A heartless God..? Ha... more like heartless people. By Merwin
What follows is my reactions to reading a common complaint among non-theists and atheists alike.
In the comment section that followed my previous Hub... "Rebuttal to AKA Winston's "The Simple Explanation That Resolves Christian Paradoxes", my good friend Chasuk posted a comment (excerpt immediately below) that I thought deserved its own Hub as my response.
- "Paradox #1: God, omnipotent and omniscient, placed us is a world of his own devising in which he knew we would fail. He then punishes us for a failure that he engineered. Therefore, bad things happen to good people because that's the way God wanted it.
It's perfectly possible that God, if he exists, is the type of heartless monster that this implies. Why choose to believe in a heartless God before it has been established that any God at all exists? This is putting the cart before the horse, to me.
I know that this isn't Winston's objection, but Winston's objection doesn't convince me." -
(that... by the way, was the aforementioned "common complaint")
Obviously his accusation that, "...God, if he exists" would be some kind of "heartless monster" is what I take issue with the most, but there are several declarations contained in the comment excerpt that I will address, and the best way I can think of handling my objections is to re-state his declaration from another perspective... my own.
So... here goes.
Paradox #1: Change of perspective...
God, omnipotent and omniscient, placed us is a world of His own devising in which He knew we would fail. He, having known all mankind from before the foundations of the earth, and knowing their future failures, redeemed them at that time... by mandating His only begotten Son to be the Lamb slain to express His heart full of love for His precious creation. He knew that his children would rebel in abject defiance, and become murderous monsters.
He knew as well that in order to redeem them... and, settle the question (for them) of whether they are worthy to be their own gods, He would have to allow them to prove their (un)worthiness at the expense of one another.
He knew that in this "budding god" human history, that man would prove himself to be a heartless monster not only unworthy of godhood, but worthy of punishment for his crimes. And for this punishment He would present Himself to carry the guilt of all mankind, allowing His own wrath to be kindled upon Himself so that monsters could be redeemed. He gave Himself as a ransom for them, for they knew not what they were doing... to God, or to each other.
End of Paradox alternative.
So now, who is the heartless monster..? My friend Chasuk states that all the heartless activity in man's history there is a title of "monster" that needs to be worn by somebody.
My friend says there is no God, but, if there is one, then He is a "heartless monster" because of His intentions for man.
I counter... man is the "heartless monster" to his fellow man, whether or not there is a God.
If there is a God (and I believe there is) He has made a way as the Lamb slain from before the foundations of the earth, to save men from their own hideous behavior and prove that they are not qualified to "run" the universe as their own god.
Yes Virginia... there is the "heartless Monster" and it is Man.
(capital "M" intended)