Theological Opinions

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

Very interesting thoughts Lief. I'm glad I asked.

In the author analogy, I think it would be fine if the evil character dies in old age and is never punished. I think that's realistic to life on Earth. There is a genocidal tyrant that died in his sleep, of old age and was never brought to human punishment. I forget who he was, someone else can fill that in if they wish. But certainly people must be held responsible for their actions.

I agree with you . I often find the books that contain the tyrant dying in his sleep the more interesting ones, also. They certainly have their useful purpose. I was talking about justice, though. It would be just for me to punish a character in a book for his actions, and you couldn't argue that the justice is flawed. There's no point in my continuing in this vein, though, for we're in agreement.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

I think of the corrupt people, though.

If I understand you correctly, a person can be born here on Earth incomplete. This person can therefore commit a sin. Let us say God predestines that this person does commit very horrible sins, and the person in question becomes evil. When he dies, he will go to Hell for all eternity. And he will go to hell for all eternity for sins that ultimately he cannot control. Let me rephrase that. He will go to hell for all eternity for sins that ultimately he did not control. This would be just, you would say, to show the Elect his glory. Yet it still remains that the corrupt live horrible existences, doomed to kill and rape, and suffer "eternal destruction" as you put it. I can only say that this seems very sad.

It is my view that hell is actually not a place of eternal torture. There's only one scripture in the whole Bible that refers to eternal torture, and that was in a vision, and I am fully capable of debating that one's being taken literally. Eternal fire yes, eternal destruction yes, but eternal torture is only to be found in one place in the Bible, and I can debate on that one.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

It also seems true that God showing his wrath upon the evil persons (who become evil according to his own design) could easily be mistaken for God showing his wrath upon guilty and innocent alike, for the necessary effect of evil acts being destined to be is the suffering and deaths of innocent victims of the evil. The evil people suffer for all eternity after life, and many of the innocent people suffer great pains in their lives and at the ends of them. On the other side of the coin those innocent people, provided they have accepted Christ, do go to Heaven for eternity.

Good people do gain massive benefits from suffering, though. Just look at RÃ*an. She's got chronic back pain, and she is one of the most loving people on Entmoot. I'd look at the persecuted church. As it says in the scripture, "suffering leads to perseverence, perseverence to character, and character to hope." I believe it's in that order. Yes, one sometimes can mistake something terrible that happens to someone as God's wrath. I think that's a wrong thing to do. Jesus said clearly in the scripture that not everything that happens is done because of guilt. The eternal destruction (or as I'd put it, destruction in eternity, or destruction for eternity, so that for eternity we no longer exist) and punishment in the End Times is clearly shown for what it is. Sometimes a punishment is a clear judgment. For example, in the Old Testament the Lord gave prophetic warnings of punishments to come for sins. Those were direct sin/punishment relationships. However, there are plenty of times when suffering and death are dealt out for totally different reasons. Like Jesus said in the New Testament, "were those people that were killed recently when the Tower of Siloam fell any more guilty then the people in Jerusalem? I tell you, no!" He said something to that effect. Anyway, he was very clear on the point that not all suffering comes directly because of sin.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

In my opinion, it seems to me that under such a model, the real "criminal" is God. I put "criminal" in quotes because these ideas make God seem, to me, more human (broken) than criminal. It seems to me very much like an author of a book indeed, or a child playing with his army men. God creates the conflict, and God wills the evil to be done against the good, and the evil to be punished for actions that were ordained by God, so that He might show the glory of Himself to the good, and deliver them from the suffering which He has caused to be. It is almost as though God should be punishing Himself. It is like a trapper who lays a trap for a specific traveler. The innocent traveler walks by, steps in the trap, and experiences extreme pain. The trapper emerges from the trees, and pries the traveler out from the trap. "Thank you!" the traveler says.

God was argued against on the issue of pain in Romans and Job. Both times he answered, "I am God. Who are you to argue with what I do?" And he has awesome purposes planned for everything.

One fact that you ought to know about Christianity, is that we do actually believe that God experiences all the suffering that happens in the world. Every sin that occurs is done against him, and every pain that is felt is felt by him. He says that quite clearly in the scripture.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

So my own disagreement with the idea comes down to what I would call the "seeming unfairness" of it all. But I don't suppose any answer aimed to tackle the problem of evil would be wholly satisfactory. It's quite a vexing problem in any faith.

Thanks for the long and interesting reply.

I certainly enjoyed answering your post.