The Problem of Evil

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

I know. I don't want to hurt your ears. It's a kindness.

Thanks. Between your clubbing and zeek's crowing it gets painful.

[Cal]

Trusting God in Suffering

https://drive.google.com/open?id=10y...k6vJQYR67QCvSC

"...the men of the world do not comprehend these truths..."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You get too caught up in semantics and tend to miss someone's overall meaning.

Again, think of it like a woman. A beautiful woman is not a evil thing. But how we "appreciate" her might be evil. The same with knowledge of good and evil. Do you think when God created woman he created an evil temptation?

Without the tree of knowledge of good and evil, we still know good and evil to some degree, so it's not a black and white thing. The test in the garden was about how we approach the knowledge, how we sought to acquire it, and what we intended to do with it--not the knowledge itself. Just like problem of a woman is not in herself, but in our approach to her.

For example, science gives us insights into the wisdom of God. Replacing God with science, that is evil. God created the universe and it is created according to various principles that we can dig out, that is commended in the Bible.

So if you want to liken the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to the scientific process, that is fine, that is what I did.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's the POE in a nutshell. God abandoned Jesus, and Job, and also abandons the problem of evil.

Baloney. You never read to the end of the book of Job or to the end of the gospels.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You get too caught up in semantics and tend to miss someone's overall meaning.

Again, think of it like a woman. A beautiful woman is not a evil thing. But how we "appreciate" her might be evil. The same with knowledge of good and evil. Do you think when God created woman he created an evil temptation?

Without the tree of knowledge of good and evil, we still know good and evil to some degree, so it's not a black and white thing. The test in the garden was about how we approach the knowledge, how we sought to acquire it, and what we intended to do with it--not the knowledge itself. Just like problem of a woman is not in herself, but in our approach to her.

How do you explain the evil thoughts if God didn't create that? The problem of evil is that God has created the entire universe, He is Lord of all. All things came into being through Him. So then, where did "evil" come from? If God is light and there is no darkness in Him at all, where did that evil thought come from?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Baloney. You never read to the end of the book of Job or to the end of the gospels.

But brother, when it comes to the problem of evil, that's the way that it is. As Igzy likes to say, "it's the case." ... well unless if there's another convincing answer to the POE ... one that actually stops it, and puts an end to it ; like we did with Polio ; not just an abstract mind puzzle.

And don't tell me it will be settled in some indeterminable future. Why not now? Is God toying with us? springing pop-quizzes on us ... on subjects never covered?

Oh no! There I go wringing my hands again. But really, isn't it kind of evil to keep everyone waiting -- torturing us slowly over time -- while evil runs rampant among us ... when if He's God as most of us understand what a God would have to be, He could stop it???

And yes, this pisses me off. But maybe I'm among the few among us that's hypersensitive to suffering, of my fellow men, women, and children ... my neighbors that I love ... that God should love too ... if He's sensitive at all???

The God I love is sensitive. God must be suffering limitations I know nothing of. But that doesn't make sense either. What can limit God?

I'm just puzzled. This POE is a puzzle, that can't be solved without injuring God.

I don't want to injure God. But that doesn't remove the problem of evil, in life or my head.

The POE is unavoidable. We've been dealing with it since before Adam ate the forbidden fruit. The POE doesn't care if we're puzzled. It's as silent about it as God is.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

How do you explain the evil thoughts if God didn't create that? The problem of evil is that God has created the entire universe, He is Lord of all. All things came into being through Him. So then, where did "evil" come from? If God is light and there is no darkness in Him at all, where did that evil thought come from?

When scripture says, "All things came into being through Him," it was referring to all created things, not the things these created beings do with their free will.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

When scripture says, "All things came into being through Him," it was referring to all created things, not the things these created beings do with their free will.

God created those things that exercised their free will and He is called Lord of all for a reason.

Consider the mortgage meltdown where 8 million people lost their jobs and 6 million lost their homes. Jesus is Lord over that.

In your interpretation God simply says "not my problem", "I didn't do it". But my question is "who is responsible for this?" Not, who did it?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

But brother, when it comes to the problem of evil, that's the way that it is. As Igzy likes to say, "it's the case." ... well unless if there's another convincing answer to the POE ... one that actually stops it, and puts an end to it ; like we did with Polio ; not just an abstract mind puzzle.

Death

Originally Posted by awareness

And don't tell me it will be settled in some indeterminable future. Why not now? Is God toying with us? springing pop-quizzes on us ... on subjects never covered?

Nope. We are the ones toying with God.

Originally Posted by awareness

Oh no! There I go wringing my hands again. But really, isn't it kind of evil to keep everyone waiting -- torturing us slowly over time -- while evil runs rampant among us ... when if He's God as most of us understand what a God would have to be, He could stop it???

We chose this path because we wanted to be like God, knowing good and evil. Well, that is what is happening, we are getting what we wanted.

Originally Posted by awareness

And yes, this pisses me off. But maybe I'm among the few among us that's hypersensitive to suffering, of my fellow men, women, and children ... my neighbors that I love ... that God should love too ... if He's sensitive at all???

Much more sensitive than you. How much suffering can you tolerate seeing? 1 day? 1 week? 1 month? In the scale of eternity what is your lifetime, 1 hour?

Originally Posted by awareness

The God I love is sensitive. God must be suffering limitations I know nothing of. But that doesn't make sense either. What can limit God?

I'm just puzzled. This POE is a puzzle, that can't be solved without injuring God.

Of course it can, read my posts.

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't want to injure God. But that doesn't remove the problem of evil, in life or my head.

The POE is unavoidable. We've been dealing with it since before Adam ate the forbidden fruit. The POE doesn't care if we're puzzled. It's as silent about it as God is.

God is not silent about it. Everything we need to know is written in black and white in the Bible. The record in Genesis alone is sufficient. Do you even read anyone's posts?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

God created those things that exercised their free will and He is called Lord of all for a reason.

Consider the mortgage meltdown where 8 million people lost their jobs and 6 million lost their homes. Jesus is Lord over that.

In your interpretation God simply says "not my problem", "I didn't do it". But my question is "who is responsible for this?" Not, who did it?

You have strange ideas here, almost like awareness.

Shall we then put God in prison for the crimes people commit?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You have strange ideas here, almost like awareness.

Shall we then put God in prison for the crimes people commit?

Idea is quite simple -- "Jesus is Lord".

For example, I have two dogs, a black lab that weighs about 80 lbs and a Jack Russell Terrier that weighs 13 lbs. Suppose I feed both dogs good food, each in their own dish, and adequate to keep them healthy, yet the Lab steals the little dogs food. As a result the little dog starves to death and dies. Whose fault? I didn't steal the food.

How is this analogy any different from the Holocaust or a thousand other crimes.

[Cal]

The trump card against the problem of evil is that all negative affects of evil will be removed from believers and only any positive effects from dealing with it will remain for eternity.

To complain about temporal evil in the light of eternal bliss is like complaining about a day of homelessness in the light spending the rest of time in the greatest house ever.

Harold's problem with evil is not even a philosophical one. It's an emotional one, actually just a matter of taste. He has decided, from his perspective, that the evil humanity has faced is "too much" even in light of eternity with a good, gracious God.

As it states here:

Critics of God often make an assumption at this stage. They make statements such as “a good God might allow some evil, but He would never allow X.” ... This ... also assumes, irrationally, that there cannot be things worse than X. Logically, it’s possible there could be evils even worse than X that God has prevented, and, because He has prevented them, we are unaware they are even possible. To continue to criticize God on account of there being “too much” evil is to waffle between logic and emotion.

We may not like the idea that God allows certain kinds of evil. And, logically, there is nothing invalid about a person choosing to say, “I reject obedience to God because I don’t agree with His morality.” But theodicy is not a question of making God agree with our whims. What we cannot say, logically, is that, if God does not act according to our moral preferences, then He cannot exist in moral perfection. This makes the critic the ultimate standard of morality!

To put that another way, claiming God cannot exist or cannot be perfectly moral unless He agrees with my moral preferences is to say this: “I am morally perfect, so if God and I differ on some moral issue, the only possible reason is that God is flawed, and I am not.” Once again, a person is not logically prevented from taking this approach. But just because it’s a possible viewpoint does not make it a reasonable one.

So basically, Harold is saying he does not prefer the God of the Bible. That is his prerogative. But what Harold cannot say, validly, is that because he does not prefer him it is not possible for God to exist as such in moral perfection.

It's been shown that the problem of evil cannot successfully prove that a morally perfect God does not exist. So, all that it can do is point out the evil and ask "Why does God allow this much?" But this just says the critic knows enough to know how much allowed evil is too much. Which is just the critic saying he a smarter than God.

[Cal]

Basically what it boils down to is that you cannot say, logically, that God cannot be morally perfect unless you are also making the claim that YOU are morally perfect. You cannot say, "I know I'm not morally perfect, but I know God isn't either." That is not a logical statement in any sense.

The only thing the stubborn skeptic can do then is say, "I don't like God's morality," and refuse to obey him. But that is a matter of taste, not logic.

Of course, alternatively he could repent. But then he wouldn't be a stubborn skeptic anymore.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Basically what it boils down to is that you cannot say, logically, that God cannot be morally perfect unless you are also making the claim that YOU are morally perfect. You cannot say, "I know I'm not morally perfect, but I know God isn't either." That is not a logical statement in any sense.

The only thing the stubborn skeptic can do is to say, "I don't like God's morality," and refuse to obey him. But that is a matter of taste, not logic.

Of course, alternatively he could repent. But then he wouldn't be a stubborn skeptic anymore.

Or you could repent for passing judgment on the guy. Judge not lest ye be judged Jesus said. Remember him?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The trump card against the problem of evil is that all negative affects of evil will be removed from believers and only any positive effects from dealing with it will remain for eternity.

To complain about temporal evil in the light of eternal bliss is like complaining about a day of homelessness in the light spending the rest of time in the greatest house ever.

Harold's problem with evil is not even a philosophical one. It's an emotional one, actually just a matter of taste. He has decided, from his perspective, that the evil humanity has faced is "too much" even in light of eternity with a good, gracious God.

As it states here:

Critics of God often make an assumption at this stage. They make statements such as “a good God might allow some evil, but He would never allow X.” ... This ... also assumes, irrationally, that there cannot be things worse than X. Logically, it’s possible there could be evils even worse than X that God has prevented, and, because He has prevented them, we are unaware they are even possible. To continue to criticize God on account of there being “too much” evil is to waffle between logic and emotion.

We may not like the idea that God allows certain kinds of evil. And, logically, there is nothing invalid about a person choosing to say, “I reject obedience to God because I don’t agree with His morality.” But theodicy is not a question of making God agree with our whims. What we cannot say, logically, is that, if God does not act according to our moral preferences, then He cannot exist in moral perfection. This makes the critic the ultimate standard of morality!

To put that another way, claiming God cannot exist or cannot be perfectly moral unless He agrees with my moral preferences is to say this: “I am morally perfect, so if God and I differ on some moral issue, the only possible reason is that God is flawed, and I am not.” Once again, a person is not logically prevented from taking this approach. But just because it’s a possible viewpoint does not make it a reasonable one.

So basically, Harold is saying he does not prefer the God of the Bible. That is his prerogative. But what Harold cannot say, validly, is that because he does not prefer him it is not possible for God to exist as such in moral perfection.

It's been shown that the problem of evil cannot successfully prove that a morally perfect God does not exist. So, all that it can do is point out the evil and ask "Why does God allow this much?" But this just says the critic knows enough to know how much allowed evil is too much. Which is just the critic saying he a smarter than God.

What I'm critical of is the omni concept of God. You want to conflate that concept with the living God and that's your prerogative. Your free will theodicy does nothing for explaining evils like mass deaths due to tsunamis or volcanoes. So-called human evils occur within the context of nature in which we are minuscule vulnerable mortal animals. If God is the omnipotent Creator I guess he set it up that way. So even if humans were sinless there would be a lot of suffering as there are for all God's sentient creatures. What you lose with your dogmatism is any sense of the mystery of this situation. But anyway you don't want to delve too deep cuz you think you've solved the problem of evil when from my point of view you're just skating on the surface.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Basically what it boils down to is that you cannot say, logically, that God cannot be morally perfect unless you are also making the claim that YOU are morally perfect. You cannot say, "I know I'm not morally perfect, but I know God isn't either." That is not a logical statement in any sense.

The only thing the stubborn skeptic can do then is say, "I don't like God's morality," and refuse to obey him. But that is a matter of taste, not logic.

Of course, alternatively he could repent. But then he wouldn't be a stubborn skeptic anymore.

Stating that our friend is a "stubborn skeptic" is now cosidered JUDGING him?

I would say hardly. Actually Igzy and I are somewhat determined that you and awareness don't GET JUDGED.

[Cal]

The worst thing that ever happened to me, and this includes my struggling to free myself from the effects of the LR, was my marriage ending.

When it happened, I could not understand why God allowed it. All my dreams were shattered. My hopes for raising my boys in a stable home were swept away. My perspective on God and life were severely challenged. How could God be "good" and let such a thing happen?

I had two choices. One, I could doubt God. Two, I could adjust my view of "good" to accommodate what happened. In other words, I could admit I really didn't know close to what I'd thought and hoped I did.

I think one reason we are so challenged by evil in the world is because it challenges the very foundations of what we think "good" is, and what it should and shouldn't allow. It isn't just that we are morally offended, we are metaphysically offended. We not only begin to doubt God, we begin to doubt the very idea of good itself.

Actually, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Eating the tree of knowledge of good and evil set us on a course of THINKING we knew what good and evil really are. Perhaps we don't know as much as we'd like to think, and perhaps God, through our experiences, is curing us of that.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

But anyway you don't want to delve too deep cuz you think you've solved the problem of evil when from my point of view you're just skating on the surface.

You don't want to admit that the POE is not quite the problem you want it to be because then you would lose your claim to fame as the resident expert on it.

[Cal]

Again, zeek, all the evils in the world times 10 will not hold a candle to the good in eternity. Whether you believe that or not, you have to admit it is at least logically possible.

What is not logical is for you to state that the evils in the world reduce the goodness of God, because you cannot show that those evils cannot help produce a greater good that justifies them.

Your objection to temporal evil is not logical or philosophical. It is simply emotional and a matter of taste.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You don't want to admit that the POE is not quite the problem you want it to be because then you would lose your claim to fame as the resident expert on it.

...not to mention all the royalties I'm getting.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Again, zeek, all the evils in the world times 10 will not hold a candle to the good in eternity. Whether you believe that or not, you have to admit it is at least logically possible.

What is not logical is for you to state that the evils in the world reduce the goodness of God, because you cannot show that those evils cannot help produce a greater good that justifies them.

Your objection to temporal evil is not logical or philosophical. It is simply emotional and a matter of taste.

You mean eternity after the universe expands to the point of fizzing out? That's a possible future. The fundamentalist apocalyptic eschatology is another possibility. How probable is it that the pre-scientific thinkers who came up with it got it right? Our attachment to that is much more a matter of cultural indoctrination than logic. You and I didn't stop with our childhood indoctrination we sought out Witness Lee for a megadose when we were adults. The greater good theodicy requires that we speculate about how good the universe would be without evil. It's like trying to imagine living in the garden of Eden before the fall or in heaven. But I don't think you can get too far with it. Our brains evolved for survival in nature the way it is. When people try to imagine heaven without evil and it quickly becomes absurd. You'll notice that the New Testament has very little to say about that, which reflects the wisdom of the writers and the guys who decided what books to include. So no the greater good argument is not the last word.

[Cal]

It would be illogical to say that God is all good yet allows evil, if he never judged evil. That would be illogical. But we know the Bible says God will someday completely judge evil.

To me, the interesting thing about the POE is not in the question why did God allow evil. I can see why he allowed it. He wanted to teach us something. That's easy to understand.

Rather, to me the question is, why didn't God just create at the snap of a finger the eventual perfect universe he is going to achieve? Why put it through the trial, test and teaching?

But again, there is no logical reason to say that the way he took violates his goodness or perfection. In fact, we know that often, somehow, the results via process are better than instantaneous results.

We can appreciate that just by looking at our own experiences. Would you like to just wake up someday as Super Bowl champion, with no memory of even playing the game? Or would you rather remember the season-long experience of becoming the champion? Surely the latter is better, a greater good, and so worth it.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

So no the greater good argument is not the last word.

Sorry, I don't understand your logic at all. The greater good argument doesn't have to define the greater good, it just needs to show that there can be one. And logic in no way says there cannot be a greater good. So, the fact that you can't picture it does not make it meaningless.

Besides, anyone who has benefited from trials understands the basics of the greater good argument. So you are just obfuscating.

[Cal]

The promise "God causes all things to work for good to those that love him" trumps the problem of evil.

Imagine that each evil thing that happens to you is the equivalent of $1 being taken from you. But imagine that, if you have the right attitude, right after that $1 is taken, you will be given $2. After some time of this, where would you be financially?

You might ask, Why didn't God just give you the money, without the trial? Leaving alone for the moment that he tried to do that and we rebelled, it doesn't really matter. Because the good, perhaps even a greater good, has been achieved in spite of the evil.

That fact that God can make a greater good with the assistance of evil is not evidence he is flawed. The opposite is true. It is evidence he is GOD! It is the complete and utter triumph over evil. Evil is still evil, yet completely put to shame.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It would be illogical to say that God is all good yet allows evil, if he never judged evil. That would be illogical. But we know the Bible says God will someday completely judge evil.

If evil were not allowed there'd be no evil to judge. And asserting that it's going to happen by and by could just be wishful thinking.

To me, the interesting thing about the POE is not in the question why did God allow evil. I can see why he allowed it. He wanted to teach us something. That's easy to understand.

God wouldn't need to teach us about it if it didn't exist.

Rather, to me the question is, why didn't God just create at the snap of a finger the eventual perfect universe he is going to achieve? Why put it through the trial, test and teaching?

Right that's the point. If God is all-powerful all good and all-knowing why didn't he create the universe that he wanted in the first place?

But again, there is no logical reason to say that the way he took violates his goodness or perfection. In fact, we know that often, somehow, the results via process are better than instantaneous results.

So you don't see that evil violates goodness? Or that flaws violate perfection? If evil is so necessary according to your worldview is an eternity without it going to seem kind of intolerable?

We can appreciate that just by looking at our own experiences. Would you like to just wake up someday as Super Bowl champion, with no memory of even playing the game? Or would you rather remember the season-long experience of becoming the champion? Surely the latter is better, a greater good, and so worth it.

Yeah if the real world never got eviler then the super bowl that would be pretty cool. As it is though innocent babies suffer and die. I'm not sure what great thing they learn from the experience that you think justifies it.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Sorry, I don't understand your logic at all. The greater good argument doesn't have to define the greater good, it just needs to show that there can be one. And logic in no way says there cannot be a greater good. So, the fact that you can't picture it does not make it meaningless.

How can you show that there can be a greater good if you don't define what it is? Empty logic proves nothing.

Besides, anyone who has benefited from trials understands the basics of the greater good argument. So you are just obfuscating.

Does that justify child rape or tsunamis? I'm just trying to follow your logic.

[zeek]

How about these propositions? God is not omnipotent, because humans have the power of free will which effects their ends. God is not omniscient because human freedom is real and affects the future which God has left open. God is love and as such God's nature is antithetical to coercive power.

[Cal]

You can't follow the logic, zeek, because you really aren't being logical. You are being emotional. You fancy yourself a philosopher, but you really don't understand logic.

For example, you wrote:

"If evil is so necessary according to your worldview is an eternity without it going to seem kind of intolerable?"

That's an emotional argument, not a logical one. It is the equivalent of a child asking how something can be better than candy, especially something as seemingly yucky as sex.

Saying something cannot exist because you cannot fully conceive of it is both illogical and arrogant.

As I've said, the POE only succeeds, if it does at all, as an emotional plea. Logically it does not hold up, because it requires moral perfection to assert confidently, and we don't have that. Therefore, despite present evil, a morally perfect God is logically possible, whether emotionally we like that God or not.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

How about these propositions? God is not omnipotent, because humans have the power of free will which effects their ends. God is not omniscient because human freedom is real and affects the future which God has left open. God is love and as such God's nature is antithetical to coercive power.

God made free will by his own choice. He was fully okay with it. We wouldn't have free will if he hadn't given it. So, yes, he in that sense is fully sovereign over it. Your argument is like the old question "if God is omnipotent, why can't he make a rock so big even he can't lift it?" The answer is, God is not omnipotent if you mean omnipotence must include being capable of the logically absurd.

God can see the future, he know how things will turn out. But his knowledge of the future is not what determines it.

Again, your application of love assumes you know perfectly what love is. Love means wanting the very best for someone to the point of being willing to sacrifice for them. But we cannot define what "very best for them" is precisely. All these big concepts--good, evil, love, omnipotence, perfection--we understand generally what they mean, but not specifically.

In any case, given the fact that basically we are free-willed creatures, violating our free will would completely negate what we are. That is why you have to say, given the choice of someone choosing to go to hell, and God violating their free will to prevent them from doing so, he would let them go. Because with us free will must comes first, or we are nothing.

It even goes deeper than that. Hell has absolutely NO MEANING to a creature without free will, because it is the result of a moral choice. The same goes for heaven. So if God violated our free will, we could experience neither hell nor heaven.

Our free wills work out God purpose, no matter what side of the final result we come out on. God's sovereignty and our free wills, therefore, are one and the same. Said another way, he was pleased to turn over the reins of his purpose to our free wills, but that does not mean, nor need it mean, that he is pleased with all our choices--just that the purpose itself would be meaningless if we had no choice in the matter.

[Cal]

So, again, people who have a problem with evil in a philosophical sense really just have a problem with free will. Ironically, they themselves chose to have that problem.

These are usually the same people who ask, "Why doesn't God just let us do what we want?", and when someone does something they don't like, "Why didn't God stop them?"

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

As it is though innocent babies suffer and die. I'm not sure what great thing they learn from the experience that you think justifies it.

I'm sure God can, and will, more than make it up to them.

As to what their experience was for, no doubt it was to some extent for you. Just what it works out in you is in part up to you. Choose wisely.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Again, zeek, all the evils in the world times 10 will not hold a candle to the good in eternity. Whether you believe that or not, you have to admit it is at least logically possible.

10 times 0 is 0. If you agree with the Bible that all things are vanity, that only Jesus is reality, then all the "evil" in the world is vanity. It is an illusion. It is equivalent to 0 in the same way that all the evil in a simulation is also vanity, an illusion, 0.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Sorry, I don't understand your logic at all. The greater good argument doesn't have to define the greater good, it just needs to show that there can be one. And logic in no way says there cannot be a greater good. So, the fact that you can't picture it does not make it meaningless.

Besides, anyone who has benefited from trials understands the basics of the greater good argument. So you are just obfuscating.

If we cannot define what "the greater good" is, and if we cannot prove that there is such a thing nor can we disprove there is such a thing, then how is it valuable? There are an infinite number of possibilities that we can argue can neither be proved or disproved.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The promise "God causes all things to work for good to those that love him" trumps the problem of evil.

Imagine that each evil thing that happens to you is the equivalent of $1 being taken from you. But imagine that, if you have the right attitude, right after that $1 is taken, you will be given $2. After some time of this, where would you be financially?

You might ask, Why didn't God just give you the money, without the trial? Leaving alone for the moment that he tried to do that and we rebelled, it doesn't really matter. Because the good, perhaps even a greater good, has been achieved in spite of the evil.

That fact that God can make a greater good with the assistance of evil is not evidence he is flawed. The opposite is true. It is evidence he is GOD! It is the complete and utter triumph over evil. Evil is still evil, yet completely put to shame.

The fact that God uses Satan in no way is proof that He has to. That would be like saying since a person uses a horse to get from one place to another that he has to use a horse.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

How about these propositions? God is not omnipotent, because humans have the power of free will which effects their ends.

That would be true under the interpretation that the evil we experience is very small compared to the good. It is not true if the evil is 0 as my theory that human life should be understood as a simulation. This theory is supported by the Lord's word that they have power to kill the body but not the soul. According to my theory the body is the simulation, the soul and spirit are the reality.

Originally Posted by zeek

God is not omniscient because human freedom is real and affects the future which God has left open.

This is a very interesting point because even under my theory that this is akin to a simulation that teaches us to discern between good and evil, like God, even under that theory it could be misunderstood to conclude that God is not omniscient since this simulation is likened to a test that determines if we enter the kingdom or not.

However, just because the simulation is used as proof that someone has received Christ by faith or not, this does not mean nor can you conclude that God did not know the outcome prior to this. It may be that this test is for our benefit. There have been many experiments that have proven people act in ways very different from the way in which they claim they would act. (See the movie Experimenter).

Originally Posted by zeek

God is love and as such God's nature is antithetical to coercive power.

There is nothing in my interpretation that contradicts God being love.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You can't follow the logic, zeek, because you really aren't being logical. You are being emotional. You fancy yourself a philosopher, but you really don't understand logic.

For example, you wrote:

"If evil is so necessary according to your worldview is an eternity without it going to seem kind of intolerable?"

That's an emotional argument, not a logical one. It is the equivalent of a child asking how something can be better than candy, especially something as seemingly yucky as sex.

Saying something cannot exist because you cannot fully conceive of it is both illogical and arrogant.

As I've said, the POE only succeeds, if it does at all, as an emotional plea. Logically it does not hold up, because it requires moral perfection to assert confidently, and we don't have that. Therefore, despite present evil, a morally perfect God is logically possible, whether emotionally we like that God or not.

I think it is a fascinating question. If there is no evil in Eternity, then how would be view the crucifixion of Christ? the resurrection from the dead?

Is the entire Bible temporary? Jesus said that not one jot or tittle would pass away until all things have been fulfilled. That suggests that it might be.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You don't want to admit that the POE is not quite the problem you want it to be because then you would lose your claim to fame as the resident expert on it.

I had to laugh at this one.

I'll say no more.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Again, zeek, all the evils in the world times 10 will not hold a candle to the good in eternity. Whether you believe that or not, you have to admit it is at least logically possible.

We can complain about the loss of financial well-being or the disaster of a broken home, but how do we even compare this to someone born mentally handicapped? Someone with an IQ of barely 50? My Dad used to say, "Life's a b***h and then you have to die." But what about those who never had enough brains to even complain? Or those aborted the day before their scheduled birthday?

I'm all for bearing one another's burdens, caring for the wounded, and giving a shoulder to those in need, but when the whining goes on forever, just to prove to the rest of us that perhaps our Savior is not the good and loving God we believe He is, then when does enough become enough?

Has this thread really become a bunch of old farts sitting around an internet campfire trying to convince each other that life has not been that bad?

[awareness]

Evil provokes emotion, not logic.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Evil provokes emotion, not logic.

The book of Ecclesiastes lists many of the evils that he has seen.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The book of Ecclesiastes lists many of the evils that he has seen.

Prozac may have help him. But, given vanity and vexation of spirit, he may have needed Ketamine.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You can't follow the logic, zeek, because you really aren't being logical. You are being emotional. You fancy yourself a philosopher, but you really don't understand logic. For example, you wrote:

"If evil is so necessary according to your worldview is an eternity without it going to seem kind of intolerable?"

That's an emotional argument, not a logical one. It is the equivalent of a child asking how something can be better than candy, especially something as seemingly yucky as sex.

You are arguing that evil is necessary for achieving some greater good. The Bible says there is no evil in the kingdom of heaven. What? No greater good in heaven?

By your reasoning the kingdom of heaven will contain only lesser good and that for eternity. My argument points out a contradiction in your justification of the existence of evil in this life. I'm appealing to logic not emotion.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Saying something cannot exist because you cannot fully conceive of it is both illogical and arrogant.

I haven't said anything doesn't exist. Humanity doesn't have an adequate theory of everything in terms of harmonious scientific laws that apply to the quantum and the macro scales. That doesn't mean that such laws don't exist. More likely they just haven't been found.

I've been saying that to me the traditional conception of God seems inadequate. God exceeds the human ability to conceive logically. It doesn't follow from the notion that God exceeds the human conceptual ability, that God does not exist.

Historically the POE has often been used as a blunt instrument to argue against the existence of God. And some do indeed cite it as a significant factor in their atheism.

But, suffice it to say that I haven't done that. The POE hasn't had that affect on me. Rather, it has caused me to question the definition of God in the POE and seek a better understanding of what God is.

Originally Posted by Igzy

As I've said, the POE only succeeds, if it does at all, as an emotional plea. Logically it does not hold up, because it requires moral perfection to assert confidently, and we don't have that. Therefore, despite present evil, a morally perfect God is logically possible, whether emotionally we like that God or not.

No. The POE poses a logical problem concerning God as defined. The logical problem of evil asserts that it is impossible for all of the following statements to be true at the same time:

(1) God is omnipotent (that is, all-powerful).

(2) God is omniscient (that is, all-knowing).

(3) God is perfectly good.

(4) Evil exists.

Emotion doesn't enter into those statements. And it doesn't require "moral perfection" to assert or understand them.

You have tried to refute the simple logic of the POE by using the following:
[1]the privation argument i.e. evil doesn't exist its just the absence of good,
[2] the free will argument,
[3] the greater good argument and
[4] the POE is merely an appeal to the emotions.

1 is defeated by the fact that evil has real and devastating consequences for real people in the real world

2 is defeated because as Jesus said a good tree produces good fruit. If God had designed us right, even with freedom of choice we would always choose the good. Also the free will argument doesn't take into consideration all that natural evil that God allows like volcanoes and tsunamis that kill innocent people en mass.

3 is defeated because it requires that we imagine a world without evil to compare with the real world in which you postulate an unknown "greater good". Our brains were created to overcome evils so we don't have the ability to imagine such a world. The Kingdom of Heaven is supposed to be such a world, that is, one that is better than our current world with it's "greater good". If God can create that better world in the future, he being omnipotent and omniscient could do it now. Therefore, God either doesn't have the power, the intelligence and/or the will.

4 is defeated because the POE can be stated as a logical problem without any appeal to emotions as I have done above.

In addition to these traditional arguments, you have attacked me personally mainly as being arrogant, thinking I'm a philosopher, the resident expert and so on. True or not, those attacks are fallacious or, in other words, have no effect on the truth of my arguments. As the Bible illustrates even Balaam's ass can speak the truth. So Hee-Haw to you.

Furthermore, I don't think the Omni-God contemplated in the POE matches Jesus' God. Your argument about emotion brings to mind another issue. The Catholic Church teaches dogmatically that God is impassible meaning the divine nature has no emotions, changes, alterations, height, width, depth, or any other temporal attributes. Luther and Calvin followed the Catholics on that.

I think such a view of God is inconsistent with the God of Jesus. Jesus suffered and was deeply affected by the evil and suffering he encountered in the world. Jesus was like his God. Therefore God must feel our pain and be affected by it. Impassivity is a contradiction to the God who is love.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

No. The POE poses a logical problem concerning God as defined. The logical problem of evil asserts that it is impossible for all of the following statements to be true at the same time:

(1) God is omnipotent (that is, all-powerful).

(2) God is omniscient (that is, all-knowing).

(3) God is perfectly good.

(4) Evil exists.

I have pointed out that there is a Biblical basis for the first three but not for the fourth.

Ecclesiastes, a book that lists various forms of evil, begins by saying vanity of vanities all is vanity. Hence, those evils are vanity, they are meaningless, they don't exist.

The Bible also says that this world is a shadow and the reality is Christ. There is no evil in Christ.

There is no basis to say that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was itself evil. However, there is a strong Biblical basis that this tree altered our perception of reality -- the minute you eat it you will die, you can no longer stay in the garden and you cannot eat from the tree of life. The tree makes you wise, able to discern good and evil, like God.

However, all evil can be traced to this tree. So how?

One theory which I have given and you have not addressed, is that this tree is like a simulation, a lab room. In this simulation you can test out what happens if you disobey God. You can see where it leads. But it is simply a simulation, you cannot actually harm the soul.

Awareness has blamed God for this simulation, yet it is clearly a derivative of free will, if man truly has free will he must be able to choose to disobey God. That is part of God's creation, that option is called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God didn't choose it, he commanded that we not choose it. Adam and Eve made this choice. This world is not a result of God toying with man, it is a result of man toying with trying to be God.

If you were truly seeking a better understanding of God you would address this interpretation. It is based on the account of the Tree of the knowledge in Genesis, based on everything that is spoken concerning man's mortality and the vanity of life, it is based on the Lord's word that all of this "evil" cannot harm the soul, and based on the word that the Lord will wipe away every tear. It is consistent with the word that it is appointed for man to once to die and after that is the judgement. With a simulation it is reasonable to say "it is all vanity, an illusion" and yet at the same time it can be very significant in making a judgement on a person. Also, the fact that the outcome of the simulation is used in the judgement is not evidence that God is not omniscient. The evidence can simply be used to convince everyone else of what God already knew.

[Cal]

I will say again, zeek, the problem of evil as a logical conundrum breaks down because in order to declare it, the critic has to claim to know more than he really does. We know evil happens, we cannot know whether it cannot work a greater good.

Part of your, problem, again, is you are placing too much importance on short term suffering. I'm sure this is a hypocritical stance on your part. Do you have kids? Have you ever had to discipline them? If so, they probably experienced either physical and/or emotional pain when you did. Pain is evil. So you inflicted evil on your kids. Do you consider yourself evil for doing so? If not, then in the light of your views on the POE, you are a hypocrite. If you don't have kids, I'm sure you have had to do something in your life which inflicted pain, therefore evil, on another person. If you do not consider yourself evil for doing that, then you are hypocritical for holding God to that standard.

If you cannot be consistent with your beliefs in your daily human life then they are of no use on a larger scale.

Now, I'm pretty sure your response to this will be an emotional one, where you sarcastically show shock at my comparing the pain of discipline with all the pain humanity has experienced. But again that would be an emotional argument, because you cannot know how much pain and suffering is "too much" in God's view. All you can tell us is what is "too much" in your view, which is irrelevant to a logical argument.

On the one hand any suffering is "too much." On the other hand we cannot know how much is "too much" in the sense of more than God should allow, because only he knows how much that is. The same principle holds in our lives. Having to discipline our kids at all is "too much," but that doesn't make it child abuse--just that as the old saying goes it hurts us more than it hurts them. I'm sure the same goes for God.

YOUR life can be better in the end than it otherwise would have been because God allowed evil in the world. We cannot totally understand that, but we can neither say such a thing is not possible, if only because we see examples of it in lives all around us.

Whether evil works good in your life is up to your attitude. It's your choice. You cannot say that is unfair or wrong.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I have pointed out that there is a Biblical basis for the first three but not for the fourth.

Ecclesiastes, a book that lists various forms of evil, begins by saying vanity of vanities all is vanity. Hence, those evils are vanity, they are meaningless, they don't exist.

The Bible also says that this world is a shadow and the reality is Christ. There is no evil in Christ.

There is no basis to say that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was itself evil. However, there is a strong Biblical basis that this tree altered our perception of reality -- the minute you eat it you will die, you can no longer stay in the garden and you cannot eat from the tree of life. The tree makes you wise, able to discern good and evil, like God.

However, all evil can be traced to this tree. So how?

One theory which I have given and you have not addressed, is that this tree is like a simulation, a lab room. In this simulation you can test out what happens if you disobey God. You can see where it leads. But it is simply a simulation, you cannot actually harm the soul.

Awareness has blamed God for this simulation, yet it is clearly a derivative of free will, if man truly has free will he must be able to choose to disobey God. That is part of God's creation, that option is called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God didn't choose it, he commanded that we not choose it. Adam and Eve made this choice. This world is not a result of God toying with man, it is a result of man toying with trying to be God.

If you were truly seeking a better understanding of God you would address this interpretation. It is based on the account of the Tree of the knowledge in Genesis, based on everything that is spoken concerning man's mortality and the vanity of life, it is based on the Lord's word that all of this "evil" cannot harm the soul, and based on the word that the Lord will wipe away every tear. It is consistent with the word that it is appointed for man to once to die and after that is the judgement. With a simulation it is reasonable to say "it is all vanity, an illusion" and yet at the same time it can be very significant in making a judgement on a person. Also, the fact that the outcome of the simulation is used in the judgement is not evidence that God is not omniscient. The evidence can simply be used to convince everyone else of what God already knew.

The Docetist heresy was the teaching that Jesus was a simulation rather than a flesh-and-blood human being. You have taken the heresy further by claiming that none of us are really flesh-and-blood human beings we're all just computer simulations.

Since Jesus became one of us, he was, logically, just a computer simulation too. In the parlance of the day, the material world is fake news. Jesus in his incarnation became fake like the rest of us.

This theodicy sacrifices much of orthodox christology to solve the internal contradictions of the POE. It's a fun head-trip but I doubt that even you believe it deeply or live like it's true. I certainly don't.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I have pointed out that there is a Biblical basis for the first three but not for the fourth.

Ecclesiastes, a book that lists various forms of evil, begins by saying vanity of vanities all is vanity. Hence, those evils are vanity, they are meaningless, they don't exist.

The Bible also says that this world is a shadow and the reality is Christ. There is no evil in Christ.

That's some hefty denial. Tell someone that's lost their child that, there is no evil in Christ, and see how that goes over. It would be insulting and hurtful ; adding insult to injury.

You say it's Biblical. You've therefore made the Bible wacky ... and mean.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's some hefty denial. Tell someone that's lost their child that, there is no evil in Christ, and see how that goes over. It would be insulting and hurtful ; adding insult to injury.

You say it's Biblical. You've therefore made the Bible wacky ... and mean.

Yeah, my sons' football coach is evil, too. He drove them like a slave-master in practice. Guess what? They won the district championship. The greater good. The evils of practice didn't seem so evil then.

The greater good argument works. The bible says that God will wipe away every tear. Those that trust him will understand the good their temporal suffering worked. Those that don't will grumble about it forever in hell. You guys are off to a fine start on that destiny.

[Cal]

Everyone experiences pain. But the fact is, in the light of eternity, it's a blip. If you can't see that then the POE becomes a much bigger problem than it is.

This is not to make light of the pain, but rather to put it in perspective. But blaming God for being "evil" is not going to make any pain go away, and sadly will make it worse than it has to be.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Yeah, my sons' football coach is evil, too. He drove them like a slave-master in practice. Guess what? They won the district championship. The greater good. The evils of practice didn't seem so evil then.

The greater good argument works.

So let the abortions fly. Population control is the greater good.

And petition our government to support genocides around the world. After all, look what the evil of genocide and slavery produced here in America. Trump is the greater good.

Is that your greater good argument?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I will say again, zeek, the problem of evil as a logical conundrum breaks down because in order to declare it, the critic has to claim to know more than he really does. We know evil happens, we cannot know whether it cannot work a greater good.

The Bible tells us "it is impossible for God to lie". However, it is not impossible for his creatures to lie. Where did this ability to lie come from then? How did God create creatures who can lie when it is impossible for Him to lie?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

The Docetist heresy was the teaching that Jesus was a simulation rather than a flesh-and-blood human being. You have taken the heresy further by claiming that none of us are really flesh-and-blood human beings we're all just computer simulations.

Since Jesus became one of us, he was, logically, just a computer simulation too. In the parlance of the day, the material world is fake news. Jesus in his incarnation became fake like the rest of us.

This theodicy sacrifices much of orthodox christology to solve the internal contradictions of the POE. It's a fun head-trip but I doubt that even you believe it deeply or live like it's true. I certainly don't.

I haven't done anything but quote the Bible. You are the one quoting Docetist heresy, etc.

26 At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.”[e] 27 The words “once more” indicate the removing of what can be shaken—that is, created things—so that what cannot be shaken may remain.

The Bible says that all these created things can be shaken will be removed. It also says there are things that cannot be shaken.

I have said that Jesus is the reality, He is not something that can be shaken. Therefore my theory is fundamentally different from the Docetist heresy.

They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”

Moses didn't make a "shadow". He built the tabernacle according to the pattern given him, hence it is fair to say it is a copy of what is in heaven. But he didn't make a shadow. The Bible says all that stuff that appeared real was a shadow.

The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship.

The Bible says the law is a shadow, but the context is the law concerning the offerings. The blood of the bull is only a shadow, the bull is only a shadow, it's death is only a shadow, it's sacrifice is only a shadow. That is pretty insulting to the bull unless the entire world is a shadow, not just the sacrifice of a bull in the temple but the killing of a bull anywhere.

16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

You do a lot of talking about God and Evil and the Bible, without ever looking at the word of the Bible.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's some hefty denial. Tell someone that's lost their child that, there is no evil in Christ, and see how that goes over. It would be insulting and hurtful ; adding insult to injury.

You say it's Biblical. You've therefore made the Bible wacky ... and mean.

I have lost a child you arrogant pissant. You call this wacky and say I'm insulting?

There is nothing insulting or injurious about this, it is encouraging and comforting. You have clearly not read what I said or you are incapable of understanding what I said.

But since you brought this up, please explain to us how your take on the POE is comforting. I sure have not gotten any comfort from it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Everyone experiences pain. But the fact is, in the light of eternity, it's a blip. If you can't see that then the POE becomes a much bigger problem than it is.

This is not to make light of the pain, but rather to put it in perspective. But blaming God for being "evil" is not going to make any pain go away, and sadly will make it worse than it has to be.

This argument says that God is using suffering, evil, pain, to achieve His goal, which is good, loving, etc.

That may be true.

But it doesn't explain how a good for whom it is impossible to lie can create creatures that lie. How did God create liars?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

So let the abortions fly. Population control is the greater good.

A woman once told me she knew the answer to the population explosion. She asked me if I knew and I said "no". She said that is right.

[ZNPaaneah]

This discussion seems very disconnected from the Bible. Can everyone agree on the following:

1. Is it impossible for God to lie?
2. Did God create man?
3. Why can man lie? Where did the ability to lie come from?
4. Do you agree that all sin entered into man after Adam and Eve partook of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
5. Did God create the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and plant it in the garden of eden?
6. Did God create Hitler?
7. Does Hitler have the power to harm the soul of all those killed in the Holocaust?
8. Are created things going to be removed at some point in the future?
9. Are there things that are eternal that will not be removed?
10. Are temporary created things that are destined to be removed referred to as “vanity of vanities, all is vanity” by Solomon in Ecclesiastes?
11. Is the Sanctuary with its beautiful silver, gold, brass lavers, and woodwork called “a shadow of what is in heaven”?
12. Are the sacrifices of bulls, goats, and doves also called “a shadow of the the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves”?
13. Is food, festivals, and other religious practices also called a shadow of things to come and the reality is in Christ.
14. Are those who have died referred to in Hebrews as a “cloud of witnesses”?
15. Are we told that the dead in Christ will rise first?
16. Does Jesus refer to those who have died as having fallen asleep?
17. Does Paul refer to those who have died as having fallen asleep?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I have lost a child you arrogant pissant. You call this wacky and say I'm insulting?

There is nothing insulting or injurious about this, it is encouraging and comforting. You have clearly not read what I said or you are incapable of understanding what I said.

But since you brought this up, please explain to us how your take on the POE is comforting. I sure have not gotten any comfort from it.

I have lost a child too. And the POE is discomforting.

When I lost my child a New Age Tinker Bell told me that it wasn't real ; that he wasn't dead, and I shouldn't grieve and be sad ; this is all an illusion.

I told her she needed to study at her toilet paper 3 times a day, to see what she is made of. She got blistering mad and shut the whole forum down. Years later she contacted me in email, apologized, and said I was right.

In other words, this supposed hologram you claim this life is, is very hard and persistent. It's foolishness to claim it's just a computer simulation. If I could pass my hand thru it I might believe it.

You're just trying to play the Jedi mind trick on us ; just a sleight of hand trick, or rather, a sleight of mind trick. And I don't think anyone is buying it ... not unless they are fans of science fiction.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I have lost a child too. And the POE is discomforting.

When I lost my child a New Age Tinker Bell told me that it wasn't real ; that he wasn't dead, and I shouldn't grieve and be sad ; this is all an illusion.

I told her she needed to study at her toilet paper 3 times a day, to see what she is made of. She got blistering mad and shut the whole forum down. Years later she contacted me in email, apologized, and said I was right.

In other words, this supposed hologram you claim this life is, is very hard and persistent. It's foolishness to claim it's just a computer simulation. If I could pass my hand thru it I might believe it.

You're just trying to play the Jedi mind trick on us ; just a sleight of hand trick, or rather, a sleight of mind trick. And I don't think anyone is buying it ... not unless they are fans of science fiction.

I am using the Bible. You are the one using Star Wars and Peter Pan to explain the POE.

[ZNPaaneah]

So the only response that Zeek has given is a bogus comparison with a heresy that Jesus was an illusion. I have said that Jesus is the only reality. Ridiculous to compare the two.

Awareness, instead of using ancient heresies has dug into his archive of sciencey fiction and cartoon characters to come up with a "Jedi mind trick" and dirty reference to Tinker Bell.

So let's consider the Bible. According to the Bible the soul and spirit are eternal. The flesh however is temporal, it will see corruption, and when we are resurrected it is not with the body that we had. Saying that this life is temporary is fundamental christian doctrine.

When did this take place, the minute we disobeyed God to eat the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Again, fundamental Christian doctrine.

The creation we are looking at is called a shadow. Jesus is called the reality of the things to come. This is said by both Paul, the writer of Hebrews and Jesus. Solomon also said something to this effect with his "vanity of vanities, everything is vanity". Again, fundamental Christian doctrine.

So what happens when people die? According to Hebrews we are surrounded with a cloud of witnesses. The dead in Christ will rise first. Paul told us not to grieve because they have "fallen asleep". Again, fundamental Christian doctrine.

Jesus said that they have the power to kill the body but not harm the soul, He also said we should not fear them therefore. So it is a fundamental Christian doctrine that the harm that can be done by a Hitler is not something to fear and that he is powerless to hurt the soul or spirit.

Igzy reminded us of the verse that God would wipe away every tear. How could God do that if the "evil" we experienced was real? If it turns out that it was an illusion, it seemed real, we suffered as though it were, but then we realize it was only a simulation, then you can wipe away "every" tear. True, this is an interpretation. But I haven't seen Zeek or Awareness explain how God could wipe away every tear. Whatever your theory, it has to address the fact that at some point God will wipe away "every" tear. This verse agrees with the fact that there are "tears" (suffering, evil), it also includes that God can erase all of this like shaking an etch a sketch.

So who is the one with the "Jedi Mind Trick"?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

So let the abortions fly. Population control is the greater good.

And petition our government to support genocides around the world. After all, look what the evil of genocide and slavery produced here in America. Trump is the greater good.

Is that your greater good argument?

I'm not talking about your version of the greater good. I'm talking about God's version. I'm talking about the ultimate result.

Imagine that all the human suffering in all of history is the size of the period at the end of this sentence. Now imagine that the glory and joy in eternity which could not have occurred without that suffering is the size of the planet Jupiter. Would you still say that suffering was unjustified?

At what point would you admit it was justified? What if the joy in eternity is infinite, which it well may be? Don't you think memories of temporal suffering would fade to practically nothing at that point?

Again, I understand our temporal sufferings seem immense now. But one day they will seem light. If you don't believe that, you have to at least admit that the possibility exists, and if the possibility exists then the POE itself is just a blip.

Of course, if you want to believe that any speck of evil in history negates the possibility of ultimate good in the future and the possibility that God is all-good, then you are free to do so. But what are you left with? What do you have to offer anyone including yourself? It's a hopeless view.

Any evil = hopelessness. That's what the POE offers. No thanks.

So is God somehow limited? Is he all-good, but tied up at the moment? YES! He's limited himself to our wills. He's waiting on us. If mankind fulfills his purpose, the curse will be lifted. Better to light a candle than bad mouth the darkness.

[Cal]

Again, the POE doesn't prove anything. The existence of evil does not preclude an all-good God. It just requires a God who truly gave his creatures moral free will.

The fact that God gave us a will which could disobey him does not mean he created evil. His creatures created it through disobedience. The only other choice would have been to not give us moral free will. Which would have made the whole venture of creation pointless.

The nature of love is that is must truly be a choice. Love one doesn't choose to give can't be love. It's built into the nature of things.

So advocates of the POE are really saying they have a problem with free will, which means they have a problem with love, which means they have a problem with God creating anything at all of consequence.

Human beings are driven by achievement. There is no point in playing a game if there are no parameters for success and failure. In the same principle, existence itself is meaningless without the possibility for success or failure. Therefore the potential for evil is necessary.

Some might say, well, God has no potential for evil, does that make him pointless? But we are talking about someone who has no choice, not someone who is perfect. God is always good, but his choices are real choices. He's not a robot.

I believe God's goal is to make us like him in that way. And for some reason, he chose to do it through a process, rather than just snapping his fingers and doing it.

So a question which to me is much more interesting than the POE, but is somewhat related to it, is "What will be our challenge when we are finally perfect?" THAT is like asking to see into the fourth dimension. We can't do it yet, but I'm sure God has something amazing planned, and when we finally understand it we will say, as C.S. Lewis did, "We could not have imagined this! But how could it have been any other way?"

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So the only response that Zeek has given is a bogus comparison with a heresy that Jesus was an illusion. I have said that Jesus is the only reality. Ridiculous to compare the two.

Awareness, instead of using ancient heresies has dug into his archive of sciencey fiction and cartoon characters to come up with a "Jedi mind trick" and dirty reference to Tinker Bell.

Igzy reminded us of the verse that God would wipe away every tear. How could God do that if the "evil" we experienced was real? If it turns out that it was an illusion, it seemed real, we suffered as though it were, but then we realize it was only a simulation, then you can wipe away "every" tear. True, this is an interpretation. But I haven't seen Zeek or Awareness explain how God could wipe away every tear. Whatever your theory, it has to address the fact that at some point God will wipe away "every" tear. This verse agrees with the fact that there are "tears" (suffering, evil), it also includes that God can erase all of this like shaking an etch a sketch.

So who is the one with the "Jedi Mind Trick"?

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm not talking about your version of the greater good. I'm talking about God's version. I'm talking about the ultimate result.

Imagine that all the human suffering in all of history was the size of the period at the end of this sentence. Now imagine that the glory and joy in eternity which could not have occurred without that suffering is the size of the planet Jupiter. Would you still say that suffering was unjustified?

At what point would you admit it was justified? What if the joy in eternity is infinite, which it well may be? Don't you think memories of temporal suffering would fade to practically nothing at that point?

Watching this discussion on the POE is like watching the latest news of the Mueller Russian collusion Hoax. The whole thing has been debunked and shut down for lack of evidence, yet their "believers" want so badly for it to be true, that they are totally unable to let it go.

Perhaps this is but a snapshot of the end times. Evidence be damned, some are gonna "believe" what they want to believe. Like poster "rayliotta" used to say, "a man hears what he wants to hear and discards the rest."

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Igzy reminded us of the verse that God would wipe away every tear. How could God do that if the "evil" we experienced was real? If it turns out that it was an illusion, it seemed real, we suffered as though it were, but then we realize it was only a simulation, then you can wipe away "every" tear. True, this is an interpretation. But I haven't seen Zeek or Awareness explain how God could wipe away every tear. Whatever your theory, it has to address the fact that at some point God will wipe away "every" tear. This verse agrees with the fact that there are "tears" (suffering, evil), it also includes that God can erase all of this like shaking an etch a sketch.

I like this thought. And it can be imagined as true if you think of the suffering as temporal. If the suffering ends some day, then it cannot reach into eternity forever. Only eternal joys persist.

The only eternal suffering anyone could experience is the single one they and they alone can choose to embrace. And that is the suffering of separation from God caused by unbelief. All other sufferings are temporal.

In eternity, if the lost in hell continue to carp about the "problem of evil." The blessed need only reply, "We only see the good which was wrought by allowing it." When the damned retort, "What about us?!" the blessed can reply "You got exactly what you chose to have." At that point the damned will retreat into the "comfort" of grumpy, bitter resentment, not unlike the attitude POE advocates now embrace. Then the fires of hell will penetrate their self-righteousness, evoking a spark of reality and remorse, the sole blessing of hell, but which they will then push away, resuming self-righteousness. And the cycle will repeat, over and over, forever and ever.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

In eternity, if the lost in hell continue to carp about the "problem of evil." The blessed need only reply, "We only see the good which was wrought by allowing it." When the damned retort, "What about us?!" the blessed can reply "You got exactly what you chose to have." At that point the damned will retreat into the "comfort" of grumpy, bitter resentment, not unlike the attitude POE advocates now embrace. Then the fires of hell will penetrate their self-righteousness, evoking a spark of reality and remorse, the sole blessing of hell, but which they will then push away, resuming self-righteousness. And the cycle will repeat, over and over, forever and ever.

Imagine that this life is similar to playing a game of monopoly on an afternoon. Some go bankrupt, some get rich with monopolies, etc. But during the game some cheated, lied, all to win this game of monopoly. But when it is over it is used to determine who enters the kingdom and who doesn't. Now the cheaters and liars feel cheated. "We didn't realize the game was meaningless, it was simply used to reveal who we are". In this way the cheaters get cheated, and the liars get lied to. They bought into the lie that this world was worth cheating and lying for.

Now imagine you were one of the ones who was cheated. You "lost" the game initially, but once you learned the purpose was to see who enters the kingdom and who doesn't, and when you learn that you are entering the kingdom, I don't think you will feel cheated anymore.

[ZNPaaneah]

How is this comforting? (while we wait on Awareness to respond)

1. A child dying is similar to someone going bankrupt in Monopoly and then having to watch the game finish. Hardly something that we would consider "evil".

2. The point of life is to qualify for the kingdom. If the child did that then there is plenty to rejoice in.

[Cal]

ZNP,

I like your idea of this life being "not real" or "a game" as compared to eternity. Another way to look at it would be as a children's playground. All kinds of things happen on the playground which seem like real life to children: victories, defeats, injuries, injustices, favors, heartbreaks, laughter and tears. But does anyone remember them in adulthood? Does anyone say, "A boy took away my baseball on the playground when I was four and it ruined my life forever."

Likewise, no one will say, "My suffering in time ruined my eternity."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

ZNP,

I like your idea of this life being "not real" or "a game" as compared to eternity. Another way to look at would be as a children's playground. All kinds of things happen on the playground which seem like real life to children: victories, defeats, injuries, injustices, favors, heartbreaks, laughter and tears. But does anyone remember them in adulthood? Does anyone say, "A boy took my baseball away from me on the playground when I was four and it ruined my life forever." Likewise, no one will say "My suffering in time ruined my eternity."

What about the book Everything I need to know I learned in Kindergarten by Robert Fulghum

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I will say again, zeek, the problem of evil as a logical conundrum breaks down because in order to declare it, the critic has to claim to know more than he really does. We know evil happens, we cannot know whether it cannot work a greater good.

You simply ignored my arguments against the greater good. You stating that to declare the POE one has to claim to know more than he does is kind of funny coming from a guy who claims he is sure God can, and will, more than make it up to innocent babies who suffer and die.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Part of your, problem, again, is you are placing too much importance on short-term suffering in order to pump up your emotional argument. I'm sure this is a hypocritical stance on your part. Do you have kids? Have you ever had to discipline them? If so, they probably experienced either physical and/or emotional pain when you did. Pain is evil. So you inflicted evil on your kids. Do you consider yourself evil for doing so? If not, then in the light of your views on the POE, you are a hypocrite. If you don't have kids, I'm sure you have had to do something in your life which inflicted pain, therefore evil, on another person. If you do not consider yourself evil for doing that, then you are hypocritical for holding God to that standard.

Before I answer the substance of your argument here, I want to take note of your apparent need to make this a personal attack on me. Instead of objectively addressing the truth or falsity of the proposition at hand, you repeatedly make it about my character. Why? I have already pointed out that that is a fallacious ad hominem argument which has no relevance to the truth of the proposition.

Besides that, it's really a lame argument with respect to the theological problem of evil. The POE makes no claim based on the goodness of human beings. The doctrine that claims that God is absolutely good does that. The question is why an absolutely good God would allow evil in the first place. How to best react once evil has entered the picture is a whole different question. But, that totally misses the point of the POE.

To say I'm hypocritical with respect to the POE I would have to claim to be absolutely good. I know I'm deeply flawed. But, that's irrelevant to the logic of the argument.

Originally Posted by Igzy

If you cannot be consistent with your beliefs in your daily human life then they are of no use on a larger scale.

The POE is based on logic. It isn't about me. You're argument is an ad hominem fallacy.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Everyone experiences pain. But the fact is, in the light of eternity, it's a blip. If you can't see that then the POE becomes a much bigger problem than it is.

This is not to make light of the pain, but rather to put it in perspective. But blaming God for being "evil" is not going to make any pain go away, and sadly will make it worse than it has to be.

Regarding eternity all we have are some claims in an ancient book written by men without the knowledge of modern science. I don't find the evidence for life after death persuasive. Of course I want to believe it. But, alas...

So you're looking at the issue from a perspective of faith. From your faith based perspective, the POE seems to become smaller than it is based on what we know based on observation.

I choose not to blame God. Rather I am seeking a more adequate concept of God than the one contemplated in the POE.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I haven't done anything but quote the Bible. You are the one quoting Docetist heresy, etc.

I'm sure you are aware that according to the Gospels, the devil quotes the Bible too. But, I find your computer simulation analogy rather like an extreme Docetist interpretation of the Bible.

26 At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.”[e] 27 The words “once more” indicate the removing of what can be shaken—that is, created things—so that what cannot be shaken may remain.

The Bible says that all these created things can be shaken will be removed. It also says there are things that cannot be shaken.

No doubt all matter can be shaken. It doesn't prove that it's immaterial. Even string theory involves shaking on the quantum level.

I have said that Jesus is the reality, He is not something that can be shaken. Therefore my theory is fundamentally different from the Docetist heresy.

No. The Docetists thought Jesus was real too. But, they didn't think that he really became real flesh and blood. You are proposing that flesh and blood is a simulation. Therefore, according to your theory, Jesus became a simulation. The early church condemned this as a heresy. Is it wrong? Who knows. It's a metaphysical proposition. I am skeptical about the knowability of metaphysics in general. So, suffice it to say, I don't know. If it makes you happy and you aren't hurting anybody with it, go for it.

They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”

Moses didn't make a "shadow". He built the tabernacle according to the pattern given him, hence it is fair to say it is a copy of what is in heaven. But he didn't make a shadow. The Bible says all that stuff that appeared real was a shadow.

Right. Hebrews is an early example of Christian Platonism. I love Platonic idealism. I've spent a lot of time thinking about it.

There are still Christian Platonists spinning out theories at Oxford. Bless their hearts. And, your simulation theory is kind of like Christian Platonism.

Your theory is even a more like Berkeley's idealism which was a result of radical empiricism. I have had long discussions with a guy who calls himself Phenomenal Graffitti on the website ILovePhilosophy.com who's metaphysical system is much like yours. There's no dissuading the guy and he has a lot of arguments for his view.

The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship.

The Bible says the law is a shadow, but the context is the law concerning the offerings. The blood of the bull is only a shadow, the bull is only a shadow, it's death is only a shadow, it's sacrifice is only a shadow. That is pretty insulting to the bull unless the entire world is a shadow, not just the sacrifice of a bull in the temple but the killing of a bull anywhere.

Right right. Jesus is the anti-type of Old Testament typology. Witness Lee's strength. With this hermeneutic, early Christianity left Judaism behind.

16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

Fine. As far as ritual symbolization of ultimate reality is concerned. But, the proto-orthodox "fathers" went with the fact that Jesus was a REAL FLESH AND BLOOD MAN not some FREAKIN' SIMULATION like you are claiming the entire world is.

You do a lot of talking about God and Evil and the Bible, without ever looking at the word of the Bible.

And when I do cite the Bible, my arguments are often ignored. Anyway, thank you for presenting Hebrews as your proof text. I'm happy to entertain any Biblical text that may be relevant to the POE.

[ZNPaaneah]

The POE is a logical argument that claims the existence of evil means that God cannot be omniscient, omnipotent, and all good.

My analogy of a computer simulation is consistent with the existence of evil and a God that is omniscient, omnipotent and all good. Therefore, this analogy disproves the conclusion that "the existence of evil means that God cannot be omniscient, omnipotent and all good". The only requirement to disprove that logical argument is to show that we can have a world with Evil according to the Bible and also have a God that is omnipotent, omniscient and all good.

Therefore the only way to discredit the analogy is to show from the Bible that there is a direct contradiction. The fact that it requires faith or some other argument does not discredit this. As a result, without that the logical argument put forth by the POE fails.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

26 At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.”[e] 27 The words “once more” indicate the removing of what can be shaken—that is, created things—so that what cannot be shaken may remain.

POE:
1. If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god does not exist.

It is very clear from this verse above in Hebrews that the things in this world like Evil will not exist in the kingdom. It is also very clear from Genesis that everyone who partook of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil cannot coexist in the garden and cannot partake of the tree of life.

The only way to move from one realm to the other is via the death of Christ. He is the way, the truth and the life, there is no way to the father but by Him. This demonstrates that evil exists, God exists, but they do not coexist in the same realm.

Yes, God created both realms, but only one is referred to "as the reality" and only one is referred to as "eternal" and "unshakeable".

The other realm with evil in it is referred to as "vanity of vanities", it is referred to as "corruptible" it is referred to as "a vapor, smoke", it is referred to as "temporary", "passing", and it is very clear that it is not the reality, not the truth.

[awareness]

Been under the weather. Sorry for being behind.

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm not talking about your version of the greater good. I'm talking about God's version. I'm talking about the ultimate result.

Imagine that all the human suffering in all of history is the size of the period at the end of this sentence. Now imagine that the glory and joy in eternity which could not have occurred without that suffering is the size of the planet Jupiter. Would you still say that suffering was unjustified?

Is any suffering justified? Are you saying God needs suffering for his greater eternal good?

I guess that explains the POE, and God's involvement in it. God is all powerful, all knowing, and all good, because He causes suffering for His Greater Good.

Of course brother Igzy, and I'm certain you realize it, that, God's ultimate good and how He's accomplishing it is, beyond our ability to know this side of eternity.

So the POE, and God's likely involvement in it and why, remains a mystery.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Regarding eternity all we have are some claims in an ancient book written by men without the knowledge of modern science. I don't find the evidence for life after death persuasive. Of course I want to believe it. But, alas...

So you're looking at the issue from a perspective of faith. From your faith based perspective, the POE seems to become smaller than it is based on what we know based on observation.

I choose not to blame God. Rather I am seeking a more adequate concept of God than the one contemplated in the POE.

zeek, Just about everything requires some faith, even believing in reason. That it takes some faith to close the circle is required for any system of thought.

Besides, it can be said that God is as reasonable as reason itself. It's not believing in him that is unreasonable. So, since overwhelming reason supports God, the question then is what are you going to believe about him. And it makes no sense that there is a higher good than God, by definition.

So a good God allowed evil in the universe. That's a fact, there is no way around it. The question is not whether, the question is why.

If by "adequate concept of God" you mean discovering why he allowed evil, then I have no problem with that. I've already said that I believe God is attempting to produce something greater than what he otherwise could have without allowing evil. I've used analogies of people become better people by going through trials to illustrate the feasibility of this.

But you cannot get around the fact that (1) God must be the greatest definition of good, or we aren't talking about God, by definition. (2) Yet, there is evil in the universe. Again, the real question is not whether, it's why, and the answer cannot be that God is not perfect.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

So the POE, and God's likely involvement in it and why, remains a mystery.

So, life has mysteries. What else is new? That's why faith is required in just about everything.

So, eventually you have to decide to fish or cut bait. Makes no send to cut bait forever. A Floridian should know that.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I am using the Bible. You are the one using Star Wars and Peter Pan to explain the POE.

The problem of evil was being investigated and ultimately unexplained by pagans, while the Bible was being written, yet was never brought up or clearly as enunciated as by the pagans. So, with the possible exception of the book of Job, that clearly points the finger at God, trying to explain the POE with the Bible is shooting in the dark.

But at least I didn't try to explain it with a computer simulation, which isn't much different than Peter Pan and Tinker Bell.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

The POE is based on logic. It isn't about me. You're argument is an ad hominem fallacy.

I wasn't talking about the POE directly. I was talking about how it's really just an abstract theory to you, because you are not prepared to apply its implications across the board in your life.

If God allowing suffering makes him evil, then your disciplining your kids is evil, too. Since I'm pretty sure you don't believe that, it should call into question the idea that God is evil for allowing suffering. It should cause you to reconsider your conclusions, unless you want to say that you are evil for disciplining your kids.

If you don't like "hypocritical," then how about inconsistent and therefore unconvincing?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

But at least I didn't try to explain it with a computer simulation, which isn't much different than Peter Pan and Tinker Bell.

Not fair at all, Harold. ZNP's point was a good one. Your comment here is uncalled for.

[Cal]

Again the problem is not with the traditional definition of God per se. The problem is with the slanting of it that requires certain words to mean certain specific things so that invalid arguments can be made about him.

Basically, the whole problem of evil as an argument against God is about defining "good" as something that God cannot be, and thereby "invalidating" him. It's really just a word game. Any honest thinker figures that out eventually.

Still a mystery? Everything about God is mysterious. Yet, amazingly, we can know him. Best get to it. But if your terms are you have to understand everything before you proceed, you are going to be cutting bait for a long time.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So who is the one with the "Jedi Mind Trick"?

That would be the God of the Bible.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

The POE is based on logic.

So is faith.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

The problem of evil was being investigated and ultimately unexplained by pagans, while the Bible was being written, yet was never brought up or clearly as enunciated as by the pagans. So, with the possible exception of the book of Job, that clearly points the finger at God, trying to explain the POE with the Bible is shooting in the dark.

But at least I didn't try to explain it with a computer simulation, which isn't much different than Peter Pan and Tinker Bell.

You are trying to make a logical argument. I have shown that the conclusion that God doesn't exist does not follow from the premise that evil exists. I have destroyed your logical argument. So what is your issue? That I used a computer simulation? You have justified not using writings from the Bible but from pagans, so what hypocrisy to take issue with my use of the development of a technology not mentioned in the Bible. Besides the Bible says that God's thoughts and wisdom are unsearchable, therefore it is reasonable to think they are far deeper than a simple computer simulation which is not so deep.

It doesn't matter if there is more to this than we know. Your logical argument stands or falls based on the conclusion that an all good God cannot create a world that has evil, therefore the existence of evil proves there is no God. That is a bogus conclusion, since an all good God could create a computer simulation in which evil exists, that would be very real to those of us in the simulation, but no one would consider this to be real evil when you leave the simulation.

[Cal]

The problem of evil is really the problem of pain, which is the problem of suffering. Which eventually (admit it) is the problem with MY suffering. We do not want to believe that a good, loving God would not only allow us to suffer, but would cause us to do so.

Yet, we should believe it, because faith through suffering is the way to the highest blessing--not random, spurious suffering, but suffering according to the most wise Being in the universe.

Consider: Many have noticed the connection between pain and pleasure. Why do we like sad songs? The saccharin explanation is they help us connect with our sad experiences. I would argue that at some level we LIKE pain. But this is odd, and even a little embarrassing. Why would we like it? Are we sick?

I think it is because at some level we understand that there is something beyond pleasure and pain, that includes both of them, that subsumes both of them, and in doing so that gives both of them more meaning than they could ever have on their own.

Sacrifice is pain, yet genuine sacrifice is one of our most treasured values. All our heroic legends include it. Why? Because it says that if we give ourselves in the right way, it is more than any hurt we can feel along the way. It means there is something transcendent, that gives meaning to ALL our experiences, even the bad ones.

Anyone who wallows in the POE appreciates nothing about transcendence. This is why POE adherents are so tedious. They are like Oscar Wilde's cynics, who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The problem of evil is really the problem of pain, which is the problem of suffering. Which eventually (admit it) is the problem with MY suffering. We do not want to believe that a good, loving God would not only allow us to suffer, but would cause us to do so.

Yet, we should believe it, because faith through suffering is the way to the highest blessing--not random, spurious suffering, but suffering according to the most wise Being in the universe.

Consider: Many have noticed the connection between pain and pleasure. Why do we like sad songs? The saccharin explanation is they help us connect with our sad experiences. I would argue that at some level we LIKE pain. But this is odd, and even a little embarrassing. Why would we like it? Are we sick?

I think it is because at some level we understand that there is something beyond pleasure and pain, that includes both of them, that subsumes both of them, and in doing so that gives both of them more meaning than they could ever have on their own.

Sacrifice is pain, yet genuine sacrifice is one of our most treasured values. All our heroic legends include it. Why? Because it says that if we give ourselves in the right way, it is more than any hurt we can feel along the way. It means there is something transcendent, that gives meaning to ALL our experiences, even the bad ones.

Anyone who wallows in the POE appreciates nothing about transcendence. This is why POE adherents are so tedious. They are like Oscar Wilde's cynics, who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Hurt so good
Come on baby make it hurt so good
Sometimes love don't feel like it should
You make it hurt so good
- John Mellencamp

Sounds sadomasochistic, but I think I get what you're driving at.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You are trying to make a logical argument. I have shown that the conclusion that God doesn't exist does not follow from the premise that evil exists. I have destroyed your logical argument. So what is your issue? That I used a computer simulation? You have justified not using writings from the Bible but from pagans, so what hypocrisy to take issue with my use of the development of a technology not mentioned in the Bible. Besides the Bible says that God's thoughts and wisdom are unsearchable, therefore it is reasonable to think they are far deeper than a simple computer simulation which is not so deep.

It doesn't matter if there is more to this than we know. Your logical argument stands or falls based on the conclusion that an all good God cannot create a world that has evil, therefore the existence of evil proves there is no God. That is a bogus conclusion, since an all good God could create a computer simulation in which evil exists, that would be very real to those of us in the simulation, but no one would consider this to be real evil when you leave the simulation.

The POE doesn't claim that God doesn't exist. It claims rather that one of the Omni's about God doesn't hold up.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

The POE doesn't claim that God doesn't exist. It claims rather that one of the Omni's about God doesn't hold up.

It is a logical argument. In order to hold up the premise that If A & B are true, C must be true. I have demonstrated that this is false. A&B are true, yet that does not mean that C must be true. Hence the entire logical argument collapses.

Just because someone steals a car and kills someone in Grand Theft Auto it doesn't mean that there has been any real evil committed once you leave the simulation.

As for your semantics -- If God is not omnipresent, or omniscient or all good then much of the Bible is a lie, and hence the God that the Bible proclaims does not exist. As you have done it will be done to you -- the proponents of this argument are arguing that the Bible is a lie, hence it is just that they have believed in a lie and been deceived by their own arrogance.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It is a logical argument. In order to hold up the premise that If A & B are true, C must be true. I have demonstrated that this is false. A&B are true, yet that does not mean that C must be true. Hence the entire logical argument collapses.

Just because someone steals a car and kills someone in Grand Theft Auto it doesn't mean that there has been any real evil committed once you leave the simulation.

As for your semantics -- If God is not omnipresent, or omniscient or all good then much of the Bible is a lie, and hence the God that the Bible proclaims does not exist. As you have done it will be done to you -- the proponents of this argument are arguing that the Bible is a lie, hence it is just that they have believed in a lie and been deceived by their own arrogance.

Except that, not only is the POE not enunciated in the Bible, none of the Omni's are even mentioned in the Bible. And I know you are a Sola Scriptura kinda guy.

[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:

• 1. God exists.
  2. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
  3. An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
  4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.
  5. An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
  6. 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.
  7. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.
  8. Evil exists (logical contradiction).

The fallacy in this argument is in the conclusion -- point 8. The proof is a simple analogy with a computer simulation like a flight simulator or video game like Grand Theft Auto. Evil can exist on these simulators, in fact many simulators are designed specifically to examine evil and how to respond. However, none of us would consider a person killed in Grand Theft Auto to be a real "murder" or real "evil". This proves that evil can "exist" without being evil. We also know that all the evil done by man will not exist in eternity, so just like a video game it is evil that is not "eternal".

Evil does not exist in eternity -- this is based on Hebrews which discusses the created things that can be shaken and removed.

Evil only exists in this temporal world, which aligns with point 6, God knows how evil comes into existence (disobedience to God's command) and is able to prevent the existence of evil (tree of knowledge of good and evil). Evil entered into this world when man disobeyed God to eat of the tree. However, that occurred at the same time Man was expelled from the Garden (evil cannot exist with God), Man was made mortal (the evil can only effect this temporary flesh and cannot harm the soul or spirit), man was prevented from eating of the tree of life so that this evil could not enter into eternity. This evil is completely separate from God (Jesus is the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but by Him), God will also wipe away every tear (another promise that this evil is illusory), the Bible reveals that this world is "vanity", a "vapor", a "smoke", and "passing away").

In conclusion God does know a way to prevent evil from entering eternity, entering His kingdom, and harming man. However, this world has been designed by God so that we could know good and evil and be able to discern between the two, like God.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

The POE doesn't claim that God doesn't exist. It claims rather that one of the Omni's about God doesn't hold up.

That can be explained by God choosing to limit one of his attributes. He limited himself to our wills. He will command us, woo us, reason with us and plead with us. He can even to some extent soften and harden our hearts. But he won't reach in and dial our wills. That's the whole game--him trying to influence us indirectly to do what in the end is best for us. It means nothing if we don't choose it, but the cost was potentially and actually allowing evil in the world, albeit temporarily.

But there is a higher wisdom. God allowed evil in a limited way--for the very purpose of making it effectively impossible in some future.

I believe God's ultimate purpose is to produce a universe where genuine free will exists, yet no one sins. For reasons we don't completely understand, this requires the process of experiencing evil and being saved from it.

I've said it before. The whole POE is really a question of the true nature of free will. Some say, if God was perfect he could have made so it was impossible for us to sin. But that might be like the statement "God should be able to make a rock so big he can't lift it." True free will with no option to sin might be a logical absurdity. The only option then is for us to LEARN not to sin, which takes a process.

And now you know the rest of the story.

[zeek]

Article presents the theological POE and concludes with the fideist response of Blaise Pascal :

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/o...HNWHLQLCCEoUKU

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Article presents the theological POE and concludes with the fideist response of Blaise Pascal :

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/o...HNWHLQLCCEoUKU

Again, the article's view is stuck on the temporal as the ultimate.

If someone really agrees with that view then he would never suffer short-term pain for long-term benefit. Because he must consider all short-term suffering as evil, even sacrificial suffering. The upshot is that if he makes a sacrifice for someone he loves, that is evil.

The article presumes to know what is ultimately good, and of course, cannot.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

That can be explained by God choosing to limit one of his attributes. He limited himself to our wills. He will command us, woo us, reason with us and plead with us. He can even to some extent soften and harden our hearts. But he won't reach in and dial our wills. That's the whole game--him trying to influence us indirectly to do what in the end is best for us. It means nothing if we don't choose it, but the cost was potentially and actually allowing evil in the world, albeit temporarily.

But there is a higher wisdom. God allowed evil in a limited way--for the very purpose of making it effectively impossible in some future.

I believe God's ultimate purpose is to produce a universe where genuine free will exists, yet no one sins. For reasons we don't completely understand, this requires the process of experiencing evil and being saved from it.

I've said it before. The whole POE is really a question of the true nature of free will. Some say, if God was perfect he could have made so it was impossible for us to sin. But that might be like the statement "God should be able to make a rock so big he can't lift it." True free will with no option to sin might be a logical absurdity. The only option then is for us to LEARN not to sin, which takes a process.

And now you know the rest of the story.

Top notch reply bro Igzy. Thanks.

As I've pointed out in an ignored post, in a nutshell :

"I was born here and will die here against my will." - Dylan

In short, there was very little free will involved with Adam and Eve.

And you, bro Igzy, did you exercise free will to be born? to be born to particular parents, in a particular place, to a particular culture and religion?

I know you have free will to decide things. But even then cultural elements event determine that.

So the free will argument is not set in stone.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Top notch reply bro Igzy. Thanks.


And you, bro Igzy, did you exercise free will to be born? to be born to particular parents, in a particular place, to a particular culture and religion?

I know you have free will to decide things. But even then cultural elements event determine that.

So the free will argument is not set in stone.

Thanks, Harold.

Well, free will doesn't mean unlimited will. It need only mean that within certain parameters genuine choice is possible. None of us chose everything about ourselves. But that doesn't matter. What matters is what we do with the choices we do have.

I think sometimes we look at the seeming randomness of misfortune and think that God spuriously allows things. What we need to understand is what is vastly more important than short-term sufferings is our reaction to them, because that is what will determine our long-term experience.

The POE gets completely hung up on the bad experiences in the here and now. It says nothing about how a bad experience can be turned into something greater and longer lasting than any bad experience. We don't like to hear this because we are like children, with no long-term view.

I don't like to suffer, ever. Trust me. It wouldn't be suffering if we could learn to like it completely. But I can have the faith and resolve that if I assume a proper attitude, the experience will actually produce the opposite effect of the supposed intent of evil. That is pure victory!

This is what it means when it says Jesus "scorned the shame" of the cross. He knew it was working precisely the opposite of what it was intending to, so at some level he could laugh at it.

This is an ultimate glory to God and shame of evil. Evil can't even stop God from using it to work good. The only thing that can stop that is, again, our free wills. It always seems to come back to that.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

That can be explained by God choosing to limit one of his attributes. He limited himself to our wills.

Many believe that the Book of Job was the earliest written book in the Bible. I believe Job was an Edomite, a descendant of Esau, and thus from the lineage of Abraham and Isaac. He lived in Edom, southeast of Judea, while the children of Israel were imprisoned in Egypt. It is speculated, or as we engineers say "guesstimated," that Moses came across the writing of Job when he was living with the Midianites nearby, or when he passed thru Edom on the way to the Good Land.

Thus the Lord, in His wisdom, wanted the story of Job to be known by all of His people. The children of Israel entered the good land with the 5 books of Moses and the book of Job.

For me, the opening chapter of Job completely solves the POE dilemma. Everything posted by Igzy and ZNP have only added details of support to this view. When we say, "He limited himself to our wills," we must included Satan here. Sometime between the creation of the heavens and the earth and His creation of Adam, there was a Free Will which influenced other Free Wills to rebel against an all knowing, all loving, and omnipresent God. Then this Free Will serpent in the garden influenced The Man and The Woman to also disobey.

Yet in God's love and care, He used Job to instruct all of His elect, both Jew and Christian alike, that He Himself was not hurting them, but only allowing Satan to do limited and temporary damage. Thus mankind, at least those who were willing to see past the immediate, would be assured of God's love, would know their real enemy, and would put their hope in God's wisdom and plan for the future.

Titus Chu once gave an interesting teaching on the Exodus lampstands. He said that the "trimming of the wicks" corresponded to our discipline from the Lord for our behaviors, for "those He loves, He chastens." Then TC likened the beating of the talent of gold into the shape of the lampstand as the Lord's work upon us distinct from our behavior. This was similar to the "beating" that Job took, which had nothing to do with his behavior, in order to shape him to be more useful to the Lord.

[Cal]

Here's a simple way to look at it:

"You intended it for evil, but God intended it for good." (Gen 50:20)

Evil is about intent. God judges the heart. If evil is not intended, was evil done? (Let's leave aside for the moment madmen, like Thanos, whose insanity makes them do evil thinking it good.)

So the same action, intended by a man to be evil, can be intended by God to be good.

Therefore, God is not doing evil. What is the evil? The short-term damage. What is the good? The long-term gain from going through the experience in submission to God.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Titus Chu once gave an interesting teaching on the Exodus lampstands. He said that the "trimming of the wicks" corresponded to our discipline from the Lord for our behaviors, for "those He loves, He chastens." Then TC likened the beating of the talent of gold into the shape of the lampstand as the Lord's work upon us distinct from our behavior. This was similar to the "beating" that Job took, which had nothing to do with his behavior, in order to shape him to be more useful to the Lord.

Which raises the question -- how was Job made more useful, or how is any of us made more useful from this "beating"?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Which raises the question -- how was Job made more useful, or how is any of us made more useful from this "beating"?

If Job became more believing in and submissive to God, then he became more useful.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The POE is a logical argument that claims the existence of evil means that God cannot be omniscient, omnipotent, and all good.

My analogy of a computer simulation is consistent with the existence of evil and a God that is omniscient, omnipotent and all good. Therefore, this analogy disproves the conclusion that "the existence of evil means that God cannot be omniscient, omnipotent and all good". The only requirement to disprove that logical argument is to show that we can have a world with Evil according to the Bible and also have a God that is omnipotent, omniscient and all good.

Therefore the only way to discredit the analogy is to show from the Bible that there is a direct contradiction. The fact that it requires faith or some other argument does not discredit this. As a result, without that the logical argument put forth by the POE fails.

Your argument requires that the entire empirical public world of shared human experience be deemed unreal. Evil is unreal because it's part of an unreal world according to your argument. So you justify God at the expense of the most certain knowledge we have-- that of the empirical world that we experience with our senses. You're welcome to your opinion on that and there may be a few people who agree with you. But your argument runs counter to common sense and the empirical sciences. So it is hardly persuasive.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Again, the article's view is stuck on the temporal as the ultimate.

If someone really agrees with that view then he would never suffer short-term pain for long-term benefit. Because he must consider all short-term suffering as evil, even sacrificial suffering. The upshot is that if he makes a sacrifice for someone he loves, that is evil.

The article presumes to know what is ultimately good, and of course, cannot.

But the temporal is what we've got. It's what is is for us ; life now.

I realize future judgement of punishments and rewards is fundamental to Christian belief, but should we celebrate suffering for some uncertain after life reward? Yea, I'm suffering! Yea, innocent babies are suffering and dying! Yea, I've got cancer! It's for the greater good doesn't help to the suffering.

Suffering isn't bad. It's good. God will reward me in the future. He wants us to suffer now so we'll really, really, really, appreciate not suffering in the future. That doesn't add up. Is that the way God's love is? The epistle of John doesn't say, "God is suffering."

Now, God's love has a problem.

1Co 13:3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Does this not apply to God's love?

Besides ... one life at a time. And, we're living in eternity now. It's not some future eternity. It's now. So why celebrate suffering now? for some nebulous greater good? No pain no gain applies to workouts.

Why suffer now? That's the very question of the problem of evil : why is there evil and suffering NOW?

Oh, I've forgotten my Christian upbringing : so we don't burn forever ; suffer now so that we don't suffer later ; that's the way of God.

God's love, therefore, must be a fickle bitch ... or, OR ... it's not love at all. If God loves evil and suffering to accomplish his grand hidden plan, it's not the kind of love I advise for parents to show to their little ones.

Who but psychopaths hurt their children for their greater good?

I don't picture my God as a psychopath. But the problem of evil indicates otherwise.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Your argument requires that the entire empirical public world of shared human experience be deemed unreal. Evil is unreal because it's part of an unreal world according to your argument. So you justify God at the expense of the most certain knowledge we have-- that of the empirical world that we experience with our senses. You're welcome to your opinion on that and there may be a few people who agree with you. But your argument runs counter to common sense and the empirical sciences. So it is hardly persuasive.

You have confused an empirical argument with a logical one*.

If you wish to change the thread to one about an empirical proof I think Ohio, Igzy and I would welcome that. We could then use the eyewitness accounts in the Gospels, the 500 witnesses in Acts, Paul's Testimony, and the myriad personal testimonies of God's goodness and answered prayer since then.

However, this thread is about a logical argument. In this argument once you agree with the premises, and there is no dispute with me, then it is simply a logical argument that given A&B C must follow. This argument has been proven false by me. It is not required that my interpretation be completely accurate. The Bible says that God's ways and deeper than ours, and no one has searched out the mind of God. I am not presuming to do so. I am simply showing how the existence of an all good, all knowing and all powerful God can also coexist with a world that has evil. Hence the conclusion given in the Post #1 is false. If you have one possible scenario then you have proven the logical argument false.


*Difference between a logical proof and an empirical one
As Kant defines it, a logical proof is any proof provided that is based upon a priori analysis. An a priori analysis is something which is in itself true without needing to be observed empirically but, rather, is based purely on human reasoning. A prime example would be this: All bachelors are unmarried. We only need to know what the definition of the words ‘bachelor’ and ‘unmarried’ are to understand this, but we do not ever have to actually know any bachelors or unmarried people. Logical proofs are based on rules of logic and axioms, which establish premises that could all be challenged or false but, regardless, lead to a true conclusion. Whether the premises put forth by philosophers are true or not, or whether they truly lead to the conclusion a philosopher claims it does, is essentially what the entirety of philosophy is about. If you choose to debate Kant, for example, you will most likely challenge the premises he uses when getting to his conclusions. The best, most ‘layperson’ way to define logical proof, then, is defining it as ‘concepts based solely on human reason, not empiricism (experience).’

An empirical proof is the exact opposite. Empirical proofs (Note: the proper term would not be proof, as proofs only exist in areas of absolute knowledge such as logic and mathematics. The proper term would be evidence and I will use it hereon out) are proofs based on a posteriori analysis which, if you have guessed, it simply the exact opposite of a priori analysis. Something that would be an empirical proof is something which we observe around us, something which can be measured, calculated, tested, or falsified. For example, I can verify that I personally have ten fingers. However, I cannot claim that all human beings have ten fingers just because I have ten fingers, as I have not met every human and verified this for myself. In fact, not all humans have ten fingers. I’ve met a person with nine personally when I was a child. Some people could be born with genetic deformations that give them less fingers. Or perhaps an accident occurred that chopped off someones finger. The point is that empirical proofs are proofs based on empiricism, or observation, of things in the world around us. Science is empirical as it seeks to discover more about the universe.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

But the temporal is what we've got. It's what is is for us ; life now.

Are you serious? The only thing we have is a covenant with God, everything else is vanity, will evaporate. Naked I was born and naked I return.

Originally Posted by awareness

I realize future judgement of punishments and rewards is fundamental to Christian belief, but should we celebrate suffering for some uncertain after life reward? Yea, I'm suffering! Yea, innocent babies are suffering and dying! Yea, I've got cancer! It's for the greater good doesn't help to the suffering.

Suffering isn't bad. It's good. God will reward me in the future. He wants us to suffer now so we'll really, really, really, appreciate not suffering in the future. That doesn't add up. Is that the way God's love is? The epistle of John doesn't say, "God is suffering."

You are changing the thread. This is a very different question. This thread is a logical argument, it has been shown to be false. Zeek has suggested changing the thread to an empirical argument, and you are suggesting changing it to a discussion on the merits of suffering. I would welcome both, but they are both a distraction on this thread.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Which raises the question -- how was Job made more useful, or how is any of us made more useful from this "beating"?

Job learned some tremendous spiritual lessons from those fiery trials which proved his faith, more precious than gold. Job saw God. (42.5) Before his testing, he was the greatest sage of the land. Consider how much more during his final 140 years on earth. Unfortunately, we don't have that historical record.

Take Apostle Paul for example. Consider all he suffered for the ministry. God was being formed into his being thru his labors and sufferings. He desired the same for us. (Gal. 4.19) Otherwise, why did Peter teach that the proving of our faith was more precious than gold? The ministries of the apostles came forth thru fiery hardships.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Are you serious? The only thing we have is a covenant with God, everything else is vanity, will evaporate. Naked I was born and naked I return.

Hogwash. So if all we have is a covenant what is it then? Does the covenant include evil and suffering?

Originally Posted by ZNP

You are changing the thread. This is a very different question. This thread is a logical argument, it has been shown to be false. Zeek has suggested changing the thread to an empirical argument, and you are suggesting changing it to a discussion on the merits of suffering. I would welcome both, but they are both a distraction on this thread.

Who are you to define this thread? What I see at the top is : "Re: The Problem of Evil."

And the problem of evil has not been resolved ... except in your mind. So stop trying to limit the argument so you can say you've solved it by your premises ... which aren't everyone's premises.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Job learned some tremendous spiritual lessons from those fiery trials which proved his faith, more precious than gold. Job saw God. (42.5) Before his testing, he was the greatest sage of the land. Consider how much more during his final 140 years on earth. Unfortunately, we don't have that historical record.

Take Apostle Paul for example. Consider all he suffered for the ministry. God was being formed into his being thru his labors and sufferings. He desired the same for us. (Gal. 4.19) Otherwise, why did Peter teach that the proving of our faith was more precious than gold? The ministries of the apostles came forth thru fiery hardships.

The difference I see in Job is that there is no record of him praying for his friends until after the trial. Prior to the trial he "sacrificed for his family" but afterwards he was enlarged.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Hogwash. So if all we have is a covenant what is it then? Does the covenant include evil and suffering?


Who are you to define this thread? What I see at the top is : "Re: The Problem of Evil."

And the problem of evil has not been resolved ... except in your mind. So stop trying to limit the argument so you can say you've solved it by your premises ... which aren't everyone's premises.

What hypocrisy! The first post lays out a logical argument. It provides the premises and then makes a logical conclusion. The question put forth is what do we think about this argument.

Zeek has argued logically repeatedly. No one has been using empirical evidence to refute the logical argument.

Now that I have refuted it you are suddenly going to skip all that has gone before and refer to the title, which if anyone googles will see that this is the title of a logical argument.

The bottom line is you have tried to prove logically that God in the Bible is not true. That He is not all loving, all good, omniscient and omnipresent. When that logical argument is shown to be false you want to flip the script.

Fine with me -- we can now use the gospels, all testimonies of a loving God, all powerful God, omniscient God, all testimonies of answered prayer, the accounts in Acts and Paul's testimony.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The difference I see in Job is that there is no record of him praying for his friends until after the trial. Prior to the trial he "sacrificed for his family" but afterwards he was enlarged.

If you had seen and heard God like Job, following such a painful trial, praying for your friends would be just a small part of the change within your soul.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If you had seen and heard God like Job, following such a painful trial, praying for your friends would be just a small part of the change within your soul.

The big part was the revelation that His God was much bigger than simply helping your family.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Job learned some tremendous spiritual lessons from those fiery trials which proved his faith, more precious than gold. Job saw God. (42.5) Before his testing, he was the greatest sage of the land. Consider how much more during his final 140 years on earth. Unfortunately, we don't have that historical record.

Take Apostle Paul for example. Consider all he suffered for the ministry. God was being formed into his being thru his labors and sufferings. He desired the same for us. (Gal. 4.19) Otherwise, why did Peter teach that the proving of our faith was more precious than gold? The ministries of the apostles came forth thru fiery hardships.

And the more it doesn't make sense the better. It proves how strong your faith is.

Most of us aren't Job or Paul. Paul had the thorn, and God came out of the whirlwind, to never own up that He placed a bet with the devil, and didn't compliment Job for making him a winner. Job placed his faith in a trickster God, that let him suffer horrific losses and suffering. In the end that was uninformed and misplace faith. Job had more fear than faith anyway. How could he not fear such a supernatural very big being that hung the moon and stars? ... that, btw, proved to have a mean streak.

The POE teaches us to fear a unpredictable God, that we can't have faith that He won't bring suffering our way.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

The POE teaches us to fear a unpredictable God, that we can't have faith that He won't bring suffering our way.

The POE doesn't teach anything, it is a flawed logical argument that is a fallacy. If you mean something else by "POE" then you should be clear.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What hypocrisy! The first post lays out a logical argument. It provides the premises and then makes a logical conclusion. The question put forth is what do we think about this argument.

Zeek has argued logically repeatedly. No one has been using empirical evidence to refute the logical argument.

Now that I have refuted it you are suddenly going to skip all that has gone before and refer to the title, which if anyone googles will see that this is the title of a logical argument.

The bottom line is you have tried to prove logically that God in the Bible is not true. That He is not all loving, all good, omniscient and omnipresent. When that logical argument is shown to be false you want to flip the script.

Fine with me -- we can now use the gospels, all testimonies of a loving God, all powerful God, omniscient God, all testimonies of answered prayer, the accounts in Acts and Paul's testimony.

The problem of evil is a real empirical existential problem. Not a logical conundrum that's solved by logic. In fact, It doesn't make any logical sense. You can use logic on it you want, but that doesn't solve the real existential empirical problem of evil.

I think you want to use logic to give God a pass on the POE. I don't blame you for coming to the defense of God. Somebody has to. He's not.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

The problem of evil is a real empirical existential problem. Not a logical conundrum that's solved by logic. In fact, It doesn't make any logical sense. You can use logic on it you want, but that doesn't solve the real existential empirical problem of evil.

I think you want to use logic to give God a pass on the POE. I don't blame you for coming to the defense of God. Somebody has to. He's not.

It makes perfect logical sense. We have learned that this is the best way to learn a subject. This is why we have designed very complex and expensive simulations. If man is destined to rule with God it would be imperative that we be able to discern between good and evil.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

And the more it doesn't make sense the better. It proves how strong your faith is.

Most of us aren't Job or Paul. Paul had the thorn, and God came out of the whirlwind, to never own up that He placed a bet with the devil, and didn't compliment Job for making him a winner. Job placed his faith in a trickster God, that let him suffer horrific losses and suffering. In the end that was uninformed and misplace faith. Job had more fear than faith anyway. How could he not fear such a supernatural very big being that hung the moon and stars? ... that, btw, proved to have a mean streak.

The POE teaches us to fear a unpredictable God, that we can't have faith that He won't bring suffering our way.

God has never brought any suffering your way, rather He loves you and sent His Son to die for all of your disgusting sins, and this is how you treat Him in return? You give Him no thanks, no worship, no appreciation, no honor.

You speak higher of Buddha, Allah, and Hindu gods than Jesus Christ.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

God has never brought any suffering your way, rather He loves you and sent His Son to die for all of your disgusting sins, . . .

If reworded just a little tweak that would make a great affirmation in something like "Your Daily Bread."

Here it is affirmation style :

God has never brought any suffering my way, rather He loves me and sent His Son to die for all of my disgusting sins, . . .

Originally Posted by Ohio

. . . and this is how you treat Him in return?

Oh brother, I'm not treating the real God in a disrespectful way. Can't you see, say in Job, that the depictions of God in the story is not the real God? But a depiction of God, by humans with limitations who can't possibly, like us all, depict the real God ... who is utterly undepictable.

. . . and even if you believe the author was inspired, God would only be able to inspire that which the author, and all other humans, could understand and relate to. So it would have to depict a anthropomorphized version of God. Not the real version, that the author, nor us, could never possibly relate to.

Same for us. We can't relate to God unless he's humanized in the realm of our imagination. Or maybe it's just me. I humanize Him. We can't help it. We're human, and have no choice but to think, and imagine, in human terms and relations.

So sorry if I offend your sensibilities, when I point out what the text and story is telling.

Rather than give me up the road, tell me how I get the story wrong :

• Did God make a bet about Job with The Satan? Yes, or No?
  
• Did He, and the devil, up the ante -- "Skin for skin" --? Yes, or no?
  
• Did God sit by and watch the devil do his dirty work? Yes, or No?

I could go on and on. But one last question following above fashion :

• Did God ever own up to Job about what He and the devil did? Yes, or no?

And finally. Isn't the God in the story an anthropomorphized version of God? and couldn't possibly be the real God? The real God wouldn't ever act that way. Not that I could ever imagine.

Originally Posted by Ohio

You give Him no thanks, no worship, no appreciation, no honor.

Well true that. Not the God in the story. That one is not the real God. That one doesn't earn my appreciation.

Originally Posted by Ohio

You speak higher of Buddha, Allah, and Hindu gods than Jesus Christ.

I have never. I already called Buddha an idiot, in so many words. And said why. Allah is just an Arabic word for YHWH<-click ... but not that one either. And Hindu gods? That claim is downright laughable.

[ZNPaaneah]

There are different versions of suffering.

Some suffering can clearly have a purpose. For example, when Michael Jordan first entered the NBA teams would game plan to stop him. They had a variety of strategies -- put their best defender on him with man defense the entire game, make him work on defense, double team him, the Pistons even had "Jordan rules". Now it would be easy to see why someone might complain, feel this was unfair, etc.

Every game plan was "a bet" against Jordan. The Pistons' version of 'Jordan rules' was upping the ante on this bet, and it is fair to say God sat back and watched (I was in Taiwan at the time and I would say it was a fair description to say everyone watched).

So you can whine about how this is an evil world, how could God allow it, etc.

Or, you can take the attitude that Jordan took -- he was getting tutored every night by the best defensive minds and talent the NBA had, for free. As a result he was not only a tremendous offensive threat he soon became a top defensive threat, being named to the first defensive team 7 times. Proving "all he could do the foe, was just release the flow". Once he became the double threat on both offense and defense the championships began to fall.

In the same way I would say that Job became a duel threat. In the beginning of the book he was a great spiritual force in his family and with his children. At the end of the book he was enlarged to include friends and community.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There are different versions of suffering.

Some suffering can clearly have a purpose. For example, when Michael Jordan first entered the NBA teams would game plan to stop him. They had a variety of strategies -- put their best defender on him with man defense the entire game, make him work on defense, double team him, the Pistons even had "Jordan rules". Now it would be easy to see why someone might complain, feel this was unfair, etc.

Every game plan was "a bet" against Jordan. The Pistons' version of 'Jordan rules' was upping the ante on this bet, and it is fair to say God sat back and watched (I was in Taiwan at the time and I would say it was a fair description to say everyone watched).

So you can whine about how this is an evil world, how could God allow it, etc.

Or, you can take the attitude that Jordan took -- he was getting tutored every night by the best defensive minds and talent the NBA had, for free. As a result he was not only a tremendous offensive threat he soon became a top defensive threat, being named to the first defensive team 7 times. Proving "all he could do the foe, was just release the flow". Once he became the double threat on both offense and defense the championships began to fall.

In the same way I would say that Job became a duel threat. In the beginning of the book he was a great spiritual force in his family and with his children. At the end of the book he was enlarged to include friends and community.

From one angle what you say is true, but no one talent can win championships. Compare Jordan to LaBron. Athletically equal. Jordan, however, was a leader, a pusher, a teammate, and respectful of authority. He never had a coach fired. Except for his stint under Pat Riley, LaBron has blown up every team. LaBron never had a dad, Jordan did. There's the difference, perhaps.

Except for his little "disrespect" of Draymond, Cleveland would never have won a title. Then he sabotaged that team too. Poor Cleveland. They have more problems with evil than most.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Oh brother, I'm not treating the real God in a disrespectful way. Can't you see, say in Job, that the depictions of God in the story is not the real God? But a depiction of God, by humans with limitations who can't possibly, like us all, depict the real God ... who is utterly undepictable.

. . . and even if you believe the author was inspired, God would only be able to inspire that which the author, and all other humans, could understand and relate to. So it would have to depict a anthropomorphized version of God. Not the real version, that the author, nor us, could never possibly relate to.

Same for us. We can't relate to God unless he's humanized in the realm of our imagination. Or maybe it's just me. I humanize Him. We can't help it. We're human, and have no choice but to think, and imagine, in human terms and relations.

So sorry if I offend your sensibilities, when I point out what the text and story is telling.

Rather than give me up the road, tell me how I get the story wrong :

• Did God make a bet about Job with The Satan? Yes, or No?
• Did He, and the devil, up the ante -- "Skin for skin" --? Yes, or no?
• Did God sit by and watch the devil do his dirty work? Yes, or No?

I could go on and on. But one last question following above fashion :

• Did God ever own up to Job about what He and the devil did? Yes, or no?

And finally. Isn't the God in the story an anthropomorphized version of God? and couldn't possibly be the real God? The real God wouldn't ever act that way. Not that I could ever imagine.

The answers are emphatically No, No, No, and He owes nothing to man.

Sorry bro, but your God is imaginary. Based on nothing. Just what you want Him to be. You have cut-n-pasted a Bible to your own liking.

God never made a bet with Satan, upped the ante, or sat idly back and watched. These are all your distorted delusions. God limited the suffering to work a greater good, cared for Job behind the scenes, and then used the story to benefit all His followers ever since. Why do you demean God, and once again, never address the real instigator, our real enemy? You regularly do the same with man. You never say a bad thing about the adherents of false religions, yet you use every opportunity to convict Christians. And Israel.

Read your posts. Your bias is extreme, and on full display. Even zeek pushes back at times. What does that tell you?

You don't offend my sensibilities. I mourn for you. You got everything backwards, inside out, and upside down.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The answers are emphatically No, No, No, and He owes nothing to man.

Maybe we're not reading the same book.

And I would start quoting the one I'm reading, but again, I don't think you want to get me going on the book of Job.

But would you like me to at least quote text from the one I'm reading, that supports "yes" to all my questions?

I would titled it : God's Night Out with the Boys.

Again, it wouldn't be about the real God. It would be about the imaginary God of the author(s) of the book of Job.

And I guess, if "even zeek pushes back," your judgment of me must be spot on.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Maybe we're not reading the same book.

And I would start quoting the one I'm reading, but again, I don't think you want to get me going on the book of Job.

Get you going?

I don't think you are going in the right direction, my friend. You have obviously lost your way. Please stop and turn around.

Both Jews and Christians alike have received centuries of truth and encouragement from the book of Job. They were benefited because they were convinced by faith that God had given us this book in His word.

You, however, have been misguided by those who distort the message. Peter said it best when he warned the church that some writings may be "hard to understand, which the unlearned and unstable twist to their own destruction." (II Peter 3.15-16)

I think it wise that you don't side with these unstable folks, since it won't end up well with you.

[Cal]

Ohio, Don't worry about Harold. He know the truth. He just likes the discourse. To some extent he is just playing the devil's advocate. He enjoys being provocative. I don't take seriously half of what he says. Now, when he compliments me, I take that seriously.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Ohio, Don't worry about Harold. He know the truth. He just likes the discourse. To some extent he is just playing the devil's advocate. He enjoys being provocative. I don't take seriously half of what he says. Now, when he compliments me, I take that seriously.

You're right. Having had more than a few telecons with our good friend, I know that often he posts as Wile E. Coyote, chuckling behind the keyboard "rock," waiting to snare the unsuspecting Road Runner.



Eventually, however, I do grow weary of our resident provocateur, and would like him to take a stand for something. But he never will. Because then he would be vulnerable. Convictions frighten him. It's so much more fun being a "paint ball sniper" and laughing at the "victims."
.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Get you going?

I don't think you are going in the right direction, my friend. You have obviously lost your way. Please stop and turn around.

Both Jews and Christians alike have received centuries of truth and encouragement from the book of Job. They were benefited because they were convinced by faith that God had given us this book in His word.

You, however, have been misguided by those who distort the message. Peter said it best when he warned the church that some writings may be "hard to understand, which the unlearned and unstable twist to their own destruction." (II Peter 3.15-16)

I think it wise that you don't side with these unstable folks, since it won't end up well with you.

The book of Job is unquestionably outstanding poetry. After the death of my son I was obsessed with it, reading it over and over again. It's a grand story of how bad things can happen to good people.

I read it over and over again until I busted out laughing. I mean, the sons of God getting together, and the devil shows up and takes center stage. I don't care who you are, that's funny.

And after all the lose and suffering of Job, and his friends berating him, God shows up out of a whirlwind ... OUT OF A WHIRLWIND ... and then tells Job how big, powerful, and wonderful He is ... after letting the devil do terrible things to him.

That God -- not the real God, but a poetic version of God -- reminded me at that time of my wife. When she did something that was undeniably wrong, she would go on the offensive, telling how wonderful she was, and shouting about all the wonderful things she does. That fictitious God made me wonder if He was a She.

Look, I've always appreciated Job. I've always been touched by the verses you pointed out :

Job 42:5-6 I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes."

And then that one made me bust out laughing too. I mean, wasn't Job sitting in dust in ashes already?

But it did emphasize the importance of not just hearing about God. That's funny too. Isn't that what the book is doing?

The book went thru editing and additions over a span of centuries. The prologue and epilogue are the funny parts of the story. The core message, as I've stated, is, how bad things happen to even good people, that are right with God.

In other words, in the end it's doesn't explain the problem of evil, except to say that God is behind it, using other agencies ... like the devil.

In the book God and the devil aren't depicted as arch enemies, but as partners in the problem of evil.

But in spite of God's puffery about Himself -- he can hook Leviathan -- it doesn't make God look good at all. That's why I say that God depicted in the book is not the real God, but a anthropomorphized version God ; a super human God ; Nietzsche's Übermensch.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Ohio, Don't worry about Harold. He know the truth. He just likes the discourse. To some extent he is just playing the devil's advocate.

Ya caught me. I'm busted.

Originally Posted by Igzy

He enjoys being provocative. I don't take seriously half of what he says. Now, when he compliments me, I take that seriously.

Yer a peach bro Igzy. And so is brother Ohio. I don't take a lot of what he says seriously too. He's easy. He's very smart and observant. But his emotions get the best of him at times. Romantic's? Whada-we-gonna-do with 'em?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Ya caught me. I'm busted.


Yer a peach bro Igzy. And so is brother Ohio. I don't take a lot of what he says seriously too. He's easy. He's very smart and observant. But his emotions get the best of him at times. Romantic's? Whada-we-gonna-do with 'em?

Well, they say that "all cynics are closet romantics," so you and zeek are busted, again. Me too, I suppose.

I'm looking forward to partying in the kingdom of God with all of you, and laughing about these days!

[awareness]

One last remark ... and I'll stop 'gettin' me goin' on Job.

If you haven't busted out laughing, while reading the book, read it over and over again for awhile.

It's a great book ; the best of The Writings in our canon. It's a tragic/comedy piece. It's got somethin' for everybody.

For me, it's laughter -- (Gods' secret of the Cosmos).

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

One last remark ... and I'll stop 'gettin' me goin' on Job.

If you haven't busted out laughing, while reading the book, read it over and over again for awhile.

It's a great book ; the best of The Writings in our canon. It's a tragic/comedy piece. It's got somethin' for everybody.

For me, it's laughter -- (Gods' secret of the Cosmos).

John chapter 9 cracks me up. That's the one where the Pharisees try to convince the formerly blind guy that he couldn't have been healed on the Sabbath.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

John chapter 9 cracks me up. That's the one where the Pharisees try to convince the formerly blind guy that he couldn't have been healed on the Sabbath.

Don't get me going on the book of John ....

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

John chapter 9 cracks me up. That's the one where the Pharisees try to convince the formerly blind guy that he couldn't have been healed on the Sabbath.

"I told you already, and you did not hear; Why do you want to hear again? Do you also want to be His disciples?"

Me too. I prefer laughter that solidifies my faith. I think Jesus and the guys often had great fun at the expense of the Pharisees, who continually looked like fools.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

"I told you already, and you did not hear; Why do you want to hear again? Do you also want to be His disciples?"

Me too. I prefer laughter that solidifies my faith. I think Jesus and the guys often had great fun at the expense of the Pharisees, who continually looked like fools.

But we're not told what made Jesus laugh. That's a huge oversight as far as I'm concerned. We've got "Jesus wept" but not "Jesus laughed."

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

But we're not told what made Jesus laugh. That's a huge oversight as far as I'm concerned. We've got "Jesus wept" but not "Jesus laughed."

He laughs at atheists. Psalm 2:1-5


In all seriousness, I asked my pastor why there is no record of Jesus laughing. He simply said, "I don't know."

Maybe he's saving that for us. When we finally hear Jesus laugh, whatever is going on is bound to be really funny.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

He laughs at atheists. Psalm 2:1-5

The book of Job refers to laughter more than any other book in the Bible.

Sarah said, “God has brought me laughter, and everyone who hears about this will laugh with me.”

the Lord laughs at the wicked

But you laugh at them, Lord; you scoff at all those nations

Our mouths were filled with laughter, our tongues with songs of joy. Then it was said among the nations, “The Lord has done great things for them.

Originally Posted by Igzy

I asked my pastor why there is no record of Jesus laughing. He simply said, "I don't know

If you saw the movie "The Big Short" there is a scene where Ben Rickard tells the kids to stop dancing. He says if you are right then that is the US economy, that is people's pensions, their homes, their jobs.

Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.

Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

He laughs at atheists. Psalm 2:1-5


In all seriousness, I asked my pastor why there is no record of Jesus laughing. He simply said, "I don't know."

Maybe he's saving that for us. When we finally hear Jesus laugh, whatever is going on is bound to be really funny.

Thanks for the Psalms reference. I have a love/hate relationship with that book, and so, am captivated by it when reading it. It's wonderfully hateful. . . . lots of laughs.

I've noticed that the Bible is bleak and short on the matter of laughter. That's why I say it's Gods' secret of the cosmos.

Luke's version of the sermon on the mount mentions it : "Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh."-Luk 6:21b That sounds like a reward.

But then : "Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep."- Luk 6:25b

And God laughing in the OT is always with derision.

That is not the secret I speak of. And I don't believe that's the only reason Jesus laughed.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

the Lord laughs at the wicked

Reading about Enron brings this home.

A year before the collapse their were internal warnings that had they been heeded could have averted the collapse.

However, these warnings required they look carefully into deals in which Fastow, Glisten and others had fraudulently made millions. As a result these key players had a vested interest to make sure no one looked at those deals. The only way they could do that is to stay with the company. So once they committed these frauds they were stuck, they could not abandon ship. The only people who actually were unscathed by the debacle were those who the criminals forced out in the years prior to the collapse.

It was as though the criminals made sure that only they went down with the ship and all those who were completely clear of the crime were forced out so as to remain unscathed.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

And God laughing in the OT is always with derision.

All laughter is in derision of something. It's good-natured derision.

Would you rather God laugh at his opposers or blast them with lightning bolts?

Oh, I get it. He's just supposed to say, "It's okay! Now run along and play, sweet babies!"

Sheesh, Harold. There's just no pleasing you, is there?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

All laughter is in derision of something. It's good-natured derision.

Would you rather God laugh at his opposers or blast them with lightning bolts?

Oh, I get it. He's just supposed to say, "It's okay! Now run along and play, sweet babies!"

Sheesh, Harold. There's just no pleasing you, is there?

LSM's A&C is benign by comparison.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.

Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep.

This is the story of Enron.

The CFO was a liar and a cheat. He set up a scheme to siphon money from Enron into his own pocket. However, little by little he needed lieutenants in the company to assist him. Those who were willing to cheat with him got promoted, got big bonuses, and made millions on the side. They were laughing. But they were trapped, they couldn't leave, they couldn't drop their guard, and to pull off this scam they had different stories: one to the Board, one to the accountants, one to the lawyers, and one to the auditors. In addition to all these different stories they had multiple different scams. The stress of keeping up these lies led to them appearing paranoid, showing mental illness. The downside of having to cover up the scam they had to appear like dimwits to many who investigated. Every so often some would discover enough to cause them trouble so they attacked them, slandered them, got them reassigned, stole their bonuses, and ultimately drove them from the company. For most people the default was "the experts have signed off on them, its above your pay grade". Finally, it dawned on them that they were chained to these schemes. They had to stay in their positions at the firm to hide the truth, and they had to continually spin lies and stories, ever digging a bigger and bigger hole, and everything had a paper trail. As a result the lies they told to the various different groups would ultimately be exposed.

So then, those who were laughing all the way to the bank with their ill gotten gains ultimately would weep.

Meanwhile those who got knifed in the back for doing the right thing in sounding an alarm to Enron, would ultimately get vindicated and their weeping would turn to laughter. Their reputation rose. Also, most of them got booted from Enron so they did not suffer any loss once the stock collapsed.

Also, there is an irony. Ken Lay the CEO and Chairman of Enron was a close friend of Bush. The collapse of Enron was precipitated by 911. So if Bush was responsible for 911 his friend was part of the collateral damage.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

All laughter is in derision of something. It's good-natured derision.

As bro Ohio says, I mourn for you. You don't know real laughter if you think all laughter is in derision. There's all kinds of laughter's. There's laughter out of derision, There's good natured laughter. There's even an evil witch laughter. But what about laughter out of joy and fun ; like kids, and silly girls? Did Jesus ever do that? He did go thru the baby stages, and the young goofy kid stages, like the human being he was. Surely he laughed. We hear none of it.

God's laughter in the OT is sorta like the evil witch laughter ; like, hahaha, I'm gonna smite you.

What I wanna know is, what made Jesus laugh? When he was drinking wine with the boys, what made him laugh, and what kind of laughter was it?

Originally Posted by Igzy

Would you rather God laugh at his opposers or blast them with lightning bolts?

No, I'd rather he laugh like this :

The person that you saw on the tree, the one who is glad and laughing, that is the living Jesus! The other one, into whose hands and feet they are driving spikes, that one is the body; he is the flesh-manifestation of the immortal being put to shame, the likeness perceived by the natural eye. Look at him, then look at me. - Jesus, according to the Apocalypse of Peter

That's a happy laughter. That's a living Jesus laughter. That's the laughter of joy.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Oh, I get it. He's just supposed to say, "It's okay! Now run along and play, sweet babies!"

I love the laughter of babies. So sweet and innocent.

And God does the "run along and play" thing most all of the time, seems in the real world anyway.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Sheesh, Harold. There's just no pleasing you, is there?

I know. It's like an itch. I really, really, really, wanna know what made Jesus laugh ... and all his different kinds of laughter (did he have even an evil laugh)?

But right now, I busted out laughing at myself. While on this computer I've been feeling a cold blast of air for quite some time. But I dismissed it thinking the fire wasn't going strong enough yet.

It just hit me, when I heard the door creaking. I forgot that I didn't close the door very well when bringing in the wood, and wind blow it wide open, allowing cold air to blow right in. thru the open door.

I busted out laughing at myself. It was one of those goofy kinds of laughter, like, I'm a complete dumb ass kinds of laughter. I guess it could be considered derision, but not really.

I think it's important that we learn to laugh at ourselves. I wonder if Jesus ever did that? It would perchance tell us a whole lot more about the historical Jesus, if we knew what made him laugh at himself.

I suppose we might find out some day ; when lost books written by the other 2/3's of the apostles are found, in a jar in a cave somewhere in Israel or Egypt.

Let's hope. And let's hope they make us laugh. Surely they will. Heck, we'll laugh that they were found ... and then laugh at them because they aren't scripture.

And finally. Read my tagline :

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

LSM's A&C is benign by comparison.

Thanks for the compliment bro Ohio.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

As bro Ohio says, I mourn for you. You don't know real laughter if you think all laughter is in derision. There's all kinds of laughter's. There's laughter out of derision, There's good natured laughter. There's even an evil witch laughter. But what about laughter out of joy and fun ; like kids, and silly girls? Did Jesus ever do that? He did go thru the baby stages, and the young goofy kid stages, like the human being he was. Surely he laughed. We hear none of it.

Are you deaf? what about at the wedding of Cana after the water is turned to wine, you don't hear laughter? What about when the widow of Nain's son is raised, can't hear any laughter then? How about when they laughed Jesus to scorn when He said the girl is not dead, and then was proven right. The Gospels are filled with weeping being turned to laughter and rejoicing.

Originally Posted by awareness

God's laughter in the OT is sorta like the evil witch laughter ; like, hahaha, I'm gonna smite you.

Sounds like you are projecting your own thoughts onto God. A sign of megalomania.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Are you deaf? what about at the wedding of Cana after the water is turned to wine, you don't hear laughter? What about when the widow of Nain's son is raised, can't hear any laughter then? How about when they laughed Jesus to scorn when He said the girl is not dead, and then was proven right. The Gospels are filled with weeping being turned to laughter and rejoicing.

You're obviously hearing things, that aren't written in the scripture.

But you do make a good point : There's imaginary laughter.

Originally Posted by ZNP

Sounds like you are projecting your own thoughts onto God. A sign of megalomania.

Except I'm unable to smite.

[awareness]

What does laughter have to do with theodicy, y'all might ask?

In different ways I like to point out that, if there is no laughter, there is a problem. In other words, if laughter is absent evil has either arrived, or is lurking around the corner ... or under the bed ... or in the closet.

But that is not necessarily so with the POE ; or rather, with God, according to the book of Psalms :

Psa 37:12-13 - The wicked plotteth against the just, and gnasheth upon him with his teeth. The Lord shall laugh at him: for he seeth that his day is coming.

Maybe if laughter is absent in this world it means troubles. But in the heavenly realm, when God laughs look out. Psalms says God laughs at the wicked. But according to the book of Job, God must have laughed at the plight of the just and righteous Job.

So laughter is not so good, if God is laughing behind the POE.

And that's how laughter ties in with the problem of evil.
.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

You're obviously hearing things, that aren't written in the scripture.

So you don't see these prophesies fulfilled in the Gospels?

They will enter Zion with singing; everlasting joy will crown their heads. Gladness and joy will overtake them, and sorrow and sighing will flee away.

Those the Lord has rescued will return. They will enter Zion with singing; everlasting joy will crown their heads. Gladness and joy will overtake them, and sorrow and sighing will flee away.

Then young women will dance and be glad, young men and old as well. I will turn their mourning into gladness; I will give them comfort and joy instead of sorrow.

Sounds like a blind guy leading the blind, explains how you would wind up in the ditch.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So you don't see these prophesies fulfilled in the Gospels?

They will enter Zion with singing; everlasting joy will crown their heads. Gladness and joy will overtake them, and sorrow and sighing will flee away.

Those the Lord has rescued will return. They will enter Zion with singing; everlasting joy will crown their heads. Gladness and joy will overtake them, and sorrow and sighing will flee away.

Then young women will dance and be glad, young men and old as well. I will turn their mourning into gladness; I will give them comfort and joy instead of sorrow.

All those don't mention laughter. You're hearing things again.

But did they laugh back then? Of course. Even the monkey's laugh.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

All those don't mention laughter. You're hearing things again.

But did they laugh back then? Of course. Even the monkey's laugh.

What does joy sound like?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What does joy sound like?

Perhaps our friend watches too much late night comedy, with canned laughter from the fake audience reduced to a recording.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Perhaps our friend watches too much late night comedy, with canned laughter from the fake audience reduced to a recording.

Oh, so that was what the reference to The Monkeys was all about.

[awareness]

Right on! Y'all are making me laugh out loud ... but not with joy ... cuz yer just snarkin'.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So then, those who were laughing all the way to the bank with their ill gotten gains ultimately would weep.

Meanwhile those who got knifed in the back for doing the right thing in sounding an alarm to Enron, would ultimately get vindicated and their weeping would turn to laughter.

The story of Enron began with Skilling replacing Kinder as President. Skilling was viewed as creative, someone who could lead them forward. He got them into all kinds of businesses. Earnings skyrocketed, but this was because they lied about earnings under the pretense they were being creative, and they lied about losses, again thinking this was "creative accounting". Within a little more than 2 or 3 years they have skyrocketed to a fortune 50 company and then crashed -- going bankrupt and bringing Arthur Anderson down with them. They lost everything.

But Kinder, who was ousted, had formed a new energy company that was not glamorous, not in the limelight, but while these guys all went bankrupt he quietly became a billionaire.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The story of Enron began with Skilling replacing Kinder as President. Skilling was viewed as creative, someone who could lead them forward. He got them into all kinds of businesses. Earnings skyrocketed, but this was because they lied about earnings under the pretense they were being creative, and they lied about losses, again thinking this was "creative accounting". Within a little more than 2 or 3 years they have skyrocketed to a fortune 50 company and then crashed -- going bankrupt and bringing Arthur Anderson down with them. They lost everything.

But Kinder, who was ousted, had formed a new energy company that was not glamorous, not in the limelight, but while these guys all went bankrupt he quietly became a billionaire.

Energy has always been slimy and dirty. Thanks for the history lesson, but could you please relate it to the problem of evil. Might it not fit better on another thread? Just askin'.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Energy has always been slimy and dirty. Thanks for the history lesson, but could you please relate it to the problem of evil. Might it not fit better on another thread? Just askin'.

It relates directly to your discussion on laughter in the Bible.

The two verses are quite simple,

Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.

Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep.

This is an example of this verse being fulfilled.

As for the "Problem of Evil" we have already presented two very plausible versions.

Iggy's version is that a life span of 100 years relative to eternity is less than 0.01%, hence it minimizes any "evil" to a negligible amount.

I do not consider that version to be well supported by the Bible -- my version is that life is an illusion, you can liken it to a simulation. Because the Bible says that "time will be no more", it is not part of eternity, you cannot say that our life span is an infinitesimal part of eternity, it isn't part of it at all.

Either way the problem of evil is really the problem of atheists who can't see eternity.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Energy has always been slimy and dirty. Thanks for the history lesson, but could you please relate it to the problem of evil. Might it not fit better on another thread? Just askin'.

Seriously? Energy has always been slimy and dirty?

So has Farming. Fishing. Hunting. Laundry. Changing diapers. Eating too. Life in general. It's all slimy and dirty.

Have you now been diseased by the New Green Deal? That utopian panacea promoted by pretty Bronx bartenders?

If only we could do away with cars. Hamburgers. Airplanes. Factories. Gas pumps. Cow farts. Human farts too!

What a great life that would be!

Vote Starbucks.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Either way the problem of evil is really the problem of atheists who can't see eternity.

And there you have it!

Those with a serious problem have created another problem to deal with their original problem -- unbelief.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It relates directly to your discussion on laughter in the Bible.

The two verses are quite simple,

Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.

Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep.

This is an example of this verse being fulfilled.

As for the "Problem of Evil" we have already presented two very plausible versions.

Iggy's version is that a life span of 100 years relative to eternity is less than 0.01%, hence it minimizes any "evil" to a negligible amount.

I do not consider that version to be well supported by the Bible -- my version is that life is an illusion, you can liken it to a simulation. Because the Bible says that "time will be no more", it is not part of eternity, you cannot say that our life span is an infinitesimal part of eternity, it isn't part of it at all.

Either way the problem of evil is really the problem of atheists who can't see eternity.

Life is an illusion doesn't help with the problem of evil, and belittles the suffering of innocents.

And the 0.01% compared to eternity is a funny (thanks for the laugh) answer to the POE. Plus -- putting aside the notion that eternity is now -- that eternity is after we die -- as an answer to the POE, is ironically not a Biblical answer to the POE.

We know nothing of eternity after we die, either in heaven or hell. According to Matthew Jesus said "Let the dead bury their dead." The POE deals with the living, deals with now, not eternity after we die, and saying the POE doesn't matter compared to eternity is saying we shouldn't care about the suffering of the innocents now.

In that regard -- Igzy's regard -- that approach to the POE is very cold, indifferent, and hard-hearted, towards suffering caused by the POE now, toward the suffering of the living, not the dead, and seems very non-Christian to me ... as does the illusion answer.

So the illusion dismissal of the POE doesn't hold water, and neither does the eternity dismissal answer the POE. Both look like they are just rationales, attempting to dismiss the problem of evil, to distance God from being the cause of it.

Yet, according to the Bible He clearly is. Why? We don't know. The book of Job indicates that it's just for the fun of it ... and sheds a bad light on the Almighty ... to say the least ... after seeing past His puffery in the epilogue.

But thanks for your attempt to explain how Enron relates to the POE bro ZNP. I failed to connect it with the laughter discussion. My bad. Mea Culpa.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Life is an illusion doesn't help with the problem of evil, and belittles the suffering of innocents.

No it doesn't. Watch the movie about Sully landing the plane on the Hudson. The simulation was very critical and didn't belittle anyone.

Originally Posted by awareness

And the 0.01% compared to eternity is a funny (thanks for the laugh) answer to the POE. Plus -- putting aside the notion that eternity is now -- that eternity is after we die -- as an answer to the POE, is ironically not a Biblical answer to the POE.

I agree. That is not my theory, that is Igzy's.

Originally Posted by awareness

We know nothing of eternity after we die, either in heaven or hell. According to Matthew Jesus said "Let the dead bury their dead." The POE deals with the living, deals with now, not eternity after we die, and saying the POE doesn't matter compared to eternity is saying we shouldn't care about the suffering of the innocents now.

Nope, you have just done a bait and switch. The POE is asserting that since all things came into being by God, evil could not have come into being unless created by God, hence evil came from God. My explanation likening our physical life to a simulation answers that question without belittling anyone's suffering. On the contrary it elevates it since we must be trained in this simulation prior to "eating of the tree of life". What belittles the suffering is putting pilots into airplanes without the proper training only to have them crash in the sea.

Originally Posted by awareness

In that regard -- Igzy's regard -- that approach to the POE is very cold, indifferent, and hard-hearted, towards suffering caused by the POE now, toward the suffering of the living, not the dead, and seems very non-Christian to me ... as does the illusion answer.

I agree that Igzy's explanation minimizes human suffering rather than answering the POE. I disagree that putting us into a simulation to be trained so that we would know good and evil prior to us ruling and reigning with Christ is "non Christian" nor is it cold, indifferent, or hard hearted. How is it that everyone is claiming that not putting those pilots through sufficient training in a simulator was cold, hard hearted and indifferent? Talk about hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by awareness

So the illusion dismissal of the POE doesn't hold water, and neither does the eternity dismissal answer the POE. Both look like they are just rationales, attempting to dismiss the problem of evil, to distance God from being the cause of it.

Nope another bait and switch. You have responded to Igzy's theory and then have attempted to say it is the same as responding to mine when it isn't.

Originally Posted by awareness

Yet, according to the Bible He clearly is. Why?

The Bible has already answered this. Man decided to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, a tree that will make one wise, like God, to know good and evil. In order to do that you must immediately enter into a situation where you are no longer in eternity (you will die), you are no longer in the garden, and you cannot eat from the tree of life. This is how God allows you to know good and evil without bringing evil into His kingdom or creation. It is a simulation.

Originally Posted by awareness

We don't know.

Seriously? You never read the first three chapters of Genesis?

Originally Posted by awareness

The book of Job indicates that it's just for the fun of it ... and sheds a bad light on the Almighty ... to say the least ... after seeing past His puffery in the epilogue.

What! You're going to blame God for enjoying life? You are worse than my students. True story -- I was proctoring an SAT exam the other day and was reading the instructions, every word, verbatim. The kids complained, saying I was taking too long. I said that "I only get to torture them like this once, and I was going to savor every minute of it." And I was not belittling the suffering of innocents (innocents -- Ha!). I went through it, so they should too. There is no suffering that we are going through that Jesus didn't go through and that also can be inferred from Genesis when God says that eating from that tree has caused us to know good and evil like Him.

Originally Posted by awareness

But thanks for your attempt to explain how Enron relates to the POE bro ZNP. I failed to connect it with the laughter discussion. My bad. Mea Culpa.

So are you laughing now, or would that shed a bad light on you?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No it doesn't. Watch the movie about Sully landing the plane on the Hudson. The simulation was very critical and didn't belittle anyone.

I agree that use of simulation for training for flying a plane is important and probably life saving. In that case simulations are POE preventative.

Originally Posted by ZNP

I agree. That is not my theory, that is Igzy's.

I don't mean to knock Igzy's theory. It is an interesting one. His premise is based upon us exiting this short temporal realm, and entering into the everlasting eternal realm ; and by comparison all suffering in this temporal realm is nothing ; it will be over in no time.

And the POE, when causing the premature deaths of innocents, is just doing them a favor, by moving them into the everlasting eternal realm sooner, thus saving them from a life of living in the realm of the POE.

Originally Posted by ZNP

Nope, you have just done a bait and switch. The POE is asserting that since all things came into being by God, evil could not have come into being unless created by God, hence evil came from God. My explanation likening our physical life to a simulation answers that question without belittling anyone's suffering. On the contrary it elevates it since we must be trained in this simulation prior to "eating of the tree of life". What belittles the suffering is putting pilots into airplanes without the proper training only to have them crash in the sea.

Well now. I'll entertain your simulation theory, and its ramifications. Okay, this is all a simulation. That means Jesus was a simulation. And not only that but, all the ancient patriarchs were simulations. In fact, Genesis is a simulation. The gospels are simulations. The apostles were simulations. The apostle Paul was a simulation. The early church and church fathers were simulations. The development of the canon, both Old and New, was/are a simulation. It's all simulation. That's what reality is. In the end aren't we just giving a different name to reality, and calling it now 'simulation.' But a Rose by any other name is still a Rose.

It doesn't matter what we call it, we still have to live this life in this whatever you want to call it, and be subject to the problems of evil, that a omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God could surely prevent ; if He wanted to, but obviously doesn't want to, for reasons beyond us.

Originally Posted by ZNP

The Bible has already answered this. Man decided to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, a tree that will make one wise, like God, to know good and evil. In order to do that you must immediately enter into a situation where you are no longer in eternity (you will die), you are no longer in the garden, and you cannot eat from the tree of life. This is how God allows you to know good and evil without bringing evil into His kingdom or creation. It is a simulation.

Simulation already set aside, in the garden story God's punishment for disobedience was to curse everything. His punishment was the POE. That was Gods' doing. Adam and Eve didn't do that. We don't do that.

So now, according to that story, we know why God creates evil : it's a punishment.

And the death and resurrection of Jesus satisfied God somewhat, but, not enough for Him to lift that punishing curse of the POE.

Why not?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well now. I'll entertain your simulation theory, and its ramifications. Okay, this is all a simulation. That means Jesus was a simulation. And not only that but, all the ancient patriarchs were simulations. In fact, Genesis is a simulation. The gospels are simulations. The apostles were simulations. The apostle Paul was a simulation. The early church and church fathers were simulations. The development of the canon, both Old and New, was/are a simulation. It's all simulation. That's what reality is. In the end aren't we just giving a different name to reality, and calling it now 'simulation.' But a Rose by any other name is still a Rose.

The point of the simulation is when the airplane crashes and everyone on board dies, the only thing that crashes and dies are the little electrons used to simulate that plane and people. How is that any different from the Bible telling us that when we die it is simply the little atoms of carbon making up our flesh that corrupt, and our soul and spirit are not impacted.

Just like the simulation with Sully it represents something quite real, and Sully must make life and death decisions in a few seconds, and we are able to judge if what he did was correct. How is that any different from the Bible telling us that every word we spoke will be repeated in our judgement? They were able to do that with Sully's airplane and God can do the same thing with our life.

Originally Posted by awareness

It doesn't matter what we call it, we still have to live this life in this whatever you want to call it, and be subject to the problems of evil, that a omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God could surely prevent ; if He wanted to, but obviously doesn't want to, for reasons beyond us.

The way we prevent tragedies is to train the pilots using a simulation. The simulation is omnipotent, able to simulate any and all possibilities. It is omniscient and it is benevolent. If you can see that then why is it so hard to see how God is doing the same thing?

Originally Posted by awareness

Simulation already set aside, in the garden story God's punishment for disobedience was to curse everything. His punishment was the POE. That was Gods' doing. Adam and Eve didn't do that. We don't do that.

Really? Once you have thieves and liars and cheats, then it makes everything that much harder. You have to now build walls around your garden, didn't have to do that before, you have to post guards, didn't have to do that before, you have to check the accounting, catch the criminals, prosecute the criminals, pick up the pieces, etc.

All of that is a consequence of someone trying to be smarter than everyone else, trying to find a shortcut around following the Lord's command. Consider the kid whose strategy for success in school is to cheat.

Originally Posted by awareness

So now, according to that story, we know why God creates evil : it's a punishment.

Then it must also be a reward. When students ask me "what time is it?" I tell them "it is time to shine". We made the decision to want to know good and evil, just like God, and that is the result.

Originally Posted by awareness

And the death and resurrection of Jesus satisfied God somewhat, but, not enough for Him to lift that punishing curse of the POE.

Why not?

A hope seen is not hope. You walk on water by faith. The dead are raised by faith. And this life provides you with the best opportunity for your love to perfected and to know the love of Christ.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't mean to knock Igzy's theory. It is an interesting one. His premise is based upon us exiting this short temporal realm, and entering into the everlasting eternal realm ; and by comparison all suffering in this temporal realm is nothing ; it will be over in no time.

It is loosely based on one verse by Paul in which he says he doesn't reckon the temporary sufferings can compare with an eternal weight of glory.

It doesn't address so many other things:

1. God created the Tree and planted it in the middle of the garden, why?

2. The tree makes us wise, like God.

3. Time will be no more when we are in eternity.

4. What then, is this human life?

5. Why, after we die, are we likened to spectators?

6. What is the purpose of the suffering?

Nor does it respond to the logical paradox. God created this universe. This universe contains evil. Nothing that exists came into being apart from God. Therefore God created "evil". Yet the Bible says that in Him is light and no darkness at all. It says it is impossible for God to lie. So how did God create liars?

According to Igzy's theory there is some darkness, just a tiny, negligible amount.

[ZNPaaneah]

If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.

7 But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8 What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in[a] Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith.

If the interpretation that since our life is a negligible amount of eternity were applied here you would not say that these things were "a loss". They would be a negligible gain, even 0, but not negative.

However, in the interpretation that life is a simulation and the only reality is Christ these things are nothing. Once Paul gets the revelation that only Christ is real it also results in the conclusion that anything that distracts or hinders from gaining Christ is a loss.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It is loosely based on one verse by Paul in which he says he doesn't reckon the temporary sufferings can compare with an eternal weight of glory.

Paul was into waiting. It was all coming in the future. Talk about a simulation, That's clearly one Paul held in his mind, and ministry.

But to say that the future will fix the POE, doesn't answer for the POE now. And that's what we're dealing with. It's brutally existential in the present. We can't dismiss it by claiming the sweet by-and-by. And if it's all a simulation it doesn't help either. The POE is existential either way. It still hurts my heart to the point of tears to see a baby suffer and die.

But the promising of a future utopia does bring comfort to the heart and mind, when suffering the effects of the POE.

The son I lost was from a local church union. Of course his mom and I learned about that wonderful future in eternity while in the local church.

And of course his mom was devastated when he passed, as was I. After we left the local church, she let go of it all, even belief in God. But she was so distraught that she sought comfort in a Spirit Guide. And found it. The Spirit Guide told her that Brian (our son) had a mission here on earth, had accomplished it, and was needed in the afterlife. I gave no credence in Spirit Guides, but it gave her comfort so went along with it. Besides, we were both experiencing visitations from him, so anything was possible. Maybe the spirit guide could put her in touch with Brian, she hoped.

Originally Posted by ZNP

It doesn't address so many other things:

1. God created the Tree and planted it in the middle of the garden, why?

2. The tree makes us wise, like God.

3. Time will be no more when we are in eternity.

4. What then, is this human life?

5. Why, after we die, are we likened to spectators?

6. What is the purpose of the suffering?

Nor does it respond to the logical paradox. God created this universe. This universe contains evil. Nothing that exists came into being apart from God. Therefore God created "evil". Yet the Bible says that in Him is light and no darkness at all. It says it is impossible for God to lie. So how did God create liars?

According to Igzy's theory there is some darkness, just a tiny, negligible amount.

Interesting questions and quandaries.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.

7 But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8 What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in[a] Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith.

If the interpretation that since our life is a negligible amount of eternity were applied here you would not say that these things were "a loss". They would be a negligible gain, even 0, but not negative.

However, in the interpretation that life is a simulation and the only reality is Christ these things are nothing. Once Paul gets the revelation that only Christ is real it also results in the conclusion that anything that distracts or hinders from gaining Christ is a loss.

What is it 'to gain Christ?'

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Paul was into waiting. It was all coming in the future. Talk about a simulation, That's clearly one Paul held in his mind, and ministry.

But to say that the future will fix the POE, doesn't answer for the POE now. And that's what we're dealing with. It's brutally existential in the present. We can't dismiss it by claiming the sweet by-and-by. And if it's all a simulation it doesn't help either. The POE is existential either way. It still hurts my heart to the point of tears to see a baby suffer and die.

And that is how we learn compassion, empathy, and learn that our actions have consequences. However, the Bible says that God will wipe away every tear. If you were playing a board game like monopoly and one of the kids went bankrupt, lost and left the game, watching until everyone else finished. I think you could weather the hurt from that. If life is like a simulation, then that is what "evil" is like.

Originally Posted by awareness

But the promising of a future utopia does bring comfort to the heart and mind, when suffering the effects of the POE.

The son I lost was from a local church union. Of course his mom and I learned about that wonderful future in eternity while in the local church.

And of course his mom was devastated when he passed, as was I. After we left the local church, she let go of it all, even belief in God. But she was so distraught that she sought comfort in a Spirit Guide. And found it. The Spirit Guide told her that Brian (our son) had a mission here on earth, had accomplished it, and was needed in the afterlife. I gave no credence in Spirit Guides, but it gave her comfort so went along with it. Besides, we were both experiencing visitations from him, so anything was possible. Maybe the spirit guide could put her in touch with Brian, she hoped.


Interesting questions and quandaries.

I was very upset as well. However, there was no question that my son was saved. I asked myself if the Lord was going to take one close relative, who would you feel most certain to see in the kingdom? That gave me comfort. Also, I asked, if my son's destiny was to die in his 20s could he have had a better life? Couldn't imagine that he could. He lived like tomorrow was not guaranteed. I was very close to him so I lost someone that I had my closest and best fellowship with, that was a key loss. Also, I received a speaking from the Lord as a result of his death, something very personal that I don't want to share, but it really made me much more serious about being faithful to the Lord.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

And that is how we learn compassion, empathy, and learn that our actions have consequences.

Consequences sounds like more POE to me. And I agree such losses that we've experienced changed us, or did me. And yes I developed more sensitivity, more compassion, and empathy. Now I feel more for the suffering of others. I cry easy for them.

But why didn't I have those qualities before the loss of my son? That's a big question. But without a doubt my conservative Bible Christian upbringing had something to do with it. As the prevailing attitude was that the 'world out there' was evil and of the prince of this world. That certainly didn't instill compassion and empathy for their suffering, to the same degree a very hurtful loss teaches. Maybe that explains a part of the reason my compassion and empathy were lacking.

Originally Posted by ZNP

However, the Bible says that God will wipe away every tear.

The sweet-by-and-by is not enough to justify the POE. And maybe we'd have more compassion and empathy in our nature if God showed us such values by removing the problem of evil.

Originally Posted by ZNP

I was very upset as well. However, there was no question that my son was saved. I asked myself if the Lord was going to take one close relative, who would you feel most certain to see in the kingdom? That gave me comfort. Also, I asked, if my son's destiny was to die in his 20s could he have had a better life? Couldn't imagine that he could. He lived like tomorrow was not guaranteed. I was very close to him so I lost someone that I had my closest and best fellowship with, that was a key loss. Also, I received a speaking from the Lord as a result of his death, something very personal that I don't want to share, but it really made me much more serious about being faithful to the Lord.

I'm glad you found comfort brother, just as I was glad my son's mom found comfort in her Spirit Guide.

And speaking of the by and by, I have Christian friends who lost pets, that were considered family members, resulting in like grieving you and I have experienced. They find comfort in believing that they will see them again in heaven.

And yes, such beliefs bring needed comfort. That's another "value" the POE teaches : how to invent ways of finding comfort from the blows and consequences of the POE.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Consequences sounds like more POE to me. And I agree such losses that we've experienced changed us, or did me. And yes I developed more sensitivity, more compassion, and empathy. Now I feel more for the suffering of others. I cry easy for them.

But why didn't I have those qualities before the loss of my son? That's a big question. But without a doubt my conservative Bible Christian upbringing had something to do with it. As the prevailing attitude was that the 'world out there' was evil and of the prince of this world. That certainly didn't instill compassion and empathy for their suffering, to the same degree a very hurtful loss teaches. Maybe that explains a part of the reason my compassion and empathy were lacking.

Yes, but the Lord said light overcomes darkness and not to be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good. Our problem is we do not like to take the narrow way that leads to life, but opt for the broad way.

Originally Posted by awareness

The sweet-by-and-by is not enough to justify the POE. And maybe we'd have more compassion and empathy in our nature if God showed us such values by removing the problem of evil.

You keep ignoring that choosing to know good and evil was our choice despite God's prohibition. The entire process begins when people think they are wiser that God and that God is somehow trying to keep some of the best things from them. Dealing with that foolishness is more than enough justification.

Remember, the justification for Hitler was not that he was going to be a monster, some people actually thought he had the best way for Germany to return to glory. Watching his experiment play out is very beneficial for all people going forward.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, but the Lord said light overcomes darkness . . .

I know. The Lord couldn't help but believe that. 2000 yrs ago they didn't know anything about the universe, and didn't know that it's mostly darkness ... and that's why light stands out in it ... but does not overcome all the abundant darkness. Darkness overcomes the light.

Originally Posted by ZNP

and not to be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good.

I wish we could. The PROBLEM of evil, is that good doesn't overcome it.

Originally Posted by ZNP

Our problem is we do not like to take the narrow way that leads to life, but opt for the broad way.

The topic is our problem with evil.

Originally Posted by ZNP

You keep ignoring that choosing to know good and evil was our choice despite God's prohibition.

I made no such choice. We today made no such choice. We don't even know what the forbidden fruit tasted like. I would have told the serpent to screw off, and eaten from the tree of life.

Originally Posted by ZNP

The entire process begins when people think they are wiser that God and that God is somehow trying to keep some of the best things from them.

Don't you mean He keeps His grand plan closely breasted.

Originally Posted by ZNP

Remember, the justification for Hitler was not that he was going to be a monster, some people actually thought he had the best way for Germany to return to glory. Watching his experiment play out is very beneficial for all people going forward.

It doesn't seem to be beneficial for the Palestinians, being treated like Hitler treated the Jews.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

It doesn't seem to be beneficial for the Palestinians, being treated like Hitler treated the Jews.

The Palestinians are a terrorist organization preying upon the innocents in Israel.

Sounds like the way Hitler treated the Jews, except now they have their own country.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Palestinians are a terrorist organization preying upon the innocents in Israel.

And so were the Native American Indians.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

And so were the Native American Indians.

Were the Iranian Mullahs around back then too?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Were the Iranian Mullahs around back then too?

Yes, they, not Christians, committed genocide against the Indians.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes, they, not Christians, committed genocide against the Indians.

They must have been the Jacksonian Democrats. They were the ones that did the Indians dirty, and continued to enslave the blacks. Not one single Republican owned slaves or voted against Lincoln's emancipation amendments.

[awareness]

We are living in a Holodeck ... according to MIT professor. ZNP is right :

We're More Likely Than Not Living In A Computer Simulation, MIT Professor Suggests

https://www.iflscience.com/technolog...ssor-suggests/

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

We are living in a Holodeck ... according to MIT professor. ZNP is right :

We're More Likely Than Not Living In A Computer Simulation, MIT Professor Suggests

https://www.iflscience.com/technolog...ssor-suggests/

Not to quibble, but if "ZNP is right" then I am right in saying this is what the Bible teaches, hence "The Bible is right".

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Not to quibble, but if "ZNP is right" then I am right in saying this is what the Bible teaches, hence "The Bible is right".

Got it. And we circle back. And it's important that the Bible always be right. Or God can't save us.

And we circle back to the POE. God is not omnipotent. He's limited by the Bible.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Got it. And we circle back. And it's important that the Bible always be right. Or God can't save us.

And we circle back to the POE. God is not omnipotent. He's limited by the Bible.

You've got it! Almost. The omnipotent God is limited by the words of the omnipotent God.

I knew if we kept working at it long enough sooner or later you'd get it! Wow! Everyone said it was impossible.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You've got it! Almost. The omnipotent God is limited by the words of the omnipotent God.

I knew if we kept working at it long enough sooner or later you'd get it! Wow! Everyone said it was impossible.

Cuz with God anything is possible ... even eliminating the problem of evil ... now ... not in some nebulous future.

What's the Bible say about that?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Cuz with God anything is possible ... even eliminating the problem of evil ... now ... not in some nebulous future.

What's the Bible say about that?

Time for you to read the back of the Book!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Time for you to read the back of the Book!

How can we turn to that Christian comic book for any real answers to the POE? How do we know what it means? Was it symbolic messages and code to the Christians back then, to avoid persecutions by the Romans? which means it applied to back then, and not the future? We don't even know just who the John was that claimed to author the book. Moreover, it opens with :

"to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass."

Which means that it didn't solve the POE when it shortly came to pass ... and doesn't and can't answer the POE today either.

Besides, it reveals that God can only deal with the problem of evil in words and novels, not in real time now. Revealing again that the supposed omnipotent God is limited, and falls at least a little short of omnipotence.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

How can we turn to that Christian comic book for any real answers to the POE? How do we know what it means? Was it symbolic messages and code to the Christians back then, to avoid persecutions by the Romans? which means it applied to back then, and not the future? We don't even know just who the John was that claimed to author the book. Moreover, it opens with :

"to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass."

Which means that it didn't solve the POE when it shortly came to pass ... and doesn't and can't answer the POE today either.

Besides, it reveals that God can only deal with the problem of evil in words and novels, not in real time now. Revealing again that the supposed omnipotent God is limited, and falls at least a little short of omnipotence.

You reject the book of Revelations as a "Christian comic book," criticizing God's time frame, and then read Greek mythology and alternative religions without discernment. Your adherence to the POE is just wishful thinking.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You reject the book of Revelations as a "Christian comic book," . . .

Yes! It should have never made it into the canon. I blame Gutenberg. Before the printing press Revelation was in and out of the canon like a yo-yo. That book is nothing but a troublemaker. It's been disputed as to the canon from early on. Origen called it antilegomena. And there's a reason orthodox churches don't use it for readings in worship.

My major complaint, same as Luther's, in a nutshell, is that it has a fake Jesus in it. Cuz the Jesus depicted in Revelation is antithetical to the Jesus in the gospels.

Originally Posted by Ohio

. . . criticizing God's time frame, . . .

What does any of us mortals know about Gods' time? God is beyond time. We're trapped in it.

Originally Posted by Ohio

. . . and then read Greek mythology and alternative religions without discernment.

I don't need very much discernment to see that Greek mythology is just figments of man's imagination, and alternative religions as pseudo-religion.

But thanks for your concern for my discernment.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Your adherence to the POE is just wishful thinking.

The problem of evil is indifferent to our adherence or disregard. It is as mysterious as God. We're like Job, who never came to know why and how God allowed evil upon him. God didn't tell Job, and He's not telling us either.

But it's obvious why God lovers hate the POE, shy to discuss it, and pounce on it when it comes up.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes! It should have never made it into the canon. I blame Gutenberg. Before the printing press Revelation was in and out of the canon like a yo-yo. That book is nothing but a troublemaker. It's been disputed as to the canon from early on. Origen called it antilegomena. And there's a reason orthodox churches don't use it for readings in worship.

My major complaint, same as Luther's, in a nutshell, is that it has a fake Jesus in it. Cuz the Jesus depicted in Revelation is antithetical to the Jesus in the gospels.

Perhaps your "Jesus" is fake, and antithetical to the Bible. What kind of "gospel" do you preach? And your "bible" only has a few select verses in it.

If all of God's judgment is given to the Son, then it will be a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Perhaps your "Jesus" is fake, and antithetical to the Bible. What kind of "gospel" do you preach? And your "bible" only has a few select verses in it.

If all of God's judgment is given to the Son, then it will be a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

So are you saying that if the problem of evil we have to deal with today doesn't work, God's going send even more evil?

So the sermon on the mount was just a ruse? that love your neighbor and even your enemy is just a "do as I say, not as I do?"

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

So are you saying that if the problem of evil we have to deal with today doesn't work, God's going send even more evil?

So the sermon on the mount was just a ruse? that love your neighbor and even your enemy is just a "do as I say, not as I do?"

The reason we must love our neighbor is because of evil. If there was no evil, then loving everyone would be easy.

Think about how much evil was displayed in the passion. Yet Jesus said, "forgive them."

It so sad that you see evil coming from a loving Savior.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The reason we must love our neighbor is because of evil. If there was no evil, then loving everyone would be easy.

Think about how much evil was displayed in the passion. Yet Jesus said, "forgive them."

It so sad that you see evil coming from a loving Savior.

I've done what you've advised. I've read the last book ... many times. It's why I see evil coming from a "loving" "Savior."

That's why I say the book is nothing but a troublemaker. It doesn't depict a loving Savior. It depicts a hateful God, bringing even more evil than He allows to exist today.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I've done what you've advised. I've read the last book ... many times. It's why I see evil coming from a "loving" "Savior."

That's why I say the book is nothing but a troublemaker. It doesn't depict a loving Savior. It depicts a hateful God, bringing even more evil than He allows to exist today.

Unfortunately you seem completely unable to distinguish between evil and the righteous judgments of a holy God.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Unfortunately you seem completely unable to distinguish between evil and the righteous judgments of a holy God.

Surely you, the defender of the unborn, can see that killing innocent babies is not righteous judgement.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Surely you, the defender of the unborn, can see that killing innocent babies is not righteous judgement.

Getting 100 on a test is a "judgement". Not all "judgement" is condemnation. Surely you can see that.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Surely you, the defender of the unborn, can see that killing innocent babies is not righteous judgement.

Only God Himself defines what is righteous judgment.

Sorry bro, but only He makes the rules.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Getting 100 on a test is a "judgement". Not all "judgement" is condemnation. Surely you can see that.

Here we are again, discussing the real God -- the real Jesus -- and the fake God in the book of Revelation.

Example. Here again the author can't be faulted. As humans we can't help but see the supernatural realm in human terms and references, and see the deity in the same human limited way. I'm speaking here about the wrath of God depicted in the book.

I remember as a little boy being told that "God is love." They told me that to comfort me and make me want God. Then along came the Fire and Brimstone sermons, the "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" type, and worse, the fiery burn forever hell.

This made God scary to me. Which was its intended purpose.

But aren't we carrying anthropomorphism a little too far? Is God an invisible human MAN in the sky? our sky Daddy, with the belt of an almighty giant male human deity? with even arrows? :

"The bow of God’s wrath is bent, and the arrow made ready on the string; and justice directs the bow to your heart, and strains at the bow: and it is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, and that of an angry God, without any promise or obligation at all, that keeps the arrow one moment from being made drunk with your blood." ~ Jonathan Edwards, 18th c.

Of course not. We humans make that stuff up, using only what we know which is, human references in human terms applying them to God.

And there's no way they can depict the real God. God isn't human. I know tradition has it that He became human, but that lacks certain exegetical grounding. Besides, as depicted in the New Testament, Jesus wasn't human. We anthropomorphized even that. We can't help ourselves. We're human.

And that's the way I see the book of Revelation.

And in talking about the value of the book of Revelation, the judgement seat is not its type of judgement I'm seeing. In the book the judgement means pouring out bowls of wrath, and burning up large parts of the world.

So I think you're talking about a different judgement. If not so, please correct me.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Here we are again, discussing the real God -- the real Jesus -- and the fake God in the book of Revelation.

Example. Here again the author can't be faulted. As humans we can't help but see the supernatural realm in human terms and references, and see the deity in the same human limited way. I'm speaking here about the wrath of God depicted in the book.

I remember as a little boy being told that "God is love." They told me that to comfort me and make me want God. Then along came the Fire and Brimstone sermons, the "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" type, and worse, the fiery burn forever hell.

This made God scary to me. Which was its intended purpose.

But aren't we carrying anthropomorphism a little too far? Is God an invisible human MAN in the sky? our sky Daddy, with the belt of an almighty giant male human deity? with even arrows? :

"The bow of God’s wrath is bent, and the arrow made ready on the string; and justice directs the bow to your heart, and strains at the bow: and it is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, and that of an angry God, without any promise or obligation at all, that keeps the arrow one moment from being made drunk with your blood." ~ Jonathan Edwards, 18th c.

Of course not. We humans make that stuff up, using only what we know which is, human references in human terms applying them to God.

And there's no way they can depict the real God. God isn't human. I know tradition has it that He became human, but that lacks certain exegetical grounding. Besides, as depicted in the New Testament, Jesus wasn't human. We anthropomorphized even that. We can't help ourselves. We're human.

And that's the way I see the book of Revelation.

And in talking about the value of the book of Revelation, the judgement seat is not its type of judgement I'm seeing. In the book the judgement means pouring out bowls of wrath, and burning up large parts of the world.

So I think you're talking about a different judgement. If not so, please correct me.

So you deny that the book of Revelation should be part of the Canon, and you are now denying that Jesus Christ came in the flesh.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So you deny that the book of Revelation should be part of the Canon, and you are now denying that Jesus Christ came in the flesh.

Right on the canon, wrong on Jesus in the flesh. I believe that Jesus was a historical man in the flesh. I understand the arguments of the docetists and mythicists, but disagree. I think the historicity of Jesus is rather certain. Even the renowned "atheist" Professor Bart Ehrman defends against the mythicists that Jesus was a historical person.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Right on the canon, wrong on Jesus in the flesh. I believe that Jesus was a historical man in the flesh. I understand the arguments of the docetists and mythicists, but disagree. I think the historicity of Jesus is rather certain. Even the renowned "atheist" Professor Bart Ehrman defends against the mythicists that Jesus was a historical person.

Are you now saying that your "faith" has now descended to the level of renowned atheists, who begrudgingly admit that there must have been a man named Jesus?

Since it is "holy week," do you also admit that this Jesus rose from the dead, and is now seated in the heavens at the right hand of God the Father?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Are you now saying that your "faith" has now descended to the level of renowned atheists, who begrudgingly admit that there must have been a man named Jesus?

Begrudgingly. I love Jesus. As far as I can see Jesus was the highest teacher of morals a ethics, as he taught love.

And yes. I'm an atheist. As are you. Do you believe in any of the Greek gods? how 'bout the Roman gods? the Hindu gods? so forth and so on. Or if you want to just stay the the Biblical bubble, how about all the gods the Israelites ran off to?

I'm an atheist of all the fake man-made imaginary gods. I think you are too ... but could be wrong. Please correct me if wrong.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Since it is "holy week," do you also admit that this Jesus rose from the dead, and is now seated in the heavens at the right hand of God the Father?

Holy week? I can't believe I almost missed it. Thanks. I needed that ... You darn Roman Catholic.

But as to the last questions, I wasn't there. And I'm not there. But I do, by my own experience, admit that, there's something to that Comforter/Teacher.

A Trivia question: Why the RIGHT hand?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Begrudgingly. I love Jesus. As far as I can see Jesus was the highest teacher of morals a ethics, as he taught love.

And yes. I'm an atheist. As are you. Do you believe in any of the Greek gods? how 'bout the Roman gods? the Hindu gods? so forth and so on. Or if you want to just stay the the Biblical bubble, how about all the gods the Israelites ran off to?

I'm an atheist of all the fake man-made imaginary gods. I think you are too ... but could be wrong. Please correct me if wrong.

Cute. Atheist is defined as the belief that there is no God.

Trying to equivocate on this issue by saying there are those that are claimed to be Gods that are not Gods is not the definition of atheist.

Anyone who believes Jesus is God, or that the God of the Bible He is God. This person cannot be defined as an "atheist". So why the dodge on such an easy and straightforward question? Are you ashamed of your beliefs?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Begrudgingly. I love Jesus. As far as I can see Jesus was the highest teacher of morals a ethics, as he taught love.

What good is a teacher of morals and ethics if there are no consequences for ignoring and disobeying Him? You admit that He is the "highest teacher," but so what? Great teachers are a dime a dozen. Just visit any university, or any bookstore.

I asked if you believed He rose from the dead, and you said you were not there. What will you answer God, since He has given you overwhelming evidence? Is He now at the throne in the heavens, or not?

Jesus taught both love and judgment and so much more. If you only know a "teacher of love," then you have rejected more than half of His message. If you reject His resurrection, then you have rejected it all.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Cute. Atheist is defined as the belief that there is no God.

Thanks for the compliment. Maybe you don't know that the early 1st c. Christians were called atheists. Cuz they didn't believe in and worship the pagan deities. But how could they be atheists? They believed in God. They were atheists of the pagan Gods. As are you.

So when I say I'm an atheist of fake gods, I'm following in the steps of the early Christians.

Originally Posted by ZNP

Trying to equivocate on this issue by saying there are those that are claimed to be Gods that are not Gods is not the definition of atheist.

But that is a misconception about atheism. There's different types of atheism. There's hard atheism, soft atheism, strong atheism and weak atheism. Today, there's even Christian atheists. Look it up.

Originally Posted by ZNP

Anyone who believes Jesus is God, or that the God of the Bible He is God. This person cannot be defined as an "atheist". So why the dodge on such an easy and straightforward question? Are you ashamed of your beliefs?

As you can see, no dodge here. And I'm not ashamed that I dislike believing.

[ZNPaaneah]

for those of you having trouble believing that we are living in a computer simulation, consider your credit score.

This is done exactly like any video game. There is an algorithm, you are scored based on all your transactions and then this score impacts how you play the rest of the game.

China is also developing a "social score". They rate you based on how much alcohol you purchase, how many video games you buy (both negatively impact your social score) whether you jay walk (another negative score), minor traffic infractions, as well as any criminal behavior, littering, etc. There are things you can do to get a positive score. If the social score is too low you get black balled and are unable to do simple things like buy a train ticket, run a business, etc.

There is a AI computer program and millions of cameras that help officiate this initiative.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

for those of you having trouble believing that we are living in a computer simulation, consider your credit score.

This is done exactly like any video game. There is an algorithm, you are scored based on all your transactions and then this score impacts how you play the rest of the game.

China is also developing a "social score". They rate you based on how much alcohol you purchase, how many video games you buy (both negatively impact your social score) whether you jay walk (another negative score), minor traffic infractions, as well as any criminal behavior, littering, etc. There are things you can do to get a positive score. If the social score is too low you get black balled and are unable to do simple things like buy a train ticket, run a business, etc.

There is a AI computer program and millions of cameras that help officiate this initiative.

Folks here worry about the "Problem of evil" when they should be concerned about the "Problem of spying."

Spying of the general public has been increasing for years. All we need is a financial/geopolitical disaster to set the "computer simulation" into full game mode.

One day, possibly soon, people will be longing for those "good old days" under Trump.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Folks here worry about the "Problem of evil" when they should be concerned about the "Problem of spying."

Spying of the general public has been increasing for years. All we need is a financial/geopolitical disaster to set the "computer simulation" into full game mode.

One day, possibly soon, people will be longing for those "good old days" under Trump.

I don't consider cameras in public spaces to be spying. Nor do I consider tracking purchases at a public store to be spying.

However, in your home, when you aren't on the internet, you should expect privacy and many are not aware that their TV, Phone, and other electronic devices can spy on them.

On the plus side it makes it very easy for the FBI to catch and destroy organized crime. Cutting down on crime is one of the best ways to cut our tax burden.

[awareness]

"It appears to have been during the Babylonian captivity (597 to 537 BCE) that Satan grew in malevolent stature to be virtually a wicked, second god. By the time of the New Testament, Satan, under one or another name, was assigned his own sphere, as the chief spiritual power that opposed God. His realm was one of fire, to which guilty souls were sent (Matt. 25.41). He could enter the heart and create evil (Matt. 13.19), and it was he who caused Judas to betray Jesus (Luke 22.3; John 13.2). Finally, he had his own angels, just as God had his (Matt: 25.41).

Why did Satan grow to such prominence during this period? It was apparently during the Babylonian exile that Jews began to be complete monotheists. Previously, they had thought that their god was the best god, but they had not denied the complete existence of other gods. A religion that believes that there is only one god has a difficult time explaining evil. Did the one good God create it? Why does he permit it? Faced with the actual existence of both good and evil, some religious traditions have posited the existence of two opposing gods. This is the most distinctive theological belief in Zoroastrianism, which began in Persia in the sixth or fifth century BCE and which influenced Mediterranean thought in several ways. Judaism probably owes to Zoroastrianism the idea that an evil power opposes God. (Christianity, in turn, inherited the idea from Judaism.) Judaism remained true to monotheism and did not grant that there was an opposing god, but it accepted some aspects of Persian dualism, such as the conflict between God and the forces of evil. The expectation, of course, was that the good God would ultimately triumph over the evil power, though in this world it often seemed that evil was winning – as it still does."
- Sanders, E. P. The Historical Figure of Jesus (Kindle Locations 2129-2131). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.