Question I've Never Really Seen Answered

[Youssarian]

Question: God in his foreknowledge knew that Adam and Eve would fall. He knew of the sin and all the horrible things that we humans would have to endure over the thousands of years afterward. He knew we would become so depraved that only the death of his own Son could save us. He knew that even afterward some would still continue to reject him. And he knew that at the end of it all, there will be people who spend eternity in the lake of fire along with Satan and his minions. So why, despite knowing all of this, would he create us in the first place? Does the good that comes out of all this outweigh the bad? Can one really say, "Yes there are millions who are in the lake of fire; but look at the millions more who are not!"

I know that God made humanity so that we would choose to love and worship him, and that we by our own free will rejected him. But it the physical and eternal suffering of so many worth God being loved and worshiped by a lesser amount of people than those who don't?

I once saw this question answered as such: A married couple may choose to have a child. They know that the child, in its lifetime, will experience injury, doubt, pain, loss, watch as others die, and eventually die itself. Yet they still choose to bear that child. Why? Because their love compels them to do so. To have that child and raise it as best they can. Does this explanation hold water? Did God choose to have us out of intense love? I would almost daresay that a couple's desire to have children despite knowing the kid would eventually endure suffering is selfishness (I don't believe that, but let's roll with it for the sake of argument), fulfilling selfish desires to procreate. Is God, thus, being selfish?

This isn't as much a faith-threatening issue to me as much a curiosity. I know God exists, even if his actions make no logical sense to me. There's order in the chaos. Still, it is something a skeptic or otherwise inquisitive person might ask, and I'd like to see what the answer would be.

[the rookie]

The risk for the sake of real, voluntary love was worth it to Him....

[DDGresham1]

Not trying to open this can or worms again but in my opinion (and the opinion of many others), hell is not a place where you go to burn forever. The bible describes it on several occasions as " the second death." It's a place where a persons soul goes to be destroyed because they weren't saved. There is a parable about a guy in hell trying to warn his brothers but that is just a parable. You should do a study on second death and references to hell. I have and don't believe it is an eternal torment. I believe the fire of hell is eternal. I believe that the devil and his cohorts may go there eternally. I do not believe it is a place for our souls or bodies to be burned eternally and I base this on my studies and on the fact that God is not cruel. Even though we may deserve it, this would be cruel and is not supported biblically. Research it yourself and form your own opnion though.

[LookingUp]

Question: God in his foreknowledge knew that Adam and Eve would fall. He knew of the sin and all the horrible things that we humans would have to endure over the thousands of years afterward. He knew we would become so depraved that only the death of his own Son could save us. He knew that even afterward some would still continue to reject him. And he knew that at the end of it all, there will be people who spend eternity in the lake of fire along with Satan and his minions. So why, despite knowing all of this, would he create us in the first place? Does the good that comes out of all this outweigh the bad? Can one really say, "Yes there are millions who are in the lake of fire; but look at the millions more who are not!"

I know that God made humanity so that we would choose to love and worship him, and that we by our own free will rejected him. But it the physical and eternal suffering of so many worth God being loved and worshiped by a lesser amount of people than those who don't?

I once saw this question answered as such: A married couple may choose to have a child. They know that the child, in its lifetime, will experience injury, doubt, pain, loss, watch as others die, and eventually die itself. Yet they still choose to bear that child. Why? Because their love compels them to do so. To have that child and raise it as best they can. Does this explanation hold water? Did God choose to have us out of intense love? I would almost daresay that a couple's desire to have children despite knowing the kid would eventually endure suffering is selfishness (I don't believe that, but let's roll with it for the sake of argument), fulfilling selfish desires to procreate. Is God, thus, being selfish?

This isn't as much a faith-threatening issue to me as much a curiosity. I know God exists, even if his actions make no logical sense to me. There's order in the chaos. Still, it is something a skeptic or otherwise inquisitive person might ask, and I'd like to see what the answer would be.

Rookie's answer is spot on. But I would also say that eternal suffering is not biblical.

[amazzin]

Not trying to open this can or worms again but in my opinion (and the opinion of many others), hell is not a place where you go to burn forever. The bible describes it on several occasions as " the second death." It's a place where a persons soul goes to be destroyed because they weren't saved. There is a parable about a guy in hell trying to warn his brothers but that is just a parable. You should do a study on second death and references to hell. I have and don't believe it is an eternal torment. I believe the fire of hell is eternal. I believe that the devil and his cohorts may go there eternally. I do not believe it is a place for our souls or bodies to be burned eternally and I base this on my studies and on the fact that God is not cruel. Even though we may deserve it, this would be cruel and is not supported biblically. Research it yourself and form your own opinion though.

Then you don't understand how much of an affront sin is to God and those who continue to transgress in sin when they know He has made a way for each of us. Sin and God cannot co-exist. Hell therefore is a place for the unrighteous. It is a place where the "worm does not die and the fire is not quenched". Jesus repeatedly spoke of it. Revelations makes it clear that at the end of the age the devil himself will be thrown into it, along with death and hades and all whose names are not in the book of Life (Rev 20:10). Its greater than a symbol my friend. The Bible exhausts human language in describing heaven and hell. The former is more glorious than the latter mor terible, than language can express

[Quickened]

Not trying to open this can or worms again but in my opinion (and the opinion of many others), hell is not a place where you go to burn forever. The bible describes it on several occasions as " the second death." It's a place where a persons soul goes to be destroyed because they weren't saved. There is a parable about a guy in hell trying to warn his brothers but that is just a parable. You should do a study on second death and references to hell. I have and don't believe it is an eternal torment. I believe the fire of hell is eternal. I believe that the devil and his cohorts may go there eternally. I do not believe it is a place for our souls or bodies to be burned eternally and I base this on my studies and on the fact that God is not cruel. Even though we may deserve it, this would be cruel and is not supported biblically. Research it yourself and form your own opnion though.

Usually on a Christian message board people appeal to scripture to make their case. You dismiss a parable because "it's just a parable" and then never cite scripture to support your opinion.

If you are going to make a case or a post worth considering please cite scripture. I would be curious to hear more then the whole "God isn't cruel" thing.

[LookingUp]

Usually on a Christian message board people appeal to scripture to make their case. You dismiss a parable because "it's just a parable" and then never cite scripture to support your opinion.

If you are going to make a case or a post worth considering please cite scripture. I would be curious to hear more then the whole "God isn't cruel" thing.

Even if the parable of the rich man is not a parable, it says nothing about the lake of fire/second death or eternal suffering.

[divaD]

Even if the parable of the rich man is not a parable, it says nothing about the lake of fire/second death or eternal suffering.

This would have to be true. Otherwise you have folks already in the LOF before the great white throne judgment, which can't take place until sometime after Christ has returned. I figure where the wicked are now, it would be like a prison or something. With that in mind, it would then be ludicrous to conclude the flame in that parable is literal, since it wouldn't make sense to take one out of one fire, only to cast them into yet another fire. But I would conclude the wicked are being held somewhere until judgment day, and they're not too happy where they are. But I wouldn't conclude any of them are actually burning in literal fire tho.

[Noeb]

Question: God in his foreknowledge knew that Adam and Eve would fall. He knew of the sin and all the horrible things that we humans would have to endure over the thousands of years afterward. He knew we would become so depraved that only the death of his own Son could save us. He knew that even afterward some would still continue to reject him. And he knew that at the end of it all, there will be people who spend eternity in the lake of fire along with Satan and his minions. So why, despite knowing all of this, would he create us in the first place? Does the good that comes out of all this outweigh the bad? Can one really say, "Yes there are millions who are in the lake of fire; but look at the millions more who are not!"

I know that God made humanity so that we would choose to love and worship him, and that we by our own free will rejected him. But it the physical and eternal suffering of so many worth God being loved and worshiped by a lesser amount of people than those who don't?

I once saw this question answered as such: A married couple may choose to have a child. They know that the child, in its lifetime, will experience injury, doubt, pain, loss, watch as others die, and eventually die itself. Yet they still choose to bear that child. Why? Because their love compels them to do so. To have that child and raise it as best they can. Does this explanation hold water? Did God choose to have us out of intense love? I would almost daresay that a couple's desire to have children despite knowing the kid would eventually endure suffering is selfishness (I don't believe that, but let's roll with it for the sake of argument), fulfilling selfish desires to procreate. Is God, thus, being selfish?

This isn't as much a faith-threatening issue to me as much a curiosity. I know God exists, even if his actions make no logical sense to me. There's order in the chaos. Still, it is something a skeptic or otherwise inquisitive person might ask, and I'd like to see what the answer would be.

Have you considered "the angelic conflict"? There's many versions and I don't subscribe to any, but as with many things there's elements of truth. Basically, mans creation was to prove God by a lesser being than an angels, resolving the angelic conflict. I don't think there has to be just one answer to your question, but I think this is one of them. The other has been said already by rookie and is included here.

[Watchman]

The risk for the sake of real, voluntary love was worth it to Him....

Absitively and posolutely.

W

[divaD]

The risk for the sake of real, voluntary love was worth it to Him....

I wholeheartedly agree. So why not then, just fully destroy the ones that chose not to voluntarily love? Wouldn't that be like God saying, since you didn't voluntarily love me, I will then punish you for all eternity by making you suffer? If God is looking for ones that voluntarily love Him, then why keep the ones who don't, around for all of eternity suffering? What is gained by that, since there would never be a time when it was said that enough is enough, you've suffered enough?

[RevLogos]

Have you considered "the angelic conflict"? There's many versions and I don't subscribe to any, but as with many things there's elements of truth. Basically, mans creation was to prove God by a lesser being than an angels, resolving the angelic conflict. I don't think there has to be just one answer to your question, but I think this is one of them. The other has been said already by rookie and is included here.

Were the angels created before Man, and if so, did the 1/3 of angels fall before Man was created?

[Lily]

Does the good that comes out of all this outweigh the bad? Can one really say, "Yes there are millions who are in the lake of fire; but look at the millions more who are not!"

So God had the ability to create, knowing of the potential for evil and suffering, but also of the potential for love and goodness. If He had not created because of a potential for evil, then evil would have already prevailed. Instead, because He is eternally just and good, He chose (if His righteousness even allowed Him a choice) to create inspite of the potential for evil, with a plan of love and goodness that would ultimately prevail.

Here's a bad analogy: Say you had several young children, and you were thinking of taking them all out to McDonalds and a movie. One of them was throwing a fit and didn't want to go - he wanted to stay home, in his room, doing what he wanted to do. The others, however were looking forward to spending that time out with you, and you with them. Would you stay home and give him his way and allow him to spoil the evening for you and the others?

I know that God made humanity so that we would choose to love and worship him...

And so that He could share and express His love...

I once saw this question answered as such: A married couple may choose to have a child. They know that the child, in its lifetime, will experience injury, doubt, pain, loss, watch as others die, and eventually die itself. Yet they still choose to bear that child. Why? Because their love compels them to do so. To have that child and raise it as best they can. Does this explanation hold water? Did God choose to have us out of intense love? I would almost daresay that a couple's desire to have children despite knowing the kid would eventually endure suffering is selfishness (I don't believe that, but let's roll with it for the sake of argument), fulfilling selfish desires to procreate. Is God, thus, being selfish?

If I thought there were no hope of an eternity with God and within His love, I probably would have never had children for the very reasons you listed. But God knows that there is so much more to life than what we face here, temporarily.

This isn't as much a faith-threatening issue to me as much a curiosity. I know God exists, even if his actions make no logical sense to me. There's order in the chaos. Still, it is something a skeptic or otherwise inquisitive person might ask, and I'd like to see what the answer would be.

God is love, and He's just and good. I think, because of the very nature of who/what He is, He had to (and desired to) create, regardless of the potential for evil and (thus) suffering.

[awestruckchild]

If He had not created because of a potential for evil, then evil would have already prevailed.

This is profound. I have never heard this truth stated.
This answers the question.
No more thought is even necessary.
Thank you for this, Lily.

[Youssarian]

How would evil have prevailed?