the better question would be: why would this sky fairy create us in a way which allows for sin?
christopher hitchens said it best i think. (i paraphrase)
"in order to be christian you have to believe that for 98,000 years, our species suffered, most of our species died. high mortality rate during childbirth, there was famine, disease, natural disasters, and wars. then 2000 years later, god decided it was time to intervene. god sent himself down to have himself tortured and executed, then resurrected. god decided to intervene in the most illiterate part of the world at that time, the middle east. let's not, for example, go to the Chinese at that time who knew how to read and write and had a civilization."
what a majestic plan from the all knowing. let's not also forget the persecution of future generations of jews because of this.
but before we can argue any of this, we've to prove the assertion before we assume it: the assertion that there is a god and the assertion that jesus is god/son.
until today, there is no evidence.
That is a loaded question, considering that it assumes that God was logistically able to create human beings who could not sin.
The better question would therefore be, "Could God have created humans who could not sin?"
That is a more philosophical question which I'm sure better men than I have responded to. In my opinion, I don't think God could have. Now, this might lead one to say, "then God is not omnipotent", but this is hardly what omnipotence means. The idea that one can do ANYTHING is inherently self-contradictory: For example, God's holiness demands that he never sin. Sin is contrary to his nature; God
cannot sin. Does that mean he is not omnipotent? Hardly.
Rather, omnipotence simply means that God can do whatever
he wants. If he wills X, he could do X. Consequently, because God is holy, he could not will sin. He therefore cannot commit sin, because he is God.
Now, are perfect moral beings something that God could create? Is that logically feasible? Maybe. I'd like to argue it's not. I think that "holiness", "morality", etc., are things that
humans develop. Notice that Jesus died on the cross only after his baptism and ministry. He didn't die as an infant, or a child, or a teenager, or even a young man. He died after he proved through his deeds that he was the Son of God. He was exalted only after the cross. To put it simply, Jesus earned his title Son of God by what he did.
Romans 1:3 says, "concerning his Son, who was decended from David according to the flesh and was
declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead. Note that Jesus was already the "Son of God" ontologically speaking; this is referring to his exaltation to the throne at the "right hand of God". Hence, Son of God "in power".
That's all I'll say about that. Again, this is a question for God, not really for people. Hence the philosophical nature of it. I don't presume to understand how God works, but I do try my best to understand what I can and exercise humility and faith when I don't.
*****
Now onto that Christopher Hitchen quote.
He's quite wrong about the time of God's intervention. God did not intervene "2000 years later". He intervened at the very beginning. In fact, the entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelations, is a movement of God's plan of salvation for humanity. Check out Genesis 3:15, which has been called the primitive gospel: "I will put enmity between you (Satan) and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring (singular; i.e. the referent is to Jesus Christ),
he (Jesus) shall bruise your (Satan) head, and you shall bruise his heel (this referring ultimately to Jesus' death on the Cross by which he defeated sin and Satan).
God's plan didn't not begin in 3 B.C. at Christ's birth "2000 years later". It didn't even begin in Genesis after the fall. God is, after all, omniscient.
That last part of that quote is pretty stupid. The gospel began in the middle east. More importantly, after the conquering of Ceasar which led to the Hellenization of many Jews, it would only make sense that Christianity begin in one of the largest empires; the Roman empire. This eventually spread to Europe and birthed the Roman Catholic Church. And then to North and South America. I'm sure you know your history regarding the movement to what as to become America in pursuit of religious freedom? I think, in retrospect, middle east was a pretty good idea: now Christianity is a global religion. That "critique", if it could even be called one, is entirely irrelevant. The gospel spread, and that's what matters.
Now, I want to very briefly answer your last statement about evidence, assertions, etc. I could go into more philosophical arguments (like the cosmological argument; all things needing a cause, etc.). You can always look that up yourself. I want to say this: there
is evidence. No, I'm not talking about spiritual evidence, although I do think that the lives of other people are a wonderful testimony to the transforming power of the Holy Spirit.
I'm talking about the Bible. Have you noticed? How else can I know that God created Adam and Eve? How else would I know that Jesus Christ died for our sins if it were not for the recorded evidence that is called Scriptures.
Now, before you roll your eyes, I acknowledge that to
you, it can hardly be called good evidence. How do we know this wasn't just made up by some guys, right? I'll let the scholars and archeologists who unearth manuscripts, etc., deal with that.
Here's my point though: there is evidence. Even if you consider it to be unreliable. The burden of proof is on Christians, and we have it in the Holy Scriptures: God's revelation of himself to us. If you don't like it, all well and good. That is your prerogative. But don't say that there isn't evidence, because it's staring you right in the face.
