In my previous post, I partially answered the question, “Why did God create the tree in the first place?” This question is a big one for little minds to wrap themselves around. For a child, creating the tree in the first place sounds like God was just asking for trouble. For the hardened skeptic, it sounds like God tricked us into needing a Savior by creating the means for us to sin in the first place. I argued in my previous post that this objection does not hold true when you examine it in the context of a loving relationship. For both love and relationship to exist, there must be free-will. For free-will to exist, there must be legitimate means to choose otherwise. God made it as easy as possible for Adam and Eve to choose Him, and they still chose to disobey. (If you have not read the previous post, please do so now. It lays the foundation for why the choice was necessary.)
One objection I hear to this line of reasoning is that Adam and Eve were not ”fully informed.” Had they known what God meant by “And you shall surely die,” they never would have disobeyed. Thus, it is God’s fault that they sinned by not providing enough information.
So, if God wanted to remain in a loving relationship with Adam and Eve, why didn’t He tell them the full story?! The answer is simpler than you would think: Establishing a loving relationship was not possible with full disclosure. That is a bold claim to make, so let me explain what I mean.Was full disclosure possible without ruining the possibility for a loving relationship? Click To Tweet
1) What do I mean by “choice?”
I was illustrating this point to my nephew once, and asked him, “What is something you would never purposefully do to yourself because it would hurt?” He thought for a second, and then motioned like he was slamming his hand with a hammer. Most of us make the “choice” to not purposefully slam our hands with hammers. In fact, I’d wager that most of us make this “choice” every day! However, would you call that a choice? Not really. It has never entered my mind to do otherwise. Why? Because I’ve accidentally slammed my hand with hammer. It was not pleasant. Thus, I would never do it purposefully. I don’t consider it a “choice” to not purposefully slam my hand with a hammer. I just don’t do it. I don’t want to, and if someone wanted to use it as “proof” of my love or loyalty to them, it would prove nothing. Only if we completely redefine the word 'choice.' Click To Tweet
2) Full disclosure can lead to coercion.
As mentioned before, love requires free-will, which necessitates the ability for a person to choose otherwise. However, someone can theoretically “force” you to choose something that you would never choose on your own. Forcing a choice might philosophically sound like it maintains free-will, but it doesn’t. Not really, and especially not if your end goal is a loving relationship.
For example, if you were kidnapped, and the kidnapper said to you, “The door will remain unlocked, and you can chooooooooose to leave whenever you like. However, I’m putting this device on your leg. And FYI, if you leave this room, it will administer 500 volts of electricity to you. In case you don’t believe me, let me lead you out of the room for a second so you can get a taste of what a fraction of that voltage is. BZZZZZZZZZZZ. . . Okay, now that you are “fully informed” about the weight of your decisions, it is my desire that you choose to stay here with me.”
If the kidnapper were caught, could he use the excuse that he didn’t “force” you to stay? After all, you could have exercised your free-will at any point. You had the “choice” to leave!
Ummmmm…. No.
That excuse wouldn’t hold up in court, and it doesn’t hold up here. You did not have actual free-will with the kidnapper. If you “chose” to stay, it was coerced, to say the least. And it for sure didn’t lead to a loving relationship! This excuse wouldn’t hold up in court, and it doesn’t hold up here. Click To Tweet
Could God have given Adam and Eve enough information to ensure that they would never disobey (i.e. always “chose” Him?) Sure. Could he have let them experience the full weight of their decisions beforehand? Absolutely. But their “choice” would no longer be a choice. As mentioned before, choosing to not slam my hand with a hammer fails to demonstrate my love or loyalty to anyone but myself. It’s an act of self-preservation. Similarly, full disclosure about the ramifications of sin would have robbed Adam and Eve of freely choosing God. It would have been coercion. It would have been an act of self-preservation, not an act of obedience or trust. If anything, it would probably have fueled as much resentment as we would have for our hypothetical kidnapper, because it would have been taunting them with the illusion of choice, without actually giving them a choice.
Bringing this back to our original question, “Why did God create the tree in the first place,” let me summarize: Because He is a loving father who wanted a loving relationship with His children. He did not want robots. He did not want to force Himself on us, and He didn’t want to coerce us into loving Him by providing “full disclosure” of the ramifications of rebelling against a Holy God. None of those things would result in the kind of relationship that he desired. What did He do? He gave Adam and Eve enough information to know that He could be trusted, gave them one door by which to leave, and they took it. He didn’t hide the ramifications. He gave them enough disclosure whereby they understood what obedience and rebellion looked like, but He didn’t give so much information that they felt compelled to act in self-preservation. Are we really free if our choice is coerced? Click To Tweet
We had lots of interesting conversations on Facebook when I posted the original article. Another question that people have brought up is, “Will we have free-will in heaven?” I’ll answer that in my next post!!
Hillary Morgan Ferrer is the founder of Mama Bear Apologetics. She is the chief author and editor of Mama Bear Apologetics: Empowering Your Kids to Challenge Cultural Lies and Mama Bear Apologetics Guide to Sexuality: Empowering Your Kids to Understand and Live Out God’s Design. Hillary has her masters in Biology and has been married to her husband, Dr. John D. Ferrer, for 15 years. Don’t let her cook for you. She’ll burn your house straight to the ground.
Awesome work sister !!
As in Paul’s Mars Hill address in Acts 17 there’s no way that was the entire sermon because that would’ve been finished In a few minutes— there could have been a much more detailed exhausted conversation between God and Adam and subsequently Eve later on —we only heard the summarized version in the book of Genesis.
But great work !!
Really, if argumentation like this is the best your kids can rely on then they’re in trouble. In your scenario substitute God for kidnapper and the rationale plays out exactly the same. But hey—I can’t rigidly prove my atheism either so I try not to be too pushy with my skeptical outlook. I am definitely not one of those Richard Dawkins type atheists.
Frank, that’s an interesting assertion. Why do you think the rationale plays out the same? How do you think the analogy of the kidnapper resembles the God described in scripture?
The fact that you claim to be a skeptic seems to support my point that God has allowed you to choose someone other than Him, without coercing your decision.
Hi Hillary & thanks for responding!
First, a technical point. On firefox, your comments are partially obscured by your avitar. It was worse on chrome: all the avitars did it. Edge was the same as firefox, and the fact that the problem persisted across 3 browsers (2 of which I rarely use and were pretty much set to browser defaults) suggests the problem may be on your end.
So—I *think* you said “….that’s an interesting assertion. Why do you think the rationale plays out the same? How do you think the analogy of the kidnapper resembles the God in scripture? (The rest was legible).
Here’s your scenario: Kidnapper holds you in a room. He places a device on you you can’t remove, the purpose of which is to hurt you badly if you leave the confines of the room. He threatens you that if you try to leave the room you will be hurt. The question raised is: If you stay in the room are you staying of your own free will? The answer is, of course, no. Now let’s apply the exact same scenario to God: God chooses to put you in a room. He places something on you you can’t remove that will hurt you if you leave the room. He warns that if you leave the room you will be hurt. Are you staying in the room of your own free will if the agent putting you thru this is God as opposed to some kidnapper? Of course not; you’ve been coerced in both cases. The only real difference is what the agent in question is trying to accomplish—the kidnapper is trying to restrain your movements while God is trying to force your affection by way of coercion: Do what I want or I’ll hurt you. You’re worshipping a rapist.
Any religion promoting the doctrine of hell is morally indefensible, seems to me.
You seem to have dropped out of the conversation, so let me just close with a couple of thoughts. First, technical: Your avatar issue seems to be solved–either you or I did something and now the problem seems to be fixed; well done.
Here’s some advice from your friendly, neighborhood atheist—you probably shouldn’t try to use apologetics to defend your or your kids’ Christian beliefs. You’re trying to use argument to justify a religious experience and that’s a pointless exercise. You proclaim yourself to be in a literal relationship with an historical figure from ancient Israel. That’s just not a very reasonable thing to believe and pointing the fact out is fairly easy. Believe yourself to be in an actual relationship with a certain rabbi from ancient Israel and you’re considered a pillar of the community. Believe yourself to be in a relationship with Napoleon and you get sedated. Funny old world, ain’t it?
Finally, please accept my assurances as an atheist that most of us are not out to mess with your kids—or you for that matter. You guys have some peculiar beliefs, that’s all. We do have our jerks, it’s true, but I think most of us are just trying to figure you guys out.
Peace, out.
Frank,
I assure you that I have not dropped out of the conversation. I was visiting family, and driving across the country all day yesterday, and I also have a day job, and Monday’s are my Mama Bear meetings. I have literally not stopped since I got up this morning.
I did get the avatar issue figured out, something I had tried to do repeatedly in the past. Thanks for giving me the extra nudge. However, I am interested in hearing more of your thoughts, as you have seemed to have repeated your statement instead of explaining your rationale in your previous post (before the one above.) Please be patient with me as it takes me a little time to formulate a response since I am juggling work, grad school, and managing this website.
The Biblical view of God is the exact opposite of the kidnapper. He didn’t come take us, he came TO us. He put mankind in a perfect environment and gave them the choice to reject him. When they rejected him, they wrecked the world, and he left HIS perfect environment to come down to our messed up world. To prove that He loved us, He allowed Himself to be tortured and killed to pay the penalty for us rejecting him, so that we could be in relationship again. He wants us to come back into relationship, and is providing a perfect place for us again. He does not want for any to go to hell, but he doesn’t coerce our belief by putting a giant flaming sword in the sky and zapping anyone who sins. Please explain to me a kidnapper taking someone against their will and threatening them if they leave is anything like the God I just described. The rationale does not follow, if one takes a Biblical view of God. If one takes a non-biblical view of God, then sure, he can seem like any number of awful distortions. Why do you think that your view of God — what I think is a very distorted view — is actually the correct view of God?
Wow, sounds like you’re being pulled in a lot of different directions. Where the heck are the other bears? They can’t go to class for you but they can help with the website for example!
You have indicated that my view of the Christian God is all askew. This is certainly possible so let me askew something—What is the greatest possible tragedy than can befall a person (other than one of my jokes, I mean)?
I would say the biggest tragedy that could befall someone would be to reject the one person who is capable of saving them from themselves– to reject a God who truly loves them and wants to save them, because they have a false impression, bad information, or have judged Him by the crap people do in His name. That is probably the biggest tragedy I can think of.
Although, yes… your jokes are close second. 😛
But what’s so tragic about it? (Rejecting this person of whom you speak—not my jokes. I already know what’s tragic about *them*.)
What’s so tragic about rejecting the greatest being in the universe? I guess, in this sense “tragedy” is a matter of perspective. If a starving peasant in a frigid slum somewhere found a billion dollars in a warehouse, and then burned it to stay warm, that would be a huge tragedy, but the peasant may not even know it. After all, it’s just paper. What’s the big deal? They would only understand the tragic nature of the event if someone explained to them the value of said “paper.”
We can only be as flippant about rejecting God as we are knowledgeable about who He is. If God is some (possibly fictional) being who seems to have arbitrary rules, and a smite button that he pushes when he gets irritated, then I’d reject that God too. There are a lot of versions of God that are peddled as the real thing. Rejecting those versions of God is as tragic as burning paper. Rejecting the real God is more tragic than burning a billion dollars.
All that aside, I’ll go ahead call out the elephant in the room that I think you are wanting me to name. I get the feeling that you are wanting me to say that hell is the worst tragedy that could ever befall someone. So sure, I’ll say it. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you will then say “Aha! And your God sends people there! How could you worship him?”
If I am on a sinking ship and there is only 1 person on a non-sinking boat who can save me, I can’t say “I don’t want you! I want someone else! Give me a third option! Why should I be forced to only accept your help or drown? I don’t want anything to do with you, and shame on you for condemning me to drown! You’re evil!”
There’s only two places – with God, or apart from God. Logical reasoning only gives us those two. It is a law of excluded middle kind of scenario. Some people would prefer some abstract third option, but there is no 3rd option. A person can accept God, along with all his goodness, holiness, justice, love, compassion and mercy, knowing that his Lordship also includes submitting to His authority. Or they can reject God–along with everything having to do with his goodness, holiness, justice, love, compassion, mercy, and authority.
I understand why you reject the God you have described in the posts above. However, I would again like to ask you why you think that is the correct view of God?
“All that aside, I’ll go ahead call out the elephant in the room that I think you are wanting me to name. I get the feeling that you are wanting me to say that hell is the worst tragedy that could ever befall someone. So sure, I’ll say it. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you will then say “Aha! And your God sends people there! How could you worship him?” ”
You’ve used a kidnapper as an analogy, but I think rapist is more apt. God presents you with a choice: submit to him or he’ll hurt you. Bad. In hell. And like George Carlin said—“Hell isn’t five-to-ten. Hell is *later*.” Rapists present their victims with a choice. Submit to him or he’ll hurt you. Bad. It’s coercion in both cases.
That is how your God resembles a rapist. Any love or affection demanded by threat of violence isn’t freely given and is coerced.
You—-“If I am on a sinking ship and there is only 1 person on a non-sinking boat who can save me, I can’t say “I don’t want you! I want someone else! Give me a third option! Why should I be forced to only accept your help or drown? I don’t want anything to do with you, and shame on you for condemning me to drown! You’re evil!””
Then just like the person in your kidnapper scenario, you’re acting more out of self-interest than freely-given love. You climbed into the boat with Jehovah, but if it had been Charles Manson instead you’d have done the same thing. The entire point of your OP was that love can’t be coerced so it was for the best that God let Adam & Eve make a catastrophic decision based on incomplete information that would devastate all of creation. But by presenting you with the choice of either accepting him (whatever that means) and being rewarded in heaven forever or rejecting him (whatever that means) and being sadistically tortured in hell forever, God is attempting to coerce you and by your own logic you are not in a genuine loving relationship with him.
to be continued….
You again—“There’s only two places – with God, or apart from God. Logical reasoning only gives us those two. It is a law of excluded middle kind of scenario. Some people would prefer some abstract third option, but there is no 3rd option. ”
You prove that esp. that last part, and I’ll see you in church sunday. I think it’s apparent you’ve set up a false dichotomy that in essence defines the third option out of consideration. The third option, and the most parsimonious, being that God isn’t there to begin with. It’s not so much that I as a skeptic can prove your religious claims false, it’s that there is no reason to seriously consider them in the first place. Hume said the wise man tailors his beliefs to the available evidence, and he would I’m sure be relieved to know I agree with him. The evidence does not favor belief in the supernatural.
you—“A person can accept God, along with all his goodness, holiness, justice, love, compassion and mercy, knowing that his Lordship also includes submitting to His authority. Or they can reject God–along with everything having to do with his goodness, holiness, justice, love, compassion, mercy, and authority.
I understand why you reject the God you have described in the posts above. However, I would again like to ask you why you think that is the correct view of God?”
My personal view of God is that he/she/they is/are entirely conjectural. The God I describe is consistent with the mainstream protestant view of God. Omni-this, omni-that. Also has a mean streak.
Do you really think you can save people’s souls by way of some dry, arcane argument? What argument could you possibly dream up that would convince any reasonable person you’re in real time contact with an historical figure from…oh I dunno, let’s say 2000 yrs or so ago?
Here is a much better analogy: if a govt leader tells people to evacuate because he is trying to spare them from an approaching devastating bomb, or advises them to quarantine as protection against a deadly virus, this is coersion according to Frank’s logic. He has reduced protective measures to rape. That is truly the most creative atheist argument i have ever seen. It’s bad logic based on a totally flawed premise, but creative.
//God presents you with a choice: submit to him or he’ll hurt you. Bad. In hell.//
No. God is not in Hell. Hell hurts you because it is total separation from God, his protection and the freedom we are blessed with in him. Warning us repeatedly about coming destruction is gracious and merciful. That is what good leaders do. It’s what good parents do. It is not coercive but liberating.
Good post Hillary. 🙂
I am not the original commenter here, but I largely agree with him, although I tend to approach this a bit differently. Alysa, in your analogy the leader can’t necessarily prevent the coming catastrophe, so by warning people he is doing what he can. If he could actually prevent it and chose not to, he would be a poor leader, regardless of what his citizens did or didn’t do.
As for “what good parents do”, a good parent would do more than merely give warnings. Of course, there are limits to what a human parent can realistically do, especially when kids get older. But if you could easily prevent your kid from making a really bad choice, I hope that you would do so. What God is said to have done in Eden seems like the equivalent of a parent saying “don’t play with matches, or you might start a fire”, but then leaving a matchbox within easy reach so that the kid would have a choice in the matter. Even if the parents then try to put out the fire once it starts, they are responsible for what happened.
Frank and all.
I think, if I may, a better example may be in place.
God is like the sun, the essential battery of the entire universe, the source of all life.
Assume for a moment that is true, He is not only the author of life, life giver but also life sustainer. Thus, anyone cognitive being who chooses to submit to his life, grace, mercy, and authority, will receive abundant life–like the plant that feeds off of the energy of the Sun. Plants don’t have free will, but if they did they can willingly choose to, if they can move, avoid the sun at all costs and shake their leaves (fist) at it saying “I don’t need a sun (god) to tell me how to live!” and then they will die because they are not designed to exist without the sun. God created you Frank, whether you like it or not, to be loved and cherished by Him. But if you do not choose to stay in his light you will die and die eternally, as all of humanity that chooses to reject him will. CS Lewis was right when he wrote
“What Satan put into the heads of our remote ancestors was the idea that they could ‘be like gods’—could set up on their own as if they had created themselves—be their own masters—invent some sort of happiness for themselves outside God, apart from God. And out of that hopeless attempt has come nearly all that we call human history—money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution, classes, empires, slavery—the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy. God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself because it is not there. There is no such thing.” –Mere Christianity
For discussion’s sake, I have accepted that as true. Thus I concluded that it was not loving to give anyone a choice in that regard. It is not always loving to give a choice; for example, see my matchbox analogy above.
“Here is a much better analogy: if a govt leader tells people to evacuate because he is trying to spare them from an approaching devastating bomb, or advises them to quarantine as protection against a deadly virus, this is coersion according to Frank’s logic. He has reduced protective measures to rape. That is truly the most creative atheist argument i have ever seen. It’s bad logic based on a totally flawed premise, but creative.”
No no Alysa, you’ve got it completely bass-ackwards. I’m not reducing protective measures to rape. You’re elevating rape to protective measures.
“//God presents you with a choice: submit to him or he’ll hurt you. Bad. In hell.//
No. God is not in Hell.
Google “omnipresent”.
“Hell hurts you because it is total separation from God, his protection and the freedom we are blessed with in him. Warning us repeatedly about coming destruction is gracious and merciful.”
I guess I’d feel more grateful except for the fact that the “coming destruction” is at his command.
“That is what good leaders do. It’s what good parents do. It is not coercive but liberating.”
I’m guessing you’re a Trump supporter.
Frank,
All other discussions aside, you have used the rapist description a few times for God. That is pretty strong language. It sounds like you may have had some really bad experiences with church, Christianity, or religion in general. I would really like to hear your story. (If you would rather continue discussing that private over email that’s fine.) It seems clear that we talking about two entirely different entities, and that doesn’t happen unless we’ve had radically different experiences. I’d like to hear yours.
Hi again Hillary—
A couple of things. First, my experiences with Christians and with the church have not been particularly negative really. When Christians encounter somebody like me they conclude I must have been soured on Christianity by some traumatic experience but at least in my case most of the Christians I know are nice, likeable, basically decent people. That’s one of the key differences between me and you. I view people as basically good, you view people as basically evil. {I’m not speaking for atheists as a group on that score, that’s just me tho.) Most Christians just want to do right as best they see it just like I do, I understand this. My entire family’s Christian for crine out loud. The problem isn’t Christians (at least for me anyway) it’s Christianity. The product, at its core, is flawed. From an ethical viewpoint, any deity with unlimited powers and knowledge that creates billions of sentient pain-feeling beings only to burn say 70% of them (or 1 even) is revolting. But that as they say is the bad news. The good news is that the actual likelihood of any of that stuff being actually literally true are, shall we say, remote. That’s the best selling point Christianity has that I can see. Christianity, based on its strength as an idea, just plain sucks. The mystery for me is: what’s the appeal? Why would anybody even want something like this to be true?
Hillary and the other mama bears—I know you guys are just trying to do right as you see it, and despite our differences I tell you this: You have to do what your heart tells you. So let me close our dialog with a question: Do you suppose it’s possible that apologetics isn’t really written for skeptics like me? I’m starting to suspect the intended audience of apologetics is really Christians and not atheists.
Apologies for entering the conversation, but I fail to see your response to Khal wrote give any real form of rebuttal. The problem here is that God, being the sustainer and creator, as well as the maximally greatest being, is naturally by definition the source of all good in the world. Evil is a parasite which twists good into bad. Now, God has created, and since we’d be insane to argue whether the act of creation isn’t worth the end result since that’d mean you’d prefer nobody existing rather than existing and also make you decide on behalf of God, we can see that this line of argumentation is irrational and rather indefensible. Now we look at why hell exists, and why its actually important to maintain God’s justice and mercy.
Firstly, if you really look in an unbiased manner at really anyone in existence, its pretty plain that nobody ever lives up to their own standard, let alone other people’s. At some point or another, we will fail. You could argue for only those with small sins and a generally good lifestyle to go to heaven, with the really bad people going to hell, or everyone going to heaven. But upon closer inspection, that would be incoherent considering God’s attributes of love and justice. If everyone went into heaven, that would include Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, you name it. If there was some sort of ‘you must be this good to enter’, where would the standard be? Put the deciding line anywhere, and anyone could complain that it wasn’t high or low enough. In all honesty, if I were to decide where I’d land on the scale, I’d put myself just above the line, and I know most people do as well, but how do you know?
And even if you could enter heaven just for your good deeds rather than repentance, you’d actually probably hate it there, because by the definition, heaven is an eternal place of being with God. It sounds ridiculous, but please hear me out. If you compare yourself with even another person, usually you might feel a bit lacking in certain areas compared to them, and so would I. Especially if that person were a goody-two-shoes. I’d feel quite inadequate being next to Mother Teresa, for example. And it’s pretty easy to find people willing to try and bring those people down, perhaps as a way of making themselves feel less bad about it. Now, if you imagine that, and multiply it by something probably close to infinity, that would sum up our feelings of being close to God. And then make it times eternity. Anyone unwilling to submit to God in this life, where he barely makes any real requests to unbelievers, would definitely not enjoy this. A good analogy can be found in CS Lewis’ books, where he further explains this line of reasoning. Of course, you can argue that point, but its by far not the only reason for Hell.
Now, we’ve only seen this from us people’s point of view, and already see that heaven may be not the best for some. But now, seeing from a more divine perspective, how should God, in his absolute moral perfection, look at any of us? Even the best people have multiple failings. God is, by his definition, unable to have imperfection near him. And its not just an arbitrary preference, because his attributes require him to be perfect. That’s why he can’t be near humanity after the Fall, for both humanity’s sake and his attributes. Despite needing God, we are by necessity incompatible due to our own actions (unless you’d like to argue for determinism or God just not creating, which you can do, but I think either argument works very poorly.) Now, there are really only 2 choices. Be with God, or without. There is no middle way I could possibly conceive of, but if you can, I’d like to hear your thoughts. And we’ve established that life, let alone eternity, without God completely, is already utter hell. And not ‘without God’ in the sense of not believing he exists. Rather, it means extracting every bit of his goodness from the world you reside in, which means even the common graces that he gives to both believer and nonbelievers, and leaving the rest to itself. Its not literally torture, but rather God telling those who reject him, “By your will.”
And you may not see what’s so bad about a few sins here and there, but that’s only looking at it from a narrow perspective, chronologically speaking. Like CS Lewis says, if I only live for about 70 years, the bad things I commit might grow so slowly that I might never notice. But if I were to continually live on into eternity, those same evils, without the inhibition of time and God’s grace, would spiral horribly out of control, probably consuming me in the process and leaving me nothing but a husk of my old self. And this is honestly worse than torture. And if you take my definitions, its very much self inflicted, though not completely.
God must be just. This is not something to bend or break. A God without perfect justice is not a very good God. But he is also a God of mercy, and he has given us a ridiculously easy way out. Allowed to do whatever we want, we end up with the terrible events of the 20th century, quoted by many to be the effect of bankrupt nihilistic philosophies. You may think people are generally good, yet in all honesty I would have to disagree, God or no God. Despite our advancements in all areas of life and comfort, I do not see any reduction in the evils humanity commits, from the horrors of extremist terrorists to the terrors committed by North Korea to its civilians. And to deny that is impossible (and actually an argument for God’s existence!) Even with God’s common grace, we act like this. How then will we behave without it? Should God let us in without repentance, our seeds of pride germinating within us? He’d need to smite us, and with sufficient just reason. Hell isn’t just for the evil, but for the prideful as well. Those who think they can live without God get what they want, and those who have exploited that worldview gain additional punishment.
Of course, if that were the whole story, of course he’d be unjust, for what else could we do? But that’s the reason why Jesus came down and died for our sins. He forgives what we have done and what we still do, and makes us live for others rather than ourselves. God is justice, but he is also love, and proper love cannot be done and renewed by one person, hence the trinity. And by shifting our perspectives to focus on him and others rather than ourselves, the pride that inhibits us begins to erode away. By the time eternity begins, we are able to join heaven in praising God, and God giving us his wholehearted love in return. (Worship in this case is not a case of ego, but rather a way for us to be fulfilled, for we always praise what we most enjoy, i.e. – ‘look at that beautiful sunset!’) Those who consciously reject that forgiveness don’t really have an excuse. If you want to argue for the poor native in a distant land without the gospel, though, that is another topic entirely, and I would be glad to discuss.)
So, in summary, God must be just and merciful. Any setting of the bar to go into heaven would be unjust and turn into works-based salvation. People are naturally sinful, preventing themselves from enjoying heaven, let alone God. But without God in his entirety, you must be in hell. However, he has given us a ridiculously easy way to escape that self-inflicted fate, and if you consciously reject it, God allows you to choose it yourself and must inflict punishment along with it, as you did not accept his sacrifice for your sins.
I hope this made sense, since I have a habit of losing my train of thought and writing in a long-winded manner, so please feel free to tell me how incoherent I am or about any holes I’ve left in my argument. Apologies if I behaved in any sort of rude manner as well, please forgive me if I came across as unpalatable in any sense.
Joshua with the mic drop, nicely done. I was hoping someone would follow up on that comment.