A Reasonable Answer To A Troublesome Question?

The following is my reply to an answer to a question that I had asked the local Church of Christ preacher concerning the Bible doctrine of an eternal hell. He had enlisted the help of an older preacher in answering this question and he published this answer in his weekly publication. Quotes from this preacher's article are in bold black letters--by the way, the local preacher never did respond to my reply:

by Kenneth W. Hawthorne 

A Reasonable Answer To A Troublesome Question, is an article written by Maurice Barnett published in the May 9, 2004, edition of Faith Builder. It was Barnett's attempt at answering this question that you presented to him (a question I had asked you): "Why would a God of love create a race of beings, knowing that He would have to sentence the vast majority of them to suffer forever in hell?" The question you presented to him is troublesome, but more important it is devastating to the truth of fundamentalist Christianity if it can't be answered satisfactorily. And Barnett has no satisfactory answer. He meanders around with a lot of irrelevant thoughts, but never even comes close to a satisfactory answer.

He claims that he gives a "reasonable answer"--but essentially, he says that Yahweh only gives us a partial answer to the question--"Many things involved in an answer to the question you were asked are beyond information given to us in revelation." So, what is this partial answer? (Yahweh) "created the universe to His own glory" and (Yahweh) "did have a plan contingent on man sinning." Both of which are, of course, absurd! 1) According to the Bible Yahweh doesn't need glory, he's perfect; he doesn't need anything, but even if glory was something he wanted, no loving God would have created man to get something that he only wanted at such an infinitely terrible cost. 2) If Yahweh is all-knowing--then he had to know that this "contingency plan" would not prevent the calamity that he was about to allow to happen. And if Yahweh is a sovereign God of love, omnipotence, and completeness, he wouldn't have gone with such a "contingency plan".

One of the most important questions that lay at the very basis as to whether Yahweh can be considered God; the most menacing, consequential subject in the Bible and this is Barnett's "reasonable answer"? It is shocking at first that he would think this is a reasonable answer until one understands how fundamentalist Christians think. When one is only looking for confirming evidence for what one already believes and wants so much to continue to believe, having truly satisfactory answers is not important; real critical scrutiny is not acceptable, and as long as you come up with an answer, any old answer it seems, to save this belief that is so vitally important--it will actually seem reasonable to such a mindset. They have a name for this logical fallacy, confirmation_bias, and Barnett's answer is a textbook example of it.

If a person has the ability and the opportunity to prevent a catastrophe, then he also has the responsibility to prevent it. And certainly, if Yahweh is the all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect, sovereign God he is alleged to be, then he had the ability to avert this colossal, infinite tragedy. He also had the opportunity, before  creation, to prevent this catastrophe of all catastrophes, then it must be, without a doubt, that he also had the responsibility to prevent it. But he didn't prevent it! The only conclusion is that Yahweh wanted these multiplied billions to suffer eternal torment, because he could have prevented it, but chose not to. But this conclusion absolutely contradicts his alleged omni characteristics, thus the final conclusion must be that Yahweh is merely a reprehensible, fictitious creation of evil, misguided men. 

Here are a couple of gems from Barnett's article: 

"God had to do something. Do people suppose that He just 'sat around' all alone and 'twiddled His thumbs' for eternity?" 

Yahweh "had to do something "? So the "something" this wonderful god of love chooses to do is implement a plan that he knew would mean countless billions of his flawed humans infinitely suffering unimaginable torture in his eternal hell! Is there any rational, thinking person who wouldn't agree that in this case it would have been better for him to do nothing? And, of course, in true form, he mistakenly says that Yahweh "had  to do..." In his desperate search for a satisfactory answer as to why Yahweh would create man in such a scenario as the question expressed, he forgets (?) to take into consideration that Yahweh is allegedly perfect and complete. Yahweh didn't have  to do anything. You do agree with me, don't you? 

"What value would there have been for God to have created mere robots who could only act in every detail as God dictated? He could have created such beings but there would have been neither value nor glory to God in such creatures."

According to the Bible, Yahweh doesn't need glory! He's God for Pete's sake, he doesn't need  anything. And certainly no God with the characteristics mentioned above would have created man for any  reason at such a cost. And in regards to value, Yahweh allegedly has free will and can't sin--according to Barnett's logic that would mean Yahweh has no value! Which I'm sure Barnett wouldn't agree with. But if it's acceptable for Yahweh, why isn't it acceptable for man--especially to prevent such infinite pain and suffering to so many billions of people?

I know Maurice Barnett is a very respected preacher in the Church of Christ, but his answer only emphasizes what I have said on my blog. If a preacher of Barnett's stature has done such a shallow job of thinking on this subject, how shallow must the average member's thinking be? Most, including preachers, have probably never even thought about it--have never even thought about the impossibility of this doctrine.

Which brings me to you, Bob. Barnett obviously hasn't done any real critical thinking on this subject, and hasn't come to a realization of the inherent problems with this doctrine. But you have been made aware of the incontrovertible problems with it--so you know better. It is an amazing thing that in spite of me bringing this most egregious of incongruities that fundamentalist Christianity has to your attention--you still believe! (or do you?).

By the way, the answer (though you already know this) to the question you asked Barnett doesn't take a lot of space to answer--the correct answer is that a God of love wouldn't do such a thing!