The Problem of Evil

[Unsure]

I'm currently on a school trip, and circumstances involving some fake gold chains spiraled into a religious discussion, when the Problem of Evil was brought up. Basically, this:

• God exists.
• God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
• An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
• An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.
• An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
• A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
• If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.
• Evil exists (logical contradiction).

The discussion then moved to things like children with cancer and all that. Then it got more light hearted since the moment had passed and my roommates are total goofs. But I was still thinking about this; I had heard of the concept before, but this is the first time I've seriously thought about it.

Wikipedia page here.

Two questions I have; one a yes-no question, and one a discussion point.

1) Did Witness Lee touch on this at all?

2) What are the views of the brothers and sisters on this forum on this argument? (Sort of the reason why this is in Alt Views instead of Orthodoxy).

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Unsure

I'm currently on a school trip, and circumstances involving some fake gold chains spiraled into a religious discussion, when the Problem of Evil was brought up. Basically, this:

• God exists.
• God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
• An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
• An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.
• An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
• A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
• If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.
• Evil exists (logical contradiction).

The discussion then moved to things like children with cancer and all that. Then it got more light hearted since the moment had passed and my roommates are total goofs. But I was still thinking about this; I had heard of the concept before, but this is the first time I've seriously thought about it.

Wikipedia page here.

Two questions I have; one a yes-no question, and one a discussion point.

1) Did Witness Lee touch on this at all?

2) What are the views of the brothers and sisters on this forum on this argument? (Sort of the reason why this is in Alt Views instead of Orthodoxy).

1) I don't know.

2) The argument is flawed because it does not take into account the gift of free will God gives people. If beings have moral choice, they can choose evil, plain and simple. If they can't choose evil, then they don't have moral choice. A being without moral choice cannot be considered a moral being. He cannot have any appreciation for God. Being moral is all about choosing good. Only a being with moral choice can be considered in the image of God.

Thus God had two choices, create beings with moral choice, or not. In his infinite wisdom he thought doing so was the best option. What would you rather have, the chance to choose good, or never have the chance to even exist at all? I think most people would choose the former.

What about the people who are lost forever? That was their choice. What about the suffering evil caused? It was all temporary. Evil is a temporary problem. But by dealing with it in such a spectacular way, by allowing it on the stage for a time, God is working to guarantee it is never a problem again. That's pretty amazing. God's ultimate goal, I think, is to produce a universe where everyone genuinely has free will, but no one sins. For that to occur, he allows us to become personally acquainted with evil so that, someday, we will not want anything to do with it again.

[OBW]

Igzy said it well.

A couple more comment though:

On the first, Lee assumed God and did not get distracted with needing to establish that He is. And I don't have a problem with that overall.

Another consideration is that when people describe all these traits/characteristics of God, they speak of them as if they are absolutes that must be exercised to the limit else God is somehow flawed (or non-existent). Yet we are constantly bombarded with situations in which there is more than one way to respond without any of them being morally wrong. Why do we declare that God can only take the absolute way or else not be?

If there is evil and we require that God judge all of it as it happens to the full extent of His law, there would almost immediately be no one to judge because we would all be consumed in fire.

As Igzy said, if He simply knows it is about to happen and just keeps it from happening, then who could be classified as evil since evil is effectively never present.

There are a lot of theories about why God created the universe and put man in it in the way he did. But one thing is for sure — from the outset he intended that man would respond to God because man wanted to, not because God made him to do it. Therefore, for God to not restrain his powers and ultimate will would be to terminate what he created before we had the chance to think about the options. There would be no will or wanting to. We would just do it.

Instead, God set the world in motion with physical, biological, etc., rules that cause us to be born, live, and die. To interact with each other. And to recognize that there is more here than just us and a few years of life. Where the mind and will of man goes is up to him. Some just rock along from start to finish. Some track toward overt evil. And some recognize the Creator and choose to follow and obey Him. But the only way this happens is that God refrains from exercising his judgment immediately, or even before the evil occurs. We think it would be nice to have it differently. No war. No disease. No murders and robbers. No car or plane crashes. No miscarriages. Just healthy births, lives, and a quick, peaceful death at the appointed age. Or better yet, no death at all.

The result is that the apparent desire of creating beings that worship him because they decide to is not attained. Everyone is simply born a believer and will die one (or remain one forever). Not very optional.

So we like a God that is literally in charge of everything. And many constantly declare that he is. Then even they have problems when the evil in the world touches them. Why didn't God stop it?

Why? Because He is not in control of everything in that way. Could he be? Yes! But He is not. Not because he can't be but because he chooses not to be. Not saying he never intervenes. But to a great extent he has left the natural forces of the universe, including the desire for evil, in place to allow us to have more than just Him to choose from.

Sometimes when I think of it that way, I realize that even I do not always choose very well. I know what I think it is about and fail to act accordingly.

God has specified that the world is "in the evil one." While we are not sure exactly what that means, it clearly means that there is evil around us that we can complain about, ignore, join-in with, or choose to go against by choosing God.

[zeek]

Hi Unsure, welcome to Alt Views where we are free to talk about things that are forbidden on the main forum. Lee never touched on the POE as far as I know. Free will doesn't explain why children suffer and die from cancer or thousands die in earth quakes. In other words there are natural evils as well as moral human ones. But, even regarding free will, if God is infinitely intelligent and good, why didn't he create perfect humans who only make good choices?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

But, even regarding free will, if God is infinitely intelligent and good, why didn't he create perfect humans who only make good choices?

Because there is more to God than intelligence and good. There is also the ability to make decisions.

In an environment of options, to force the outcomes eliminates the possibility that anyone could choose God despite disease or other non-moral issue. Your response presumes an imperative concerning how things should be. It denies God the right to determine to not intervene.

Do you also consider that God should have simply destroyed Satan upon his rebellion? Would have made things a lot easier for us. But that was a choice of God. We want choice — free will — but the one who has the ability to grant or deny it is denied the same ability to choose?

We want God to choose to fix all evil because it costs him nothing (as far as we can see). But we are unwilling to pay more tax so that all those existing off of welfare can have a little more. (That is not my position on the subject of welfare.)

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

Because there is more to God than intelligence and good. There is also the ability to make decisions.

I'm referring to the POE in post # 1. It states that "An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils." That doesn't deny the ability to make decisions. Nor did I in my post.

In an environment of options, to force the outcomes eliminates the possibility that anyone could choose God despite disease or other non-moral issue. Your response presumes an imperative concerning how things should be. It denies God the right to determine to not intervene.

God wouldn't need to intervene if he had created a world without evil in the first place.

Do you also consider that God should have simply destroyed Satan upon his rebellion?

Post 1 states "An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence." Creating Satan, an evil being, would conflict with the nature of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God.

Would have made things a lot easier for us. But that was a choice of God. We want choice — free will — but the one who has the ability to grant or deny it is denied the same ability to choose?

Then God must either not be omnipotent, or omniscient or omnibenevolent because such a God would not create evil.

We want God to choose to fix all evil because it costs him nothing (as far as we can see). But we are unwilling to pay more tax so that all those existing off of welfare can have a little more. (That is not my position on the subject of welfare.)

The POE isn't about fixing anything. It's about why an almighty, perfect God would create an imperfect world in the first place.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Hi Unsure, welcome to Alt Views where we are free to talk about things that are forbidden on the main forum. Lee never touched on the POE as far as I know. Free will doesn't explain why children suffer and die from cancer or thousands die in earth quakes. In other words there are natural evils as well as moral human ones. But, even regarding free will, if God is infinitely intelligent and good, why didn't he create perfect humans who only make good choices?

Yeah, welcome Unsure.

And free will? I'm assuming that since it is said that God allows free will here on earth He also allows it in heaven. So is there evil in heaven?

For what it's worth Isaiah 45:7 says: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

Truth is all explanations for the problem of evil fall short if God is all those Omni's. And no matter how it washes it doesn't reflect well on God.

Take the book of Job, for example. It doesn't do justice to God either. There the effort is to try to explain why bad things happen to good people (righteous Job). The answer there can be something as simple as God could take to entering into a gambling game with the Satan (one of the sons of God, that come to gather for some fun and games, seems, that claims to be running to and fro on the earth). That doesn't say much about God ... except in the end God isn't honest with Job and starts proclaiming how big and all powerful He is, and tells Job to "Gird up now thy loins like a man" ; then proceeds to pummel him more than Job's infamous friends. Shame on God.

In the end the problem of evil is that we can't do anything about it and can't explain it ... try as we may. And yes it has caused many to become atheist or agnostic.

Well I say what my fundamentalist mother use to say: "Tough titty said the kitty, but the milk tastes good."

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

The POE isn't about fixing anything. It's about why an almighty, perfect God would create an imperfect world in the first place.

So you consider the ability to make moral choices as an imperfection.

In God's case, morality means being true to himself. In our case, morality means being true to him. So for God to be moral he must only be true to his own nature, which he is. For us to be moral, we must obey him. But the only way we can truly obey him is to have the option not to.

The problem with your argument is your definition of perfect. Your definition requires our inability to choose morally. But that is hardly perfect in the ultimate sense. For what is better, a being which can make moral choices or one who cannot? Obviously one who can is better. So perfection cannot lie in the being which cannot make moral choices. Thus to achieve true perfection God had to create us with that freedom. And with that freedom comes the possibility of making an immoral choice.

As I said, the problem is your definition of perfect. We can easily see that a life with no possibility of failure would make success meaningless. Yes, nothing "bad" could possibly happen (your definition of perfect). But nothing would have any meaning, and isn't that "bad?" So your definition of perfect cannot be accurate.

If God had created things perfect by your definition, all of us would know in our hearts that we never really had the choice to not choose good. We would know our "love" for God was not chosen, and was thus a sham. Ironically this would hardly be perfect.

This is the flaw in the problem of evil argument.

[Cal]

The problem of evil argument is essentially stating that God was wrong to give us the power of moral choice. However, no one who makes the argument is willing to give up the power of moral choice, since making the argument is itself a moral choice. So that's rather hypocritical.

But I don't think anyone here really believes the problem of evil argument. If you really did you wouldn't believe in God or would hate his guts. And I don't see evidence of that here.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

In the end the problem of evil is that we can't do anything about it and can't explain it ... try as we may.

The problem of evil only works if evil is not temporary. If suffering were eternal then it would have a point, but to eternity evil is a blip. And if God makes everything right and "wipes away every tear" and allows us to see how the process produced something better, what's to complain about?

Our problem is we don't see things from an eternal perspective, and we don't see God's ability to sort things out fairly and justly. In short, we lack faith.

Be at peace, brothers, it's going to be alright, whether you believe it or not.

[Cal]

Let me make my point another way. We all hate evil, right? I mean, you guys that are all over the problem of evil must really hate it.

But have you ever chosen evil? If you have such a problem with it, why did you choose it? Didn't you have a choice?

Isn't the reason you chose evil, ultimately, because you did not trust God and believe that he had a larger plan for you that you may not understand? Let's say you chewed somebody out because you thought laying into them was the best way to deal with the situation, supposedly, but you knew somewhere in your heart it wasn't, but you did it anyway. Why did you do that? Didn't you have a choice? Why didn't you listen to your conscience?

So evil is just the act of choosing something other that God's will. So, again, the problem of evil is really just a philosophical problem with that ability. Yet the people who argue in favor of the problem of evil are probably people who now and then, or more often, choose to go against God's will. So they complain about the ability but still exercise it. Mighty weird, if you ask me.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

So you consider the ability to make moral choices as an imperfection.

No. A perfect being would make only good moral choices.

In God's case, morality means being true to himself. In our case, morality means being true to him. So for God to be moral he must only be true to his own nature, which he is. For us to be moral, we must obey him. But the only way we can truly obey him is to have the option not to.

Which wouldn't be a problem if we were created perfect in the first place.

The problem with your argument is your definition of perfect. Your definition requires our inability to choose morally.

No. A perfectly good being, despite the possibility of choosing badly, would choose rightly every time. You know, just like you suppose God does. You can't claim that it's impossible, because you have already asserted that God does it.

But that is hardly perfect in the ultimate sense. For what is better, a being which can make moral choices or one who cannot? Obviously one who can is better. So perfection cannot lie in the being which cannot make moral choices. Thus to achieve true perfection God had to create us with that freedom. And with that freedom comes the possibility of making an immoral choice.

Again, God has absolute freedom and chooses rightly every time. God is omnipotent and so could create a perfect being just like himself.

As I said, the problem is your definition of perfect. We can easily see that a life with no possibility of failure would make success meaningless. Yes, nothing "bad" could possibly happen (your definition of perfect). But nothing would have any meaning, and isn't that "bad?" So your definition of perfect cannot be accurate.

It would follow from your argument that God, who, despite the possibility of failure always chooses rightly, has no meaning.

If God had created things perfect by your definition, all of us would know in our hearts that we never really had the choice to not choose good. We would know our "love" for God was not chosen, and was thus a sham. Ironically this would hardly be perfect.

So then, God in his heart knows he didn't really have a choice because he always choose rightly? No.

This is the flaw in the problem of evil argument.

No, it's a flaw in your position. Another one is that you haven't even addressed all the natural evils in the world. You haven't thought this thing through.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The problem of evil argument is essentially stating that God was wrong to give us the power of moral choice. However, no one who makes the argument is willing to give up the power of moral choice, since making the argument is itself a moral choice. So that's rather hypocritical.

But I don't think anyone here really believes the problem of evil argument. If you really did you wouldn't believe in God or would hate his guts. And I don't see evidence of that here.

No the POE asserts the incompatibility of evil with an absolutely powerful, intelligent and good God. If one believes that God is such, then the existence of evil is inexplicable. There may be as many responses to the problem as there are people who have seriously thought about it.

[Cal]

zeek, the previous version of this post I discarded. It was just too wordy.

Originally Posted by zeek

No the POE asserts the incompatibility of evil with an absolutely powerful, intelligent and good God. If one believes that God is such, then the existence of evil is inexplicable. There may be as many responses to the problem as there are people who have seriously thought about it.

Again, I think the problem is with the idea of what perfection is like.

Here's another way to look at it.

Either there is a perfect God or there isn't. But a non-perfect God is nonsense, because what would be the source of the standard of perfection God failed to live up to? It would have to be another, higher, God. Well, that's the one we were talking about in the first place. Let's stick to him.

The existence of evil does not prove the non-existence of a perfect God, it can only be used to prove or disprove a definition of "perfect."

If God exists, he is perfect, and we need to adapt our definition of perfect to him. If he doesn't exist, do what you want, because nothing really matters.

But the flaw in the argument is with holding to a flawed definition of perfection.

For consider...

If the end result God obtains in eternity future is superior to the result he could have gotten any other way, then the existence of evil actually served good. This is not the same thing as saying evil is good. What it is saying it that without our experiencing evil we could not have been as good, hence as perfect, as we would otherwise have been.

Therefore, yes, evil was needed to achieve perfection. That is a bit of a mystery to purists, but it need not be a show-stopper.

[Cal]

The problem of evil says that God should be able to achieve what he desires without allowing evil into the world. But not only is this assertion arbitrary, it goes against what we know from experience. Just about everyone agrees that experience is the best teacher. By definition, you cannot have an experience without actually going through it, God could not implant the memory of an experience into us that we didn't really have because that would be a lie. So in order for creation to learn the full lesson about the consequences of evil, we had to go through evil.

Does this make God less perfect or good? No, because all the suffering caused by evil is temporary (except eternal damnation, and eternal damnation can be easily avoided), and the suffering we experience can actually enhance our future experience. You need only check your human experience to know this is true.

Could God have made things otherwise? Not and achieve a creation that has been "made perfect through sufferings." A process he himself went through as Jesus (Heb 2:10). And if he put himself through it you can be sure there was good reason.

So the burden on the POE is to demonstrate that God could have achieved the best possible world without allowing evil on the scene. Since it can't do this it's really just an exercise in an arbitrary, and rather shallow, definition of "perfect."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

zeek, the previous version of this post I discarded. It was just too wordy. Again, I think the problem is with the idea of what perfection is like.

What you are suggesting is an idea of perfection that includes evil. Whereas, God's perfection must be absolute. Therefore, evil is untenable.

Here's another way to look at it. Either there is a perfect God or there isn't. But a non-perfect God is nonsense, because what would be the source of the standard of perfection God failed to live up to?

I agree. Hence, evil is a problem.

The existence of evil does not prove the non-existence of a perfect God, it can only be used to prove or disprove a definition of "perfect."

Only if your idea of perfect includes evil. That would be an evil idea of perfection that makes a travesty of it.

If God exists, he is perfect, and we need to adapt our definition of perfect to him.

We do that by making it absolute, which makes it absolutely incompatible with evil.

If he doesn't exist, do what you want, because nothing really matters.

Only if under that condition it wouldn't matter to you.

But the flaw in the argument is with holding to a flawed definition of perfection. For consider... If the end result God obtains in eternity future is superior to the result he could have gotten any other way, then the existence of evil actually served good. This is not the same thing as saying evil is good. What it is saying it that without our experiencing evil we could not have been as good, hence as perfect, as we would otherwise have been.

That is what is known as a "greater good argument." The problem is, there is no way of assessing whether or not it is the case from a human point of view.

Therefore, yes, evil was needed to achieve perfection. That is a bit of a mystery to purists, but it need not be a show-stopper.

History is not over and we have no way of demonstrating that such is the case. It is, like theism in all it's forms, a matter of faith.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The problem of evil says that God should be able to achieve what he desires without allowing evil into the world. But not only is this assertion arbitrary, it goes against what we know from experience.

That's false. The fact that it goes against experience doesn't make it arbitrary. The assertion follows logically from the premises that God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. To follow logically is the opposite of arbitrary.

Just about everyone agrees that experience is the best teacher. By definition, you cannot have an experience without actually going through it, God could not implant the memory of an experience into us that we didn't really have because that would be a lie. So in order for creation to learn the full lesson about the consequences of evil, we had to go through evil.

We wouldn't need an experience of evil if there weren't evil in the first place.

Does this make God less perfect or good? No, because all the suffering caused by evil is temporary (except eternal damnation, and eternal damnation can be easily avoided), and the suffering we experience can actually enhance our future experience. You need only check your human experience to know this is true.

All evil including temporary evil is incompatible with absolute goodness such as the POE supposes God to be. Suffering may enhance some future experiences but others apparently not. Again, you are positing faith.

Could God have made things otherwise? Not and achieve a creation that has been "made perfect through sufferings." A process he himself went through as Jesus (Heb 2:10). And if he put himself through it you can be sure there was good reason.

That's the proposition. It is supported by faith or not at all.

So the burden on the POE is to demonstrate that God could have achieved the best possible world without allowing evil on the scene. Since it can't do this it's really just an exercise in an arbitrary, and rather shallow, definition of "perfect."

No, the POE appears true on the face. The burden is on the one who thinks otherwise to show how a perfect God and evil can both exist.

[awareness]

Astrophysicists claim that in 4 billions years the Andromeda galaxy and Milky Way galaxy are going to collide. What's 4 billion years to God? Is God powerful enough to stop it? We like to think so (silly little us). Will He? Prolly not. Why? How should I or anybody know? It appears to be the natural course of all things cosmos. It seems to be just doing its thing. No God necessary.

So there goes the earth, and everything on it. What's it to God? According to the Bible all He has to do is say "Let it be." And voila, a whole 'nother earth ... and whole 'nother human species. Maybe that one will be perfect, free will and all. God could just as easily say "let perfection be."

I think the fact that evil exists shaped the depiction of God in the Bible. And by the way, there are no Omni's in the Bible. They are extra-Biblical human extrapolations. We say, for example, that God is all loving. John in the NT goes so far as to say : "God is love." Let me ask a question. Did God love all those he drowned(sic) in the flood, and all those innocent critters too? If that's the ideal of love I'm not sure I want any part of it. To me a world wide flood would be the very definition of evil.

Writing is a rather late invention. And Bible authors and books came even later. Evil had been around as long as it could be remembered and imagined.

That's why I say that the existence of evil shaped the depiction of God in the Bible. Cuz the Bible makes it pretty clear that ultimately God is behind evil.

And what are you going to do about it? In the end all we can do is idealize God, as we think He may be. We still need God, or some of us do, even if it doesn't all add up.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Astrophysicists claim that in 4 billions years the Andromeda galaxy and Milky Way galaxy are going to collide. What's 4 billion years to God? Is God powerful enough to stop it? We like to think so (silly little us). Will He? Prolly not. Why? How should I or anybody know? It appears to be the natural course of all things cosmos. It seems to be just doing its thing. No God necessary.

So there goes the earth, and everything on it. What's it to God? According to the Bible all He has to do is say "Let it be." And voila, a whole 'nother earth ... and whole 'nother human species. Maybe that one will be perfect, free will and all. God could just as easily say "let perfection be."

I think the fact that evil exists shaped the depiction of God in the Bible. And by the way, there are no Omni's in the Bible. They are extra-Biblical human extrapolations. We say, for example, that God is all loving. John in the NT goes so far as to say : "God is love." Let me ask a question. Did God love all those he drowned(sic) in the flood, and all those innocent critters too? If that's the ideal of love I'm not sure I want any part of it. To me a world wide flood would be the very definition of evil.

Writing is a rather late invention. And Bible authors and books came even later. Evil had been around as long as it could be remembered and imagined.

That's why I say that the existence of evil shaped the depiction of God in the Bible. Cuz the Bible makes it pretty clear that ultimately God is behind evil.

And what are you going to do about it? In the end all we can do is idealize God, as we think He may be. We still need God, or some of us do, even if it doesn't all add up.

Looks like you are taking a giant leap of unfaith to me.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Looks like you are taking a giant leap of unfaith to me.

Prolly bigger than a mustard seed ... the smallest of seeds ... NOT!

[Cal]

If the POE really has teeth the only conclusion is that God is not perfect. But I don't think you really believe that. So in your heart you must believe there is something wrong with the POE argument. I've given you one option. But it seems odd to defend the POE then continue with reverence for God.

I've accepted that God's final result requires that we grapple directly with evil, and that the final result will be better that anything he could have achieved without that experience. Arguments that a "good" God would not allow that are based on a presumption that we have complete knowledge of what "good" is. But though we know roughly what it means, we do not know completely. Often our definition of good clashes with God's, and we have to adjust. God is going to show us what it means. That's what his being glorified is about.

But it's easy for anyone to understand how short-term suffering produces long-term good. Having to learn anything is often painful. The POE would say we shouldn't have to learn anything, because learning can be painful--God should have just created us with complete knowledge of everything, so we wouldn't have to suffer the evil pain of learning. Sounds silly doesn't it? Well, just apply it in a universal way and you have your answer to the POE.

You might say that the suffering of learning how to use a TV remote control can't compare to the worst suffering we see in the world. That's true, but the Bible says that none of that suffering can compare with the positive which which will result from going through it.

Since all evil is temporary, God's using it to produce a greater good cannot be called "evil" in the way the POE means it.

Yes, so in the end we need to have faith that God is good and that we do not know fully what "good" is. But believing that the POE trumps God take faith, too, that is the faith that you know completely what "good" really means.

I prefer trusting God over the idea that I know completely what "good" means.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

If the POE really has teeth the only conclusion is that God is not perfect.

Well, no, there are other possible conclusions including that God doesn't exist.

But I don't think you really believe that. So in your heart you must believe there is something wrong with the POE argument. I've given you one option. But it seems odd to defend the POE then continue with reverence for God.

One that is by no means necessary or complete.

I've accepted that God's final result requires that we grapple directly with evil, and that the final result will be better that anything he could have achieved without that experience.

Which I pointed out was a faith position not one of knowledge.

Arguments that a "good" God would not allow that are based on a presumption that we have complete knowledge of what "good" is. But though we know roughly what it means, we do not know completely. Often our definition of good clashes with God's, and we have to adjust. God is going to show us what it means. That's what his being glorified is about.

So you are arguing from ignorance now? But it can't be merely "often". Everything we call evil must be good or God cannot be absolutely good which is what the POE proposes.

But it's easy for anyone to understand how short-term suffering produces long-term good. Having to learn anything is often painful. The POE would say we shouldn't have to learn anything, because learning can be painful--God should have just created us with complete knowledge of everything, so we wouldn't have to suffer the evil pain of learning. Sounds silly doesn't it? Well, just apply it in a universal way and you have your answer to the POE. You might say that the suffering of learning how to use a TV remote control can't compare to the worst suffering we see in the world. That's true, but the Bible says that none of that suffering can compare with the positive which which will result from going through it.

When a person is murdered, how do they learn from it?

Since all evil is temporary, God's using it to produce a greater good cannot be called "evil" in the way the POE means it.

So now you are arguing that temporary evil is good. Isaiah 5:20 says "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil." God's goodness is supposed to be absolute, so it cannot be evil in the slightest even for a nanosecond.

Yes, so in the end we need to have faith that God is good and that we do not know fully what "good" is. But believing that the POE trumps God takes faith, too, that is the faith that you know completely what "good" really means.

The POE is a syllogism. It can be taken in an infinite amount of ways subjectively. However, since it is logical, reasonable minds will only accept counter arguments that are logical.

I prefer trusting God over the idea that I know completely what "good" means.

That strikes me as an intellectually dishonest response. As an adult you can't help but have experienced evil. And now you're going to claim you don't know what it is? That's bad faith. No one would ever repent if they did not know what evil is. If you never repented, how is it you became a Christian?

Why not admit that you just can't figure out how God and evil can co-exist?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Why not admit that you just can't figure out how God and evil can co-exist?

I have figured it out, to my own satisfaction. I've already explained how. You not agreeing doesn't surprise me and it certainly doesn't bother me.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I have figured it out, to my own satisfaction. I've already explained how. You not agreeing doesn't surprise me and it certainly doesn't bother me.

I don't believe you. God as defined in the POE is incompatible with evil. It's not about me. Your argument is as absurd as stating that a bachelor is slightly married. You should be able to see the illogic of that yourself.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

That strikes me as an intellectually dishonest response. As an adult you can't help but have experienced evil. And now you're going to claim you don't know what it is? That's bad faith. No one would ever repent if they did not know what evil is. If you never repented, how is it you became a Christian?

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't believe you. God as defined in the POE is incompatible with evil. It's not about me. Your argument is as absurd as stating that a bachelor is slightly married. You should be able to see the illogic of that yourself.

Great discussion.

Too bad ole zeek's circuits got overloaded at the end, and he made it personal.

To him, Jesus has become the Stone of Stumbling and the Rock of Offense.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Great discussion.

Too bad ole zeek's circuits got overloaded at the end, and he made it personal.

To him, Jesus has become the Stone of Stumbling and the Rock of Offense.

Pride will do that to you.

[Cal]

What's odd about this discussion is that God clearly exists and we all believe he does. Evil clearly exists. So the discussion must really be about what kind of God we have.

I believe that God is perfect, but still is using evil to achieve a greater good. I think that belief has integrity.

Zeek disagrees. But he hasn't said what kind of God he believes in. But plainly he must believe that God is not all-good or not all-powerful, or in some other way imperfect. Okay what does that mean for us?

I think an imperfect God is more contradictory than the idea that God and evil can "co-exist." How can God not be perfect? Where do we get the definition of perfect if not from who God is? So if you are going to believe the POE then the only honest conclusion is to not believe in God at all. But an imperfect God is a contradiction in terms.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Great discussion.

Too bad ole zeek's circuits got overloaded at the end, and he made it personal.

To him, Jesus has become the Stone of Stumbling and the Rock of Offense.

Great to hear from you bro Ohio. But it rubs me the wrong way to bring Jesus into the POE. I don't know exactly why but I can't see Jesus as part of it.

But I also can't see God as part of it either. Evil, to me, can't come from Jesus or God the Father. It just can't. It doesn't add up ... doesn't fit.

I want a world where good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people. That's the kind of world a all powerful, all knowing, all caring God would create.

God doesn't have anything to do with bad people doing bad things to good people. That's a result of free will.

But that doesn't explain bad things happening to good people that have nothing to do with free will ; that have nothing to do with bad people.

So why do we live in a world where bad things happen to good people, that's beyond what people do to people, that's caused by powers that can only be attributed to forces far greater than us ; forces that can only be attributed to a god of some kind ; that seems to be behind it?

I honestly can't answer that question. I'm stumped. I know a all powerful God, that knows about it, and cares about it, could have anything to do with it.

There must be some other very powerful god behind it. A demiurge perhaps. How do I know? I can't even figure out the forces that harm good people, much less what's behind them.

But ultimately the almighty God has to be behind every thing ; the almighty God that I love. And I hate to impinge those that I love. So somehow I have to exclude God from the undeniable existence of bad things happening to good people.

And I have to admit that I'm unable to do that ; that I'm flummoxed. And by looking into the matter, and reading and listening to other greater minds than mine, I see no one else has come up with satisfactory answers either.

And I think that for those of us that love God it would be best, and more honest, if we just admitted that we can't explain it, and let the chips fall where they may.

If the POE causes people to become disbelievers in the God we love so be it. I certainly can't blame them. I hope the best for them. It's a big problem for the God that we love. When a bad thing happened to my good son I shook my fist in anger at God. To this day I don't understand it. When tragedy happens close to home it's another story.

Surely God will eventually do something about it. But that doesn't make Him look good either ; the fact that He could do something about it right now and don't.

All this is God's problem. The POE is God's problem. Well, and the problem of all the good people that bad things happen to. Let's hope that we're not one of them. With the death of my son, and the local church, I've already had my share.

[Cal]

Hey Harold,

It certainly bothers me when I see bad things happen to good people, especially children. But imperfections of this world--weather, disease, unintended negative consequences, etc--those are all things we brought on ourselves through the fall. So free will caused them, too. If you have ever rebelled against God in your life you are part of the problem, so don't claim to not be involved. If every person turned to God in an honest, sincere way of faith and repentance, you would see the world change immediately.

God is not interested in waving a magic wand and fixing everything. He's interested in us showing faith and obedience and changing the world through us. He's interested in our hearts. The situation we are in is a proving ground for our hearts. That's what it is all about.

Innocents do suffer but (1) all suffering is temporary. It seems huge to us, but in the eternal sense it's a blip, (2) God will make everything right and judge everything fairly. Everyone has a change to believe and repent, whether they heard of Jesus or not. Jesus is God's solution, not his trick question. Christ's death is applied to everyone who has genuine faith, whether they heard of him or not. So no one need suffer eternally. The Bible says God will wipe every tear. This means in the end we will not be crippled by the suffering we experienced. In fact, we will be better for it.

Again, what's to complain about? That we suffered? Tell that to the Super Bowl champions who suffered through months of practice to win the championship. Tell them that their Coach didn't know what he was doing.

That is why the POE misses the mark. It has a warped view of what is truly good. If the POE was true then we would have to say it is evil to have to exercise to get into shape, since exercise is painful and pain is evil. It's just a very shallow and needle-headed view of good.

Originally Posted by awareness

Surely God will eventually do something about it. But that doesn't make Him look good either ; the fact that He could do something about it right now and don't.

He is doing something. He's telling you to do something. He's telling millions to do something.

Are you obeying?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Zeek disagrees. But he hasn't said what kind of God he believes in.

The liberal scholar Bart Ehrman has used the POE to destroy the faith of many, including his own. Eve herself in the garden was trapped by the same apparent anomaly.

Our God, in His infinite wisdom, while demanding that we believe in Him (and Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness), has left obstacles such as the POE to obstruct our way.

Looking back on my life, I too could have many complaints about God to bring to the judgment seat. Somehow, by His mercy, I have decided to accept His ways, and try to go along with His program. As Pascal's wager demands, I believe I have made the safer and wiser choice.

[Cal]

Since the negative consequences of our disobedience can have such far-reaching consequences, it would seem that we should be very careful about being obedient. This is especially true for those who lament the evil in the world and say God should do something, since God manifestly does things through people. But the people who complain that God isn't doing enough are usually those who are sitting on the couch, eating popcorn and watching the show with a critical eye. This tells me they are more interested in being critics that actually seeing change. Their complaints ring a bit hollow.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Great to hear from you bro Ohio. But it rubs me the wrong way to bring Jesus into the POE. I don't know exactly why but I can't see Jesus as part of it.

Hey bro! Hope your health is improving. In this life many things are just not fair. We have talked about this many times, and have actually encouraged one another during our tribulations. Because of them we may have more joy in the next life.

What happened to Jesus on the cross was not fair, and just thinking about that is a total game-changer for me. On that cross, all of God's love and righteousness collided. It was singularly the most significant event of all history. I believe that we should not define God by the POE or by our tribulations, but by that cross.

When I was first saved, due to numerous personal issues, I would tell everyone that this life was just a preparation for the next. That was my gospel. A far better life is planned for God's children! I definitely believe that God is inherently fair, and that all inequities of the present age will one day be made right. We have a daughter who was born retarded, and then developed adult mental illness, a very rare combination. Few of us "got it" worse than her, but one day God will release her from her body of death.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Great discussion.

Too bad ole zeek's circuits got overloaded at the end, and he made it personal.

Oh look "circuit overload". That's a Harold trope. I know nothing of Igzy's person but what he put's on the page, and that's all I'm dealing with.

To him, Jesus has become the Stone of Stumbling and the Rock of Offense.

I don't recall stumbling over Jesus. You're the first to mention him in this discussion. Do you have a point you're trying to make?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Pride will do that to you.

If you knew me, I think you would see how funny your diagnosis is. Really, I'm a broken man.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

If you knew me, I think you would see how funny your diagnosis is. Really, I'm a broken man.

Heck of a disguise.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

What's odd about this discussion is that God clearly exists and we all believe he does.

I know I do.

Evil clearly exists.

Too true.

So the discussion must really be about what kind of God we have.

To you evidently it is. For me, it's about logic.

I believe that God is perfect, but still is using evil to achieve a greater good. I think that belief has integrity.

The notion that God uses evil contradicts His absolute holiness. Shame on you for suggesting that He would have anything to do with evil. That would be an "end justifies the means" argument. You are dragging God down to the level of human motivation.

Zeek disagrees. But he hasn't said what kind of God he believes in

I believe in an ineffable God. All we are doing here is effing.

But plainly he must believe that God is not all-good or not all-powerful, or in some other way imperfect. Okay what does that mean for us?

Au contraire, I accept that God is all powerful, all wise and all good just as the POE posits.

I think an imperfect God is more contradictory than the idea that God and evil can "co-exist."

Unlike induction, a deductive syllogism is an all or nothing proposition. You can't have "more or less." The syllogism is either contradictory or not.

How can God not be perfect? Where do we get the definition of perfect if not from who God is? So if you are going to believe the POE then the only honest conclusion is to not believe in God at all. But an imperfect God is a contradiction in terms.

Good point except as you said earlier, we have both God and evil in our experience. If that weren't so I would be an atheist. But, the POE is logical. Therefore, our experience is not logical. Life is fundamentally irrational.

[Cal]

The notion that God uses evil contradicts His absolute holiness. Shame on you for suggesting that He would have anything to do with evil

God used the evil of the cross to redeem us. You don't need to look any further than that.

So you believe God is perfect, and you believe evil exists. But you don't believe a perfect God would allow evil to exist. That's not logical. What am I missing? Are you just playing the devil's advocate? What point are you trying to make?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't believe you. God as defined in the POE is incompatible with evil. It's not about me. Your argument is as absurd as stating that a bachelor is slightly married. You should be able to see the illogic of that yourself.

I think that you will find that the problem is in the definition. The thesis has been defined in such a manner that the intended outcome (either no God or no room for evil) is a given. But is the definition of God ever given in the way that the POE defines it (other than within the definition given by the POE)?

Looks very much like a form of begging the question. Declare as a fact something not actually given and based on that declaration arrive at the intended conclusion.

The responses provided by myself and Igzy (and probably the others) do not simply accept the definition provided in the POE exercise. And the fact that the POE exercise simply states does not force it to be true. Rather than pointing to the definition of God in the POE.

As for "perfect," that is actually something in the eye of the beholder. Perfection to me may not be perfection to you. And if there is a God, then his definition of perfection is ultimately the only one that counts past this life. Putting my definition of perfection on him, or yours for that matter, does not cause the POE premises to be true. Just true according to your (or my) thoughts of what should be true.

And if I am remembering correctly, the Bible never actually provides a specific statement of any actual "omnis" as we declare them in these exercises. Nothing states God as being ultimate love that excludes the possibility of judgment and/or punishment. Or that God's will is so all-consuming that he could not choose to allow for things to no go according to some aspect of his nature for some period of time for any purposes of his design.

So if you declare that God's love is so overwhelming that it precludes his ability to allow any of his created beings to experience any kind of evil other than what they choose for themselves through moral choices, then you would be correct to declare that the god that is defined by the POE does not exist. But are you sure that the God of the Bible is correctly defined in that way and is therefore bound to the inquiry as defined.

So rather than determining that the problem as defined has ousted God, question whether the problem as defined is a correct representation of anything claimed by and about God within the only actual source we have — the Bible. When you can assert that it is stated consistently with the Bible, then we can discuss the outcome of the analysis.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I want a world where good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people. That's the kind of world a all powerful, all knowing, all caring God would create.

Only God is good. We, however, are all bad. You know the old verse, "All men have sinned and come short ..." Only the Man Jesus was good, and look what happened to Him. He didn't even get a court-appointed attorney. Never got to post bail.

How about we redefine "good," since none of us can meet that standard. How about we change that to "righteous?" Like father "Abraham who believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness." So ... now we have two kinds of people, the righteous and the unrighteous, a.k.a. the believing and the unbelieving.

In your "good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people kind of world an all powerful, all knowing, all caring God would create," that's exactly what is going to happen! Perhaps not in this life, but definitely in the next. Good things will happen to the believing, and bad things to the unbelieving.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

God used the evil of the cross to redeem us. You don't need to look any further than that.

God used evil. That statement says it all. It shatters the POE.

Paul said it all in I Cor 2 ...

However, we do speak a wisdom among the mature, but not a wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who will come to nought. On the contrary, we speak God's hidden wisdom in a mystery, a wisdom God predestined before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age knew this wisdom, for if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written: What eye did not see and ear did not hear, and what never entered the human mind-- God prepared this for those who love Him.

Ole zeek may be a bright guy, wise in his own eyes, but Paul shows us that his argument, like the Greeks of old, is childishly immature. Real wisdom comes not by merely knowing, but by believing and loving God.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

So rather than determining that the problem as defined has ousted God, question whether the problem as defined is a correct representation of anything claimed by and about God within the only actual source we have — the Bible. When you can assert that it is stated consistently with the Bible, then we can discuss the outcome of the analysis.

In other words, the POE sets up a strawman God and then shoots him down.

The flaw in the argument is in the mushy, abstract, theoretical ideas of "good" and "evil" and their relationship. Hidden in the definition is a stipulation that good cannot have anything to do with evil. But good using evil is not the same as good doing evil.

There is an old movie called "Absence of Malice" starring Paul Newman. He was an importer who happened to know some mobsters, but was himself clean. The DA office tried to squeeze info out of him by putting public heat on him. Some of their public pressure exposed an abortion a Catholic friend of his had, and, shamed, she committed suicide. Newman, knowing he was being watched, responded by doing things that could have been construed as suspicious--making anonymous political contributions, making phone calls, meeting people--but were not wrong. In other words, he gave the DA office just enough rope to hang themselves, and they did. (Seeing Wilford Brimley's performance at the end is worth admission.)

Was Newman evil? No, but he used the evil of his tormentors to do them in. God does something similar. If you choose evil God will turn that evil on you to deal with you. But he will not engage in evil himself. It's called justice.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The liberal scholar Bart Ehrman has used the POE to destroy the faith of many, including his own.

Destroying of faith has more to do with the problem of evil than it does with Professor Bart Ehrman. Shame on you for pickin' on ol' Bart. He's a born-againer, and Baptist preacher to boot. And he's married to a believing Christian. Put yourself in his shoes. Add to that the POE and you've got yourself into a real pickle with God. Be careful. It happened to Ehrman, and it could happen to you too. Plus, he's right, the POE is "God's Problem." That's why he wrote a book with that very title. It's a good book. He tries to dig out what the Bible says about the POE. He didn't find much. Maybe he needs correction by all you fine folks ... who should at least understand the pickle Ehrman got himself into when he applied is academic brain to God and the POE.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

God used the evil of the cross to redeem us. You don't need to look any further than that.

So you believe God is perfect, and you believe evil exists. But you don't believe a perfect God would allow evil to exist. That's not logical. What am I missing? Are you just playing the devil's advocate? What point are you trying to make?

We have both admitted that evil is part of human experience. And the Bible states that God is perfect. Therefore, the cross is a fundamental contradiction to the nature of God. That's why God's death on the cross is the most profound paradox. From the standpoint of reason such a proposition is utterly absurd. Yet, it is the unavoidable implication of the New Testament according to orthodox theology.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

I think that you will find that the problem is in the definition. The thesis has been defined in such a manner that the intended outcome (either no God or no room for evil) is a given. But is the definition of God ever given in the way that the POE defines it (other than within the definition given by the POE)?

Looks very much like a form of begging the question. Declare as a fact something not actually given and based on that declaration arrive at the intended conclusion.

The responses provided by myself and Igzy (and probably the others) do not simply accept the definition provided in the POE exercise. And the fact that the POE exercise simply states does not force it to be true. Rather than pointing to the definition of God in the POE.

As for "perfect," that is actually something in the eye of the beholder. Perfection to me may not be perfection to you. And if there is a God, then his definition of perfection is ultimately the only one that counts past this life. Putting my definition of perfection on him, or yours for that matter, does not cause the POE premises to be true. Just true according to your (or my) thoughts of what should be true.

And if I am remembering correctly, the Bible never actually provides a specific statement of any actual "omnis" as we declare them in these exercises. Nothing states God as being ultimate love that excludes the possibility of judgment and/or punishment. Or that God's will is so all-consuming that he could not choose to allow for things to no go according to some aspect of his nature for some period of time for any purposes of his design.

So if you declare that God's love is so overwhelming that it precludes his ability to allow any of his created beings to experience any kind of evil other than what they choose for themselves through moral choices, then you would be correct to declare that the god that is defined by the POE does not exist. But are you sure that the God of the Bible is correctly defined in that way and is therefore bound to the inquiry as defined.

So rather than determining that the problem as defined has ousted God, question whether the problem as defined is a correct representation of anything claimed by and about God within the only actual source we have — the Bible. When you can assert that it is stated consistently with the Bible, then we can discuss the outcome of the analysis.

You are espousing a gnostic conception of God that is lower than the absolute ultimate one which is the God that the Bible proposes. I can't accept that, though there are plenty of heretical sects out there that do.

[awareness]

Brother Unsure please come back and save us.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

We have both admitted that evil is part of human experience. And the Bible states that God is perfect. Therefore, the cross is a fundamental contradiction to the nature of God. That's why God's death on the cross is the most profound paradox. From the standpoint of reason such a proposition is utterly absurd. Yet, it is the unavoidable implication of the New Testament according to orthodox theology.

Things about God that seem paradoxical are just things we don't understand, not things that are ultimately absurd. No paradoxes exist in God, we just don't understand them yet.

This is why people who let the POE or any other hard-hearted questioning of God stumble them are fools. You can argue all day that it's "God's problem," for all the good it will do you. But in the end, when your eyes are opened, you'll say, "Oops. Guess I was wrong. Can I get a do-over?" Good luck with that.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Brother Unsure please come back and save us.

Has the Moderator Of The Age thrown in the towel?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Has the Moderator Of The Age thrown in the towel?

The MOTA has not thrown in the towel ... I have plenty of impossible answers concerning the POE.

But brother Unsure put us in this pickle. A pickle indeed it surely is.

And if Unsure finds it just as puzzling I'd like to hear his testimony.

Or what? Did he drop the bomb and run like hell?

Personally I don't like to think of both the undeniable existence of God and the undeniable existence of evil at the same time. It's the quintessential cognitive dissonance.

It hurts me pea brain ... And makes me head-circuits snap, crackle, and pop -- Rice Krispies going off in me head.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Hey Harold,

And back atchya ... it's great to have you around again. Where the-heck have you been?

Thanks for the reply. And I appreciate your words on obedience, but bad things happen to the obeisant too. That's part of the POE we're trying to figure out.

Tell me if I understand it. Evil is undeniable. It exists. And when we bring God into the equation, that's undeniably perfect in every way, there's undeniable questions of how that can be.

And we're unable to solve this problem in any convincing way, that doesn't question God's perfection in some way.

In the end shouldn't we just ignore the POE? It's a very uncomfortable problem. And there's no solution. It's something that's been "just is" for a long long time.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Things about God that seem paradoxical are just things we don't understand, not things that are ultimately absurd. No paradoxes exist in God, we just don't understand them yet.

How do you know this?

This is why people who let the POE or any other hard-hearted questioning of God stumble them are fools.

It's a genuine logical problem regardless of one's emotional reaction to it.

You can argue all day that it's "God's problem," for all the good it will do you.

I haven't argued that at all. You're confusing me with someone else.

But in the end, when your eyes are opened, you'll say, "Oops. Guess I was wrong. Can I get a do-over?" Good luck with that.

How do you know this?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

How do you know this?

Because there are no contradictions in perfection.

It's a genuine logical problem regardless of one's emotional reaction to it.

No, it is an exercise in semantics.

I haven't argued that at all. You're confusing me with someone else.

I never said you argued it. Harold did. But you kind of have that attitude as well, in a passive way. If God is perfect and evil exists then the POE is, ultimately, a bust. Since you keep acting like it's this brilliant insight when it's just a word game, you are implying God did something wrong.

How do you know this?

Because if God is perfect it's stupid to think he has done anything wrong. And if God isn't perfect we have a lot bigger problems that the POE and it would be stupid to sit here arguing about it.

It's also stupid to think we are smarter than God. The wiser path is simply to say it doesn't make sense to me yet, but I know God is good and ultimately in control, and will make all clear.

Are you saying you need to understand everything before you will trust God?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

And back atchya ... it's great to have you around again. Where the-heck have you been?

Had to back away for awhile for several reasons. Clear my head. Focus on my business, etc.

Thanks for the reply. And I appreciate your words on obedience, but bad things happen to the obeisant too. That's part of the POE we're trying to figure out.

Bad things work for good for the obedient. You have to look no further than a football team that goes through the pain of extra workouts to be champions. Pain is evil, right? But it worked good. Do you have a philosophical problem with that?

Tell me if I understand it. Evil is undeniable. It exists. And when we bring God into the equation, that's undeniably perfect in every way, there's undeniable questions of how that can be.

I understand the question. I just don't understand why it's such a stumper for some people. God allowed evil on the scene because having us and him go through it makes the ultimate result better. Challenges make the ultimate result better. That's just a reality apparently. God's reality is real reality, not some theoretical idea of "good" that some philosopher dreamed up. Best jump in and enjoy it.

And we're unable to solve this problem in any convincing way, that doesn't question God's perfection in some way.

I think I have solved it in a convincing way. I don't understand everything. But the POE doesn't bother me anymore. I'm not saying I'm not bothered when bad things happen to people. I am. But I'm not bothered philosophically by the existence of evil.

In the end shouldn't we just ignore the POE? It's a very uncomfortable problem. And there's no solution. It's something that's been "just is" for a long long time.

What is the alternative? To think there is something wrong with God? To think God doesn't exist?

Seemingly sound logical arguments can be very deceptive. Take for example the argument that if God is all-powerful he should be able to create a rock too heavy for himself to lift. Sounds impressive, huh? But it's just a word game. The POE is the moral equivalent of the heavy rock problem.

[Cal]

To sum up my views on the POE:

God is completely perfect and good.

God is the definition of good. Therefore to be good, God simply needs to follow himself. There is no external code God follows to be good. He's just simply being himself. Therefore whatever he does is not only good, but the definition of good.

Evil is anything contrary to God, therefore evil is choosing anything contrary to God.

God gave us free will to choose him. He didn't want robots.

Since genuine free will exists, choosing evil is a genuine possibility. If choosing evil was not a genuine possibility, we would not have genuine free will and could not choose God/good in the free and willing way God desires.

We chose evil. And fell.

God's response was to take all that evil on himself, to absorb it effectively, by bearing the consequences on the cross as Jesus, to deal with the problem. In other words, he took responsibility.

Time is the period in which God's plan is being worked out. The residual effects of evil, the dysfunctional natural world, are still with us, because God expects us to cooperate with him to completely deal with it.

God's ultimate aim is what POE advocates say he should have created in the first place--a place where free will exists, but everyone is always good. But such a thing--created beings with genuine free will with continuous and complete moral perfection-- could not just be created with a snap because such a thing can only to be gained through genuine experience, which requires the process we are going through.

So although you cannot say this is the best possible world, you have to say it is the best way to the best possible world. Saying it is not is either saying God is flawed or his goal is not the best possible world.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Because if God is perfect it's stupid to think he has done anything wrong. And if God isn't perfect we have a lot bigger problems that the POE and it would be stupid to sit here arguing about it.

Great response. A little wisdom puts in all in perspective.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Great response. A little wisdom puts in all in perspective.

Thanks.

Let me put my views in logical terms for our fans of "logic."

(1) I cannot logically conceive of a possibility that God does not exist, because there had to be something at the beginning other than matter.

(2) I cannot logically conceive of a possibility that God is not perfect, because by what standard other than God would you judge?

(3) Therefore God exists and is perfect. Therefore, the world as it is does not contradict that, no matter what we think.

(4) Therefore, when there are questions, we should conform our concept of good to what we know of God, rather than conforming our concept of God to what we think is "good."

[Cal]

Sorry for all the posts, but my mind gets on a roll and I have to write.

Let's put the lessons here in practical terms. Those who believe the POE must believe that life is ultimately unfair, and that any event in their lives may be meant to their detriment. So they must go through life constantly suspicious, afraid, resentful and angry. Ultimately hopeless.

But believing in a good God means we can believe that no matter what happens to us or anyone else, it was for our ultimate good.

This equips us with an extremely positive and empowering attitude. We can know in any situation there is a nugget of gold for us. We may not see it, we may not always find it, but it is there... always. Hope wins.

I just experienced it this morning. It's hard to explain, but God showed me how, in the light of what we've been talking about, if I have a truly positive attitude, I can learn things I'd never learn by being a cynical grump.

Often we face seeming absurdities. Why did this bad thing happen? Why can't I get my business going? Why don't people understand me? In each and every case, there is a nugget, maybe more than one, for us to gain. And something we could have never gained without going through the experience.

The problem is we often miss these nuggets. Why? Because we've assumed the attitude of those who hold to the POE--that it is wrong that evil, in whatever form it assumes, is present--so we are constantly complaining about it inwardly, rather than looking for the nugget of gold the problem is meant to lead us to.

What about when a child dies, or suffers? We must remember then that all suffering in the light of eternity is a blip. The child's suffering may not be for him, but for someone else. It hurts us to see children suffer. I can't imagine losing one of my children, and don't want to, and hope it never happens. But I do know that I could eventually take comfort in the fact that he was with God, and that I will be reunited with him.

The question is, do you want the nugget, or don't you. In the end, none of us will have anything to complain about, and a lot to be thankful for. So why not start enjoying that, as much as we can, right now?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

(4) Therefore, when there are questions, we should conform our concept of good to what we know of God, rather than conforming our concept of God to what we think is "good."

Israel constantly went astray and God would judge them. The leaders, and the nation as a whole, would go so far as unbelief, rejecting Yahweh, and bowing down to idols made by their own hands.

It was not until some of them in Israel repented, fell on their knees, and opened God's word, did they realize that the disasters inflicting them were all self-induced. Only thru such difficulties did they ever "conform their concept of good to what they knew of God."

Thus God "uses evil" in a plethora of forms to help us. Unfortunately some never get it, but for those who do, they will forever thank Him for the "evil" they endured.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

You are espousing a gnostic conception of God that is lower than the absolute ultimate one which is the God that the Bible proposes. I can't accept that, though there are plenty of heretical sects out there that do.

If when you say "absolute" you mean that He is absolutely God, then I agree. And when you say that he is the "ultimate," then I also agree.

But if you mean that he MUST act absolutely full-bore with his love and power where evil is concerned because "he is not willing that any should perish" or some other statement that does not necessarily mean that he is unwilling to allow anyone to perish because he can stop it, then I do no agree.

Neither do I agree that his forbearance in dealing with evil of any kind means that he is somehow deficient, therefore not the God that the "Bible proposes."

BTW, do you want to provide a series of proof texts to establish that the God the Bible proposes is what the Problem of Evil definitions use? Just labeling a belief that differs from yours as being gnostic or otherwise heretical does not define anything.

Do you presume that everything in doctrines is either all right or all wrong? Do you think that it is entirely Calvinism or Arminianism without any ground for something from both? Is the creation 6 days, 6,000 years, or millions of years encapsulated in "days" as dividers of the description of the parts of the creation (and not necessarily a chronology)? Or something else? Might it be that there is more of a continuum of possibility and that the process of ousting the heretics made everything polar. The middle ground in which there was overlap of thought was eliminated in the fight

Besides, you malign my position with your strawman answer. My position is not that God is less than all-powerful, all-knowing, the very definition of righteousness, etc. Rather, it is that God, just like you or me, has the right to delay judgment on unrighteousness and evil. Besides, since you seem worried about the gnostic heresy of not believing everything in the Bible in the way that the majority do, it would seem that you would then have to contend with the presence of an "evil one."

Or is Satan and Hell somehow a misreading of the Bible?

Assuming that last question was not really to you, then there is evil beyond just moral choices. There is one capable of the destruction of the body.

Do we presume that an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-righteous God who is defined as being love therefore must simply stop everything emanating from this evil one? Now? No delay?

Do we presume that there is nothing to be gained from things being as they are?

And if it is Creator's mind that is the ultimate, then what he decides is the highest gain is not subject to question by the creation.

I am not saying that we are not allowed to question. That we cannot wrestle with God about how things are. As Jacob did centuries ago. As C.S. Lewis did upon the death of his wife, Joy. As many still do in the midst of terrible tragedies of nature, disease, and the hand of man.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Because there are no contradictions in perfection.

That's what makes the POE problematic in the first place.

No, it is an exercise in semantics.

There are serious semantic problems in the POE. The logical force of the argument depends on our assumption that we know what God, omnipotence, omniscience, omni-benevolence and evil mean. On closer examination we find that each of these terms are symbols that bring us to the limits of human understanding.

I never said you argued it. Harold did. But you kind of have that attitude as well, in a passive way. If God is perfect and evil exists then the POE is, ultimately, a bust. Since you keep acting like it's this brilliant insight when it's just a word game, you are implying God did something wrong.

If it's just a word game, why are you spending so much time and words trying to refute it?

Because if God is perfect it's stupid to think he has done anything wrong. And if God isn't perfect we have a lot bigger problems that the POE and it would be stupid to sit here arguing about it.

I hope you were laughing when you typed that.

It's also stupid to think we are smarter than God. The wiser path is simply to say it doesn't make sense to me yet, but I know God is good and ultimately in control, and will make all clear.

True.

Are you saying you need to understand everything before you will trust God?

No.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

To sum up my views on the POE:

God is completely perfect and good.

God is the definition of good. Therefore to be good, God simply needs to follow himself. There is no external code God follows to be good. He's just simply being himself. Therefore whatever he does is not only good, but the definition of good.

Evil is anything contrary to God, therefore evil is choosing anything contrary to God.

God gave us free will to choose him. He didn't want robots.

Since genuine free will exists, choosing evil is a genuine possibility. If choosing evil was not a genuine possibility, we would not have genuine free will and could not choose God/good in the free and willing way God desires.

We chose evil. And fell.

God's response was to take all that evil on himself, to absorb it effectively, by bearing the consequences on the cross as Jesus, to deal with the problem. In other words, he took responsibility.

Time is the period in which God's plan is being worked out. The residual effects of evil, the dysfunctional natural world, are still with us, because God expects us to cooperate with him to completely deal with it.

God's ultimate aim is what POE advocates say he should have created in the first place--a place where free will exists, but everyone is always good. But such a thing--created beings with genuine free will with continuous and complete moral perfection-- could not just be created with a snap because such a thing can only to be gained through genuine experience, which requires the process we are going through.

So although you cannot say this is the best possible world, you have to say it is the best wayto the best possible world. Saying it is not is either saying God is flawed or his goal is not the best possible world.

This is what is called a theodicy i.e. the vindication of divine goodness and providence in view of the existence of evil. You have demonstrated how the cognitive dissonance generated by the POE results in a theodicy which seeks to justify God.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

This is what is called a theodicy i.e. the vindication of divine goodness and providence in view of the existence of evil. You have demonstrated how the cognitive dissonance generated by the POE results in a theodicy which seeks to justify God.

Giving a fancy name to something doesn't make it any more profound.

I'd be willing to bet they don't have a word for when the cognitive dissonance in the light of evil compels one to condemn God. Probably because the word theodicy was invented to sound dismissive of anything religious.

But thanks for the vocabulary lesson. I hope you weren't implying that because there is a word for an idea that the idea is a crucial one. I assume you were just saying that, hey, here's a philosophy word I'll bet you didn't know.

There are serious semantic problems in the POE. The logical force of the argument depends on our assumption that we know what God, omnipotence, omniscience, omni-benevolence and evil mean. On closer examination we find that each of these terms are symbols that bring us to the limits of human understanding.

This is what I've been saying.

If it's just a word game, why are you spending so much time and words trying to refute it?

Because some people don't understand that it's a word game.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

BTW, do you want to provide a series of proof texts to establish that the God the Bible proposes is what the Problem of Evil definitions use? Just labeling a belief that differs from yours as being gnostic or otherwise heretical does not define anything.

For omnipotence :
JOB 11:7 Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? 8 It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know? 9 The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea. 26:14 Lo, these are parts of his ways; but how little a portion is heard of him? but the thunder of his power who can understand?

For omniscience:
ROM 16:27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.

For omni-benevolence:
And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,

It's my understanding that the omni-characteristics are fully consistent with the preponderance of orthodox Christian theology which is best summarized by defining God as a being than which no greater can be conceived.

Do you presume that everything in doctrines is either all right or all wrong? Do you think that it is entirely Calvinism or Arminianism without any ground for something from both? Is the creation 6 days, 6,000 years, or millions of years encapsulated in "days" as dividers of the description of the parts of the creation (and not necessarily a chronology)? Or something else?

Something else.

Might it be that there is more of a continuum of possibility and that the process of ousting the heretics made everything polar. The middle ground in which there was overlap of thought was eliminated in the fight.

I'm not saying that Gnosticism or heresy are bad things, I only noted them when I thought I saw them in your previous post.

Besides, you malign my position with your strawman answer. My position is not that God is less than all-powerful, all-knowing, the very definition of righteousness, etc. Rather, it is that God, just like you or me, has the right to delay judgment on unrighteousness and evil. Besides, since you seem worried about the gnostic heresy of not believing everything in the Bible in the way that the majority do, it would seem that you would then have to contend with the presence of an "evil one." Or is Satan and Hell somehow a misreading of the Bible?

No maligning intended. The New Testament exhibits a tension between monotheism and dualism.

Assuming that last question was not really to you, then there is evil beyond just moral choices. There is one capable of the destruction of the body.

You lost me with those statements.

Do we presume that an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-righteous God who is defined as being love therefore must simply stop everything emanating from this evil one? Now? No delay? Do we presume that there is nothing to be gained from things being as they are? And if it is Creator's mind that is the ultimate, then what he decides is the highest gain is not subject to question by the creation.

These are rhetorical questions, right?

I am not saying that we are not allowed to question. That we cannot wrestle with God about how things are. As Jacob did centuries ago. As C.S. Lewis did upon the death of his wife, Joy. As many still do in the midst of terrible tragedies of nature, disease, and the hand of man.

Right.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Giving a fancy name to something doesn't make it any more profound.

Does this mean that you don't think your summary of the POE was profound?

I'd be willing to bet they don't have a word for when the cognitive dissonance in the light of evil compels one to condemn God. Probably because the word theodicy was invented to sound dismissive of anything religious.

Actually, theodicy comes from late 18th century: from French Théodicée, the title of a work by Leibniz, from Greek theos ‘god’ + dikē ‘justice’ in which he defended God as the creator of the best of all possible worlds.

But thanks for the vocabulary lesson. I hope you weren't implying that because there is a word for an idea that the idea is a crucial one. I assume you were just saying that, hey, here's a philosophy word I'll bet you didn't know.

I was calling a spade a spade.

This is what I've been saying.

So, you're not above going skeptical when it suits you to win an argument.

Because some people don't understand that it's a word game.

You sound more and more like a relativist every time we talk. In his work, Philosophical Investigations, Ludwig Wittgenstein, widely considered one the greatest philosophers of the 20th century, expounded the concept of language-games. Wittgenstein rejected the idea that language is somehow separate and corresponding to reality, and he argued that concepts do not need to be clearly defined to be meaningful. Of course, much depends on how far you go with the idea, since, if it's true that the POE is merely a word game, that opens the possibility that the word God is merely part of the game, and I don't think you want to go there.

[awareness]

My goodness Igzy, you've out done yourself. What a gem of a post!

Originally Posted by Igzy

To sum up my views on the POE:

God is completely perfect and good.

God is the definition of good. Therefore to be good, God simply needs to follow himself. There is no external code God follows to be good. He's just simply being himself. Therefore whatever he does is not only good, but the definition of good.

Evil is anything contrary to God, therefore evil is choosing anything contrary to God.

God gave us free will to choose him. He didn't want robots.

Since genuine free will exists, choosing evil is a genuine possibility. If choosing evil was not a genuine possibility, we would not have genuine free will and could not choose God/good in the free and willing way God desires.

We chose evil. And fell.

God's response was to take all that evil on himself, to absorb it effectively, by bearing the consequences on the cross as Jesus, to deal with the problem. In other words, he took responsibility.

Time is the period in which God's plan is being worked out. The residual effects of evil, the dysfunctional natural world, are still with us, because God expects us to cooperate with him to completely deal with it.

God's ultimate aim is what POE advocates say he should have created in the first place--a place where free will exists, but everyone is always good. But such a thing--created beings with genuine free will with continuous and complete moral perfection-- could not just be created with a snap because such a thing can only to be gained through genuine experience, which requires the process we are going through.

So although you cannot say this is the best possible world, you have to say it is the best way to the best possible world. Saying it is not is either saying God is flawed or his goal is not the best possible world.

Please allow me to summarize your summary. Basically,

God is perfect -- the vary definition of perfection -- and can't do anything that's not perfect. Therefore,

Even what we call evil is actually a product of God's perfection. We just can't see it.

So there's actually no such thing as evil, cuz everything comes from a perfect God. And, this we see and live in today is the perfect way for God to eventually actually accomplish what we will clearly see as a perfect world.

Please correct me where I'm wrong in this summary.

One question, maybe two: Why does this perfect God create bad stuff? And is even the bad stuff a definition of God's perfection?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Please allow me to summarize your summary.

Evil is only a product of God's perfection in the sense that it is defined by what is contrary to him. Evil is really evil. It is not good in and of itself. But God can use evil to achieve a greater good, because he's so great. But it doesn't make evil good.

Look at it this way. Remember when they called Ronald Reagan The Teflon President because critics couldn't get their criticisms to stick to him. Well, God is The Teflon God. If you try to do evil you just end up making him look better. But it doesn't mean we should do evil to make him look better. Evil is still evil. It's just that he's great. You can't make him look bad. If you try you just end up on the short end of the stick.

[Cal]

Saying evil is really good because God can use it for good is like saying tooth decay is good because it provides employment for dentists. No, it's still just tooth decay. It doesn't get any awards because dentists have jobs.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Does this mean that you don't think your summary of the POE was profound?

I did think it was. And I didn't even have to use any fancy words.

So, you're not above going skeptical when it suits you to win an argument.

Who's trying to win an argument? I'm just having a discussion. This is not the first time you've blurted out something about winning an argument. Is that a big deal to you?

Besides, in my mind I had the argument won before we started. Call me self-assured.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Saying evil is really good because God can use it for good is like saying tooth decay is good because it provides employment for dentists. No, it's still just tooth decay. It doesn't get any awards because dentists have jobs.

I'm confused.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I did think it was. And I didn't even have to use any fancy words.

What are you from Texas or something? You should check out Rick Roderick on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wetwETy4u0 He's a philosopher from West Texas. He really put some words together. Of course to you he would just be playing word games.

Who's trying to win an argument? I'm just having a discussion. This is not the first time you've blurted out something about winning an argument. Is that a big deal to you?

There's will to power behind your apologetics. Sorry for another fancy word, O defender of puny vocabulary.

Besides, in my mind I had the argument won before we started. Call me self-assured.

Clearly you're a legend in your own mind. Here's a fancy word to describe you: solipicist.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

What are you from Texas or something? You should check out Rick Roderick on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wetwETy4u0 He's a philosopher from West Texas. He really put some words together. Of course to you he would just be playing word games.

Philosophy is overrated. I know you value it quite a bit. I studied it for a long time, informally, and it still interests me sometimes. But I remember how shocked I was when I first started studying it. I expected a systematic science. It's actually a mismash of theories as diverse as the various men and women who came up with them. There is very little consensus. There certainly are no agreed upon life lessons, other than keep being philosophical, which is kind of ironic, since it really doesn't answer much.

I like thinking and reasoning. But I've learned over time to temper my trust of them, because overdoing them has caused me a lot of misery. You can overthink an idea as easily as you can overcook a steak.

In the end philosophy makes vivid the limitations of human reasoning. You can't find God through reason. You can be led up to his doorstep by it, but you have to take the faith step to knock on the door. Faith, though, is an extension of reason. It's the logical act based on what you know. But I can't prove that. In the end, all our decisions come down to character. And no character is required when there are no questions.

I'm just sharing my thoughts here. You can take 'em or leave 'em.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Philosophy is overrated. I know you value it quite a bit. I studied it for a long time, informally, and it still interests me sometimes. But I remember how shocked I was when I first started studying it. I expected a systematic science. It's actually a mismash of theories as diverse as the various men and women who came up with them. There is very little consensus. There certainly are no agreed upon life lessons, other than keep being philosophical, which is kind of ironic, since it really doesn't answer much.

I like thinking and reasoning. But I've learned over time to temper my trust of them, because overdoing them has caused me a lot of misery. You can overthink an idea as easily as you can overcook a steak.

In the end philosophy makes vivid the limitations of human reasoning. You can't find God through reason. You can be led up to his doorstep by it, but you have to take the faith step to knock on the door. Faith, though, is an extension of reason. It's the logical act based on what you know. But I can't prove that. In the end, all our decisions come down to character. And no character is required when there are no questions.

I'm just sharing my thoughts here. You can take 'em or leave 'em.

Another gem igzy. Your thoughts are much appreciated.

But back to topic. I guess this is a kind of synchronicity, or perhaps the work of the Holy Spirit. I don't know.

But Morgan Freeman has a show on National Geographic called "The Story of God." -- Great show by the way. At least I think so. -- His latest just released episode is entitled "Why Does Evil Exist." (Synchronicity or Spirit - you be the judge) And right in the intro Morgan states our problem with the POE in a nutshell. He asks, "If you believe we live in a world under divine control then why does evil exist at all?"

That's what we really are dealing with. And by really I mean, in your life kind of real, not word games. This is real folks. This is not word games.

Evil + God = PROBLEM.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

He asks, "If we live in a world under divine control then why does evil exist?"

I've been trying to answer that. Did you not like my answers?

Since God is the definition of good then evil is anything contrary to God. God gave us the ability to choose things contrary to him, but told us to not use that ability. He did this so we could demonstrate our loyalty to him. We disobeyed. That brought in all evil, moral and environmental, that we see. We brought it in.

What is it about this answer gives you problems?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I've been trying to answer that. Did you not like my answers?

Since God is the definition of good then evil is anything contrary to God. God gave us the ability to choose things contrary to him, but told us to not use that ability. He did this so we could demonstrate our loyalty to him. We disobeyed. That brought in all evil, moral and environmental, that we see. We brought it in.

What is it about this answer gives you problems?

I have no problem with your answer of the human POE. I get that. In his show Morgan introduces neuroscience, that's working on why some have neurowiring that explains psychopathy. One of them says, we hope to solve the problem and make the world a better place. (Good luck with that).

Where I have a problem with your answer is the natural aspect of the POE. So you're concluding that Adams' disobedience brought about natural evil too, not just human evil?

Doesn't that call God into question too? That God would wouldn't just punish Adam (and say his descendants) but would also punish the world, nature, and the whole cosmos, which punishes even the critters and all life as we know it?

Is that the definition of perfection that you say God is? Please explain.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I've been trying to answer that. Did you not like my answers?

Since God is the definition of good then evil is anything contrary to God. God gave us the ability to choose things contrary to him, but told us to not use that ability. He did this so we could demonstrate our loyalty to him. We disobeyed. That brought in all evil, moral and environmental, that we see. We brought it in.

What is it about this answer gives you problems?

The problem is that the Creator makes the rules for created man with a free will to live by. This God obviously allows evil and has used evil since He sent His own Son to suffer the worst forms of evil imaginable. No philosophy can accommodate these facts.

If there is no God, then it is we who can make the rules. Whether God actually exists or not is incidental, since what is really important is that one can convince him or herself (and one's circle of friends) that God does not exist, or that God as we know (it?) does not exist.

Ancillary to this thread discussion is Lucifer, the ultimate source of all this evil. How could God allow His topmost creation to fall as he did? Did God's master plan require such evil to vet out those created with free will?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

I have no problem with your answer of the human POE. I get that. In his show Morgan introduces neuroscience, that's working on why some have neurowiring that explains psychopathy. One of them says, we hope to solve the problem and make the world a better place. (Good luck with that).

Where I have a problem with your answer is the natural aspect of the POE. So you're concluding that Adams' disobedience brought about natural evil too, not just human evil?

Doesn't that call God into question too? That God would wouldn't just punish Adam (and say his descendants) but would also punish the world, nature, and the whole cosmos, which punishes even the critters and all life as we know it?

Is that the definition of perfection that you say God is? Please explain.

Evil has far-reaching effects. The spiritual effects the physical. I believe our haywire world was caused by our fall. The Bible says God cursed the earth for our sake, but it could just as easily be seen that our actions caused it directly. Either way the proportion of curse matches the spiritual situation. We are connected to the earth, we were created from it. We are supposed to rule over it. But because of our rebellion now we are subject to its whims. The natural "evil" in the world is a reflection of humanity's spiritual condition. That is fitting. We are more important and influential than we think.

People who ask why God doesn't "do" anything are asking the wrong question. He is doing something, he's trying to redeem us spiritually, which will result in a redemption of the natural world. The real question is why more people don't turn to God to get this age turned. Of course, that should cause each of us to ask what are we doing to help bring people to Christ.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Philosophy is overrated.

Philosophy is defined differently by different people. You haven't defined what you mean by the word, so I can't be sure what you mean by it.

I know you value it quite a bit. I studied it for a long time, informally, and it still interests me sometimes. But I remember how shocked I was when I first started studying it. I expected a systematic science. It's actually a mishmash of theories as diverse as the various men and women who came up with them. There is very little consensus. There certainly are no agreed upon life lessons, other than keep being philosophical, which is kind of ironic, since it really doesn't answer much.

This suggests to me that you think of philosophy as something other people do as if you are standing outside of it. There is truth in what you say about philosophy when viewed as if it were an object viewed from the outside. But, with what are you evaluating it if not logic which is itself philosophical? Wouldn't it be stupid to leave logical reasoning out of your judgment about it? If you include reasoning in your judgment about philosophy, then you are judging philosophy by philosophy which is to have already made an implicit affirmative judgment about it. Do I need to put that in smaller words?

I like thinking and reasoning. But I've learned over time to temper my trust of them, because overdoing them has caused me a lot of misery.

The sphere of philosophy called epistemology [sorry for another big word] examines the limits of reasoning. So when you consider the limits of thinking and reasoning, if your thoughts are logical, you might be philosophizing unwittingly. If one loves the truth and the truth is miserable, then one would have to accept misery in the bargain to know the truth. The alternative would be happy delusion. Many religious people seem to make that choice.

You can overthink an idea as easily as you can overcook a steak.

How do you know when you have overthought an idea? If you use logic in arriving at that judgment, aren't you philosophizing?

In the end philosophy makes vivid the limitations of human reasoning. You can't find God through reason. You can be led up to his doorstep by it, but you have to take the faith step to knock on the door. Faith, though, is an extension of reason. It's the logical act based on what you know. But I can't prove that. In the end, all our decisions come down to character. And no character is required when there are no questions. I'm just sharing my thoughts here. You can take 'em or leave 'em.

I appreciate that. Faith may be more or less reasonable depending on its object.

If decisions are absolutely determined by character then free will is an illusion.

[Cal]

zeek,

I know we all philosophize in the general sense. What I mean by "philosophy" is in the academic sense--what you learn about in philosophy class and serious books on the subject. It's a mess, a smorgasbord of confusing and conflicting ideas. Each school of philosophy is like a character in the Marvel Universe--just choose the super-hero you like, because there are a bunch of them to choose from, each with his unique powers, colorful costume and limitations. It's mostly a bunch of opinions. If logic is so dependable, and if these guys and girls are pros, why didn't they all come to the same conclusion?

Sure we have to employ logic. But logic demands we understand the premises, and often we don't, even when we think we do. This is the problem when we start forcing God into some idea of "good" that is arbitrary. E.g.

A good God wouldn't let cute little kittens die.
Cute little kittens do die.
Therefore there is no good God.

Why don't we just stop there, close up shop and go get a beer? Subject closed, right? Why keep talking about it? Because we can't get over the idea that there must be a God and he must be the definition of good.

To me, there are only three options:

1) God doesn't exist.
2) God does exist, but is not always good.
3) God does exist, and is always good.

To me, the first and second make no sense logically.

The third only makes no sense when I try to conform God to my views about cute little kittens (I do love them) and other personal ideas of "good." Otherwise it makes perfect sense.

So to me, philosophically speaking, the only answer is my view of good is warped. I can only trust that God, being good, loves cute little kittens, too, even though they die sometimes, or at least has a good reason for not loving them. After all, He is God.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

For omnipotence:
JOB 11:7 Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? 8 It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know? 9 The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea. 26:14 Lo, these are parts of his ways; but how little a portion is heard of him? but the thunder of his power who can understand?

For omniscience:
ROM 16:27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.

For omni-benevolence:
And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,

It's my understanding that the omni-characteristics are fully consistent with the preponderance of orthodox Christian theology which is best summarized by defining God as a being than which no greater can be conceived.

I like the verses. They speak of things exactly in the manner that I had living fuzzily in my mind. Each is stated in terms of being above any other.

All powerful is always relative. If his power is greater than any other, then it is all that is required. Is there an infinity issue? Probably not. It is irrelevant. More than the closest competitor is sufficient. And the verses analyze it in terms of what we know, therefore terms that are finite. Not disparaging God.

"Only wise" is not the same as "all knowing." Even knowing the number of hairs on my head does not establish omniscience. It doesn't say it. Not saying it isn't true. But is all the clamor of fighting about God knowing everything even before it happens just yet another overstatement of what the Bible does state? Again, not saying it is not true. But does it actually say what is claimed by man (and not in the verses you propose)?

Longsuffering and omni-benevolence are not synonyms. Omni-benevolence implies mercy and restraint without limit. But where is it said that there is no limit? I think that the Bible clearly indicates that longsuffering is temporal. It is not forever. Just long.

At this point in time, love is holding back justice. A few years ago someone wrote in the thread about the book of Job that Job called for the God of mercy and got the God of justice as if they were not the same person. But longsuffering is holding back much of God's justice and wrath. At a point it will be switched and justice will prevail to the chagrin of those who chose to take advantage of His longsuffering.

The POE is too focused on God and man and his calamities in a vacuum. There is no acknowledgment that there is a more complicated environment in the question. There is more than simply God outside of our world of physics and natural laws. There are a host of beings. Many can affect things here on earth. And at least some of them have intent that is other than loving.

Being willing to tolerate the evil for a season is hardly proof that there is no God. There is a time coming (or so the good book says) when he will open that can of spinach and clean up the mess. We have many stories and myths concerning the hero that does not just squash every bug on sight because it is a bug. Or right every wrong simply because it is wrong. Yet we expect that since God could, he should . . . or even must. Otherwise he can't exist.

Interesting how we force upon others limitations that we would never place upon (or allow to be placed upon) ourselves.

[OBW]

Question:

If you believe we live in a world under divine control then why does evil exist at all?

Answer:

The source of the question is one that would despise having asked if the result was that the questioner got what he insisted should be true if there was a divine control that acted in the manner claimed to be expected.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The third only makes no sense when I try to conform God to my views about cute little kittens . . . .

They may be cute, but they are anything but good. Kittens are cats, and cats are evil incarnate.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

They may be cute, but they are anything but good. Kittens are cats, and cats are evil incarnate.

So if God was good he would not have created cats?

The source of the question is one that would despise having asked if the result was that the questioner got what he insisted should be true if there was a divine control that acted in the manner claimed to be expected.

Whoa! Rephrase please. There are so many qualifiers I can't make heads or tails of this.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Whoa! Rephrase please. There are so many qualifiers I can't make heads or tails of this.

That was sort of the idea. Very convoluted. I'm not sure that it is entirely correct (grammatically). But here goes:

The source of the question is one that would despise having asked if the result was that the questioner got what he insisted should be true if there was a divine control that acted in the manner claimed to be expected.

The one who asks the question would not like the answer if there was a God that was exactly as he claimed we think God is and did exactly what he expects that God would do (eliminate all evil and sources of evil).

Why? Because it is clear in the asking (at least from someone like Freeman) that the intent is to disprove God, not have no evil. But to have no evil, as has been pointed out many times, would eliminate anything of free will outside of the ability to choose among God-approved actions. That would mean no ability to even question whether God really was there because I (they) don't like the way things are going. They would not like that outcome.

I'm sure that the one-sentence version is flawed in arriving at all of that. But mostly it is too many clauses spliced together.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

I like the verses. They speak of things exactly in the manner that I had living fuzzily in my mind. Each is stated in terms of being above any other.

Not necessarily. But each has been interpreted as an absolute by orthodox Christian theology and is postulated that way by the POE.

All powerful is always relative.

Not according to orthodox theology. It is absolute as opposed to relative.

If his power is greater than any other, then it is all that is required. Is there an infinity issue? Probably not. It is irrelevant. More than the closest competitor is sufficient. And the verses analyze it in terms of what we know, therefore terms that are finite. Not disparaging God.

No. The standard is not greater than any existing other. It is greater than any conceivable other. By making it relative and not absolute you imply a "greater than" compared to which your relative God is lesser. Hence, you depart from orthodoxy and the God proposed by the POE.

"Only wise" is not the same as "all knowing." Even knowing the number of hairs on my head does not establish omniscience. It doesn't say it. Not saying it isn't true. But is all the clamor of fighting about God knowing everything even before it happens just yet another overstatement of what the Bible does state? Again, not saying it is not true. But does it actually say what is claimed by man (and not in the verses you propose)?

Again, the church has read an absolute God as the One that the Bible points to. By proposing a just so knowledgeable God you depart from the absolutely knowing God of orthodoxy. You have supposed a lower God that doesn't cut it absolutely.

Longsuffering and omni-benevolence are not synonyms. Omni-benevolence implies mercy and restraint without limit. But where is it said that there is no limit? I think that the Bible clearly indicates that longsuffering is temporal. It is not forever. Just long.

You focused on long suffering and missed "goodness." God is absolutely holy, righteous and good. No evil is admitted by orthodoxy. To suppose less is to propose a gnostic God.

The POE is too focused on God and man and his calamities in a vacuum. There is no acknowledgment that there is a more complicated environment in the question. There is more than simply God outside of our world of physics and natural laws. There are a host of beings. Many can affect things here on earth. And at least some of them have intent that is other than loving.

Your God is just one among all beings. Relatively higher sure. But, again a lower conception than that of the historic Christian Church.

Being willing to tolerate the evil for a season is hardly proof that there is no God.

God's nature is so totally incompatible with evil that if a man entered the Holy of Holies with the slightest scintilla of sin he would immediately be zapped out of existence.

There is a time coming (or so the good book says) when he will open that can of spinach and clean up the mess. We have many stories and myths concerning the hero that does not just squash every bug on sight because it is a bug. Or right every wrong simply because it is wrong. Yet we expect that since God could, he should . . . or even must. Otherwise he can't exist.
Interesting how we force upon others limitations that we would never place upon (or allow to be placed upon) ourselves.

The POE isn't about puny human bugs like us.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

That was sort of the idea. Very convoluted. I'm not sure that it is entirely correct (grammatically). But here goes:


The one who asks the question would not like the answer if there was a God that was exactly as he claimed we think God is and did exactly what he expects that God would do (eliminate all evil and sources of evil).

Why? Because it is clear in the asking (at least from someone like Freeman) that the intent is to disprove God, not have no evil. But to have no evil, as has been pointed out many times, would eliminate anything of free will outside of the ability to choose among God-approved actions. That would mean no ability to even question whether God really was there because I (they) don't like the way things are going. They would not like that outcome.

I'm sure that the one-sentence version is flawed in arriving at all of that. But mostly it is too many clauses spliced together.

What I think you are saying, bro OBW, or trying to say, is: The POE is a tool of atheists. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The problem is that the Creator makes the rules for created man with a free will to live by. This God obviously allows evil and has used evil since He sent His own Son to suffer the worst forms of evil imaginable. No philosophy can accommodate these facts.

Yes God went to the utmost extreme. He spared Issac but not His own son. But even so, such an extreme action didn't satisfy Him. Else He would have lifted the curse on the earth.

So ... by this we know. God is well aware of evil - omniscience - actually did it as the curse for Adam's disobedience, offered His son on the cross for the sins of the world, but wasn't happy enough, powerful enough, or caring enough, to remove it.

The cross did not remove the POE. Why not God?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

They may be cute, but they are anything but good. Kittens are cats, and cats are evil incarnate.

True, but when you have a rodent ptoblem, a cat can be a God send!

So send me one.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes God went to the utmost extreme. He spared Issac but not His own son. But even so, such an extreme action didn't satisfy Him. Else He would have lifted the curse on the earth.

So ... by this we know. God is well aware of evil - omniscience - actually did it as the curse for Adam's disobedience, offered His son on the cross for the sins of the world, but wasn't happy enough, powerful enough, or caring enough, to remove it.

The cross did not remove the POE. Why not God?

The cross removed the eternal curse of sin.

Today, in the face of evil, God has made available to His children an infinite supply of grace for the taking.

Why focus on the evil, when we can set our sights on something far better.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The cross removed the eternal curse of sin.

Today, in the face of evil, God has made available to His children an infinite supply of grace for the taking.

Why focus on the evil, when we can set our sights on something far better.

The cross didn't remove evil from the world or the church. It takes faith to believe it did anything but kill Jesus.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The cross removed the eternal curse of sin.

Today, in the face of evil, God has made available to His children an infinite supply of grace for the taking.

Why focus on the evil, when we can set our sights on something far better.

Right. We have all things that pertain to life and godliness in Christ today, and exceedingly great and precious promises through His word.... among which are: His death on the cross judged the evil one, his resurrection Justified Jesus' overcoming of evil and germinated a new creation free of evil in those who believe in him and God. And, that new creation is spreading through the gospel throughout the earth, and will be manifested in the next age, when the problem of evil on the earth will be dealt with in a more manifest way.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

Question:
Answer:

The source of the question is one that would despise having asked if the result was that the questioner got what he insisted should be true if there was a divine control that acted in the manner claimed to be expected.

I want an ounce of whatever you're smoking.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

Why? Because it is clear in the asking (at least from someone like Freeman) that the intent is to disprove God

I didn't quote the entire discombobulated paragraph because I think I know what you were/are driving at.

Basically you're saying Morgan Freeman asked the question:

"If you believe we live in a world under divine control then why does evil exist at all?"

just to disprove the existence of God.

But Freeman doesn't draw that conclusion in his show. The show is called "Why Does Evil Exist" so right at the introduction of the show Freeman states the problem. But he doesn't go on to make any claims that disprove God. He basically looks into the human side of evil. The show was disappointing to me because he never introduced the non-human aspects of evil.

But Freeman's "intention" was not to disprove the existence of God.

I just felt to clear that up. If I'm reading you wrong OBW please correct or slam me. However so moved.

[OBW]

No. The standard is not greater than any existing other. It is greater than any conceivable other. By making it relative and not absolute you imply a "greater than" compared to which your relative God is lesser. Hence, you depart from orthodoxy and the God proposed by the POE.

When I hit "Preview" the text in the edit box disappeared. So I put the quote from zeek into regular quotes.

I agree with the notion "above any conceivable other," as you state. That is ultimate. It is all that is required.

Still, no matter how you parse that, it does not create a requirement for those characteristics to be engaged at their ultimate without risking losing position as God. If the premise of the POE were taken to its logical conclusion, Satan could never have fallen. God would have known in advance and prevented it.

And in the process, every being presently in existence would simply bow to him because they were created to do that without even thinking about it. Not really very meaningful.

But allowing some who choose to presume to overthrow you to play around a little with the notion they could actually pull it off has a little meaning. And within that context to create another race of beings that will be given the choice to worship God or reject Him, that would be meaningful. There is never the presumption that all would worship. But the cost of being part of that creation is to put up with evil, sickness, disease, poverty, psychological wants, etc., that draw you to reject God.

When some still choose God in that, there is meaning.

Oh, the created beings (or at least some of them) surely don't like that. They fuss that they are just pawns in a game. Or complain that it isn't fair that they have been given the option of rejecting God and it will cost them their lives. They would rather curse God and die than accept that "life's not fair" and accept him.

And there is the problem with the POE. It denies that we, the supreme beings of this little planet, could be other than the supreme beings of the universe, therefore God is required to wipe out evil before it acts (along with disease, sickness, lack of provision, etc.) and make everything hunky-dory for those who don't want there to be a God. God has to be a puppet that does whatever people ask, including those who want the POE to go away.

God is a being created in our image. And we wouldn't allow for evil. Except for the kind of moral evil that we like. And there is yet another problem. Who's version of evil is the one that should be eliminated? Mine? Yours? Ted Bundy's? We might reject Ted out of hand, but would yours or mine be the better choice? And if neither, then who?

Ah. God's. And he is not allowed to choose to allow things to run their course for a while. He must deal with it immediately. If not sooner.

I note that you like responding to small snippets rather than the overall comments. I may be wrong, but sometimes going at one item that is part of a larger framework is not necessarily effective. Yes, it is true that if there is a defective leg, then the table doesn't stand. But some times I think that the separation tends to cause it to seem to be saying something that I am not intending. I admit that I often use a single portion as my jumping-off point as well. I do try not to make that into a kind of strawman. Not that I think you are doing that to me — just maybe missing a larger point in which the attack (harsher word than I intend) is not really relevant (or at least I do not see it as relevant).

It is somewhat related to the kind of Bible reading that I see so many people doing. Making hay out of one sentence — or even just a part of a sentence (ala 1 Cor 15:45b). Ignoring what that sentence is talking about in its context and dealing with it as a discrete item that stands alone. You might be right but you might not.

I only say this because when I read these kinds of responses (and you are not alone in this) I too often come away with the feeling that all the responses were to something that I did not say in all of my response even though it may seem that way when a few words are put under a microscope. It is nothing like getting the "When did you stop beating your wife" question. But seems to be an exercise in ignoring the thrust of what I am trying to say and instead find things like the possibility that something said in isolation might be like a gnostic heresy.

Besides, even if the core of current "orthodox" Christianity thinks of things in a certain way, does that mean that God is confined to our thinking on the subject, even if partly right? Might the truth look like something that has a little of those gnostic thoughts in there? And have some Calvinism mixed with Arminianism? We have allowed these ideas to continue side-by-side yet rejected everything of Gnosticism simply because certain parts were [clearly?] heretical. How then can we declare that we have an absolute definition of God with parameters that must be so that we can apply the POE question with the goal of accepting or rejecting the existence of God?

Is the question sort of like the society that by definition includes all administrative assistants as voting members, yet has its own administrative assistant for each meeting that is precluded from voting. This is posited as a conundrum or paradox, but it really is not. The problem is not that there is a paradox, but rather that the definition of the group is not accurate.

Not a great parallel, but it makes the point. The POE is predicated on a precise definition of God, coupled with the assertion that he must act according to his attributes immediately (not at his leisure). Yes, that definition might not exist and be any kind of actual God/god. So is that the correct definition? Just saying that is the one that Orthodoxy (not the EO) claims does not put God in a box. I'm not sure that the best minds of Christianity are smart enough to know anything that definitely. They don't even know how sola the scriptura really is. And the answer is "not very" when the only way to get anything from scripture (even in the original texts and languages) is to interpret meaning. That would result in thousands of versions of what the scripture is saying. (And we already have that.)

And inerrant really only means that the Bible we have is based on the one originally written. It is not changed in substance over the centuries. Not that its interpretation or meaning is without error. Boy we mess that up all the time. I think my version is pretty good. But I am smart enough to realize that I am not smart enough.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Basically you're saying Morgan Freeman asked the question . . . . just to disprove the existence of God.

But Freeman doesn't draw that conclusion in his show.

I might have erred in suggesting that Freeman was guilty of what I was describing. But at some level, the general question of the POE as approached by those who disapprove of the idea of God is to de-create God. To deny him existence.

So there is a general applicability of the purpose of the question from the standpoint of those who want there to be no God. If they can force God (if he exists) to be absolutely Omni in all of his "positive" traits, then he absolutely must eliminate evil before it happens. There is evil, therefore he must not exist.

Case closed.

You got caught up in whether it should apply to Freeman. But the thought generally applies to the whole inquiry of the POE. As I see it, it is a flawed premise — set of requirements — therefore can conclude nothing.

I have an almost 4-year-old grandson. He likes Veggie Tales. One of the silly songs has a series of lines that go something like:

If it hasn't got a tail it's not a monkey
Even if it has a monkey kind of shape
If it hasn't got a tale its not a monkey
If it hasn't got a tale its not a monkey it's an ape.

(It is dangerous to try to say that as fast as the song does.)

That is followed by referring to Bob's camera as an ape because it does not have a tail. And a lot of other things. Larry is missing the point of "even if it has a monkey kind of shape." The problem here is in the definition. If we are only looking at tail or no tale, there are only monkeys and apes. But if we look beyond that to other required characteristics, answers may be different.

The POE presumes that God simply must. Period. No question. No delay.

But is that a reasonable presumption. And why is it a presumption? Because we don't want the consequences of evil. Is that a reason that should force God to act now (assuming he exists)?

In other words, is the question drafted and boxed-in in such a manner that the outcome is a given? And it is the one that the Atheist wants? And we have been deluded into thinking we have to prove that there is God under those premises rather than questioning the premises.

Yes, the premises are ostensibly based on Christian doctrine and/or dogma (probably a fair bit of the latter that is not truly the former). But does that make it true?

I've probably exhausted my thoughts on this subject. If it is determined that the question is simply right, then my arguments are of no consequence to this discussion. Not saying I admit the question is properly posited. I have not been convinced of that. Making reference to an un-stated pile of Christian scholars is not evidence. Just a challenge to shut up.

I can do that. But that does not mean I capitulate. Just recognize when neither side is being convinced within the existing arguments put forward.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

I want an ounce of whatever you're smoking.

Unfortunately I was lucid when I came up with that. Makes you wonder about my general state of mind.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

So there is a general applicability of the purpose of the question from the standpoint of those who want there to be no God. If they can force God (if he exists) to be absolutely Omni in all of his "positive" traits, then he absolutely must eliminate evil before it happens. There is evil, therefore he must not exist.

Case closed.

Well put. This is why I said the POE is a word game. Simply define "good" to mean "evil cannot be present" and poof!, no more God. But who decided that's what is good?

But some here are so enamored by the argument that even though they believe in a perfectly good God, they are still arguing for the POE. They seem to like arguments that put God into question, as some people like pungent odors. An acquired taste, I suppose.

Instead of arguing that the POE puts God into question, it makes more sense to argue that the POE puts our notions of good into question, and to use the argument to get a better handle on what is truly good. Now that would be a productive use of time.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

But at some level, the general question of the POE as approached by those who disapprove of the idea of God is to de-create God. To deny him existence.

Isaiah 1:18 (KJV)

"18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Two things:

1) If this problem of God and evil hasn't been solved in 2300 years I doubt we'll put a dent in it here on this thread.

Epicurus is credited as the father of this problem. In fact, and Igzy will appreciate the big words, it is actually known as the "Epicurian trilemma," or the "riddle of Epicurus." Who stated:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" — 'the Epicurean paradox'."

That stated:

2) In Morgan Freeman's show -- Why Evil Exists -- some researchers perform an experiment. They take a dozen 6 yr old kids and tell them they are going to be part of a contest. One at a time, in a room by themselves, they are to stand behind a line and throw sticky balls at a sticky target from over their back. Winner gets a prize. They don't know about a hidden camera and think they aren't being watched. As a result they cheat and stick the balls on the target with their hands, and then stand behind the line waiting for the judge to walk in.

Then they take another dozen 6 yrs old kids, but this time tell the kids that invisible Princes Alice is sitting in a chair watching them. Result, they don't cheat. The lesson is obvious.

So ... people are more likely to do evil if they think they aren't being watched by God.

Conclusion: we have evil, but need God to help mitigate it.

But that doesn't solve the problem of why God would allow or cause evil in the first place ... just helps to solve it.

[Ohio]

Epicurus is credited as the father of this problem. In fact, and Igzy will appreciate the big words, it is actually known as the "Epicurian trilemma," or the "riddle of Epicurus." Who stated:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" — 'the Epicurean paradox'."

Doesn't it make sense that Epicurean hedonists would develop and promote the so-called POE? How fitting! They have just "proven" to themselves that there is no God.

I marvel that its supporters are such fundamentalists, refusing to even listen to reason or scripture. Probably the POE has become one of the major tenets of atheism.

[Cal]

I really do not believe that anyone in the depth's of their heart believes that the existence of evil eliminates the possibility of a good God.

What you really have is an argument that is superficially appealing to those looking for one.

But no one says, "Oh, the POE proves God doesn't exist!? Bummer, I was hoping he could exist. Oh, well..."

I mean, let's get real guys. Isn't this horse dead yet?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

When I hit "Preview" the text in the edit box disappeared. So I put the quote from zeek into regular quotes.

I agree with the notion "above any conceivable other," as you state. That is ultimate. It is all that is required.

Still, no matter how you parse that, it does not create a requirement for those characteristics to be engaged at their ultimate without risking losing position as God. If the premise of the POE were taken to its logical conclusion, Satan could never have fallen. God would have known in advance and prevented it.

And in the process, every being presently in existence would simply bow to him because they were created to do that without even thinking about it. Not really very meaningful.

But allowing some who choose to presume to overthrow you to play around a little with the notion they could actually pull it off has a little meaning. And within that context to create another race of beings that will be given the choice to worship God or reject Him, that would be meaningful. There is never the presumption that all would worship. But the cost of being part of that creation is to put up with evil, sickness, disease, poverty, psychological wants, etc., that draw you to reject God.

When some still choose God in that, there is meaning.

Oh, the created beings (or at least some of them) surely don't like that. They fuss that they are just pawns in a game. Or complain that it isn't fair that they have been given the option of rejecting God and it will cost them their lives. They would rather curse God and die than accept that "life's not fair" and accept him.

And there is the problem with the POE. It denies that we, the supreme beings of this little planet, could be other than the supreme beings of the universe, therefore God is required to wipe out evil before it acts (along with disease, sickness, lack of provision, etc.) and make everything hunky-dory for those who don't want there to be a God. God has to be a puppet that does whatever people ask, including those who want the POE to go away.

God is a being created in our image. And we wouldn't allow for evil. Except for the kind of moral evil that we like. And there is yet another problem. Who's version of evil is the one that should be eliminated? Mine? Yours? Ted Bundy's? We might reject Ted out of hand, but would yours or mine be the better choice? And if neither, then who?

Ah. God's. And he is not allowed to choose to allow things to run their course for a while. He must deal with it immediately. If not sooner.

I note that you like responding to small snippets rather than the overall comments. I may be wrong, but sometimes going at one item that is part of a larger framework is not necessarily effective. Yes, it is true that if there is a defective leg, then the table doesn't stand. But some times I think that the separation tends to cause it to seem to be saying something that I am not intending. I admit that I often use a single portion as my jumping-off point as well. I do try not to make that into a kind of strawman. Not that I think you are doing that to me — just maybe missing a larger point in which the attack (harsher word than I intend) is not really relevant (or at least I do not see it as relevant).

It is somewhat related to the kind of Bible reading that I see so many people doing. Making hay out of one sentence — or even just a part of a sentence (ala 1 Cor 15:45b). Ignoring what that sentence is talking about in its context and dealing with it as a discrete item that stands alone. You might be right but you might not.

I only say this because when I read these kinds of responses (and you are not alone in this) I too often come away with the feeling that all the responses were to something that I did not say in all of my response even though it may seem that way when a few words are put under a microscope. It is nothing like getting the "When did you stop beating your wife" question. But seems to be an exercise in ignoring the thrust of what I am trying to say and instead find things like the possibility that something said in isolation might be like a gnostic heresy.

Besides, even if the core of current "orthodox" Christianity thinks of things in a certain way, does that mean that God is confined to our thinking on the subject, even if partly right? Might the truth look like something that has a little of those gnostic thoughts in there? And have some Calvinism mixed with Arminianism? We have allowed these ideas to continue side-by-side yet rejected everything of Gnosticism simply because certain parts were [clearly?] heretical. How then can we declare that we have an absolute definition of God with parameters that must be so that we can apply the POE question with the goal of accepting or rejecting the existence of God?

Is the question sort of like the society that by definition includes all administrative assistants as voting members, yet has its own administrative assistant for each meeting that is precluded from voting. This is posited as a conundrum or paradox, but it really is not. The problem is not that there is a paradox, but rather that the definition of the group is not accurate.

Not a great parallel, but it makes the point. The POE is predicated on a precise definition of God, coupled with the assertion that he must act according to his attributes immediately (not at his leisure). Yes, that definition might not exist and be any kind of actual God/god. So is that the correct definition? Just saying that is the one that Orthodoxy (not the EO) claims does not put God in a box. I'm not sure that the best minds of Christianity are smart enough to know anything that definitely. They don't even know how sola the scriptura really is. And the answer is "not very" when the only way to get anything from scripture (even in the original texts and languages) is to interpret meaning. That would result in thousands of versions of what the scripture is saying. (And we already have that.)

And inerrant really only means that the Bible we have is based on the one originally written. It is not changed in substance over the centuries. Not that its interpretation or meaning is without error. Boy we mess that up all the time. I think my version is pretty good. But I am smart enough to realize that I am not smart enough.

I won't bother answering your arguments one by one like I usually do since you made it clear that you don't appreciate that. The POE is predicated on an absolute definition of God which has been adopted by the orthodox Christianity. Swerving from that definition results in dualism which was what I see you tending toward. That tendency is what I termed "gnostic."

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

The POE is predicated on an absolute definition of God which has been adopted by the orthodox Christianity.

I would say the POE is predicated on a flawed interpretation of the orthodox definition of God.

I don't understand why you are arguing for it, zeek, since you still believe in a good God. What is your freakin' point?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

I won't bother answering your arguments one by one like I usually do since you made it clear that you don't appreciate that. The POE is predicated on an absolute definition of God which has been adopted by the orthodox Christianity. Swerving from that definition results in dualism which was what I see you tending toward. That tendency is what I termed "gnostic."

Then why did you quote it all? (the following is not simply a comment about you.) My comment was not to stop you (or anyone else) from responding to specific things, but rather that I would appreciate it if the whole was read and understood, even if not agreed with, then commented on. While there is probably good reason to point to some specific things said as being representative of what is thought to be incorrect, when it appears that the whole thing is responded to like a series of independent fortune cookies, I suspect that it is never read as a whole, but looked at as independent pieces to be critiqued. I could be wrong. But that is the impression I get. And too often the comments are so out-of-sync with the whole of what I was saying that I am pretty sure it is the case.

Moving on . . . .

As Igzy has said, the POE is predicated upon a modified definition of God that has the appearance of being what is adopted by orthodox Christianity.

All-powerful does not mean "must exercise on all things."

All knowing does not mean "must act immediately upon knowledge."

All loving does not mean "must take all actions to stop anything that is either not loving or that would harm what is loved."

All righteous does not mean "must stop any unrighteousness in its tracks."

"Not willing that any should perish" does not mean "has to act to keep any from perishing."

The process of walking through the "logic" of the POE presumes that those "musts" are included in the definition. Logic does not require that they "must" be carried out in that manner. So it is not simply the application of logic to the attributes of God. It is also the insistence that those attributes must always be acted upon immediately (if not before). That is where the definition of God in the POE (as argued by most atheists) is inconsistent with what the Orthodox position actually is.

And while I do not necessarily agree with certain of the extremes of the collection that is called Orthodox, I do not have a general problem with their definition of God. It is the adding of the "musts" that is in error. And that is not included in the Orthodox understanding. Instead, we understand that God is forbearing, meaning that he can wait to act. He can give us a chance to do other than evil. And a chance to repent when we have chosen that way. None of those are inconsistent with the nature of God as defined by Orthodoxy.

[OBW]

To those who think that the POE issues cannot be solved:

As has been pointed out, philosophy is not only the love of truth, but also the search for truth. And that includes schools of thought that have determined that certain kinds of attributes and goals are higher in this search than others.

And there is disagreement on which to follow.

As I pointed out, and Igzy said better, the POE is a sort of word game. Say the words right and you think you have proven something. But like the Liar, or the example I gave of the administrative assistants organization, the problem is not that the issue cannot be solved, but that man is capable of asserting as true things that cannot be. Or that simply are not true. Just because it can be said does not make it factually true.

In the Liar, if all Cretans always lie and a Cretan tells you that all Cretans always lie, then he has told the truth. So there is a problem — a paradox.

But only if you accept that the initial statement is simply true. If a Cretan can say something true, even if he has a propensity toward lies, then the statement that all Cretans always lie is a false premise. There is no paradox since the thing thought to be true is now found to be false. It is only those who insist upon leaving the initial declaration in place that are unable to resolve the issue.

There is nothing meaningful in the statement "even when he's wrong, he's right" because that is an absurdity. And anyone who buys into it is an idiot.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I would say the POE is predicated on a flawed interpretation of the orthodox definition of God.

How is it flawed?

I don't understand why you are arguing for it, zeek, since you still believe in a good God. What is your freakin' point?

My point involves another fancy word...fideism. My proposition is that God is entirely matter of faith not reason.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

Then why did you quote it all? (the following is not simply a comment about you.) My comment was not to stop you (or anyone else) from responding to specific things, but rather that I would appreciate it if the whole was read and understood, even if not agreed with, then commented on. While there is probably good reason to point to some specific things said as being representative of what is thought to be incorrect, when it appears that the whole thing is responded to like a series of independent fortune cookies, I suspect that it is never read as a whole, but looked at as independent pieces to be critiqued. I could be wrong. But that is the impression I get. And too often the comments are so out-of-sync with the whole of what I was saying that I am pretty sure it is the case.

The impression I get is that you didn't like my conclusion after I read your entire post.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

To those who think that the POE issues cannot be solved:

As has been pointed out, philosophy is not only the love of truth, but also the search for truth. And that includes schools of thought that have determined that certain kinds of attributes and goals are higher in this search than others.

And there is disagreement on which to follow.

As I pointed out, and Igzy said better, the POE is a sort of word game. Say the words right and you think you have proven something. But like the Liar, or the example I gave of the administrative assistants organization, the problem is not that the issue cannot be solved, but that man is capable of asserting as true things that cannot be. Or that simply are not true. Just because it can be said does not make it factually true.

In the Liar, if all Cretans always lie and a Cretan tells you that all Cretans always lie, then he has told the truth. So there is a problem — a paradox.

But only if you accept that the initial statement is simply true. If a Cretan can say something true, even if he has a propensity toward lies, then the statement that all Cretans always lie is a false premise. There is no paradox since the thing thought to be true is now found to be false. It is only those who insist upon leaving the initial declaration in place that are unable to resolve the issue.

There is nothing meaningful in the statement "even when he's wrong, he's right" because that is an absurdity. And anyone who buys into it is an idiot.

The fact that you guys are so invested in proving it wrong is powerful evidence that the POE is more than a word game.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

To those who think that the POE issues cannot be solved:

As has been pointed out, philosophy is not only the love of truth, but also the search for truth. And that includes schools of thought that have determined that certain kinds of attributes and goals are higher in this search than others.

And there is disagreement on which to follow.

As I pointed out, and Igzy said better, the POE is a sort of word game. Say the words right and you think you have proven something. But like the Liar, or the example I gave of the administrative assistants organization, the problem is not that the issue cannot be solved, but that man is capable of asserting as true things that cannot be. Or that simply are not true. Just because it can be said does not make it factually true.

In the Liar, if all Cretans always lie and a Cretan tells you that all Cretans always lie, then he has told the truth. So there is a problem — a paradox.

But only if you accept that the initial statement is simply true. If a Cretan can say something true, even if he has a propensity toward lies, then the statement that all Cretans always lie is a false premise. There is no paradox since the thing thought to be true is now found to be false. It is only those who insist upon leaving the initial declaration in place that are unable to resolve the issue.

There is nothing meaningful in the statement "even when he's wrong, he's right" because that is an absurdity. And anyone who buys into it is an idiot.

That statement comes from Titus 1:12

"One of them, a prophet of their own, said, 'Cretans are always liars...' "

It's a self-refuting tautology. The POE is not self refuting. It is a tautology because it claims absolute status for God's goodness. From that it follows logically that evil contradicts God's nature. It's God refuting. Or, at least it refutes of God as defined in the syllogism. That's why you tried to retreat to a dualistic conception of God.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Doesn't it make sense that Epicurean hedonists would develop and promote the so-called POE? How fitting! They have just "proven" to themselves that there is no God.

I marvel that its supporters are such fundamentalists, refusing to even listen to reason or scripture. Probably the POE has become one of the major tenets of atheism.

It doesn't matter who first cooked up the problem with God and evil. It could come from the village idiot of Mt. Olympus.

But once the question is asked the riddle won't go away. It's been irking God believers ever since.

So:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

Sticks. And has been sticking for 2300 years.

But I suppose the riddle can be dealt with by just dismissing Epicurus as a pagan idiot. There doesn't seem to be any other way to solve the riddle. So ... just shoot the messenger.

[awareness]

By the way everyone. Let's not conclude that we're beating a dead horse yet. Brother Unsure is in the middle of testing at college. Summer vacation is coming soon. Then he can come back and help us out ... to at least explain what his friends on the bus concluded.

So until then just bear with all the squirming over the POE for a little while longer.

[Cal]

My point involves another fancy word...fideism. My proposition is that God is entirely matter of faith not reason.

Why would you believe in God if doing so was not reasonable? Why would you believe anything about God if it were unreasonable?

There is a difference between something being unreasonable and not understanding something. The former is a problem with the thing itself, the latter is a problem with you. I think you get the two confused.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

The fact that you guys are so invested in proving it wrong is powerful evidence that the POE is more than a word game.

I would suggest that the fact of attempting to prove something wrong is definitionally irrelevant as to the status of anything claimed to be true.

And defining a position as "dualistic" does not make it wrong. You have asserted that the definition that the POE uses is simply right and that any other is flawed.

The only way that the definition of God refutes God is if God is a computer program with no choice as to what an how to exercise will, power, love, righteousness, etc. If understanding God as not simply a calculator that will always give precisely the same outcome to the same inputs means a dualistic view, then those who oppose a dualistic view are busy creating a God in their (flawed) imagination of their perfect selves.

But after all of that, you then turn to say something that is most profound:

My proposition is that God is entirely matter of faith not reason.

And if this is the proper view, then the POE as posited is irrelevant anyway. I already think that is the case. For the same and for different reasons than you.

And so is the "absolute Orthodox definition of God."

And even if you return to logic and the POE, I still assert that no matter how you understand the characteristics of God in the Orthodox definition, they are not asserted as "absolute" in the way that the POE is using them. So we have a kind of game of semantics or even equivocation.

And it is a word game. One that is designed with the goal of taking words, asserting that certain understandings of each one must be used, and then setting out to disprove what is described in them.

Since you never really define dualism (and I am not going to google it since there are probably competing definitions to be found), it appears from your usage that anything that accepts God as able to choose to do less than exercise all of his attributes in full at all times is not an acceptable definition of God, therefore cannot be used within the POE argument. If that is the way that the "game" is played, then anyone can posit anything, declare that it is simply true (sounds very Lee-like) and derive any conclusion they want.

And the God that must do according to the POE's logic is not powerful enough to overcome his urges to shoot first and ask questions later.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

It doesn't matter who first cooked up the problem with God and evil. It could come from the village idiot of Mt. Olympus.

But once the question is asked the riddle won't go away. It's been irking God believers ever since.

So:

Sticks. And has been sticking for 2300 years.

But I suppose the riddle can be dealt with by just dismissing Epicurus as a pagan idiot. There doesn't seem to be any other way to solve the riddle. So ... just shoot the messenger.

Stop whining, Harold. A day doesn't go by that you don't whine about something.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

My point involves another fancy word...fideism. My proposition is that God is entirely matter of faith not reason.

Well, if there is no reason involved in your faith I'm certainly going to stop listening to all your reasoning, since you plainly cannot believe it either.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

The only way that the definition of God refutes God is if God is a computer program with no choice as to what an how to exercise will, power, love, righteousness, etc. If understanding God as not simply a calculator that will always give precisely the same outcome to the same inputs means a dualistic view, then those who oppose a dualistic view are busy creating a God in their (flawed) imagination of their perfect selves.

Sorry OBW, had to butt in here.

I think you are right. I think all attempts to define God fail. Can a flea define the dog? I realize we can't resist doing it. All the Omni's are proof of that.

And I've, and I think we've, seen plenty who claim to know what God wants and is doing. Prophecy fanatics are steeped with it. And so was Witness Lee, and Nee, for that matter.

Personally I don't trust human definitions of God. As far as I'm concerned we have:

Evil, and we have, God. Why and how is not for me to know. And what can we do about it any way?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Evil, and we have, God. Why and how is not for me to know. And what can we do about it any way?

Nothing. So why spend time worrying about it? You only get one life. The LC stole part of it. Why spend the rest of it in spiritual fretting? Find something to be positive about, and spread some love and joy. All it takes is faith like a mustard seed? Can't you muster at least that?

But the incessant whining from you two. Argh! You guys make Woody Allen seem like an optimist.

And please don't tell me you are "realists." You know the difference between a cynic and a realist? A cynic doesn't make you want to blow your brains out.

I feel like I'm talking to a couple of Jewish mothers. "God forbid my kids should neglect me in my old age." "I think I might have cancer." "It's just a matter of time before something bad happens because it always does." "Why is there evil?" "God's not good." "I don't understand." "It's not fair." "I doubt." "We can't know anything." "Poor me." Whine, fret, fear, spread doubt, repeat.

Mama mia. What a way to live, if you can call it living.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

I would suggest that the fact of attempting to prove something wrong is definitionally irrelevant as to the status of anything claimed to be true.

It at least shows that you are motivated to refute the syllogism.

And defining a position as "dualistic" does not make it wrong.

It makes it dualistic rather than monotheistic. Whether that is right or wrong is a metaphysical question.

You have asserted that the definition that the POE uses is simply right and that any other is flawed.

No, I asserted that it is the orthodox Christian position. The correct position is whatever ultimate reality is. I don't know if anyone knows that. It may be forever beyond human understanding or it may be revealed in the next life.

And the God that must do according to the POE's logic is not powerful enough to overcome his urges to shoot first and ask questions later.

No, the POE posits an omnipotent God. Your's is one interpretation of it. It could be interpreted as asking why there is any evil in the world. Why does God permit it? The reply would be to specify God's reason for permitting evil or for creating a world that contained evil. Maybe evil is necessary, in some way, to the existence of good. Maybe that's just the way we cognize reality. Such answers to the questions are theodices. The dominant theodicy in orthodox Christianity is Augustine's. Aquinas mostly followed him. Augustine has some interesting things to say, like that evil doesn't actually exist. Irenaeus had a very different theodicy and he influenced the Eastern Orthodox Church more.

But, those theodices are speculative. Of course, we would like to have a certain theodicy, a definitive answer to the question why God permits evil. We might want very badly to know why God permits evil in general or, even more, some particular evil e.g. the death or suffering of someone close to us, or perhaps our own suffering.

But what if none of the existing theodicies is very satisfactory? What if we admit we just don't know why God permits evil? What follows from that? Why suppose that if God does have a good reason for permitting evil, we would know what it is? What if God has a good reason, but it's beyond human comprehension? Or what if He hasn't revealed it for some other reason?

Those questions seem to allow for the possibility of God as an answer to the POE rather then that God simply does not exist. However, those questions are based on our ignorance rather than knowledge. Thus, once again, it seems faith required a leap. I say "required" past tense because I assume we're both already there, in faith, that is.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Nothing. So why spend time worrying about it? You only get one life. The LC stole part of it. Why spend the rest of it in spiritual fretting? Find something to be positive about, and spread some love and joy. All it takes is faith like a mustard seed? Can't you muster at least that?

Thanks Igzy for your words, and advice. Fretting ain't my thing. I'm too stupid to know what to fret over.

Originally Posted by Igzy

But the incessant whining from you two.

Please tell me we don't sound like Trump. Us TWO? We didn't start this fire. Brother Unsure did (bless his pea pickin heart).

Originally Posted by Igzy

Argh! You guys make Woody Allen seem like an optimist.

Literally lol. But we're not Jewish. We're pagan gentiles - like followers of Paul.

But your "Argh!"?? Is it not the question of the POE, in Unsure's OP, that's causing your "Argh!?" Not little us two.

I admit the question of God's relationship to evil is very disturbing. So I "Argh!" with you. Perhaps it was directed to "us two" cuz we seem to be harping on it. But so have you. This thread really animated you bro ... and me too. I can't believe I didn't start the thread long, long ago (in LCD time), and this young whipper-snapper beat me to the punch. It's my kind of question -- and it's not like I haven't bumped into it several times over the years..

Originally Posted by Igzy

And please don't tell me you are "realists."

It never entered my mind until now.

Originally Posted by Igzy

You know the difference between a cynic and a realist? A cynic doesn't make you want to blow your brains out.

Goodness, I hope the problem of the POE doesn't cause such an extreme reaction (I'm deliberately not getting your point). I've always thought of it as a atheist tipping-point ... not shotgun time.

Originally Posted by Igzy

I feel like I'm talking to a couple of Jewish mothers. "God forbid my kids should neglect me in my old age." "I think I might have cancer." "It's just a matter of time before something bad happens because it always does." "Why is there evil?" "God's not good." "I don't understand." "It's not fair." "I doubt." "We can't know anything." "Poor me." Whine, fret, fear, spread doubt, repeat.

Mama mia. What a way to live, if you can call it living.

It's is healthy to laugh. So I'm glad you have a sense of humor Igzy.

Bro Ohio, maybe I've been slipping on my laughing ministry. I just don't know how to make the POE a laughing matter. Oh, I guess I could come up with something. How 'bout this : The answer to the problem of why God allows evil is : Cuz God's got a loopy side. That's all. And I'm fine with that. If so, what could I do about it anyway?

I know that's silly. But really, and honestly, since we've been discussing the POE I've come to realize that if God allows evil I had better keep my eye on Him.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Ohio, maybe I've been slipping on my laughing ministry. I just don't know how to make the POE a laughing matter. Oh, I guess I could come up with something. How 'bout this : The answer to the problem of why God allows evil is : Cuz God's got a loopy side. That's all. And I'm fine with that. If so, what could I do about it anyway?

I know that's silly. But really, and honestly, since we've been discussing the POE I've come to realize that if God allows evil I had better keep my eye on Him.

I agree. Let's keep our eyes on Jesus.

Some things in life are not a laughing matter.

Helping others to laugh, however, in the face of hardship, is a good thing.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I agree. Let's keep our eyes on Jesus.

Some things in life are not a laughing matter.

Helping others to laugh, however, in the face of hardship, is a good thing.

The POE is a question that can't be dismissed but can't be answered. And you are right, really not a laughing matter ; I'm sorry to say. It has caused good people to stop believing in God, or becoming an agnostic in the least. All that is what makes it so problematic, and annoying.

Is it just a tool of the atheists? Or is there something more about it? The something more is, the power of logic. The logic of the POE diminishes God in one way or another. Logic tells us that God wouldn't allow evil ; that God can and should do something about it ; or should have worked it out so there was no evil in the first place. Why? Because He's God for God's sake.


But God isn't affected by the POE. Why? Because He's God for God's sake.


The POE is our problem. And who do we think we are? We're not God for God's sake. God is doing whatever God wants to do. We should just be glad we're part of it. Cuz evil or not we're here right now. And we don't even understand that, much less God and evil. In the end, we've been working on the big questions -- like the POE -- for hundreds of thousands of years and haven't figured them out. How can we trust ourselves?

We'll still keep doing our best to avoid evil ; and hopefully keep loving God, and all other failing others ; tho we'll likely fail at even that. Jesus said, in the sermon on the mount, "resist not evil." Goodness! Can we get anything right? Is there any wonder we need God?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

It makes it dualistic rather than monotheistic. Whether that is right or wrong is a metaphysical question.

And here is the problem with definitions forced onto things that are not understood.

What is it in my understanding of God that makes him more than one God? That he is capable of decision and not just action according to rules? This sounds more like a fabricated problem for the purpose defining a new heresy. It seems to be the way that people take small differences of opinion and wrap it in terminology that makes it sound more significant than it is so that calling it heresy seems reasonable. If you disagree on exactly how God operates. The one who declares God as simply a single way without ability to control the interaction of characteristics could easily define those that disagree as "dualistic" simply because they see God as in control, not just controlled by definitions. And dual means more than one, so it is no longer a monotheistic God (or so they declare). And you now have something other than God.

That is little more than a pile of male bovine feces.

If you trot out the "God never changes" verse, then why did Moses have to argue God out of destroying the Children of Israel more than once? God is not just rules in action. He actually considers and thinks. And while it is not evidence of the nature of God, the fact that we are made in his image and have faculties for reasoning and for doing less than everything we could should suggest that God is of similar nature.

That does not make him less than monotheistic. He is willfully operating at less than full-bore righteousness and justice. That does not make him faulty or dualistic. It just means that there is an eternal and a temporal understanding of some things. Evil is allowed to exist for a time.

The problem with word problem like the POE is that no one is willing to question the premises. And those who want to control the premises constantly declare that the few who do question it are cheating or are somehow fickle with respect to their understanding of God.

Sort of like sending someone to Montana to find Monument Valley. When they look at their maps and see that it is really in Utah (maybe a little on the Arizona side of the border, but not sure) they are declared to be geographically illiterate and forced to continue looking in Montana.

Just because someone posited this question centuries ago does not make it beyond review. Others, all the way back to the beginning have questioned the premises and there are always some who will fight to force there to be no change. It is not as if I am the first one to come along and raise this issue.

And when you essentially abandon the question as not truly important by saying that God is a matter of faith, I agree. But that does not mean that the logic (that is incorrect according to the faith) is right. It means that there is a flaw in the logic. Logic requires a system that will simply give constant answers. With respect to living beings — God included — there is no such requirement. There is no "must" that makes any of us not exist if we violate a logical (or claimed-to-be logical) premise.

God sending his Son to die at the hands of the creation is inconsistent with a God who is all everything. He should simply destroy the sources of evil and put us back on the right path. But then why did he make such flawed beings in the first place. Seems to be a flaw in his character.

Or maybe God is capable of deciding something less than bring his complete arsenal of omnis to bear at all times on all things.

I honestly believe that God that cannot do this is less than all powerful. He is incapable of controlling himself and is a prisoner of his rules. (Or is it only man who is incapable of having a God that can be in control and must force him to operate by rules rather than reason and will.)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

The POE is a question that can't be dismissed but can't be answered. And you are right, really not a laughing matter ; I'm sorry to say. It has caused good people to stop believing in God, or becoming an agnostic in the least. All that is what makes it so problematic, and annoying.

The POE is not really a problem at all except for those who want there to be a problem with God. You say it can't be answered, but numerous answers were provided. You just don't want there to be an answer.

Nobody is really "good." Only Jesus is good, and look what happened to Him. He now defines God. If one does not accept Jesus as the payment for his sins, then he must meet his maker and pay his debt himself. I can't afford that myself.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

But God isn't affected by the POE. Why? Because He's God for God's sake.

The POE is our problem. And who do we think we are? We're not God for God's sake. God is doing whatever God wants to do. We should just be glad we're part of it.

FINALLY, some sanity. That's the lesson.

This is what faith comes down to. Faith is still believing in God's goodness despite things that seemingly contradict it. That's what the lesson of Job was.

But this faith is not unreasonable. But it requires our adjusting our concept of "good" to what God is. Rather that adjusting our concept of God to what we think good should be.

zeek says believing in God has nothing to do with reason, but is solely about faith. But that is the same as saying faith has nothing to do with reason. And that's nonsense. Faith is the extension of reason. It's a belief in a conclusion which cannot be proved but which the evidence implies. Faith in God is highly reasonable. Existence of a temporally finite universe requires a Creator. The existence of a Creator requires that he be the definition of good. Therefore, a completely good God is a necessary fact.

No problem of evil can overcome that fact. It certainly challenges it, in our limited minds. But it doesn't defeat it, and we know that in our hearts, because we know we are plunging depths beyond our capacity. So we can rest easy in our beds, knowing God is good and that he will sort things out. We don't have to understand everything, and we don't have to apologize to anyone if we don't, particularly to smarty-pants skeptics who are looking for any excuse to get this troubling God out of their lives.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I honestly believe that God that cannot do this is less than all powerful. He is incapable of controlling himself and is a prisoner of his rules. (Or is it only man who is incapable of having a God that can be in control and must force him to operate by rules rather than reason and will.)

Great summation! You have rightly redefined the POE.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The POE is not really a problem at all except for those who want there to be a problem with God. You say it can't be answered, but numerous answers were provided. You just don't want there to be an answer.

Not true. It would tickle me pink for there to be a complete answer. So far the answers provided don't suffice. Free will, if there really is such a thing, only answers the human side of evil. The fall answer isn't complete > you mean tornados, volcanos and earthquakes were caused by the fall? Where's that in the Bible? And the greater good answer fails too. All it says is we don't know but God does. Do you have a better answer(s)? I'd love to hear it. Or maybe I just don't fully under the answers offered. Please try to explain them so an idiot like me can understand them.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nobody is really "good." Only Jesus is good, and look what happened to Him.

And even Jesus said, "Call no man good but God."

Originally Posted by Ohio

He [Jesus] now defines God. If one does not accept Jesus as the payment for his sins, then he must meet his maker and pay his debt himself. I can't afford that myself.

Like I said, "Is it any wonder that we need God."

[Cal]

If you define evil as allowing anything bad to happen, then the POE has a point. The problem is you must not only apply it to God, but to every mother who ever allowed her child to be endangered in any way at all. Ultimately, the only way to ensure zero danger is to not to have the child in the first place; or, in God's case, to not create beings with freedom of choice.

There is a movie out now called "Room." It's about a mother who keeps her child in a room. There are all kinds of nice things in the room for the mother and child to do, but as far as the child is concerned, the room is the entire world. I haven't seen it, it sounded too creepy. But after thinking of it in terms of this discussion, I just might.

Remember the movie "Pleasantville," about the world where nothing bad ever happened? The basketball teams never missed a shot, even in practice. What's the point?

Forget the POE. As long as free will is in the equation, you already have a "problem." Because if we can choose evil, why wouldn't God persuade, coerce, cajole and finally hogtie us into not choosing evil? But if he would do that, what's the point of free will? But if he wouldn't do it, wouldn't he not be doing enough to ensure our safety?

You might say God should have created us so we were "too good" to do evil. But what is the difference between that and really having no free will? That would be like, for example, giving you a choice to fly but not giving you the capability to fly. You really wouldn't have a choice.

So what's the solution? If you buy into the POE the only answer is that God was wrong to create us with free will. So would you be willing to give up free will for Pleasantville? Do you want to live in the Room?

The point is not that evil is good, the point is that choice is good.

And, yes, Harold. The fall did result in the curse the physical world is under. What else would have caused it? Whether God directly cursed the world or created it in such a way that our disobedience caused the effects of the curse, what difference does it make? It's the same thing.

Originally Posted by awareness

Not true. It would tickle me pink for there to be a complete answer. So far the answers provided don't suffice.

Who ever said you were supposed to be sufficed? Besides, just because they don't suffice you doesn't mean they don't suffice some people.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You might say God should have created us so we were "too good" to do evil. But what is the difference between that and really having no free will? That would be like, for example, giving you a choice to fly but not giving you the capability to fly. You really wouldn't have a choice.

In anticipation of the "God has choice and can do no evil, so why not us?" question, you have to see the difference. God himself is the definition of good. For him to do no evil he just needs to be true to his own nature, to his own self. For us to do no evil we have to be true to him. He just has to choose himself; we have to choose him. There is a fundamental difference. The only way around this would be to make us God, where we are actually part of God. But then we would not be separate beings, and we certainly would have no choice.

God is not the one being tested here, anyway. We are. The question of the universe is not "Can God choose evil?" The question is, "Will people choose good?"

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

And here is the problem with definitions forced onto things that are not understood.

Your response illustrates why I have answered your posts line by line, argument by argument. You only quote one line from my post and nowhere do you respond to the rest of my arguments nor does your post reflect that you read them let alone understood them.

What is it in my understanding of God that makes him more than one God? That he is capable of decision and not just action according to rules?

Your rejection of the omni-characteristics of God including his putative omni-benevolence makes God the source of both good and evil. Hence, dualism. Whereas Christian orthodoxy propounds a God who is perfectly just, holy, righteous and good, untainted by the slightest evil.

This sounds more like a fabricated problem for the purpose defining a new heresy. It seems to be the way that people take small differences of opinion and wrap it in terminology that makes it sound more significant than it is so that calling it heresy seems reasonable. If you disagree on exactly how God operates. The one who declares God as simply a single way without ability to control the interaction of characteristics could easily define those that disagree as "dualistic" simply because they see God as in control, not just controlled by definitions. And dual means more than one, so it is no longer a monotheistic God (or so they declare). And you now have something other than God.

God Himself warned the original couple away from the dualistic tree of good and evil. The Tree of Life that they ignored when they fell into error represents the divine life of monotheism.

If you trot out the "God never changes" verse, then why did Moses have to argue God out of destroying the Children of Israel more than once? God is not just rules in action. He actually considers and thinks. And while it is not evidence of the nature of God, the fact that we are made in his image and have faculties for reasoning and for doing less than everything we could should suggest that God is of similar nature.

Why not respond to the arguments that I actually made rather than by trying to anticipating arguments that you thought I might make?

That does not make him less than monotheistic. He is willfully operating at less than full-bore righteousness and justice.

So the absolutely righteous, just and powerful God decides to operate at less than 100% [" full-bore"] capacity and lets in some unrighteousness and injustice. How much unrighteousness and injustice would you say he has allowed? How small a quantity of unrighteousness and injustice does it take not to insult his absolute righteousness and justice?

That does not make him faulty or dualistic. It just means that there is an eternal and a temporal understanding of some things. Evil is allowed to exist for a time.

Oh I see. He has a "understanding". And who is the understanding with? The devil perhaps? And how long a time is evil going to be allowed? Oh yeah and once again: why?

The problem with word problem like the POE is that no one is willing to question the premises. And those who want to control the premises constantly declare that the few who do question it are cheating or are somehow fickle with respect to their understanding of God.

The premises are:

(1) God is omnipotent
(2) God is omniscient
(3) God is wholly good and
(4) Evil exists.

Which one or ones would you like to question?

the denials of (1), (2), (3), and (4) respectively are:
[w] God is not omnipotent
[x] God is not omniscient
[y] God is not wholly good and
[z] There is no evil.

Which of those would you agree to?

Just because someone posited this question centuries ago does not make it beyond review. Others, all the way back to the beginning have questioned the premises and there are always some who will fight to force there to be no change. It is not as if I am the first one to come along and raise this issue.

This suggests to me that you didn't read where I talked about theodices of renown theologians in response to the POE. If you did read it, why did you suggest I might think you are the first one to question the POE?

And when you essentially abandon the question as not truly important by saying that God is a matter of faith, I agree. But that does not mean that the logic (that is incorrect according to the faith) is right.

You haven't shown where it's wrong. You've called it a word game but you haven't shown how it is illogical.

It means that there is a flaw in the logic. Logic requires a system that will simply give constant answers. With respect to living beings — God included — there is no such requirement. There is no "must" that makes any of us not exist if we violate a logical (or claimed-to-be logical) premise.

OK then. Now I think you're getting somewhere.. Like Sartre said "existence precedes essence." But, you can go to any orthodox catechism and find God defined as in the POE. So, perhaps the problem follows from the orthodox definition or any definition for that matter. This could be a possibly fruitful avenue for further exploration.

God sending his Son to die at the hands of the creation is inconsistent with a God who is all everything. He should simply destroy the sources of evil and put us back on the right path. But then why did he make such flawed beings in the first place? Seems to be a flaw in his character.

That's one conclusion you can arrive at from the POE.

Or maybe God is capable of deciding something less than bring his complete arsenal of omnis to bear at all times on all things.

That would seem to contradict the absolute status that the omnis imply.

I honestly believe that God that cannot do this is less than all powerful. He is incapable of controlling himself and is a prisoner of his rules. (Or is it only man who is incapable of having a God that can be in control and must force him to operate by rules rather than reason and will.

Some theologians and theistic philosophers who held that God is omnipotent, did not hold that He can create round squares or bring it about that He both exists and does not exist. Such theologians and philosophers may hold that there are no nonlogical limits to what an omnipotent being can do, but they concede that not even an omnipotent being can bring about logically impossible states of affairs or cause necessarily false propositions to be true.

Others like Martin Luther and Descartes apparently thought that God's power is unlimited even by the laws of logic. It isn't seen how God logically can incarnate or be three persons. The orthodox creeds were attempts to work out the mysteries of the Bible in terms of Greek philosophy. They apparently failed.

Then too, it used to be fairly common for philosophers to believe that logic and mathematics were perfect systems. But, these days there is a growing consensus that both are human and flawed. Logic, in particular falls under suspicion because of the imprecision of human language.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

zeek says believing in God has nothing to do with reason, but is solely about faith. But that is the same as saying faith has nothing to do with reason. And that's nonsense. Faith is the extension of reason. It's a belief in a conclusion which cannot be proved but which the evidence implies. Faith in God is highly reasonable. Existence of a temporally finite universe requires a Creator. The existence of a Creator requires that he be the definition of good. Therefore, a completely good God is a necessary fact.

In a good sense, Igzy I think you are bias due to your faith. You may be seriously unable to imagine reasoning atheologically. Oops another fancy word. Any way it's apparent to me that you and I have had different experiences of faith. So, perhaps neither of us can generalize absolutely from our particular experience to HOW IT REALLY IS. I can live with that. Suffice it to say neither of us is alone in his opinion.

No problem of evil can overcome that fact. It certainly challenges it, in our limited minds. But it doesn't defeat it, and we know that in our hearts, because we know we are plunging depths beyond our capacity. So we can rest easy in our beds, knowing God is good and that he will sort things out. We don't have to understand everything, and we don't have to apologize to anyone if we don't,

I call that "Basic Trust"...

Is the world a safe place or is it full of unpredictable events and accidents waiting to happen?

Erik Erikson's first psychosocial crisis occurs during the first year or so of life (like Freud's oral stage of psychosexual development). The crisis is one of trust vs. mistrust.

During this stage the infant is uncertain about the world in which they live. To resolve these feelings of uncertainty the infant looks towards their primary caregiver for stability and consistency of care.

If the care the infant receives is consistent, predictable and reliable, they will develop a sense of trust which will carry with them to other relationships, and they will be able to feel secure even when threatened.

Success in this stage will lead to the virtue of hope. By developing a sense of trust, the infant can have hope that as new crises arise, there is a real possibility that other people will be there are a source of support. Failing to acquire the virtue of hope will lead to the development of fear. http://www.simplypsychology.org/Erik-Erikson.html

So, like you said maybe it all boils down to character. And maybe our [warning: fancy word!] characterological capacity for trust is founded upon the love and nuture we received as infants.

particularly to smarty-pants skeptics who are looking for any excuse to get this troubling God out of their lives.

I hope your not assuming that that is the motivation of every person who disagrees with you on this issue. I think that's unwarranted. But, then I have already suggested maybe we have had significantly different life experiences.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

In a good sense, Igzy I think you are bias due to your faith. You may be seriously unable to imagine reasoning atheologically. Oops another fancy word. Any way it's apparent to me that you and I have had different experiences of faith. So, perhaps neither of us can generalize absolutely from our particular experience to HOW IT REALLY IS. I can live with that. Suffice it to say neither of us is alone in his opinion.

I appreciate your open-mindedness.

I hope your not assuming that that is the motivation of every person who disagrees with you on this issue. I think that's unwarranted. But, then I have already suggested maybe we have had significantly different life experiences.

No, not assuming that. But you have to admit there is enough superficial reason for doubt to superficially placate those looking for excuses to doubt. (The POE falls into that category.) This coincides with the Bible's claim that God allows "stumbling blocks" for those looking for reasons to be stumbled.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

In a good sense, Igzy I think you are bias due to your faith. You may be seriously unable to imagine reasoning atheologically.

I can imagine all kinds of reasoning. I just prefer good reasoning to bad reasoning. And all reasoning that I've seen that concludes God doesn't exist is bad reasoning. I don't say that because I have preconceived notions. It's just what I honestly think.

But I think it's patronizing to say that because I think that atheological thinking is bad reasoning that I can't imagine it. I read it. I consider it. I see the flaws in it. Maybe I don't know what you mean by "in a good sense."

I also see the desperation behind it. I honestly think it's those who are arguing that God doesn't exist who have more to lose psychologically and emotionally that those who believe he exists. They have more of a siege mentality.

People of faith want airtight arguments for God, and are frustrated they are harder to come by than they might want. But atheists are in a whole other boat. They feel they must be right. Any inkling to them that God might exist must terrify them. Psychologically, then, they must be like people grasping for straws. I think this is why they feel the need to exude such confidence, which often comes across like arrogance and even disdain. They are trying to act more confident than they really are. Richard Dawkins and his ilk fall into this category. Then again, Dawkins et al might just be all-around jerks in everything they do. But I don't know them well enough to say that.

Yes, I have personal experience that supports my faith. But that's a strength, not a weakness. It gives me an inside edge. I'm like a math teacher who knows the correct answer to a problem. I may not know right away where a student went wrong in his figuring, but if his answer is wrong I know he did, and I'll eventually find the error. But I would still have the capability to find the correct answer even if I didn't know it, because I know how to reason the problem out. I don't have the intense psychological need to manufacture reasoning, because my faith is based on reasoning and solid experience. But atheists have no experience to fall back on.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

FINALLY, some sanity. That's the lesson.

This is what faith comes down to. Faith is still believing in God's goodness despite things that seemingly contradict it. That's what the lesson of Job was.

But this faith is not unreasonable. But it requires our adjusting our concept of "good" to what God is. Rather that adjusting our concept of God to what we think good should be.

zeek says believing in God has nothing to do with reason, but is solely about faith. But that is the same as saying faith has nothing to do with reason. And that's nonsense. Faith is the extension of reason. It's a belief in a conclusion which cannot be proved but which the evidence implies. Faith in God is highly reasonable. Existence of a temporally finite universe requires a Creator. The existence of a Creator requires that he be the definition of good. Therefore, a completely good God is a necessary fact.

No problem of evil can overcome that fact. It certainly challenges it, in our limited minds. But it doesn't defeat it, and we know that in our hearts, because we know we are plunging depths beyond our capacity. So we can rest easy in our beds, knowing God is good and that he will sort things out. We don't have to understand everything, and we don't have to apologize to anyone if we don't, particularly to smarty-pants skeptics who are looking for any excuse to get this troubling God out of their lives.

Well Igzy, even a blind pig roots up an acorn every now and then.

As a token of my appreciation of your wonderful post (another gem) I present what I picked up this morning on a Facebook public group called "Christian Mystery and Mysticism" :

“All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men.” (John 1:3, 4)
As to what the life of God is in relation to us, we know that it is the causing life of everything that we call life--of everything that is; and in knowing this, we know something of that life, by the very forms of its force. But the one interminable mystery, for I presume the two make but one mystery--a mystery that must be a mystery to us for ever, not because God will not explain it, but because God himself could not make us understand it--is first, how he can be self-existent, and next, how he can make other beings exist: self-existence and creation no man will ever understand….God could not love, could not be love, without making things to love: Jesus has God to love; the love of the Son is responsive to the love of the Father. The response to self-existent love is self-abnegating love. The refusal of himself is that in Jesus which corresponds to the creation of God…. It is not the fact that God is all in all, that unites the universe; it is the love of the Son to the Father. For of no onehood comes unity; there can be no oneness where there is only one. For the very beginnings of unity there must be two. Without Christ, therefore, there could be no universe. (George MacDonald, Unspoken Sermons, “The Creation in Christ.”)

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well Igzy, even a blind pig roots up an acorn every now and then.

And even a busted clock is right twice a day, which is why I post at 10, 2 and 4 while chugging a Dr. Pepper. Thanks, Harold.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

No, not assuming that. But you have to admit there is enough superficial reason for doubt to superficially placate those looking for excuses to doubt. (The POE falls into that category.) This coincides with the Bible's claim that God allows "stumbling blocks" for those looking for reasons to be stumbled.

That's a hypothesis and it may seem like that in given instances. But, it's a call that only the God that sees hearts can verify ultimately.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I can imagine all kinds of reasoning. I just prefer good reasoning to bad reasoning. And all reasoning that I've seen that concludes God doesn't exist is bad reasoning. I don't say that because I have preconceived notions. It's just what I honestly think. But I think it's patronizing to say that because I think that atheological thinking is bad reasoning that I can't imagine it. I read it. I consider it. I see the flaws in it. Maybe I don't know what you mean by "in a good sense."

By good sense I meant that if the way of faith became a person's everyday point of view, they might have a hard time seeing the validity of another point of view even though on purely rational grounds the differences may be undecidable. By acknowledging the way of faith as a valid way to go, I attempted to avoid being patronizing. Anyway you now claim that you are able to empathize with other ways of seeing so, it seems, I was wrong.

I also see the desperation behind it. I honestly think it's those who are arguing that God doesn't exist who have more to lose psychologically and emotionally that those who believe he exists. They have more of a siege mentality. People of faith want airtight arguments for God, and are frustrated they are harder to come by than they might want. But atheists are in a whole other boat. They feel they must be right. Any inkling to them that God might exist must terrify them. Psychologically, then, they must be like people grasping for straws. I think this is why they feel the need to exude such confidence, which often comes across like arrogance and even disdain. They are trying to act more confident than they really are. Richard Dawkins and his ilk fall into this category. Then again, Dawkins et al might just be all-around jerks in everything they do. But I don't know them well enough to say that.

Dawkins can be supercilious and condescending. I have know other atheists like him and others who are not.

Yes, I have personal experience that supports my faith. But that's a strength, not a weakness. It gives me an inside edge. I'm like a math teacher who knows the correct answer to a problem. I may not know right away where a student went wrong in his figuring, but if his answer is wrong I know he did, and I'll eventually find the error. But I would still have the capability to find the correct answer even if I didn't know it, because I know how to reason the problem out. I don't have the intense psychological need to manufacture reasoning, because my faith is based on reasoning and solid experience. But atheists have no experience to fall back on.

That's fine for you. Perhaps atheists fall back on their experience of the absence of God. Plenty of Christians have those God-absence experiences too. That might be grounds for maintaining that belief in God is a choice. But, not necessarily. Theologian Paul Tillich says all modern philosophy is Christian, even if it is humanistic, atheistic, and intentionally anti-Christian.

No philosopher living within Western Christian culture can deny his dependence on it[Christianity], as no Greek philosopher could have hidden his dependence on an Apollonian-Dionysian culture, even if he was a radical critic of the gods of Homer. The modern vision of reality and its philosophical analysis is different from that of pre-Christian times, whether one is or is not existentially determined by the God of Mount Zion and the Christ of Mount Golgotha. Reality is encountered differently; experience has different dimensions and directions than in the cultural climate of Greece. No one is able to jump out of this “magic” circle. Nietzsche, who tried to do so, announced the coming of the Anti-Christ. But the Anti-Christ is dependent on the Christ against whom he arises.

Tillich, Paul (2012-11-30). Systematic Theology, Volume 1 (p. 27). University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

That's fine for you. Perhaps atheists fall back on their experience of the absence of God. Plenty of Christians have those God-absence experiences too. That might be grounds for maintaining that belief in God is a choice. But, not necessarily. Theologian Paul Tillich says all modern philosophy is Christian, even if it is humanistic, atheistic, and intentionally anti-Christian.

I know God exists because I've experienced him every day for over forty years. Now, that might mean nothing to an atheist who wants rational or empirical evidence, but I know that I have evidence that atheists do not. A lack of experience can always be undone by experience. But once you have the experience, it can't be undone by any amount of lack of experience.

So I'm very confident that I'm right and atheists are wrong. Could I be delusional? I guess it's possible. But why would I be delusional about this? I'm otherwise sane, more or less. Maybe I'm like Elwood in the movie "Harvey." Except instead of an invisible 6 ft rabbit, I have an invisible infinite God. But why would such a delusion, which is often as bothersome as it is beneficial, be so persistent? It's certainly not the one I would pick if I had a choice. And what can account for the "peace that passes understanding" that I experience? If it is a delusion, it certainly is a convincing one.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I know God exists because I've experienced him every day for over forty years. Now, that might mean nothing to an atheist who wants rational or empirical evidence, but I know that I have evidence that atheists do not. A lack of experience can always be undone by experience. But once you have the experience, it can't be undone by any amount of lack of experience.

So I'm very confident that I'm right and atheists are wrong. Could I be delusional? I guess it's possible. But why would I be delusional about this? I'm otherwise sane, more or less. Maybe I'm like Elwood in the movie "Harvey." Except instead of an invisible 6 ft rabbit, I have an invisible infinite God. But why would such a delusion, which is often as bothersome as it is beneficial, be so persistent? It's certainly not the one I would pick if I had a choice. And what can account for the "peace that passes understanding" that I experience? If it is a delusion, it certainly is a convincing one.

Your testimony to your experience illustrates what I mean when I say that faith is not a conclusion reasoned to. Rather, it is an experience which can be reasoned from.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Your testimony to your experience illustrates what I mean when I say that faith is not a conclusion reasoned to. Rather, it is an experience which can be reasoned from.

Okay, I understand now. I wouldn't put it that way, however, because in part reason has led me to faith. But reason can't produce the experience faith can. This is what I think "ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth" means. Some people go round and round in their reasoning, being led to the threshold of faith again and again, but never walking through the door. So they go through life like the guys shown below.

Ultimately it's a heart and character matter, but reason has a part. The thing is, once you have experience, reason must acknowledge that as well.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Okay, I understand now. I wouldn't put it that way, however, because in part reason has led me to faith.

That's where your experience or your evaluation of your experience is different than mine. Some people testify to coming to Jesus through reason. My coming to Jesus had more to do with a personal crisis than with logic. Or, at least, when I look back on it now reasoning didn't seem to play the leading role. Ya know, it might have been that God Himself contacted me. Or was it merely psychosocial factors?

But reason can't produce the experience faith can. This is what I think "ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth" means. Some people go round and round in their reasoning, being led to the threshold of faith again and again, but never walking through the door. So they go through life like the guys shown below.

Well you see, that's not my situation. I've crossed the threshold. I have some knowledge of the truth. If I didn't I couldn't ask the question, "What is truth." The question "what is truth" presupposes that there is truth. Otherwise, there is no basis for asking about the nature of it. Even a half truth is a quantity of truth. But is it the final truth? No, of course not. The final truth is Reality Itself. And though I suppose that there must be a final absolute reality, I realize that I cannot know it as it is because it contains or is contained by God Himself who is Infinite. Remember I said God was ineffable? Not only that but He is also inconceivable.

Ultimately it's a heart and character matter, but reason has a part. The thing is, once you have experience, reason must acknowledge that as well.

On the latter point I heartily agree. On the previous point, I have questioned your meaning before. Are you asserting that the will is determined by character? If not, why does character matter. In other words, which comes first causally will or character?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

On the latter point I heartily agree. On the previous point, I have questioned your meaning before. Are you asserting that the will is determined by character? If not, why does character matter. In other words, which comes first causally will or character?

Because of the uncertain nature of faith and knowledge, we must "do our best" with the information we have. Doing your best requires character.

I think this is what God will ultimately judge: were we lying to ourselves or weren't we. How could God cast out anyone who at his heart level was being as sincere as he possibly could with the knowledge and conscience he was dealt? Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

My signature suggests these ideas.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Because of the uncertain nature of faith and knowledge, we must "do our best" with the information we have. Doing your best requires character.

I think this is what God will ultimately judge: were we lying to ourselves or weren't we. How could God cast out anyone who at his heart level was being as sincere as he possibly could with the knowledge and conscience he was dealt? Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

My signature suggests these ideas.

So I repeat my question: If character determines choice, how is choice free?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

So I repeat my question: If character determines choice, how is choice free?

Because character is a choice, too. While you are choosing what's right you are choosing what kind of person you want to be. By making the choice you become that kind of person more than you were. Our character is proven by our actions. The question is not whether you were than kind of person before you made the decision, the point is the decision proved who you are.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Because character is a choice, too. While you are choosing what's right you are choosing what kind of person you want to be. By making the choice you become that kind of person more than you were. Our character is proven by our actions. The question is not whether you were than kind of person before you made the decision, the point is the decision proved who you are.

OK then, you're saying choice determines character.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

OK then, you're saying choice determines character.

I don't think it really matters. That's just a chicken-or-egg argument and it's really beside my point. The point is our choices demonstrate our character, and the ones that do it most are the ones where we can convincingly lie to ourselves. If there were no real questions we really couldn't do that. We could all be "good" without really being tested.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I don't think it really matters. There are arguments both ways. That's just a chicken-of-egg argument and it's really beside my point. The point is our choices demonstrate our character, and the ones that do it most are the ones where we can convincingly lie to ourselves. If there were no real questions we really couldn't do that. We could all be "good" without really being tested.

Of course it matters. If we can't determine the causal chain, be it character=>choice, or choice=>character, we don't know how it works. If we don't know how it works, then we can't explain how either good of evil occur. If we, don't know how good or evil occur, we can't say anything about the problem of evil. For choices to "demonstrate our character" as you said, character must come first and cause choices. If choice comes first and is causative, then character demonstrates choice. This determination is critical to the "free-will" defense.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Of course it matters. If we can't determine the causal chain, be it character=>choice, or choice=>character, we don't know how it works. If we don't know how it works, then we can't explain how either good of evil occur. If we, don't know how good or evil occur, we can't say anything about the problem of evil. For choices to "demonstrate our character" as you said, character must come first and cause choices. If choice comes first and is causative, then character demonstrates choice. This determination is critical to the "free-will" defense.

Each affects the other. Asking which came first is like asking which pedal you pushed first when you started a bike ride ten minutes ago. I don't know and at this point it doesn't matter.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Each effects the other. Asking which came first is like asking which pedal you pushed first when you started a bike ride ten minutes ago. I don't know and at this point it doesn't matter.

If you don't know, then you don't if we are free or not. Thus, the free will defense is defeated. There is plenty of evidence that choices are determined by character which is a product of DNA plus learning. The Bible tells us we are predestined to our ends. Proverbs 22:6 says "Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it." That's saying that good choices follow from good training. If a person doesn't get the right training, he/she is destined to bad choices.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

If you don't know, then you don't if we are free or not. Thus, the free will defense is defeated.

In your haste to reach your "thus," (and in meantime brush aside the point I was making) you've defined character, it seems, to mean intrinsic ability to do right or wrong. That isn't what I meant by it.

Character is really the kind of moral person you have decided to become, are working toward, and are becoming. Obviously we have certain raw materials to work with, but our choices develop those raw materials. Since we are fallen, we need grace. And, even though we are fallen, with grace we still can make initial choices that are relatively good enough to propel us to higher levels. And so we grow.

Obviously a person who practices lying is going to have a lower character than one who practices telling the truth. It's going to be easier for the person who has practiced truthfulness to be truthful than for the person who has practiced lying. When the person who has developed a poor character is faced with a stern moral test, he is more likely to fail than the person who has developed a good one. So if our moral nature is likened our body, character can be likened to the kind of body you've developed. Obviously there can be huge differences in the results based on the choices made along the line.

So your definition of character really had nothing to do with my point. Which is why I kept trying to avoid the issue. But I guess you felt the need to be clever and show how smart your were and tried to lead me into a contradiction. As I said, in the meantime you brushed aside my main point, which, paraphrased, could be stated as, uncertainty builds and demonstrates character better than certainty. Which is why, I think, God requires faith.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

In your haste to reach your "thus," (and in meantime brush aside the point I was making) you've defined character, it seems, to mean intrinsic ability to do right or wrong. That isn't what I meant by it.
Character is really the kind of moral person you have decided to become, are working toward, and are becoming. Obviously we have certain raw materials to work with, but our choices develop those raw materials. Since we are fallen, we need grace. And, even though we are fallen, with grace we still can make initial choices that are relatively good enough to propel us to higher levels. And so we grow.

Sorry for the brushing aside. I was urgently pursuing the truth. So, you see yourself "propelling to higher levels". Well, how many people can claim that. Tell me what the "higher levels" are like. Don't you think the history of the individual human being is such that one must discover that one is inauthentic before one gets on the road to authenticity?

Obviously a person who practices lying is going to have a lower character than one who practices telling the truth. It's going to be easier for the person who has practiced truthfulness to be truthful than for the person who has practiced lying.

True.

When the person who has developed a poor character is faced with a stern moral test, he is more likely to fail than the person who has developed a good one. So if our moral nature is likened our body, character can be likened to the kind of body you've developed. Obviously there can be huge differences in the results based on the choices made along the line.

Right. But, there are many dimensions to character rather than a single dimension life you described. People have strengths and weaknesses. One person may do great wrongs and yet show great compassion. Character is not a black-white all or nothing monolith like you are describing.

So your definition of character really had nothing to do with my point. Which is why I kept trying to avoid the issue. But I guess you felt the need to be clever and show how smart your were and tried to lead me into a contradiction. As I said, in the meantime you brushed aside my main point, which, paraphrased, could be stated as, uncertainty builds and demonstrates character better than certainty. Which is why, I think, God requires faith.

You're point is a good one. Reminds me of Aristotle's virtue ethics. I am still not aware that I was doing what you accuse me of. I wanted you to clarify the sense in which you meant character be it cause or effect and you have now made it quite clear you mean it to be an effect while choice is the cause.

You may have something with your proposition that uncertainty builds and demonstrates character better than certainty. I don't know if that's true but there is much uncertainty in the knowledge possible to a human being in this life. Truth demands that we acknowledge this. Grace means to me that God must give us whatever He requires. If not, we're screwed.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Sorry for the brushing aside. I was urgently pursuing the truth. "So, you see yourself propelling to higher levels. Well, how many people can claim that. Tell me what the "higher levels" are like. Don't you think the history of the individual human being is such that one must discover that one is inauthentic before one gets on the road to authenticity?



True.



Right. But, there are many dimensions to character rather than a single dimension life you described. People have strengths and weaknesses. One person may do great wrongs and yet show great compassion. Character is not a black-white all or nothing monolith like you are describing.




You're point is a good one. Reminds me of Aristotle's virtue ethics. I am still not aware that I was doing what you accuse me of. I wanted you to clarify the sense in which you meant character be it cause or effect and you have now made it quite clear you mean it to be an effect while choice is the cause.

You may have something with your proposition that uncertainty builds and demonstrates character better than certainty. I don't know if that's true but there is much uncertainty in the knowledge possible to a human being in this life. Truth demands that we acknowledge this. Grace means to me that God must give us whatever He requires. If not, we're screwed.

Thank, zeek. I appreciate it. I'm going to have to check out on the board for awhile, as I have more urgent matters to attend to.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Thank, zeek. I appreciate it. I'm going to have to check out on the board for awhile, as I have more urgent matters to attend to.

I understand. Remember, "All things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose."

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

I understand. Remember, "All things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose."

Thank you for that!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I understand. Remember, "All things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose."

You will be missed. I'm hoping & praying for the very best for you and yours.

[zeek]

Igzy claimed, and OBW agreed with him, that the problem of evil was nothing more than a word game. However, neither answered my question : Why, if the POE is merely a word game, do the great theologians take it seriously?

The POE was a lifetime preoccupation of Augustine. The main lines of his thought on the problem have been followed by most theologians ever since. Before his conversion to Christianity, Augustine was a Manichean who affirmed the ultimate dualism of good and evil.

Upon becoming a Christian, Augustine came to believe in a good God as the sole ultimate reality. He rejected the Manichean belief in the evil of matter in favor of acceptance of the material world as reflecting the goodness of the creator. Augustine countered the Manichean doctrine that evil is an independent reality and power co-eternal with God with his doctrine of deficient causation. Evil doesn't actually exist. It is, rather, the privation of being. In other words, evil is nothing more than the negation of something good.

Everything God created is good. Evil has no independent existence, but is always parasitic upon a good being. Evil occurs only when beings which are intrinsically good become corrupted or perverted through an act of will.

Augustine equated being with goodness and God with the Supreme Good. Insofar as a thing exists, it is good. A totally evil being could not exist. Evil results from turning away from God the highest good to any lower good.

Another point I raised which no one here answered was the problem of natural evils such as disease, or natural disasters. Augustine had an answer: natural evils were the consequence of the fall on man. As he put it "There are two kinds of evil, sin and the penalty for sin." [Against Fortunatus,15]

[OBW]

Sorry to have been away for a little over a week now, but a little medical work and some recovery have left me worn down for the time.

Zeek:

You are right that I have pointed only at single parts of your thesis. But it seems that the whole of the premises begins with, and therefore can be dismantled by dealing with a false dichotomy. The thing that I have been rephrasing as a "must" that is never declared to be so.

The POE is predicated on the premise that God is a collection of attributes that must operate, in full, and immediately. It ignores the obvious fact that man was created with the ability to choose between God's way(s) and other ways. It also seems to ignore that mankind is not the only grouping of beings that has this choice.

Satan clearly has/had the choice, along with a number of the angels. And while details as to how are not provided, there is record of Satan being the author of evil. So the direct creation of evil is not attributed to God directly, but to another of the lesser beings with him in the heavenly realm. And we have no record of how different the various ones there are. Whether the is God who is all everything and everyone else is just a bunch of weaklings. Or maybe they are simply less than God.

In any case, the one who rebelled was not destroyed, or otherwise forced back into compliance. A choice.

In the mean time, the POE treats the attributes of God as a collections of plusses and minuses, 0s and 1s, ons and offs, in a great computer program that is without thought or choice. And when someone suggests that God can think, and decide to do less than everything, or refrain from acting immediately, they are declared to have some kind of heretical, gnostic/dualistic view of God.

Despite any of the verses that have been trotted out to support the POE position on God, none of the verses make the all-wise, all-powerful, all righteous, all-knowing, etc., God without faculties, reason, or ability to determine how and when his attributes will be brought to bear without diminishing his existence.

The insistence upon knowing how God must act if he is actually all those things is a little like the healthy, wealthy, and wise gospel proponents that declare that it is my lack of faith that keeps me from having perfect health and a few million in my bank account. Yet another misrepresentation of what the scripture actually says.

I do not say that the scripture declares God to be less than all the things that the POE declares. But I also say that the scripture does not so perfectly box God in that he must refrain from doing other than full-on warfare on unrighteousness and evil immediately upon knowing that it will eventually happen if left unchecked. That is a fatal flaw in the PIE argument. And it suggests a fatal flaw in the need to so thoroughly define God (even if ostensibly for the purpose of weeding out heretics). We take statements made for a purpose and put them to work for other purposes for which they were not intended. Not as blatant as saying that 1 Cor 15:45 is about the Holy Spirit, but similar.

We are so engaged in the theology and orthodoxy of it when the most important part is neither, but belief (or faith, as you have stated) and immediately following that is orthopraxy, or right living. It is about the opportunity for members of mankind, who have a choice, to rediscover their purpose of bearing the image of God to the world and the universe. Not by knowing a lot of stuff. Adam didn't know a lot of stuff. But in the manner of living. Not saying there is never anything to know or to be said. But if there is nothing to see, there is nothing to explain, defend, or speak from.

Lee constantly made reference to the purpose of God. God's eternal purpose. I'm not sure that any of us really have a good idea what that is. But there clearly is one. And the little we have, mostly found in the scripture, leads in a different direction than knowing a lot of stuff about God and having the best doctrines. And it does not revolve around understanding all of the attributes of God an how they interact with each other and with the creation around him. We like to extrapolate beyond what is provided, but it just isn't there. Makes me think that it wasn't the purpose for including it at all.

And so some philosopher comes along and tries to state that the Bible provides enough facts about God to force the kind of direct, thorough analysis of his person set-up against his stated attributes that we can declare there to be something wrong with them? There just are't enough actual facts of absolute certainty in meaning to set up the POE. It is a fiction to state otherwise.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Igzy claimed, and OBW agreed with him, that the problem of evil was nothing more than a word game. However, neither answered my question : Why, if the POE is merely a word game, do the great theologians take it seriously?

You have just said that "the great theologians" take it seriously. Are you stating that all that would be considered great theologians took the challenge seriously? Or that they all agreed that it is properly stated? It seems that much of the answer of theologians for centuries has been to attack the premises. Are you saying that those theologians cannot, by definition, be great?

If, as I have suggested elsewhere, the purpose of God, man, creation, etc., is not better theological understanding, it is also possible that at some level the "great" theologians are actually not so great since their focus has been on the ethereal more than the here-and-now. On what they know (or think they know) and not on what they do and how they do it. I would not state that there is no reason to know anything about God. But what there is for us to know about God is not as hidden as many "great" theologians like to think. And the purpose of the knowing does not seem to be an end in itself. Rather, as it was in the beginning, we are created to bear the image of God. That is not found in understanding the trinity, or the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

It is not in trying to determine whether the rapture (if there really is such a thing) is pre, mid, or post millennial. Or whether there is a need for a group of people "standing on the ground" in a city. We see the worst of it but ignore the mundane that is just like it except for the extremeness of it all.

I do not feel the need to go back and find your precise verses. But I could not in any of them discover a statement that made God to be something so extreme in power, knowledge, wisdom, righteousness, justice, etc., that he was precluded from willfully doing less than all that he could, even if only for a time.

Why have theologians taken the POE seriously? Because:

They haven't challenged the premises for themselves. They haven't reviewed the things said against the evidence that is provided for the purpose of making the assertion.
They are too focused on the truth that is included to look past it to the unsupported presumption that should not be.

But more importantly, they have not all taken it seriously. Not that they have ignored it, but that some have challenged the premises provided. They have pointed to the missing premises that undermine those that are stated as if the only ones that matter.

The POE insists that its premises are sound and sufficient for the purpose. And there would appear to be much effort given to keeping it that way. I would presume that my challenges to the premises (which are not original, I'm sure) have been met with rebuttals similar to those provided in the past. The verses which hint at aspects of the "far surpassing" greatness of God in some way. But knowing the number of hairs on my head (shrinking as they are) does not translate into "knows all things and must take immediate action upon what is known." Not denying the first part. But the second part is not stated, yet it would seem that the POE goes beyond implying that it could be true and would rather assert that it must be true.

And I think that I have had enough to say about this. God is clearly a matter of faith. While there is a book of many words, the "facts" provided are sufficient for those who have eyes to see, not for those who have computer programs to run the probabilities. I do not put you in that category. Rather, I seem to see you as having a problem with something that you see as logically denying God despite faith that makes God very real. While that may be a real position, I also think that it is the unwillingness to challenge the logic that is creating what seems to be a problem.

But I have nothing more to say other than the same things in different ways. So maybe I should leave it to the theologians who think they are great.

[awareness]

The POE is just one question I have for God, if and when I meet Him. I also question why there's over 30 million competing critters on the earth ; all engaging in a predator/prey system of survival. Why God, did You do such a thing? Were You drunk or hung over when You created everything?

I resist seeing God in such a way. I'm inclined to Universalism ; that sees God's love as so powerful that It eventually reconciles all back to Him, even the most vile and rebellious. That's the kind of love I expect from God -- if God is God, that is.

So I'm inclined to see God as ultimate good. And all is fine until I encounter the hard questions, such as the POE, that challenges that presumption.

The hard questions can't be answered without pulling the rug out from under my presumption that God is good.

So in order to hold to the conviction, that God is good, the easiest response to the hard questions, such as the POE, that diminish God from being ultimate good, is to dismiss them out of hand. And the easiest way to do that is to deem the hard questions as mere word games.

But still, I have to admit, when evil strikes close to home, such as the loss of a child, the premise that God is good is called into serious fist punching question.

Evil can't be avoided. But questions such as the POE, that question God's goodness, can be. And doing so allows me to hold tight to my conviction that God is good.

[Unsure]

I just noticed a similar thread from two years ago.

It's Part of God's Plan — Really?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

The POE is just one question I have for God, if and when I meet Him.

Do you really think it's going to work out like that? I tend to think He will be asking the questions.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Do you really think it's going to work out like that? I tend to think He will be asking the questions.

Then He's a bully dictator. And will have to answer for that too.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

You have just said that "the great theologians" take it seriously. Are you stating that all that would be considered great theologians took the challenge seriously?

Well I don't know. Who do you have in mind that didn't or doesn't take the POE seriously? By "great" I meant those that had major impact on the beliefs and practices of the historic church. If I had wanted to imply what you are suggesting I would have said only those that took the POE seriously were great which I didn't.

Or that they all agreed that it is properly stated? It seems that much of the answer of theologians for centuries has been to attack the premises. Are you saying that those theologians cannot, by definition, be great?

Show me theologians who attacked the premises and I'll consider their arguments. How has the church evaluated them? What do you think of them? If you have represented anyone's opinions but your own you haven't said so. I don't know who you're referring to.

Theodicy is a significant part of apologetics. If the only answer an apologist has in response to the concern of non-Christians about the problem of evil is to dismiss it as nothing but a word game, how can they bring the non-Christian to Christ or even justify their own faith?

Pre-Nicene father Irenaeus expounded a different theodicy than Augustine more than 150 years before Augustine was born. Whereas Augustine held that before the fall, Adam was in a state of original righteousness and that his first sin was the inexplicable turning of a wholly good being toward evil, Irenaeus regarded the pre-Fall Adam as more like a child than a mature responsible adult. According to this conception Adam stood at the beginning of a long process of development. He had been created in the image of God but he had yet to be brought into the likeness of God. Irenaeus didn't see humanity's fall as a descent from so great a height as original righteousness to total depravity, but rather as one occurring in the early stages of Adam's spiritual development after which he would need greater help to advance from the image to the likeness of God which he could receive through Christ. You can see then that Irenaeus' is another argument against the role of a good God in the origin of evil.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Unsure

I just noticed a similar thread from two years ago.

It's Part of God's Plan — Really?

Welcome back Unsure. Hope all went well at school.

The link you provided was to a thread started by OBW. Our dear brother making great contributions toward this question on this thread. Apparently he's been struggling with this problem for some time.

You can deny this problem all you want, but once you encounter it there's no escaping it. It will creep back upon you, during times when your mind is unguarded ; maybe just before falling asleep at night.

Thinkers have been struggling with "Theo-dicy" (I prefer it that way because it seems that all is dicy) since monotheism was invented by the Egyptians some circa 4000 years ago.

And still no solution.

[awareness]

I don't think we can talk about God and evil without bringing up the holocaust. It's certainly an example of the human side of evil bar none, that God allowed to happen to His chosen people.

I wasn't there. None us of were. But it doesn't take much imagination to figure how the Jews must have felt toward God for allowing such a reprehensible atrocity to happen to His chosen people.

Some time back I read of a mock trial they held against God, while they were in Nazi camps. In short they found God guilty of committing evil against them. Then broke up and went back to their holding area to pray.

Can we find a more clear example than this, of how God allows evil?

I must ask myself : Can I love such a God? Should I, like the Jews finding God guilty of evil, continue to pray even if I can't?

The Trial of God:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial_of_God

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't think we can talk about God and evil without bringing up the holocaust. It's certainly an example of the human side of evil bar none, that God allowed to happen to His chosen people.

I wasn't there. None us of were. But it doesn't take much imagination to figure how the Jews must have felt toward God for allowing such a reprehensible atrocity to happen to His chosen people.

Out of this atrocity came the nation of Israel.

God was faithful to Israel even though they had rejected His Only begotten Son.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Then He's a bully dictator. And will have to answer for that too.

Methinks a better strategy would be to plead mercy.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Well I don't know. Who do you have in mind that didn't or doesn't take the POE seriously? By "great" I meant those that had major impact on the beliefs and practices of the historic church. If I had wanted to imply what you are suggesting I would have said only those that took the POE seriously were great which I didn't.

If you mean those who had a need to further define God beyond what was actually in the body of work they came to understand as scripture, then you may be right. The ones who had a need to be so precise in every way about every thing that they thought was important (and it would appear that it was all important to some of them).

The churches rocked along with some diversity of opinion on things for a while. Yes, some of the positions that ultimately won the day were devised in this era. But they were not simply "the" way that Christians thought at the time. And as we read back on some other issues, such as the issue of deification, it is clear that there were things said that have uncertain meaning, yet with the "right" understanding are now often taken to extremes that it does not appear was actually intended.

The arrival at dogma seems to have occurred primarily when the church became "in favor" with the state and certain ones gained the political authority to purge those who disagreed. And some of the doctrines we now hold (or need to say we hold) were redefined so specifically as to cast any slight variation as a heresy worthy of expulsion.

The question is whether in the first 3 or so centuries after the apostles (who, by the way, are the actual scribes of our most important doctrines, along with the OT writers) everything that is said about God is meant in the way that it has now been declared as Christian dogma and presumed in the POE. I think it is fairly clear that verses like saying God knows the number of hairs on your head is less about how all-knowing God is than it is to state that if he knows something as essentially irrelevant as this, why do we think he is unaware of our needs, plight, desires, etc. (not looking at the verse or its context at the moment, but suspecting that finding it once again will fit into this — based on my general memory, not photographic memory).

And so, a group of people who are enamored with their doctrinal positions (remember that we have so many divisions because we all think we are smarter than everyone else on these things) have taken what was said (that was already a little beyond scripture) and made it to mean something those ancients probably did not consider to mean or even imply. And based on their need for dogma, we have given to those who want to argue God away ammunition to use logic to disprove God.

But are the "facts" correctly stated? I would suggest that it is only according to the dogma.

We have so limited the choice and will of God that He is incapable of acting in a manner that is not entirely consistent with his predefined nature. If that definition is really it, then why stop there? Why not ask why such a God was actually capable of creating a system that did not simply act according to his characteristics and will. If he is all-knowing, all righteous, and all good, then how did he create a system in which the creation had the option to choose contrary to his will and character?

And if that is the case, then I think I have argued my way back to the notion that, assuming there actually is God, then those who argue the POE against God are arguing that if he exists then there should be no ability to even posit the question. And that is exactly the opposite of what they want.

But God is not a captive to our presumption as to what all-powerful means. Or all-knowing. Or all-loving. Or all righteous. God, who has choice, created man in his image. And while it can seem a little like defining God based on us, I would suggest that there are aspects of man that were created as similar to God. And a mind with which to choose is among those attributes. Is man unrighteous because he does not simply seek to judge injustice immediately? Is observing the sometimes wrong behavior of a child yet allowing it for a while inconceivable? (You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.) We train and discipline in a manner that willfully does not simply react to wrong at all times. We allow for the errors in action of others.

Do we presume that God is not allowed to do similar things? That he must simply deal with everything right now?

I do not think that there is anything in the doctrines of the ancients that truly stands in opposition to this notion. Just as none of the verses provided insists that God must act in any particular manner at any particular time. And assuming God can choose to delay, then according to the POE, God is not.

The problem is not God. It is the definitions used to setup the analysis. In effect, it is the POE.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Methinks a better strategy would be to plead mercy.

You may very well be right about that. I am concerned about a lightning strike at any moment. Cuz God is obviously unpredictable and He has all power at His fingertips.

Have mercy oh Lord, upon this sinner.

[Unsure]

I'm not sure where this discussion is going, so I can't really comment on the big specific topic at hand.

What I will say(and I'm not sure if it's been said already) is this:

What about the dead children?

God desires all men to be saved, yet millions of people in history have died before they either had a chance to hear the gospel due to geograpical isolation, or were too young to fully comprehend it. Does this constitute an evil? If so, how is this resolved? When the question is not really of free will but of outside circumstances denying you a chance to touch God, what about that?

Side note: at what age do you consider the spiritual "age of majority" when somebody of average intelligence (not intellectually challenged to the point of causing dysfunction in their life) would be able to fully comprehend just what they're getting into and fully appreciate the meaning of the Lord dying for their sins? If somebody dies or is otherwise mentally incapicated (brian damage, coma, etc) before this age, what happens to them? And is that not one of the greatest evils in the eyes of God?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unsure

What about the dead children?

God desires all men to be saved, yet millions of people in history have died before they either had a chance to hear the gospel due to geograpical isolation, or were too young to fully comprehend it. Does this constitute an evil? If so, how is this resolved? When the question is not really of free will but of outside circumstances denying you a chance to touch God, what about that?

Side note: at what age do you consider the spiritual "age of majority" when somebody of average intelligence (not intellectually challenged to the point of causing dysfunction in their life) would be able to fully comprehend just what they're getting into and fully appreciate the meaning of the Lord dying for their sins? If somebody dies or is otherwise mentally incapicated (brian damage, coma, etc) before this age, what happens to them? And is that not one of the greatest evils in the eyes of God?

What about the unborn, murdered in the womb?

There was a recent book and/or movie that was interesting. A young boy clinically died and then was brought back to life. He reportedly met his sister in heaven, yet he was never told that his mother had a miscarriage. If this story is true, then it is quite informative.

Firstly, a human being (human soul) is made by God at conception. Not even an early abortion or so-called "morning after pill" changes that. Secondly, this "person" is given some level of maturity in the after life, without going thru the normal stages of growth, since she could talk to her brother. Thirdly, she was not judged by God, having never sinned. There is quite a bit of speculation here, yet not without scriptural basis. Numerous verses speak of God knowing us and forming us in the womb.

It seems to me there will be more "destinations" reserved for man than merely heaven (New Jerusalem) or hell (lake of fire.) The RCC used to speak of "limbo" for the children. Revelations speaks of the "nations" outside the city of God. In the end, I believe God is fair, and after they open all the books at the judgment seat, all creation will also declare that God is exceedingly fair and just.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Unsure

I'm not sure where this discussion is going, so I can't really comment on the big specific topic at hand.

What I will say(and I'm not sure if it's been said already) is this:

What about the dead children?

God desires all men to be saved, yet millions of people in history have died before they either had a chance to hear the gospel due to geograpical isolation, or were too young to fully comprehend it. Does this constitute an evil? If so, how is this resolved? When the question is not really of free will but of outside circumstances denying you a chance to touch God, what about that?

Side note: at what age do you consider the spiritual "age of majority" when somebody of average intelligence (not intellectually challenged to the point of causing dysfunction in their life) would be able to fully comprehend just what they're getting into and fully appreciate the meaning of the Lord dying for their sins? If somebody dies or is otherwise mentally incapicated (brian damage, coma, etc) before this age, what happens to them? And is that not one of the greatest evils in the eyes of God?

The problem I have with so many questions like these is that there is not a simple or clear answer within the bounds of the text we call scripture. Not that everything that could be known is found there. But everything we were given to know is.

And while those questions are perplexing, and they cause different levels of "call to action" in each of us (from prayer to becoming active in crisis pregnancy centers to lobbying for greater restrictions on abortions — but not to bombing abortion clinics) how those issues fit within the POE question is less than clear. The "how" in terms of God's response, whether now or later, is not a certainty.

And we presume that those who are responsible are all heathen who will ultimately "burn in hell." But I suspect that it is not so simple. That real, born-again (using the popular evangelical term) Christians have had abortions. Even after that line-in-the-sand salvation. And at least one of the doctors is actually a Christian but has not come to see (as most of us think he/she should) that the forced death of an embryo or fetus is murder.

Do we think that it is simply straight into heaven? Or there is a form of Purgatory? Or something in between? And whichever it turns out to be, would we in our pre-resurrection minds and bodies think the way is the right one (as if we have the final say and not God)?

I have the utmost respect for those who humbly undertake various actions surrounding the issue of abortion, from clinics to political action. (I do have a problem with those who do their part with kind a of air that they are righteous and everyone else is going to hell — and other similar kinds of unloving demeanors.) At this time it is not part of what I am involved in. But everyone can't be involved in everything.

But no matter how you are or are not involved in any particular issue, we all need to approach it with the humility that we are servants of Christ, and of those who surround us. We need to walk humbly before our God. And obey what is commanded of us. What and how God deals with those who never had the opportunity to believe is not ours to decide upon. And I don't see the scripture actually saying anything about it. So we will just have to see how it all works out.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Unsure

I'm not sure where this discussion is going, so I can't really comment on the big specific topic at hand.

What I will say(and I'm not sure if it's been said already) is this:

What about the dead children?

God desires all men to be saved, yet millions of people in history have died before they either had a chance to hear the gospel due to geograpical isolation, or were too young to fully comprehend it. Does this constitute an evil? If so, how is this resolved? When the question is not really of free will but of outside circumstances denying you a chance to touch God, what about that?

Side note: at what age do you consider the spiritual "age of majority" when somebody of average intelligence (not intellectually challenged to the point of causing dysfunction in their life) would be able to fully comprehend just what they're getting into and fully appreciate the meaning of the Lord dying for their sins? If somebody dies or is otherwise mentally incapicated (brian damage, coma, etc) before this age, what happens to them? And is that not one of the greatest evils in the eyes of God?

Ohio is right. We have to believe God is fair.

I'm not with those who say that one has to hear and respond to the gospel to be saved (e.g. John Piper). Once you hear it, though, you have no choice but to respond. In that case, you are liable. But if you've never heard it then you are only responsible for general revelation--the God revealed by creation, the God you acknowledge, honor and ask for mercy.

Jesus is not the answer to a trick question. He's God's provision for sin. He died for the sins of the whole world. His sacrifice can be applied to anyone God wants to apply it to--children, the ignorant, the mentally incompetent, etc.

Those who God deems accountable and who have heard the gospel are on another level. They've been honored with special revelation. It's actually easier for them to been saved because the gospel is the fast track to God, which is why we should preach it. But that doesn't mean you can't be saved if you haven't heard it. Like I said, God can apply Christ's work to anyone he wants to.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Ohio is right. We have to believe God is fair.

I'm not with those who say that one has to hear and respond to the gospel to be saved (e.g. John Piper). Once you hear it, though, you have no choice but to respond. In that case, you are liable. But if you've never heard it then you are only responsible for general revelation--the God revealed by creation, the God you acknowledge, honor and ask for mercy.

Jesus is not the answer to a trick question. He's God's provision for sin. He died for the sins of the whole world. His sacrifice can be applied to anyone God wants to apply it to--children, the ignorant, the mentally incompetent, etc.

Those who God deems accountable and who have heard the gospel are on another level. They've been honored with special revelation. It's actually easier for them to been saved because the gospel is the fast track to God, which is why we should preach it. But that doesn't mean you can't be saved if you haven't heard it. Like I said, God can apply Christ's work to anyone he wants to.

I happen to hold the teachings that the time of the Gentiles will come to an end, and with it the gospel of grace by faith unto eternal life. With the restoration of Israel's temple during the tribulation, an eternal gospel will be preached -- fear God and give Him glory. Apparently John 3.16 will transition to Revelation 14.6 resulting in "the nations" in Matthew 25.32.

Things are much more complicated than most think. Like Igzy says, God will judge us based on the revelation He has provided us.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

If you mean those who had a need to further define God beyond what was actually in the body of work they came to understand as scripture, then you may be right...
The problem is not God. It is the definitions used to setup the analysis. In effect, it is the POE.

You may have a point. Perhaps the God of orthodox Christian theology is the one who died. If so, there are plenty of atheists and defenders of Christian orthodoxy who haven't gotten the message because they argue on with each other as if he were still relevant.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Ohio is right. We have to believe God is fair.

I'm not with those who say that one has to hear and respond to the gospel to be saved (e.g. John Piper). Once you hear it, though, you have no choice but to respond. In that case, you are liable. But if you've never heard it then you are only responsible for general revelation--the God revealed by creation, the God you acknowledge, honor and ask for mercy.

Jesus is not the answer to a trick question. He's God's provision for sin. He died for the sins of the whole world. His sacrifice can be applied to anyone God wants to apply it to--children, the ignorant, the mentally incompetent, etc.

Those who God deems accountable and who have heard the gospel are on another level. They've been honored with special revelation. It's actually easier for them to been saved because the gospel is the fast track to God, which is why we should preach it. But that doesn't mean you can't be saved if you haven't heard it. Like I said, God can apply Christ's work to anyone he wants to.

An Eskimo hunter asked the local missionary priest, 'If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?' 'No,' said the priest, 'not if you did not know.' 'Then why,' asked the Eskimo earnestly, 'did you tell me?'

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

An Eskimo hunter asked the local missionary priest, 'If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?' 'No,' said the priest, 'not if you did not know.' 'Then why,' asked the Eskimo earnestly, 'did you tell me?'

Ha. Well, the fact is everyone knows. Romans says everyone knows God exists and are without excuse. But we are only responsible for the amount of revelation we have.

[awareness]

Gen 18:25 Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?"

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Ha. Well, the fact is everyone knows. Romans says everyone knows God exists and are without excuse. But we are only responsible for the amount of revelation we have.

But, as you said,

"I'm not with those who say that one has to hear and respond to the gospel to be saved (e.g. John Piper). Once you hear it, though, you have no choice but to respond. In that case, you are liable."

The Good News, once you hear it you're liable. More than a little irony there, no?

[Unsure]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Ha. Well, the fact is everyone knows. Romans says everyone knows God exists and are without excuse. But we are only responsible for the amount of revelation we have.

I never understood that portion of Romans. When Paul was writing about nature declares God, I was like "isn't that a huge stretch? What are you even talking about?" Is he writing about the tendency to acribe natural phenomena to supernatural forces that pretty much every culture shared in their beginnings? But then does that not fall into idolatry?

Granted, coming from a first-world country and to be blessed to understand many of the underlying mechanisms of biology and ecology, I guess it is natural that I can't fathom how a person living in the First Century would approach the matter of nature's splendor.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Jesus is not the answer to a trick question. He's God's provision for sin. He died for the sins of the whole world. His sacrifice can be applied to anyone God wants to apply it to--children, the ignorant, the mentally incompetent, etc.

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. John 3:17

If the narrative in the opening chapters of Genesis is to be understood and believed at anything remotely close to face value, then Adam and Eve set the entire world, and most specifically mankind, on a collision course with a death sentence. To give a crude example, we are all passengers on the Titanic. No, we were not the watchman who failed to see the collision coming with the iceberg. No, we were not the captain who failed at his leadership. We are, nonetheless, on the sinking ship.

God has thrown us a lifesaver, quite literally, in the Person and work of Jesus Christ. If we reject and refuse the lifesaver, who are we to complain to God about those who went down with the ship? Although it is not described in the scriptures, it seems reasonable (I reluctantly, but advisedly use this term) that God will not let those in a state of innocence, as it were, go down with the ship.

All this being said, I agree that we will all be accountable to God for the revelation he has given each and every man.
-

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

But, as you said,

The Good News, once you hear it you're liable. More than a little irony there, no?

When someone has been given much, much will be required in return; and when someone has been entrusted with much, even more will be required. Lk 12:28

With great power comes great responsibility. Spider-Man 1

The gospel doesn't make it harder to believe, it makes it easier, because it's a story of love and redemption.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Although it is not described in the scriptures, it seems reasonable (I reluctantly, but advisedly use this term) that God will not let those in a state of innocence, as it were, go down with the ship.

All this being said, I agree that we will all be accountable to God for the revelation he has given each and every man.

Romans makes clear that everyone is responsible for acknowledging God. But the Bible never says everyone is responsible for believing in Christ. John says he who does not have the Son does not have life, but he does not say you need to know the Son's name. Since the Son is God, however, anyone who claims to have God but rejects the Son is obviously speaking contradictions.

John Piper teaches that the reason we must preach the gospel is that people who don't hear it and believe cannot be saved. But this makes little sense. What about the people who lived and died before Jesus did? What about people who died 5000 miles from the good land ten days after Jesus died? What about all the people in the western hemisphere during that time and later?

History has shown that people can be saved without hearing the gospel. Missionaries have encountered at least one woman who said that the Christ they preached was the God she knew. Jesus is in the present day appearing to Muslims in the Middle East in dreams, and they are being saved.

God wants to save people. He's not looking for excuses for them to be lost. I believe we all have enough revelation to say in humility, "God I know you are real, and I know I need your mercy. Please grant it to me." I believe anyone who prays such a heartfelt prayer will have Christ's work applied to them and will be saved. I believe God gives everyone enough revelation to do at least that.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

When someone has been given much, much will be required in return; and when someone has been entrusted with much, even more will be required. Lk 12:28

With great power comes great responsibility. Spider-Man 1

The gospel doesn't make it harder to believe, it makes it easier, because it's a story of love and redemption.

Liability is a legal concept. It seems that from this POV we are still under the law.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Liability is a legal concept. It seems that from this POV we are still under the law.

Being free from the law does not free us from the requirement to have faith.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Being free from the law does not free us from the requirement to have faith.

According to that way of thinking we are free from one law only to come under another law. To make faith a requirement is to make it a good work. If that were the case, we would once again be saved by a work, which is what Paul says we are saved from. It seems we are stuck in a vicious circle.

[awareness]

It makes all the sense in the world that when the POE comes up eventually the gospel comes up along with it.

But I have to point out that accepting Jesus as your savior doesn't stop evil from happening. The POE existed before the cross, and exists afterward.

I think I've said before, in so many words, that I'm puzzled as to why the cross didn't satisfy God enough for Him to lift the curse put on the natural world from the fall in the garden.

Cuz then maybe God couldn't do anything about evil resulting from free will, but at least He'd put an end to evil in the natural world. But He didn't.

Jesus said that if he was lifted up he would draw all men to himself ... Okay ... but does natural evil drive men there?

Does that explain why God allows evil. Is He using evil as a cattle prod?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

According to that way of thinking we are free from one law only to come under another law. To make faith a requirement is to make it a good work. If that were the case, we would once again be saved by a work, which is what Paul says we are saved from. It seems we are stuck in a vicious circle.

Only if you are a victim of paralysis by analysis. The interesting thing about reality is that sometimes it is compatible with intense logic, sometimes it is compatible with common sense, sometimes it is compatible with intuition, sometimes it is compatible with a heart response, etc. But also sometimes it breaks them all. You have to stay on your toes. God is beyond them all, and uses them all, because he is the reality of them all.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Is He using evil as a cattle prod?

I think the whole thing comes down to God trying to produce a world where free will exists but no one chooses evil. This takes a process. If God just ended all evil then free will not choosing evil could not prevail.

Apparently that reality is something that even God cannot produce instantly. It takes time. I don't know how long it will take or what actually happens. But I do think it is his ultimate goal. No magic. No tricks. No sleight of hand. Just a process by which those who love Him slowly but surely learn to never... choose... evil... again.

[OBW]

While I still maintain that the logic (and the premise) is flawed, I agree with an earlier statement that God is a matter of faith, not logic.

And he either is or is not no matter how we phrase our arguments.

If there is God, then the logic of man (both the Christian and atheist) is irrelevant when it comes to determining whether there is or is not God. Same if there is not a God.

And he either is or is not no matter what we believe, or think should be true.

And I have seen something that makes me believe. Not a 12-foot Jesus. Or a "miracle." But things that convince me that there is a coherent designer of all of this (not just a collection of squabbling demigods). It didn't just happen. And "He" is not just a creator that is now absent.

But that is faith.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

It makes all the sense in the world that when the POE comes up eventually the gospel comes up along with it.

But I have to point out that accepting Jesus as your savior doesn't stop evil from happening. The POE existed before the cross, and exists afterward.

I think I've said before, in so many words, that I'm puzzled as to why the cross didn't satisfy God enough for Him to lift the curse put on the natural world from the fall in the garden.

Cuz then maybe God couldn't do anything about evil resulting from free will, but at least He'd put an end to evil in the natural world. But He didn't.

Jesus said that if he was lifted up he would draw all men to himself ... Okay ... but does natural evil drive men there?

Does that explain why God allows evil. Is He using evil as a cattle prod?

What we deem evil seems to have to do with what we value rather than anything intrinsic to the way things are in themselves.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Only if you are a victim of paralysis by analysis. The interesting thing about reality is that sometimes it is compatible with intense logic, sometimes it is compatible with common sense, sometimes it is compatible with intuition, sometimes it is compatible with a heart response, etc. But also sometimes it breaks them all. You have to stay on your toes. God is beyond them all, and uses them all, because he is the reality of them all.

Would that I had paralysis by analysis, before I leaped into Witness Lee's Local Church Movement. Now when I see contradictions I call them as I see them. I remain open in my attitude. If I am mistaken, explain how. I will examine your explanation. Dismiss me, and I will dismiss you. It seems only fair.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Would that I had paralysis by analysis, before I leaped into Witness Lee's Local Church Movement. Now when I see contradictions I call them as I see them. I remain open in my attitude. If I am mistaken, explain how. I will examine your explanation. Dismiss me, and I will dismiss you. It seems only fair.

The NT never says we have no rules, it simply says we are no longer under the old Jewish law and that we also have grace to sustain us. There are plenty of commandments in the NT, it's just that we have the means of grace to carry them out and the Holy Spirit to show us the essential meaning.

Thinking that not being under the law means or should mean there are no requirements is just a mistaken conclusion. It's an expectation that the NT does not promise us.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think the whole thing comes down to God trying to produce a world where free will exists but no one chooses evil.

Of course I can't know this for sure but I think that's called heaven.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

What we deem evil seems to have to do with what we value rather than anything intrinsic to the way things are in themselves.

I think this is unquestionably true of natural caused evil. The ocean can't be blamed for swallowing up a ship. Value kicks in when our loved ones are on the ship. That's when the problem of evil becomes more than a word game, and we blame God for not stopping it, and not holding to our same values.

As to human caused evil, we clearly have a value system placed on that. It's called the law. And methinks it's on the human caused evil that the POE can be considered just word game or trick.

Human caused evil doesn't diminish God. It diminishes the human collective. Natural caused evil does. But I suppose as to why God allowed Hitler and Stalin, and their mass scale evil, could call God into question. That's a value call.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The NT never says we have no rules, it simply says we are no longer under the old Jewish law and that we also have grace to sustain us. There are plenty of commandments in the NT, it's just that we have the means of grace to carry them out and the Holy Spirit to show us the essential meaning.

Thinking that not being under the law means or should mean there are no requirements is just a mistaken conclusion. It's an expectation that the NT does not promise us.

Thank you for your non-dismissive response. Reading it I stumbled over the words simply and just. So then is it simply just a formula?

Simply "the old Jewish law"? When were you or I ever under that? Were you a Jew? I wasn't. What kind of Gospel saves me from something I'm not a victim of? Help me out here. What have we been saved from and what have we been saved to?

Now Paul does speak of a kind of law...the law of faith. But, he contrasts that with works as in Romans 3: 27 "Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith."

If faith is a "requirement" that we have met or are meeting, then Paul is wrong, we do have cause to boast. No wonder we see Christians every day looking down and judging others. They have met or are meeting a God's requirement whereas those others, like those LGBT people for instance, clearly aren't. You've got a point there Igzy.

And, to bring us back to the problem at hand, it's all a matter of choice---our free will. But, honestly, how free are we? We didn't choose to be born. Or were we were born. Or who are parents were. Or what our genetic make up is. Or what religion we were born into. Those are all facts that we didn't choose. If cause and effect are operating on us as they are on everything else in the world, there is no free choice.

Paul alludes to this with his notion of predestination. The upside of that, is that if you find yourself in faith, you can just thank God that you are there because you were predestined to it. You get there through the great chain of cause and effect. If people really had a sense of this, it seems to me, they would have nothing but compassion for anyone NOT in the faith since those folks apparently lucky enough to be chosen before the foundation of the world.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Simply "the old Jewish law"? When were you or I ever under that? Were you a Jew? I wasn't. What kind of Gospel saves me from something I'm not a victim of? Help me out here. What have we been saved from and what have we been saved to?

If you do not accept the gift of salvation then you are on your own to be righteous under your own power to fulfill God's requirement. Gentiles weren't under the Jewish ritual law but they were under God's moral law of their consciences.

If faith is a "requirement" that we have met or are meeting, then Paul is wrong, we do have cause to boast.

Okay, then boast if doing so makes you happy. I think faith is simply acknowledging reality. Sort of like boasting about being able to breath. But if you think Paul is wrong and want to boast about it, go ahead. See how that feels for a while and tell me if it works.

Predestination.

Do you really think we are going to figure out the free will/predestination problem here?

If you think we really have no free will then you are off the hook for your choices in life. You get to just be a robot. So enjoy that way of looking at it if it works for you. But wait, then you would have to choose to make no choices.... Uh....

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I think this is unquestionably true of natural caused evil. The ocean can't be blamed for swallowing up a ship. Value kicks in when our loved ones are on the ship. That's when the problem of evil becomes more than a word game, and we blame God for not stopping it, and not holding to our same values.

As to human caused evil, we clearly have a value system placed on that. It's called the law. And methinks it's on the human caused evil that the POE can be considered just word game or trick.

Human caused evil doesn't diminish God. It diminishes the human collective. Natural caused evil does. But I suppose as to why God allowed Hitler and Stalin, and their mass scale evil, could call God into question. That's a value call.

The Bible tells us clearly why the POE exists. Firstly, Lucifer became proud, wanting to be like God, and rebelled against God's throne. Secondly, the serpent used this same bait on Adam and Eve in the garden. If we never knew what happened, then indeed the POE would indeed be a problem.

Everything in creation manifests this fact. We can marvel at the beauty of the cosmos, yet what if an asteroid hits us? The human body is really incredible, yet why does my back hurt this morning? Why is the weather getting more extreme, especially in Texas? Why do we have more earthquakes and forest fires? Why are new diseases, like Zika, frightening us with those pictures of newborns with tiny heads? Why do crazies want nuclear bombs?

Something is seriously wrong with this world. Just read the news. Things are not improving, like some scifi movies would help us to believe. Deterioration tells me that things were at one time better. The Bible tells us that everything will continue to get worse before it get better again.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Bible tells us clearly why the POE exists. Firstly, Lucifer became proud, wanting to be like God, and rebelled against God's throne. Secondly, the serpent used this same bait on Adam and Eve in the garden. If we never knew what happened, then indeed the POE would indeed be a problem.

Everything in creation manifests this fact. We can marvel at the beauty of the cosmos, yet what if an asteroid hits us? The human body is really incredible, yet why does my back hurt this morning? Why is the weather getting more extreme, especially in Texas? Why do we have more earthquakes and forest fires? Why are new diseases, like Zika, frightening us with those pictures of newborns with tiny heads? Why do crazies want nuclear bombs?

Something is seriously wrong with this world. Just read the news. Things are not improving, like some scifi movies would help us to believe. Deterioration tells me that things were at one time better. The Bible tells us that everything will continue to get worse before it get better again.

Great post bro Ohio.

And I guess blaming the POE on the morning star is as good a answer as any other. At least then God is not directly involved with the POE.

It doesn't explain why God doesn't do something about Lucifer tho.

Here's a puzzler : God created both Lucifer, and that crafty serpent in the garden. If Lucifer lets God off for the POE, then why can't the serpent let Adam and Eve off the hook for the fall?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

And I guess blaming the POE on the morning star is as good a answer as any other. At least then God is not directly involved with the POE.

It doesn't explain why God doesn't do something about Lucifer tho.

Sure He did, He judged him on the cross.

Lucifer and God have a relationship which we just can't understand. The Bible gives us only bits and pieces, like the first chapter of Job, which often tend to raise more questions.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

If you do not accept the gift of salvation then you are on your own to be righteous under your own power to fulfill God's requirement. Gentiles weren't under the Jewish ritual law but they were under God's moral law of their consciences.

First you talk about being under "Jewish law"as if that was something we were saved from and now you mention "Gentiles" in the past tense as if you weren't in that category. Unless you or I were Jewish, I don't see how the Jewish ritual law is relevant to us. As far as "Gentiles" is concerned the only thing that distinguishes us from that is faith. Whether or not faith makes a real difference is determined by how much faith one puts in faith.

Okay, then boast if doing so makes you happy.

You must have misread my statement. You wouldn't intentionally twist my words.

I think faith is simply acknowledging reality. Sort of like boasting about being able to breath. But if you think Paul is wrong and want to boast about it, go ahead. See how that feels for a while and tell me if it works.

Again, you misread me. I thought it was clear that I was contrasting your position with Paul's. I was trying to show you that you were wrong by showing how your position contradicts his. Now you've turned it around as if I was saying the opposite.

Of curse, faith would think that faith is just acknowledging reality. To think otherwise is to doubt.

Do you really think we are going to figure out the free will/predestination problem here?

You admit free will versus determinism is a problem yet your entire defense against the problem of evil is based on free will. Unless you can "figure it out" here, your argument against the problem of evil hasn't got a leg to stand on.

If you think we really have no free will then you are off the hook for your choices in life. You get to just be a robot. So enjoy that way of looking at it if it works for you. But wait, then you would have to choose to make no choices.... Uh....

The issue is not what we believe but what is the case. You have repeatedly jumped to conclusions about what I believe. I'm like you. I recognize that free/will predestination is a problem that we're not likely to solve here. Immanuel Kant recognized that over 200 years ago and it hasn't been solved yet as far as I am aware. Scientific methodology assumes determinism and jurisprudence assumes free will. The issue certainly wasn't resolved in the Bible where both choice and predestination are presented in different places. If that weren't so there wouldn't be the doctrinal disputes between Christians and churches that have erupted on the issue through the years.

In any case, the uncertainty around the issue of free will undermines the free will theodicy according to which God is justified in permitting evil and its consequences because he has to do so if he is to bestow the privilege of being responsible agents on some of his creatures.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I think this is unquestionably true of natural caused evil. The ocean can't be blamed for swallowing up a ship. Value kicks in when our loved ones are on the ship. That's when the problem of evil becomes more than a word game, and we blame God for not stopping it, and not holding to our same values. As to human caused evil, we clearly have a value system placed on that. It's called the law. And methinks it's on the human caused evil that the POE can be considered just word game or trick. Human caused evil doesn't diminish God. It diminishes the human collective. Natural caused evil does. But I suppose as to why God allowed Hitler and Stalin, and their mass scale evil, could call God into question. That's a value call.

You're maintaining a traditional distinction between man and nature. If Darwin was right, we are just as natural as everything else. But, we evaluate everything from an anthropocentric point of view. And it isn't seen how we can transcend that viewpoint. So the so-called moral evils that humans perpetrate against each other are also natural. Evil, then, doesn't exist in and of itself. Instead it's what we call it when something we value is harmed.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Bible gives us only bits and pieces, like the first chapter of Job, which often tend to raise more questions.

So true. Even his infamous fall from heaven is vague. So tradition had to extrapolate from Ezekiel and Isaiah to fill in huge gaping gaps.

In the end tho, Lucifer came to have as many omni's as God Himself, except instead of omnibenevolent he's omnimalevolent.

That's why we believe he's behind the POE.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

In the end tho, Lucifer came to have as many omni's as God Himself

I never liked omni's. I won't buy dodge's anymore.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

So true. Even his infamous fall from heaven is vague. So tradition had to extrapolate from Ezekiel and Isaiah to fill in huge gaping gaps.

In the end tho, Lucifer came to have as many omni's as God Himself, except instead of omnibenevolent he's omnimalevolent.

That's why we believe he's behind the POE.

Not according to Bible. Lucifer can't be omni-malevolent because he was created by God and everything God creates is good. Genesis 1 shows that. From that it follows that there are no beings that are bad in themselves. Evil cannot exist independently. It depends on corrupting good God-created things including Lucifer.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I never liked omni's. I won't buy dodge's anymore.

Dodging and weaving is often a response to the POE. And denying and diminishing the omni's is often offered as a solution to the POE.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Not according to Bible. Lucifer can't be omni-malevolent because he was created by God and everything God creates is good. Genesis 1 shows that. From that it follows that there are no beings that are bad in themselves. Evil cannot exist independently. It depends on corrupting good God-created things including Lucifer.

Evil is the absence of good. Therefore, according to the above, it can't come from God. The mystery of mysteries is ,,, where did the absence of good originally come from?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Not according to Bible. Lucifer can't be omni-malevolent because he was created by God and everything God creates is good. Genesis 1 shows that. From that it follows that there are no beings that are bad in themselves. Evil cannot exist independently. It depends on corrupting good God-created things including Lucifer.

Lucifer chose to be who he became. Your "logic" is naive. Lucifer pre-dated everything written in Genesis 1. He became malevolent long before God said "very good" in Genesis.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

Evil is the absence of good. Therefore, according to the above, it can't come from God. The mystery of mysteries is ,,, where did the absence of good originally come from?

So close Harold! Actually Evil, at least for our purposes here, is not the absence of good, but rather the opposite of good. It's not as if God left a vacuum to be filled with evil. A choice is not a vacuum, it is a choice. We get strong hints in the Old Testament that "Lucifer" had a choice. We get more than strong hints in the opening chapters of Genesis that Adam and Eve had a choice. The entire testimony of the scriptures is one long recording of the choices man has made through the ages - All the way from Adam and Eve to the record of the consequences of man's choices that are there in Revelation.

There is no record of God creating perfect, robot-creatures incapable of choice. I suppose he could have, but the fact is that he didn't. Lucifer made a choice. Adam and Eve made a choice. Judas Iscariot made a choice. We make choices every day. In Joshua's day it was "And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve". Really and truly, our choice is not between good and evil, it is between God and evil.

Man is fickle and changeable. God is God. Our definition of "Evil" can change and fluctuate, all upon the whims of sinful and evil mankind. To ask a man what is evil is to leave the chickens to be guarded by the fox. The conflict of interest is too much to expect a proper definition.

Is evil then a real problem? Well, not to God it isn't. And, in fact, it doesn't really have to be for man either. Oh, don't get me wrong - it is a huge problem for man, and will be for the foreseeable future. It's just that God has done something to combat evil - if we will only accept and believe the provision he has provided in the Person and work of Christ.

-

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lucifer chose to be who he became. Your "logic" is naive. Lucifer pre-dated everything written in Genesis 1. He became malevolent long before God said "very good" in Genesis.

The issue with respect to the problem of evil is not when the devil was created but whether God created an evil being. The position your calling naive is that of Augustine, Aquinas, C.S. Lewis and others that God only creates good stuff therefore Lucifer or whoever must have been created good and then somehow through an act of will chose bad.

Since you state Lucifer "became" malevolent rather then that he was created that way, it isn't clear that you disagree with their naive position in any meaningful way. Why couldn't God declare the angel "good" before he "became" malevolent by choice?

[awareness]

Goodness Untohim, how can I assault such a wonderful post (displayed below) with further questions? For the moment I'm speechless. I depend on scripture to speak:

Mat 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So close Harold! Actually Evil, at least for our purposes here, is not the absence of good, but rather the opposite of good. It's not as if God left a vacuum to be filled with evil. A choice is not a vacuum, it is a choice. We get strong hints in the Old Testament that "Lucifer" had a choice. We get more than strong hints in the opening chapters of Genesis that Adam and Eve had a choice. The entire testimony of the scriptures is one long recording of the choices man has made through the ages - All the way from Adam and Eve to the record of the consequences of man's choices that are there in Revelation.

There is no record of God creating perfect, robot-creatures incapable of choice. I suppose he could have, but the fact is that he didn't. Lucifer made a choice. Adam and Eve made a choice. Judas Iscariot made a choice. We make choices every day. In Joshua's day it was "And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve". Really and truly, our choice is not between good and evil, it is between God and evil.

Man is fickle and changeable. God is God. Our definition of "Evil" can change and fluctuate, all upon the whims of sinful and evil mankind. To ask a man what is evil is to leave the chickens to be guarded by the fox. The conflict of interest is too much to expect a proper definition.

Is evil then a real problem? Well, not to God it isn't. And, in fact, it doesn't really have to be for man either. Oh, don't get me wrong - it is a huge problem for man, and will be for the foreseeable future. It's just that God has done something to combat evil - if we will only accept and believe the provision he has provided in the Person and work of Christ.

-

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

The issue with respect to the problem of evil is not when the devil was created but whether God created an evil being. The position your calling naive is that of Augustine, Aquinas, C.S. Lewis and others that God only creates good stuff therefore Lucifer or whoever must have been created good and then somehow through an act of will chose bad.

Since you state Lucifer "became" malevolent rather then that he was created that way, it isn't clear that you disagree with their naive position in any meaningful way. Why couldn't God declare the angel "good" before he "became" malevolent by choice?

I hate to interlope into such wonderful fellowship but I do have to ask something that came to mind while reading this response.

It comes to mind with this statement : "Lucifer or whoever must have been created good and then somehow through an act of will chose bad."

Before the very first exercise of free will, before the very first choice, there must have been bad to pick from. Why? Is bad good? It had to come from God. Can God create any other but good? Therefore bad is good, right?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I hate to interlope into such wonderful fellowship but I do have to ask something that came to mind while reading this response.

It comes to mind with this statement : "Lucifer or whoever must have been created good and then somehow through an act of will chose bad."

Before the very first exercise of free will, before the very first choice, there must have been bad to pick from. Why? Is bad good? It had to come from God. Can God create any other but good? Therefore bad is good, right?

That was a typo. I meant to say "chose badly."

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Igzy claimed, and OBW agreed with him, that the problem of evil was nothing more than a word game. However, neither answered my question : Why, if the POE is merely a word game, do the great theologians take it seriously?

It's a "word game" in the sense that it all hinges on your definition of "good." Define good to mean that evil cannot be allowed for a time then you have the problem of evil. Define good to mean evil can be allowed for a time then you have no problem of evil.

The POE is really a tautology. It predefines a God who couldn't allow evil and then says, see, this God is contradictory. What the POE (and you) never accept is that perhaps good is different than how you are defining it. What's weird about that refusal is that there are many examples even in our human life where experiencing the effects of evil for a while work a greater good. So why can't it be that way in the eternal sense? The only question is when is the greater good achieved. But only God need know the answer.

As for predestination undermining the importance of choice, again that depends on one's preconceptions of what predestination actually is. The reason I said if you believe there is no choice then just choose to live that way was to emphasize vividly that you indeed do choose, and since you do choose arguing that you don't is rather silly.

We cannot understand how some sort of predestination and choice can exist together. We also cannot understand how God can be one and yet three, or how Christ can be both human and divine, how the death of Christ saves us or, or even how God can be self-existing. There are a lot of things we can't understand.

An example is the dual nature of light. It exhibits characteristics of particles and waves. But we don't know how it can be both. Does that mean it can't be both, or just that we don't understand enough? Certainly it doesn't mean light doesn't really exist, just that it doesn't follow our preconceptions.

I think at some point you have to either decide to not believe or to concede there are some things beyond your understanding. Ironically, that too is a choice.

[Cal]

As for the theodicy argument, there is a flip side to that. Continuing in disbelief because of theoretical arguments like the POE is a choice, too. It's an insistence on having your understanding according to your preconceptions satisfied. But if you do this in the instance of God you should also do it in the instance of everything else that doesn't add up in life. Like with light. Since, based on our preconceptions, it cannot be both particles and waves, you should, to continue with integrity, refuse to believe in it. Just go through life with your eyes shut since light doesn't measure up to philosophical analysis. Ironically, this is exactly what people who get stumbled by things like the POE do in the spiritual sense. If your response is that the existence of light is self-evident, I would argue that so is the existence of God.

Here's another thought: If there was no question that evil cannot serve the greater good then we would be able to find no examples where it does. But since there are innumerable examples--from athletes enduring the pain of training to become champions, to people overcoming the loss of loved ones to become more compassionate, to the daily struggles with evil improving our characters--the argument that this cannot be the case in the eternal sense is severely undermined. Thus, the idea that God is using evil to achieve a greater good is not only possible, it's likely.

Again, the only question is when does "perfection" occur. When is evil banished forever and God makes "all things new?" And, again, only he need know the answer to that. But it will happen.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Evil is the absence of good. Therefore, according to the above, it can't come from God. The mystery of mysteries is ,,, where did the absence of good originally come from?

Apparently being given a free will makes it possible. But why would a being with a free will choose evil?

I don't know, but I think it's related to the whole ego thing. God is a conscious being with a self. So are we. If you check, most evil has its roots in selfishness, in putting ourselves first. Good people are usually unselfish people.

I think there is something very deep about this dynamic that we don't really get yet. On the one hand, self-fulfillment is about the self; on the other hand, it's achieved by putting the self aside. "He who loses his life will find it." This is confusing at a very fundamental level. In order to truly walk in it you have to have complete faith in God.

In his Triune nature God is already living out this dynamic. Jesus modeled how we should do it as human beings. But we still don't fully understand it. Ultimately it is the answer to everything: What does it mean to be a soul. What does it mean for there to be an Other. What love is. Somehow, at the ultimate end of losing your self is finding it in the ultimate way, in a way you could not have otherwise. I think when we reach that point we will fully understand where evil came from.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It's a "word game" in the sense that it all hinges on your definition of "good." Define good to mean that evil cannot be allowed for a time then you have the problem of evil. Define good to mean evil can be allowed for a time then you have no problem of evil.

As I'm sure you are aware, evil and good are opposites. As such they define each other like beautiful and ugly, being and non-being, difficult and easy, long and short, high and low, and before and after, etc. When people value some things as good, others become evil. They are polar concepts. They create and depend on each other.

As polar opposite concepts, good and evil are pure. Their boundaries are clear cut like black and white. When black and white are mixed gray results. When evil is allowed for a time, good suffers, purity is lost. How can we say that good that allows evil for a time is absolute good? I don't think we can.

God as omni-benevolent or the Absolute Good or the Perfect Source of all goodness cannot be understood from the standpoint of polar concepts which is the way we ordinarily think. This may explain why God is often thought of as living in heaven a realm which is beyond the polar opposites of good and evil.

The POE is really a tautology. It predefines a God who couldn't allow evil and then says, see, this God is contradictory. What the POE (and you) never accept is that perhaps good is different than how you are defining it. What's weird about that refusal is that there are many examples even in our human life where experiencing the effects of evil for a while work a greater good. So why can't it be that way in the eternal sense? The only question is when is the greater good achieved. But only God need know the answer.

You don't want to define God as less then absolutely good and therefore totally incompatible with evil do you? If not, then the POE makes a valid logical argument. I appreciate your argument from the experience of greater good coming from evil. However, to justify God allowing evil on that basis, you would have to show that every single evil results in a greater good. Otherwise, why would God allow it? There are many evils for which no greater good is apparent. To suppose without evidence that for every evil across the span of space-time there was, is or will be a greater good takes great faith.

As for predestination undermining the importance of choice, again that depends on one's preconceptions of what predestination actually is. The reason I said if you believe there is no choice then just choose to live that way was to emphasize vividly that you indeed do choose, and since you do choose arguing that you don't is rather silly.

Romans 8:29 says "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren." It doesn't say anything about choice. But, if one is predestined to choose something, free will is thereby overruled.

We cannot understand how some sort of predestination and choice can exist together. We also cannot understand how God can be one and yet three, or how Christ can be both human and divine, how the death of Christ saves us or, or even how God can be self-existing. There are a lot of things we can't understand.

You're preaching to the choir now. My position all along has been that Christianity is a matter of faith not knowledge. It seems you're beginning to agree with me.

An example is the dual nature of light. It exhibits characteristics of particles and waves. But we don't know how it can be both. Does that mean it can't be both, or just that we don't understand enough? Certainly it doesn't mean light doesn't really exist, just that it doesn't follow our preconceptions.

Those were experimentally observable phenomenon. What we're discussing isn't.

I think at some point you have to either decide to not believe or to concede there are some things beyond your understanding. Ironically, that too is a choice.

Or something we're predestined to. Who knows?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Apparently being given a free will makes it possible. But why would a being with a free will choose evil?

Because free will required both good and bad to chose from. Therefore before Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil good and evil was a choice. Perhaps they just gained the knowledge of what God had previously already established.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

I appreciate your argument from the experience of greater good coming from evil. However, to justify God allowing evil on that basis, you would have to show that every single evil results in a greater good. Otherwise, why would God allow it? There are many evils for which no greater good is apparent. To suppose without evidence that for every evil across the span of space-time there was, is or will be a greater good takes great faith.

I don't have to show it. I just have to show that it is possible. And since proving it isn't possible is beyond us, it remains possible as far as we know. The Bible agrees with this, though, when it says all things work together for good for those who love him.

Romans 8:29 says "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren." It doesn't say anything about choice. But, if one is predestined to choose something, free will is thereby overruled.

It seems that way. But the Bible also says we have to choose life. So that's the other side of it. I don't understand it. But I know I make choices. If I'm just a robot it will come as a surprise to me. I will ask God why he didn't program me to make better choices!

You're preaching to the choir now. My position all along has been that Christianity is a matter of faith not knowledge. It seems you're beginning to agree with me.

Your point seemed to say that reason was no help at all. I think it is. Obviously you do too really or you wouldn't reason so much.

Those were experimentally observable phenomenon. What we're discussing isn't.

It is for me. Just because you can't validate my experience/experiment doesn't mean I can't. I can't prove it to you, but then I can't really prove I see anything. Might all be just a dream. We can't prove it isn't. Just common sense tells us otherwise. Well, to me common sense tells me there is a God.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

How can we say that good that allows evil for a time is absolute good? I don't think we can.

I think a good which can take even evil and use it for a greater good is better than a good that can't do that. But I think we are speculating about things we don't know if we can really understand anyway.

God as omni-benevolent or the Absolute Good or the Perfect Source of all goodness cannot be understood from the standpoint of polar concepts which is the way we ordinarily think. This may explain why God is often thought of as living in heaven a realm which is beyond the polar opposites of good and evil.

At the same time, evil is defined as anything contrary to God. So choosing evil is a matter of choosing something other than God, or more specifically, God's will. Evil is a matter of conscious beings making choices, along with the residual effects. Evil isn't a thing that exists in itself, even though Satan is considered the embodiment of it. It's really like a vacuum. It's a lie. C.S. Lewis said God has no opposite.

[Cal]

Here's what I believe. If you are going to believe in God, you have to believe he is all good in the best meaning of the word good. It makes no sense to believe in a God who is not all good because that would mean there is some standard of good greater than God, which raises the question where did that standard come from. By definition there cannot be a definition of good other than God. So if God exists he must be good. No POE can dent that.

So, either don't believe in a God, or throw out the POE. But it makes no sense to believe in a God and quibble about the POE. Make your choice. Fish or cut bait.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Here's what I believe. If you are going to believe in God, you have to believe he is all good in the best meaning of the word good.

God knew that mankind would have trouble with the POE and all the difficulties accompanying it, yet He still loved man and needed to satisfy the requirements of His righteous throne. He proved His love by sending His own Son to the cross.

For those who still have a "problem" with God, He will say firstly, "My Beloved suffered the most shameful and excruciating death." Next He will respond, "All I required of you was to believe in My Son, and I was willing to forgive all of your sins."

These verses summarize for me what claims man may have concerning God's character and ways explained in His word:

What then? If some did not believe, will their unbelief cancel God's faithfulness?

By no means! Rather, let God be found true and every man a liar, as it is written, “That You may be justified in Your words, and prevail when You are judged. -- Romans 3.3-4

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

lly a tautology. It predefines a God who couldn't allow evil and then says, see, this God is contradictory. What the POE (and you) never accept is that perhaps good is different than how you are defining it. What's weird about that refusal is that there are many examples even in our human life where experiencing the effects of evil for a while work a greater good.

While agreeing with this I have to admit that it rubs me the wrong way that evil can be considered in the end a good thing.

I lost a son. Yes it changed me, and made me more compassionate. But that does not undue the pain of what I perceive as evil happening to my son. So claiming that it worked for the good injures my heart further. It too is evil ... not good.

It also injures my soul when I hear that the POE is a word game, or trick question. We're considering real evil here. Tell the holocaust victims that the POE is a word game. Tell the hundreds of thousands that died from a tsunami that it's a trick question.

Have we not feelings? And more than that, most importantly, does God not have feelings? Let's not quibble and mince words, that's what the POE is all about.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Here's what I believe. If you are going to believe in God, you have to believe he is all good in the best meaning of the word good. It makes no sense to believe in a God who is not all good because that would mean there is some standard of good greater than God, which raises the question where did that standard come from. By definition there cannot be a definition of good other than God. So if God exists he must be good. No POE can dent that.

So, either don't believe in a God, or throw out the POE. But it makes no sense to believe in a God and quibble about the POE. Make your choice. Fish or cut bait.

Cut bait or cut and run? The POE is a problem that has occupied Christian minds for centuries. And why wouldn't it? It's a big mystery. We worship a good God and yet we still live in what Paul calls in Galatians 1:4 "this present evil age".

We have barely scratched the surface of the problem here. Augustine of Hippo, the most influential theologian in church history, pondered the problem long and hard. Augustine addressed the POE in The City of God, Book XII, chapters 5-7. He reasoned that since God created everything there is no being that is not good in itself.

All natures, then, inasmuch as they are, and have therefore a rank and species of their own, and a kind of internal harmony, are certainly good.

According to Augustine the will of created beings must also be good for the same reason. Therefore, evil is not the result of an evil will.

If the further question be asked, What was the efficient cause of their evil will? there is none.

Instead, evil entered the picture not when a being chose evil but when it chose a lesser good--itself. Since God is the Supreme Good, to choose any other than God is to fall. Somehow the good will "turns" away from God to the self.

For when the will abandons what is above itself, and turns to what is lower, it becomes evil— not because that is evil to which it turns, but because the turning itself is wicked.

Thus, Augustine displaces the origin of evil from God Himself to an angel [Lucifer, Satan or the devil, no doubt, but he doesn't refer to him by name here] who turned away from God to himself. But, Augustine maintained that the angel was created good with a good will because the Good God doesn't make bad stuff. To make this move though, Augustine had to propose that the angel's prideful turning occurred in a good will without a cause ex nihilo, out of nothing, the way God is said to have created the universe! Truly, according to Augustine, the devil was the original "rebel without a cause."

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Cut bait or cut and run? The POE is a problem that has occupied Christian minds for centuries. And why wouldn't it? It's a big mystery. We worship a good God and yet we still live in what Paul calls in Galatians 1:4 "this present evil age".

We have barely scratched the surface of the problem here.

If you say so. I've put in my 2 cents, for what it's worth. I'm happy with my conclusions. If you need to dig further go ahead. Do you think you are going to have some great breakthrough that is going to change your life? I'm not exactly sure what you hope to happen here, other that to convert everyone to your thinking. Maybe that isn't what you want, but I'm not getting the point of all this anymore, if I ever did.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

If you say so. I've put in my 2 cents, for what it's worth. I'm happy with my conclusions. If you need to dig further go ahead. Do you think you are going to have some great breakthrough that is going to change your life? I'm not exactly sure what you hope to happen here, other that to convert everyone to your thinking. Maybe that isn't what you want, but I'm not getting the point of all this anymore, if I ever did.

I find dialogue like this illuminating. I am learning from this discussion. I don't know about "great" but I am having mini-breakthroughs every day. Entertaining opposing points of view forces me to re-examine and often revise my own. It's mind expanding.

Does the POE confront us with our actual existential situation vis a vis God or not? It's a fascinating question. Atheists and theists often seem to want to foreclose on a decision about it one way or another. To do this they have to dismiss good arguments on the other side. Why do they do this?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Paul Galatians 1:4

"this present evil age".

So Paul didn't consider the problem of evil just a word game. He speaks of "this present evil age" but aren't all ages evil, including this one? It's not a word game now either.

And we're trying to understand why our good God allows it.

Augustine: There's no question that Augustine was a deep, wide, and gifted thinking believer ... many think him one of the greatest in all of Christendom.

So he tackled the POE with gusto, and as predictable, got really tangled up with it ... to the point of offering rationale after rationale, writing in thought circles that come to sound silly.

In spite of some of his circular mental constructions, Augustine is a goldmine of information and studied thought, but I'd like to bring up just one point:

Chapter 7.* --That We Ought Not to Expect to Find Any Efficient Cause of the Evil Will.*
"Let no one, therefore, look for an efficient cause of the evil will; for it is not efficient, but deficient, as the will itself is not an effecting of something, but a defect.* For defection from that which supremely is, to that which has less of being,--this is to begin to have an evil will.* Now, to seek to discover the causes of these defections,--causes, as I have said, not efficient, but deficient,--is as if some one sought to see darkness, or hear silence."*
-- St. Augustine of Hippo. St. Augustine of Hippo: The City of God (Kindle Locations 16072-16076). Veritatis Splendor Publications. Kindle Edition.

Here Augustine claims the will is a defect. That would mean before the wrong tree (the founding of the idea of free will) there was a defect in human will. But this rubs me the wrong way. Cuz my idea that God is perfection means that God can't make anything with a defect. And this includes the idea that Lucifer had a defect.

But given Isaiah 14 what else could Augustine conclude? However, the context of both Isaiah and Ezekiel are very weak evidences of what happened to Lucifer -- we don't have much to go on, and neither did Augustine. At any event even Lucifer means that a perfect God made a defect. That's not possible in my conception of God.

And the idea that it was "the turning" that produced evil doesn't help much. A perfect God couldn't make an imperfect turn either.

However, Augustine is right, solving the POE is like trying to see darkness, or hear silence.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

So Paul didn't consider the problem of evil just a word game. He speaks of "this present evil age" but aren't all ages evil, including this one? It's not a word game now either.

And we're trying to understand why our good God allows it.

Augustine: There's no question that Augustine was a deep, wide, and gifted thinking believer ... many think him one of the greatest in all of Christendom.

So he tackled the POE with gusto, and as predictable, got really tangled up with it ... to the point of offering rationale after rationale, writing in thought circles that come to sound silly.

In spite of some of his circular mental constructions, Augustine is a goldmine of information and studied thought, but I'd like to bring up just one point:

Chapter 7.* --That We Ought Not to Expect to Find Any Efficient Cause of the Evil Will.*
"Let no one, therefore, look for an efficient cause of the evil will; for it is not efficient, but deficient, as the will itself is not an effecting of something, but a defect.* For defection from that which supremely is, to that which has less of being,--this is to begin to have an evil will.* Now, to seek to discover the causes of these defections,--causes, as I have said, not efficient, but deficient,--is as if some one sought to see darkness, or hear silence."*
-- St. Augustine of Hippo. St. Augustine of Hippo: The City of God (Kindle Locations 16072-16076). Veritatis Splendor Publications. Kindle Edition.

Here Augustine claims the will is a defect. That would mean before the wrong tree (the founding of the idea of free will) there was a defect in human will. But this rubs me the wrong way. Cuz my idea that God is perfection means that God can't make anything with a defect. And this includes the idea that Lucifer had a defect.

But given Isaiah 14 what else could Augustine conclude? However, the context of both Isaiah and Ezekiel are very weak evidences of what happened to Lucifer -- we don't have much to go on, and neither did Augustine. At any event even Lucifer means that a perfect God made a defect. That's not possible in my conception of God.

And the idea that it was "the turning" that produced evil doesn't help much. A perfect God couldn't make an imperfect turn either.

However, Augustine is right, solving the POE is like trying to see darkness, or hear silence.

Per Augustine the will was created good and became evil as a result of a turn that was possible because the will was free. This had already occurred before Adam and Eve were on the scene. So, as you alluded to before, evil was already out there as a live option when the first couple was created. Adam and Eve do not repeat the same sin as Lucifer. His was an internal turn. They were seduced into theirs by external factors; Eve by the serpent, Adam by Eve. The other players in the story were already experienced in spiritual warfare. Those poor kids didn't have a chance.

Of course, there was an external factor in Lucifer's situation that Augustine ignores. That is, the dominance hierarchy. Lucifer was second fiddle to a higher power. The narrative assumes that a dominance hierarchy is good and autonomy is evil in itself. Not only that, it leads to rebellion. Thus, there seems to be an authoritarian presupposition to the whole story. Which is understandable. Dominance hierarchies existed for millions of years in our evolutionary past and no human society is without one. Individualism and democracy are relatively recent inventions. It has usually served the dominant elite to suppress autonomy in traditional societies via religious indoctrination. Thus, to the traditional religious mind autonomy and democracy can look like anathemas. They certainly did from the standpoint of Nee, Lee and the LCM and to Augustine perhaps no less.

[Cal]

Probably the only way to come close to understanding where evil comes from is to observe yourself choosing it.

All the philosophical analysis seems like a dead end.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Of course, there was an external factor in Lucifer's situation that Augustine ignores. That is, the dominance hierarchy. Lucifer was second fiddle to a higher power. The narrative assumes that a dominance hierarchy is good and autonomy is evil in itself. Not only that, it leads to rebellion. Thus, there seems to be an authoritarian presupposition to the whole story. Which is understandable. Dominance hierarchies existed for millions of years in our evolutionary past and no human society is without one. Individualism and democracy are relatively recent inventions. It has usually served the dominant elite to suppress autonomy in traditional societies via religious indoctrination. Thus, to the traditional religious mind autonomy and democracy can look like anathemas. They certainly did from the standpoint of Nee, Lee and the LCM and to Augustine perhaps no less.

Not sure about Augustine's analysis. For one thing, the very use of terms is inconsistent with modern usage, therefore fraught with potential misunderstanding. Then, of course, there is the consideration that Augustine is not the end-all of theological analysis.

But on the part I quoted, it reminded me of a sermon on the "fall" several years ago in which it was described less in the terms that we normally hear and more as a decision to stop relying on God as the source of decisions on good v evil and taking that upon ourselves. And while much of what you say about domination v autonomy is true in terms of society, in terms of our status before God, there is always an aspect of dominion of God. We are allowed autonomy as part of free will. It is the relinquishment of that free will to his will (or authority or dominion) that separates the believer (Christ follower) from the rest.

I have often thought of the "image of God" aspect of our created being as similar to the actions of an agent for a principal (not in all ways, but in many). The rebellion of the "fall" was to cease to operate under the authority (dominion) of God. The agency was severed, or at least severely damaged. We ceased to represent (bear the image of) God. The goal of "salvation" (simplistically) is to return to a place under that authority/dominion as image bearers. While that does not mean that we do not have options in life, we surely relinquish many options.

Do we like that? Not always.

And we are aware that we are not always acting under that authority/dominion, so it is not something that is complete at this time. But it should be an increasing thing.

Not sure that this is entirely important to the POE discussion, but it is what your comments brought to mind.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Probably the only way to come close to understanding where evil comes from is to observe yourself choosing it.

All the philosophical analysis seems like a dead end.

The problem with the POE is that it always goes back to a problem with the manufacturer.

And all its design plans and manufacturing methods are proprietary information. So the manufacturer has no more obligation to reveal its secrets than KFC has to reveal its secret herbs and spices in its chicken.

Here in America, at least, we should be very use to that.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

The problem with the POE is that it always goes back to a problem with the manufacturer.

Sometimes the Manufacturer will issue a recall for "defective" products. (Luke 12.20)

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

The problem with the POE is that it always goes back to a problem with the manufacturer.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Probably the only way to come close to understanding where evil comes from is to observe yourself choosing it.

That would produce more evil in a world which already has too much. Better to reflect on evil choices you have made in the past. That way we don't produce more of what it is wise to avoid.

All the philosophical analysis seems like a dead end.

What do you mean by "philosophical analysis"?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

Not sure about Augustine's analysis. For one thing, the very use of terms is inconsistent with modern usage, therefore fraught with potential misunderstanding.

What terms are you referring to?

Then, of course, there is the consideration that Augustine is not the end-all of theological analysis.

Who would you recommend?

But on the part I quoted, it reminded me of a sermon on the "fall" several years ago in which it was described less in the terms that we normally hear and more as a decision to stop relying on God as the source of decisions on good v evil and taking that upon ourselves. And while much of what you say about domination v autonomy is true in terms of society, in terms of our status before God, there is always an aspect of dominion of God. We are allowed autonomy as part of free will. It is the relinquishment of that free will to his will (or authority or dominion) that separates the believer (Christ follower) from the rest.

So I'm told. The Local Churcher, the Mormons, and the Islamic fundamentalists are all doing God's will.

I have often thought of the "image of God" aspect of our created being as similar to the actions of an agent for a principal (not in all ways, but in many). The rebellion of the "fall" was to cease to operate under the authority (dominion) of God. The agency was severed, or at least severely damaged. We ceased to represent (bear the image of) God. The goal of "salvation" (simplistically) is to return to a place under that authority/dominion as image bearers. While that does not mean that we do not have options in life, we surely relinquish many options. Do we like that? Not always.

The "obedient" may be relinquishing options they don't want anyway or, better yet, things that they can't get.

And we are aware that we are not always acting under that authority/dominion, so it is not something that is complete at this time. But it should be an increasing thing.

Or at least we can tell ourselves that it's increasing, because if not we would face despair and possibly an angry judge at the end of the day.

Not sure that this is entirely important to the POE discussion, but it is what your comments brought to mind.

My point was to ask if the story of Lucifer's fall is a projection our human experience of rebellion against dominance hierarchy into metaphysics. Is it really possible to know what's going on at that level if it even exists?

According to Local Church mythology we're the ones who fell because we opposed God by opposing Witness Lee. Augustine's model was no doubt used to quash rebellion against papal authority. The message is that you challenge authority at your own peril.

It's what every established authority wants its subjects to believe. The divine right of kings used it to keep the people in line for centuries. The founders of our nation broke away from that to make a national experiment based on reason.

But, things have gotten really complicated since then. In this election year it isn't clear that the center can hold any longer. What are we to make of a metaphysical story of top-down authority at this moment in the 21st century when people manage the overload of information they are bombarded with by only listening to "authorities" that they have already decided they want to hear?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

We are allowed autonomy as part of free will. It is the relinquishment of that free will to his will (or authority or dominion) that separates the believer (Christ follower) from the rest.

Not sure that this is entirely important to the POE discussion

Your post reminded me of Authority and Submission. Don't know if it was evil but it sure came to look that way to me.

Lucky we weren't living back in Bible times, when disloyalty to the king meant death. I wouldn't have just been kicked out of the LC, I would have lost my head, or got tooties toasted, or some such.

Is it any wonder that God is depicted as just such a despot, in the Bible, that drowns the disloyal, or burns them?

Does this relate to the POE. I think so. Today we consider despots evil.

The POE doesn't cast a great reflection upon God. But being depicted as a despot does even worse.

Considering that, how could Nee, or Lee for that matter, being avid Bible believers, resist cooking up Authority and Submission? It's clearly in the Bible. And prolly why you seem to be so hung on it bro OBW.

Look, I don't have a problem submitting to the God that walked in the cool of the day in the garden. But seems the fall didn't just change humans and nature, it changed God too. As depicted in the Bible God became an angry God, and even repented of making man. To Him man became disloyal, so He drown them all, even innocent critters. That's the Old Testament. In the New He burns the disloyal.

But we have to consider the times in which these stories were written ; back when disloyalty to the king meant death. So of course they thought God was the same way.

Now we know better. Cuz we realize God is nothing but good ... and is not an evil despot ... wielding Authority and Submission ... or being the cause of the POE.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

What terms are you referring to?

Just noting that the wording was not something of common, modern usage, therefore susceptible to misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by zeek

Who would you recommend?

I did not say that Augustine was to be rejected, or that anyone else should be viewed in that position. Rather that just because any particular person said something is not evidence of theological correctness. I do not propose anyone as the end-all of theological understanding. Rather it is the collective of many voices that contains the better understanding. That collective may point to Augustine in many ways, but elsewhere in others.

Originally Posted by zeek

So I'm told. The Local Churcher, the Mormons, and the Islamic fundamentalists are all doing God's will.

Yes, there are many who claim a "word from God" that directs them in ways that are not to our liking. Both "Christian" and others.

But if we are talking about Christianity, when I make that statement, it is entirely within the overarching command to love God and your neighbor as yourself. So many of those others cannot make that claim.

Originally Posted by zeek

The "obedient" may be relinquishing options they don't want anyway or, better yet, things that they can't get.

You can't relinquish what you don't have. You can relinquish the desire for what you don't have. But I can assure you that there are options that I have that I would probably be glad to pursue (and could "fruitfully" pursue) if I did not relinquish my will to another — Christ.

As for moving forward in that (or increasing as I said it before), tossing out the notion that some may be fooling themselves is at least as likely that you (or whoever) is fooling themselves that others are not improving (another way to put it). Why? Because you are making a generalization about things you don't actually know while the person involved in each case is at least there and knows. Or at least thinks he/she knows.


And I was not commenting on the POE so I choose not to discuss in terms of the POE.


As for the issue of information overload, you are correct that we need a way to lessen the amount of information. And too often it is true that we all seek to get our information from those who already think our way. I will admit that I would tend toward listening to Fox News over CNN. But I can hardly stomach the extreme right rhetoric of the commentators, so I don't even hear them. And forget the people on the radio talk shows.

So I probably end our hearing more CNN than anything else because that is what is generally on in more public places.

Sort of like my Christian sources. I have some pretty common evangelical beliefs. But I like hearing from those who are snipping around the edges of it, or even from completely different perspectives because I am not sold that as a way of living evangelicals are very good at identifying, articulating, and directing people concerning life. Just about evangelism. And if our lives are a mess, what business do we have doing evangelism (at least in the way they are talking about).

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Your post reminded me of Authority and Submission.

I hope you don't mean that what I said sounded like A&S because that was the last thing on my mind. That rotten tome was like the description of Satan masquerading as an angel of light. It was a truck-load from the landfill placed on plates from the finest steak or seafood restaurant in your neck of the woods.

Max R once famously referenced the Book of Mormon as being a fabrication written by Satan that he was so ashamed of that he buried it, but Joseph Smith dug it up and called it the Book of Mormon. I would say that the same could be said with respect to A&S. It is a wrapper of unsupportive scripture and spiritual-sounding language carrying sludge from the waste treatment plant's incoming pipes. It was Nee's underhanded way of denying anyone the right to challenge him because he was a sexual philanderer. He claimed that only God could dethrone him. And since his followers bought it and would take no stand of their own, God did exactly that. And used the Communists to accomplish it. Nee's little tome may have been garbage, but he was answered according to his folly (in an interesting sort of way).

This just got me thinking. Does writing a book that declares the church membership cannot unseat you, followed by the acceptance of the idea that it is true by that membership, then further followed by the removal of that person from the seat by authorities outside of the church prove him right or prove that it was nonsense? Unless you challenge the internal premises of the book, it could be argued either way.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

I hope you don't mean that what I said sounded like A&S because that was the last thing on my mind. That rotten tome was like the description of Satan masquerading as an angel of light. It was a truck-load from the landfill placed on plates from the finest steak or seafood restaurant in your neck of the woods.

Max R once famously referenced the Book of Mormon as being a fabrication written by Satan that he was so ashamed of that he buried it, but Joseph Smith dug it up and called it the Book of Mormon. I would say that the same could be said with respect to A&S. It is a wrapper of unsupportive scripture and spiritual-sounding language carrying sludge from the waste treatment plant's incoming pipes. It was Nee's underhanded way of denying anyone the right to challenge him because he was a sexual philanderer. He claimed that only God could dethrone him. And since his followers bought it and would take no stand of their own, God did exactly that. And used the Communists to accomplish it. Nee's little tome may have been garbage, but he was answered according to his folly (in an interesting sort of way).

This just got me thinking. Does writing a book that declares the church membership cannot unseat you, followed by the acceptance of the idea that it is true by that membership, then further followed by the removal of that person from the seat by authorities outside of the church prove him right or prove that it was nonsense? Unless you challenge the internal premises of the book, it could be argued either way.

Nee failed to submit to the authority and so went to jail. Lee got away with doing the same thing. Just ask the accountant for Daystar.

[awareness]

"Trust And Obey"

When we walk with the Lord
In the light of His word
What a glory He sheds on our way
While we do His good will
He abides with us still
And with all who will trust and obey

Trust and obey
For there's no other way
To be happy in Jesus
But to trust and obey

But we never can prove
The delights of His love
Until all on the altar we lay
For the favor He shows
For the joy He bestows
Are for them who will trust and obey

Trust and obey
For there's no other way
To be happy in Jesus
But to trust and obey

Lord, I love You
Please help me to trust and obey
Lord, I love You
Please help me to trust and obey

Then in fellowship sweet
We will sit at His feet
Or we'll walk by His side in the way
What He says we will do
Where He sends we will go
Never fear, only trust and obey

Trust and obey
For there's no other way
To be happy in Jesus
But to trust and obey

Trust and obey
For there's no other way
To be happy in Jesus
But to trust and obey

Lord, I love You
Please help me to trust and obey
Lord, I love You
Please help me to trust and obey

Lord, I love You
Please help me to trust and obey

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

"Trust And Obey"

[awareness]

In a nowhere land, far far away to nowhere, where there was no there there, and when there was no then then, there was God, out of nowhere, made of nothing.

We don't know, but apparently, nothingness became a problem. Maybe a world without hardness is, well, nothing. We don't and can't know ... and can't pathom nothingness.

So thank God He (I use He as an idiom) decided to make something out of nothing. And from no hardness came hardness.

And this hard world was/is crazy large. Not that size matters to a God made of nothingness, but maybe it, reflecting a brain made of nothingness, is why it's incomprehensibly large.

We know size doesn't matter to this being out of nowhere because we're here. And compared to the size of the newly created hard world, we're nano-specks, in nano-specks, in nano-specks ... but this being made of non-hardness has a fetish for us. And for the most part we have a fetish back.

That aside, apparently nothingness is boring, so this being made of nothing wasn't going to stand with boring in "His" hard world, made of something. So to the hard world, to fight any remnant of boring, was added free-wheeling-ness. That added a continuing process to the hard world. The hard world, as we speak, so to speak, is in a process of battering and re-birthing itself. Right now it's busy crashing itself to smithereens, and reassembling each smithereen (there's never just one) into something new.

And that is where evil comes from : a hard world that eats itself to produce something new from itself -- it comes from free-wheeling-ness added to the hard world so it won't be boring. Thank God ... I guess.

But maybe, if we align ourselves with this being made of nothing, we could some day live in the non-hard world -- where there ain't no such thing as smithereens. But likely, even with the risk, or because of the risk, the hard world is much more fun. Why do you think Eve made a beeline to the forbidden tree? She was a child looking for fun. Like The Most Interesting Man in the World might say : "stay fun my friend."

Moral of the story : God loves fun and excitement, has a sense of humor, and can fix every wrong that happens ; just surrender to the whole shebang, evil and all, and God that makes from nothing will make it right.

[Cal]

You make not like God, but he's the only game in town. That, I propose, is the bottom line. The rest is either details or BS. The sooner one comes to grips with that, the better.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You make not like God

Great slip of the keyboard. My little ditty did just that, make God.

Originally Posted by Igzy

. . . but he's the only game in town.

Well there are lots of other gods. More than you can shake a stick at. Perhaps you meant no other viable game in town. That's true for me. I'm an atheist ; an atheist of all those other gods ; I'm a very busy atheist ... can't keep up, in fact.

Originally Posted by Igzy

That, I propose, is the bottom line. The rest is either details or BS. The sooner one comes to grips with that, the better.

In my little ditty I was just trying to get God out of the predicament He's in because of the existence of evil. I made light of it. But I think my claim that God can fix every wrong is strong.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I was just trying to get God out of the predicament He's in because of the existence of evil.

Do you really believe what you just said?


I think it's you and I friend who are in a "predicament."

Consider what Paul says in Romans 9:

32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone,

33 As it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

The existence of evil is only a problem to those who refuse to believe God.

For those who refused to believe, God has placed stones and rocks in their path.

The gift of faith is one of the greatest gifts, because whoever believes in Him will not be out to shame!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

"Trust And Obey"

Just took a closer look at the words to the song you posted. Is this one of those standard hymns with an occasional bridge thrown in, or is it a complete rewrite of the tune with the added bridge? I don't think I have heard it that way.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

Just took a closer look at the words to the song you posted. Is this one of those standard hymns with an occasional bridge thrown in, or is it a complete rewrite of the tune with the added bridge? I don't think I have heard it that way.

Wish I had the answers to your questions. I remember the song from my childhood in the SBC.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by awareness

I was just trying to get God out of the predicament He's in because of the existence of evil.

"The Problem of Evil" doesn't apply to evil. That's a given. The POE arises when we introduce the God we know and love ... and then wonder why our great and powerful and loving God would allow those (us) He loves to be subject to evil. So my little ditty was a feeble attempt to help the God I know and love out of this predicament. So to answer your question : YES!.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I think it's you and I friend who are in a "predicament."

Quite rightly ... cuz we're still subject to evil. And we expect God to spare us. Yes, as the gospels account, God sent His son to die on the cross for us ; and if we believe it we're saved and will, when we die, enter into a world without evil (free will intact).

Originally Posted by Ohio

Consider what Paul says in Romans 9:

"32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone,

33 As it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

The existence of evil is only a problem to those who refuse to believe God.

For those who refused to believe, God has placed stones and rocks in their path.

A stumbling stone is not evil. If we watch we can avoid them. But evil is when all the stumbling stones fly thru the air and hit all of us in the head ; one evil we are subject to. So okay, God puts stumbling stones in our path. Does He also smack us in the head with them? Why -- we love Him?

Originally Posted by Ohio

The gift of faith is one of the greatest gifts, because whoever believes in Him will not be out to shame!

Please explain. I'm not sure what you are saying.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

"The Problem of Evil" doesn't apply to evil. That's a given. The POE arises when we introduce the God we know and love ... and then wonder why our great and powerful and loving God would allow those (us) He loves to be subject to evil. So my little ditty was a feeble attempt to help the God I know and love out of this predicament. So to answer your question : YES!.


Quite rightly ... cuz we're still subject to evil. And we expect God to spare us. Yes, as the gospels account, God sent His son to die on the cross for us ; and if we believe it we're saved and will, when we die, enter into a world without evil (free will intact).


A stumbling stone is not evil. If we watch we can avoid them. But evil is when all the stumbling stones fly thru the air and hit all of us in the head ; one evil we are subject to. So okay, God puts stumbling stones in our path. Does He also smack us in the head with them? Why -- we love Him?


Please explain. I'm not sure what you are saying.

Evil affects us all. Who is exempt? Have you read the scriptures, "whom I love, I discipline, and chasten every son I receive," and perhaps there is an answer there for you?

The so-called POE becomes a "stumbling block and rock of offense" to those who use allow it to damage their faith and trust in God. As Paul said, "whoever believes in Him will not be put to shame."

We seem to be discussing these same issues continually. Igzy provided a number of exceptional answers explaining how "evil" is used by God. Anyone who happens on the daily news -- whether local, regional, national, or international -- knows that this world has serious issues, and appears to be heading down a path towards worse problems. Just about no arena in this life appears to be very positive. But that's just my view, and other posters feel quite the opposite, e.g. I was "informed" than ole Warren Buffet felt our economy was quite strong.

My rhetorical question is this: How can posters be so positive about the condition of our world, refusing to accept the numerous prophecies or warning signs, and yet be so upset that evil abounds everywhere, claiming that God cannot be behind any of this, since their God is supposed to be all good and all positive? It seems to me that by picking and choosing tidbits from the Bible, they have developed an imaginary God of their liking, yet are stuck with the POE.

At the heart of the matter is the premise that our Creator is not permitted to be our Judge. I suggest on the contrary that a loving Judge would provide man with both judgments in this age to warn us, and a solution to escape from the ultimate judgment which follows our death.

[awareness]

Great post bro Ohio. But did nothing to clear up my confusion.

So God spanks those He loves. (He must really love me a lot). God's into corporal punishment. What does He use to do it? Does He use evil?

How about the Baptist preacher, with wife and 4 kids on the freeway? A piece of metal flys up into his gas tank and burns them all to death but him (really happened)? Should he consider himself chastised by God? He certainly wasn't exempt from evil, wouldn't you say? Sorry to bring something like this up. It's gory and horrendous. Maybe I can't forget it because I lost just one child and can't imagine how he felt. My heart really went out to him, and still does, when I read about it in the newspaper.

It's things like these that make us wonder, 'what's up with God?'

What's more, how does free-will play into that scenario. Maybe free will was that he chose the wrong minivan. But how could he know the gastank was so disposed? Maybe he chose the wrong freeway, or chose the wrong time to be be on it? Oh I get it, free will is a fault for this evil because he chose not to just stay home with his face in the Bible.

Free will is the cause of evil? Give me a break. Don't make me laugh. And to back it up with a kids story in Genesis? Don't make me laugh again. Weak, weak, weak. Igzys' answer is weak. At least that one is. Tell this poor preacher that he lost his whole family because Eve chose the wrong tree. See if he goes : "Oh! That makes sense. Damn you Eve! I deserve this -- cuz God said so. Thanks God. You're wonderful!?!"

Originally Posted by Ohio

The so-called POE becomes a "stumbling block and rock of offense" to those who use allow it to damage their faith and trust in God.

So the evil that happened to this preachers family was just one of those little stumbling blocks? That's what the problem of evil is all about? God allowed it to be a stumbling stone for this preacher? Why?

I love God, even if He's not perfect. That fixes the POE. That's a solid answer. Except it blows our idealism, that God is the epitome of perfection, out of the water. OBW did say something to the effect of, "Maybe our conceptions of what God is, is wrong." I agree. All those Omni's are silly.

And the greater good argument, that God uses evil for the greater good, just leaves us empty handed. Cuz we can't know such things about God.

The POE ??? It puts God into a real predicament. That's its real problem.

[awareness]

Bottom line : We had better snuggle up to God, cuz if we don't we're just inviting his ire. Cuz God is like Witness Lee, even when He's wrong He's right.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bottom line : We had better snuggle up to God, cuz if we don't we're just inviting his ire. Cuz God is like Witness Lee, even when He's wrong He's right.

Harold, the POE exists to turn you into a whiner. It has worked. Praise the Lord!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Great post bro Ohio. But did nothing to clear up my confusion.

So God spanks those He loves. (He must really love me a lot). God's into corporal punishment. What does He use to do it? Does He use evil?

It's things like these that make us wonder, 'what's up with God?'

Bro Awareness, it seems that you just don't want to see the bigger picture or look beyond this temporary life. You look at a tragedy with different eyes than the word of God. The Bible says the sufferings of the present time are nothing compared with the glory to come, II Corinthians 4.16 - 5.1) and Paul surely knew something about sufferings. One might summarize from his writings that much suffering produces much glory, and little suffering produces little glory.

I found the news clip in the Chicago Tribune of that tragedy twenty years ago you referred to. I marvel at the testimony of God's grace afforded to this believing couple right after their freakish holocaust:

When the couple-bandaged, bruised and still in physical pain-asked to speak at a hospital news conference and seemed at peace, while praising God, they could only be viewed as remarkably devout. Or perhaps, some thought, still too numb to comprehend.

Today their grief is wrenching and unremitting. Yet they also have come to view the tragedy as a blessing: a way of spreading their beliefs to thousands who they couldn't have reached otherwise.

Moreover, since the accident, the couple have become a phenomenon within the evangelical Christian community: a widely heralded example of a depth and purity of faith that is available to everyone.

Think about how many Christians have been victimized by criminal activity, and then decide to forgive the perpetrator. Often times this act of forgiveness is more effective than the preaching of the Gospel. Why? Because others see real love in action. If humans can forgive, then people will believe that God can forgive, but without the tragedy in the first place, no opportunity was available to see real forgiveness.

The Bible says, "My son do not reject the discipline of the Lord, nor faint when chastened by Him." (Proverbs 3.11; Hebrews 12.5; Job 5.17) Here are two decisions often made by the children of God when "bad" things happen to them. First, they never seek to find out what the Lord is doing or saying to them. Hence they miss the opportunity to know His grace and his comfort to broken hearts. They miss the opportunity for their Heavenly Father to perfect them and manifest His glory thru them. Sufferings have a way with God's help to change us and magnify Christ, where the good times never could. Secondly, many of God's children faint or give up when difficulties or persecutions come. They find it easier to quit than find the Lord's encouragement. The parable of the sower in Matt 13.5-6 speaks of such.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Harold, the POE exists to turn you into a whiner. It has worked. Praise the Lord!

It appears that when you said you weren't interested in discussing the POE further you were bluffing, but that all you have left as an argument is an ad hominem attack on Harold for his continued interest in the problem.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bottom line : We had better snuggle up to God, cuz if we don't we're just inviting his ire. Cuz God is like Witness Lee, even when He's wrong He's right.

'Cept for the comment about Lee, I like this.

.................................................. ....................................

It has been said often that the POE has preceded the time of Christ, and confronted scholars for centuries. When Paul traveled to Europe he confronted the "wisdom" of the ancient Greek scholars. Having spent a considerable time in Corinth and Greece, he no doubt had tackled the POE head on. His rebuttal message was God's wisdom in a mystery, manifested in the word of the cross. To them it was "foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." Paul then repeated Isaiah's word from Yahweh, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will cast aside the understanding of the scholars. Where is the wise? Where is the scholar? Where is the sage of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" (I Cor. 1.18-20)

No man is truly an independent thinker. We all look to others for direction and sound advice concerning the weightier matters of life. It behooves us in these days to make sure that what we call "wisdom" will not be trash-canned by God in the next age.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

It puts God into a real predicament. That's its real problem.

Actually it may very well put YOUR god (you know, that fellow who can only love who we tell him to love, and love them in the way we tell him to love them, who can't be sovereign over his own creation, can't do anything that's against our limited scientific knowledge, and is pretty much the ultimate impotent potentate) into a real predicament. The God of the Scriptures is in no such predicament. He is the potter, we are the clay. "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" (Rom 9:21) The apostle Paul was addressing the very same issues and concerns that have been discussed in this thread. If Paul was with us here I have a feeling he may tell us the same thing he told the Romans: "But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” (Rom 9:20)

"God is not the prisoner of his own majesty. He is free not only to be God over us, but to be God for us." Karl Barth I would respectfully submit that you, Harold, and to some extent zeek, have attempted to make God a prisoner of his own majesty. Admittedly, you guys are very good at this. In fact, world class. With this POE argument, you think you have been able to paint the God of the Scriptures into a corner - to put him in a catch 22 of sorts. But hey, this is Alternative Views, and it appears that your alternative view is that God has made his own bed, and you guys are simply making him sleep in it. Sorry to boil this all down to such a lowly common denominator, but I'm simply "callin em as I sees em". Besides, I don't have enough time, brain power or logical/philosophical skills to mix it up with you guys.

Bottom line (at least for me, at least for now) is that God is not the prisoner of his own majesty. Neither is he the prisoner of his own love, his own righteousness or his own sovereignty. Nor is he a prisoner or his own omniscience, omnipresence or omnipotence. He himself, through the revelation of the Holy Scriptures, has defined himself, and revealed his nature, character and will to the extent that he has seen fit. We are in the same position as the infant church - if we want to know and understand anything regarding God's nature, character or sovereign will, we need not look any further than the Scriptures. Oh, we can look further (the very God of the Scriptures grants us that) but we will always end up where every man who wanders astray from his revealed truth ends up - hopelessly without any understanding, much less appreciation, for the sovereignty of the Creator of Heaven and Earth. We become pieces of clay that have run from the Potter. The real problem is not the POE, but rather our resistance to the irresistible - the sovereignty, grace and mercy of the Potter. The real problem is not the POE, but the fact that there is another potter who is trying to shape us after his will and his image. Yes, there is indeed another god. He is called the god of this world. And he has real power. He has real intentions. Fortunately for us, he also is on the clock.
-

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

It appears that when you said you weren't interested in discussing the POE further you were bluffing, but that all you have left as an argument is an ad hominem attack on Harold for his continued interest in the problem.

Yeah. What he said.

[awareness]

Bro Ohio, your post (left below) touched mt heart.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Bro Awareness, it seems that you just don't want to see the bigger picture or look beyond this temporary life. You look at a tragedy with different eyes than the word of God. The Bible says the sufferings of the present time are nothing compared with the glory to come, II Corinthians 4.16 - 5.1) and Paul surely knew something about sufferings. One might summarize from his writings that much suffering produces much glory, and little suffering produces little glory.

I found the news clip in the Chicago Tribune of that tragedy twenty years ago you referred to. I marvel at the testimony of God's grace afforded to this believing couple right after their freakish holocaust: Think about how many Christians have been victimized by criminal activity, and then decide to forgive the perpetrator. Often times this act of forgiveness is more effective than the preaching of the Gospel. Why? Because others see real love in action. If humans can forgive, then people will believe that God can forgive, but without the tragedy in the first place, no opportunity was available to see real forgiveness.

The Bible says, "My son do not reject the discipline of the Lord, nor faint when chastened by Him." (Proverbs 3.11; Hebrews 12.5; Job 5.17) Here are two decisions often made by the children of God when "bad" things happen to them. First, they never seek to find out what the Lord is doing or saying to them. Hence they miss the opportunity to know His grace and his comfort to broken hearts. They miss the opportunity for their Heavenly Father to perfect them and manifest His glory thru them. Sufferings have a way with God's help to change us and magnify Christ, where the good times never could. Secondly, many of God's children faint or give up when difficulties or persecutions come. They find it easier to quit than find the Lord's encouragement. The parable of the sower in Matt 13.5-6 speaks of such.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

It appears that when you said you weren't interested in discussing the POE further you were bluffing, but that all you have left as an argument is an ad hominem attack on Harold for his continued interest in the problem.

I'm not discussing the POE. I'm discussing the way it turns people into whiners. That's a legitimate discussion. Once you start blaming God you become instantly a whiner and a grumbler. That's what C.S. Lewis said hell was full of. Grumblers. Whiners are there, too.

"Oh, it's too hot here. God's so mean. Ouch, ouch. Turn the heat down. Who's in charge? Ouch. God's not fair. Ouch. This is evil. Why is there evil? Not fair. God has a problem. Ouch."

Oh, they'll have eternity to discuss the problem of evil in hell, and that's probably all they will do. They will forever keep coming to the conclusion that God is not fair. But that won't satisfy them, and they'll start all over again. Over and over and over--ultimately hoping the sheer stupefying monotony of it drives them so mad they won't feel the pain anymore. But that won't quite work. And so it will start again. Another wave of whining and grumbling. Sort of like this thread. Just hotter, longer and more miserable.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm not discussing the POE. I'm discussing the way it turns people into whiners. That's a legitimate discussion. Once you start blaming God you become instantly a whiner and a grumbler. That's what C.S. Lewis said hell was full of. Grumblers. Whiners are there, too.

We were discussing a logical problem and now you want to make it into an attack on people. I have no interest in that. Knock yourself out.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm not discussing the POE. I'm discussing the way it turns people into whiners. That's a legitimate discussion. Once you start blaming God you become instantly a whiner and a grumbler. That's what C.S. Lewis said hell was full of. Grumblers. Whiners are there, too.

"Oh, it's too hot here. God's so mean. Ouch, ouch. Turn the heat down. Who's in charge? Ouch. God's not fair. Ouch. This is evil. Why is there evil? Not fair. God has a problem. Ouch."

Oh, they'll have eternity to discuss the problem of evil in hell, and that's probably all they will do. They will forever keep coming to the conclusion that God is not fair. But that won't satisfy them, and they'll start all over again. Over and over and over--ultimately hoping the sheer stupefying monotony of it drives them so mad they won't feel the pain anymore. But that won't quite work. And so it will start again. Another wave of whining and grumbling. Sort of like this thread. Just hotter, longer and more miserable.

So let me get this straight. You defend against the POE putting God in a predicament by saying God puts POE whiners in hell to burn forever, and expect that to get God out of this predicament. You're a funny guy Igzy.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

We were discussing a logical problem and now you want to make it into an attack on people. I have no interest in that. Knock yourself out.

Now, coming from you, that's real funny.

Life full of fake people before you decide to judge them make sure you’re not one of them.

Source : http://www.coolnsmart.com/hypocrisy_quotes/Life full of fake people before you decide to judge them make sure you’re not one of them.

Source : http://www.coolnsmart.com/hypocrisy_quotes/

Life is full of fakes and phonies. Before you decide to judge one, make sure you are not one of them.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

So let me get this straight. You defend against the POE putting God in a predicament by saying God puts POE whiners in hell to burn forever, and expect that to get God out of this predicament. You're a funny guy Igzy.

You know what I meant. Whining about the POE is evidence of lack of faith. It will carry over into hell, where the whining will continue. I think that is a reasonable assertion.

I couldn't care less about the POE. To me it's nothing but an excuse for unbelief. And that's what God thinks, too. Read the book of Job.

God never apologizes for bad things happening to us. He never says, "Oh, I'm sorry that happened, because it probably increased your doubt in me. So sorry. My bad." He doesn't think that way. So get over it. You are not moving him an inch closer to doing it by your reasoning. So you are wasting your time. You can claim all day you have a strong case against God. But you don't. And he's not a bit intimidated that you think you do. So why should I be?

[Cal]

If anyone lately has a case against God for allowing them to suffer pain, I think I'm among them. Life has been hard lately, and I appreciate the support I've received from you guys here. It means more to me than you know.

But that said, I refuse to give into complaining and doubting God. I'm not saying we can't take our concerns to God (even Jesus did on the cross). But that is different from succumbing to unbelief and blaming God. I won't do it. I won't go there. God is good. He has a plan. The POE sucks. That's my declaration. If something else keeps you warm at night, go for it, but I don't think it exists. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, there may be comforts in hell, but we should flee from them screaming.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Now, coming from you, that's real funny.

Life full of fake people before you decide to judge them make sure you’re not one of them.

Source : http://www.coolnsmart.com/hypocrisy_quotes/Life full of fake people before you decide to judge them make sure you’re not one of them.

Source : http://www.coolnsmart.com/hypocrisy_quotes/

Life is full of fakes and phonies. Before you decide to judge one, make sure you are not one of them.

Cool link bro Ohio. Great quotes. Thanks.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, there may be comforts in hell . . . .

Oh Clive, put that in Narnia, why don't ya. Comforts in hell. Great comic book imagination Clive.

But I think us believers in God have finally come down to it ... down to the brass tacks of this "problem" : The Problem of Evil.

Answer : There ain't no problem. Untohim says, and I quote : "God is not the prisoner of his own majesty," and, "I'm the potter, you're the clay."

I can't know, and neither can any of you, but let's say the final answer for the POE is : God has a bad side. Okay, what does that mean? God is God and He can be anything He wants. In truth, He's not the prisoner of our majesties of Him. He doesn't have to hold to the 4 Omni's. He's God for gosh sake. Take Him or leave Him.

But does that mean we drop our faith, and stop believing in God? I say no!!!

I say a big resounding NO!

Why get on His bad side?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Read the book of Job.

The book of Job is supposedly the oldest book of the Bible, and it addresses the POE head on. I suggest everyone read it, if not the whole book, at least the opening and ending chapters.

A close friend and neighbor of mine just lost his nephew in a tragic can accident. Just the other day (Saturday) I was talking to my friend's brother, the father of the deceased. Nice guy, loving father, cheerful, helpful, easy to talk to. Little did he know that his only son would die the next day. Freakish thing. One of those tilting flat-bed tow trucks went around a curve and the tapered rear end sliced thru the top of his son's car. Died instantly. Closed casket. How can we explain these things? My friend, in tears, repeated "just 5 seconds earlier, just 5 seconds later ..." His nephew was on a windy road at the wrong time and the wrong place. It could have been anyone. Who can explain this to the grieving family?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The book of Job is supposedly the oldest book of the Bible, and it addresses the POE head on. I suggest everyone read it, if not the whole book, at least the opening and ending chapters.

Don't get me going on the book of Job. After my son died I was drawn to the book. I was reading it over and over again.

I remember it vividly. We had to get away. We were driving from South Florida to Kentucky. My wife was driving and I was reading the book of Job in the passenger seat. I came to the end and busted out laughing. What a fool it made God out to be.

But it does come back down to our brass tacks with the POE. Cuz in the book God is really, really, really, big, and powerful, and who are we to question it?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Don't get me going on the book of Job. After my son died I was drawn to the book. I was reading it over and over again.

I remember it vividly. We had to get away. We were driving from South Florida to Kentucky. My wife was driving and I was reading the book of Job in the passenger seat. I came to the end and busted out laughing. What a fool it made God out to be.

You are one funny guy.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You are one funny guy.

I know. That's why you don't want to get me started on Job.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

I know. That's why you don't want to get me started on Job.

The book of Job basically says here's a guy that deserved to suffer less than just about anyone but actually suffered more than just about anyone. And God never said, "Boy, I screwed up with Job. Shouldn't have made him suffer so." No, God said, You are unqualified to judge me, Job. Then he turned around and blessed Job more than he ever had. I'm also sure Job was reunited with all his deceased children in the next life. God eventually wiped away every tear from Job. Job probably at this point does not feel the pain of his earthly suffering at all. He remained believing. That's the lesson. "He that endures to the end will be saved."

I'm sure Harold and zeek have suffered more than me. Possibly Ohio, too. My main suffering in life have been teenage angst, the fallout from the LCM, some financial stuff and my current problems with my wife, which appear quite hopeful for healing. We are going to attend counseling. I've never lost a child, or suffered divorce. I've enjoyed good health. Heck I haven't even gone bald. I was given two of the most wonderful sons I could have ask for. You guys have more reason to be bitter than me.

But Job had more reason than any of us, at least when he was on earth. Not now, I believe. Can I prove it? No. You think it's going to be that easy? Dream on.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

God eventually wiped away every tear from Job. Job probably at this point does not feel the pain of his earthly suffering at all. He remained believing. That's the lesson. "He that endures to the end will be saved."

None of us is exempt from pain, suffering, and loss in this life. We all could ask why? The POE is spawned from this question. In the garden Eve was tempted with this question -- she could "know good and evil."

I believe that our loving Father has provided us with something far better. At this point I would not want to settle for just knowing the why's and understanding the POE's. God has promised us a peace today which surpasses all understanding and an eternal hope for the future. Put them in the balance and see which one you would choose. Do you really desire a world without evil today, or an earth without evil for eternity.

As believers we should not be troubled or overwhelmed with evil or suffering in this age, rather we should be people of hope. Our only fear is for those who reject the cross and must pay their own sin debts.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Cool link bro Ohio. Great quotes. Thanks.

Darn editing feature.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Now, coming from you, that's real funny.

Life full of fake people before you decide to judge them make sure you’re not one of them.

Source : http://www.coolnsmart.com/hypocrisy_quotes/Life full of fake people before you decide to judge them make sure you’re not one of them.

Source : http://www.coolnsmart.com/hypocrisy_quotes/

Life is full of fakes and phonies. Before you decide to judge one, make sure you are not one of them.

I reserve judgment about everybody especially people I only "know" via the internet. I do; however, pass judgment on the words that they type on the page. I know I don't know you. Any judgment I make about you I hold only provisionally. The same is true of everyone here except maybe for Harold who I know personally. Would you do the same for me or are you already past the point where that's possible?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Actually it may very well put YOUR god (you know, that fellow who can only love who we tell him to love, and love them in the way we tell him to love them, who can't be sovereign over his own creation, can't do anything that's against our limited scientific knowledge, and is pretty much the ultimate impotent potentate) into a real predicament. The God of the Scriptures is in no such predicament. He is the potter, we are the clay. "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" (Rom 9:21) The apostle Paul was addressing the very same issues and concerns that have been discussed in this thread. If Paul was with us here I have a feeling he may tell us the same thing he told the Romans: "But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” (Rom 9:20)

"God is not the prisoner of his own majesty. He is free not only to be God over us, but to be God for us." Karl Barth I would respectfully submit that you, Harold, and to some extent zeek, have attempted to make God a prisoner of his own majesty. Admittedly, you guys are very good at this. In fact, world class. With this POE argument, you think you have been able to paint the God of the Scriptures into a corner - to put him in a catch 22 of sorts. But hey, this is Alternative Views, and it appears that your alternative view is that God has made his own bed, and you guys are simply making him sleep in it. Sorry to boil this all down to such a lowly common denominator, but I'm simply "callin em as I sees em". Besides, I don't have enough time, brain power or logical/philosophical skills to mix it up with you guys.

Bottom line (at least for me, at least for now) is that God is not the prisoner of his own majesty. Neither is he the prisoner of his own love, his own righteousness or his own sovereignty. Nor is he a prisoner or his own omniscience, omnipresence or omnipotence. He himself, through the revelation of the Holy Scriptures, has defined himself, and revealed his nature, character and will to the extent that he has seen fit. We are in the same position as the infant church - if we want to know and understand anything regarding God's nature, character or sovereign will, we need not look any further than the Scriptures. Oh, we can look further (the very God of the Scriptures grants us that) but we will always end up where every man who wanders astray from his revealed truth ends up - hopelessly without any understanding, much less appreciation, for the sovereignty of the Creator of Heaven and Earth. We become pieces of clay that have run from the Potter. The real problem is not the POE, but rather our resistance to the irresistible - the sovereignty, grace and mercy of the Potter. The real problem is not the POE, but the fact that there is another potter who is trying to shape us after his will and his image. Yes, there is indeed another god. He is called the god of this world. And he has real power. He has real intentions. Fortunately for us, he also is on the clock.
-

Well said UntoHim. Yes, God must be absolutely free. He cannot be bound by necessity even to his own divine attributes. But, neither can He fall short of the absolute realization of those attributes. The highest notion of God must include perfect justice and perfect love. How that's possible? I can't imagine. God is beyond my imagination! Or rather I can imagine God, but I recognize that, since God is infinite, my every imagination of Him is inadequate. God is the greatest mystery. The POE is an enigma wrapped in the mystery of God.

[Lisbon]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Harold, the POE exists to turn you into a whiner. It has worked. Praise the Lord!

Isn't it quite possible that we just plain don't know enough of the "eternal" situation to argue about it. When my kids were six and under, for then to enter in to my fights with my wife would have been.....

Could it be that we know less than a six year old when it comes to POE. God did make a deal with Satan in Job. Strange! How many other deals did He make and may be still making and not telling us about it. Only people say that the Bible is the complete story. Not God. I think there is a lot we don't know and for us to argue and speculate about it is OK if we don't get too tied up in knots.

I have thought many times that for God to let the whole of the western US fall into the Pacific ocean would clear up a lot of problems. But no,the problem is not there, it is here in you and me. Since leaving the LC officially a little over three years ago, I've come to the conclusion that God is not interested in correcting the LC, RCC, LDS, etc. I do believe He is after us.
And I believe He will get it. For us to believe is really something of God. The only thing I learned in my 40 years in the LC was that religion is versus God.
And the LC was as bad as they come as a religious group.

In my understanding the world has never changed in all its history. The flood wiping out all the immorality before Noah didn't keep Noah from getting drunk and etc. Bombing Sodom didn't clear up things too much. Abraham was accepted because he believed God not because he was "good." The Bible states that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Eli, David,Solomon, etc were really short. We might think the early church was all so good if it weren't for Corinth. Not just Popes were evil.

I might have gotten his name from the POE forum. Anyway I read this week of a young man getting genuinely saved, went thru Moody Bible, degree from Wheaton,then to Princeton. Now at age 60, an athiest. So sad. Our believing is really of God. I praise the Lord regularly that I believe. My experience in the LC was not good. The smiles of life don't help. The Psalms are such a help. Certainly David had much reason to be discouraged and yet he wrote some real words of trust and encouragement. Jesus said, in the world you will have tribulations. I have overcome the world. And we believe and don't know why.

Lisbon

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Lisbon

Isn't it quite possible that we just plain don't know enough of the "eternal" situation to argue about it. When my kids were six and under, for then to enter in to my fights with my wife would have been.....

Could it be that we know less than a six year old when it comes to POE. God did make a deal with Satan in Job. Strange! How many other deals did He make and may be still making and not telling us about it. Only people say that the Bible is the complete story. Not God. I think there is a lot we don't know and for us to argue and speculate about it is OK if we don't get too tied up in knots.

I have thought many times that for God to let the whole of the western US fall into the Pacific ocean would clear up a lot of problems. But no,the problem is not there, it is here in you and me. Since leaving the LC officially a little over three years ago, I've come to the conclusion that God is not interested in correcting the LC, RCC, LDS, etc. I do believe He is after us.
And I believe He will get it. For us to believe is really something of God. The only thing I learned in my 40 years in the LC was that religion is versus God.
And the LC was as bad as they come as a religious group.

In my understanding the world has never changed in all its history. The flood wiping out all the immorality before Noah didn't keep Noah from getting drunk and etc. Bombing Sodom didn't clear up things too much. Abraham was accepted because he believed God not because he was "good." The Bible states that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Eli, David,Solomon, etc were really short. We might think the early church was all so good if it weren't for Corinth. Not just Popes were evil.

I might have gotten his name from the POE forum. Anyway I read this week of a young man getting genuinely saved, went thru Moody Bible, degree from Wheaton,then to Princeton. Now at age 60, an athiest. So sad. Our believing is really of God. I praise the Lord regularly that I believe. My experience in the LC was not good. The smiles of life don't help. The Psalms are such a help. Certainly David had much reason to be discouraged and yet he wrote some real words of trust and encouragement. Jesus said, in the world you will have tribulations. I have overcome the world. And we believe and don't know why.

Lisbon

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Lisbon

Anyway I read this week of a young man getting genuinely saved, went thru Moody Bible, degree from Wheaton, then to Princeton. Now at age 60, an athiest. So sad.

Lisbon

It has been said many times that Satan's ultimate goal with each one of us is to rob us of our faith. I believe this is very true. We may have many serious issues in our lives, but if we have faith in God, then we still have hope.

I have concluded that the heart of the issue of the POE is our faith. Through all of our trial and tribulations, through all the philosophies and theologies of this age, through all of our own sins and failures, do we still believe God? Do we still believe the old saying that "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners."

We have passed thru some of the nastiest "church" experiences. Many, who have lived thru the same nonsense, have chucked it all. They could not distinguish the loving God from His still fallen children.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It has been said many times that Satan's ultimate goal with each one of us is to rob us of our faith. I believe this is very true. We may have many serious issues in our lives, but if we have faith in God, then we still have hope.

I have concluded that the heart of the issue of the POE is our faith. Through all of our trial and tribulations, through all the philosophies and theologies of this age, through all of our own sins and failures, do we still believe God? Do we still believe the old saying that "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners."

We have passed thru some of the nastiest "church" experiences. Many, who have lived thru the same nonsense, have chucked it all. They could not distinguish the loving God from His still fallen children.

I'm not even sure how we could know we had faith if there wasn't something that pushed against it. Imagine a perfect world the POE advocates say should exist. Everything just so perfect. How could we have any "will to faith" if there was no reason not to have it? We would just exist in a blob of good. Nothing would ever be tested. Even God would not have been tested. None of us would know if we were good or bad.

Now, the first test is simply being a conscious being with a soul apart from God. That automatically presents us with the challenge of choosing ourselves or God. A third of the angels failed this test. All humans have too, but were offered redemption. In the meantime we are being tested by all the evil the failing of the first test produced. We are being fully tested, as is God. In the end will be a fully tested result.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Yes, great post, Lisbon!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm not even sure how we could know we had faith if there wasn't something that pushed against it. Imagine a perfect world the POE advocates say should exist. Everything just so perfect. How could we have any "will to faith" if there was no reason not to have it? We would just exist in a blob of good. Nothing would ever be tested. Even God would not have been tested. None of us would know if we were good or bad.

Now, the first test is simply being a conscious being with a soul apart from God. That automatically presents us with the challenge of choosing ourselves or God. A third of the angels failed this test. All humans have too, but were offered redemption. In the meantime we are being tested by all the evil the failing of the first test produced. We are being fully tested, as is God. In the end will be a fully tested result.

What else could God have required of man, knowing that the mental and physical talents of each one were so vastly different, coupled with such disparity of privilege in each one's birth?

The 1st commandment, "I am the Lord thy God, you shall have no other gods," speaks of this primary test of faith. Since the dawn of time, all men have inclined towards the idols of false gods. What a push back this provides to our faith. God is mostly hidden, but idols are seen and loved by all. Some idols are the works of art, but many are human, the stars of religion, sports, music, movies, etc. Only a real faith in a true God can preserve us from the idols of this age.

I marvel at the wonder of faith. An IQ of barely 50 can know Jesus the Savior, yet an IQ of 150 may know nothing of Him. A quadriplegic, unable to live without help can also know His saving grace, yet the greatest of athletes may know nothing of His love. In God's wisdom, He has made faith the common denominator of all men's eternity.

What else could God have required of man, knowing that the mental and physical talents of each one were so vastly different, coupled with such disparity of privilege in each one's birth? Besides faith in His own dying Son, what else could be the great "equalizer" decided upon by a fair and just Creator.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I marvel at the wonder of faith. An IQ of barely 50 can know Jesus the Savior, yet an IQ of 150 may know nothing of Him. A quadriplegic, unable to live without help can also know His saving grace, yet the greatest of athletes may know nothing of His love. In God's wisdom, He has made faith the common denominator of all men's eternity.

[awareness]

The only reason the POE would be concerned with the next life - the after life - is if there is an eternal burning hell, that God sends people to. Then it's the same question evil asks of God in this life : why would a loving God allow such a thing?

And then the POE would ask if God would put someone in eternal hell just for not believing in Him, even if he or she was good and righteous in this life.

That too questions if we can love such a mean God that would require and do such a thing to good people who just failed to believe.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

The only reason the POE would be concerned with the next life - the after life - is if there is an eternal burning hell, that God sends people to. Then it's the same question evil asks of God in this life : why would a loving God allow such a thing?

This is the most basic of questions.

God is righteous, his throne is founded on righteousness, and His law condemns sin, without which the universe would have collapsed eons ago.

In His infinite love God sent His Beloved Son to die for our sin debts. He only requires that we believe in Him, His death and resurrection, and our debts to the law are stamped "Paid In Full."

How could kind and loving judges sentence criminals to prison or to death? What's wrong those those guys? With your kind of logic, we ought to eliminate the entire judicial system, and for that matter, let's eliminate all police, every jail and prison, the entire legislative system which makes laws, and did I miss anybody?

Then the world would only know love and peace and harmony! What a great place it would be! We won't need any more guns! No prisons, no punishments, no laws to break, no police to arrest us, no taxes to pay for all these Bozos. A freakin' utopia! Sign me up!

Is something wrong with awareness's logic here?

[Cal]

In an eternal sense, forgiveness without any price being paid is eventually indistinguishable from having no moral rules at all.

Read the chapter entitled "Hell" in C.S. Lewis's The Problem of Pain. There he puts forth the example of an evil man who cheerfully and remorselessly indulges in ruthless selfishness for his entire existence. He never repents, and laughs at and mocks the shock of those he betrays, uses and destroys. Since he has a free will, he can go on doing this forever. The sense you get is not one of the need for vengeance, but of the need for justice. You realize at some point, if only for his own good, he must be stopped.

Lewis wrote about the "relative good" in hell. He conjectures that between being evil while not knowing it and being evil while knowing it, the latter is better. Therefore the pain of the realization of being evil, the punishment of hell, is actually the highest "blessing" there. Remorse will be the highest virtue and experience in hell. It will be the only light that draws the damned upward, the only one to which they can aspire. It won't be much for them, but it will be better than anything else they can experience.

This will be to the glory of God.

Think about it. When it hits you it will send chills down your spine.

[awareness]

Oh by the way ... Lisbon you're the man. Thanks so much for your thoughts.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

In an eternal sense, forgiveness without any price being paid is eventually indistinguishable from having no moral rules at all.

Read the chapter entitled "Hell" in C.S. Lewis's The Problem of Pain. There he puts forth the example of an evil man who cheerfully and remorselessly indulges in ruthless selfishness for his entire existence. He never repents, and laughs at and mocks the shock of those he betrays, uses and destroys. Since he has a free will, he can go on doing this forever. The sense you get is not one of the need for vengeance, but of the need for justice. You realize at some point, if only for his own good, he must be stopped.

Lewis wrote about the "relative good" in hell. He conjectures that between being evil while not knowing it and being evil while knowing it, the latter is better. Therefore the pain of the realization of being evil, the punishment of hell, is actually the highest "blessing" there. Remorse will be the highest virtue and experience in hell. It will be the only light that draws the damned upward, the only one to which they can aspire. It won't be much for them, but it will be better than anything else they can experience.

This will be to the glory of God.

Think about it. When it hits you it will send chills down your spine.

Glory to C.S. Lewis!

He gives this good advise.

In all discussions of Hell we
should keep steadily before our eyes the possible damnation, not of
our enemies nor our friends (since both these disturb the reason)
but of ourselves. This chapter is not about your wife or son, nor
about Nero or Judas Iscariot; it is about you and me.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Glory to C.S. Lewis!

He gives this good advise.

In all discussions of Hell we
should keep steadily before our eyes the possible damnation, not of
our enemies nor our friends (since both these disturb the reason)
but of ourselves. This chapter is not about your wife or son, nor
about Nero or Judas Iscariot; it is about you and me.

Amen, amen.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Glory to C.S. Lewis!

He gives this good advise.

I'll take a pound of whatever Clive was smokin'.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'll take a pound of whatever Clive was smokin'.

[awareness]

I'll put the POE in terms we can all understand :

For those, like us, that believe in a loving God -- and surely we all do -- the POE presents a problem that's a troubling conundrum, but not so much that it removes our need for a loving God. John said "God is love," and that settles it. He didn't, by the way, say : "God is justice."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'll put the POE in terms we can all understand :

For those, like us, that believe in a loving God -- and surely we all do -- the POE presents a problem that's a troubling conundrum, but not so much that it removes our need for a loving God. John said "God is love," and that settles it. He didn't, by the way, say : "God is justice."

I John 1.5: "And this is the message we have heard from Him and declare to you --- that God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all."

Yes, John said, "God is love," but that does not negate the rest of what he has said. Here is another verse which says a lot:

Daniel 9.14: "Therefore has Jehovah watched over the evil, and brought it upon us; for Jehovah our God is righteous regarding everything He does, for we have not obeyed his voice."

[awareness]

Bro Ohio, this post blew my mind.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I John 1.5: "And this is the message we have heard from Him and declare to you --- that God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all."

Yes, John said, "God is love," but that does not negate the rest of what he has said. Here is another verse which says a lot:

Psa 104:1-2: Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.
Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:

God is not only light but wears light. In that case, it's a really good thing we can't see God. It would burn our eyes out. No wonder He hides. I wonder what kind of light? Is God the kind of light that is both a wave and a particle? Could we make a super laser out of Him. We just don't know. Even if he doesn't hide, He won't fit in any of our labs.

But how come Moses' eyes weren't burnt out? He looked upon His backside (in Him is no darkness at all.) And Abraham? He saw God too (and He wasn't shinging -- God must have a lightswitch) How come, if Jesus was God, Jesus didn't burn everyone's eyes out that looked upon him? (lightswitch off?) According to the gospel we call John, Jesus did say, "I am the light of the world." But he must have been speaking of a different kind of light than we're use to. Which begs the question, what kind of light is God? So on second thought, maybe God is not the kind of light that would blind us. I'm curious of that kind of light. Is God just the kind of light like we see during the day? Is He daylight? I'm too stupid to figure it out. Anybody else wanna give it a try?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Daniel 9.14: "Therefore has Jehovah watched over the evil, and brought it upon us; for Jehovah our God is righteous regarding everything He does, for we have not obeyed his voice."

Well this one definitely speaks to the problem of evil. It says outright that God brought evil "upon us" for not obeying His voice. Apparently like Adam and Eve in the garden people 22 centuries ago (when the book of Daniel was written - not by Daniel obviously) could hear God's voice, and disobeyed it.

I don't know about y'all, but if I could hear God's voice here in my livingroom I'd sure be listening ... and obeying. I certainly wouldn't want Him to bring evil upon me. But what a roommate He'd make! If He was a human roommate I wouldn't stand for it for a second. I can't stand the bossy types ... especially if they bring evil upon me for not obeying their every word.

So Daniel answers at least one part to the problem of evil : God brings it to the disobedient. But what about evil brought upon those that do obey?

If God is absolute goodness, how did He come by evil? And if so evil must have existed before the forbidden tree. If God brings evil maybe then it's possible that the garden was a setup. Cuz obviously God's a funny unpredictable guy.

Here on earth we tend to fear the crazy ones.

[UntoHim]

***I wrote this post yesterday and thought I posted on forum already. I just saw Harold's post. I'll react to his most recent post when I get a chance***

Originally Posted by awareness

For those, like us, that believe in a loving God -- and surely we all do -- the POE presents a problem that's a troubling conundrum, but not so much that it removes our need for a loving God. John said "God is love," and that settles it. He didn't, by the way, say : "God is justice."

The same author also wrote: "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all." (1 John 1:5) Evil is darkness. Darkness denotes evil. I think a fair question would be: Where did the darkness come from? Did evil - did darkness - already exist at the creation of Man? I think the preponderance of the biblical evidence says that it did, and we need not look any further than the opening pages of Genesis. "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness." (vrs 3,4) Admittedly, the Bible is short on details about the first instance of evil. There is little doubt, however, that Satan is the universal author and purveyor of evil. God did not create Satan as an evil being anymore than he created Adam and Eve as evil beings. God did, however, create angels and Man with a free will. We know the rest of the story, and we can discuss this story if anyone thinks it's going to keep us within the general theme of this thread. In any event, according to the Bible, evil does have an origin and an originator. Evil also serves a purpose, and thankfully evil also has an end.

God is love, and in him is no injustice at all. (UntoHim 1:5 .) Back to the Barth maxim - "God is not a prisoner of his own majesty". Back to the Pauline maxim - "Hath not the potter power over the clay?" (Rom 9:21) If the God of the Scriptures is not sovereign over his own creation, then it matters not if he is love. If Jesus Christ is not the way, and not the truth, then it matters not if he is the life. God's life only comes through the way he has chosen and the truth he has given. Similarly, God's love only comes to us through, by and for his own glory and sovereignty. "who are you, O man, to answer back to God?" (vr 20)

-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

So Daniel answers at least one part to the problem of evil : God brings it to the disobedient. But what about evil brought upon those that do obey?

If God is absolute goodness, how did He come by evil? And if so evil must have existed before the forbidden tree.

The creation of man with a free will opens the door for evil things to occur. Every man and woman starts out this life as an innocent and loving child, like a blank slate. What happens from there, coupled with the person's own decisions in life, decides the person's outcome. I think every person on earth, since the beginning of time, knows that there is some external agent of evil prompting them mentally to do evil things.

I believe every conception is a miracle of God. The Creator authors another individual totally unique from the billions of others on earth knowing full well that new person may be beneficial to others or may hurt others. Free will does not exist in a vacuum. Good and bad decisions from many generations past still impact us today.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The creation of man with a free will opens the door for evil things to occur.

I wish it was as easy as that. Like I've pointed out in the past : for free will to chose evil means evil was there to be selected. Where did that come from is the question.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I think every person on earth, since the beginning of time, knows that there is some external agent of evil prompting them mentally to do evil things.

Okay agency is behind evil. We'll settle on that premise for now. What external agent is the question.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I believe every conception is a miracle of God. The Creator authors another individual totally unique from the billions of others on earth knowing full well that new person may be beneficial to others or may hurt others. Free will does not exist in a vacuum. Good and bad decisions from many generations past still impact us today.

That was deep bro Ohio, with a gracious conception.

And I might add : Man made climate change is an example that it is our free will that's visiting evils on us. Jesus did say, we reap what we sow.

And that could explain the higher rate of natural catastrophic evils.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I wish it was as easy as that. Like I've pointed out in the past : for free will to chose evil means evil was there to be selected. Where did that come from is the question.

Okay agency is behind evil. We'll settle on that premise for now. What external agent is the question.

Evil began when Lucifer wanted what God had. Read Isaiah 14.12-16; Ezekiel 28.12-19 These scriptures give us hints of what he was and what happened to him. Then Lucifer disguised himself as a serpent in Eden, and lured Eve with the same bait.

By now, Lucifer has amassed armies against God; those that are seen animated by those which are unseen. These are the external agents operating on all mankind. There used to be a saying, "the devil made me do it." Not exactly. We each have a free will.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'll put the POE in terms we can all understand :

For those, like us, that believe in a loving God -- and surely we all do -- the POE presents a problem that's a troubling conundrum, but not so much that it removes our need for a loving God. John said "God is love," and that settles it.

Jesus in the New Covenant, established on the night He was betrayed, offered to all those who believe the greatest solution to the Problem of Evil. His solution was not to "know evil" as Lucifer the serpent had enticed the first couple in the garden of Eden. His solution was to know God. This was prophesied by Jeremiah in chapter 31, elaborated in the Gospels by Jesus Himself, and repeated by Paul in Hebrews 8 -- "all can know Me from the littlest to the greatest."

The great deception on earth today, especially in the information age of the internet, is to know so much, and yet not know God, not have a daily relationship with Him.

Life in this age is filled with endless things we will never know the answer for. Personally I would like to know who really killed the Kennedy brothers, which I have studied periodically for a half century, but unfortunately that is not going to happen in this life, and maybe not even in the next. Evil and the POE have so many faces and facets to attract our attention, and I'm not saying none of them should be examined, but if they cheat us from knowing God, the very reason Jesus came to the earth and died, then we might need some self-examination.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Evil began when Lucifer wanted what God had. Read Isaiah 14.12-16; Ezekiel 28.12-19 These scriptures give us hints of what he was and what happened to him. Then Lucifer disguised himself as a serpent in Eden, and lured Eve with the same bait.

By now, Lucifer has amassed armies against God; those that are seen animated by those which are unseen. These are the external agents operating on all mankind. There used to be a saying, "the devil made me do it." Not exactly. We each have a free will.

Oh brother Ohio you've been reading too much Witness Lee.

1) It has been said that God gave us free will because he wanted us to choose him. But because we have free will we often don't. We can choose or not choose God. For that matter, same goes for Satan. We can choose him or not choose him. Hell we can decide to choose neither God or Satan. Why not just let them fight it out. I certainly can't fight in the unseen world. Seems to me Satan is God's problem. He's the only one with the power to do anything about him. Maybe we'd be happier if we just left them alone.

2) What does free will really have to do with evil? It doesn't matter if we exercise free will to choose God or not. Evil still happens to us either way.

So God not only gambled with the devil over Job, He's gambling in the same way with us.

What a funny God. And a funny devil. Are we sure they're not just man made cartoon characters? Getting the fall of Lucifer from the verses in Isaiah and Ezekiel sure seems to require a man made cartoon like superimposition.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Oh brother Ohio you've been reading too much Witness Lee.

1) It has been said that God gave us free will because he wanted us to choose him. But because we have free will we often don't. We can choose or not choose God. For that matter, same goes for Satan. We can choose him or not choose him. Hell we can decide to choose neither God or Satan. Why not just let them fight it out. I certainly can't fight in the unseen world. Seems to me Satan is God's problem. He's the only one with the power to do anything about him. Maybe we'd be happier if we just left them alone.

2) What does free will really have to do with evil? It doesn't matter if we exercise free will to choose God or not. Evil still happens to us either way.

So God not only gambled with the devil over Job, He's gambling in the same way with us.

What a funny God. And a funny devil. Are we sure they're not just man made cartoon characters? Getting the fall of Lucifer from the verses in Isaiah and Ezekiel sure seems to require a man made cartoon like superimposition.

yer a funny guy!

You wondered how the serpent got in the garden, where did evil come from, and what's free will got to do with it ... so I use the Bible to try to explain.

Then you tell me I read too much Witness Lee!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

yer a funny guy!

You wondered how the serpent got in the garden, where did evil come from, and what's free will got to do with it ... so I use the Bible to try to explain.

Then you tell me I read too much Witness Lee!

Glad you like it bro Ohio. I'm here to entertain.

But when talking about Lucifer, as the agent behind evil, you could have at least pointed out his rank and power. I understand that according to Lee in his Life Study of Genesis, pointing to Jude 1:9, Satan has a higher rank than Michael the Archangel. Now that's power. [Right up there in rank with Jesus - infact he tempted Jesus as an equal] ; the kind of power that can really cook up lots of evil.

And then God is off the hook concerning the POE. That powerful devil is the cause of it.

But that just shifts the question : How can God create such a perfect being as Lucifer, greater than even Michael the Archangel, and yet there's imperfection in him? And if God can't violate Lucifer's free will then God can't stop Lucifer, and is therefore not omnipotent.

The POE is very complex.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

But when talking about Lucifer, as the agent behind evil, you could have at least pointed out his rank and power. I understand that according to Lee in his Life Study of Genesis, pointing to Jude 1:9, Satan has a higher rank than Michael the Archangel. Now that's power. [Right up there in rank with Jesus - in fact he tempted Jesus as an equal] ; the kind of power that can really cook up lots of evil.

Actually at this point, when the Devil tempted Him, they were not really "equals." Look at what Hebrews 2.9 says ...

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor: that, through the grace of God, he might taste death for all.

Not only was Lucifer higher in rank than the archangel Michael, but he also was higher in rank than Jesus. I find this just incredible!

I believe that Lucifer was placed in charge of God's entire creation. Why would God do that, we may never know. Lucifer had so much beauty, talent, knowledge, power, etc., that apparently it was just inevitable that his heart would be lifted up with pride, thinking he was equal with God or greater, and wanting what God alone could have.

I think Igzy's past points about free will needing a background of evil to facilitate all of our future perfection should be well taken.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Actually at this point, when the Devil tempted Him, they were not really "equals." Look at what Hebrews 2.9 says ...

Hey, and in John 14:30 Jesus calls him a Prince. Lucifer is still a Prince. Goodness, this POE rabbit hole sure is deep. When will it end.

And in 2 Corinthians 4:4 Paul calls him a god.

Plus, never in the whole Bible is Satan called a fallen angel. That's an extra-Biblical term.

In the end I guess we could surmise that Satan is really something else ; something else quite powerful ; right up there with being able to resist and fight God, I suppose ... or we suppose ... and John (some John that we canonized) supposes.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I believe that Lucifer was placed in charge of God's entire creation.

Well who placed him in charge? (not rhetorical)

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

1)It has been said that God gave us free will because he wanted us to choose him. But because we have free will we often don't. We can choose or not choose God. For that matter, same goes for Satan. We can choose him or not choose him. Hell we can decide to choose neither God or Satan.

Actually, according to the Lord Jesus, and the New Testament writers the choice is really not ours. At the time of the Fall, our will has been subjected. Jesus said "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other." (Matt 6:24) Then the apostle Paul: "For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate." (Rom 7:14,15)

This is where the mercy of God comes in. It is only by his mercy and grace that we can be included in the divine chain: "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined...And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified." (Rom 8:29,30) Due to the fact that our free will has been subjugated - under abject bondage - we need to be freed from one master so that we can serve another. Again, Paul says it best: "And because you belong to him, the power of the life-giving Spirit has freed you from the power of sin that leads to death...He sent his own Son in a body like the bodies we sinners have. And in that body God declared an end to sin's control over us by giving his Son as a sacrifice for our sins."(Rom 8:2,3 NIV)

2) What does free will really have to do with evil? It doesn't matter if we exercise free will to choose God or not. Evil still happens to us either way.

Good point! So you do agree that evil existed before Man was created? You've seen the light, brother, you've seen the light!

So God not only gambled with the devil over Job, He's gambling in the same way with us.

Gambling? Wrong god again, Harold. The God of the Bible doesn't gamble. Gambling doesn't have a purpose, and the God of the Scriptures has a purpose to everything. Nothing is meaningless. He even uses the evilness of Satan for his own purposes. He did that here in Job. He used the evil perpetrated upon God's people by the Pharaoh of Egypt. He used the evil perpetrated by Harod, Pilate and other civil and religious leaders in Jesus' day. Throughout church history God has used evil men within and outside the church to fulfill his purposes.

Two particular seemingly meaningless evils took place in Orlando Florida just recently. One evil was perpetrated by a man full of hate and rage, no doubt under the power and influence of the original hater of God. We can be assured that he will stand before God and answer for the evil things that he did. The other situation was the tragic loss of a 2 year old boy. Who is to blame? His parents for not being watchful enough? The people of Disney who knew of the dangers but did not take enough precautions? Lot's of questions, but none of the answers will bring the boy back to his grief-stricken parents.

I have no pat answers of how these particular evils are serving the purposes of God. I cried like everyone else that Sunday morning. I cried again just a few days later upon the news of the little boy being killed at Disney. My only answers come from what God has provided in his Word. I understand that these answers do not seem to be enough for many people. Part of this problem falls upon those of us who know the answers that are provided in God's Word, but because of various weaknesses and shortcomings are not able to make a fair or complete representation. Our brother the apostle Peter admonished us: "always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15).....I'm tryin Pete....I'm tryin real hard.

-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I believe that Lucifer was placed in charge of God's entire creation. Why would God do that, we may never know. Lucifer had so much beauty, talent, knowledge, power, etc., that apparently it was just inevitable that his heart would be lifted up with pride, thinking he was equal with God or greater, and wanting what God alone could have.

This, I believe, is the origin of all evil.

Originally Posted by awareness

Well who placed him in charge? (not rhetorical)

Obviously the Creator did so.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I believe that Lucifer was placed in charge of God's entire creation

I saw this same basic thing said elsewhere today (and not by you).

Do you think that it was truly a matter of God putting Lucifer in charge, or that the free will of man, coupled with the rebellion and fall of man gave effectively gave it to him? Does anything say that it was a matter of decision to place Lucifer in charge? There may be, but I can't think of it.

I do believe that the Psalms make a clear reference to all of creation being put under man, and as a type considered to be indirectly referring to Christ. (maybe Ps 8?)

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

I saw this same basic thing said elsewhere today (and not by you).

Do you think that it was truly a matter of God putting Lucifer in charge, or that the free will of man, coupled with the rebellion and fall of man gave effectively gave it to him? Does anything say that it was a matter of decision to place Lucifer in charge? There may be, but I can't think of it.

I do believe that the Psalms make a clear reference to all of creation being put under man, and as a type considered to be indirectly referring to Christ. (maybe Ps 8?)

Satan told Jesus he would give him all the kingdoms of the world if Jesus would worship him (Matt 4:9). Jesus did not dispute Satan's authority to give these things. Whether that means Satan is over all creation is unclear, but it seems to imply that Satan is in some way over the earth. I don't understand the arrangement totally, but something is going on with that.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I believe that Lucifer was placed in charge of God's entire creation.

Originally Posted by OBW

Do you think that it was truly a matter of God putting Lucifer in charge, or that the free will of man, coupled with the rebellion and fall of man gave effectively gave it to him?

Scripture indicates Lucifer was in charge of all God's creation, including other angels and principalities, and later rebelled. This was long before man was created.

In the restored earth, Adam was placed over all God has made (formed) on earth. By eating the TOKOGAE, man forfeited his position over creation. Today we are subject to mosquitoes, climate change, stray asteroids, etc. because of Adam's transgression. Jesus, however, as a man ruled over sickness, weather, animals, etc. and eventually conquered man's greatest enemies -- sin and death.

Originally Posted by OBW

Does anything say that it was a matter of decision to place Lucifer in charge? There may be, but I can't think of it.

I do believe that the Psalms make a clear reference to all of creation being put under man, and as a type considered to be indirectly referring to Christ. (maybe Ps 8?)

You are right. Psalm 8 is wonderfully prophetic.

Apparently the Psalmist is worshiping Jehovah (Yahweh) God for his creation of man in general, but in doing so it refers to the resurrected man Jesus. The prophet David seamlessly transitions from the Genesis 2 creation story to the ascension and glorification of Jesus as if 4 millennia of sin had never happened!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I have no pat answers of how these particular evils are serving the purposes of God. I cried like everyone else that Sunday morning. I cried again just a few days later upon the news of the little boy being killed at Disney. My only answers come from what God has provided in his Word. I understand that these answers do not seem to be enough for many people. Part of this problem falls upon those of us who know the answers that are provided in God's Word, but because of various weaknesses and shortcomings are not able to make a fair or complete representation. Our brother the apostle Peter admonished us: "always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15).....I'm tryin Pete....I'm tryin real hard.

-

UNTOHIM--I applaud your humility in admitting that you do not know. Don't beat yourself up over it. It may be unknowable. Peter was talking about hope not metaphysics. Where there's life, there's hope.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Satan told Jesus he would give him all the kingdoms of the world if Jesus would worship him (Matt 4:9). Jesus did not dispute Satan's authority to give these things. Whether that means Satan is over all creation is unclear, but it seems to imply that Satan is in some way over the earth. I don't understand the arrangement totally, but something is going on with that.

And you have made the inference that I do believe is there. But whether it infers that at the present time God has specifically given Satan that position or has merely allowed it because he (God) does not demand fealty of us and therefore we give it to Satan is not clear. That is the question that I have.

And I believe that the answer, while potentially of interest to someone trying to make points about the POE, is not really that important. Even though in a state of rebellion, Satan is, at his best, like a governor, not the emperor. He may have been given authority in the past. And since his rebellion we may not yet see the end of his apparent reign. But it is still a soon-to-be terminated thing.

The important thing is to recognize his attempts to usurp God's place in our lives. He has been at it since the first humans on earth (whether or not they were actually or only metaphorically Adam and Eve).

[OBW]

Whether or not Satan is properly given his present position on earth, or just holding it because we give him the position is not clear. It may seem to make some difference from the standpoint of the POE as stated. But otherwise the only thing that can be said for certain is that there is evil in the world as we know it. And it comes in the form of killers of certain kinds of people, simple crimes of passion in the home, alligators in Florida ponds, and preachers who make hateful statements about any of those.

As Unto has said, we have to cry over these kinds of things. It doesn't matter what you think about anyone's status as saint or sinner. It is evil and it should hurt those who claim to follow the God of love.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I believe that Lucifer was placed in charge of God's entire creation. Why would God do that, we may never know. Lucifer had so much beauty, talent, knowledge, power, etc., that apparently it was just inevitable that his heart would be lifted up with pride, thinking he was equal with God or greater, and wanting what God alone could have.

Well now ... we're gettin' down to it : God is in charge of everything and everybody, material or otherwise ... like it or not.

And why God does what He does is anybody's guess. And there's been a multitude of guesses offered down thru the ages. Your guess is as good as mine. What answer(s) you gravitate to depends on what you are willing to accept about God.

To be honest I'm willing to accept just about any of them. In fact I've settled with even the worst possibility ; that God could have a unpredictable streak, not of our liking ... possibly a bit loopy.

That possibility doesn't trouble me. Me and God have had plenty of ups and downs, and disagreements, down thru the years. And we'll likely have more.

Besides, I have no room to talk. I've got a loopy streak too.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

Whether or not Satan is properly given his present position on earth, or just holding it because we give him the position is not clear. It may seem to make some difference from the standpoint of the POE as stated. But otherwise the only thing that can be said for certain is that there is evil in the world as we know it. And it comes in the form of killers of certain kinds of people, simple crimes of passion in the home, alligators in Florida ponds, and preachers who make hateful statements about any of those.

As Unto has said, we have to cry over these kinds of things. It doesn't matter what you think about anyone's status as saint or sinner. It is evil and it should hurt those who claim to follow the God of love.

Amen brother OBW ... and Untohim too ... not dismissing others ... but I had to specifically honor their heart felt sentiments.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

To be honest I'm willing to accept just about any of them. In fact I've settled with even the worst possibility ; that God could have a unpredictable streak, not of our liking...

Actually what God has is a righteous wrath streak. When one takes into account the rebellious history of Man, it's a wonder that we still exist. Two of the most striking words in the Old Testament are "Longsuffering" (Long-suffering) and "Lovingkindness" (Loving kindness) He told Adam and Eve "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die". But they didn't die the day that they ate. God withheld his righteous wrath. Eventually they did die, and so has every man since.

The entire history of mankind is marked by times of God withholding his righteous wrath, and choosing instead to show longsuffering and lovingkindness. At times his chooses to exercise his righteous wrath. "Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated" is a very hard thing for our natural sensibilities to swallow. It seems to me that there are two ways we can deal with this: We can shake our fists heavenward and declare "how dare you, God, hate Esau!", or we can fall on our face, and in wonder and awe, thank, praise and worship the One who said "Jacob I have loved", and then count our self as most blessed among men.

As far as the seemingly meaningless evil that falls upon us, well I count these things within the sovereign will of God. And again, there are at least two different ways we can deal with these evils. Let's go back to the story of Job. As far as is recorded, Job was not privy to the conversation between God and Satan, so when all the seemingly meaningless evils fell upon him - loosing all his worldly possessions, and worst of all, loosing his own children - he had no more information to go upon then his wife or friends. His reaction? “Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.” (Job 1:21) His wife's reaction? "Curse God and die!" (2:9) - (Job's retort: "Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?” (2:10)

Fast forward a couple of thousand years - "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law" (Gal 4:4) Of course, the ultimate expression of God's longsuffering and lovingkindness was expressed in the sending of, and sacrificial death of, his only begotten Son.

Fast forward another some two thousand years. Here we are. Maybe we are in the very same boat as Job. And if we are, I would submit that we are left with the same two choices. What will it be? Will it be "The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord." Or will we curse God and die. Of course, in reality, our choice is not this stark. I exaggerate for effect. (UntoHim exaggerate, NO WAY!)

-

[awareness]

Well Untohim, I've let this post (below) marinate long enough.

Before offering my 2 cents I think y'all will appreciate the following. It comes from our good old LC buddy Doug Krieger's Facebook group (Tribnet 7,000). It's a snippet of a post by a member, Rick Kincaid:

"God's judgment of sin and death (the enemy of his good creation) was finished 2000 years ago. Death is nothing. Christ is sitting on the throne and his use of "the Satan" is a small matter. For a follower of Christ, we are already at the "end of the story". We won! It is over! Death and sin are defeated."

Hey, it's over. Evil is defeated. When it hits a good guy, he or she goes to heaven. Evil ain't evil. Yea!!!

But back to our conversation. Am I right that at this point on the POE thread we've concluded that God and the devil are in some kind of a partnership?

A-H

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Actually what God has is a righteous wrath streak. When one takes into account the rebellious history of Man, it's a wonder that we still exist. Two of the most striking words in the Old Testament are "Longsuffering" (Long-suffering) and "Lovingkindness" (Loving kindness) He told Adam and Eve "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die". But they didn't die the day that they ate. God withheld his righteous wrath. Eventually they did die, and so has every man since.

The entire history of mankind is marked by times of God withholding his righteous wrath, and choosing instead to show longsuffering and lovingkindness. At times his chooses to exercise his righteous wrath. "Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated" is a very hard thing for our natural sensibilities to swallow. It seems to me that there are two ways we can deal with this: We can shake our fists heavenward and declare "how dare you, God, hate Esau!", or we can fall on our face, and in wonder and awe, thank, praise and worship the One who said "Jacob I have loved", and then count our self as most blessed among men.

As far as the seemingly meaningless evil that falls upon us, well I count these things within the sovereign will of God. And again, there are at least two different ways we can deal with these evils. Let's go back to the story of Job. As far as is recorded, Job was not privy to the conversation between God and Satan, so when all the seemingly meaningless evils fell upon him - loosing all his worldly possessions, and worst of all, loosing his own children - he had no more information to go upon then his wife or friends. His reaction? “Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.” (Job 1:21) His wife's reaction? "Curse God and die!" (2:9) - (Job's retort: "Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?” (2:10)

Fast forward a couple of thousand years - "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law" (Gal 4:4) Of course, the ultimate expression of God's longsuffering and lovingkindness was expressed in the sending of, and sacrificial death of, his only begotten Son.

Fast forward another some two thousand years. Here we are. Maybe we are in the very same boat as Job. And if we are, I would submit that we are left with the same two choices. What will it be? Will it be "The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord." Or will we curse God and die. Of course, in reality, our choice is not this stark. I exaggerate for effect. (UntoHim exaggerate, NO WAY!)

-

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well Untohim, I've let this post (below) marinate long enough.

"God's judgment of sin and death (the enemy of his good creation) was finished 2000 years ago. Death is nothing. Christ is sitting on the throne and his use of "the Satan" is a small matter. For a follower of Christ, we are already at the "end of the story". We won! It is over! Death and sin are defeated."

Hey, it's over. Evil is defeated. When it hits a good guy, he or she goes to heaven. Evil ain't evil. Yea!!!

I think you better stick my post back in the fridge...it apparently needs to marinate a little longer

I think this fellow you quote is jumping the gun a bit. But maybe he simple means all this in the same sense as the apostle Paul wrote "And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified." (Rom 8:30) No doubt we were predestined. No doubt we have been called. Already justified? No sure about that one. Glorified? That is for the future, so why did Paul link it with the other things that have taken place or are currently taking place?

These kinds of statements comport with the "already but not yet" nature of teachings of Jesus and the Scripture writing apostles. Jesus declared "I am the resurrection and the life" (John 11:25). But the resurrection had, in fact, not taken place yet. What prompted Jesus to make such a bold statement? Just look at the previous verse "Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” (11:24) Wasn't she correct? Smart girl, sure she was correct. But the resurrection had a much, much larger, universal meaning then Jesus rising from the dead after three days. Too much to get into here, but I think you see the point nonetheless.

But back to our conversation. Am I right that at this point on the POE thread we've concluded that God and the devil are in some kind of a partnership?

Nah, partnership implies equality, or at least mutual goals of some sort. God is using the devil, not the other way around.

You keep trying to pin the POE to the God of the Bible. It's just not going to happen, my friend. The Scriptures explain everything about evil that we need to know. They show it's origin. They show the originator and universal purveyor of evil. They show how God uses this universal purveyor and the evil he purveys for his own purposes and glory. They even show us the inglorious, fiery end to this purveyor and even of evil itself. (That's where this guy you quoted is actually correct)

Again, I understand and even appreciate how the answers provided in the Bible are just not comprehensive or complete enough for some people. But such is life, hey? And in the words of that great Western philosopher, George Michael, "I gotta have faith".

-

[awareness]

Untohim, I always enjoy your posts. They're always thoughtful and they usually manage to preach the gospel, as it has come to be known today.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

. . . maybe he simple means all this in the same sense as the apostle Paul wrote "And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified." (Rom 8:30) No doubt we were predestined. No doubt we have been called. Already justified? No sure about that one. Glorified? That is for the future, so why did Paul link it with the other things that have taken place or are currently taking place?

Maybe because it was his only hope to be done with carnality. "Rom_7:23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind . . ."

Originally Posted by Untohim

These kinds of statements comport with the "already but not yet" nature of teachings of Jesus and the Scripture writing apostles. Jesus declared "I am the resurrection and the life" (John 11:25). But the resurrection had, in fact, not taken place yet. What prompted Jesus to make such a bold statement?

There's likely my theories that could be offered to answer your interesting question. Here's one : Maybe because he was a Pharisee, and he was informing his fellow Pharisees that their belief in the resurrection had finally arrived. And let's not forget that the gospel that came to be known as John was written long after Jesus was gone ... and this is the lone witness to this saying.

Originally Posted by Untohim

Nah, partnership implies equality, or at least mutual goals of some sort. God is using the devil, not the other way around.

True. In Job they were gambling against each other. And God just allowed the Satan to do things to Job, up to a limit.

Not that it matters but I think God Job'ed me, with more limitations than with Job. And when I was waving my fist at God as a result it would have perhaps been more direct to wave it at the devil.

Originally Posted by Untohim

Again, I understand and even appreciate how the answers provided in the Bible are just not comprehensive or complete enough for some people. But such is life . . .

Well then, if what the Fundamentalist claim is true, that, the Bible was written by God, then, God sure loves to confound us, and sometimes even goes so far as to present a ghastly image of Himself.

[zeek]

It was once thought that evil resided inside the body. So murderers were dissected to find it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

It was once thought that evil resided inside the body. So murderers were dissected to find it.

Jesus said that evil proceeds out from the heart of man. (Mark 7)

Take out his heart, and the murderer is "cured."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jesus said that evil proceeds out from the heart of man. (Mark 7)

Take out his heart, and the murderer is "cured."

...and dead unless he gets a transplant.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

...and dead unless he gets a transplant.

If evil comes out from man's heart, and a murderer gets a heart transplant from a good man, then does the murderer get "cured"?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If evil comes out from man's heart, and a murderer gets a heart transplant from a good man, then does the murderer get "cured"?

No, maybe he wouldn't murder ever again, but he would still fornicate (what's wrong with that? It's not killing), however, he would no longer have an "evil eye."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

No, maybe he wouldn't murder ever again, but he would still fornicate (what's wrong with that? It's not killing), however, he would no longer have an "evil eye."

So fornicators don't have an "evil eye?" Then what motivates them?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If evil comes out from man's heart, and a murderer gets a heart transplant from a good man, then does the murderer get "cured"?

Do you really think Jesus was talking about a literal heart?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Do you really think Jesus was talking about a literal heart?

Oh ... do you mean some things in the Bible are not literal?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Oh ... do you mean some things in the Bible are not literal?

You're on thin ice brod'der.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

You're on thin ice brod'der.

Am I being moderated for something?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Am I being moderated for something?

Yes! For saying the Bible is not literal. Shame. Shame.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Oh ... do you mean some things in the Bible are not literal?

More silly games from Ohio. Metaphorically the heart refers to the center of our being. But then people haven't always made such distinctions:

In 1533 Siamese twin girls were autopsied in Espanola (now the Dominican Republic) in order to define if there was one soul or two. The girls had been individually baptized, and the postmortem examination confirmed that there were indeed 2 souls. This was based on the finding of 2 complete sets of internal organs -- most importantly, the liver. http://emedicine.medscape.com/articl...93-overview#a6

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

More silly games from Ohio.

And your posts were not?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And your posts were not?

I made a serious observation related to the POE. In your usual manner, you attempted to derail my point by feigning ignorance rather than honest dialogue.

I think that underlying the notion of sin is a sense of disgust of one's own body. It makes sense that we are disgusted by things that can contaminate our food, but why does this sensation extend itself so deeply into our social world? People feel disgusted by certain ethnic groups or by racism, by homosexuality or by homophobia, and by a variety of social and moral violations that don't involve anything physically contaminating.

Disgust has religious implications. It appears to be part of the psychological foundation of culturally widespread ideas of purity and pollution. Many religions have extensive rules for regulating human bodily processes and keeping them separate from sacred objects and practices. Disgust appears to provide part of the structure of these rules and practices. There is plenty of evidence to support this thesis in the Bible. It seems to be the basis for religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants. We won't really be able to have a deep understanding of the POE without comprehending the phenomenon of evil in our experience.

I understand why you wish to make a joke of whatever I have to say. It's a threat to you. That way you can stay in your deep denial about yourself, your life and your religion. But, I don't imagine your self-ignorance is as blissful as you would like us to believe.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I made a serious observation related to the POE. In your usual manner, you attempted to derail my point by feigning ignorance rather than honest dialogue.

Dissecting murderers is a "serious observation related to the POE." Whatever.

Has anybody ever told you how difficult you are to communicate with?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Dissecting murderers is a "serious observation related to the POE." Whatever.

Has anybody ever told you how difficult you are to communicate with?

Only you and my ex-wife.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

We won't really be able to have a deep understanding of the POE without comprehending the phenomenon of evil in our experience

Interesting hypothesis. Of course "deep understanding" is in the eye of the beholder. One man's deep understanding is another man's misguided adventure into a never-never land of a meaningless philosophical/pseudo religious rabbit hole.

Thankfully we have the ancient writings of many men over a period of thousands of years to straighten all this out for us...men who have "been there, done that." The Judeo-Christian Scriptures cover all the bases of this supposed "problem". They cover the source of evil. They cover the universal purveyor of evil. They cover the ultimate solution that God has provided to deal with evil. And, the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Righteous has provided us later day earthlings with the way to deal with any and all of the evil that surrounds us...even the "phenomenon of evil in our experience".

Said Jesus Christ addressed this problem dead on: "I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world." (John 16:33)

Said apostle John kept the ball rolling: Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. (1 John 4:4)

Yep, mankind has, for the most part, dropped the ball regarding this POE matter, and we Christians have probably dropped the ball more than anyone else. In fact, the false religion of christianity has probably done more to hide the ball than the original purveyor of evil has ever imagined. False religion makes his job a piece of cake. Heck, it covers all the bases for him - it gets evil men to assist him, and feel that they are actually assisting God at the very same time. "God hates fags". No, Mr. Phelps, unless all homosexuals are named Esau, God does not hate all fags. In fact, he sent his very own Son to die for them as much as he did for your sorry little ass, and for all those who reside in the little religious cult you founded. (yeah, yeah, I know he's dead, but I'd say the same thing to his face if he was still around)

Yes, there is a problem with evil. It's embedded within every human being. "and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil." (John 3:19) Wow, now THERE is a great observation of "the phenomenon of evil in our experience". Have things gotten better over the past 2 thousand years or so? In many respects yes. In many respects no. But the blame for this should not (CAN NOT) be laid at the feet of the God of the Bible. Like Harold has said in the past... "I've got nothing against God. It's his Fan Club I can't stand".

-

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Interesting hypothesis. Of course "deep understanding" is in the eye of the beholder. One man's deep understanding is another man's misguided adventure into a never-never land of a meaningless philosophical/pseudo religious rabbit hole.

True. But, if we didn't have a significant amount of experience and language in common, we couldn't understand each other at all. To communicate successfully we have to take account of what we have in common as well as our differences.

Thankfully we have the ancient writings of many men over a period of thousands of years to straighten all this out for us...men who have "been there, done that." The Judeo-Christian Scriptures cover all the bases of this supposed "problem". They cover the source of evil. They cover the universal purveyor of evil. They cover the ultimate solution that God has provided to deal with evil. And, the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Righteous has provided us later day earthlings with the way to deal with any and all of the evil that surrounds us...even the "phenomenon of evil in our experience".

What I find is that everyone has their own interpretation of the bible. Witness Lee claimed he was above that problem. His followers were exhorted to accept his interpretation as final, but as we have seen time and again on LCD, each person has their own interpretation of Lee's interpretation. Likewise, it is as if no two persons have the same bible. What we can actually discuss is not the bible per se but our interpretations of it.

Said Jesus Christ addressed this problem dead on: "I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world." (John 16:33)

If Jesus has overcome the world, how is it that a man walked into a bar in Orlando and murdered 49 people?

Said apostle John kept the ball rolling: Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. (1 John 4:4)

Christians are manifestly subject to the same foibles as everyone else. So, please explain how this is true.

Yep, mankind has, for the most part, dropped the ball regarding this POE matter, and we Christians have probably dropped the ball more than anyone else. In fact, the false religion of christianity has probably done more to hide the ball than the original purveyor of evil has ever imagined. False religion makes his job a piece of cake. Heck, it covers all the bases for him - it gets evil men to assist him, and feel that they are actually assisting God at the very same time. "God hates fags". No, Mr. Phelps, unless all homosexuals are named Esau, God does not hate all fags. In fact, he sent his very own Son to die for them as much as he did for your sorry little ass, and for all those who reside in the little religious cult you founded. (yeah, yeah, I know he's dead, but I'd say the same thing to his face if he was still around)

You go bro!

Yes, there is a problem with evil. It's embedded within every human being. "and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil." (John 3:19) Wow, now THERE is a great observation of "the phenomenon of evil in our experience". Have things gotten better over the past 2 thousand years or so? In many respects yes. In many respects no. But the blame for this should not (CAN NOT) be laid at the feet of the God of the Bible. Like Harold has said in the past... "I've got nothing against God. It's his Fan Club I can't stand".

Right and we're just fallible human beings here talking. To understand what the bible says about the problem of evil we have to conquer the distance between the past cultural epoch to which the text belongs and ourselves.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I understand why you wish to make a joke of whatever I have to say. It's a threat to you. That way you can stay in your deep denial about yourself, your life and your religion. But, I don't imagine your self-ignorance is as blissful as you would like us to believe.

Your comments are really autobiographical in nature, projected onto me to cover deep-seated frustrations with your ex-wife.

I understand. Perhaps counseling would help.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

If Jesus has overcome the world, how is it that a man walked into a bar in Orlando and murdered 49 people?

Jesus died for all men and saves those who would believe.

The Orlando murderer was a reflection of Allah and Moohammud, who murdered those who refused to "believe."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Your comments are really autobiographical in nature, projected onto me to cover deep-seated frustrations with your ex-wife.

I understand. Perhaps counseling would help.

That's funny. Nice try.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jesus died for all men and saves those who would believe.

The Orlando murderer was a reflection of Allah and Moohammud, who murdered those who refused to "believe."

That murder and your bigotry show that the world rolls on. So in what sense has Jesus overcome it?

[zeek]

Genesis 3; So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings. And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, “Where are you?” So he said, “I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.”

Notice that it was not guilt over their disobedience that bothered the first couple, but shame of their bodies upon having their "eyes opened". So according to this story, human self-loathing begins with self-awareness.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Your comments are really autobiographical in nature, projected onto me to cover deep-seated frustrations with your ex-wife.

I understand. Perhaps counseling would help.

They aren't that deep bro Ohio.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

That murder and your bigotry show that the world rolls on. So in what sense has Jesus overcome it?

Your constant recriminations say far more about you than me.

Go read some history book about how Moohammud spread his religion.

You got problems with Jesus? Take up up with His Father.

10-4 Over and out.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

They aren't that deep bro Ohio.

Too deep to admit.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Orlando murderer was a reflection of Allah and Moohammud, who murdered those who refused to "believe."

Does it ever occur to you that even if you are just being funny, while a gun and an ethnic insult are not identical, they are neither loving of neighbor and therefore neither are examples of believing in the God we claim to serve?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Does it ever occur to you that even if you are just being funny, while a gun and an ethnic insult are not identical, they are neither loving of neighbor and therefore neither are examples of believing in the God we claim to serve?

You got all this from my request to zeek to go back and read history?

OBW, you sometimes appear to be the defender of gays and mooslems, yet the judge of all Christians. Should not we fairly evaluate each individual, like moohammed the founder of islam, for their own actions, rather than categorize whole races of people?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You got all this from my request to zeek to go back and read history?

OBW, you sometimes appear to be the defender of gays and mooslems, yet the judge of all Christians. Should not we fairly evaluate each individual, like moohammed the founder of islam, for their own actions, rather than categorize whole races of people?

I am not a defender of sin. But when it comes to the posture of Christians toward any people, there is a requirement for love.

(If you can't understand the difference, then maybe you should take some time to try.)

When it comes to the open actions of Christians, there is a charge among Christians to speak out where it is not in accord with how we are charged. Not in the media. But this is at least ostensibly among the brethren.

So you may continue to prefer to insult people because they are not good Christians. But it is the proper standing of another Christian to question the righteousness of those insults without suggesting that the sins, or spiritual errors of the people you insult are not correctly sins or errors. And I do not even hint that homosexuality, or at least the actions associated with it, are not sins. And I do not hint that Moslems are simply going to heaven by a different route.

But I believe that it is a correct thing to say that when it comes to the sins of the world, God is the judge — not me. My part is to represent God to the world — including the sinners. And God has, through Jesus, defined that representation as loving them in the way that I love myself. In association with loving God.

So do you insult blacks? Women? Mexicans? Japanese? Handicapped?

No. Just the ones that you call your enemies. But love was to be extended to your enemies as well. Instead, it appears you just demean who you don't like. Since they are not forum members, you don't get moderated for it.

And maybe you should.

You feel free to throw out the insults. I should be just as free to be let you know how offensive it is to me. But I do not have that freedom because it just generates another insult from you — this time aimed at me.

As for fairly judging, it is quite one thing to make rational judgments of the things that are sin, and that stand against God. But that is about the sin, not the people. When the manner of it is something that stands against what I believe is the command of God concerning our demeanor toward others — all others — why should I not speak about it? What I am saying is not an insult. It is an opinion concerning what I believe we as Christians are commanded concerning our actions and even attitudes toward others. If you want to discuss whether that is a correct position, that is fine. But it is not an insult to state that, if it is the correct position, you are in violation. And since you claim to be a Christian, I have a position to say something about it to you.

And if I am right, then what would you call going against it? I think the term is "sin." No, it is not the sin of unbelief. Or of murder. And so on. But do we get a pass because it is a little sin?

Does it sting to get called on it?

By the way. I did not get this from your request of zeek. It is something that has been bothering me for quite some time. Not just here, but in other parts of the forum you never refer to anyone of Islamic belief in a neutral or kind manner. It is always "Mooslem" or something like that. And there are others as well. So don't minimize it.

Time to quit justifying yourself on this one. It stinks. And you should be ashamed, though I wonder if your response will prove that you are not.

[Ohio]

So you may continue to prefer to insult people because they are not good Christians.

So do you insult blacks? Women? Mexicans? Japanese? Handicapped?

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Get off your high horse!

Who is insulting who? I challenge zeek's ideas, and he insults me. Read the posts.

Then you come along. Who made you judge of all?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Get off your high horse!

Who is insulting who? I challenge zeek's ideas, and he insults me. Read the posts.

Then you come along. Who made you judge of all?

OBW nailed it. You can't handle the truth. When have you challenged my ideas? What you bring to the table is mockery not arguments or facts.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You got problems with Jesus? Take up up with His Father.

I don't have a problem with Jesus. I'm asking for an explanation related to the POE. I asked in what sense it could be said that Jesus has overcome the world given the abundant evil we see in the world. You responded "Jesus died for all men and saves those who would believe." How does that overcome the world? You have admitted the devil is still the prince of this world. If Jesus overcame the world why does he continue to allow the devil to exercise his power as a royal son of God i.e. "prince"?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Get off your high horse!

Who is insulting who? I challenge zeek's ideas, and he insults me. Read the posts.

Then you come along. Who made you judge of all?

Nice job of contextonomy. You make it appear that I accused you of insulting these when it should be evident that I was not but was pointing out that you are selective and insult only those you think are worthy of your insults (and you rather constantly do it, not just in that one response to zeek).

And it is also very demonstrative of the problems with the very conservative side of Christian thinking, and the reason that more than doctrine divides us.

And If I use your method of insult on you, I would suggest that you might be a KrisChan. Sounds like Christian but doesn't carry the meaning. At least not when it comes to open and expressed attitudes toward other humans who you have been called to love, not to denigrate.

As for judge of all, your insults toward others are hardly any different. You like to dish it out but can't tolerate it when some comes back. Bristle your spine. Don't dare consider that anyone could ever say anything to you about your positions, actions, or beliefs that might be true.

I requested that you consider your demeaning of Moslems in such a flippant way and you get all incensed and accuse me of defending sinners and judging Christians.

Funny, but in slightly different terms that is exactly what we are called to do. We are to love all. But we are called to speak to the errors within the brotherhood of believers.

So would you sit down to eat with those sinners? Or would your disdain for them make it impossible? Your words here would seem to say so. Or at least indicate that any attempt would be hypocritical.

And as long as you stand firm by your previous words, the charge stands.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't have a problem with Jesus. I'm asking for an explanation related to the POE.

You can't be honest. You have hundreds of posts slighting Jesus, yet none directed at Allah. I see the news everyday. When people are asked about the problem of evil, why is it the discussion invariably goes in that direction?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

OBW nailed it. You can't handle the truth. When have you challenged my ideas? What you bring to the table is mockery not arguments or facts.

OBW has been after me for years for trying to be fair about TLR. He would feign a heart attack every time I mentioned something positive about the LC or Lee.

If I was a Brit voting for Brexit, zeek and OBW would attack me for racism, bigotry, xenophobia, and more.

That's how liberals are. You should really try another news source.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Get off your high horse!

Who is insulting who? I challenge zeek's ideas, and he insults me. Read the posts.

Then you come along. Who made you judge of all?

Well it was crazy Untohim that made me moderator ... without even asking me. Perhaps he should have made OBW moderator. He's got more sense than me.

But I agree with OBW. I love you to death bro Ohio, but your obvious prejudices stick out like a sore thumb, and even rub my wild sensibilities the wrong way at times.

I just considered that you are among the hordes that consider hate of Muslims a popular way to be. With pictures of heads getting cut off, and gays being thrown off buildings, and the gay club thing, I understand why.

One reason Trump is so popular among evangelicals is his position on banning Muslims from our country. So you are not alone bro Ohio. But now evangelicals have lost their way politically. They don't have anyone they can get behind that represent Christian family values, and the Bible. And, given Hillary's checkered past, to say the least, it certainly isn't going to be her.

So now evangelicals have no choice but to get behind a childish belligerent bigot, which doesn't cast them in a Christian light.

But this is America, and you have every right to join hands with them ... that is if you too want to look like a bigot. And knowing you, I sincerely don't think you want to do that. In the end, I would hope, and do believe, that your heart is too loving for that.

But I understand. The local church really screwed up our heads. And even tho you had a Titus Chu filter, Witness Lee's hate of every one but himself, was infused into all of us. In fact, we're still struggling to get free from all that. But it's not easy, and takes time. And only the wonderful undeserved grace can accomplish that. And Muslims don't deserve it any more than we do. Let's hope in grace.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Nice job of contextonomy.

You sound just like the LSM wordsmiths.

They never met an honest and fair critique that they could not declare was "taken out of context."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I just considered that you are among the hordes that consider hate of Muslims a popular way to be. With pictures of heads getting cut off, and gays being thrown off buildings, and the gay club thing, I understand why.

One reason Trump is so popular among evangelicals is his position on banning Muslims from our country. So you are not alone bro Ohio. But now evangelicals have lost their way politically. They don't have anyone they can get behind that represent Christian family values, and the Bible. And, given Hillary's checkered past, to say the least, it certainly isn't going to be her.

Your comments expose liberal biases, so typical on AlterViews.

For example politics. I care little for Trump, but I get grouped with all those "stupid" evangelicals who have "lost their way" because I am and evangelical christian and conservative. Today, we in America are forced to choose between a bad-mouthed, egotistical schoolyard bully and a lying, crooked, traitorous puppet of a syndicated crime family. Not very good choices. But I have to weigh my options. That's why I visit both left and right media outlets to get the whole picture.

Why is it that Jesus, God, the Bible, evangelicals, conservatives, etc. can constantly get a bad rap here on AlterViews, but when I push back with the other side of the story, I get bashed for bigotry, racism, xenophobia -- you know -- like all the rest of my Christian brethren around the world, since we are all the same. Why are other posters not being criticized for the same reasons -- in the opposite direction.

And when did I become racist towards Mooslims by posting ideas on a forum. The lead story on my home page yesterday was 13 yo Jewish American girl stabbed in her bedroom in Israel. Now who do you think did it? Whose religion sponsors such actions?

But ... I sympathize with you as moderator of this crazy place, which is almost as crazy as my home town -- CrazyTown. And I thought you had volunteered for this job.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You can't be honest. You have hundreds of posts slighting Jesus, yet none directed at Allah. I see the news everyday. When people are asked about the problem of evil, why is it the discussion invariably goes in that direction?

Show me one post where I slighted Jesus. Allah is the Arabic word for God the subject of the POE. That's what we're talking about. You're the one who wants to go off topic not OBW.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

OBW has been after me for years for trying to be fair about TLR. He would feign a heart attack every time I mentioned something positive about the LC or Lee.

If I was a Brit voting for Brexit, zeek and OBW would attack me for racism, bigotry, xenophobia, and more.

That's how liberals are. You should really try another news source.

I just go by what you say. If I stereotype you like you have me, "That's how conservatives are", there's no possibility of understanding you as an individual.

Exchange of ideas doesn't seem to be what your after. As far as I can tell your goal on Alt Views has always been to shut it down or at least obstruct it. Certainly where I'm concerned that's the case. Maybe that's your goal with OBW too.

I read a wide variety of news sources that I get at Google News. Do you?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

OBW has been after me for years for trying to be fair about TLR. He would feign a heart attack every time I mentioned something positive about the LC or Lee.

If I was a Brit voting for Brexit, zeek and OBW would attack me for racism, bigotry, xenophobia, and more.

That's how liberals are. You should really try another news source.

And the ad hominems and ignorant statements roll on.

The Brexit is not about racism, xenophobia, or even bigotry (although persons who are properly categorized as each probably voted for it).

Any my past comments about TLR/LRC/LCM were not about you personally (though you seem unable to take anything as other than personal). They were about the things that I wondered whether we continued to hold to from our teachings in TLR/LRC/LCM that we had not challenged.

And you label me a liberal. Yeah, right. I'm somewhere just to the left of W.

But my politics should not inform my behavior toward other people. Liberals, Moslems, LLGBT (or whatever term is in vogue these days), etc.

I started this with a question.

Does it ever occur to you that even if you are just being funny, while a gun and an ethnic insult are not identical, they are neither loving of neighbor and therefore neither are examples of believing in the God we claim to serve?

And the answer would appear to be "NO."

And after your diatribes about how everyone is picking on you, it sounds more like "#3!! NO"

[awareness]

Here I have to interject. Bro Ohio has come a long way on ALTV's. His posts have become quite elaborate. So I vote we overlook his Mooslim and moohammed disparagements.

And bro Ohio, the reason I feel free to be critical of Christianity is because that's what I grew up in and know a great deal about. Not so Islam.

Plus, this is a Christian site, loosely framed around Lee's Recovery movement. So talking about Islam and Muslim's don't fit here.

But I am willing to be critical of Islam, for many reasons. But mostly because their religion is based upon the Old Testament. The exception being the Sufi Muslims, who find their direction from mysticism, and aren't extremists like the Wahhabists, that's making headlines with their atrocities and terrorism. Islam desperately needs more Sufi's. Muhammad actually wanted his religious movement to be modeled after the Persian mystics, but things went wildly wrong after he died.

Moreover, considering the state of Christianity in the 7th c., I don't know if I can blame Muhammad for starting a new religion. His mistake? Using the Old Testament as a model. The New Testament Allah would have been much better. I can love that Allah.

But let's get back to the POE. Question. Is Allah responsible for evil?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You sound just like the LSM wordsmiths.

They never met an honest and fair critique that they could not declare was "taken out of context."

You are now either really stupid or a liar.

Pick one.

I don't think it is a false dichotomy.

But your analogy is ingeniously evil. Perfect for a thread on the subject.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Your comments expose liberal biases, so typical on AlterViews.

Your comments expose extreme conservative biases that are nearly impossible to justify as Christian.

Yes I am attacking your views again. I think they stink.

You think we should allow such unchristian claptrap because it is popular but can't stand to hear a single word of push-back. This would be a pathetic excuse for a forum of ideas if only your version of what was acceptable was allowed to be spoken. Only your version of what is good Christian belief and practice. No other will be tolerated.

Well, some of us have tolerated your underhanded bigotry and hatred in the name of conservatism and (gag me) Christianity for a long time. You want to be able to say whatever you want without reprisal. I give you reasons to rethink. You give me vomiting of nonsense concerning what my views are on several subjects. And you are freakin wrong. You are getting close to being an alternate Bilbodog. Gotta have it his way or he complains and leaves.

It might be time for you to take a breather.

As for my initial question. If you had simply answered I honestly (and it looks like the answer would have been "no, and I don't care") I might have asked you to reconsider and let it go. But instead you turn your insults and ad hominems on me. Get your guns ready. Time to suck it up and back down. Or go away. Be glad I have turned down moderating. You would have been told to drop the "Mooslem" thing months ago. And it might have been better if that happened way back then because you might not be so arrogant about your approach to these things. Or at least hesitant to spew them around here.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't have a problem with Jesus. I'm asking for an explanation related to the POE. I asked in what sense it could be said that Jesus has overcome the world given the abundant evil we see in the world.

Well, I know from your past posts, you consider many of the core doctrines/beliefs of the Christian faith as myths. You may not have a problem with Jesus, but you have a problem with his bodily resurrection, and this "problem" is a huge non-sequiter in understanding "the problem of evil", and how God has dealt with this problem - in the past, present and future.

The simple biblical reality is that Jesus Christ has, through his death and resurrection, dealt with the problem of evil. If Jesus was not raised from the dead, IN NO SENSE has he overcome the world, evil, death or sin. And this is the apostle Paul's whole argument to the Corinthians in the 15th chapter of 1st Corinthians. (a section of the NT we should all be familiar with)

Regarding your concern "given the abundant evil we see in the world", well what can I say? Please take note that Jesus Christ said "In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world." (John 16:33) He did not say that WE HAVE overcome the world yet. We will have tribulation. Much of this tribulation is directly related to this problem of evil. But there is hope: "Yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you."

To deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, as clearly testified in the Gospel and the writings of the apostles, is to short circuit the very way God has chosen to deal with the problem of evil. The fact that we can not fully understand, comprehend or appreciate the way God has chosen only highlights our desperate and urgent need to know God's ways, character and sovereign will.

In utter desperation and wonderment, Moses cried out to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, whom he only really knew as "I am that I am": "Teach me your ways! Show me your glory!" What did he get for this request? A short but amazing view of God himself from the cleft in the rock, and then the giving of the Law. He got to view the glory of God. What about his ways? He received the Law, because no matter how much of the glory of God we see, there is still evil to be dealt with, both from within ourselves and in the world in general.

Now we have the law "written on our hearts, not on tablets of stone, but on our hearts of flesh, not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God". This is the ONLY way that we can deal with the evil within and the evil we see all around us.

-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Your comments expose extreme conservative biases that are nearly impossible to justify as Christian.

Yes I am attacking your views again. I think they stink.

You think we should allow such unchristian claptrap because it is popular but can't stand to hear a single word of push-back. This would be a pathetic excuse for a forum of ideas if only your version of what was acceptable was allowed to be spoken. Only your version of what is good Christian belief and practice. No other will be tolerated.

Well, some of us have tolerated your underhanded bigotry and hatred in the name of conservatism and (gag me) Christianity for a long time. You want to be able to say whatever you want without reprisal. I give you reasons to rethink. You give me vomiting of nonsense concerning what my views are on several subjects. And you are freakin wrong. You are getting close to being an alternate Bilbodog. Gotta have it his way or he complains and leaves.

It might be time for you to take a breather.

As for my initial question. If you had simply answered I honestly (and it looks like the answer would have been "no, and I don't care") I might have asked you to reconsider and let it go. But instead you turn your insults and ad hominems on me. Get your guns ready. Time to suck it up and back down. Or go away. Be glad I have turned down moderating. You would have been told to drop the "Mooslem" thing months ago. And it might have been better if that happened way back then because you might not be so arrogant about your approach to these things. Or at least hesitant to spew them around here.

Yeah bro, get some fresh air.

You are way out of control. Enough ad homs here to put you in "time out" for a month. Are you an angry drunk? You sure come across that way, and for no good reason. Perhaps anger management is in order.

Glad to see you take the high road and exemplify true Christian character.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Here I have to interject. Bro Ohio has come a long way on ALTV's. His posts have become quite elaborate. So I vote we overlook his Mooslim and moohammed disparagements.

Are you serious? Moohammudans have been calling Christians, Jews, and Americans the great satan for centuries. And you guys are PO'd about spelling.

That's how they pronounce it in their native language. Look at the pronunciation from the dictionary: (mŭz′ləm, mo͝oz′-, mŭs′-, mo͝os′-)

Will you take a swipe at me if I spell the quron as koran too?

Would you dear folks please take a step back and ask yourself why you are so protective of Islam. It may not be obvious to you all, but it sure is to me. You all have been drinking Obama's liberal koolaid way too long, and his mainstream media is so complicit.

Wake up and smell the roses.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Well, I know from your past posts, you consider many of the core doctrines/beliefs of the Christian faith as myths.

Thank you for your thoughtful responses, UntoHim. By myth I don't mean that a text is untrue. Rather, I mean what the mythologists do. That is, myth is more meaningful than mere history. It may or may not be based in history, but in either case, it has symbolic meaning beyond the merely historical. Myths attempt to express the ultimate meanings of reality in narrative form. So, when I use the term, it isn't in a pejorative or derogatory sense. I am not debunking the Bible. I'm seeking its deepest meanings.

You may not have a problem with Jesus, but you have a problem with his bodily resurrection, and this "problem" is a huge non-sequiter in understanding "the problem of evil", and how God has dealt with this problem - in the past, present and future. The simple biblical reality is that Jesus Christ has, through his death and resurrection, dealt with the problem of evil. If Jesus was not raised from the dead, IN NO SENSE has he overcome the world, evil, death or sin. And this is the apostle Paul's whole argument to the Corinthians in the 15th chapter of 1st Corinthians. (a section of the NT we should all be familiar with).

It seems that Paul takes a middle path on the issue of bodily resurrection in I Cor. 15. That is, that Jesus is resurrected not in the flesh but as a spiritual body. He says that flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of God. So, it seems that Paul would have a problem with "bodily resurrection" if by "bodily" you mean a fleshy body.

As far as the "problem of evil", when I use that term, I am referring to the problem proposed in post #1 of this thread which focuses on the question of why a perfect God would create an ostensibly imperfect world. I don't see how any of what you say in your post about the "problem of evil" addresses that issue.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Are you serious? Moohammudans have been calling Christians, Jews, and Americans the great satan for centuries. And you guys are PO'd about spelling.

That's how they pronounce it in their native language. Look at the pronunciation from the dictionary: (mŭz′ləm, mo͝oz′-, mŭs′-, mo͝os′-)

Will you take a swipe at me if I spell the quron as koran too?

Would you dear folks please take a step back and ask yourself why you are so protective of Islam. It may not be obvious to you all, but it sure is to me. You all have been drinking Obama's liberal koolaid way too long, and his mainstream media is so complicit.

Wake up and smell the roses.

Bro Ohio, I can't tell if you are angry or cracking jokes. I mean, "drinking Obama's liberal koolaid." Now that's funny. And "Wake up and smell the roses." That's funny too.

But be honest here, you're spelling of your "Moo's" is meant to convey your prejudice against the Muslims, clearly. We get it. You want us to hate Muslims. They've been calling Christians Satanic since MuhamMAD was pooping in his diapers, if he even wore any.

However, those funny spellings can cut both ways. That's why I wanted to cut you some slack. Here's some examples from our founding fathers:

"Where the preamble [of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom] declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting 'Jesus Christ,' so that it would read 'A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;' the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography

And how about the Treaty of Tripoli, unanimously signed by both houses, and then president John Adams, on June 10, 1797 that states :

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

And so, in spite of their funny spellings, our founders meant for Muslims to be included in our "freedom of religion nation" ... like it or not. And those nasty Moooooooslims? Well they happen to be among the neighbors that the the Great Commandments, declared by Jesus himself, instruct us to love.

So maybe we should all be drinking Jesus' liberal koolaid. Bottoms up. Methinks that's the Christian way to be. Perhaps Obama is just being Christian ... did that ever occur to you? or does your prejudice -- that he's a secret Muslim -- get in the way of realizing that possibility?

[awareness]

The POE??? If God is a perfect being, where did imperfection come from?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Ohio, I can't tell if you are angry or cracking jokes. I mean, "drinking Obama's liberal koolaid." Now that's funny.

Neither. But I am serious about drinking the liberal koolaid.

Try to remember your mindset just 10 or 20 years ago, and then fast forward to today. Would you not be shocked at what is happening? Just a decade ago, all the politicians (including Yobama) were coming out in favor of marriage. Today we would have riots in the streets if congress passed a law stating marriage is only between a man and a woman.

The A.D.A. was good in that all public buildings became wheelchair accessible, but think about the demands on American infrastructure when every public facility requires transgender bathrooms. It's crazy, but drink some more koolaid, and it all makes sense.

The liberal koolaid does that to you. The steady I.V. drip dulls the senses, changes the way people think, deadens any potential shock to the system. Make sure you don't miss your meds today.

Pretty soon we will have legalized marijuana. And socialism. One world government. State controlled media. Oh yeah, they are here already.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

But be honest here, you're spelling of your "Moo's" is meant to convey your prejudice against the Muslims, clearly. We get it. You want us to hate Muslims. They've been calling Christians Satanic since MuhamMAD was pooping in his diapers, if he even wore any.

Not at all. Don't want you to hate anybody. (But I'm sure getting my share of it last few posts.)

To be honest, I just wish you would have the same attitude towards Mooslims as you have towards Christians. (You know God's nasty "fan club.")

My attitude towards Mooslems is based on a healthy dose of fear, and shouldn't I be a little fearful of them? Fear is not prejudice. When was the last time a Presbyterian blew himself up at a crowded airport for Jesus? All my forebears were German, but came here to become Americans. When they fought against Wilhelm in WWI and Hitler in WWII, were they then prejudiced against the aryan race? They used all sorts of derogatory language against them, but did that constitute hate speech? Were the American soldiers then put on trial for hate crimes when they shot Germans? Don't tell me "things were different back then."

Fear is a healthy dose of common sense reality based on the facts. We got countries and armies who have declared war on us, and our prez won't even identify who they are. They have a deadly ideology that could infect over a billion people. Read the story about their leader in the 7th century, how they spread their message at the end of a sword.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Neither. But I am serious about drinking the liberal koolaid.

Try to remember your mindset just 10 or 20 years ago, and then fast forward to today. Would you not be shocked at what is happening? Just a decade ago, all the politicians (including Yobama) were coming out in favor of marriage. Today we would have riots in the streets if congress passed a law stating marriage is only between a man and a woman.

The A.D.A. was good in that all public buildings became wheelchair accessible, but think about the demands on American infrastructure when every public facility requires transgender bathrooms. It's crazy, but drink some more koolaid, and it all makes sense.

The liberal koolaid does that to you. The steady I.V. drip dulls the senses, changes the way people think, deadens any potential shock to the system. Make sure you don't miss your meds today.

Pretty soon we will have legalized marijuana. And socialism. One world government. State controlled media. Oh yeah, they are here already.

Bro Ohio, please just ask yourself how Christian your attitudes are. And how much grace they express.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

The POE??? If God is a perfect being, where did imperfection come from?

Is there now imperfection in God?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Is there now imperfection in God?

Don't know bro Ohio. But imperfection obviously came from somewhere. Seems, tho, considering Genesis, that it came along with creation.

Gen 1:1-2 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Ohio, please just ask yourself how Christian your attitudes are. And how much grace they express.

Since this thread is rife with misunderstandings and miscommunication, how do you define how Christian an attitude is?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Since this thread is rife with misunderstandings and miscommunication, how do you define how Christian an attitude is?

I think I asked you to do that. Define it as you wish.

But since you asked me. Is the politics of loving the left or the right mentioned in the sermon on the mount?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I think I asked you to do that. Define it as you wish.

But since you asked me. Is the politics of loving the left or the right mentioned in the sermon on the mount?

IIRC, Jesus mentioned on the Sermon Mount that we should not let the right know what the left is doing. How appropriate.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

The POE??? If God is a perfect being, where did imperfection come from?

Imperfection comes from sin. Death comes from sin. Evil comes from sin. Of course if you want to take the Scriptures out of the equation, all bets are off. The Bible has it's own descriptions and definitions of these words. We can take them or leave them, or we can even fudge them, twist them, sweeten them up, dumb them down or simply explain them away until they have no real meaning at all.

Apparently the angels were created with a free will. We know for a fact that man was created with a free will. I suppose God could have created robots who have no will whatsoever, but they would not be "in our image, after our likeness". Just because a son looks like his father, he does not have his will. God made us in his image and after his likeness (with certain communicable attributes), however he created Man with his own will.

As I have noted in previous posts, Evil, and the universal purveyor of evil, existed before the creation of man. We are not privy to all the gory details of how Satan rebelled. We don't know the cause, we are only told about the effect. Maybe the simplest explanation for our dear friend Harold is that God's perfection, or perfectness as it were, was not a communicable attribute to his creation. Again, I think this would get us into the realm of creating robots, not creatures with an autonomous, free will.

Probably not good enough for you Harold, but....it is what it is.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

IIRC, Jesus mentioned on the Sermon Mount that we should not let the right know what the left is doing. How appropriate.

... rotflmao ... Good one bro.

Ya know, this comes to mine, for whatever it's worth. I've wondered about this going way back :

Jesus said, love your neighbor as yourself. But what if you don't love yourself? Will that resort to not loving your neighbor, to the same degree as not loving yourself ; like groups of your neighbors ; like those on the left or right?

That may just be a rhetorical question ... maybe ... y'all decide.

And BTW bro Ohio, I'm a mugwump .. of course. Think about it. It will make sense.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

... rotflmao ... Good one bro.

Ya know, this comes to mine, for whatever it's worth. I've wondered about this going way back :

Jesus said, love your neighbor as yourself. But what if you don't love yourself? Will that resort to not loving your neighbor, to the same degree as not loving yourself ; like groups of your neighbors ; like those on the left or right?

That may just be a rhetorical question ... maybe ... y'all decide.

And BTW bro Ohio, I'm a mugwump .. of course. Think about it. It will make sense.

Listen, if you had neighbors like mine, could you love them?

Its not that easy after he robbed me and she has cussed me out so many times.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Listen, if you had neighbors like mine, could you love them?

Its not that easy after he robbed me and she has cussed me out so many times.

... rotflmas again ... I know. It ain't easy. People just aren't all that lovable ...

And speaking of that. Ya know in the local church we didn't love those in the world, and we didn't even love those in Christianity ... except if we could recruit them. Lee wasn't big on loving anyone. So now that we're out are we coming back to love? I don't know. As you pointed out about your immediate neighbors. They're way too hard to love. Did Jesus set the bar too high?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

... rotflmas again ... I know. It ain't easy. People just aren't all that lovable ...

And speaking of that. Ya know in the local church we didn't love those in the world, and we didn't even love those in Christianity ... except if we could recruit them. Lee wasn't big on loving anyone. So now that we're out are we coming back to love? I don't know. As you pointed out about your immediate neighbors. They're way too hard to love. Did Jesus set the bar too high?

Sure, He set the bar high. Only He can say if it is "too high," but I have to admit that in all the grief and loss and time spent thinking and praying (while cutting the grass) about my neighbors, He has been there with me.

G.K. Chesterson said something interesting which I like: The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, and also to love our enemies, probably because they are the same people.

It's the kind of quote I sometimes wish I could forget.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Imperfection comes from sin. Death comes from sin. Evil comes from sin.

If God is perfect and created a perfect world, where did sin come from?

Apparently the angels were created with a free will. We know for a fact that man was created with a free will. I suppose God could have created robots who have no will whatsoever, but they would not be "in our image, after our likeness". Just because a son looks like his father, he does not have his will. God made us in his image and after his likeness (with certain communicable attributes), however he created Man with his own will.

God is free yet he makes all good choices. Why then can't humans, created in the likeness of God, do likewise?

As I have noted in previous posts, Evil, and the universal purveyor of evil, existed before the creation of man. We are not privy to all the gory details of how Satan rebelled. We don't know the cause, we are only told about the effect. Maybe the simplest explanation for our dear friend Harold is that God's perfection, or perfectness as it were, was not a communicable attribute to his creation. Again, I think this would get us into the realm of creating robots, not creatures with an autonomous, free will.

Since Satan's fall preceded man's, evil existed in God's creation before man. Yet God saw taht his creation was "very good." There seems to be a contradiction there. Shouldn't God have seen that it was both good and evil? Can you resolve this problem?

If God's perfection is not communicable then there is a limit to God's power. Thus, God would not be omnipotent. That would solve the problem of evil, but at the expense of God's absolute power. Is that what you intended?

Again God is autonomous and free and always chooses good and is not a robot. Why could he not or did he choose not to create humans to be and act the same way?

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by zeek

If God is perfect and created a perfect world, where did sin come from?

...

If God's perfection is not communicable then there is a limit to God's power. Thus, God would not be omnipotent.

I once had this thought, and it comforts me at times. If there is a limit to God's power/knowledge, it is that he does not know how he himself came into being.

He just always was, as far as he knew.

So in trying to replicate himself (produce his bride), he has to resort to trial and error. He has thus created a place where we reproduce ourselves in a world of both good and evil, chance and predestination.

The comfort I get from this is that it explains why bad things happen. It is part of the creation process.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

If God is perfect and created a perfect world, where did sin come from?

Perfect world? Where does it say that? I must have skipped over that part! You seem to ignore my contention that God created man with a free will. It wouldn't be a free will if we were perfect robots, now would it? You are seeking an answer to a problem that doesn't exist. Aren't there enough mysteries without having to make one up from thin air?

God is free yet he makes all good choices. Why then can't humans, created in the likeness of God, do likewise?

Free will, my man, free will. We are (or at least were) free to chose good or bad. Adam and Eve had a choice. They made a choice. There were consequences to the choice they made. Read it and weep. Or, you still have enough free will available to consider the opening chapters of Genesis a myth, with a deeper meaning than the plain history given. Call me shallow, but I have no interest in a deeper meaning to this historical event, other than what is clearly related to us by the Lord Jesus and the Scripture writing apostles.

If God's perfection is not communicable then there is a limit to God's power. Thus, God would not be omnipotent. That would solve the problem of evil, but at the expense of God's absolute power. Is that what you intended?

You misunderstand something basic regarding the God of the Bible: He has a sovereign will. It was according to this sovereign will that his perfection was not to be a communicable attribute. Again, he created Man in his likeness, after his own image, NOT a robot.

-

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

The comfort I get from this is that it explains why bad things happen. It is part of the creation process.

I'd put it a slightly different way. It is part of the process that creation is going through.

-

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Perfect world? Where does it say that? I must have skipped over that part! You seem to ignore my contention that God created man with a free will. It wouldn't be a free will if we were perfect robots, now would it? You are seeking an answer to a problem that doesn't exist. Aren't there enough mysteries without having to make one up from thin air?

So, you're saying that the perfect God did not create a perfect world? Why not?

Free will, my man, free will. We are (or at least were) free to chose good or bad. Adam and Eve had a choice. They made a choice. There were consequences to the choice they made. Read it and weep. Or, you still have enough free will available to consider the opening chapters of Genesis a myth, with a deeper meaning than the plain history given. Call me shallow, but I have no interest in a deeper meaning to this historical event, other than what is clearly related to us by the Lord Jesus and the Scripture writing apostles.

So although God has free will and is perfect, he couldn't create creatures that would do the same? If so, then he either isn't omnipotent or omniscient.

You misunderstand something basic regarding the God of the Bible: He has a sovereign will. It was according to this sovereign will that his perfection was not to be a communicable attribute. Again, he created Man in his likeness, after his own image, NOT a robot.

Ah. So God could have made his perfection communicable, but he chose not to. So, he willfully deprived Lucifer and man of perfection at their origin. Well then it follows that, being imperfect, they were bound to sin as a matter of course, being imperfect from the beginning. So why did he do that? Did he just want to show that he could do whatever he liked because of his sovereignty? That would make him a tyrant. I can't accept that.

Perhaps God's power is limited in just this way: he cannot create a being perfect like himself. Therefore, he had to decide if it was better to create anything at all or to remain solitary. In his infinite wisdom, he decided that to create was better. Thus, in the act of creating, he sacrificed perfection for love.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

I once had this thought, and it comforts me at times. If there is a limit to God's power/knowledge, it is that he does not know how he himself came into being.

He just always was, as far as he knew.

So in trying to replicate himself (produce his bride), he has to resort to trial and error. He has thus created a place where we reproduce ourselves in a world of both good and evil, chance and predestination.

The comfort I get from this is that it explains why bad things happen. It is part of the creation process.

I see. Well, it seems that if you limit any one of the omni-attributes, you can solve the POE. You limited his omniscience. In my last post to UntoHim, I limited his power to create a perfect being. But, limiting God in any way results in making him less than absolute which is unacceptable as far as the original POE is concerned. If the POE were a zen koan, that would earn us a slap in the face from the zen master.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Imperfection comes from sin. Death comes from sin. Evil comes from sin. Of course if you want to take the Scriptures out of the equation, all bets are off. The Bible has it's own descriptions and definitions of these words. We can take them or leave them, or we can even fudge them, twist them, sweeten them up, dumb them down or simply explain them away until they have no real meaning at all.

Apparently the angels were created with a free will. We know for a fact that man was created with a free will. I suppose God could have created robots who have no will whatsoever, but they would not be "in our image, after our likeness". Just because a son looks like his father, he does not have his will. God made us in his image and after his likeness (with certain communicable attributes), however he created Man with his own will.

As I have noted in previous posts, Evil, and the universal purveyor of evil, existed before the creation of man. We are not privy to all the gory details of how Satan rebelled. We don't know the cause, we are only told about the effect. Maybe the simplest explanation for our dear friend Harold is that God's perfection, or perfectness as it were, was not a communicable attribute to his creation. Again, I think this would get us into the realm of creating robots, not creatures with an autonomous, free will.

Probably not good enough for you Harold, but....it is what it is.

I appreciate the effort bro Untohim, as I realize the problem of evil is very likely unanswerable to us.

I suppose that's why young bro Unsure dropped it and ran. Meanwhile he's prolly really enjoying his college life ... free from the local church -- danger danger -- plenty of possible evil there -- enough to chase him back into the local church cult, where he knows how to survive. Let's hope not. Let's hope and pray that he develops well -- and learns critical thinking. That will free him for sure, and for good.

And likely he'll hold the problem of evil against God, where it belongs ... and ultimately has to go back to.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

If the POE were a zen koan, that would earn us a slap in the face from the zen master.

That's the sound of one hand clapping, as the Buddhists are so wont to banter about, to sound very deep and wise ... when it's very simple : it's a slap in the face. Those darn Buddhists. They're funny.

Hey bro Ohio??? Take notice. I'm being critical of a religion other than Christianity.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's the sound of one hand clapping, as the Buddhists are so wont to banter about, to sound very deep and wise ... when it's very simple : it's a slap in the face. Those darn Buddhists. They're funny.

Hey bro Ohio??? Take notice. I'm being critical of a religion other than Christianity.

Calling them comedians is quite critical indeed!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Are you serious? Moohammudans have been calling Christians, Jews, and Americans the great satan for centuries. And you guys are PO'd about spelling.

That's how they pronounce it in their native language. Look at the pronunciation from the dictionary: (mŭz′ləm, mo͝oz′-, mŭs′-, mo͝os′-)

Will you take a swipe at me if I spell the quron as koran too?

That is not an equal. The spelling of Koran v Quron is a matter of Anglicized practice. The spelling of Muslim or Moslem as "Mooslem" is personal and you all but admit that it is in response to their slight on us as being the Great Satan.

An excuse for ignoring the commandment upon us.

I'm not saying that ISIS is not evil. I am not calling Moslems true followers of the same God. (I am willing to allow God to handle that. We are taught that there is only one way and if that is not true, then we are following an error of some sort. It is not our calling to demean everyone that does not go along with our beliefs.)

I am just suggesting that the way you speak of anyone who is a Moslem is inconsistent with the commandments put upon us. Or are we no longer under the law and free to ignore that one too? Something is not right when your response is to spread your disdain further by calling me and others "liberals" as if it is just as bad as being Moslem (in your eyes). Is there no recognition of guilt in this? Not so that I am right, but so that you are no longer wrong. That is much better than either me being right or you being wrong.

What if everything had gone this way:

Me: "Does it ever bother you that . . . "

You: "Never thought of it that way. I'll think about it."

If you never did anything more and just continued on, it would have been over. But instead you had to take what now appears to be a strongly-held tendency to disrespect others you don't like to include me and make false statements about me and others to make people look at something besides your lack of defense for your continued disrespect for those first mentioned (and now some of us).

And whether I am or am not angry does not excuse you.

All-in-all, you have managed to duck answering whether you really think yours is proper behavior for a Christian. Pointing at us will not justify you.

Is it simply covered under grace and you can ignore it? Is repenting no longer required?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Untohim

Free will, my man, free will. We are (or at least were) free to chose good or bad. Adam and Eve had a choice.

I've been hearing the drumbeat of free will since diapers.

Okay, Adam and Eve was given free will, and according to the story, ran straightaway to the forbidden tree, by exercising that free will.

It's a story that's become widely accepted in most Christian circles going way back, that, that rebellion produced "the fall' and created "original sin."

I can follow that. But where's my free will in the matter? I didn't exercise any free will to chose to be fallen, or in original sin. So I don't have free will?

This begs the question. Where is there a well defined free will doctrine in the Bible? I've read it from cover to cover a number of times and I've never found one. So please, you Bible geeks, please point out where this well spelled out matter of a free will is in your beloved book.

Okay you can't find one. As important as it is, the Bible doesn't spell it out. It's important because no original sin means no need for salvation, and then the whole Christian story falls flat on its face.

Do we really have free will? Did we chose to be born? And to whom, where, and what circumstances, we were to be born into? So it feels like we have free will ; we clearly make choices? But those choices are hemmed in, by what we are born into. For example, at a young age I wasn't presented with a choice of all the religions in the world. My choice was settled for me on the Christian faith. I really didn't have a choice. Free will? Don't make me laugh. And along with that non-choice came a lot of prejudices against all the other religions. Free will my behind. My choices were made for me, and cemented with prejudices.

So I was born into original sin, by no free will choice of mine, and I was born into a particular religion, by no free will choice of mine. Where's my free will?

Turns out that free will is a very poor answer to the POE. For one thing, both experientially and Biblically, free will is an illusion. It may account for moral evil but it doesn't account for the very big natural evils, that's beyond any free will choices of our own. There's way too many factors that are beyond our free will for free will to be anything other than a conceptual illusion. The Bible certainly doesn't spell it out. There's not even a term "free will" in the entire Bible.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

It's a story that's become widely accepted in most Christian circles going way back, that, that rebellion produced "the fall' and created "original sin."

I can follow that. But where's my free will in the matter? I didn't exercise any free will to chose to be fallen, or in original sin. So I don't have free will?

It's important because no original sin means no need for salvation, and then the whole Christian story falls flat on its face.

So I was born into original sin, by no free will choice of mine, and I was born into a particular religion, by no free will choice of mine. Where's my free will?

I'm not so sure about "Original Sin." That may be passed down from RCC traditions. We are judged by our own sins, not for Adam's.

Have you never chosen to sin? We all have free will, and haved used it to disobey the law of God, have you not? The law condemns us, not God. We are under the curse of the law for choosing with our free will to break God's law.

Unless you decide to let Christ pay that debt for you, by believing in His sacrifice on the cross, you will have to pay that debt yourself. Not a good idea, if you ask me.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

I've been hearing the drumbeat of free will since diapers.

Wrong drum. Wrong beat. The drumbeat you're talking about is from the drum of false religion. What you speak of here is not the drum or beat of the Scriptures. The free will I speak of is that of the Bible, and it is very consistent from Genesis to Revelation.

Okay, Adam and Eve was given free will, and according to the story, ran straightaway to the forbidden tree, by exercising that free will. It's a story that's become widely accepted in most Christian circles going way back, that, that rebellion produced "the fall' and created "original sin."

If it's merely a mythical story then we can end all the discussion right now. We are simply higher apes that have a number of bad apples among us, and that's all there is to it! Let's wrap this thing up, turn off the lights and all go home!

This begs the question. Where is there a well defined free will doctrine in the Bible? I've read it from cover to cover a number of times and I've never found one. So please, you Bible geeks, please point out where this well spelled out matter of a free will is in your beloved book. Okay you can't find one. As important as it is, the Bible doesn't spell it out. It's important because no original sin means no need for salvation, and then the whole Christian story falls flat on its face.

Wow. Set up the straw man then knock em down! Is that how things work here on Alt Views? The Bible describes in brief, but vivid, detail how man was created with a free will, and how that free will got subjugated. But you, with the wave of your magical wand, declare the ancient Scriptures as a silly, man-made myth, and so nothing that is contained therein could have any bearing on the history of Man. How convenient!

Harold, my dear friend, your straw man is all wet. But his thin little extremities hold no more water than they do the hot air you're filling them with. Time to put this fellow to bed, or better yet, time to just let him die a nice, peaceful death. He is of no assistance to you in this POE discussion.

So I was born into original sin, by no free will choice of mine, and I was born into a particular religion, by no free will choice of mine. Where's my free will?

It's right back there in Genesis 3 where it got subjugated. Born into a man-made religion, especially a false one, is part and parcel of the fallout of the fall of Man. Sin makes us run and hide from God. (which was the first thing Adam and Eve did...remember?) Religion makes us think we are running to God, but actually it doesn't get us any closer to God than running from him...it does, however, made us feel better, and sometimes makes some people rich.

Turns out that free will is a very poor answer to the POE. For one thing, both experientially and Biblically, free will is an illusion.

And the hits just keep commin! Who said that free will is the answer to the POE? It is, however, a part of the Biblical narrative...again, from Genesis to Revelation. It's all there for those who dare to believe. Read it and reap...or read it and weep. And thank got you still have enough of a free will to make a choice.
-

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Is that how things work here on Alt Views?

No. ALTVs is for comedy. And ya done good with this one bro Untohim.

Originally Posted by Untohim

It's right back there in Genesis 3 where it got subjugated.

Oh now you've brought up another of my pet peeve's concerning the free will arguments : that of "God doesn't want robots."

I've read the Bible and from what I can tell God does too want robots. And if you don't become one you get punished for it. Read your Bible, it's in there.

And if you don't become a God robot, again according to the Bible, we're by default robots of Satan.

So there. I've successfully shot down the free will and God doesn't want robots argument to the POE.

And yes bro Untohim. You must not be keeping up on this thread. Both have been offered, by Igzy, as an an answer to the problem of evil.

You even used it to point out that we became subjugated.

But bro Untohim, as snazzy as you are with the Bible, all you answered my question of "where is free will spelled out in the Bible" with was a proclamation of "The free will I speak of is that of the Bible, and it is very consistent from Genesis to Revelation."

That's what I wanted to know : Where, exactly, between Genesis and Revelation is free will spelled out? Again, this is not a straw man, the doctrine of salvation hangs on it. And while you're at it, point out where the Bible says He doesn't want robots.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

And while you're at it, point out where the Bible says He doesn't want robots.

Mark 7.6 does it for me, "Jesus answered them, "Isaiah prophesied correctly about you hypocrites, as it is written: 'These people honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me.'"

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Mark 7.6 does it for me, "Jesus answered them, "Isaiah prophesied correctly about you hypocrites, as it is written: 'These people honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me.'"

That's a good quote Ohio. I suppose what you mean by it is that robots don't have hearts.

Hey, just for fun, let's thrown in these's verses too:

Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
Mar 7:22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
Mar 7:23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.


That's an answer to the human aspect of the POE.

[awareness]

Maybe, in the end, the answer to the POE is that we live in a cold, indifferent, random universe. And there is no answer as to why. And, and this is a big and, we should be appreciative that we are even here, to deal with it.

[awareness]

Either God is in control of virtually everything or He's not God. All goes back to God. The POE goes back to God. Lucifer goes back to God. It can't be any other way for God to be God.

And all our attempts to explain it fall flat.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Either God is in control of virtually everything or He's not God. All goes back to God. The POE goes back to God. Lucifer goes back to God. It can't be any other way for God to be God.

And all our attempts to explain it fall flat.

Sounds more like a mad scientist, needing to control virtually everything. I have always felt that those who are control freaks, obsessed with controlling all those around them, did so because they had utterly lost control of themselves.

Those, on the other hand, who are quite content with their own well-being are those who guarantee liberty and freedom of thought to others.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Those, on the other hand, who are quite content with their own well-being are those who guarantee liberty and freedom of thought to others.

Gosh !!! Now you sound like zeek.

But glad I'm not just talking to myself out here. I'm a hard nut to crack.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Either God is in control of virtually everything or He's not God.

According to what conception? Does omnipotence negate the absolute autonomy of the divine will? God can do with his power however he chooses. And what is the New Testament revelation of how/what he chooses? Incarnation, death and resurrection--ἐκένωσεν the 'self-emptying' of God in Christ as in "whereby he emptied himself..."[Phil. 2:7] (NRSV), which uses the verb form κενόω (kenóō) "to empty". Emptying himself, the omnipotent God gave up control. Christianity is a paradox.

All goes back to God. The POE goes back to God. Lucifer goes back to God. It can't be any other way for God to be God. And all our attempts to explain it fall flat.

With monotheism, God must be ultimately responsible for everything. But, that doesn't negate the free will or the greater good arguments.

[Timotheist]

I have come to the conclusion that evil is a problem

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

I have come to the conclusion that evil is a problem

The existence of evil causes many to seek God.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The existence of evil causes many to seek God.

Like I've said, or asked, "Is evil God's cattle prod?" Is that why God invented evil? If, as tradition has it, Lucifer fell before creation, does it add up?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Like I've said, or asked, "Is evil God's cattle prod?" Is that why God invented evil? If, as tradition has it, Lucifer fell before creation, does it add up?

God invented evil? Not sure I would agree with that.

But definitely Lucifer's rebellion occurred before the Genesis record. Timewise, we have no way to know. I think the creation of the angels preceded the creation of the universe. (43 billion years ago, some have guessed.)

Not sure how it "adds up."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

According to what conception? Does omnipotence negate the absolute autonomy of the divine will? God can do with his power however he chooses. And what is the New Testament revelation of how/what he chooses? Incarnation, death and resurrection--ἐκένωσεν the 'self-emptying' of God in Christ as in "whereby he emptied himself..."[Phil. 2:7] (NRSV), which uses the verb form κενόω (kenóō) "to empty". Emptying himself, the omnipotent God gave up control. Christianity is a paradox.

Not sure if zeek authored this, but it's one of his best posts!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

I have come to the conclusion that evil is a problem

For the statement of the problem of evil we are discussing , please refer to post #1. We are not primarily discussing evil per se, but rather the problem of the existence of evil with respect to the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent god.

Neertheless, you are correct in asserting the existence of evil per se is a problem-- a proposition that is self-evidently true. Yet, intelligent people do not agree on what the nature of evil is. So, before we can understand the problem of evil with respect to god as defined above we would first have to determine what we mean by evil. I doubt we can even agree on that in this forum to say nothing of the possibility of a general consensus on the issue among intelligent minds.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not sure if zeek authored this, but it's one of his best posts!

The definition of ἐκένωσεν is from the Wikipedia entry on Kenosis.

[awareness]

I had to correct this post. I clicked the wrong quote/post by accident and didn't notice. What a wackanoodle ... sorry.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not sure if zeek authored this, but it's one of his best posts!

Yes it was. But I don't know about his statement that God gave up control.

I agree tho, in principle, that God can give up all control if He wants. He's God, for God's sake.

Let's suppose that God created a world like our own, that operated by the laws of physics. Would God be needed to run it? No. It would thereby allow God to perchance go on to better things?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I had to correct this post. I clicked the wrong quote/post by accident and didn't notice. What a wackanoodle ... sorry.


Yes it was. But I don't know about his statement that God gave up control.

I agree tho, in principle, that God can give up all control if He wants. He's God, for God's sake.

Let's suppose that God created a world like our own, that operated by the laws of physics. Would God be needed to run it? No. It would thereby allow God to perchance go on to better things?

Speculations always give rise to interesting discussion ... but ...

Hebrews 1.2-3 says that God made the universe through the Son, who upholds all things by the word of His power. I believe that the universe operates by the laws of physics because He actively upholds all things.

As far as moving on to better things ... I believe God does look forward to better times. On earth, He surely did. Heb 12.2 says, "Who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame."

We too should keep our eyes looking ahead, as Moses "chose rather to be ill-treated with the people of God than to have the temporary enjoyment of sin, esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than all the treasures of Egypt, for he looked away to the reward." Heb. 11.25-26

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Speculations always give rise to interesting discussion ... but ...

Hebrews 1.2-3 says that God made the universe through the Son, who upholds all things by the word of His power. I believe that the universe operates by the laws of physics because He actively upholds all things.

As far as moving on to better things ... I believe God does look forward to better times. On earth, He surely did. Heb 12.2 says, "Who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame."

We too should keep our eyes looking ahead, as Moses "chose rather to be ill-treated with the people of God than to have the temporary enjoyment of sin, esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than all the treasures of Egypt, for he looked away to the reward." Heb. 11.25-26

Good verses Ohio. They remind me of Amos:

Amo 4:9 "I struck you with blight and mildew; your many gardens and your vineyards, your fig trees and your olive trees the locust devoured; yet you did not return to me," declares the LORD.
Amo 4:10 "I sent among you a pestilence after the manner of Egypt; I killed your young men with the sword, and carried away your horses, and I made the stench of your camp go up into your nostrils; yet you did not return to me," declares the LORD.
Amo 4:11 "I overthrew some of you, as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and you were as a brand plucked out of the burning; yet you did not return to me," declares the LORD.
Amo 4:12 "Therefore thus I will do to you, O Israel; because I will do this to you, prepare to meet your God, O Israel!"
Amo 4:13 For behold, he who forms the mountains and creates the wind, and declares to man what is his thought, who makes the morning darkness, and treads on the heights of the earth-- the LORD, the God of hosts, is his name!

And then this God "who forms the mountains and creates the wind" proceeds to punish Israel.

Again, according to the Bible, God uses evil as a cudgel and cattle prod.

That IS one answer to the POE. According to the Bible God does it. We're just the abused wife, who keeps going back to the abusing husband.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Good verses Ohio. They remind me of Amos:

Amo 4:9 "I struck you with blight and mildew; your many gardens and your vineyards, your fig trees and your olive trees the locust devoured; yet you did not return to me," declares the LORD.
Amo 4:10 "I sent among you a pestilence after the manner of Egypt; I killed your young men with the sword, and carried away your horses, and I made the stench of your camp go up into your nostrils; yet you did not return to me," declares the LORD.
Amo 4:11 "I overthrew some of you, as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and you were as a brand plucked out of the burning; yet you did not return to me," declares the LORD.
Amo 4:12 "Therefore thus I will do to you, O Israel; because I will do this to you, prepare to meet your God, O Israel!"
Amo 4:13 For behold, he who forms the mountains and creates the wind, and declares to man what is his thought, who makes the morning darkness, and treads on the heights of the earth-- the LORD, the God of hosts, is his name!

And then this God "who forms the mountains and creates the wind" proceeds to punish Israel.

Again, according to the Bible, God uses evil as a cudgel and cattle prod.

That IS one answer to the POE. According to the Bible God does it. We're just the abused wife, who keeps going back to the abusing husband.

Israel at this point in Amos was not an "abused" wife, rather she was an unfaithful ex-wife who went whoring after other gods.

God longed to bless Israel abundantly, and at times He surely did, but this was not one of them.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Israel at this point in Amos was not an "abused" wife, rather she was an unfaithful ex-wife who went whoring after other gods.

God longed to bless Israel abundantly, and at times He surely did, but this was not one of them.

WOW! Ohio! That's a penetrating post. That's exactly what was going on in Amos.

Of course to Amos it was important to present God as loving Israel almost to the point of madness ; screaming : "yet you did not return to me."

Love is a tricky thing. In this case God loved Israel to the point of doing all He could to drive them to 'return to Him.'

I think Amos is not historical. I think it's metaphorical. It's a prophet shouting 'come back to God,' using a fear strategy to make his point.

It's not historical because it's not literally what the God Jesus taught us about would do. Would God really do things like this:

• I struck you with blight and mildew; your many gardens and your vineyards, your fig trees and your olive trees the locust devoured
  
• I sent among you a pestilence after the manner of Egypt; I killed your young men with the sword, and carried away your horses, and I made the stench of your camp go up into your nostrils
  
• I overthrew some of you, as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and you were as a brand plucked out of the burning
  
• Therefore thus I will do to you, O Israel; because I will do this to you, prepare to meet your God, O Israel!

And there's more, that can't be literal, because it says uncouth things about God, that misrepresent the God Jesus tells us about :

Amo 5:1 Hear ye this word which I take up against you, even a lamentation, O house of Israel.
Amo 5:2 The virgin of Israel is fallen; she shall no more rise: she is forsaken upon her land; there is none to raise her up.
Amo 5:3 For thus saith the Lord GOD; The city that went out by a thousand shall leave an hundred, and that which went forth by an hundred shall leave ten, to the house of Israel.
Amo 5:4 For thus saith the LORD unto the house of Israel, Seek ye me, and ye shall live:
Amo 5:5 But seek not Bethel, nor enter into Gilgal, and pass not to Beersheba: for Gilgal shall surely go into captivity, and Bethel shall come to nought.
Amo 5:6 Seek the LORD, and ye shall live; lest he break out like fire in the house of Joseph, and devour it, and there be none to quench it in Bethel.
Amo 5:7 Ye who turn judgment to wormwood, and leave off righteousness in the earth,
Amo 5:8 Seek him that maketh the seven stars and Orion, and turneth the shadow of death into the morning, and maketh the day dark with night: that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD is his name:

But like I said, Love is tricky. Sometimes it makes us do crazy things. And Amos attributes this crazy love to God, anthropomorphizing human experiences of love onto God.

But Amos has impact. He repeatedly unambiguously drives his point home, time and time again :

"RETURN TO ME."

But we can't take it literal, or we defame and misrepresent God ... by personifying limited human ways of loving upon "Him."

[awareness]

Here's a good one that applies to the POE thread :

Amo 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Here's a good one that applies to the POE thread :

Amo 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

Let no one say when he is tempted, that he is tempted of God, for God cannot be tempted of evil, and He Himself tempts no one, but each one is tempted when he is drawn away, and enticed by his own lusts. -- James 1.13-14

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Let no one say when he is tempted, that he is tempted of God, for God cannot be tempted of evil, and He Himself tempts no one, but each one is tempted when he is drawn away, and enticed by his own lusts. -- James 1.13-14

Good old James. Don't ya love 'im? Hey, isn't the author of this book the brother of Jesus? The gentiles tamped him down, didn't give him his rightful due. As they did Jewishness in general of the early first followers of The Way.

There does seem to be a contradiction between the verse I quoted and the verse you quoted. The God James tells of isn't like the God Amos tells of.

Are they two different Gods. Some Gnostics thought so, and wrote about it, or were quoted by early church fathers. To them that Old Testament god was a demiurge.

But they were squashed out too, prolly rightly so.

So now it's been handed down from days of old that the God of the Old Testament is the same God that's in the New Testament.

So given the difference between Amos and James the least we can't conclude is that in the OT God tended to be ill tempered at times. Which I have to admit is a little disappointing.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Good old James. Don't ya love 'im? Hey, isn't the author of this book the brother of Jesus? The gentiles tamped him down, didn't give him his rightful due. As they did Jewishness in general of the early first followers of The Way.

There does seem to be a contradiction between the verse I quoted and the verse you quoted. The God James tells of isn't like the God Amos tells of.

Are they two different Gods. Some Gnostics thought so, and wrote about it, or were quoted by early church fathers. To them that Old Testament god was a demiurge.

But they were squashed out too, prolly rightly so.

So now it's been handed down from days of old that the God of the Old Testament is the same God that's in the New Testament.

So given the difference between Amos and James the least we can't conclude is that in the OT God tended to be ill tempered at times. Which I have to admit is a little disappointing.

Don't understand the need to read the gnostics.

On the night He was betrayed, Jesus established a New Covenant. There were now some changes in God's relationship with mankind. The Pharisees and the Judaizers resisted the change, thinking that salvation should never be made available to the Gentiles, and hating their subsequent loss of power. Many issues today result from the confusion surrounding these two covenants. For those who have difficulty distinguishing the Old from the New, I recommend that they focus on the New Testament, especially the Gospels and Epistles.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Don't understand the need to read the gnostics.

On the night He was betrayed, Jesus established a New Covenant. There were now some changes in God's relationship with mankind. The Pharisees and the Judaizers resisted the change, thinking that salvation should never be made available to the Gentiles, and hating their subsequent loss of power. Many issues today result from the confusion surrounding these two covenants. For those who have difficulty distinguishing the Old from the New, I recommend that they focus on the New Testament, especially the Gospels and Epistles.

Now that's an honest look at it. God did change with the New Covenant. It's like He became a Christian, or a more Christ like God. Maybe having a son changed Him. It wouldn't be the first time that having a son changed a father.

But that's all just silly speculation.

However, the New Covenant isn't. That produced real long term results.

And by the way, the reason to read the Gnostics was to fight against those heresies. That's why some of our only sources of the Gnostics is quotes in the writings of the heresy fighting early church fathers.

And the reason to read them today is to understand the various ways of salvation postulated early on, by not just the Gnostics, but by the Judaizers too. Salvation to the Judaizers was by following the law. Salvation to the Gnostics was secret hidden knowledge, or gnosis.

But Paul came along pretty early on and said salvation was/is by faith and grace. Paul won out, and the Gnostics and Jewish Christians were lopped of the Christian evolutionary tree.

And in the New Covenant, God opened His arms to every body, not just the Jews. Apparently, the Jews had gone so far from God that they actually became God killers.

Talk about evil being a problem. But God turned it to good. And there we have it. The New Covenant is God turning evil to good.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Now that's an honest look at it. God did change with the New Covenant. It's like He became a Christian, or a more Christ like God. Maybe having a son changed Him. It wouldn't be the first time that having a son changed a father.

But that's all just silly speculation.

However, the New Covenant isn't. That produced real long term results.

And by the way, the reason to read the Gnostics was to fight against those heresies. That's why some of our only sources of the Gnostics is quotes in the writings of the heresy fighting early church fathers.

And the reason to read them today is to understand the various ways of salvation postulated early on, by not just the Gnostics, but by the Judaizers too. Salvation to the Judaizers was by following the law. Salvation to the Gnostics was secret hidden knowledge, or gnosis.

But Paul came along pretty early on and said salvation was/is by faith and grace. Paul won out, and the Gnostics and Jewish Christians were lopped of the Christian evolutionary tree.

And in the New Covenant, God opened His arms to every body, not just the Jews. Apparently, the Jews had gone so far from God that they actually became God killers.

Talk about evil being a problem. But God turned it to good. And there we have it. The New Covenant is God turning evil to good.

God always had a Son. The New Covenant involved losing a son.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

God always had a Son. The New Covenant involved losing a son.

Well that will most certainly change a father. I know that personally.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well that will most certainly change a father. I know that personally.

So ... you and God the Father have much in common, and much to talk about.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So ... you and God the Father have much in common, and much to talk about.

It might take a hundred or thousand years to get there, should I put a interview request in now?

Meanwhile, to us now, the Bible is God. So I've been taking Him to task early on ... just to get a start on it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

It might take a hundred or thousand years to get there, should I put a interview request in now?

I somehow got the impression that He willing be scheduling interviews.

But ... why wait so long?

Perhaps a few conversations now could effect that later one. I hope so.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I somehow got the impression that He willing be scheduling interviews.

But ... why wait so long?

Perhaps a few conversations now could effect that later one. I hope so.

Oh we've had some "conversations." That's what happens when evil hits us. If we believe in God we take it up with God. And you know what. There's no answers.

I got two nice ones. But not directly from God speaking into my ears. Of course the most popular answer is : "He's in a better place." Some add, "He's with Jesus." I have to admit that that's comforting ... to some extent.

The one that stands out was told to his mother by a "professional" Spirit Guide. (After leaving the local church, she dropped all religion. It might have been due to her Chinese heritage). It went something like this:

Brian had purpose's here. And he accomplished those purposes and needed to continue those purpose's in the afterlife. It made me feel Brian was important.

But it didn't stop me from taking God to task ... what little good it did me. I still don't have any unambiguous unquestionable answers.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Oh we've had some "conversations." That's what happens when evil hits us. If we believe in God we take it up with God. And you know what. There's no answers.

Sometimes the choice we face is whether we want answers or comfort. This world is an awful place indeed both for those with faith and without. Every soul on earth has to grieve at some time or another, and some just seem to have a lifetime of it.

No one really has "answers" for it all the grief that hits us, unless the grieving one tends to believe some of the "half-lies" you mentioned that float around every funeral. I've heard my share over the years too. Personally, I have concluded that real comfort is better than answers, and that God's grace can exceed all of our needs to know them.

Each of us has known more than our share of pain, and for that I am grateful for the Comforter God has promised to all of us who believe. And ask.

[OBW]

That's one of the more astute assessments of the real need for those who grieve or have troubles in life.

Sometimes we really can't handle the truth. The truth may be that it is going to hurt for a while. And if you fight it, it might hurt for a long while. And some aspects of the hurt may never go away no matter how right you do things or how much you lean on anyone else, including Jesus.

But there is grace to go through it even if you can't avoid it. And that grace is sufficient.

Period.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

That's one of the more astute assessments of the real need for those who grieve or have troubles in life.

Sometimes we really can't handle the truth. The truth may be that it is going to hurt for a while. And if you fight it, it might hurt for a long while. And some aspects of the hurt may never go away no matter how right you do things or how much you lean on anyone else, including Jesus.

But there is grace to go through it even if you can't avoid it. And that grace is sufficient.

Period.

I don't know about the Period thing, but okay. It made it sound like a affirmation. Maybe it was meant to be. But you are right. We go on ... grace or no grace actually, or it kills us, or we just give up and end it. Hopefully not the latter.

I've been thinking about Ohio's response. It wormed me. It was, has been, this statement that stuck to my ribs :

". . . the Comforter God has promised to all of us who believe. And ask."

First I must remark ; asking is believing ; and believing produces asking. But when I lost my son I went way beyond both. And yes, in truth, it got me thru pretty good. I didn't dive into the bottle, or end up dead with a needle in my arm. Amen Lord.

Taking God to task was a different response to that of my wife and daughter. They did turn to wrong methods of escapism. I couldn't blame them, but it made my life a living hell. I put up with it much longer than any normal minded person would have. Obviously I wasn't normal minded. That evil knocked me for a wallop, and scrambled my brains.

So about that Comforter, that Ohio introduces. I never felt like I got that. What I got was a living hell. I felt like Job. Not that I'm righteous like him (Job being the exception, I guess, to Paul, and the Psalmist, when they state -> "it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one").

But I digress. I did fall to my knees crying, and surrendered myself, my life, and my whole situation, to God ; twice. It was very traumatic. Eventually I resorted to drastic measures ; like selling my house and business, and moving to Kentucky, with my 7 yr old son, to get us away from the madness, for me, and bad influences, for him. That was after my second surrender.

I guess I surrendered too much. Cuz it didn't end the craziness, and suffering. It just went on and on. So where was that Comforter anyway? I really needed him/it, or whatever 'it' is.

I won't go on and on about it. But I will say that, it wasn't until I told God, "I'm not surrendering any more" that I started getting things straight again.

And back to being a single parent again (I raise my daughter on my own), but ultimately living alone ... still looking, btw, for that Comforter.

Bottomline, some evil sends us into a tailspin, knocks us bonkers, and destroys our life, or in my case, family. There's is comfort in being free from all the drama. Amen to that.

Jesus said "resist not evil." And he lived that dicum to the grave. Can WE do it? I don't know. Evil is very tricky. We tend to resist it. Jesus went against human nature. We go on however we go, if we wake up in the morning. The POE is just one thing we deal with. Sometimes it's to much, and we starting longing for the grave ... or, come Lord Jesus come.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't know about the Period thing, but okay. It made it sound like a affirmation. Maybe it was meant to be. But you are right. We go on ... grace or no grace actually, or it kills us, or we just give up and end it. Hopefully not the latter.

I've been thinking about Ohio's response. It wormed me. It was, has been, this statement that stuck to my ribs :

". . . the Comforter God has promised to all of us who believe. And ask."

First I must remark ; asking is believing ; and believing produces asking. But when I lost my son I went way beyond both. And yes, in truth, it got me thru pretty good. I didn't dive into the bottle, or end up dead with a needle in my arm. Amen Lord.

Taking God to task was a different response to that of my wife and daughter. They did turn to wrong methods of escapism. I couldn't blame them, but it made my life a living hell. I put up with it much longer than any normal minded person would have. Obviously I wasn't normal minded. That evil knocked me for a wallop, and scrambled my brains.

So about that Comforter, that Ohio introduces. I never felt like I got that. What I got was a living hell. I felt like Job. Not that I'm righteous like him (Job being the exception, I guess, to Paul, and the Psalmist, when they state -> "it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one").

But I digress. I did fall to my knees crying, and surrendered myself, my life, and my whole situation, to God ; twice. It was very traumatic. Eventually I resorted to drastic measures ; like selling my house and business, and moving to Kentucky, with my 7 yr old son, to get us away from the madness, for me, and bad influences, for him. That was after my second surrender.

I guess I surrendered too much. Cuz it didn't end the craziness, and suffering. It just went on and on. So where was that Comforter anyway? I really needed him/it, or whatever 'it' is.

I won't go on and on about it. But I will say that, it wasn't until I told God, "I'm not surrendering any more" that I started getting things straight again.

And back to being a single parent again (I raise my daughter on my own), but ultimately living alone ... still looking, btw, for that Comforter.

Bottomline, some evil sends us into a tailspin, knocks us bonkers, and destroys our life, or in my case, family. There's is comfort in being free from all the drama. Amen to that.

Jesus said "resist not evil." And he lived that dicum to the grave. Can WE do it? I don't know. Evil is very tricky. We tend to resist it. Jesus went against human nature. We go on however we go, if we wake up in the morning. The POE is just one thing we deal with. Sometimes it's to much, and we starting longing for the grave ... or, come Lord Jesus come.

Where's the like button?

[UntoHim]

You mean like this one? When you hit "Reply", there is an icon list at the bottom of the post box..."Post Icons". We miss you zeek. AltViews misses you!

-

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

You mean like this one? When you hit "Reply", there is an icon list at the bottom of the post box..."Post Icons". We miss you zeek. AltViews misses you!

-

Okay, found it. But where's the reply button? Hey look. There's a thumbs up top left corner of this post. Way cool.

Now I've got to see if I can give a thumbs up without typing any text.

Nope. Can't do it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Where's the like button?

. . . . . .

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't know about the Period thing, but okay. It made it sound like a affirmation. Maybe it was meant to be. But you are right. We go on ... grace or no grace actually, or it kills us, or we just give up and end it. Hopefully not the latter.

I've been thinking about Ohio's response. It wormed me. It was, has been, this statement that stuck to my ribs :

". . . the Comforter God has promised to all of us who believe. And ask."

First I must remark ; asking is believing ; and believing produces asking. But when I lost my son I went way beyond both. And yes, in truth, it got me thru pretty good. I didn't dive into the bottle, or end up dead with a needle in my arm. Amen Lord.

Taking God to task was a different response to that of my wife and daughter. They did turn to wrong methods of escapism. I couldn't blame them, but it made my life a living hell. I put up with it much longer than any normal minded person would have. Obviously I wasn't normal minded. That evil knocked me for a wallop, and scrambled my brains.

So about that Comforter, that Ohio introduces. I never felt like I got that. What I got was a living hell. I felt like Job. Not that I'm righteous like him (Job being the exception, I guess, to Paul, and the Psalmist, when they state -> "it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one").

But I digress. I did fall to my knees crying, and surrendered myself, my life, and my whole situation, to God ; twice. It was very traumatic. Eventually I resorted to drastic measures ; like selling my house and business, and moving to Kentucky, with my 7 yr old son, to get us away from the madness, for me, and bad influences, for him. That was after my second surrender.

I guess I surrendered too much. Cuz it didn't end the craziness, and suffering. It just went on and on. So where was that Comforter anyway? I really needed him/it, or whatever 'it' is.

I won't go on and on about it. But I will say that, it wasn't until I told God, "I'm not surrendering any more" that I started getting things straight again.

And back to being a single parent again (I raise my daughter on my own), but ultimately living alone ... still looking, btw, for that Comforter.

Bottomline, some evil sends us into a tailspin, knocks us bonkers, and destroys our life, or in my case, family. There's is comfort in being free from all the drama. Amen to that.

Jesus said "resist not evil." And he lived that dictum to the grave. Can WE do it? I don't know. Evil is very tricky. We tend to resist it. Jesus went against human nature. We go on however we go, if we wake up in the morning. The POE is just one thing we deal with. Sometimes it's to much, and we starting longing for the grave ... or, come Lord Jesus come.

The "Comforter" is a proposition that faith believes. The "comfort" is to enter into a connection with the "really real" by faith because, strictly speaking, it is beyond experience. Like heaven, for instance, which is beyond experience in this life by definition. Nothing else will really do to save us from the human predicament, will it?

The POE postulates that the God hypothesis is incompatible with existence, which is true in so far as "existence" is what we can expereince as finite human beings. But, that's true only insofar as we are unable to conceive of the ultimate, the eternal. But, we DO conceive it, if only through myth and metaphor. And thus it can BECOME part of our experience by faith.

Jacob is said to have wrestled with God one night. It seems like some of us have been wrestling with God for years. Others simply "trust and obey". Or so they claim.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

The "Comforter" is a proposition that faith believes. The "comfort" is to enter into a connection with the "really real" by faith because, strictly speaking, it is beyond experience. Like heaven, for instance, which is beyond experience in this life by definition. Nothing else will really do to save us from the human predicament, will it?

The POE postulates that the God hypothesis is incompatible with existence, which is true in so far as "existence" is what we can expereince as finite human beings. But, that's true only insofar as we are unable to conceive of the ultimate, the eternal. But, we DO conceive it, if only through myth and metaphor. And thus it can BECOME part of our experience by faith.

Jacob is said to have wrestled with God one night. It seems like some of us have been wrestling with God for years. Others simply "trust and obey". Or so they claim.

I grew up on "Trust and Obey, for there's no other way." And I tried it. But it didn't turn out as expected. Turned out to be a false promise. Sorry to say.

So I wouldn't advise it, faith or not faith. Such faith can led us into the abyss, at worse, or unwanted troubles ; such as joining a cult like the local church.

Of course I can't speak for everyone. It might turn out good for some. But according to what I've found, run, run, from Trust and Obey. The song is not true. There's are other ways.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I grew up on "Trust and Obey, for there's no other way." And I tried it. But it didn't turn out as expected. Turned out to be a false promise. Sorry to say.

So I wouldn't advise it, faith or not faith. Such faith can led us into the abyss, at worse, or unwanted troubles ; such as joining a cult like the local church.

Of course I can't speak for everyone. It might turn out good for some. But according to what I've found, run, run, from Trust and Obey. The song is not true. There's are other ways.

"Trust and obey" assumes that there is an unambiguous authority that can be simply followed. The experience of everyone on this forum demonstrates that isn't the case.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Unsure

I'm currently on a school trip, and circumstances involving some fake gold chains spiraled into a religious discussion, when the Problem of Evil was brought up. Basically, this:

• God exists.
• God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
• An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
• An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.
• An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
• A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
• If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.
• Evil exists (logical contradiction).

The discussion then moved to things like children with cancer and all that. Then it got more light hearted since the moment had passed and my roommates are total goofs. But I was still thinking about this; I had heard of the concept before, but this is the first time I've seriously thought about it.

Wikipedia page here.

Two questions I have; one a yes-no question, and one a discussion point.

1) Did Witness Lee touch on this at all?

2) What are the views of the brothers and sisters on this forum on this argument? (Sort of the reason why this is in Alt Views instead of Orthodoxy).

I disagree with your logic.

• God exists. (Agree)
• God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. (Agree)
• An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils. (Agree)
• An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented. (Agree)
• An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence. (Agree)
• A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil. (Agree)
• If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists. (Here is the logical contradiction)
• Evil exists (logical contradiction).

Let's run through this from our perspective -- We are children of God, we are not able to prevent evil but we need to learn. We are in the process of being equipped to deal with all forms of evil. You cannot demonstrate the ability to deal with evil if there is no evil.

Your error is in looking at this very temporary time period, a blink of the eye from the viewpoint of eternity, and concluding that what you see here refers to eternity.

You cannot claim that God is omnipotent if He is not more powerful than evil, and you could not conclude He is more powerful than evil if He does not conquer evil. What you are looking at in this time age is God conquering evil.

[zeek]

Your error is in looking at this very temporary time period, a blink of the eye from the viewpoint of eternity, and concluding that what you see here refers to eternity.

According the standard evangelical interpretation of the Bible, even eternity has evil because the guilty will be punished forever in the lake of fire.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

According the standard evangelical interpretation of the Bible, even eternity has evil because the guilty will be punished forever in the lake of fire.

That is a very different question.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is a very different question.

Different, but it follows from your initial response, i.e. that we need to learn to deal with evil. That assumes the necessity of evil in the first place. The POE posits that an omnipotent, all-good and wise God would not allow evil to exist. If evil did not exist, there would obviously be no need to learn to deal with it. Why would an all-good, all-wise, all-powerful God have allowed evil to exist at all?

My question is based on your premise that evil is limited in time which well may be true. However, if torment is everlasting, then evil isn't temporary as you asserted. Eternal punishment compounds the problem of evil.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Different, but it follows from your initial response, i.e. that we need to learn to deal with evil. That assumes the necessity of evil in the first place. The POE posits that an omnipotent, all-good and wise God would not allow evil to exist. If evil did not exist, there would obviously be no need to learn to deal with it. Why would an all-good, all-wise, all-powerful God have allowed evil to exist at all?

My question is based on your premise that evil is limited in time which well may be true. However, if torment is everlasting, then evil isn't temporary as you asserted. Eternal punishment compounds the problem of evil.

I cannot know the answer. I can suggest some theories

1. To create something out of nothing might require a "yin" and "yang". You can't have goodness without evil. I have no way to prove this.

2. I find it interesting that man is a Eusocial organism. First, because what we define as "evil" is just run of the mill behavior for a reptile, bird, or even many mammals. (A child that kills its siblings is a psychopath, but for a reptile or bird they are just typical). I find this interesting because of the 19 eusocial organisms man is the only one that chooses to be. We supposedly evolved from a variety of species that are not eusocial. All other eusocial organisms are eusocial as a result of inherited traits. So then evil might merely be the vestiges of our ancestors "flesh".

3. Evil may be necessary in the same way that elementary school is necessary. It allows for man to be trained in righteousness.

4. Finally, an interesting theory out there is that our human life is merely a simulation. This does not contradict the Bible and would explain many things. In this case we are in a computer simulation in much the same way as someone might play a game of Mario Brothers. The purpose might be to sift out people suitable for the kingdom. But once the simulation is done does evil really exist?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I cannot know the answer. I can suggest some theories

1. To create something out of nothing might require a "yin" and "yang". You can't have goodness without evil. I have no way to prove this.

That may be true. But, if it is, then God isn't omnipotent, because he is limited by the bi-polar structure of reality. Another possibility is that the apparent bipolar structure is cognitive and not metaphysical. In other words, bipolarity is a limitation of our perception rather than the way the things really are. God then would not be limited in this way. Lee suggested this idea when he contrasted the knowledge of good and evil with Life.

2. I find it interesting that man is a Eusocial organism. First, because what we define as "evil" is just run of the mill behavior for a reptile, bird, or even many mammals. (A child that kills its siblings is a psychopath, but for a reptile or bird they are just typical). I find this interesting because of the 19 eusocial organisms man is the only one that chooses to be. We supposedly evolved from a variety of species that are not eusocial. All other eusocial organisms are eusocial as a result of inherited traits. So then evil might merely be the vestiges of our ancestors "flesh".

That is interesting. I raises the question; Why would an all-wise, omnipotent and good God resort to a messy process like evolution?

3. Evil may be necessary in the same way that elementary school is necessary. It allows for man to be trained in righteousness.

Yes, but like I said above, any absolute necessity imposes a limit on the omnipotence of God.

4. Finally, an interesting theory out there is that our human life is merely a simulation. This does not contradict the Bible and would explain many things. In this case we are in a computer simulation in much the same way as someone might play a game of Mario Brothers. The purpose might be to sift out people suitable for the kingdom. But once the simulation is done does evil really exist?

Again interesting. But, toying with us like that would contradict the nature of an omni-benevolent God. A God who plays games with sentient vulnerable beings is a monster. No?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

That may be true. But, if it is, then God isn't omnipotent, because he is limited by the bi-polar structure of reality. Another possibility is that the apparent bipolar structure is cognitive and not metaphysical. In other words, bipolarity is a limitation of our perception rather than the way the things really are. God then would not be limited in this way. Lee suggested this idea when he contrasted the knowledge of good and evil with Life.

Paul said to "be imitators of God". If we were limited by our perception in this way then we couldn't really be imitators of God. So this would rule out this theory using the same logic.

Originally Posted by zeek

That is interesting. I raises the question; Why would an all-wise, omnipotent and good God resort to a messy process like evolution?

Messy processes work patience. You cannot have a perfect work without patience.

Originally Posted by zeek

Yes, but like I said above, any absolute necessity imposes a limit on the omnipotence of God.

For God to choose a particular approach to bring us unto maturity doesn't make him any less omnipotent.

Originally Posted by zeek

Again interesting. But, toying with us like that would contradict the nature of an omni-benevolent God. A God who plays games with sentient vulnerable beings is a monster. No?

Simulations are used to train pilots and astronauts. That doesn't imply "toying" with anyone. It implies you are dealing with something very important.

What exactly happened when we were banished from the garden with the tree of life?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Paul said to "be imitators of God". If we were limited by our perception in this way then we couldn't really be imitators of God.

I've always wondered about this statement of Paul. (Dismissing the possibility that Paul didn't write this epistle.)

Even back when I was a naive Bible thumper, I asked in my mind, "How can I do that?" I can imitate someone because I can see and watch them. Not so God.

However, the only source I have on God, that Paul also had, is the OT. And with all the miracles in the OT that just isn't possible. And who in their right mind would want to imitate :

"The LORD is a man of war ..." (Exo 15:3)

Since, I've concluded that the author of this epistle -- Paul or other -- was just being idealistic.

However, given the problem of evil, and how God allows it, if I imitate God would it require that I have an evil streak? Seems, given the evidence, that would be an accurate imitation.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I've always wondered about this statement of Paul. (Dismissing the possibility that Paul didn't write this epistle.)

Even back when I was a naive Bible thumper, I asked in my mind, "How can I do that?" I can imitate someone because I can see and watch them. Not so God.

What are you talking about, we imitate God all the time, that is what sticky notes are. That's what infrared cameras are. That is what airplanes are. God is the creator. We can observe and imitate the creation.

Originally Posted by awareness

However, the only source I have on God, that Paul also had, is the OT. And with all the miracles in the OT that just isn't possible.

What are you talking about? Making the iron axe float? We can imitate that with magnets. Jacob's getting spotted goats, streaked goats, etc? We can do that. Curing diseases with dead man's bones? We do that.

Originally Posted by awareness

And who in their right mind would want to imitate :

"The LORD is a man of war ..." (Exo 15:3)

German Jews under the reign of Hitler.

Originally Posted by awareness

Since, I've concluded that the author of this epistle -- Paul or other -- was just being idealistic.

However, given the problem of evil, and how God allows it, if I imitate God would it require that I have an evil streak? Seems, given the evidence, that would be an accurate imitation.

I must have missed it, what is the evidence that to imitate God you need to have an evil streak?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What are you talking about, we imitate God all the time, that is what sticky notes are. That's what infrared cameras are. That is what airplanes are. God is the creator. We can observe and imitate the creation.

If you identify God with nature yes. It's called bio-mimicry.

I must have missed it, what is the evidence that to imitate God you need to have an evil streak?

It depends on one's conception of God. The Old Testament God commanded genocide. Historically nations have repeatedly striven to accomplish genocide. Consciously or unconsciously they were intimating a certain concept of God. They might have thought of such god as "necessity" as in they saw themselves as doing what was necessary for their survival as a group. It's an old story.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

If you identify God with nature yes. It's called bio-mimicry.



It depends on one's conception of God. The Old Testament God commanded genocide. Historically nations have repeatedly striven to accomplish genocide. Consciously or unconsciously they were intimating a certain concept of God. They might have thought of such god as "necessity" as in they saw themselves as doing what was necessary for their survival as a group. It's an old story.

1. I identify God with the creator, and can observe the creator by viewing His creation.

2. Just so we are both on the same page, can you give us the quote on God commanding genocide so that we can discuss the same thing.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What are you talking about, we imitate God all the time, that is what sticky notes are. That's what infrared cameras are. That is what airplanes are. God is the creator. We can observe and imitate the creation.

Good answer. Paul does say, or Acts (Luke) has him saying (after passing an altar to the the unknown god :

"For in him we live, and move, and have our being . . ."

So I guess in that regard you are right. That means that if we imitate what we see in nature we can imitate God. That's what Henry Thoreau was doing, and a lot of scientists are doing ; without ever attending church, or relating to Jesus and the Bible.

But again, turning to the problem of evil, nature is full of evil. So imitating God in nature doesn't remove us from the pain of evil -- Thoreau died of consumption.

Seems we're stuck with evil, at least in this realm anyway. Zeek points out that evil even exists in eternity. But that's in the bad place ; another problem for a good God.

But let's talk about the good place in eternity. Now I don't know, I've never been there, but I hear it's a place of perfection, with no sign of evil present anywhere or of any kind ; no disease, hunger, thirst, or such needs. And I haven't heard of sex up there ; in either place, even the bad one. So apparently, if we're talking the enjoyments of sex, this is the best place to be.

But back to point. If such a place of perfection exists, even supposedly now, then why couldn't God have made this place like it? Why make a place with pain, constant struggle and troubles. and evil in it?

Of course we don't know. We're all in the dark. We just know it is ... and it hurts. And it calls an all powerful, all knowing, all loving God into question.

And just to cover some answers that I've seen posited on this thread, like free will, or to develop righteousness, and the like, I'm assuming the good place has those things in it. So it was possible for God to create it here, and now. Why didn't He? Something doesn't add up with God.

So why did God make it this way? And if, as suggested, it's a simulation (please explain how the Bible relates) then why pain, why does it hurt? Does God want to hurt His little creations? If so, He and I will need to have a come to Jesus moment.

The rest of your responses you offered were equally delightful. But for the sake of time and space I'll leave it at that/this.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Good answer. Paul does say, or Acts (Luke) has him saying (after passing an altar to the the unknown god :

"For in him we live, and move, and have our being . . ."

So I guess in that regard you are right. That means that if we imitate what we see in nature we can imitate God. That's what Henry Thoreau was doing, and a lot of scientists are doing ; without ever attending church, or relating to Jesus and the Bible.

But again, turning to the problem of evil, nature is full of evil. So imitating God in nature doesn't remove us from the pain of evil -- Thoreau died of consumption.

It sounds like you are defining evil as disease. Can you give me your definition of evil so that we are both on the same page. I understand evil as both immoral and malevolent. I don't think that nature is full of evil in that sense. So let's make sure we are all working from the same definition.

Originally Posted by awareness

Seems we're stuck with evil, at least in this realm anyway. Zeek points out that evil even exists in eternity. But that's in the bad place ; another problem for a good God.

But let's talk about the good place in eternity. Now I don't know, I've never been there, but I hear it's a place of perfection, with no sign of evil present anywhere or of any kind ; no disease, hunger, thirst, or such needs. And I haven't heard of sex up there ; in either place, even the bad one. So apparently, if we're talking the enjoyments of sex, this is the best place to be.

But back to point. If such a place of perfection exists, even supposedly now, then why couldn't God have made this place like it? Why make a place with pain, constant struggle and troubles. and evil in it?

Well let's see, let's suppose for a second, maybe a millisecond, that you ar correct and the world would be better without evil.

Oops, no more cross of Christ. I suppose God still loves the World but without evil no need to give His son, and certainly not in the way of the cross. No longer do we need a sacrifice for sin.

But, hey, no evil, then at least we don't have Hitler. Of course, if there is no Hitler there is no Schindler. Do we have any "righteousness" what would that look like without evil? No Ghandi, no Mandela, no Martin Luther King Jr., no martyrs. The word martyr means witness, it becomes really difficult if not impossible to witness for Jesus Christ without evil. Paul and Barnabas are not imprisoned so the prison doors don't open. St. Stephen isn't martyred, Saul of Tarsus does not persecute Christians, James is not killed, Peter isn't imprisoned.

No false prophets, no fraud, no deceit, no crime. Of course, you no longer have a narrow way, no real character is required anymore.

Without fraud it would be so much easier for people to invest their money. No worry about scam artists, stock brokers who are frauds, don't have to worry about corporate executives who are lying, no more Enron, no Bernie Madoff. We really wouldn't need the SEC, wouldn't need the FBI, wouldn't need most lawyers, courthouses, security systems, prisons, jails, etc.

This would save us 40% or more of our tax burden. We don't need a military budget. Don't have to worry about pork barrel politics. In fact all political systems would be fine, no evil dictators, only benevolent dictators. Communism is every bit as utopian as any other system. Without war and crime life would become so simple, really no challenges at all.

There would no longer be a evil worldly system, because we don't have evil. No Egypt, no Joseph, No Moses leading the enslaved Jews out, no Red Sea, no Noah, No fire raining down on Sodom. Israel is not carried off to Babylon. In short there is no gospel. What exactly do we need a Messiah for anyway?

It seems to me that the OT prophets would be superfluous, really unnecessary. Most if not all of the Psalms would not exist. Paul would never have been imprisoned. John would never have been sent to the Isle of Patmos. No Caesar Nero. No 666, no Armageddon. No lake of fire.

It is very difficult to understand what we would have. Most of the Bible would not exist. Book of Job -- gone. Book of Esther -- gone. Book of Exodus -- gone. The four gospels -- gone. Book of Revelation -- gone. Book of James and Jude -- gone.

No savior. No repentance. No salvation by grace. No hymns. No Lord's table. No baptism.

The greatest story ever told would be gone.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It sounds like you are defining evil as disease. Can you give me your definition of evil so that we are both on the same page.

Well now, put me on the spot why don't you. But I understand your request. Without getting wordy I'd say evil is hard to define, but we know it when we see it.

To get specific, if I may try, it's easy to see moral evil ; that is, evil done by humans to other humans ; from mass atrocities, to individual cases.

We really can't hold God accountable for moral evil. That falls squarely on the shoulders of us humans. We're our own worst enemy. It is however, in the end,, evil we have to live with. And methinks I've picked up in our idea of heaven that they, up there, don't have to deal with such things. ("Down there" they deal with evil constantly). The question arises, why is God allowing moral evil here, but not "up there?" So God is involved in evil here somehow. Cuz if no moral evil up there then there can just as easily be no moral evil down here.

Originally Posted by ZNP

I understand evil as both immoral and malevolent. I don't think that nature is full of evil in that sense.

But not so in the Bible, where natural events are used to bring reward and punishments. Even today, it was claimed by a Christian leader that, hurricane Katrina was just punishment for the sins in New Orleans.

My point is that, nature does deliver evil upon us -- even if nature has no moral element. Why do you think we've done everything possible to remove humans from the food chain? Being lunch is considered evil to humans.

Originally Posted by ZNP

Well let's see, let's suppose for a second, maybe a millisecond, that you ar correct and the world would be better without evil.

lol ... Sounds like John Lennon and his "Imagine."

Originally Posted by ZNP

Oops, no more cross of Christ. I suppose God still loves the World but without evil no need to give His son, and certainly not in the way of the cross. No longer do we need a sacrifice for sin.

So God created this world "down here" so he would have to provide a human sacrifice to forgive us, for what he could have prevented if he made it down here like it is up there? Is that your support for the existence of evil?

Originally Posted by ZNP

But, hey, no evil, then at least we don't have Hitler. Of course, if there is no Hitler there is no Schindler. Do we have any "righteousness" what would that look like without evil? No Ghandi, no Mandela, no Martin Luther King Jr., no martyrs. The word martyr means witness, it becomes really difficult if not impossible to witness for Jesus Christ without evil.

So evil is a good thing because out of it we get Schindler, Gandhi, the martyrs, and can witness for Jesus? What?

Originally Posted by ZNP

Paul and Barnabas are not imprisoned so the prison doors don't open. St. Stephen isn't martyred, Saul of Tarsus does not persecute Christians, James is not killed, Peter isn't imprisoned. . . .
. . . No false prophets . . . No Egypt, no Joseph, No Moses leading the enslaved Jews out, no Red Sea, no Noah, No fire raining down on Sodom. Israel is not carried off to Babylon. In short there is no gospel. What exactly do we need a Messiah for anyway?

It seems to me that the OT prophets would be superfluous, really unnecessary. Most if not all of the Psalms would not exist. Paul would never have been imprisoned. John would never have been sent to the Isle of Patmos. No Caesar Nero. No 666, no Armageddon. No lake of fire.

It is very difficult to understand what we would have. Most of the Bible would not exist. Book of Job -- gone. Book of Esther -- gone. Book of Exodus -- gone. The four gospels -- gone. Book of Revelation -- gone. Book of James and Jude -- gone.

No savior. No repentance. No salvation by grace. No hymns. No Lord's table. No baptism.

The greatest story ever told would be gone.

Goodness, even in heaven you're still going to be attached to all of this. Do you think all they do in heaven is have constant Bible studies, waiting for Armageddon?

Originally Posted by ZNP

, no fraud, no deceit, no crime. Of course, you no longer have a narrow way, no real character is required anymore.

Without fraud it would be so much easier for people to invest their money. No worry about scam artists, stock brokers who are frauds, don't have to worry about corporate executives who are lying, no more Enron, no Bernie Madoff. We really wouldn't need the SEC, wouldn't need the FBI, wouldn't need most lawyers, courthouses, security systems, prisons, jails, etc.

This would save us 40% or more of our tax burden. We don't need a military budget. Don't have to worry about pork barrel politics. In fact all political systems would be fine, no evil dictators, only benevolent dictators. Communism is every bit as utopian as any other system. Without war and crime life would become so simple, really no challenges at all.

There would no longer be a evil worldly system, because we don't have evil.

God does it "up there." Why not here? You sound like you're gonna miss evil.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1. I identify God with the creator, and can observe the creator by viewing His creation.

2. Just so we are both on the same page, can you give us the quote on God commanding genocide so that we can discuss the same thing.

According to Wikipedia, genocide is "the intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part. The hybrid word is a combination of génos ("race, people") and -cide ("to kill"." The word herem is often used in the Book of Joshua, where cities such as Jericho and Ai came under herem. This meant that God commanded that they be completely destroyed, except for "the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron" which were to go into "YHWH's treasury" (Joshua 6:19).

Deuteronomy 20 also names six people groups who God commanded to be completely destroyed: the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. Thus, the conquest of Canaan is genocide.

The concept of herem also appears in 1 Samuel 15, where Saul "totally destroyed" (verse 8, NIV) the Amalekites with the sword, but spared their king, Agag, and kept "the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves and lambs—everything that was good." For this, Saul is rebuked by Samuel, who reminds him that God had commanded him to "completely destroy" the Amalekites (verse 15). Samuel "hacked Agag to pieces" himself (verse 33, ESV).

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

According to Wikipedia, genocide is "the intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part. The hybrid word is a combination of génos ("race, people") and -cide ("to kill"." The word herem is often used in the Book of Joshua, where cities such as Jericho and Ai came under herem. This meant that God commanded that they be completely destroyed, except for "the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron" which were to go into "YHWH's treasury" (Joshua 6:19).

Deuteronomy 20 also names six people groups who God commanded to be completely destroyed: the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. Thus, the conquest of Canaan is genocide.

The concept of herem also appears in 1 Samuel 15, where Saul "totally destroyed" (verse 8, NIV) the Amalekites with the sword, but spared their king, Agag, and kept "the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves and lambs—everything that was good." For this, Saul is rebuked by Samuel, who reminds him that God had commanded him to "completely destroy" the Amalekites (verse 15). Samuel "hacked Agag to pieces" himself (verse 33, ESV).

I think Jericho and AI fall under the Deut 20 verse, so I will treat them as one group.

The Amalekites are a second group.

I will respond to the Deut 20 first and probably later today.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think Jericho and AI fall under the Deut 20 verse, so I will treat them as one group.

The Amalekites are a second group.

I will respond to the Deut 20 first and probably later today.

OK. Harold also reminded me that the first genocide mentioned in the Bible was the Genesis Flood wherein God destroyed the Adamic race with the exception of Noah and his family. The Book of Revelation also predicts future genocide [or past depending on one's POV]. So there are many potent prototypes of genocide in the Bible for imitators of God to follow.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

OK. Harold also reminded me that the first genocide mentioned in the Bible was the Genesis Flood wherein God destroyed the Adamic race with the exception of Noah and his family. The Book of Revelation also predicts future genocide [or past depending on one's POV]. So there are many potent prototypes of genocide in the Bible for imitators of God to follow.

So then you want to include Noah and Armageddon?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

According to Wikipedia, genocide is "the intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part. The hybrid word is a combination of génos ("race, people") and -cide ("to kill"." The word herem is often used in the Book of Joshua, where cities such as Jericho and Ai came under herem. This meant that God commanded that they be completely destroyed, except for "the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron" which were to go into "YHWH's treasury" (Joshua 6:19).

Deuteronomy 20 also names six people groups who God commanded to be completely destroyed: the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. Thus, the conquest of Canaan is genocide.

The concept of herem also appears in 1 Samuel 15, where Saul "totally destroyed" (verse 8, NIV) the Amalekites with the sword, but spared their king, Agag, and kept "the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves and lambs—everything that was good." For this, Saul is rebuked by Samuel, who reminds him that God had commanded him to "completely destroy" the Amalekites (verse 15). Samuel "hacked Agag to pieces" himself (verse 33, ESV).

Don't forget the flood ; genocide on a grand scale.

How about this verse:

Deu 20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

Not much of a gift if you have to kill to take it.

And then Numbers 31, where God instructs Moses to avenge the children of Israel against the Midianites, and long story short, they kill everyone but the virgin girls, 32,000 of them. Talk about the spoils of war. Even the Levites got their share.

This kind of stuff, attributed to God, reveals God's direct part in the problem of moral evil.

Truth is, God seems to be less moral than most humans. Ohio brought up abortion, but God doesn't seem to share his concern about the unborn, or the post born babies.

Reading these stories, as much as we're disinclined to believe it, we can't deny that, God more than appears to have an evil streak.

Isa_45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

[ZNPaaneah]

Let's deal with the nations dispossessed by the children of Israel when they entered the good land first.

Deut 18:9 When you come into the land which the Lord your God gives you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of these nations.
10 There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or daughter pass through the fire, or who uses divination, or is a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer,
11 Or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer.
12 For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord, and it is because of these abominable practices that the Lord your God is driving them out before you.

These nations caused "their son or daughter to pass through the fire" this could refer to either late term abortion or infanticide. But the baby has to have been developed enough to determine "son or daughter".

God is the defender of these babies. Anyway, he lists the abominable practices as the cause for them to be driven out. God was killing two birds with one stone. On one hand He was delivering His people from slavery. On the other hand He was bringing judgement on these people for their slaughter of the innocents. Also, they could fight back, they weren't defenseless like the babies they slaughtered. What hypocrisy to complain that God is evil, why not repent for your own deeds.

The passover was an example of this. Earlier, the Egyptians had killed innocent Hebrew babies, as a result during the Passover they put the blood of a lamb on the doorpost to tell the avenging angel that this house had already lost a lamb.

This is righteous judgement. You reap what you sow.

No one thinks it is evil to condemn and execute a serial killer.

[ZNPaaneah]

Paul has already addressed the idea that Noah's flood was evil.

1. The creator has the right to do as He pleases with His creation. No one thinks that a potter is evil if he throws one of his pots away.

2. God warned Noah of the coming flood. Anyone else who was not fully consumed with the flesh would have also been warned. After all Noah was building the boat for many years, and they mocked him. Dying in that flood was not a judgement of God but a judgement of them. They were living in the flesh, they ignored every warning God made until the flood came. They mocked those that warned them. And then, to top it all off, it isn't their fault, it is God's fault that they died.

I would compare this to climate change. People are being warned, they have been given the information, but what are they doing with it. Are they mocking the scientists, are they hiring bogus scientists to give them bogus data so they can ignore what is happening, are they denying the science, are they just plain ignoring it. Can you imagine these very same people later complaining that God is "evil". You were warned, and yet you choose to ignore the warnings and lie. You reap what you sow.

[ZNPaaneah]

As for the Amalekites, according to Deuteronomy they attacked the rear guard, the stragglers of the children of Israel. This is not the army, it is the elderly, the infirm, the mothers with small babies.

It is the most cowardly and evil attack. It is akin to bombing a hospital or elementary school. If that is an accident that is horrible enough, but to do this as your strategy is entirely reprehensible and deserving of retribution.

Of course, as God, He can claim to be omniscient and we do know that in the future the Amalekites will attempt to completely wipe out the Israelites, and come very close to accomplishing that plan.

In the end, the Amalekites cannot attack the weak, elderly, infirm, and babies and then cry foul when the Israelites hold them accountable. You reap what you sow. That is righteousness. If your deeds are evil then you will reap an evil reward.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Let's deal with the nations dispossessed by the children of Israel when they entered the good land first.

Deut 18:9 When you come into the land which the Lord your God gives you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of these nations.
10 There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or daughter pass through the fire, or who uses divination, or is a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer,
11 Or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer.
12 For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord, and it is because of these abominable practices that the Lord your God is driving them out before you.

These nations caused "their son or daughter to pass through the fire" this could refer to either late term abortion or infanticide. But the baby has to have been developed enough to determine "son or daughter".

God is the defender of these babies. Anyway, he lists the abominable practices as the cause for them to be driven out. God was killing two birds with one stone. On one hand He was delivering His people from slavery. On the other hand He was bringing judgement on these people for their slaughter of the innocents. Also, they could fight back, they weren't defenseless like the babies they slaughtered. What hypocrisy to complain that God is evil, why not repent for your own deeds.

The passover was an example of this. Earlier, the Egyptians had killed innocent Hebrew babies, as a result during the Passover they put the blood of a lamb on the doorpost to tell the avenging angel that this house had already lost a lamb.

This is righteous judgement. You reap what you sow.

No one thinks it is evil to condemn and execute a serial killer.

God commanded that the children be killed with those who were guilty of child sacrifice. How is that better than the child sacrifices themselves? How is it just? You can imagine that it is based on the proposition that God is just so these actions must be. But the supporting evidence isn't there. And Biblical genocide becomes a model for human genocide by humans through the ages. Samuel thought he was doing God's will in the savage act of chopping Agag to pieces. How like the beheadings committed by ISIS today. How is this justifiable?

Face it, a good bit of the morality in the Pentateuch is barbarism. It was only palatable to us because we allegorized and spiritualized it. Taken literally, it's disgusting. That's why Jesus said "It is written...but I say unto you". He instituted a higher morality of compassion. Only his followers...the church, didn't get it, so the barbarism continued.

In any case, whatever the truth ultimately is, the Biblical writers were unable to consistently conceive of a God who escaped the problem of evil although Jesus appears to at times as in the Sermon on the Mount.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

God commanded that the children be killed with those who were guilty of child sacrifice. How is that better than the child sacrifices themselves?

Essentially, by killing the innocent Amalekite babies, both pre and post born, God became the monster He claimed that the Amalekite were.

Originally Posted by zeek

How is it just? You can imagine that it is based on the proposition that God is just so these actions must be. But the supporting evidence isn't there. And Biblical genocide becomes a model for human genocide by humans through the ages.

Yes, even today, to orthodox Jews in Israel "Amalekites have come to represent an "eternally irreconcilable enemy" that wants to murder Jews, and that Jews in post-biblical times sometimes associate contemporary enemies with Haman or Amalekites, and that some Jews believe that pre-emptive violence is acceptable against such enemies." It's called taking the Promised Land -- like manifest destiny -- and it's got the world by the tail, especially America ; living out ancient mythologies ... because God commanded them to in their Torah ; that came out of the bronze age ; living in modern times like we're still in the bronze age. And we're critical of the Muslims for wanting to take us back only 1500 years.

Originally Posted by zeek

Face it, a good bit of the morality in the Pentateuch is barbarism. It was only palatable to us because we allegorized and spiritualized it. Taken literally, it's disgusting. That's why Jesus said "It is written...but I say unto you". He instituted a higher morality of compassion. Only his followers...the church, didn't get it, so the barbarism continued.

In any case, whatever the truth ultimately is, the Biblical writers were unable to consistently conceive of a God who escaped the problem of evil although Jesus appears to at times as in the Sermon on the Mount.

That's why I say God needs to have a come to Jesus moment ; God, let me introduce you to Jesus.

[Evangelical]

Reading some of these discussions I can tell you are quoting old testament (i.e. Jewish) passages but you have not had the revelation about God and the problem of evil because you are approaching it from a Christian or humanist point of view. Christians will not understand God and the problem of good and evil because it is not in their concept and teaching. To understand God and the problem of evil we must turn to Judaism which explains it well. The Jewish viewpoint also matches Paul's view (as an ex-Jew himself). I can explain this for you but you must be prepared to open your mind and drop your Christian and human concepts for a moment.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

God commanded that the children be killed with those who were guilty of child sacrifice. How is that better than the child sacrifices themselves? How is it just? You can imagine that it is based on the proposition that God is just so these actions must be. But the supporting evidence isn't there. And Biblical genocide becomes a model for human genocide by humans through the ages. Samuel thought he was doing God's will in the savage act of chopping Agag to pieces. How like the beheadings committed by ISIS today. How is this justifiable?

Face it, a good bit of the morality in the Pentateuch is barbarism. It was only palatable to us because we allegorized and spiritualized it. Taken literally, it's disgusting. That's why Jesus said "It is written...but I say unto you". He instituted a higher morality of compassion. Only his followers...the church, didn't get it, so the barbarism continued.

In any case, whatever the truth ultimately is, the Biblical writers were unable to consistently conceive of a God who escaped the problem of evil although Jesus appears to at times as in the Sermon on the Mount.

Barbarism is not equivalent to evil. Face it, you are talking about "a problem of Barbarism" not a problem of evil. At the time of the OT there were two options for dealing with something that was criminal. Sell the person as a slave or execute them. Civil lawsuits included the option of "eye for an eye". Calling this evil is akin to saying "let them eat cake". They could not afford prison, life was on the edge.

There was no safety net. Widows became prostitutes. Orphans also suffered a terrible fate.

You cannot apply a sense of justice based on a 20th century standard of living to a people living a thousand years BC. This is a problem of poverty, not evil.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Essentially, by killing the innocent Amalekite babies, both pre and post born, God became the monster He claimed that the Amalekite were.


Yes, even today, to orthodox Jews in Israel "Amalekites have come to represent an "eternally irreconcilable enemy" that wants to murder Jews, and that Jews in post-biblical times sometimes associate contemporary enemies with Haman or Amalekites, and that some Jews believe that pre-emptive violence is acceptable against such enemies." It's called taking the Promised Land -- like manifest destiny -- and it's got the world by the tail, especially America ; living out ancient mythologies ... because God commanded them to in their Torah ; that came out of the bronze age ; living in modern times like we're still in the bronze age. And we're critical of the Muslims for wanting to take us back only 1500 years.


That's why I say God needs to have a come to Jesus moment ; God, let me introduce you to Jesus.

I think you are completely unwilling to try an see this from any other perspective. You present yourself as the one who is most understanding, the most open to other perspectives, but on this you are the most close minded.

Recently, over the last 40-50 years there has been a dramatic decrease in crime. Politicians have tried to take credit (Gulianni, and others) but this has been debunked. It has been in cities that fixed broken windows and cities that didn't. Cities that legalized stop and frisk and cities that didn't. In the US and in Europe. The drop has been so dramatic that it is very important to understand why. It is certainly relevant to this "problem of evil".

After studying this I have come to the conclusion that there is only one good answer to explain this: improvements to forensics.

No doubt DNA was the single biggest advancement. But that was not a once for all thing. There have been minor advancements in our ability to process DNA which have resulted in further decreases. There have been computer DNA databases of DNA, Fingerprints, guns, bullets, etc. that have also helped. There have been new techniques in Math at catching criminals, the use of phenotypes and genetic descriptions, and family trees. Cities have installed microphones which help pinpoint the time and location of a shooting. Cameras and cell phones have had a huge impact, not only on getting us photos of suspects but also in the use of 911.

The result of these advancements is that we have made a huge improvement in putting those responsible for crimes in prison while having those who are not guilty out of prison. 150 years ago more than a third of those in prison were innocent of the crimes they were convicted of. Perhaps 2,000 years ago it was more than 50%. Today we are getting it down to less than 1%. Perhaps in 25 years it will be less than 0.1%. Putting innocent people in prison for crimes they didn't commit is not a "problem of evil" it is a problem of forensics.

The basic principle of justice is to hold people accountable for crimes. That is not evil, that is justice.

However, the "devil is in the details". Being able to accurately discern a guilty person from an innocent person is the hard part.

There is a benefit to catching guilty people, convicting guilty people and putting them in prison. They don't continue to commit crimes. In the past putting more people in prison did not lead to a drop in crime, this was because a large percentage of those people were innocent. But now, when people go to prison there is a very high likelihood that they are guilty. That said, no one thinks our justice system is perfect and never makes a mistake. That doesn't make it "evil". It makes it imperfect.

You complain about Israel 4,000 years ago, but what were their options? There were no prisons, no forensics, being sold as a slave was considered a "reward".

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Barbarism is not equivalent to evil. Face it, you are talking about "a problem of Barbarism" not a problem of evil. At the time of the OT there were two options for dealing with something that was criminal. Sell the person as a slave or execute them. Civil lawsuits included the option of "eye for an eye". Calling this evil is akin to saying "let them eat cake". They could not afford prison, life was on the edge.

There was no safety net. Widows became prostitutes. Orphans also suffered a terrible fate.

You cannot apply a sense of justice based on a 20th century standard of living to a people living a thousand years BC. This is a problem of poverty, not evil.

Infants and children were not criminals, yet they were executed with those who incidentally were only protecting their land from invaders who justified their invasion with the rationale that they were on a mission for God. We see this kind of scenario played over and over again in the religious wars throughout history. If you don't see it as evil then I suppose your definition of evil is narrower then mine. Even if barbarism is a kind of technical deficiency rather than a moral one, it is evil in the sense of a cause of suffering that an all-wise, all-powerful all benevolent God could have avoided.

I don't see this as an indictment of God, by the way. I see it as an episode in the evolution of God as a human concept. What the fundamentalists call the progressive revelation of God, I see as the evolution of God in the human imagination. That being the case, I don't reject the Bible as a sacred book. I just read it differently.

But, like I said, the Bible compounds the problem of evil as it is usually presented including the way it is framed in post #1 on this thread. Apologists try to "justify the ways of God to men." What they are really doing is justifying their pet concept of God whatever that may be. Confusing God with our conception of the same has led to many a religious war. Why not read the wars of the Old Testament as cautionary tales of what we should avoid in the name of our treasured religions?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Reading some of these discussions I can tell you are quoting old testament (i.e. Jewish) passages but you have not had the revelation about God and the problem of evil because you are approaching it from a Christian or humanist point of view. Christians will not understand God and the problem of good and evil because it is not in their concept and teaching. To understand God and the problem of evil we must turn to Judaism which explains it well. The Jewish viewpoint also matches Paul's view (as an ex-Jew himself). I can explain this for you but you must be prepared to open your mind and drop your Christian and human concepts for a moment.

Go for it Bro!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Reading some of these discussions I can tell you are quoting old testament (i.e. Jewish) passages but you have not had the revelation about God and the problem of evil because you are approaching it from a Christian or humanist point of view. Christians will not understand God and the problem of good and evil because it is not in their concept and teaching. To understand God and the problem of evil we must turn to Judaism which explains it well. The Jewish viewpoint also matches Paul's view (as an ex-Jew himself). I can explain this for you but you must be prepared to open your mind and drop your Christian and human concepts for a moment.

Waiting with bated breath ...

Is this like all guns drawn in a bar -> everybody drop your concepts at the same time.

Make my day ....

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Infants and children were not criminals, yet they were executed with those who incidentally were only protecting their land from invaders who justified their invasion with the rationale that they were on a mission for God. We see this kind of scenario played over and over again in the religious wars throughout history. If you don't see it as evil then I suppose your definition of evil is narrower then mine. Even if barbarism is a kind of technical deficiency rather than a moral one, it is evil in the sense of a cause of suffering that an all-wise, all-powerful all benevolent God could have avoided.

I don't see this as an indictment of God, by the way. I see it as an episode in the evolution of God as a human concept. What the fundamentalists call the progressive revelation of God, I see as the evolution of God in the human imagination. That being the case, I don't reject the Bible as a sacred book. I just read it differently.

But, like I said, the Bible compounds the problem of evil as it is usually presented including the way it is framed in post #1 on this thread. Apologists try to "justify the ways of God to men." What they are really doing is justifying their pet concept of God whatever that may be. Confusing God with our conception of the same has led to many a religious war. Why not read the wars of the Old Testament as cautionary tales of what we should avoid in the name of our treasured religions?

If I could use an analogy. 4,000 years ago after suffering an injury to your arm a reasonable person might recommend amputation as the injury had become infected, would become gangrene and you would die otherwise. Today we might treat the same injury with neosporin and essentially consider it a non issue. This doesn't mean that doctors 4,000 years ago were evil.

They were barbaric, yes, but not evil. Not by choice, but because they did not have modern antibiotics (they did have various antibiotics from mushrooms, spider webs, etc)

It is very clear when reading the OT that the penalties prescribed were far more serious than today. We would consider execution or being sold into slavery as something evil. But this is because we have other options.

If the Nazi's had attacked your schools and hospitals and tried to slaughter all of your elderly and elementary school children you would require that they be held accountable. If you only had two options: sell them as slaves or execute them I am pretty sure we would have chosen to execute them. I feel this way since we did choose to execute a number of them and because I doubt anyone would want Mengele working in their kitchen or Goebbels around their children.

[awareness]

Hey ... Welcome Evangelical !!!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If I could use an analogy. 4,000 years ago after suffering an injury to your arm a reasonable person might recommend amputation as the injury had become infected, would become gangrene and you would die otherwise. Today we might treat the same injury with neosporin and essentially consider it a non issue. This doesn't mean that doctors 4,000 years ago were evil.

I think you're saying that ignorance is not a moral evil. But, an omniscient god is never ignorant. So, such a god would be morally responsible for whatever his creatures suffer due to ignorance.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I think you're saying that ignorance is not a moral evil. But, an omniscient god is never ignorant. So, such a god would be morally responsible for whatever his creatures suffer due to ignorance.

Plus, God didn't excuse Adam and Eve's ignorance.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I think you're saying that ignorance is not a moral evil. But, an omniscient god is never ignorant. So, such a god would be morally responsible for whatever his creatures suffer due to ignorance.

I'm saying this is not a moral issue. There is no malevolence. In the story "Between a rock and a hard place" the man cut his own arm off. That wasn't evil, it wasn't malevolent, it was necessary for him to survive.

This thread is called "the problem of evil" but you aren't talking about evil.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Plus, God didn't excuse Adam and Eve's ignorance.

What ignorance. They were told quite clearly not to eat from that tree. That is not ignorance, that is rebellion or disobedience.

This thread is called "the problem of evil" but you aren't talking about evil.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

I think you're saying that ignorance is not a moral evil. But, an omniscient god is never ignorant. So, such a god would be morally responsible for whatever his creatures suffer due to ignorance.

And that is correct. But the fact that such a God allows it (and is therefore responsible in the ultimate analysis) does not serve to negate his existence. That God does not step in and prevent all harm to all for any and all purposes does not negate God.

That is essentially what the POE is trying to establish.

Not saying I buy the underlying premises. But they are what they are and they declare that there is no challenge to those premises. So we end out arguing against a brick wall. A wall in which certain things are presumed to be required of a God that has the attributes that are given to the God of the Bible. But it is decidedly not necessarily so.

But alas. The brick wall.

The God with the attributes state by the POE is the one that was stated as if several different gods several years ago when we started discussing Job. One person overviewed it as one particular god was requested but they got a different god. As if God is not in control of even his own attributes.

I find the standard POE definitions and presumptions to be like saying that Superman is the "man of steel" that can crush the hand of anyone that he grabs by the hand, therefore he cannot take hold of your hand and just shake it like anyone else and not harm you.

And what we end out in places like this wrestling with is not really whether there is God, but rather why he isn't behaving in the manner I want at this minute. And since he is not, do I want to like him or even believe that he exists.

Not saying that wrestling with evil, pain grief, etc., in the face of the God that is referred to as being the very definition of love is not something that we all do at times. But no matter where that ultimately takes any individual in terms of belief, it does not define, prove, define away, or disprove the existence of God.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

And that is correct. But the fact that such a God allows it (and is therefore responsible in the ultimate analysis) does not serve to negate his existence. That God does not step in and prevent all harm to all for any and all purposes does not negate God.

That is essentially what the POE is trying to establish.

Not saying I buy the underlying premises. But they are what they are and they declare that there is no challenge to those premises. So we end out arguing against a brick wall. A wall in which certain things are presumed to be required of a God that has the attributes that are given to the God of the Bible. But it is decidedly not necessarily so.

But alas. The brick wall.

The God with the attributes state by the POE is the one that was stated as if several different gods several years ago when we started discussing Job. One person overviewed it as one particular god was requested but they got a different god. As if God is not in control of even his own attributes.

I find the standard POE definitions and presumptions to be like saying that Superman is the "man of steel" that can crush the hand of anyone that he grabs by the hand, therefore he cannot take hold of your hand and just shake it like anyone else and not harm you.

And what we end out in places like this wrestling with is not really whether there is God, but rather why he isn't behaving in the manner I want at this minute. And since he is not, do I want to like him or even believe that he exists.

Not saying that wrestling with evil, pain grief, etc., in the face of the God that is referred to as being the very definition of love is not something that we all do at times. But no matter where that ultimately takes any individual in terms of belief, it does not define, prove, define away, or disprove the existence of God.

Yes, true.

If I understand the logical construct correctly it is this:

God is omnipotent. Therefore by definition He is more powerful than Evil.

This is proven because in Eternity Evil will be confined to the Lake of Fire.

Therefore, the fact that we have evil in this age is due to God. This is supported by a reading of the Book of Job and other books supporting God's use of Evil to accomplish his plans and goals.

I don't have an issue with any of those assertions.

But then they assume that God could have chosen to not have evil, so therefore our having it somehow implies that God is evil.

Which on the surface is a very weak and beggarly doctrine. So it is being bolstered by "evidence" that God is a God of "genocide".

I think the second half of that argument which is really essential to make their case, collapses with any fair assessment. And the first half of the argument collapses if you cannot prove that on some level God is evil.

Without that all you are left with is "God's ways are not our ways".

[awareness]

OBW I agree that the problem of evil can lead to disbelief that there is any god at all. But overall that doesn't happen. Most that believe in God will not stop believing even if absolute unquestionable proof could be presented that there is no God. Of course there is no such proof.

But there is no such proof either that God exists. We presume that. When we look at the universe it makes sense. It makes sense that some very powerful, very intelligent, something, is behind it all. We call that God.

From there we presume that this something is eternal, all knowing, everywhere present, and even all loving. We don't know this for sure, but it's easy to accept and believe. We have to have some explanation for why we and everything exists, and all that is as good as any.

The problem is that we can deny the existence of God but not the existence of evil. I think ZNP, in an effort to defend the existence of God, and explain away the atrocities attributed to God in the Bible, both in the Old and New Testaments -- water in the first and fire in the last -- is trying to say that evil today is different to what was considered evil 4000 years ago, and that's why he says barbarism is not considered evil in the Bible.

But to modern minds that just doesn't add up. So we can either come to think that God doesn't exist, or, more likely for believers, we'll conclude that we just don't understand it, and just dismiss the problem of evil out of hand, as something beyond our pay grade.

In the end we're stuck dealing with evil, and with the existence of something we consider the source of our being, that we call God. And we really don't understand either one. We're just limited little critters down here, with little pea brains, too small to explain it all.

That's because the problem of evil is a real stumper ... that makes us question the idea of God that we've established with our little pea brains.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

The problem is that we can deny the existence of God but not the existence of evil. I think ZNP, in an effort to defend the existence of God, and explain away the atrocities attributed to God in the Bible, both in the Old and New Testaments -- water in the first and fire in the last -- is trying to say that evil today is different to what was considered evil 4000 years ago, and that's why he says barbarism is not considered evil in the Bible.

I don't think our modern minds have a problem with convicting and executing a serial killer, nor do I think we would equate that with evil.

I am comparing the gas chambers of the Nazis with the Amalekites attacking the Israeli stragglers composed of the elderly, the infirm, and the young children.

Even the Nazis didn't exterminate the strongest Jews, but rather worked them to death while on starvation rations.

I am comparing what the Egyptians did in killing the male children of Israel to a serial killer.

I am comparing the infanticide of the tribes living in the Good land to the extermination of innocents unable to defend themselves.

In every case these judgements by God were explained.

Your complaint is that not everyone killed was a direct perpetrator of the crime.

My response to that was that 4,000 years ago it may appear barbaric, but they had very few options. Today we have more options because we are wealthier and have a higher standard of living. Prison was not an option back then, too expensive.

I used several analogies. For example, our forensics have improved dramatically with the discovery of fingerprints, DNA, computer databases, and various other techniques. As a result the number of innocent people convicted of crimes has decreased in the last 150 years. That doesn't mean that justice used to be evil, it was just less exact. The principle of righteousness has not changed, only the tools by which we exercise these principles. Our "scales of justice" are much more accurate today.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Most that believe in God will not stop believing even if absolute unquestionable proof could be presented that there is no God. Of course there is no such proof.

This may be true. But some will. Since our believe is based, at least in part, on things that are not provable, then when we face severe adversity, there is often a tendency to at least question God. Question his goodness, or mercy, or love. And either do some kind of analysis on flawed logic and reject his existence, or alternately decide that maybe it just doesn't matter anyway and just refuse to follow and/or obey.

The problem with the POE (and I recall zeek pointing rather decidedly to this) is that each attribute of God is determined to be absolute and is required to be exercised in full in all occasions. So it comes out like this:

God is love, so he must absolutely love. Always. And in the way we understand love.
God is omnipotent, therefore he can and must do everything with all his power.
God is just, therefore he must not allow injustice to stand.
God is righteous, therefore he must not allow unrighteousness.
God is the "great physician," therefore he must cure all ills.
God is the author of order, therefore nothing should be out of order.

And on an on you go.

And if you insist that he must do all these things at all times, then unless he has first allowed anything to be out of order, then he has not basis for ever needing to worry about righteousness, justice, healing, etc., because they cannot happen.

But that presumes that God cannot have a will to allow created beings a choice to be other than righteous and just. To honor him as God or refuse him. And this is what those who posited the POE are seeking to insist upon. If there is anything that is out of line with perfection, then the God who "must" do everything without consideration or decision cannot exist.

And I agree with them. That god does not exist. But God does. But he is not limited by the presumptions of man concerning how he must exercise his attributes. Even if there are theologians that agree with those claims, it is simply not true. There is nothing that causes it to be true.

Just a desire to refute God.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

Just a desire to refute God.

Good well thought out post OBW.

I'm not sure if I understand this last line. I take it to mean that that is the purpose of the POE.

The OP of this thread is by Unsure. I'm not sure if that was his intention.

But I don't think that was the original intention of the POE. It's is said that Epicurus introduced the POE. In fact it's called the Epicurean paradox. That takes the POE back around 2300 years ; around the time the book of Job was written. Seems the problem of evil bubbled up to the public consciousness simultaneously around that time ; in both Jewish and pagan thinking.

Epicurus couldn't solve the paradox, but the book of Job sure did. That book was honest : God is behind it. That means God exists. And you may be pissed at God for evil, but what are you gonna do about it? Maybe God needs forgiveness too.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I'm saying this is not a moral issue. There is no malevolence. In the story "Between a rock and a hard place" the man cut his own arm off. That wasn't evil, it wasn't malevolent, it was necessary for him to survive.

If a person intentionally put a man in a situation where he had to cut off his arm to survive and then stood by and did nothing while he cut if off, that would be malevolent. Likewise, if an all-knowing, all powerful god created a world in which beings suffer when he could have created a perfect world where there is no suffering, that would be evil. If such god could not create a perfect world without suffering then he is either not all powerful or all knowing. If he had the power and know-how to create a world free from suffering but chose not to, then he would be malevolent. Thus, the existence of suffering seems to be incompatible with the existence of an all-powerful, all-wise, all-good god.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

If a person intentionally put a man in a situation where he had to cut off his arm to survive and then stood by and did nothing while he cut if off, that would be malevolent. Likewise, if an all-knowing, all powerful god created a world in which beings suffer when he could have created a perfect world where there is no suffering, that would be evil. If such god could not create a perfect world without suffering then he is either not all powerful or all knowing. If he had the power and know-how to create a world free from suffering but chose not to, then he would be malevolent. Thus, the existence of suffering seems to be incompatible with the existence of an all-powerful, all-wise, all-good god.

I got that, I understood the premise.

I think what you are missing is that God does not desire to be "all-powerful, all-wise, all-good" all by Himself.

How about us? We have the power and wisdom to raise animals in a variety of ways. These factories where animals are kept in miserable conditions being fattened up for the slaughter. Is that evil? No doubt some think so, on the other hand we are feeding billions of people. It is very difficult to truly judge righteousness unless you are actually faced with the same issues. Just like James said, if you are a hearer of the word only you are like a man who is judging others for things that you yourself do, as though you have forgotten what your own face looks like.

Police are now able to predict when, where and who will commit a crime beforehand. Not for every crime, but for crimes that fit a well known equation like gang violence this works well. As a result you can say that we are "all-knowing" and "all-powerful" in these certain situations. Is it righteous for us to allow the crime to take place? Would it be viewed as profiling and a violation of human rights to step in beforehand?

I think we can look at many situations where we could intervene, as you are saying God should, but we don't because we respect the individual rights of people.

I have already pointed out, despite Awareness trying to short circuit this argument, that if you want to create man with a free will then you of necessity need to allow them to make bad choices, even evil choices. Hitler and Caesar Nero are examples that prove man really does have a free will.

Your claim is that God must be evil to have created a world that has evil. I feel the burden of proof is fully on you to prove such a claim. In every instance the evidence you present refers to a righteous judgement on a crime worthy of death. Your claim is not with the judgement, but with the execution of the judgement. Yet you cannot deny that Israel's ability to execute God's judgements was extremely limited by today's standards.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

And that is correct. But the fact that such a God allows it (and is therefore responsible in the ultimate analysis) does not serve to negate his existence. That God does not step in and prevent all harm to all for any and all purposes does not negate God.

That is essentially what the POE is trying to establish.

Not saying I buy the underlying premises. But they are what they are and they declare that there is no challenge to those premises. So we end out arguing against a brick wall. A wall in which certain things are presumed to be required of a God that has the attributes that are given to the God of the Bible. But it is decidedly not necessarily so.

But alas. The brick wall.

The God with the attributes state by the POE is the one that was stated as if several different gods several years ago when we started discussing Job. One person overviewed it as one particular god was requested but they got a different god. As if God is not in control of even his own attributes.

I find the standard POE definitions and presumptions to be like saying that Superman is the "man of steel" that can crush the hand of anyone that he grabs by the hand, therefore he cannot take hold of your hand and just shake it like anyone else and not harm you.

And what we end out in places like this wrestling with is not really whether there is God, but rather why he isn't behaving in the manner I want at this minute. And since he is not, do I want to like him or even believe that he exists.

Not saying that wrestling with evil, pain grief, etc., in the face of the God that is referred to as being the very definition of love is not something that we all do at times. But no matter where that ultimately takes any individual in terms of belief, it does not define, prove, define away, or disprove the existence of God.

The POE poses a logical problem without a definite solution. Thinking about it takes us into the realm of metaphysics where there is no conclusive answer either logically or empirically. It's an instructive exercise, because an honest consideration of the problem brings us face to face with the limits of rationality.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I got that, I understood the premise.

I think what you are missing is that God does not desire to be "all-powerful, all-wise, all-good" all by Himself.

I don't see where that gets us. Perhaps you can elaborate.

How about us? We have the power and wisdom to raise animals in a variety of ways. These factories where animals are kept in miserable conditions being fattened up for the slaughter. Is that evil? No doubt some think so, on the other hand we are feeding billions of people.

That's a greater good argument. It doesn't negate the evil of causing suffering to sentient beings in the first place.

I think we can look at many situations where we could intervene, as you are saying God should, but we don't because we respect the individual rights of people.

If God created everything, then he is responsible for evil in the first place to say nothing about intervention after the fact. The free will argument doesn't answer the question why God did not create all beings to be both free and totally good.

I have already pointed out, despite Awareness trying to short circuit this argument, that if you want to create man with a free will then you of necessity need to allow them to make bad choices, even evil choices. Hitler and Caesar Nero are examples that prove man really does have a free will.

If God created people perfectly they would never make bad choices even though free to do so. The Christian church claims that Jesus Christ did exactly that. So why did God create the situation that preceded the advent of Christ? A Christian answer is that God created it that way for His glory. But, looked at in human terms doesn't that seem like vanity on a cosmic scale?

Your claim is that God must be evil to have created a world that has evil. I feel the burden of proof is fully on you to prove such a claim. In every instance the evidence you present refers to a righteous judgement on a crime worthy of death. Your claim is not with the judgement, but with the execution of the judgement. Yet you cannot deny that Israel's ability to execute God's judgements was extremely limited by today's standards.

All I claim is that I haven't found a satisfying solution to the POE. Sure, Israel was limited. Why did God create that situation?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

All I claim is that I haven't found a satisfying solution to the POE. Sure, Israel was limited. Why did God create that situation?

In the sense that God created the universe that we have and therefore is the "creator" of evil, I don't know why that is.

However, I recently wondered why we had psychopaths (I teach forensics and the discussion of serial killers comes up repeatedly). According to the theory of evolution you should have "survival of the fittest". So I wondered why a psychopath serial killer would make the human race "fitter".

But, interestingly, virtually every forensic breakthrough was the result of a a psychopath. Fingerprints, DNA, Databases, etc.

As terrible as Hitler was he was the motivation to the Jews to return to Israel.

I don't think it is fair to say "God created the situation with Israel being limited". Instead what we discover is how amazing the creation is at leaving evidence behind in a crime scene. The basic premise is that "every contact leaves a trace" and regardless of how hard someone tries to defy that it seems to hold true.

That was true 4,000 years ago every bit as much as it is true now. What motivated us to dig into the creation to discover this? Criminals, crimes, psychopaths, serial killers, Hitler, etc.

So yes, it is true that God is omniscient and omnipotent, but perhaps this journey of discovery is the best way for us to also grow into full maturity.

[ZNPaaneah]

I think the problem of evil is the fact that many don't have a decent definition of righteousness.

We might think that a subversive cyber attack on our nuclear power industry by a nation that is our enemy is evil. Yet this is what we and Israel did to Iran. For one year it was quite effective, yet when you look at their nuclear program from a 10 or 15 year vantage point it was hardly even a speed bump.

What Stuxnet really did accomplish was to motivate Iran to get involved with cyber warfare. Their attack on Aramco and their attack on the US banks was evidence that "you reap what you sow".

The real irony is that this very sophisticated Stuxnet worm is now in the hands of the Russians. Are they using this to hack the democrats? Is this the source of the threatened data dump on Hillary Clinton for later this week? Is Russia's involvement in our election a payback to Hillary Clinton?

According to Paul the fact that we "reap what we sow" is evidence that God is righteous, not evil. Egypt reaped what they sowed. The tribes in Canaan reaped what they sowed. The Amalekites reaped what they sowed. In every case the judgement that came down was a response to something they themselves had sown, and it was in kind. If you kill women, children, the elderly and the infirm you cannot cry that it is unrighteous that your judgement includes the death of the women, children, elderly and infirm. You are reaping what you sowed.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Good well thought out post OBW.

I'm not sure if I understand this last line. I take it to mean that that is the purpose of the POE.

The OP of this thread is by Unsure. I'm not sure if that was his intention.

But I don't think that was the original intention of the POE. It's is said that Epicurus introduced the POE. In fact it's called the Epicurean paradox. That takes the POE back around 2300 years ; around the time the book of Job was written. Seems the problem of evil bubbled up to the public consciousness simultaneously around that time ; in both Jewish and pagan thinking.

Epicurus couldn't solve the paradox, but the book of Job sure did. That book was honest : God is behind it. That means God exists. And you may be pissed at God for evil, but what are you gonna do about it? Maybe God needs forgiveness too.

My reference to the purpose of the POE was not about anyone in this forum, past or present. It was about those who set it up to consider. They may not have been thinking about the God of the Bible originally. But it has been taken and applied specifically to God.

I think that zeek has talked both sides of the issue somewhat. Not in a flip-flop kind of way, or as a matter of equivocation. But in thinking it through from different perspectives.

And the one that he didn't seem to like (mostly because it rejected some of the base rules) I don't have a problem with.

But I think that the path that is so often rejected by those who study the POE is the one I take. The premises are flawed. I understand that there are theologians that effectively say exactly what they are asserting in the POE. But a theologian, or a few, or even one of the biggies does not simply make the premise unassailable. Just sound when dealing with those who agree with those theologians.

I mean, the mind that thinks God cannot decide how to allocate and exert his attributes has limited the omnipotence of God. Seems contradictory. A conundrum that cannot be solved.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I mean, the mind that thinks God cannot decide how to allocate and exert his attributes has limited the omnipotence of God. Seems contradictory. A conundrum that cannot be solved.

Not only omnipotence, but also omniscience. We are not omniscient, yet we are arguing as though we are when we deduce that God could have chosen a different path that would have been better.

I am reminded of God's word in Job -- "where were you when I laid the foundation of the Earth".

Being omniscient and omnipotent means that God can make a man. He knows how to lay the foundation of a man.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

My reference to the purpose of the POE was not about anyone in this forum, past or present. It was about those who set it up to consider. They may not have been thinking about the God of the Bible originally. But it has been taken and applied specifically to God.

I think that zeek has talked both sides of the issue somewhat. Not in a flip-flop kind of way, or as a matter of equivocation. But in thinking it through from different perspectives.

And the one that he didn't seem to like (mostly because it rejected some of the base rules) I don't have a problem with.

But I think that the path that is so often rejected by those who study the POE is the one I take. The premises are flawed. I understand that there are theologians that effectively say exactly what they are asserting in the POE. But a theologian, or a few, or even one of the biggies does not simply make the premise unassailable. Just sound when dealing with those who agree with those theologians.

I mean, the mind that thinks God cannot decide how to allocate and exert his attributes has limited the omnipotence of God. Seems contradictory. A conundrum that cannot be solved.

The omni - god of western monotheism brings us to the paradox of the aseity (from Latin a "from" and se "self", plus -ity) which refers to the property by which a being exists in and of itself, from itself, or exists as so-and-such of and from itself. It is in precisely this way that we are not like God. And yet we delude ourselves into believing that we are to avoid the sense of dependence on that which is greater than ourselves.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

In the sense that God created the universe that we have and therefore is the "creator" of evil, I don't know why that is.

However, I recently wondered why we had psychopaths (I teach forensics and the discussion of serial killers comes up repeatedly). According to the theory of evolution you should have "survival of the fittest". So I wondered why a psychopath serial killer would make the human race "fitter".

Natural selection doesn't have a goal of making a species "fitter". Genes mutate in a variety of ways some of which result in the survival of organisms. Psychopaths do survive and procreate passing on the psychopathic genotype. It's as simple as that.

But, interestingly, virtually every forensic breakthrough was the result of a a psychopath. Fingerprints, DNA, Databases, etc. As terrible as Hitler was he was the motivation to the Jews to return to Israel.

That evil results in good is not sufficient justification as even Paul acknowledged.

I don't think it is fair to say "God created the situation with Israel being limited".

I don't see why not. Genesis 1 and 2 show God setting up the variables of the experiment which led by many a twist and turn to Israel and the rest of the barbaric civilizations. If he was omnipotent and omniscient he could have designed things an infinite number of other ways including ones where humans and animals did not kill and eat and torture each other. God has been imagined as a monster in world mythology not without good reasons. The so-called early gnostic Christians rejected the Old Testament creator god as the supreme deity for this reason.

Instead what we discover is how amazing the creation is at leaving evidence behind in a crime scene. The basic premise is that "every contact leaves a trace" and regardless of how hard someone tries to defy that it seems to hold true. That was true 4,000 years ago every bit as much as it is true now. What motivated us to dig into the creation to discover this? Criminals, crimes, psychopaths, serial killers, Hitler, etc.

That is cool. But, watch out for unintended consequences which bend the straight arrow of progress. "Better living through chemistry" is destroying the environment we live in.

So yes, it is true that God is omniscient and omnipotent, but perhaps this journey of discovery is the best way for us to also grow into full maturity.

And reach maturity only to die? Or, perhaps God is the ultimate good but not all powerful. What then? We'd have a metaphysical dualism. The New Testament conception of God suggests dualism in it's vision of the war between god and devil. While Paul makes monotheistic statements, he also entertains notions of world dominating devil. Why would an omniscient, omnipotent, omni-benevolent god create and allow to exist an evil competitor? The answer that comes to me is that he did it for his glory. Doesn't that make us merely pawns in God's cosmic chess game? And, if so, how can that be all-benevolent?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

"Better living through chemistry" is destroying the environment we live in.

And "better living through pharmaceuticals" is destroying the minds of those who live in it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Natural selection doesn't have a goal of making a species "fitter". Genes mutate in a variety of ways some of which result in the survival of organisms. Psychopaths do survive and procreate passing on the psychopathic genotype. It's as simple as that.

According to the theory they should not survive unless they are fitter. It is supposed to be "survival of the fittest". Sure, the process of weeding out the least fit can take hundreds, even thousands of years, but according to the scientists we have had homo sapiens around for 100,000 years or more.

Originally Posted by zeek

That evil results in good is not sufficient justification as even Paul acknowledged.

Evil will be judged for eternity. So, those responsible for exterminating 6 million during WWII cannot claim that they should get credit for Israel being reformed.

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't see why not. Genesis 1 and 2 show God setting up the variables of the experiment which led by many a twist and turn to Israel and the rest of the barbaric civilizations. If he was omnipotent and omniscient he could have designed things an infinite number of other ways including ones where humans and animals did not kill and eat and torture each other. God has been imagined as a monster in world mythology not without good reasons. The so-called early gnostic Christians rejected the Old Testament creator god as the supreme deity for this reason.

But that is not the same as saying that "God could have created a world without evil and could have achieved His purpose of getting a man in His image and likeness without evil". That is your claim. But that claim presupposes that you are omniscient, when in fact you aren't. Second, it supposes that God is not omniscient, because you are saying that you have a better way than God. Because unless your way is a "better way" your entire argument collapses.

Originally Posted by zeek

That is cool. But, watch out for unintended consequences which bend the straight arrow of progress. "Better living through chemistry" is destroying the environment we live in.

This is the problem with our health care system. It is completely based on a profit motive. So, if you have a cure that is not going to make anyone any money (say stop an unhealthy practice like eating processed sugar) there is little or no motivation to do anything about it. As a result we are very slow to do what is right when there is no profit in it. This is why we have been warned so much about the bogus danger of not getting enough protein or calcium from a vegetarian diet. The dairy and meat industry have a huge profit motive to keep us on a path, even if it is destructive, unhealthy and more expensive.

Originally Posted by zeek

And reach maturity only to die?

Perhaps you have never heard the good news, Jesus rose from the dead. We can receive eternal life by believing and receiving Him.

Originally Posted by zeek

Or, perhaps God is the ultimate good but not all powerful. What then?

Ever notice how a question mark looks like a serpent?

Originally Posted by zeek

We'd have a metaphysical dualism. The New Testament conception of God suggests dualism in it's vision of the war between god and devil. While Paul makes monotheistic statements, he also entertains notions of world dominating devil. Why would an omniscient, omnipotent, omni-benevolent god create and allow to exist an evil competitor? The answer that comes to me is that he did it for his glory. Doesn't that make us merely pawns in God's cosmic chess game? And, if so, how can that be all-benevolent?

I think the key term there is "competitor". You cannot choose God if there is no choice. If you cannot choose God you cannot love God.

You think your conception of a world without evil is better than the world that God created, and yet your world would not have love. It would not have the cross of Christ. It would not have sacrifice or struggle or victory. There would be nothing to overcome.

You ask this question -- "Why couldn't God create a world without evil?" and yet you don't consider why.

In your conception we would have an omnipotent God who rules and reigns over evil, so that there is no evil. But we would not have man who could be His counterpart, who also rules and reigns over evil. We would have no inheritance in this "better world". We never paid any price, so we own nothing and have no part to play, no inheritance, nothing.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

My reference to the purpose of the POE was not about anyone in this forum, past or present. It was about those who set it up to consider. They may not have been thinking about the God of the Bible originally. But it has been taken and applied specifically to God.

I think that zeek has talked both sides of the issue somewhat. Not in a flip-flop kind of way, or as a matter of equivocation. But in thinking it through from different perspectives.

And the one that he didn't seem to like (mostly because it rejected some of the base rules) I don't have a problem with.

But I think that the path that is so often rejected by those who study the POE is the one I take. The premises are flawed. I understand that there are theologians that effectively say exactly what they are asserting in the POE. But a theologian, or a few, or even one of the biggies does not simply make the premise unassailable. Just sound when dealing with those who agree with those theologians.

I mean, the mind that thinks God cannot decide how to allocate and exert his attributes has limited the omnipotence of God. Seems contradictory. A conundrum that cannot be solved.

Well amen to that OBW. Thanks for clarifying.

We've been digging into the POE for a long time now, and still haven't solved the paradox. ZNP asked for a definition (didn't bother to give one, just asked) but even that is difficult. In short, not just the POE a mystery, but so is evil in and of itself.

As you know, I lost a son. That, to me, was evil. And even tho I experienced that colossal lose, it's still a mystery to me.

I mentioned that, maybe God needs to be forgiven. I said that because, after much anger with God, I had to forgive Him.

Evil such as I experienced, in regards God, can take believers either way ; deeper into God, or away from God, to maybe even atheism.

This area I live in holds much history for me. Recently me and a couple of my cousins (one by marriage) went to dig around in a house that was central when we were growing up. It was my aunt and uncle's house.

They lost their only daughter, my 1st cousin, and wife of the one digging around with us. Gosh, the memories!

As a result of the loss I saw my aunt and uncle go from committed Southern Baptist Christians, to dispensing with God all together. In short, my uncle was running around, with his wife trying to kill him several times, literally, until he managed to move a girlfriend in with them. Then, my aunt turned gay. To this day, my family believes that the two women, killed my uncle. So my uncle died and eventually my aunt died, and the reason we're digging around in this house is because her lover, who got the house, recently died.

My point is, I guess, that experiencing evil can turn us either way, even if we haven't ever actually considered the paradox of the "problem of evil." We see evil, but when it hits us, that's when we really begin to question.

What I'm trying to say is, it is actual evil that's the real problem ; the paradox wouldn't exist without it ; then, after evil, we might consider the paradox of the POE. And while the POE can turn us from God the real problem is not the POE, but actual evil ; and when faced with it, why God allows it ; that introduces us to the POE, because we can't explain why a god would allow it.

So ... it is evil that brings us to the POE. And so far no one has been able to solve the problem, even minds greater than ours, down thru the ages.

To end, we're clearly stuck with evil, and if we're honest, we're stuck with the POE too. I guess the question for each of us is : are we also stuck with God, regardless of them both?

The POE is a crying out.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well amen to that OBW. Thanks for clarifying.

We've been digging into the POE for a long time now, and still haven't solved the paradox. ZNP asked for a definition (didn't bother to give one, just asked) but even that is difficult. In short, not just the POE a mystery, but so is evil in and of itself.

As you know, I lost a son. That, to me, was evil. And even tho I experienced that colossal lose, it's still a mystery to me.

I lost my son, July 2014, and I feel he is speaking unto me to "carry up my bones from here". Because we believe in a God of resurrection and we are both looking to a better kingdom.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I lost my son, July 2014, and I feel he is speaking unto me to "carry up my bones from here". Because we believe in a God of resurrection and we are both looking to a better kingdom.

I was given that answer, by those trying to comfort me ... and many others. None of them stopped the pain of grief.

It is some comfort tho, that Brian is "up there."

Not all Christian sects believe we go to heaven. Some believe we die when we die, until the resurrection.

I would, however, like to hear your take on how the resurrection solves the POE.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

According to the theory they should not survive unless they are fitter. It is supposed to be "survival of the fittest". Sure, the process of weeding out the least fit can take hundreds, even thousands of years, but according to the scientists we have had homo sapiens around for 100,000 years or more.

You wondered "why a psychopath serial killer would make the human race fitter." I don't think evolution works that way. I don't see that there is a goal to make the race "fitter. "Fitness" occurs when an organism survives long enough to pass on its genes. The phrase "survival of the fittest" would be better expressed as survival of the best fitted. Sadly, given the human social environment, it isn't hard to imagine instances where a psychopath would be better fitted to pass on genes than an individual saddled with a conscience.

But that is not the same as saying that "God could have created a world without evil and could have achieved His purpose of getting a man in His image and likeness without evil". That is your claim. But that claim presupposes that you are omniscient, when in fact you aren't.

Conceptualizing the POE doesn't require omniscience. The conclusion follows from the terms in the premises. If an all-good god requires evil to achieve a purpose, than he requires something outside himself and is thus shown to be less than omnipotent. An omnipotent god would require nothing but his own power to achieve any end he chooses. I don't have to be omniscient and know how god would do it. All I need to know is what the terms of the POE mean.

Second, it supposes that God is not omniscient, because you are saying that you have a better way than God. Because unless your way is a "better way" your entire argument collapses.

Not at all. I have never claimed that I know a better way. The POE hinges on the absolute incompatibility of good and evil. Such incompatibility is implied in the claim of the holiness of God. Why would a holy, perfect, righteous being allow evil? He wouldn't unless perhaps he lacked the strength to oppose it, in which case he would not be omnipotent. Or, perhaps he could not figure out a way to combat it in which case he would lack omniscience. I am certainly not suggesting that I can do any of these things. I'm only trying to understand what follows from the notion of an omniscient, omnipotent, omni-benevolent being like God is supposed to be.

This is the problem with our health care system. It is completely based on a profit motive. So, if you have a cure that is not going to make anyone any money (say stop an unhealthy practice like eating processed sugar) there is little or no motivation to do anything about it. As a result we are very slow to do what is right when there is no profit in it. This is why we have been warned so much about the bogus danger of not getting enough protein or calcium from a vegetarian diet. The dairy and meat industry have a huge profit motive to keep us on a path, even if it is destructive, unhealthy and more expensive.

That's why a purely capitalist utopia isn't possible.

Perhaps you have never heard the good news, Jesus rose from the dead. We can receive eternal life by believing and receiving Him.

How do you reconcile that claim with the fact that Christians and non-Christians have continued to die for over 20 centuries since the claim was made?

Ever notice how a question mark looks like a serpent?

And yet a question mark is used in Genesis 3:9 when God asks Adam "Where are you? So, questioning is a godly activity.

You think your conception of a world without evil is better than the world that God created, and yet your world would not have love. It would not have the cross of Christ. It would not have sacrifice or struggle or victory. There would be nothing to overcome. You ask this question -- "Why couldn't God create a world without evil?" and yet you don't consider why.
In your conception we would have an omnipotent God who rules and reigns over evil, so that there is no evil. But we would not have man who could be His counterpart, who also rules and reigns over evil. We would have no inheritance in this "better world". We never paid any price, so we own nothing and have no part to play, no inheritance, nothing.

It's actually quite difficult if not impossible for a finite mind like mine to conceive a world without evil. It wouldn't be a problem for an omniscient god though. As for a man who is free and without sin, every Christian believes that's possible because it's already been demonstrated in the person of Jesus Christ. Therefore, free will doesn't necessitate evil, according to the New Testament.

[awareness]

This is an extremely interesting conversation. For what it's worth, I'm enjoying it immensely.

But please allow me to be frank. Please allow me to quote Karl Jaspers :

"a proved God would be no God but merely a thing in the world."

Evil exists because God wants it to exist. Deal with it. You'll never understand it.

Either that, or there is no God, and all is random ; not just us, our evolution and biology, even evil.

And btw, I've seen a lot of serpents in my life, and caught many, but have never seen a serpent that looked like a question mark. In short, Witness Lee was full of it, er ah sheeeeit. Or maybe he was "passing gas," to quote that wannabe minister of the age.

But good news : evil hurricane Matthew will be a boon for gas stations and the oil companies that sell gas. Plus their damaged rigs will up the price at the pumps. Ain't evil good? Yea evil! More evil please. "Please, can I have another."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

But good news : evil hurricane Matthew will be a boon for gas stations and the oil companies that sell gas. Plus their damaged rigs will up the price at the pumps. Ain't evil good? Yea evil! More evil please. "Please, can I have another."

Can I ask what do you consider is not evil?

Since weather is evil, isn't the Weather Channel also evil? Is there some kind of weather that is not evil? Remember too much sunshine is also a draught.

Is growing old evil? How about eating sweets? How about houses that need new roofs? What about cars that need oil changes? How about clothes that go out of style? How about Asian Stink Bugs everywhere I look?

So many POE's in life!

[OBW]

Your moment of levity, brought to you by General Dementia, makers of generally demented light bulbs. Dim lights for dim wits.

"The problem with evil is that it is . . . uh . . . well . . . uh. . . you know . . . uh . . . evil!"

Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion.

(couldn't resist — I guess the Devil made me do it)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Can I ask what do you consider is not evil?

Since weather is evil, isn't the Weather Channel also evil? Is there some kind of weather that is not evil? Remember too much sunshine is also a draught.

Is growing old evil? How about eating sweets? How about houses that need new roofs? What about cars that need oil changes? How about clothes that go out of style? How about Asian Stink Bugs everywhere I look?

So many POE's in life!

Yes there is. There's little POE's and big ones. Stink bugs are evil to the nose, if you squish them. Why did God create them, and save them in the flood? Flies too? Why? And mosquitoes? To spread Zika to the unborn? And Zika? Why? Why did he create bacteria, and viruses? That just seems mean. And why cancer? Can't God prevent it, or at least reveal a cure to us? I take His inaction as an indicator of His indifference to suffering and humanity. How can He be so callous?

But I think when we think of the POE we think of the big ones, like the holocaust, and such, or earthquakes, that kill hundreds of thousands of innocents. (Or are we all guilty and deserve it?)

We know that God is God and can do it ; can do anything. So He's falling short on one or more omni's. Seems He's lacking in love. That would mean John made a mistake and got it wrong : God is not love.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes there is. There's little POE's and big ones. Stink bugs are evil to the nose, if you squish them. Why did God create them, and save them in the flood? Flies too? Why? And mosquitoes? To spread Zika to the unborn? And Zika? Why? Why did he create bacteria, and viruses? That just seems mean. And why cancer? Can't God prevent it, or at least reveal a cure to us? I take His inaction as an indicator of His indifference to suffering and humanity. How can He be so callous?

But I think when we think of the POE we think of the big ones, like the holocaust, and such, or earthquakes, that kill hundreds of thousands of innocents. (Or are we all guilty and deserve it?)

We know that God is God and can do it ; can do anything. So He's falling short on one or more omni's. Seems He's lacking in love. That would mean John made a mistake and got it wrong : God is not love.

He gave His only begotten Son to be brutally murdered and then hung naked on a cross. How much more does He have to do in order to prove His love?

I'd much rather live with stink bugs and all the other POE's knowing that the most serious problem of all -- my debt to the righteous law -- has been paid in full.

But in order to know this great love, we need faith -- that's that other nasty little problem we have discussed here in these parts -- real faith that apprehends the unseen things promised to us by God.

The POE is really nothing more than a centuries old gripe session -- bunch of grumpy old men sitting around shooting the breeze about how things should have been.

I guess all this sub-forum really needs is a running bar tab picked up by our friendly neighborhood moderator.

And with that, I'll give the Mike back to General Dementia who offered to buy the next round.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

He gave His only begotten Son to be brutally murdered and then hung naked on a cross. How much more does He have to do in order to prove His love?

I'd much rather live with stink bugs and all the other POE's knowing that the most serious problem of all -- my debt to the righteous law -- has been paid in full.

But in order to know this great love, we need faith -- that's that other nasty little problem we have discussed here in these parts -- real faith that apprehends the unseen things promised to us by God.

The POE is really nothing more than a centuries old gripe session -- bunch of grumpy old men sitting around shooting the breeze about how things should have been.

I guess all this sub-forum really needs is a running bar tab picked up by our friendly neighborhood moderator.

And with that, I'll give the Mike back to General Dementia who offered to buy the next round.

My, my, conders never wease. It must be a serendipity of some sort, else I can't explain how my little POE and big POE post produced such a miracle of a synchronicity of Ohio's and zeek's minds concerning my post. Miracles of miracles, that such different minds can come to agreement (in disagreement with me.). Moreover, after hammering on my post, that it derailed this POE thread, zeek came around to understanding and using my little and big POE. That's a second miracle, cuz zeek just do that sort of thing ; of agreeing with me. Still he thought I corrupted his mind.

So the drinks are on the house. Put it on Untohim's tab. And cut OBW off. He's had enough, seems.

But back to bro Ohio's post. Yes, the east coast is plagued with sink bugs in Biblical proportions. It must be God's judgment cuz bro Ohio is a sinner.

But wait. As Ohio pointed out, the cross of Jesus let all us sinners off the hook. And to qualify isn't hard at all. We don't even have to strain and struggle to keep the law. All we have to do is believe. And the greater the sins the more this grace works.

And maybe, bro Ohio has linked us to how the resurrection of Jesus relates to the POE ; that is, because of the cross evil has no meaning at all. It's like evil doesn't even exist.

And the POE is more than a, "centuries old gripe session -- bunch of grumpy old men sitting around shooting the breeze about how things should have been."

Not unless some of the early church fathers were just a bunch of grumpy old men :


"Christian theologists, in 2nd-century CE, attempted to reconcile the problem of evil with an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God, by denying that evil exists. Among these theologians, Clement of Alexandria offered several theodicies, of which one was called "privation theory of evil" which was adopted thereafter. The other is a more modern version of "deny evil", suggested by Christian Science, wherein the perception of evil is described as a form of illusion.
The early version of "deny evil" is called the "privation theory of evil", so named because it described evil as a form of "lack, loss or privation". One of the earliest proponents of this theory was the 2nd-century Clement of Alexandria, who according to Joseph Kelly, stated that "since God is completely good, he could not have created evil; but if God did not create evil, then it cannot exist". Evil, according to Clement, does not exist as a positive, but exists as a negative or as a "lack of good"."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proble...ny_evil_exists

So ... SO! ... some of the early church fathers were very smart. Cuz, if there's no evil there's no POE. Problem solved ; and God remains in good standing. How's that for a bunch of grumpy old men?

Here's a toast : To no evil. Bottoms up.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

So the drinks are on the house. Put it on Untohim's tab. And cut OBW off. He's had enough, seems.

But back to bro Ohio's post. Yes, the east coast is plagued with stink bugs in Biblical proportions. It must be God's judgment cuz bro Ohio is a sinner.

And maybe, bro Ohio has linked us to how the resurrection of Jesus relates to the POE ; that is, because of the cross evil has no meaning at all. It's like evil doesn't even exist.

And the POE is more than a, "centuries old gripe session -- bunch of grumpy old men sitting around shooting the breeze about how things should have been."

Here's a toast : To no evil. Bottoms up.

Very funny bro.

Hey, a few more grunts and groans and we can squeeze out 500 POE posts.

Then we'll all celebrate. Shelter in place. The rains are coming.

Cheer up bro, the time is coming when there will be no more tears, and I guess no more evil. And no more stink bugs!

[ZNPaaneah]

"Our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.

It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." (A.L.)

[Evangelical]

Now I have some time to participate, I will start by stating the absolute truth and then follow up with discussion/verification of my claims.

My claims are thus:

1. God is Good.
2. God created good and evil.
3. God's Goodness transcends good and evil

In three simple steps I have answered the question raised by the original poster about God and the problem of evil.

Discussion/Verification:

1. God is Good.

Proof by simple logic - if God created good and evil, then God cannot be good or evil because the Creator must self-exist apart from that which He created. Therefore God Himself must be a third thing (neither good nor evil) which we shall call Goodness. In other words, because God only created good in Genesis chapter 1, prior to that, there was only Goodness. God's creation of good and evil does not mean that God Himself is or becomes good or evil.

Jesus said:

Mark 10:18 ""Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.".

Did Jesus mean that there are no good people except God? Of course not, because Jesus talks about good men and evil men, e.g.:

Matt 12:35 "A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him."

What this means is that people can be good or evil (Matt 12:35), but God can only ever be Good (Mark 10:18).

Establishing that God is Good is important for understanding points 2. and 3.


2. God created good and evil.

Isaiah 45:7 clearly says God created both good and evil. Now Christians try to explain this away to say that evil means "bad things that happen are what God "allows"", for to imply that God actually created evil is to say that God is evil, in their eyes.

But ask any Jew - it means what it says. God actually created good and evil, but this no way implies that God Himself is evil. We have already stated in point 1. that God is Good. So God is not good and God is not evil and God is not "good and evil" - God is Good.

Christianity and other ancient religions such as Mithraism, Zoroastrianism view the world as a conflict between good and evil. Much of the discussion on this thread so far has been on this matter. Christians usually say God is good and humanists usually say God is evil. Actually the truth is probably that God is neither good nor evil. When we say God is good or God is evil, it shows we don't understand God at all. Why? Because God, by definition, is bigger than our concept of good and evil. God is Good, and can do whatever He purposes.

This Jewish understanding of God permeates the New Testament as well, consider Paul's words:

Romans 9:20 "But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”

3. God's Goodness transcends good and evil

God transcending good and evil means God is not affected by good and evil. Suppose 1 billion people do really good things, God is still Good. Suppose 1 billion people do really bad things, God is still Good. We could say that God's Goodness transcends "good and evil".

Remember the story of Job - this story is more than just a story about suffering or a test of faith. Job and his friends had much reasoning about good and evil. But God wanted to show Job that He is God - God showed Job that He is Good. Despite all the good things and bad things that happened to Job, God showed Job that He is still Good. The revelation of God that Job had was:

Job 42:2 "“I know that you can do all things;
no purpose of yours can be thwarted."

In summary, the Jewish mind does not think of the world as a battle between good and evil, but rather one of opportunity of reward. God in His Goodness has Good intent towards His creation, wishing them to partake of His Goodness through obedience according to His Good pleasure and purpose. The purpose of God in creating evil was so that mankind would appreciate His Goodness and just rewards.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Now I have some time to participate, I will start by stating the absolute truth and then follow up with discussion/verification of my claims.

My claims are thus:

1. God is Good.
2. God created good and evil.
3. God's Goodness transcends good and evil

In three simple steps I have answered the question raised by the original poster about God and the problem of evil.

Discussion/Verification:

1. God is Good.

Proof by simple logic - if God created good and evil, then God cannot be good or evil because the Creator must self-exist apart from that which He created. Therefore God Himself must be a third thing (neither good nor evil) which we shall call Goodness. In other words, because God only created good in Genesis chapter 1, prior to that, there was only Goodness. God's creation of good and evil does not mean that God Himself is or becomes good or evil.

Jesus said:

Mark 10:18 ""Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.".

Did Jesus mean that there are no good people except God? Of course not, because Jesus talks about good men and evil men, e.g.:

Matt 12:35 "A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him."

What this means is that people can be good or evil (Matt 12:35), but God can only ever be Good (Mark 10:18).

Establishing that God is Good is important for understanding points 2. and 3.

You're equivocating. How can God not be good or evil and yet be goodness? That's contradictory on the face.

2. God created good and evil.

Isaiah 45:7 clearly says God created both good and evil. Now Christians try to explain this away to say that evil means "bad things that happen are what God "allows"", for to imply that God actually created evil is to say that God is evil, in their eyes.

But ask any Jew - it means what it says. God actually created good and evil, but this no way implies that God Himself is evil. We have already stated in point 1. that God is Good. So God is not good and God is not evil and God is not "good and evil" - God is Good.

Again, this is contradictory. What's the difference between good and Good? What does the change in the upper or lower case g signify?

Christianity and other ancient religions such as Mithraism, Zoroastrianism view the world as a conflict between good and evil. Much of the discussion on this thread so far has been on this matter. Christians usually say God is good and humanists usually say God is evil. Actually the truth is probably that God is neither good nor evil. When we say God is good or God is evil, it shows we don't understand God at all. Why? Because God, by definition, is bigger than our concept of good and evil. God is Good, and can do whatever He purposes.

You keep repeating the same thing without explaining the difference between good and Good.

This Jewish understanding of God permeates the New Testament as well, consider Paul's words:

Romans 9:20 "But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”

Prohibiting questions is no answer.

3. God's Goodness transcends good and evil

So why didn't God create mankind Good instead of good and evil? If he is omnipotent he could have.

God transcending good and evil means God is not affected by good and evil. Suppose 1 billion people do really good things, God is still Good. Suppose 1 billion people do really bad things, God is still Good. We could say that God's Goodness transcends "good and evil".

The POE asks why an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good God would do it that way. It seems like it would contradict his nature.

Remember the story of Job - this story is more than just a story about suffering or a test of faith. Job and his friends had much reasoning about good and evil. But God wanted to show Job that He is God - God showed Job that He is Good. Despite all the good things and bad things that happened to Job, God showed Job that He is still Good. The revelation of God that Job had was:

Job 42:2 "“I know that you can do all things;
no purpose of yours can be thwarted."

God didn't show him that he was perfectly good. He showed him he was powerful and could do what ever he wanted like a tyrant. What's good about that?

In summary, the Jewish mind does not think of the world as a battle between good and evil, but rather one of opportunity of reward. God in His Goodness has Good intent towards His creation, wishing them to partake of His Goodness through obedience according to His Good pleasure and purpose. The purpose of God in creating evil was so that mankind would appreciate His Goodness and just rewards.

You're talking in circles. You haven't shown why a perfectly good all powerful and knowing god wouldn't create a perfect universe.

Maybe you're on to something, but if so, you have more work to do.

Maybe to be good with a capital g means to be divine and only god can absolutely be that;so, to exist as an entity beside is to be less than absolutely good and therefore, relatively evil. So God cannot create a being perfectly like himself. Of course, that would make God less than absolutely omnipotent. However, it seems to be a logical necessity since God if God is defined as unique. However, if that were the case, it seems like people would be nearly perfect and not commit the vast evils that they do. It's a real mystery. From a purely logical standpoint it follows that an omniscient, omnipotent, omni-benevolent god doesn't exist. Why do we suppose it's otherwise?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

"Our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.

It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." (A.L.)

I don't see how this relates to the POE.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't see how this relates to the POE.

What you have defined as the POE I see as a struggle to bring in the Kingdom.

I don't know why it is this way, but the only way you can be right is if you are omniscient. When God asked Job if he knew how He laid the foundation of the Earth my response is to trust that God knows how to lay the foundation of a man. You and Awareness on the other hand are like back seat drivers, even though you don't know how he laid the foundation of the earth. So the Lord's question "who is this that darkens counsel without knowledge" is appropriate.

In my opinion Abraham Lincoln described this struggle best. We are dedicated to an unfinished work, a work that has been hallowed by all those who went before.