Read this, then let me ask a question…

Star Tribune

Charges say man raped 9-month-old
Dakota County Sheriff's Office

Warning: The graphic nature of this story may be inappropriate for some readers.

The brutal rape of a 9-month-old girl in Hastings has left even police officers, emergency room doctors and courthouse workers outraged.

The baby needed extensive surgery to repair her badly torn body after the April 24 attack but is now at home with her parents…

http://www.startribune.com/local/93035449.html?elr=KArks:DCiUMEaPc:UiacyKU7DYaGEP7vDEh7P:DiUs

----------------

OK, so Peter explains (or tries to explain?) why it is that Jesus has no yet come back. He says it’s because the Lord is patient. He doesn’t want anybody to suffer. He keep prolonging his return to give people a chance. Lemme find the passage. Here it is (2P 3.9f):

“The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”

What am I missing?

Remember what we said about God creating an LFW world to begin with? We said God had to be (sorry) crazy not to know that at some point things would go wrong and once that happened things would get worse (a little leaven and all that).

So here’s my question. If God knew that a PERFECT situation would get worse, what reason is there for him to think that a HORRIBLE situation will get better? If he wants maximum saved and minimum loss IN THIS LIFE, then the thing to do would be to COME BACK YESTERDAY, not prolong and prolong and prolong. For every sinner you give another day to, millions (m-i-l-l-i-o-n-s) become more deeply solidified against God and millions others are born, babies the majority of whom—given our screwed up fallen environment—will reject God and just spread evil.

I don’t see how “wanting to give people a chance” can be a sensible reason for prolonging the Parousia for even ONE SECOND longer. Seriously.

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 5/11/2010 9:26:19 AM (GMT-5)

Do you see many theodicy conversations that go this way?

Post Edited (One Love) : 5/11/2010 11:32:16 AM (GMT-5)

Laika: Since someone had a child and that child grew up and raped a nine month old, no one should have children anymore. Your options are:

1. no people
2. robots
3. LFW and the good/evil that goes with it

…and…

Daniel: Given that freedom is irrevocable (which is the very thing UR seems to undermine), and that we are, to relative degrees, communally responsible for each-other, this sort of thing does not make me ask the question "where is God".

Tom: Thank you Laika and Daniel.

I’m not questioning the necessity of freedom for loving relations, nor questioning even the likelihood of sin eventuating. I’m entirely somewhere else. I’m JUST trying to get inside of Peter’s argument that the God is postponing the eschaton just so that he can get more people in heaven. I’m wondering how God is able to think this is even likely to happen if a) fact is most people born now go to hell. It seems to me that prolonging it…for whatever reason…will mean more people in hell, and the more in hell increasingly constitute a greater portion of the whole.

Peter’s argument presumes that God can bring the eschaton now, or at any time he wishes (otherwise there’s no sense in claiming God is postponing it for some purpose). So there’s no violating LFW or whatever IF God were to bring it right then and there in Peter’s day. The reason God doesn’t bring it to an end then is so that more people might believe. But it seems certain, given the universal corruption of society, that the longer God waits the less God’s goal is met, that is, comparatively more people go to hell and less end up in heaven. Do the math.

Laika: If UR is true, then Peter would say it would be better for Christ to return, throw all evil-doers in jail and spend eternity evangelizing them. Post-mortem evangelism would be safer for all. But he doesn't. He's kind of ignorant of UR and all its benefits.

Tom: It seems to me that if ECT was true (especially if it was true), then God’s prolonging the eschaton makes less sense than ending it now, for prolonging it will fill up hell MORE than heaven and irrevocably so. I’m not pretending Peter’s reasoning makes PERFECT sense if UR is true. I’m not particular interested in UR vs ECT vs annihilation here. Actually Peter’s reasoning doesn’t make sense on ANY of these three options. The problem is that God must know that the longer he prolongs the eschaton the less he gets the SORT of end state he wants. Now, ECT would aggravate this by sealing the fate of those in hell irrevocably and thus making God’s prolonging the eschaton even less sensible. But I’m not claiming UR makes sense of Peter. I’m claiming Peter doesn’t make sense, period. The longer God waits, the MORE that are eternally lost (on ETC) or the more that have to suffer temporarily in hell (on UR). God wouldn’t be happy with EITHER, which is why postponing the eschaton doesn’t make sense (on the assumption that God knows prolonging it for the sake of all those who in Peter’s day were actively rejecting God would only mean the birth and maturation into adulthood of vastly MORE who would, given the crummy beat, end up in hell). The relatively few sinners in Peter’s day get “more chance,” sure. Good for them. But bad OVERALL. The comparatively much larger number of people who because of this postponement are born and mature to stoke hell’s fire is counterproductive to the very goals that motivate the postponement in the first place.

You wanna make it about UR, Laika, but that’s got very little if anything to do with my question. UR’s being false would still leave Peter not making sense.

D, I appreciate your approach—giving pastoral concerns priority and leaving the “questions” up to God and the struggling mind. That’s cool. I don’t think you’re avoiding ‘theodicy’ per se. It’s a particular view of good and evil, of God as love, of human responsibility, of why you think God created in the first place, all that, which DEFINES what it could even MEAN to “breath Christ’s unconditional love” into a broken situation. That act you’re describing IS a theodicy (unless we mean different things by ‘theodicy’). To claim God’s love is unconditional is to say SOMETHING about what you think God’s part in human suffering could or couldn’t possibly be. You’re living out of a particular theodicy after all. You just don’t want to TALK about it with people. But you will if THEY press you for some explanation. And THAT is a loving pastoral thing to do too. So don’t you just end up taking that position that you only talk about theodicy related question if others press you on it? That’s cool. I’d do the same.

Tom

Post Edited (Daniel M) : 5/11/2010 11:58:24 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Tom) : 5/12/2010 9:21:07 AM (GMT-5)

hopko

hart

(hebrews)