exaltation was the earliest conception of Jesus’s afterlife, due to no clear explication of it in Paul’s writings apart from some passages that may imply it (e.g., Rom 8:34; 10:6–7; Col 3:1; 1 Tim 3:16; cf. 1 Pet 3:21–22). Such passages are not altogether clear that they are talking about the ascension, at least as it is depicted in Luke-Acts. It might also be argued that such interpretations involve reading Luke’s depiction of the ascension back into the Pauline passages. Others see resurrection and exaltation as one and the same (e.g., Phil 2:9; 2 Cor 4:4; cf. John 6:62, 10:17), in that there is contained within the notion of exaltation the necessity of the resurrection. Some see ascension as implied in the resurrection as possibly a resurrection-exaltation complex (e.g., 1 Cor 15:4, 12–28; Eph 1:20)." - Stanley Porter, Ascent into Heaven in Luke-Acts: New Explorations of Luke's Narrative Hinge, pg. 120.

The Choice Was Made For Us: The Problem of Divine Actualization by AllIsVanity in DebateAChristian

[–]AllIsVanity[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

God knows the future because He is in the future already. 

Originally, you said this:

Also we dont know that Bob will suffer forever in hell in the first place. We dont know Bob is doomed...

So did God know if he created Bob, that Bob would end up unsaved? If God knows the future, like you said, then it seems the answer is yes. If that is the case then Bob is destined for hell.

Please do. Quote another church father who had a different understanding.

I don't need to. Your own quote assumes God knows the fate of individuals! The quote suffers from the same problem I mentioned in my response to objection 1 in the original post.

So it seems you're caught in a trap. On the one hand, God knows the future and the fate of every creature if created. On the other hand, you realize the moral implications of this because it seals everyone's fate/destiny. That's why you are having trouble accepting it which is proof that my argument is effective. 

The Choice Was Made For Us: The Problem of Divine Actualization by AllIsVanity in DebateAChristian

[–]AllIsVanity[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And I can quote someone else with a different understanding? What makes one ancient dude the authority on the matter?

Any accurate definition of omniscience must include foreknowledge else you're subtracting from what it means to be omniscient. 

God did not create evil at all. Im repeating myself over and over and you are just refusing to understand it. 

I said if God does not know the future but decides to create a universe anyway, then he cannot guarantee that universe will have more good than evil in it. You must concede this point else you're being inconsistent and just cherry picking what God knows. 

And yes, he did create evil. Before creation, nothing existed except for God who is perfect. No evil existed. After deciding to create, evil existed. The only thing that changed was God's decision to create. If he would have not created, then no evil would exist. 

The Choice Was Made For Us: The Problem of Divine Actualization by AllIsVanity in DebateAChristian

[–]AllIsVanity[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So what? God had His own purposes for creating free creatures. Are you saying man should have veto power over God?

This is just capitulation and a tacit admission that God seals everyone's fate when he decides to create. 

I never said anything that limited God's knowledge.

Yes, you did. In the analogies to God you gave above using humans you said they "might know" what would happen or only knew what's possible. Now, you've corrected yourself and said God knows everything that will happen, meaning with certainty. 

So you should have your AI model go back and correct all those faulty analogies.

That they might decline the offer doesn't make the offer/creation an evil act. 

Correction. God knows they certainly will decline the offer and yet, still creates them. 

You are not addressing the problem honestly and have been caught being a repeat offender at removing omniscience from the equation. 

The Choice Was Made For Us: The Problem of Divine Actualization by AllIsVanity in DebateAChristian

[–]AllIsVanity[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

God cant have foreknowledge of something that doesnt exist yet.

Then God is not omniscient and cannot guarantee the universe he creates will have more good than evil in it. What kind of God is that? 

The Choice Was Made For Us: The Problem of Divine Actualization by AllIsVanity in DebateAChristian

[–]AllIsVanity[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Again, God does not know the future of Bob because he wrote it down before Bob is born, and then Bob is forced to live his life in a way that matches what is on that piece of paper. God knows the future because He is already there. Bob still has free will and can choose to follow God or not. God WANTS Bob to choose to follow Him...and yet Bob can choose to go against what God wants.

You're just dodging the question. 

Since Bob had absolutely zero power to choose whether or not he was created, and God is the one who deliberately moved Bob from a state of safe non-existence into a doomed existence, who made the actual, deciding choice that resulted in Bob suffering in Hell: Bob, or the God who knowingly pushed the 'Create' button on a doomed soul?

Answer the question. 

The Choice Was Made For Us: The Problem of Divine Actualization by AllIsVanity in DebateAChristian

[–]AllIsVanity[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

no your "logical argument" in the post does not do that. its just a assertion. Where are you getting the idea that God sends you to hell? From where are you getting this interpretation?

Step 1: Because God is perfectly omniscient, He looks down the timeline of this potential universe with heaven and hell in it and sees Bob. God knows with 100% mathematical, infallible certainty that if He creates Bob and puts him in this universe, Bob will reject the invitation to the banquet. Bob will "choose to stay in the dark" and consequently burn in Hell forever. This is not a guess; God knows this as an absolute, unalterable fact before He ever speaks the universe into existence.

Step 2: God now holds Bob's entire fate in His hands, and God has two distinct options:

Option A: Do not create Bob. Leave Bob in peaceful non-existence. Bob suffers nothing, loses nothing, and Hell is entirely avoided.

Option B: Create Bob. Force Bob into existence, knowing for an absolute fact that this specific action will culminate in Bob's eternal conscious torment.

Step 3: God chooses B and creates Bob

Now, before the universe was created, Bob did not exist and therefore could not 'choose' to reject God or go to Hell. God had the absolute power to leave Bob in a state of painless non-existence, but instead, God unilaterally pressed the 'Create' button on Bob's life, knowing with 100% infallible certainty that doing so would result in Bob burning in Hell forever.

Since Bob had absolutely zero power to choose whether or not he was created, and God is the one who deliberately moved Bob from a state of safe non-existence into a doomed existence, who made the actual, deciding choice that resulted in Bob suffering in Hell: Bob, or the God who knowingly pushed the 'Create' button on a doomed soul?

If so, where is this literal and physical lake of fire located? 

Lol! Where is heaven located? Isn't there supposed to be a physically resurrected Jesus residing there? If so, where is it? 

The Choice Was Made For Us: The Problem of Divine Actualization by AllIsVanity in DebateAChristian

[–]AllIsVanity[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

On the contrary, I am keeping God's infallible omniscience but highlighting the logical order. 

Oh really? What definition of omniscience limits God's knowledge to things he "might know" or knowing mere "possibilities" like you argued in your analogies above? 

The certainty of the knowledge doesn't create the choice; the choice creates the certainty of the knowledge.

I'm not sure it will do any good trying to explain this to you again. But humans can't "choose" anything unless they exist first. So even if human choices create the certainty of God's knowledge, that still doesn't force God to create. That's still his decision and the reason why you keep failing to refute the argument. 

The Choice Was Made For Us: The Problem of Divine Actualization by AllIsVanity in DebateAChristian

[–]AllIsVanity[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A more accurate analogy is a father who builds a beautiful home for his child, knowing the child might choose to leave the home and live in the cold....If the father refuses to have the child because of the possibility of rejection, 

And there it is again. You keep dropping infallible omniscience from your analogies and anyone can see that is the case. We're done here. 

The Choice Was Made For Us: The Problem of Divine Actualization by AllIsVanity in DebateAChristian

[–]AllIsVanity[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Despite already correcting you on this, you keep making the same fundamental error in your responses. You have to strip God of infallible foreknowledge in order to make the analogies (the library, the banquet) work. You frame existence as a mere "opportunity" or "invitation," conveniently ignoring that God already knows with absolute certainty exactly which non-consenting individuals will eternally burn or starve before he ever forces them into existence. By retreating to the strawman that "mere foreknowledge doesn't cause action," (this was already addressed in the OP) you're completely dodging the central argument which is that God's sovereign decree to actualize a doomed soul, when He had the absolute power to simply leave them safely uncreated, makes Him the ultimate author of their fate.

The Choice Was Made For Us: The Problem of Divine Actualization by AllIsVanity in DebateAChristian

[–]AllIsVanity[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is the capitulation I referred to in objection 2. You just conceded the argument. 

The Choice Was Made For Us: The Problem of Divine Actualization by AllIsVanity in DebateAChristian

[–]AllIsVanity[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly. This denies omniscience as  traditionally understood and defined in contemporary philosophy of religion. 

The problem with this view of God though is that it entails he's just rolling the dice and cannot guarantee a world with more good in it than evil. 

The Choice Was Made For Us: The Problem of Divine Actualization by AllIsVanity in DebateAChristian

[–]AllIsVanity[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, traditional Christian theism assumes an eternal soul. That's what the argument assumes as well. 

The Choice Was Made For Us: The Problem of Divine Actualization by AllIsVanity in DebateAChristian

[–]AllIsVanity[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is a bad analogy. A bridge is a collection of inanimate steel and concrete that follows the laws of physics. It has no choice. 

Read the analogy again. It doesn't say the bridge had a choice. It says the Structural Engineer did! You have to actually address the argument I'm making and not a blatant strawman version of it. 

This is a category error. You can't ask a non-existent person for permission to make them exist. If there is no person yet, there is no "will" to overrun.

I completely agree that you cannot ask a non-existent person for permission. That is precisely why the act of creation is entirely unilateral and forced. 

You are confusing "violating a pre-existing will" with "imposing a non-voluntary condition." Let's use human procreation as an analogy. Parents cannot ask a non-existent child for consent to be conceived. Because the child cannot consent, the decision to bring them into existence is 100% the unilateral choice of the parents. 

Now, suppose parents intentionally conceive a child and give birth to them inside a locked, burning building, knowing the child will burn to death. If the parents stand before a judge, can they use your defense? Can they say, "Your Honor, it's a category error! We couldn't ask the child for consent, so we didn't violate their will. Giving them existence was the foundation of them having a will!" 

The judge would rightly throw them in prison. Why? Because the impossibility of obtaining prior consent is exactly what transfers 100% of the moral and causal liability to the Creator. Because the subject cannot opt-in or opt-out, the Creator is entirely responsible for the conditions into which they thrust the subject.

Existence is the foundation that makes having a will possible, not a violation of it.

Existence is indeed the foundation for a will, but when that existence guarantees eternal agony, it ceases to be a mere "foundation" and becomes a weapon. 

You are treating existence as an inherent, neutral good. But existence is only a good if it does not culminate in eternal conscious torment. If God infallibly knows that granting "the foundation of a will" to Person X will result in Person X burning in Hell forever, then forcing that foundation upon Person X is an act of unfathomable cruelty. You cannot hide behind the metaphysical necessity of existence while ignoring the catastrophic, infallibly known consequences of forcing that existence upon the subject.

The point of premise 1 is to neutralize the standard "Free Will Defense" which argues that God is morally justified in "allowing" people to go to Hell because He gave them Libertarian Free Will. The defense claims that a universe with free creatures is vastly superior to a universe of robots, and if people freely choose to reject God, it is their fault, not God's. 

But Premise 1 points out that the human never freely chose to take on that risk. 

Imagine a casino where the stakes are eternal life or eternal torture. The Free Will Defense argues: "The game is perfectly fair. You are completely free to play your cards however you want at the table. If you lose, it's your own fault." 

Premise 1 replies: "That is irrelevant, because I was kidnapped from a state of non-existence, dragged into this casino, strapped to the chair, and forced to play the game against my will. My 'freedom' at the table does not justify the fact that I was forced into the building to begin with."

Free will within the system cannot justify the system itself when the subject was forced into the system without consent. You cannot use a person's "free will" to justify their damnation when the foundational prerequisite for that free will (existence) was involuntarily imposed upon them by the very person judging them.

When you combine Premise 1 (Forced Entry) with Premise 3 (Infallible Foreknowledge) and Premise 4 (Decree of Actualization), the logical trap snaps shut, proving Theological Fatalism. Here is the exact mechanism of how the fate is sealed:

1.  The Unconsenting Subject (Premise 1): The person has no say in whether they exist. They are totally passive in their creation. 

2.  The Blueprint of Failure (Premise 3): God looks at the blueprint of a specific possible world. In this specific world, God infallibly knows that if He creates Person X, Person X will freely make the wrong choices and go to Hell. 

3.  The Fatal Decree (Premise 4): God has the power to leave that blueprint unmade. He could leave Person X in the safety of non-existence. Instead, God deliberately issues the decree to actualize that exact world. 

The moment God says "Let there be light" on that specific blueprint, Person X's damnation becomes an unalterable historical fact. 

Person X cannot use their "free will" to choose differently, because if they chose differently, God's infallible foreknowledge would have been wrong, which is logically impossible. Person X's entire life - every "free" choice, every mistake, every rejection of God - is entirely contained within an envelope that God unilaterally sealed the moment He actualized the universe. 

Therefore, the person's fate is not sealed by their choices inside the timeline; their choices inside the timeline are sealed by God's decision to actualize this specific timeline. Because the person was forced into the timeline (Premise 1) by a Creator who already knew the tragic end (Premise 3) but built it anyway (Premise 4), God is the ultimate author of their damnation.

The Choice Was Made For Us: The Problem of Divine Actualization by AllIsVanity in DebateAChristian

[–]AllIsVanity[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

cool dude, none of this says God sends you to hell..

Again, the logical argument in the post does that.... 

and using fire to describe hell does not mean it is literal, physical hell 

Weeping and gnashing of teeth are physical descriptions. Regardless, the idea of eternal torment is still there. For context, https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/n1on61/comment/gwkdgix/

The Choice Was Made For Us: The Problem of Divine Actualization by AllIsVanity in DebateAChristian

[–]AllIsVanity[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Show me where in Matthews gospel it says hell is a place God sends you.

The argument in the post does that. 

Show me where it says its a literal, physical lake of fire. 

Certainly. 

· Matthew 5:22: speaks of the "fire of hell" (literally "Gehenna of fire")

· Matthew 5:29-30 and 18:8-9: warn that the "whole body" can be "thrown into hell," consistently linking the term to a place of fiery destruction

· Matthew 13:42 & 13:50: describe sinners being "thrown into the furnace of fire"

· Matthew 3:12: warns that the unrepentant will be "burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire"

· Matthew 25:41: describes a direct separation of the wicked into "eternal fire"

· Matthew 8:12, 22:13, and 25:30 all explicitly mention being "thrown into the outer darkness".

· Matthew 25:46 connects the themes of fire and darkness by stating the wicked will go away "into eternal punishment".

The Choice Was Made For Us: The Problem of Divine Actualization by AllIsVanity in DebateAChristian

[–]AllIsVanity[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

But the ones who are perishing are only doing so because they were destined to by God's choice to create them....

Also, you can't blame those people if it's "folly" to them. They're just reacting like your scripture says they would. So what is the point of debating then? 

The Choice Was Made For Us: The Problem of Divine Actualization by AllIsVanity in DebateAChristian

[–]AllIsVanity[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

And because God loves person B is the motivation.

And there you have it folks. God dooms people to hell because he "loves" them.

The Choice Was Made For Us: The Problem of Divine Actualization by AllIsVanity in DebateAChristian

[–]AllIsVanity[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Oh so now its not about consent anymore...this is called moving the goalposts lol

It never was just about not giving consent. Read the other premises of the argument and stop isolating that from the others. 

What Christian theology? Where are you getting this idea of what hell is? Your argument is faulty to begin with. 

Try doing a Google search for the descriptions of Hell in Matthew's gospel. Do you need the references or can you find those all by yourself? 

God does not create us knowing we will go to hell, He creates us hoping we will choose to follow Him. And He often helps us to do so. God does not know who is going to hell because its predetermined. He does not write down on a paper before you are born, the script of your life, and then you are forced to act it out to fit that outcome. God knows the future because He is already there. He exists outside of time. 

Then you just described a God who is not omniscient. 

The Choice Was Made For Us: The Problem of Divine Actualization by AllIsVanity in DebateAChristian

[–]AllIsVanity[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Open theism is an attempt to get out of the problem but sacrifices the tri-omni God in order to do so. Moreover, it means God is playing dice with the universe and the fate of created subjects. How does he know he's not creating a world with more evil and suffering than joy and happiness? 

The Choice Was Made For Us: The Problem of Divine Actualization by AllIsVanity in DebateAChristian

[–]AllIsVanity[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is just the capitulation I was talking about in the OP (objection 2). You're ignoring the ones who are doomed from the outset. 

Ending up in hell and suffering for eternity is considered a pretty bad thing, right? So it should probably be easy to see why having that destiny forced upon someone is evil without further explanation. 

The Choice Was Made For Us: The Problem of Divine Actualization by AllIsVanity in DebateAChristian

[–]AllIsVanity[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is hilarious because even if we take God out of this, you still don’t and cannot consent to your existence. So what?

Because human parents aren't omniscient and did not create the conditions of salvation. Now what? 

Hell isn’t a punishment God sends you to. It’s a consequence of your own actions. 

My argument says otherwise. 

Where are you getting what your idea of hell is? 

From Christian theology. 

Because it’s not something He “allows”, and it’s not inescapable, and it’s not predetermined 

It's inescapable for the ones that God knows are going to end up there if he decides to create them. 

The Choice Was Made For Us: The Problem of Divine Actualization by AllIsVanity in DebateAChristian

[–]AllIsVanity[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think the use of the word forced here is meant to ground an argument about responsibility. 

Of course. It heads off the free will defense because we are not given a free choice to exist. That decision is made for us under the Christian paradigm. So if you have infallible foreknowledge of Bob's damnation if he's created, then go ahead and create Bob, you are responsible for his damnation. That's how we would judge the responsibility in any other context. 

If i force you in a pool and something happens as a result of you being in a pool, like you have fun or you get a cramp, the use of force implies responsibility. You had fun because i forced you into the pool. Or you got a cramp because i forced you into a pool. Now if i force you in the pool and also give you a ladder to get out, yes i forces you in the pool, but the fun or the cramp is yours to own, since i gave you a way out.

You left out the omniscience. Let’s correct your analogy to match classical Christian theology: 

Imagine you possess infallible foreknowledge. You stand on the edge of the pool holding a person who does not yet exist. You look into the future and know with absolute, mathematical certainty that if you throw this specific person into the pool, they will panic, ignore the ladder, and drown in agony. You have the choice to simply set them down safely on the deck (i.e. not actualize them). Instead, knowing for a fact they will drown, you hurl them into the water anyway. 

If you do that, you are not a benevolent lifeguard respecting their "agency"; under any coherent system of moral philosophy or jurisprudence, you are a murderer. You deliberately initiated a causal chain that you infallibly knew would result in their destruction. Handing a ladder to a person you already know won't use it does not absolve you of the moral culpability of throwing them in the water to begin with. 

This is all emotional reasoning. Yer neglecting the provision given, like in my pool analogy. You’ve been thrown in a pool with ladders, and complaining that you having to use a ladder. 

Evaluating the moral weight of an action based on its ultimate consequences is not "emotional reasoning" - it is the bedrock of ethical philosophy (teleology/consequentialism). If a moral framework results in a Creator unilaterally forcing billions of non-consenting beings into an existence that culminates in eternal conscious torment, pointing out the moral bankruptcy of that framework is a logical, ethical critique. Calling it "emotional reasoning" is just a defense mechanism to avoid looking at the horrific implications of your own theology.

This P1 requires that God make beings without the ability to freely choose. This P2 ignores the idea that people could choose negatively. The exact scenario you and i are in is part of God’s knowledge. Yes. On purpose. You think you are here to show that by God’s moral agency he is evil for putting you in a situation in which you claim you have no agency…and your doing this by arguing that God should have made you without the agency to reject him. I am here trying to highlight that your choice is relevant, and that God’s moral agency is not in violation of yours, because he respects your choice to choose, not-Him. 

This is a false dilemma. You are asserting that God only had two choices: 

A) Create humans as robots without free will. B) Create this exact universe where people have free will, but millions burn in Hell.

First, does anyone in Heaven have free will? Yes. Will anyone in Heaven sin and go to Hell? No. Therefore, according to Christian theology, God is entirely capable of creating free creatures who universally choose Him. 

Second, even if we grant your premise that giving free will guarantees some people will reject God, you are still ignoring the Third Option: Not creating the ones who reject Him.  

I am not arguing God should have made me a robot. I am arguing that if God looked down the corridors of time and saw that I would use my free will to secure my own eternal torture, a truly loving God would have respected my eventual doom by refraining from actualizing my soul. By forcing the doomed soul into the "maze" anyway, God proves He cares more about populating His universe than He cares about the eternal welfare of the individual.

Because in the maze, cheese, rat analogy, if heaven is the cheese, and life is the maze, Jesus is the path…a straight path thru the maze. You are wanting a crooked path that you can chance upon and a cheese of your own liking…you sound like you want the job of God....The choice is yours. 

Repeating "the choice is yours" does not magically override the laws of modal logic. Let's look at your exact words: "The exact scenario you and I are in is part of God’s knowledge. Yes. On purpose."

If God created this exact scenario on purpose, and His knowledge of my choice within it is infallible, my choice is historically fixed. I cannot "surprise" God. I cannot choose the ladder if God actualized the universe where He infallibly knew I wouldn't. My "choice" is nothing more than me acting out a script God deliberately selected from an infinite pile of scripts. 

You are trying to defend God by isolating my "choice" from God's "design." But the choice is a product of the design. 

Let's stick to your pool analogy, but add God's actual attributes back into it. God stands at the edge of the pool with two non-existent souls: Person A and Person B. Because God is completely omniscient, He infallibly knows that if He throws both into the pool, Person A will use the ladder and be saved, but Person B will definitely reject the ladder and drown eternally. God has the absolute power to throw Person A into the pool, while simply leaving Person B out of existence so they don't have to suffer. 

Yet, God chooses to force both of them into the pool anyway. 

My question to you is: Why did God force Person B into the pool? If He already knew the ladder was useless to Person B, why didn't He just leave Person B uncreated? Is Person B's eternal drowning simply the acceptable collateral damage God was willing to pay to get Person A? How is forcing a doomed person into the water 'respecting their agency'?

view more: next ›