7 Honest Questions for Christians

[Ariovistus Maximus]

I do not want this thread to be a debate; let me make that clear. I created this thread completely for the purpose of collecting answers from Christians. Perhaps other people would like to ask questions. But I ask that the members here not turn this thread into another eternal argument; there are dozens of other threads for that. I'd simply like to ask these questions and see what answers I will get from the Christians here. I will not respond to answers except to ask follow-up questions.

Let me first say that I wish I could believe in God - what's not to like about being watched over by a loving and omnipotent being, having a purpose to life, and spending eternity in heaven - but I can't in all honesty do that. These are some of the reasons why, and I'd like to get your perspective on them.

1. How is just of God to serve infinite punishment for man's finite actions? I should think that the answer is that God does not send people to hell, but that hell is simply an existence that has been completely severed from God's presence simply because imperfection cannot dwell with God in Heaven. But many Christians, including those who taught me, believe that God does actively send people to hell.

2. Since punishment for sin is indeed infinite, how could Christ's death on the cross and separation from the Father be a satisfactory payment? Christ's death was only temporary since he was resurrected. Furthermore, since Christ is actually part of the Trinity and God transcends time, how was there any real separation at all? In short, how does it work that man pays for sin eternally, but Jesus makes an equal payment in a finite amount of time?

3. The Bible is clear that it would be better that a man not be born than for him to die and go to hell. The Bible also says that many go to hell and few trust in God. Given these two facts, is it not true that it would be better for humanity as a whole to never have been born, since hell is the destiny for the majority of mankind?

4. Consider the above question and the fact that God is, among other things, love. Then consider the definition of love as a commitment to the greater good of others. If it would be better for man to have not exist at all, why does has God allowed mankind to continue so long after the fall of Adam? Why, for that matter, did He create us at all when He knew this would happen?

5. If God is omnicient and he dwells outside the dimension of time, why even create anything in the first place? How would he find glory from something that He created, when he already knows not only everything they will do, but every other possible action and result? It's like trying to amuse yourself by writing and producing your own TV show and then watching it alone for eternity. When you consider all the suffering that God's creation has to endure for all this to happen, why does He do it? We suffer, and He experiences nothing new or interesting. Couldn't He imagine it just as easily?

6. Consider the idea of perfection. Then combine it with omnipotence and omnicience. I think that Christians underestimate this extraordinary combination. Keep in mind that God is not bound by any rules; he makes the rules. Finally, consider that by definition, anything that is prone to becoming flawed in the future is by definition imperfect. With all those factors in mind, how can absolute perfection spawn anything other than perfection? You could say that Creation was perfect in the beginning, but the fact that it later became imperfect by itself means that, by definition, it was never actually perfect. How is it possible that this is the best that God Almighty (and I say that reverently because it is truly an awesome concept) could do?

A perfect Creation would be one that remains perfect for eternity, yet also glorifies God to the fullest. Given God's preference for free will over robotic service, this is a paradox. But He's God and can make the rules. Silly as this question may seem, why couldn't He just decide that robots are satisfactory? And according to the Bible, He has already created paradoxes, such as Jesus being fully God and fully man.

Even paradoxes are no problem for omnipotence. He is infinitely creative and all-powerful. I'm sure he could imagine an entirely new framework of Creation in which this paradox does not exist.

7. Final question. God is perfect and man is not. God is infinite and man is finite. That being the case, is it really possible for us as mortals to even understand God enough to truly place faith in Him? I mean, how could He distill Himself to such a level that inferior beings like us could even comprehend Him at all?

In conclusion, I really appreciate your having taken the time to answer some or all of these questions. I will take them and reflect on them.

[Carpathian Wolf]

1. God doesn't punish you infinitely. People choose to separate themselves from God and the pain they feel is that distancing. It's like walking away from a fire and then blaming the fire that you are cold when you word it that way.

2. Christ is God. God is infinite, there for his sacrifice is infinite.

3. Who knows.

4. It wouldn't have been better for man not to exist, simply better to not exist if you are going to go to hell. People exercise their own free will and decide that every day.

5. You are asking something of someone who would have a finite perspective. For God everything has already happened, has not happened and is happening right now. It is only from our perspective that there is a progression.

6. It is your assumption that something perfect can not become imperfect by your own definition of what you think perfect is.

7. You would never fully comprehend all of God. With God there will always be something new to learn. Personally I am glad for that as eternity is a pretty long time.


* This is an Orthodox Christian perspective.

[Viking Prince]

1. Because we have free will, we are sinful. Sin is a separation from God.

2. Our capacity to be separated is infinite. Christ's death is not a payment. The promise given was to believe in him and ask for forgiveness. It is and never can be a balancing of accounts.

3. See the first two answers. God created the universe and we are a part of that creation.

4. See 3 and all above. Why is unanswerable. We do not have the capacity to know God in all aspects, so we cannot answer as to why.

5. See 4.

6. Again, we cannot know God in all aspects.

7. Again, we cannot know God in all aspects.

[Grobar]

1. If there was no infinite punishment people would sin forever in endless cycle of sinning and being punished and sinning again. People are not created to live like that, thus there is eternal hell to keep people on the right path forever.
3. Yes it would be better not being born then being in hell forever. But why should righteous ones not exist because there are those who reject God and salvation. Life trumps hell and non existence.
5. Man was created to live in joy and peace and become god by grace. Sufferings in this world are only temporary until Judgement Day.

[Tankbuster]

If there was no infinite punishment people would sin forever in endless cycle of sinning and being punished and sinning again. People are not created to live like that, thus there is eternal hell to keep people on the right path forever.

Sorry to butt into a discussion which is so clearly one for Christians by Christians, but I'm simply astounded at what a spectacular non-answer this is. For the record, Ariovistus is asking how it is just for God to do these things. Obviously God can do what he wants and if it's not his intention to "create humans to live like that", then he won't; but the question is whether it is moral to set up a system where that has to be true. Simply stating the premises of the system and saying that infinite punishment has to follow from the premises is so completely besides the point that I couldn't help but pointing it out.
Your job is to actually justify the premises. For instance, why is it that God would rather allow infinite punishment for people who simply did not believe in supernatural claims (like myself), than that he would tolerate non-believers in his presence? How is that moral in any way, and how is it not simply being incredibly stubborn when asked to make a personal sacrifice to save others from harm? And how is it moral to subject creatures to infinite punishment for finite crimes?
Now of course, these are answers which are hard to answer, because you're in a tough spot to begin with. I do not want anyone to be eternally tortured, ever. In fact I do not agree with torture in principle, even for limited durations of time (though I'd consider in the unlikely event that it would help me save lives or something like that; but that's not applicable here). I would not wish eternal punishment on my worst enemy, yet here you are in the situation of a God who willingly condemns the larger part of his creation to this, for crimes which occurred in a plane of reality which he himself created and which he doesn't care about anyway.
So your God routinely and regularly does things which I find utterly and completely morally repugnant. Now, it's mind-boggling enough for you to defend the infinite punishment of a large share of your fellow human beings (again, something which I would never do and couldn't even imagine myself doing), but it's even more absurd to suggest that a being could do this while at the same time being infinitely moral, just and merciful.

The problem with the God concept is one that is apparent in every question in this thread. Humans, in their search for the unattainable and the perfect, have defined this God as the ultimate being who is the representation of all that is good in humanity, but infinitely amplified. He's not just good, he's infinitely good. He's not a little knowledgeable, he's infinitely knowledgeable. He isn't just and mercy, he is infinitely merciful and infinitely just.
Whenever you invent a concept like this, you will always run into problems and self-contradictions.

One that has not been mentioned in this thread (although it's sort of implicit and peripheral in some of the questions) is the contradiction of God's justness and his mercy. We are told that God is both infinitely just and merciful, but what seems to be forgotten is that both these aspects are contradictory. Mercy is, by definition, a suspension of justice (in order to allow for improvement or as a sign of good faith, or something like that). But when a creature is infinitely just, that is to say, always gives everyone the exact punishment which is considered just, you cannot be infinitely merciful; in fact you cannot factor in mercy at all. Similarly, if you are totally merciful then you get rid of the notion of justice at all.

How you guys go about reconciling these aspects is not really my concern, as just getting the concept of God to be logically consistent will not bring me any closer to theism (these apparent contradictions do not factor into my personal arguments). It will not be solved however, by giving non-answers.

[Grobar]

Sorry to butt into a discussion which is so clearly one for Christians by Christians, but I'm simply astounded at what a spectacular non-answer this is. For the record, Ariovistus is asking how it is just for God to do these things. Obviously God can do what he wants and if it's not his intention to "create humans to live like that", then he won't; but the question is whether it is moral to set up a system where that has to be true. Simply stating the premises of the system and saying that infinite punishment has to follow from the premises is so completely besides the point that I couldn't help but pointing it out.
Your job is to actually justify the premises. For instance, why is it that God would rather allow infinite punishment for people who simply did not believe in supernatural claims (like myself), than that he would tolerate non-believers in his presence? How is that moral in any way, and how is it not simply being incredibly stubborn when asked to make a personal sacrifice to save others from harm? And how is it moral to subject creatures to infinite punishment for finite crimes?
Now of course, these are answers which are hard to answer, because you're in a tough spot to begin with. I do not want anyone to be eternally tortured, ever. In fact I do not agree with torture in principle, even for limited durations of time (though I'd consider in the unlikely event that it would help me save lives or something like that; but that's not applicable here). I would not wish eternal punishment on my worst enemy, yet here you are in the situation of a God who willingly condemns the larger part of his creation to this, for crimes which occurred in a plane of reality which he himself created and which he doesn't care about anyway.
So your God routinely and regularly does things which I find utterly and completely morally repugnant. Now, it's mind-boggling enough for you to defend the infinite punishment of a large share of your fellow human beings (again, something which I would never do and couldn't even imagine myself doing), but it's even more absurd to suggest that a being could do this while at the same time being infinitely moral, just and merciful.

The problem with the God concept is one that is apparent in every question in this thread. Humans, in their search for the unattainable and the perfect, have defined this God as the ultimate being who is the representation of all that is good in humanity, but infinitely amplified. He's not just good, he's infinitely good. He's not a little knowledgeable, he's infinitely knowledgeable. He isn't just and mercy, he is infinitely merciful and infinitely just.
Whenever you invent a concept like this, you will always run into problems and self-contradictions.

One that has not been mentioned in this thread (although it's sort of implicit and peripheral in some of the questions) is the contradiction of God's justness and his mercy. We are told that God is both infinitely just and merciful, but what seems to be forgotten is that both these aspects are contradictory. Mercy is, by definition, a suspension of justice (in order to allow for improvement or as a sign of good faith, or something like that). But when a creature is infinitely just, that is to say, always gives everyone the exact punishment which is considered just, you cannot be infinitely merciful; in fact you cannot factor in mercy at all. Similarly, if you are totally merciful then you get rid of the notion of justice at all.

How you guys go about reconciling these aspects is not really my concern, as just getting the concept of God to be logically consistent will not bring me any closer to theism (these apparent contradictions do not factor into my personal arguments). It will not be solved however, by giving non-answers.

IMO I don't think there is a sin which deserves eternal punishment in principal. I think infinite punishment is given because of human inability to ever stop sinning. Person who rejects God can never obtain sinless life, he will keep sinning forever and living like that is real hell. Those who are with God can achieve eternal life without sinning through their own effort and God's grace. Maybe people in heaven can still commit sins but because they are with God they can still achieve sinless life for good. Those who reject God are useless, they will always sin and never bear good fruits. Thus rejecting God is infinite sin which requires infinite punishment.
Also keep in mind that being punished for sin doesn't mean your sin is forgiven. No repentance is accepted by God after death. As long as you have your sins you are being punished for them, even eternally. Living forever in the state of unforgiven sins is unacceptable thus eternal punishment.
God's mercy stems from God's willingness to forgive any and all sins. And even the smallest sin is a horrific offence and abomination in human nature.

[Dan the Man]

1. How is just of God to serve infinite punishment for man's finite actions? I should think that the answer is that God does not send people to hell, but that hell is simply an existence that has been completely severed from God's presence simply because imperfection cannot dwell with God in Heaven. But many Christians, including those who taught me, believe that God does actively send people to hell.

This is an interesting thought, in my opinion. However, I think you're looking at it the wrong way. God does not send people to hell, people send themselves to hell. God neither enjoys, nor wishes, to send His children, however evil they may be, to hell. Unfortunately, the wicked must be punished somehow, and hell is the ultimate punishment.

2. Since punishment for sin is indeed infinite, how could Christ's death on the cross and separation from the Father be a satisfactory payment? Christ's death was only temporary since he was resurrected. Furthermore, since Christ is actually part of the Trinity and God transcends time, how was there any real separation at all? In short, how does it work that man pays for sin eternally, but Jesus makes an equal payment in a finite amount of time?

The whole idea is that Christ transcended death! He, being God, was, and remains to be, the only being powerful enough to see death and then return from it. It's not that he was meant to die like we do and remain dead, it's that he was to die as we do and then defeat death!

3. The Bible is clear that it would be better that a man not be born than for him to die and go to hell. The Bible also says that many go to hell and few trust in God. Given these two facts, is it not true that it would be better for humanity as a whole to never have been born, since hell is the destiny for the majority of mankind?

Ah, but this is why we have free will. The passage is not saying that we should all just not exist because most of us will go to hell. Basically, what it is saying is to use our free will not for wicked acts but for good acts, and by that attempt to save ourselves and others from the punishment.

4. Consider the above question and the fact that God is, among other things, love. Then consider the definition of love as a commitment to the greater good of others. If it would be better for man to have not exist at all, why does has God allowed mankind to continue so long after the fall of Adam? Why, for that matter, did He create us at all when He knew this would happen?

"Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you."
God does love us, and God has always loved us, which is why He created us. However, as previously mentioned, He loves us so much that He would rather us have free will than be His pawns. Free will is a gift, and it is one that we are expected to use for the right reasons. Abuse the gift, and you get punished. Think of it as a parent punishing a child. They love the child, and they don't enjoy punishing them (abusive parents aside), but it's something that must be done.

5. If God is omnicient and he dwells outside the dimension of time, why even create anything in the first place? How would he find glory from something that He created, when he already knows not only everything they will do, but every other possible action and result? It's like trying to amuse yourself by writing and producing your own TV show and then watching it alone for eternity. When you consider all the suffering that God's creation has to endure for all this to happen, why does He do it? We suffer, and He experiences nothing new or interesting. Couldn't He imagine it just as easily?

I believe Carpathian Wolf explained this in a far simpler and more coherent manner than I ever could. Consult his answer on this one.

6. Consider the idea of perfection. Then combine it with omnipotence and omnicience. I think that Christians underestimate this extraordinary combination. Keep in mind that God is not bound by any rules; he makes the rules. Finally, consider that by definition, anything that is prone to becoming flawed in the future is by definition imperfect. With all those factors in mind, how can absolute perfection spawn anything other than perfection? You could say that Creation was perfect in the beginning, but the fact that it later became imperfect by itself means that, by definition, it was never actually perfect. How is it possible that this is the best that God Almighty (and I say that reverently because it is truly an awesome concept) could do?

I'm beginning to notice a pattern here. Creation itself is perfect, it's the creations that stray from perfection and goodness by their own free will. Man is flawed, but its creator is not and man's original intention was not either. The evil of satan perverted humanity and made it into something it wasn't originally meant to be.

A perfect Creation would be one that remains perfect for eternity, yet also glorifies God to the fullest. Given God's preference for free will over robotic service, this is a paradox. But He's God and can make the rules. Silly as this question may seem, why couldn't He just decide that robots are satisfactory? And according to the Bible, He has already created paradoxes, such as Jesus being fully God and fully man.

As I said, it was because He loved us and didn't want to see us as His pawns, but as His children. Autonomous, for the most part, but in the end His creation and also His responsibility to condemn when they have done wrong and reward them when they have done right.

Even paradoxes are no problem for omnipotence. He is infinitely creative and all-powerful. I'm sure he could imagine an entirely new framework of Creation in which this paradox does not exist.

I fail to even see how this is a paradox.

7. Final question. God is perfect and man is not. God is infinite and man is finite. That being the case, is it really possible for us as mortals to even understand God enough to truly place faith in Him? I mean, how could He distill Himself to such a level that inferior beings like us could even comprehend Him at all?

But the thing is that man is not finite! The earthly being of man is finite, yes, but the soul is infinite and inextinguishable! Certainly, there are mysteries of God that are beyond our comprehension, but I think when you get to the true core of it there is far more for us to learn than many people even skim the surface of! If understanding is what you seek, then look to the theologians. Try St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, all of these men and women who looked at the dogma, challenged it, and came out all the stronger in their belief because they looked to understand rather than to blindly follow! Theirs is, beyond doubt, the ultimate insight!

I hope you can come back to us, Ariovistus. You were one of the best. Until then, you will remain in my prayers.

[Cooraan]

1. How is just of God to serve infinite punishment for man's finite actions? I should think that the answer is that God does not send people to hell, but that hell is simply an existence that has been completely severed from God's presence simply because imperfection cannot dwell with God in Heaven. But many Christians, including those who taught me, believe that God does actively send people to hell.

Honestly I think you have the right idea about this. A lot of Christians will disagree but the idea of a Hell created just to torture and punish the ''wicked'' is a bit of a stretch to me. I've heard some say that the torture of Hell is more knowing that you missed your chance to get into heaven.

2. In short, how does it work that man pays for sin eternally, but Jesus makes an equal payment in a finite amount of time?

Because Christ was both man and God, as a man he took our sins on the Cross but as God he was resurrected which broke the infinite result of death.

3. The Bible is clear that it would be better that a man not be born than for him to die and go to hell. The Bible also says that many go to hell and few trust in God. Given these two facts, is it not true that it would be better for humanity as a whole to never have been born, since hell is the destiny for the majority of mankind?

I think Carpathian Wolf answered that pretty well in number 4.

5. If God is omnicient and he dwells outside the dimension of time, why even create anything in the first place? How would he find glory from something that He created, when he already knows not only everything they will do, but every other possible action and result? It's like trying to amuse yourself by writing and producing your own TV show and then watching it alone for eternity. When you consider all the suffering that God's creation has to endure for all this to happen, why does He do it? We suffer, and He experiences nothing new or interesting. Couldn't He imagine it just as easily?

I know some will disagree with me but I think the idea of creating something with a free will means that even God can't see our future choices. The Bible mentions in Gen 6:8(I think) that God REGRETS creating mankind, and the word regret kinda implies he didn't intend for this to happen. But that being said I think God is truly wiser than we can comprehend and doesn't necessarily know what our future choices are but can make very good predictions at what we're going to do. When we say God is all-knowing I believe it means that nothing happens outside of God's knowledge.

6. Consider the idea of perfection. Then combine it with omnipotence and omnicience. I think that Christians underestimate this extraordinary combination. Keep in mind that God is not bound by any rules; he makes the rules. Finally, consider that by definition, anything that is prone to becoming flawed in the future is by definition imperfect. With all those factors in mind, how can absolute perfection spawn anything other than perfection? You could say that Creation was perfect in the beginning, but the fact that it later became imperfect by itself means that, by definition, it was never actually perfect. How is it possible that this is the best that God Almighty (and I say that reverently because it is truly an awesome concept) could do?

Free will itself is not an imperfect thing, even Christ had a free will and dealt with the temptation of sin but he still remained perfect.

A perfect Creation would be one that remains perfect for eternity, yet also glorifies God to the fullest. Given God's preference for free will over robotic service, this is a paradox. But He's God and can make the rules. Silly as this question may seem, why couldn't He just decide that robots are satisfactory?

But the thing about glorification of God, is that it requires a love of God. And I think the thing about love as we know it, is that it has to be sincere it has to be a true freely made decision. Meaning that God could not have made man without a free will and still have our love and glorification.

7. Final question. God is perfect and man is not. God is infinite and man is finite. That being the case, is it really possible for us as mortals to even understand God enough to truly place faith in Him? I mean, how could He distill Himself to such a level that inferior beings like us could even comprehend Him at all?

Why would God create such a being that they can't even hope to understand Him? I think just because God is superior, it doesn't nullify any chance of knowing him. And while man's body is finite, man's soul is not.

[C-Rob]

I'm going to go with, "I don't have a ing clue"

Catholic, so I pretty much throw up my hands at the whole thing and say, "Just because"

[Dan the Man]

I'm Catholic too...

[Elfdude]

I hope you don't mind an atheist answering your questions and playing devil's advocate.

1. How is just of God to serve infinite punishment for man's finite actions? I should think that the answer is that God does not send people to hell, but that hell is simply an existence that has been completely severed from God's presence simply because imperfection cannot dwell with God in Heaven. But many Christians, including those who taught me, believe that God does actively send people to hell.

Hell in the traditional sense is the lack of god's presence. Essentially, in christian theology god does nothing to jeopardize your entry into heaven. You jeopardize your entry into hell through evil acts or sins. Each sin or evil act moves you from the presence of god. On the other hand each act of selflessness and repentance brings you closer to god. God never moves, you do. You can always move closer to god but god can never move closer to you. I.E. hell is self imposed. Some christians read statements that make God out to be the judger and take them to mean god actually decides to send you to hell but a sinner cannot perceive god so whether he does or not the sinner would be unaware. God's actual action in this case could be like his inability to accept evil which was originally a rule he needed jesus to break (well he could've sinfully broken it but that wouldn't be something a good god would do). Presumably if hell exists as a location and not separation from god then the rule could be in place by default and god could be absolved of direct guilt (assuming you don't believe in predestination) for sentencing us to hell.

2. Since punishment for sin is indeed infinite, how could Christ's death on the cross and separation from the Father be a satisfactory payment? Christ's death was only temporary since he was resurrected. Furthermore, since Christ is actually part of the Trinity and God transcends time, how was there any real separation at all? In short, how does it work that man pays for sin eternally, but Jesus makes an equal payment in a finite amount of time?

This is nebulous at best. Ignoring the idea of an infinite punishment the reason that jesus' sacrifice allows us to be forgiven of our sins (presumably before then we couldn't be) is the trinity. God incarnated himself into man to take man's sin onto himself. In his perfect godly form god can not sin, to get around this god essentially created a mortal coil which could hold a portion of himself but not all of it. Upon the death of jesus he ascended to heaven where his body was rejoined with god. At this point god took sin into himself. Whether or not that makes god less than moral is debatable. Anyways, this link provides a linkage to all those in sin to god (although honestly it seems to imply the reverse is possible too) which means he can forgive them their deeds because elevating jesus (himself) to heaven created the bridge between the pure and the sinful.

3. The Bible is clear that it would be better that a man not be born than for him to die and go to hell. The Bible also says that many go to hell and few trust in God. Given these two facts, is it not true that it would be better for humanity as a whole to never have been born, since hell is the destiny for the majority of mankind?

Better is subjective unfortunately. Better for who? Also mankind is also born pure with only the burden of the original sin on his heart (depending on your sect) which he must alleviate by seeking forgiveness by 20. Although it begs the question whether or not god knew whether or not we'd turn out good or evil. If there's infinite universes, there very well could be a universe in which everything is good, this universe could be little more than an alternate timeline that spun off at the critical moment when the first evil was chosen whereas in the other universe that evil was never chosen or perhaps a different evil was chosen or etc. On the other hand are neutral acts god's responsibility to protect us from if without them we wouldn't exist? Yes a lot of people die from floods but god gave us a brain which can understand the world around us did he not? Seems like dying from ignorance could be tantamount to suicide.

4. Consider the above question and the fact that God is, among other things, love. Then consider the definition of love as a commitment to the greater good of others. If it would be better for man to have not exist at all, why does has God allowed mankind to continue so long after the fall of Adam? Why, for that matter, did He create us at all when He knew this would happen?

That begs the question of whether we possess freewill or not. Deterministically every choice guides the focus of the moment now collapsing the wave of probable futures into a single time stream that we experience every moment as 'now'. For every alternate path there's an alternate choice and an alternate time stream. If those alternate time streams are real (as in they exist) then a perfect reality does exist somewhere in a time parallel to our own. If those alternate time streams are merely possibilities but not legitimate places to go then god could plausibly understand all the possibilities but not necessarily know until the very moment we make the choice how exactly it will play out. On the other hand he could be so in love with the perfect reality that every other reality exists merely to support it. Still this makes us wonder if god is omniscient or not. If he is omniscient then he should know our futures but if our futures are inherently unknowable he could still be omniscient with regards to history and events but not so with regards to the future.

5. If God is omnicient and he dwells outside the dimension of time, why even create anything in the first place? How would he find glory from something that He created, when he already knows not only everything they will do, but every other possible action and result? It's like trying to amuse yourself by writing and producing your own TV show and then watching it alone for eternity. When you consider all the suffering that God's creation has to endure for all this to happen, why does He do it? We suffer, and He experiences nothing new or interesting. Couldn't He imagine it just as easily?

That's a very good question. The conventional answer is that love of his creation compelled him to create it. But I don't understand how one follows the other.

6. Consider the idea of perfection. Then combine it with omnipotence and omnicience. I think that Christians underestimate this extraordinary combination. Keep in mind that God is not bound by any rules; he makes the rules. Finally, consider that by definition, anything that is prone to becoming flawed in the future is by definition imperfect. With all those factors in mind, how can absolute perfection spawn anything other than perfection? You could say that Creation was perfect in the beginning, but the fact that it later became imperfect by itself means that, by definition, it was never actually perfect. How is it possible that this is the best that God Almighty (and I say that reverently because it is truly an awesome concept) could do?

There's several explanations. The first is that god is perfect but does not create perfection (maybe he's a jealous god and wants to keep all of his power for himself) this would lead one to believe though that his creation is deliberately flawed which would assign god the responsibility for a lot of deaths and evils. The second explanation is that we are each creators invested with a certain amount of potential to affect events for good or for evil and that god inflicts no evil on us we only inflict it on ourselves. The third answer is that the universe is perfect we're simply ignorant of how perfect it is and it is our own ignorance that is responsible for this perception.

A perfect Creation would be one that remains perfect for eternity, yet also glorifies God to the fullest. Given God's preference for free will over robotic service, this is a paradox. But He's God and can make the rules. Silly as this question may seem, why couldn't He just decide that robots are satisfactory? And according to the Bible, He has already created paradoxes, such as Jesus being fully God and fully man.

Not necessarily. A perfectly symmetrical mirror image is not symmetrical if you narrow your field of view to smaller than the edges of the mirror. I.E. Jesus was a small view of the whole iceberg which was god. Jesus's sole duty was to bring sin to god. The question becomes whether it was cruel to ask this of jesus. If jesus and god aren't the same person then yes if they are then no. Then we also have relativity. It's key to note that a perfect world from god's perspective is a world devoid of moral ambiguity where everyone chooses to walk the path of good. Anything else from his perspective is pointless.

Even paradoxes are no problem for omnipotence. He is infinitely creative and all-powerful. I'm sure he could imagine an entirely new framework of Creation in which this paradox does not exist.

Perhaps.

7. Final question. God is perfect and man is not. God is infinite and man is finite. That being the case, is it really possible for us as mortals to even understand God enough to truly place faith in Him? I mean, how could He distill Himself to such a level that inferior beings like us could even comprehend Him at all?

This is probably your best question yet. The answer usually comes from our souls. In previous times knowledge was considered an unlimited resource (we still haven't hit our limit on it but we know there's a theoretical limit) thus our souls (the origin of knowledge) tied out beings to the infinite god and in a way we were all infinite. Since the brain was identified as the origin of knowledge you see a lot of fallacies when it comes to this question.

[SigniferOne]

1. How is just of God to serve infinite punishment for man's finite actions?

2. Since punishment for sin is indeed infinite, how could Christ's death on the cross and separation from the Father be a satisfactory payment?

It's not so much that infinite punishment is served upon finite actions. The whole question is stated wrongly. A better way to look at it is that God is not just perfect love, and things like that, but also perfect justice. In other words, no violations of justice in favor of love. Justice must be enacted perfectly, completely, and mercilessly, for that is the ultimate perfection of applying this concept. Now, man is the only corrupt creature amongst the world's living beings. Animals even when they're cruel are being just stupid, glorified automatons and little more. Man when he is cruel, is evil, and his cruelty comes not from nature but from sin and a wicked essence instead. Now all this is inborn into human nature (Adam), but what's equally more, the sin gets recommited by each person during their private lives; every man is Adam and repeats the same sins through wickedness in his free will, even if there was no blame through inheritance. Now there is only one punishment deserving here, and I'm giving you the hardcore Protestant perspective because the Orthodox would give a completely different picture, so I'm saying something that having a Baptist background you'd be familiar with. What is the only punishment deserving here? Death. "The wages of sin is death". Not some physical death, but the real, spiritual death. So the punishment is not due to some finite action of yours, but the nature of yours, which lasts infinitely, and will never change. For as long as you continue having that nature, you'll continue deserving spiritual death. Since you will not cease having that nature, naturally the perfect justice cannot change what you merit.

There is one way out of this, and only one. The Bible paints this relentless and merciless message, not that of love, but that of utter condemnation. Although the Jews were the ones who wrote the Old Testament, the Jews are the ones the Old Testament condemns the most. The New Testament essentially condemns the whole mankind. Now, how can a being of perfect justice, and of perfect love, combine those two qualities at the same time, especially towards such a thing as man? Remember now, He cannot violate either one of those two qualities, either the love or the justice. He will not, like some weak human courts do, pardon a murderer because of pusillanimity and epistemic doubt as to his guilt and its own moral right to carry out punishment. Perfect justice will destroy the murderer, plain and simple; "he who comes with the sword shall die by the sword". What to do about man then, condemn all of mankind and be done with it? Fine, maybe we even merit that. But what about perfect love, how would that apply? This Being would not violate love, just to carry out justice; yet justice must be carried out with ultimate perfection. It seems like a no-escape contradiction.

This is the real reason Jesus Christ enters the picture. He takes the guilt of the world, and accepts the blame upon the world, upon himself. Thus the perfect justice executes the one guilty (Jesus). All you have to do is accept that fact, to be part of it. Now where did Jesus come from, why did he do it, etc? He is God himself who came down to suffer under perfect justice. A pure God could not take upon sin or evil, so God became natural, and took upon utter evil, while being utterly good (Jesus being completely innocent, and in life morally perfect). Thus perfect love accomplished its means while accomplishing the means of perfect justice.

3. The Bible is clear that it would be better that a man not be born than for him to die and go to hell. The Bible also says that many go to hell and few trust in God. Given these two facts, is it not true that it would be better for humanity as a whole to never have been born, since hell is the destiny for the majority of mankind?

4. Consider the above question and the fact that God is, among other things, love. Then consider the definition of love as a commitment to the greater good of others. If it would be better for man to have not exist at all, why does has God allowed mankind to continue so long after the fall of Adam? Why, for that matter, did He create us at all when He knew this would happen?

But you don't say that e.g. a serial murderer would be better to not have been born. That's a bit of a 'besides the point' sort of answer here. You just leave a man be, and if he is morally wrong, you punish him in accordance with the crime. I don't see what hindsight has to do with this, especially as there was an 'escape hatch' provided here, and if most don't trust in God that is to be blamed on them rather than anybody else.

5. If God is omnicient and he dwells outside the dimension of time, why even create anything in the first place?

The answers to 4 and 5 are locked in the opening fragments of Genesis, and found nowhere else, so we may never know. I believe there are several Psalms to the effect that the ultimate will of God is inscrutable, and while we may understand a lot, certainly everything that's relevant to us, it would be folly to seriously consider that you ought to know everything or bust.

6. You could say that Creation was perfect in the beginning, but the fact that it later became imperfect by itself means that, by definition, it was never actually perfect.

This is actually far less of a problem for Christians than you seem to think at the moment. Everything he created was perfect, including man, the ultimate creature in the universe (really, think about it, it's true, and the ancient 'primitive' Hebrews knew it already). So man is perfect, the most magnificent natural creation. Yet he has free will, which is itself a kind of perfection. But it allows him to insert imperfection into the scheme of things. That's what indeed happens. God may know that imperfection would be inserted, but clearly that imperfection was not due to him. Now as to why allow this to happen, it is not inherently contradictory to God, merely something separate from him. As for why, see the answer to 5.

7. Final question. God is perfect and man is not. God is infinite and man is finite. That being the case, is it really possible for us as mortals to even understand God enough to truly place faith in Him?

God is perfect and man is not, true enough. Yet it is written that man was created in the image of God, meaning that there is something literally Godlike, in man. Now is it in him having two limbs on each side? Or a six-pack that gets women swooning? Seriously here, where is that one Godlike particle spark, that seems inexplicable in man, that defies and baffles the best explanation while being the most magnificent thing in existence? Part of the answer lies in the opening verses of John; typically they are translated as "In the beginning was the Word", but the Greek word for "word" is "logos", an equal meaning of which -- is ---- REASON.

Reason as the essence of God. How's that for a primitive book.

[Squiggle]

4. Consider the above question and the fact that God is, among other things, love. Then consider the definition of love as a commitment to the greater good of others. If it would be better for man to have not exist at all, why does has God allowed mankind to continue so long after the fall of Adam? Why, for that matter, did He create us at all when He knew this would happen?

Well, I would obviously say that the Good brought to man as a result of knowing God far out does the damages done to the man who rejects God.

5. If God is omnicient and he dwells outside the dimension of time, why even create anything in the first place? How would he find glory from something that He created, when he already knows not only everything they will do, but every other possible action and result? It's like trying to amuse yourself by writing and producing your own TV show and then watching it alone for eternity. When you consider all the suffering that God's creation has to endure for all this to happen, why does He do it? We suffer, and He experiences nothing new or interesting. Couldn't He imagine it just as easily?

He created us out of compassion, so that we may know and love him, the greatest conceivable joy. It obviously does not suffice to spread hypothetical compassion.