Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

So the meaning and purpose of Christianity in philosophy forums is defined by the variety of ways people can find to curse out IC. Live and learn.

How can one respond to what you say here?

I have pointed out (and others too) a perverse and psychological power-dynamic in the system of belief IC is totally committed to. Do you notice?

To confront that appears to be necessary. But here is a key: no matter who explains this to IC (I now mean IC as a plurality, a generality) he will reject the confrontation. It will be described as invalid and resisted. Those who bring the complaint or critique will be described as the ones who have the problem, who are the problem. There is where the power dynamic shows itself. It steps out of being reasonable and becomes coercive. Its power functions through curses.

You seem not to have been paying attention.

Frankly, Christianity and philosophy are not really compatible. Christianity is a faith position and when its major elements or its original structure is examined with critical focus (philosophy) it doesn’t hold up.

And there you have a large part of the modern problem: most people cannot believe in that way.

[attofishpi]

Frankly, Christianity and philosophy are not really compatible. Christianity is a faith position and when its major elements or its original structure is examined with critical focus (philosophy) it doesn’t hold up.

I disagree entirely. In fact, love of wisdom is what Christ exemplified, espoused.

However, the fundamentalist take ALL of the bible as the actual word of God is naive and rather ridiculous. In this case I think your above statement with regards to that holds true...but Christianity is not about faith in ALL of the Judaic texts, it is about faith in the life of Christ and what he did to insist on respect for LOVE.

[Dubious]

But here is a key: no matter who explains this to IC (I now mean IC as a plurality, a generality) he will reject the confrontation. It will be described as invalid and resisted. Those who bring the complaint or critique will be described as the ones who have the problem, who are the problem. There is where the power dynamic shows itself. It steps out of being reasonable and becomes coercive. Its power functions through curses.

It is as Søren Kierkegaard affirmed that “An unconscious relationship is more powerful than a conscious one.” The former is only conditional to itself rejecting all that's extraneous. The latter obviously is more amenable to argument. The only way the IC types can escape the dungeons of the unconsciousness is the shock of something emerging within it which questions its prior affinities. In the meantime, he remains invulnerable to any attacks of logic, history, science or fact of any kind. The IC types, in short, are far less problematic philosophically than they are psychologically in their total separation which, in effect, maintains their superiority being also a measure of their identity.

Unless some other alien factor enters that relationship you can bang your head on that wall until it bleeds. Nothing will avail.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I disagree entirely. In fact, love of wisdom is what Christ exemplified, espoused.

It seems to me you are speaking from your own, personal perspective, what you have discovered, decided.

What particular phrases or episodes in any of the Gospels best support your interpretation?

[attofishpi]

I disagree entirely. In fact, love of wisdom is what Christ exemplified, espoused.

It seems to me you are speaking from your own, personal perspective, what you have discovered, decided.

What particular phrases or episodes in any of the Gospels best support your interpretation?

Well, it was a very long time ago - around 1998-99 that I read the four main gospels and nothing in particular comes to mind. The overall life of the man, the golden rule and allowing himself to be crucified for the cause (that we love and respect one another).

For me, and since being told by sage\God that he did die upon the crucifix it's become extremely apparent how important it is that there is TRUST in love. People that cheat and lie and betray in the face of another's love and trust, are not worthy of this sacrifice.
Christ knew for many years in advance prior to his crucifixion that he would be going through that level of suffering. So it's rather simple, if you want to gain insight into God, heaven etc..then strive to be as Christ worthy in love as possible.

[Alexis Jacobi]

For me, and since being told by sage\God that he did die upon the crucifix it's become extremely apparent how important it is that there is TRUST in love. People that cheat and lie and betray in the face of another's love and trust, are not worthy of this sacrifice.

Christ knew for many years in advance prior to his crucifixion that he would be going through that level of suffering. So it's rather simple, if you want to gain insight into God, heaven etc..then strive to be as Christ worthy in love as possible.

When I mentioned Blake some pages back, and said that the visionary always has a uniquely personal relationship through religion to divinity, I admit I was thinking of you. In a different way Nick is one with an unusual, certainly unconventional, and personal relationship. My point is that these are *possibilities* that have arisen relatively late in Christian history. And in order to have this position, and explore those possibilities, one has to have become separated from 1) organized churches and 2) even from other dedicated practitioners. There is then something postmodern in what I understand your approach to be. (And this is not a criticism).

However, and with that said, neither of you define Christianity in a historical or cultural sense. Except for some who are always on the outside and on the fringes Christianity has been deeply entwined with culture and education. Indeed the Church was always at the center and on the town square. It is an institution.

But you and Nick live totally outside of institutional relationship. So the Christianity you define is very much like you are: idiosyncratic, personal, subjective.

To define a Deity of love, or to live in a loving way -- who could criticize this? But in the course of European history, and through hundreds of years of developing institutions, Christianity has influenced all spheres of social and civilizational life. Jurisprudence, education, marriage, social responsibility, commerce. And these have become structural, the very structures on which civilization has been built.

This, naturally, does not and also cannot allow an idiosyncratic free interpretation of what Jesus is, or meant, or set out to do. And it is the people who dedicated their entire lives and beings, their purpose for living, to defining how the advent of Jesus, its meaning, must be applied to civilizational life that defines what Christianity is.

Now, as it happens, as it is happening, culture and social life has, over the course of 100 years though other numbers could be picked, cultural and social life has become ungrounded from the former foundations in solidity of doctrine. IC however represents, or wishes to represent, what he defines, or what he recognizes, as 'absolute bedrock' within those Christian principles. Bedrock does not change. That is the whole meaning of 'fundamentalism' and also I must say of rigid Christian metaphysics. It is not a myriad of things, it is not endless open possibilities, but a set of fixed things.

Again (and in my opinion) one must focus on the revolutionary and ultra-progressive tendencies that are operating in our present. And one must also be aware of the opposite of that: the desire, the need, the moral imperative to *define* and *protect* that bedrock.

The conversation that has taken place here has never been able to ground itself in the contemporary world! In this sense (again my opinion) not a great deal of the contributions of many have been that relevant to understanding the present and about acting in the present.

Appofish, I gather, operates through a thoroughly idiosyncratic form of neo-Christianity. Nick is in a similar position it seems to me but with a Platonist base. Harry was educated in post-Vatican ll circumstances in Catholic schools. But his religious view or philosophy is rather Gnostic. LaceWing was raised in some rigid Protestant sect and broke away from it completely. And I grew up *on the fringes of Reform Judaism* in California when every single radical alternative, speaking of religion of course but in all other areas as well, came out of the woodwork. Something must be said about Promethean and Dubious but I can't quite place them. Iambiguous clearly gives his life-history. IC converted to the Non-Denominational Evangelical Christian Zionism religion when at University and has remained in it ever since. He is also involved in missionary work (in Africa and Latin America is what I have pieced together.

So it seems to me that these contexts and what they demand of each person have to be understood better, and then the links drawn to *contemporary reality*.

[Immanuel Can]

It's not nice to call them "loons." And I'm reasonably confident it takes an unusual person to receive guests in the nude. But okay.

Another interesting topic or issue. Harry and I have an Internet friend (Deebs we will call him) who believes that religion itself, and certainly the extreme forms of it, is a kind of madness or unbalance.

Some might be. But since the impulse to be "religious," in some form you'll interpret as such, is universal among ancient societies, and since it remains over 90% of humanity today, it seems unlikely that the entire human race has always been mad.

I regard life as crazy-making.

It could well be, if one is going through it without having any coherent worldview. Events could simply seem random, unpredictable, unmanageable and chaotic, being without reason and without direction. One would feel oneself to be going through a kind of irrational meat-grinder, or as one person put it, as simply being "an organic pain-collector, racing toward death."

[Immanuel Can]

Of course, of course: the key question is once again ignored; snipped; obliterated from the response.

I don't deal with statements that are merely rhetorical, or simply obviously wrong. I try to focus on the relevant, wherever possible.

If even your own worldview cannot provide a rational account of why you are owed "justice,"

It can and does

Saying that doesn't make it so. But you can show it does: just state your worldview (Evolutionism, Materialism, Pantheism...) and explain how it makes it rational for you to expect "justice." That should be doable very easily, if you can do it at all.

This doesn't, though, solve the dilemma, it simply changes its expression a little, to something like this:

(2A) Are morality/justice whatever God's character/nature happens to be, or (2B) does God's character/nature conform to the standards of morality/justice?

If 2A, then morality/justice are arbitrary; if 2B, then morality/justice are not grounded in God but in some external standard. In neither case have we grounded morality/justice.

Your problem is in your wording. You've conceptualized the claim entirely wrong, then faulted it for being wrong in the way you are being wrong.

You use the phrase "happens to be," as if God had a character derived from chance or the accidents of pre-existing happenings. Likewise, you use "conform to," as if there's something prior to God to which He could potentially "conform." Both wordings require us to think of a God that comes into existence after some other thing -- either "justice" or other "happenings." So you're positing a contingent god...like Socrates's polytheistic "deities," and asking a question that only suits their case, just as Socrates himself insisted was the case.

But God's character is eternal and intrinsic. Being without start, it has no "cause," no "derivation," no "explanation as to why it is what it is," nor does it require any. The very request is, itself unintelligible. One cannot ask, "How did the eternal nature of God begin?" or "Why is it what it is?" anymore than one can ask for a square circle or a married bachelor. The problem is in the askers conceptioon, not in the response.

There are no standards of morality/justice that precede, exceed or transcend their existence in the character of God.

You have a parallel situation in the question of origins of the universe. If the universe were, itself, and eternal entity, we could not ask what its "cause" or "origin" was. The question would not be coherent. But as it is, we know for certain that the universe is contingent and temporal, not merely from cosmology but also from entropy, which is probably the most common, readily observable, scientifically-measurable and demonstrable property we know. So we can ask the question about the origin of the universe because we can see it is not an eternal, self-existent entity. But we could not ask it if it were not so.

Atheists recognize what a difference eternity makes. Why do you think they're in such a hurry to embrace things like the Eternal Recurrance or Multiverse Theories? They're hoping to find some reason that the origin of the universe no longer needs to be accounted for. Even they realize that Theists could not ask origin questions about an eternally-self-existing universe.

And you can't ask legitimation questions about an eternal God. You would need to imagine an contingent God, first, in order to do that.

The upshot is that the "god" in whom you are expressing your disbelief is not the God I believe in either. Neither of us believes, with Socrates, in a contingent group of "gods." (See his specific questions to Euthyphro: he actually asks him precisely about the disagreements among "gods," before he rolls into the "dilemma"; even Socrates himself knew he needed polytheism to float his dilemma.)

My definition is the dictionary definition,

And your dictionary is your "Scripture"?

What?

I simply mean, "Do you take whatever Oxford / Merriam Webster / Cambridge / etc. say as inerrant? Definitions are contingent attempts to explain a term when it's used most generally, and within a specific cultural context. They are not sacred. But you seem to take it as if quoting one dictionary can not only prove the term is coherent to your worldview, but that it can legitimize the term as well.

In which case, "unicorn" and "pixie" have to be legitimized realities as well.

But if you think otherwise, then meet my challenge of explaining how your account of justice works within the Hindu system. Good luck.

What a lot of desperate babble.

You can't do it, can you?

I know. Other cultures have very different conceptions of "justice," you'll find. So now the question becomes, "Which culture has the right one?" Because it's only the right conception that you'll have any possible expectation that there should be.

on your account, God sees in advance all that a person is going to be and do, or would be and do if given the opportunity, and knows that, because of what He foresees that person will (would) be and do, if He brings that person into existence, He will ultimately after that person's brief life on Earth be condemning that person to burn in hell for eternity...

...and then happily brings that person into existence.

This is what free will means: it means that you get to choose. It doesn't mean you are forced always to choose the best things, or the right things, but also the less-good ones, and even the evil ones...if you so choose. The choice is in the hands of the individual.

Freedom always has consequences. The man who can choose relationship with God can also choose rejection of God...or he would not have a "choice" at all. And freedom is a surpassingly great good. It's the sine qua non of personhood, identity, volition, self-determination, maturation and above all, of genuine relationship. Men have nnt only died for freedom; they've even died for the freedom of others. But freedom is a double-edged sword: the man who can choose can choose evil. But evil cannot be permitted to triumph and persist, or the very quality you've been asking about is missing...justice.

So the right fusion of all this is as follows: that man has freedom. That God does everything He can possibly do to make that freedom result in salvation, not condemnation. But that at the end of the day, man's freedom, not authoritatiran fiat, is the determinant of what his destiny is. Freedom means you choose for yourself, not have things chosen for you.

This is your sophistical means of getting around the obvious finitude of a disposition held during a person's lifetime on this planet: to include an eternity of that disposition into the future, and to then claim that a person should be punished eternally not just for that which they have been and done, but for that which they would be and do if given the opportunity;

No, it simply means to grant all men the dignity and right to choose their own ultimate disposition. They do not want God. They reject and accuse Him, as you do, and refuse to deal with their sin. They are, in fact, dedicated to destruction.

Look at yourself, Harry: who are you accusing? It's not me. I can't give you "justice," nor have I promised you it. Your worldview promises you none (unless you can show otherwise, which I leave open), so who are you accusing? There is only one Just Judge.

Again, there's nothing wrong with asking God, "How does your justice work out?" That's a tough question, but legitimate. But to say, "You are unjust, and nothing will let me believe you are not" is to test God to vindicate His justice in your personal case. And there's a time limit on how long that's ever allowed to go on.

[Immanuel Can]

the unknown country.

(To be distinguished of course from ‘country matters’ . . . )

Hamlet, both times.

[Immanuel Can]

1] Jesus Christ and the Christian God exist because it says so in the New Testament
2] the New Testament is true because it is the Word of Jesus Christ and the Christian God

No, Jesus Christ existed because history shows he did, and no credible historian doubts it. We can debate WHO He was, but THAT He was, that's pretty much beyond debate.

That some dude back then calling himself Jesus went around [like Muhammad or Gautama Buddha] proclaiming himself to be the embodiment of the One True Path to enlightenment and immortality and salvation wouldn't surprise me. History is full of them. But that this proves the existence of the Christian God?

I thought you said He never existed. Now you say He did, but wasn't who He claimed to be? Which argument did you want to go with?

But in point of fact, you're invided to the comparison. Go read what is written about Buddha, about Mohammed, and about Jesus Christ, in the best sources that are available. Make up your own mind about the relative truth of their claims.

Now, you can believe that, or you can choose not to. However, if I'm right and you're wrong, you'll find out. If you're right, neither of us will ever know it.

On the other hand, there are many folks here -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- who will tell you that you can believe what they do or not. However, if they are right and you're wrong, you'll find out.

That is exactly right.

And that is why it is a decision every person must make for himself...and very, very carefully. Nothing, literally nothing, is more important.

[Immanuel Can]

Fools all of them and doomed as well!

Not by any account you can possibly give.

If your worldview is right, it couldn't possibly matter less WHAT anybody believes...so long as it "works" for them in some fashion they like. And nobody is "doomed" to anything, except what every last one of us is "doomed" to, which is to die without knowing anything and to become food for worms.

So whence, given your worldview, your sense of superiority? How are you better than the other "fools" who die under different delusions than the delusions under which you, yourself are "doomed" to die?

[Immanuel Can]

I just wrote;
But what I SEE "iambiguous" is asking for and requesting from 'you', "immanuel can", is that 'you' just note an article, from a publication of your choice, which discusses the Christian God, without falling back on the assumption that such an assessment is derived from the Word, of God, from within the Christian Bible itself.

I gave you an article that did exactly that.

It was from a publication of my choice: PN.
It discusses the Christian God.
It does not fall back on any assessment derived from the Word of God.
It does not require the Christian Bible.

And you said you didn't find it met your standards? It met every standard you actually asked for. but if you've now changed your mind, and want more "standards" or different "standards," just say what they are, and again, I'll see what I can do for you.

[Harry Baird]

Of course, of course: the key question is once again ignored; snipped; obliterated from the response.

I don't deal with statements that are merely rhetorical, or simply obviously wrong.

It is a question, not a statement, and it is neither rhetorical nor wrong. It challenges you to explicitly either affirm or deny that contradiction which is implicit in your Christian beliefs. I expect that the reason you consistently refuse to do either is because:

On the first answer, you would be affirming an incoherent horror, and there would then be a burden on you to justify your affirmation of that incoherent horror, which you very much prefer to avoid, instead trying to shift all burdens onto me, whereas,

On the second answer, you would be denying your Christian beliefs.

Because both answers have such difficult consequences for you, you choose to avoid, ignore, snip, and obliterate the question.

If even your own worldview cannot provide a rational account of why you are owed "justice,"

It can and does

Saying that doesn't make it so.

Correct, which is why I pointed you to our original exchange on all of this some years back. You have craftily snipped that from my response.

You use the phrase "happens to be,"

Yep, that's one horn of the dilemma.

Likewise, you use "conform to,"

Yep, that's the other.

Now, what we need from you is a third alternative in which justice/morality truly are grounded in God. Your vague ramblings as to God's eternal, intrinsic, non-contingent existence don't cut it. What, explicitly, is your third alternative?

I simply mean, "Do you take whatever Oxford / Merriam Webster / Cambridge / etc. say as inerrant?

I take them as generally reliable documenters of what words mean. Do they get it wrong sometimes? Probably. So, no, not "inerrant", but pretty reliable by and large.

But if you think otherwise, then meet my challenge of explaining how your account of justice works within the Hindu system. Good luck.

What a lot of desperate babble.

You can't do it, can you?

Given the hq-inspired contextual definition of "justice" which I shared, yep, it works for justice within the Hindu system. No luck needed.

on your account, God sees in advance all that a person is going to be and do, or would be and do if given the opportunity, and knows that, because of what He foresees that person will (would) be and do, if He brings that person into existence, He will ultimately after that person's brief life on Earth be condemning that person to burn in hell for eternity...

...and then happily brings that person into existence.

This is what free will means: it means that you get to choose.

Yep: it means that, on your view, God gets to choose to bring into existence a person whom He knows is destined for eternal torment - when He could have chosen not to bring that person into existence, and spared that person from eternal torment.

You failed to address the reality that on your view, God very, very often does make that choice.

Look at yourself, Harry: who are you accusing? It's not me.

It is you. It is you who is promoting a view of God which is clearly abhorrent, and assuming it to be true. I don't share that assumption, therefore, there is no God of that description whom I would be accusing - only you, who claims that there is.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I don't deal with statements that are merely rhetorical, or simply obviously wrong. I try to focus on the relevant, wherever possible.

You are not just somewhat of a joke, you are a total joke. I no longer take you seriously. You have sacrificed all credibility. Only because you are, essentially, a religious fanatic. This is by your own choice I should add . . .

With you I have to work with simple statements that reduce things to intelligible positions. You are a Bible-believing Bible literalist. That is a faith-position, not a rationally-conceived one. Your faith in a whole host of supernatural events (which I refer to as Stories and Mythologies) leads you to thereafter to seek 'reasoned arguments' that mimic those of philosophy. This is what I would call the *core Christian charade* : a game of appearances. There is no way that you will even be able to *prove* to anyone who is not a faith-believer that the core tenets of the Christian story are rational and reasonable. So what you must do, and this essentially defines you Immanuel Can, is to go through the most astounding, unlikely, fruitless rehearsals and performances where you pretend to be a serious, rational man. You try to defend Christian mysticism through double triple and quadruple backward flips and entire sheets of rhetoric.

But each of the core tenets are indefensible in rational terms. Your essential and your core beliefs are faith-based. There is no way around this. Here I describe the basic and the true facts.

And you locate your personal faith-position within a Hebrew-derived religious structure : Christianity. But there are many other faith-relationships in this world. Dozens. They originate in those religious impulses peculiar to we human beings and they are varied and complex.

You often refer to the basic ideas of Intelligent Design. And you are aware of the arguments that say it is impossible, or nearly so, for the complex forms that we see (especially perhaps the cell which is a center of the ID argument quite often) to have come into existence through random processes. These are important arguments made by biologists and mathematicians (and others). They definitely support the idea that latent in this Creation, whatever it is, is the design of all structures in our cosmos.

So far so good.

But what you do at this point is to assume, because it is written in the Bible, that the god with the name Yahweh, as described in the Hebrew and Christian mythologies, is that Creator (of the world and of all things). But this does not follow. I mean, you can make that assertion and indeed Jews and Christians certainly do make the assertion. But they do so because of what I named Hebrew Idea Imperialism. And the function of that imperialism is to destroy all other conceptions about what this life is, why it is, and also what we are to do and not do here.

I (for one) reject absolutely the claim that you, or the Hebrews, or the Christians (or the Islamicists or anyone else) possesses the god or the god-voice to be able to make any of the claims upon which their religious institutions are based.

If the Universe and the entire Cosmos was, as the intelligent design philosophers imply, somehow of other infused with what they necessarily define as pre-existing design tendency, in no sense do these ideas support the religious mythologies of any human religion be it Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism or the Vedanta religions.

But this is the mistake -- an all-too-human one to make I should say -- that all committed religionists do make. And you as a classic nit-wit of this order are so fused with this error that you will not ever be able to separate yourself from it. Error thus is structural to you.

The essence of your religious position is this: God (here I present the voice of Yahweh as the mouth of Yahweh is moved by those priests which invented the personage as in a religious mythology) has given strict commands (these are all ethical commands). If you do not obey the commands nothing particular will happen to you. But when you leave the human frame, then you will face the consequences. And you define those consequences through a strict binary: either you will be in Heaven with God or you will be in a Hell-realm without god and in a state of eternal punishment.

We have demonstrated (more accurately Harry has carefully presented proofs to you) that this idea is not just only by taking the declaration of being a just God make by that God in the Bible, which is the Bible's assertion certainly and is your assertion. Eternal punishment is unjust according to the mouthings of the god described as Yahweh and also the human-divine composite known as Jesus of Nazareth.

It does not matter much (to those who have fallen away from being convinced by a scriptural text and those who have ventured forth on paths of modernity that are not tied, emotionally and spiritually, to a Christian community and belief-system) what the Bible says or doesn't say. I read the Gospels, for example, and marvel at many aspects (elements of truth, or simply the cleverness of the entire Story), but it cannot capture me as it would have for someone, say some peasant, in some former time when no other Picture was available and therefore conceivable. We are moderns.

So what you do, you who live in a ghost-realm, is to yourself take up the mouth of that terrible intolerant Yahweh. You must thunder forth the dark anathemas! You personify that rigid intolerance. And you are absolutely in a state of self-maintained confusion when you recognize that *design* is latent in the unfolding of the Cosmos, and associate the Cosmos as being a creation of Yahweh, and the naturally necessary conclusion (of Hebrew Idea imperialism) that all other gods, all other conceptions, and any people who will not submit religiously, theologically and also politically to the Imago of god that you define (and whose mouth you now control), will suffer terrible consequences for not submitting to you.

None of this means, necessarily, that belief in divinity must be, or perhaps can be, sacrificed. We also know that the religious tendencies of man tend to show up even when *belief* has been undermined. The fixation of religiousness is built into the structure of man, isn't that right?

But the question -- for philosophical man -- is what are we going to do now? Now that we have seen and understood what we've seen and understood? We are in fact alone with each other and the choices we will have to make!

[Immanuel Can]

Of course, of course: the key question is once again ignored; snipped; obliterated from the response.

I don't deal with statements that are merely rhetorical, or simply obviously wrong.

It is a question, not a statement, and it is neither rhetorical nor wrong.

So you say. I have said why I think it's wrong...and you ignore every challenge I put to it. So I think this isn't just a case of the pot calling the kettle "black": it's more a case of you just avoiding subjecting your assumptions to any scrutiny, leaping past them, and then accusing somebody else of being unresponsive.

You use the phrase "happens to be,"

Yep, that's one horn of the dilemma.

Likewise, you use "conform to,"

Yep, that's the other.

Well, the problem is that that is two assumptions Monotheism defeats. If God is eternal, you cannot ask what He "conforms to," and cannot ask how he "happened to be" other than He is.

So, like Socrates, you need a different set of assumptions...polytheism. And not surprisingly, that was exactly what Socrates himself said he needed to pull on, in order to get his "dilemma."

If you read the Euthyphro Dialogue itself, instead of just ingesting its clipped form from Atheists, you'd already know this is true. But good news: you can still go and see it for yourself.

I simply mean, "Do you take whatever Oxford / Merriam Webster / Cambridge / etc. say as inerrant?

I take them as generally reliable documenters of what words mean. Do they get it wrong sometimes? Probably. So, no, not "inerrant", but pretty reliable by and large.

I've been over the problems with that. Firstly, that their defintions are different. Secondly, dictionaries name concepts, but do not legitimize any. (Remember? Pixies? Unicorns?). And thirdly, that their definitions don't even fit a worldview like Hinduism...at all.

I've asked you three times to show how your "justice" concept satisfies Hinduism...and you won't even try. Is it because you already know you can't?

...it means that, on your view, God gets to choose to bring into existence a person whom He knows is destined for eternal torment - when He could have chosen not to bring that person into existence, and spared that person from eternal torment.

You failed to address that reality.

The issue is simply this. What you need to ask is, "Could God have sufficient reason to bring people into existence knowing that some of them will refuse salvation?" And your implied answer is, obviously, "No."

I think you're wrong. I think, in fact, that God could not only have sufficient reason to do so, but there are important factors that make it inevitable He would have to do so. For the assumption of the Bible is that God places surpassing value on having free-will beings who freely choose to love Him. But entailed in that project is that free-wll beings have to have genuine free will; that means that they COULD, if they so choose, do other than He desires them to do. If they cannot, then analytically, they were never free at all.

So can God have sufficient reason to bring into being a world in which some people will freely choose their own destruction, so that there will also be those who will be able to freely choose to love Him?

The answer depends on how important you assess the Divine goal to be. God assesses it as surpassingly great. Those who reject that only demonstrate the truth of the axiom that freedom, love, personhood, relationship, individuality, choice, identity, consciousness...and these other surpassing goods can only be purchased by also allowing men the freedom to make ungodly, destructive, foolish and evil choices.

Ask yourself, Harry...would you rather be a predetermined robot, or would you rather have the choice of who you love, what you do, what you value, what you believe, how you act, and ultimately, where you go?

But one final thing: you never seem to respond to my repeated request that you show how "justice" can be demanded from your own worldview perspective. What is it? Is it Materialism? Evolutionism? Polytheism? Panentheisim? Atheism? Why won't you simply name what it is, and say how it issues in a promise or "right" to "justice"?

That's a glaring oversight, I would say.