(As first published at http://relationshipphilosophy.blogspot.com/)
In 1860, Charles Darwin wrote a letter to Asa Gray in which he described one of his motivations for rejecting belief in God. He wrote:
"With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.— I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I shd wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice (emphasis added)."
Two years ago, I attended a creation talk (a series of talks, really) given by a Seventh Day Adventist pastor. The research and argumentation was exceedingly well researched and delivered, I thought, and presented a wealth of evidence for the existence and involvement of a good, loving Creator. However, on the last evening of the series, the pastor said this (which I'm paraphrasing as best I can from memory):
"I want to suggest that when people die and go to Hell, that they are not completely destroyed and neither do they stay there, suffering horribly, for an eternity. Now, bear with me as I explain why I think this is: When I read the Bible, I find a God who would do anything to rescue His children--us--even to the point of dying on the cross for us. Furthermore, the Bible says that when we get to heaven, that ever tear will be wiped away. But, could you be happy in heaven if you knew your husband or sister or child was suffering in Hell? No. So, I believe that people who die without knowing Christ go to Hell and suffer for a time, but are then destroyed--burned up, so to speak. People do not suffer for an eternity in Hell. A good God wouldn't let that happen (emphasis added)."
FYI, there was no mention of the many, many passages in the Bible that clearly describe an eternity of suffering in Hell for those that do not accept Jesus Christ's payment for their sin.
But, the maligning of the Word aside, the dangerous thinking I'm pointing to here is revealed whenever we start a sentence with: "A good God would..." or "A good God wouldn't...."
This kind of statement requires that we base our understanding of the world on a complete reversal of our moral position with God's moral position. It sets me up as a judge over God. It implicitly claims that I am of a higher moral ilk than God is, that I have the right to judge His behavior or motivations, and (in a bizarre twist) that the truth of His pronouncements and, indeed, His very existence is dependent on my verdict.
Our first mistake is to conceive of God as a moral Being. No. He's the Standard. He doesn't have to follow the rules, He is the Rule. His very character is the standard. He is completely sovereign. There is no free-floating "morality" that exists independently of Him. And, even if there were, what makes us think we would have access to it?
Our second mistake is to assume we, of our own accord, have anything good to contribute to the conversation. We are irreparably flawed, in and of ourselves. Our insight is limited, our judgment is poor, our behavior atrocious. So, where do we think this nebulous standard of "good" comes from, if not from God? Certainly, it doesn't come from us. And, yet, we presume to put God on trial and set ourselves up as His judge?
