> Are you retracting your answer to my earlier question, specifically that human souls decide how far they want to be from God? Because it seems to contradict the notion that God decides their degree of separation.

Human souls decide that they want to be separated from God, and their convictions and behavior create a certain demand for what is just, but it is ultimately God that is the judge who sets a fair punishment.

> While God will not force people into a loving relationship with Him, is it reasonable to believe He will rectify people's negative misconceptions about Him in the afterlife to give them an opportunity to decide whether they still want to separate from Him upon realizing His true nature?

It's a great question, and is subject only to speculation (therefore, any answer I give would be more opinion than theology). This goes along with C.S. Lewis's ideas, though, that if it were possible for someone's mind to change when they see him, God rightly would have to allow for that to be totally fair. The other possibility is that people's minds are not as fluid as we might wish, and, as Jesus said, "even if someone were to rise from the dead it wouldn't convince them." Possibly even when people see God face to face their minds will not change from whatever they were during life. It's simply impossible to know, and so we revert back to rule #1: God will be fair.

> As for those who've separated from God, if God decides their degree of separation, then how does He enforce it? Does He withdraw His presence from these human souls according to the appropriate degree, or does He expel them from His presence according to the appropriate degree?

According to Jesus's parables, the latter is the more likely.

> Yeah, I'm with you. I get it.

That's a relief to hear; I was worried if there was anything I seemed unclear about.

> That sounds fair, like an accurate rendition of what I'm saying.

I'm glad we're on the same page. Just one more loose end: when I asked you earlier whether God decides how far He wants to be from human souls who want nothing to do with Him, or they decide how far they want to be from God, you wagered the latter, so I assumed you believed that human souls decided their own degrees of separation. To me, this presented a major contradiction: If human souls could decide whether to separate from God and how far they wanted to be from Him, then there wasn't any room left for God to operate as a judge. In retrospect, perhaps it was inaccurate of me to ask whether God decides how far He wants to be from them, since we know God would rather not be separated from any of His creations in the first place, hence why He attempts to reconcile mankind back to Him. But I digress; my main point is this: Are you retracting your answer to my earlier question, specifically that human souls decide how far they want to be from God? Because it seems to contradict the notion that God decides their degree of separation.

Sorry for asking a few more questions, but I was wondering: While God will not force people into a loving relationship with Him, is it reasonable to believe He will rectify people's negative misconceptions about Him in the afterlife to give them an opportunity to decide whether they still want to separate from Him upon realizing His true nature? If so, then among those who do change their minds about Him, how will God judge them? I assume God isn't solely judging those who want to separate from Him, but also those who want to coexist with Him. You mentioned that there are different rewards in addition to different punishments. Hence, should I presume human souls who rejected God in life but experience a change of heart in the afterlife (and souls who've only discovered Christ's existence in the afterlife and decide to accept Him) receive a lesser reward than pious Christians who've worshiped God their entire lives?

As for those who've separated from God, if God decides their degree of separation, then how does He enforce it? Does He withdraw His presence from these human souls according to the appropriate degree, or does He expel them from His presence according to the appropriate degree?

> Do you follow?

Yeah, I'm with you. I get it.

> So are you saying human souls decide whether to separate from God, while God decides the degree of separation for those who ultimately choose to do so?

That sounds fair, like an accurate rendition of what I'm saying.

I'm deeply concerned that my attempts to clarify my point would only confuse you further. Nevertheless, let me ask: Do you understand what I mean by the existence of disproportionate degrees of separation? If, for instance, a thief belonged to the 3rd degree of separation, then any degree below or above a 3rd degree would be disproportionate for the thief. Since we know degrees below and above the 3rd degree exist, we can say disproportionate degrees of separation for the thief exist. Do you follow?

Moreover, I'm aware that God, by His righteous nature, could never condemn anyone to a disproportionate degree of separation, but I don't believe it follows that there aren't disproportionate degrees of separation for any particular sin. For example, if a robot that has been programmed to walk in a straight line eventually stumbles across three branching paths, the robot will naturally walk the path directly in front of it. The robot cannot defy its programming, and thus there couldn't have been any other outcome. Despite this, the other two paths still exist. I’m simply referring to the paths themselves, not the possibility of the robot taking them.That's how I view disproportionate degrees of separation. Even though God cannot contradict His nature and condemn somebody to a disproportionate degree of separation, disproportionate degrees of separation still exist, just like any degree beyond the 3rd degree for the thief in my example above.

> He is not leaving them alone, per se, but rather not forcing them into a love relationship with Him, which would be a contradiction in terms. He is instead allowing them to reject Him and thereby sentence themselves to hell, and His righteousness and omniscience places the appropriate amount of separation for their context and warrant.

So are you saying human souls decide whether to separate from God, while God decides the degree of separation for those who ultimately choose to do so?

> God would never cast somebody into a disproportionate degree of separation.

Correct.

> However, that doesn't mean disproportionate degrees of separation don't exist for any sin.

But God would never be guilty of that.

> For example, the degree of separation suitable for a genocidal dictator would be a disproportionate degree of separation for a small-time thief. God, given His righteous nature, would never condemn a minor thief to the same degree of separation as a mass-murdering dictator.

Correct.

> Nevertheless, this fact doesn't make the degree of separation for the dictator any less disproportionate for the thief.

You lost me here. The dictator gets a more severe separation, the petty thief a lesser one. I don't get what you're saying.

> What I'm trying to say is that when God evaluates each person's life to determine an appropriate punishment, He must necessarily consider which punishments would be too inappropriate, just as the punishment for a tyrannical dictator would be too excessive for a petty thief.

He doesn't have to think about it. He doesn't have to weigh appropriate vs. inappropriate. For him there is only one course: appropriate.

> God must evaluate what type of punishment would fit our sin, which naturally means there are punishments that do not fit our sin (again, refer to my example with the thief and dictator).

Again, he doesn't really have to evaluate. It's his auto-response, and only response. "Appropriate" is the only thing on the menu.

> How is it remotely possible for God to decide our punishment, let alone what type of punishment is fair?

He is omniscient and righteous by nature. He only has one course of action: the appropriate one.

> By leaving alone human souls who want nothing to do with Him, how is He being an evenhanded judge and not just a compliant parent?

He is not leaving them alone, per se, but rather not forcing them into a love relationship with Him, which would be a contradiction in terms. He is instead allowing them to reject Him and thereby sentence themselves to hell, and His righteousness and omniscience places the appropriate amount of separation for their context and warrant.

> Why is this? You lost me here, and this doesn't make sense to me. If God is righteous and just, then there will never be disproportionate degrees of separation for any sin.

Yes, in reality, God would never cast somebody into a disproportionate degree of separation. However, that doesn't mean disproportionate degrees of separation don't exist for any sin. For example, the degree of separation suitable for a genocidal dictator would be a disproportionate degree of separation for a small-time thief. God, given His righteous nature, would never condemn a minor thief to the same degree of separation as a mass-murdering dictator. Nevertheless, this fact doesn't make the degree of separation for the dictator any less disproportionate for the thief.

> Why is this? This doesn't make any sense to me. Punishments on this earth may have been appropriate, but since God is the only one giving punishments in the afterlife, (1) there are no other punishments, and therefore (2) there are no inappropriate punishments.

I assume you mean that God never delivers any other punishment for the same sin, and thus there is never an inappropriate punishment. However, I think you've misunderstood my point. What I'm trying to say is that when God evaluates each person's life to determine an appropriate punishment, He must necessarily consider which punishments would be too inappropriate, just as the punishment for a tyrannical dictator would be too excessive for a petty thief.

> Unfairness would be a punishment that doesn't fit the sin.

A punishment that doesn't fit the sin is precisely what I mean by inappropriate punishment. God must evaluate what type of punishment would fit our sin, which naturally means there are punishments that do not fit our sin (again, refer to my example with the thief and dictator). However, since you believe human souls decide their own degrees of separation, I must ask: How is it remotely possible for God to decide our punishment, let alone what type of punishment is fair? By leaving alone human souls who want nothing to do with Him, how is He being an evenhanded judge and not just a compliant parent? What is He being fair about if He doesn't decide our degrees of separation?

> there cannot be a proportionate degree of separation for a specific sin without disproportionate degrees of separation for the same sin.

Why is this? You lost me here, and this doesn't make sense to me. If God is righteous and just, then there will never be disproportionate degrees of separation for any sin.

> He must still evaluate each person's life to determine what type of punishment is appropriate, which only makes sense if other punishments were inappropriate.

Why is this? This doesn't make any sense to me. Punishments on this earth may have been appropriate, but since God is the only one giving punishments in the afterlife, (1) there are no other punishments, and therefore (2) there are no inappropriate punishments.

> It's impossible to be a fair judge without gauging fair outcomes against unfair outcomes.

This is true. Humans, under sin, provide examples and practices of the latter. God is only capable of the former.

> In what way is He "judging" us, and what standard of fairness is He following?

He is following ultimate and ideal fairness based on his knowledge of everything and his omnibenevolent character and righteous nature.

> What outcomes would be fair versus unfair, according to His judgment?

Unfairness would be a punishment that doesn't fit the sin.

> It's the "there are naturally ways of violating such criteria" that knocks me sideways. If God is omnibenevolent, righteous, holy, and incapable of error, mistake, sin, or even inadequacy, how can we assume "there are naturally ways of violating such criteria"?

Maybe it'll be better if I use an example: If God decided the degree of separation for each human soul based on their sins, then a disproportionate degree of separation for a particular sin would count as unfair judgment. However, since God is righteous and omnibenevolent, such unfair judgment would contradict His character. Thus, He would never actually judge us in such a manner. Nevertheless, there cannot be a proportionate degree of separation for a specific sin without disproportionate degrees of separation for the same sin. Fairness and unfairness are conceptually contingent upon each other, just like accuracy and error. Neither concept can be defined without the other. Even though God will never judge us unfairly, He must still evaluate each person's life to determine what type of punishment is appropriate, which only makes sense if other punishments were inappropriate. It's impossible to be a fair judge without gauging fair outcomes against unfair outcomes. However, since you believe human souls decide their own degrees of separation, I must ask: How does God's fair judgment play into the picture, especially if He simply leaves alone human souls who continually reject Him? In what way is He "judging" us, and what standard of fairness is He following? What outcomes would be fair versus unfair, according to His judgment? More specifically, if leaving human souls alone is fair judgment to Him, then what would He deem to be unfair judgment?

> Missionaries, not God, spread Christianity.

This is a humanistic viewpoint. God spread Christianity. The book of Acts should more accurately be titled "The Acts of the Holy Spirit" rather than "The Acts of the Apostles." Acts itself is clear that God is orchestrating and superintending the whole operation.

> And yet you Christians cannot agree on a single point of doctrine.

Of course we can. Anyone who is truly a Christian must subscribe to at least the following:

1. God exists.

2. God is holy. God’s holiness is not a separate attribute but the result of the sum total of all of his attributes—including but not limited to his sovereignty, omniscience, love, and righteousness.

3. Jesus is God (Jn. 10.30).

4. Jesus was crucified, dead, and buried and rose again, according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15.3-4).

5. There is salvation only in Jesus Christ (Acts 4.12).

6. We have one objective: salvation (both for ourselves and others).

7. A core of objective moral principles based on the nature and character of God.

8. The powerful example of Christ that can change human behavior for the better.

9. The Bible is God’s revelation of Himself.

10. Baptism (of some kind, according to various traditions). Heb. 6.2.

11. The laying on of hands (Heb. 6.2).

12. The future physical resurrection of the dead (Heb. 6.2).

13. Eternal judgment (of some kind, according to various interpretations of Scripture). Heb. 6.2.

> He would, except there's no evidence for his existence.

This is a different discussion. There isn't room in this limited post to divert the conversation in this direction.

> despicable...bollocks...slanderous...Christians will swallow anything

I don't see much value in continuing the conversation. There doesn't seem to be anything about it that's productive. I'll be glad to converse with you another time.

> You are thinking too small and also illogically and not biblically. There is nothing about this statement ("God outsources to men what He himself deems the delivery of a vital message but fails to acknowledge the intrinsic limitations of human action.") that is true.

It's all true. Missionaries, not God, spread Christianity. It took 1500 years for Christianity to reach entire continents. It's all nonsensical and a fatal blow to the claim God is directing the preaching work.

> God doesn't "outsource" it; the Holy Spirit superintends the writing so that it is God-breathed.

And yet you Christians cannot agree on a single point of doctrine. Even among those who adhere to Sola Scriptura, you people cannot for the life in you reach an absolute consensus on absolutely anything. It's a colossal failure.

> And then you claim that God fails to acknowledge the intrinsic limitations of human action,

He would, except there's no evidence for his existence. For the sake of argument let's pretend he exists, he first deemed accepting Jesus vital for one's salvation. Ge then waited 1500 years for entire regions of the Globe to first hear of Jesus. Any fair minded person will immediately see a problem but Christians remain oblivious.

> but you yourself seem to fail to understand that the problem of sin (and the insurmountable limitations of human action) is one of the most prominent themes in the Bible.

I am rather knowledgeable on the Bible, thank you. It's a despicable piece of fiction, though.

> It is a cop out.
> It's not a cop out.

It most definitely is.

> God didn't establish a criterion;

He must certainly. I realize you people can0t reach an agreement on this, but most denominations accept that faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour is indeed a criterion for Salvation. ANd yet God let countless kill ions remain in complete ignorance of Jesus for at least 1500 years. Complete bonkers, I know.

> it was a criterion dictated by the nature of reality and the inviolable consequences of man's actions.

Bollocks.

>This is inevitably problematic and leads to ironical loopholes
> Again, there is nothing true about this statement.

It is true in its entirety.

> If you want to discuss Christian theology and logic, you can't just make things up and think they fly.

That is a slanderous lie. I am not making things up. Everything I said is both scriptural and historical.

> you can't be condemned for what you haven't made your mind on.

> And if you read my post carefully, I stated that God takes all things into account,

Which would have created immense inequality between people. But Christians will swallow anything. They have the nerve to call a God who is said to have tortured and slaughtered all of mankind minus 8 love. The nerve!

> and no one will be judged unfairly "for what you haven't made your mind on."

So the cautious thing to do is an inverse Pascal Wager, don't listen to any Christian. Remain ignorant. That way you won't have denied this absurdity. And if it turns out the absurdity is regrettably true, then you will be off the hook.