Posted on 09/03/2023 10:10:00 AM PDT by daniel1212
Certainly that logical fallacy, a superficial ignorant parroted polemic (such as invokes everything from the Flood to AIDS as a moral argument against God), can be answered. There simply is no contradiction btwn God being omnipotent (and omniscient) and all good (from whom all good has come, as the creator of an exceedingly vast, systematicity ordered universe, exquisitely fine-tuned for our physical life), and the allowance of evil, For unless you want a world in which mankind is like a cloud or a robot, then allowing evil is a necessary good if: Man is to be a being with the ability to make moral choices; And if such choices are to have effects/consequences, for both good and evil, And which consequences can affect others as well as self, directly or indirectly. But which God can make to ultimately work out for what is Good, in the light of all that can be known. Which includes just punishment for eternal beings which manifest they wanted the opposite of God, (John 3:19–21) though only being punished according to what they could and did choose to do, (Deuteronomy 24:16; Luke 10:1- 15; Revelation 20:12; cf. 2 Corinthians 8:12) while making all to work out to the benefit of those who honestly choose Him over sin, seeking and finding the mercy of God in the Lord Christ. (Roman 8:28) Consider some alternatives. God could have, 1. made us (and angels) with no moral standard or sense or deprived us from the moral ability to respond to or choose good [morally insensible, even as with clouds]. 2. granted us free moral agency, but never have given us anything to choose between [negation of moral choices, and no devil or God]. 3. left man only with recourse to finite competing sources as his ultimate object of spiritual affection and allegiance and source of security, and supreme judge of what is good [atheism and atheistic governments]. 4. called man to make the Creator their ultimate object of spiritual affection and allegiance and source of security as being what is right and what is best for man, versus finite created beings or things being one's "god," and provided moral revelation and influences. Yet always have moved us to do good, and never have allowed us to choose evil (even if as by making believing in God and choosing good so utterly compelling — like God appearing daily and always doing miracles on demand, and preventing any seeming evidence to the contrary - so that no man could attempt to make excuses for not believing in Him [effective negation of any freedom to choose]). 5. allowed created beings a negative alternative to faithfulness to the creator, and the ability to choose evil, but immediately reversed any effects and not penalized such [negation of consequences to choices]. 6. allowed us to do bad, but restricted us to a place where it would harm no one but ourselves [isolated consequences to choices]. 7. allowed us to choose between good and evil, and to affect others by it, but not ultimately reward or punish us accordingly [negation of judicial and eternal consequences, positive or negative]. 8. given us the ability to choose, and alternatives to chose between, and to face and overcome evil or be overcome by it, with the ability to effect others and things by our choices, and to exercise some reward or punishment in this life for morality, and ultimately reward or punishment all accordingly [pure justice]. 9. restrained evil to some degree, while making the evil that man does to work out for what is Good, with justice yet with mercy, and grace, towards those who want good, and who thus the One who is supremely Good. 10. in accordance with 8, the Creator could have chose to manifest Himself in the flesh, and by Him to provide man a means of escaping the ultimate retribution of Divine justice, and instead receive unmerited eternal favor, at God's own expense and credit, appropriated by a repentant obedient faith, in addition to the loss or gaining of certain rewards based on one's quality of work as a child of God. And eternally punish, to varying degrees relative to iniquity and accountability, those whose response to God's revelation manifested they want evil, [justice maintained while mercy and grace given]. But man, as an exceedingly finite being who is but a speck in this universe, and in the sea of humanity, and whose existence on earth occupies an infinitesimal amount of time, and who is very ignorant of what all the effects of his choices have been and will be, in time and eternity, and quite impotent to make them all work out as he/she wants, not only in one’s own life but in others, and for this life, as well as eternity, is in no position to sit in judgment upon an omniscient and omnipotent being and giver of life, who alone knows what all the effects will be of even our most seemingly insignificant actions or inactions, not only in this life but for eternity. And can make all work out for what is Good, for what is just, as well as showing mercy and grace. And which the God of the Bible has often manifestly done already, and promises to do for those who choose the ultimate Good, the living and true God, (Romans 8:28) by His grace, thanks be to God. This the choices of an omniscient omnipotent Being cannot be judged as being evil or good by extremely finite and relatively ignorant man. Not that - in my ignorance myself - I have/do not too often protested His dealing with me as I subjectively imagined Him, though objectively blessed, and I am being blessed right now listening to,
The spirit is eternal, the body only temporal.
It seems reasonable to think pain and suffering—particularly because they are part of the fallen world but not part of God’s paradise—are a brain (material) phenomenon but not a spiritual one, and as such are wholly temporal and do not persist eternally.
You mean only if God,
2. granted us free moral agency, but never have given us anything to choose between [negation of moral choices, and no devil or God].
5. allowed created beings a negative alternative to faithfulness to the creator, and the ability to choose evil, but immediately reversed any effects and not penalized such [negation of consequences to choices].
5. allowed created beings a negative alternative to faithfulness to the creator, and the ability to choose evil, but immediately reversed any effects and not penalized such [negation of consequences to choices].
Also, it becomes increasingly obvious with each passing day that Satan owns this dump that we're living in. All God offers to us is a ladder we can climb up to escape the dump, if we so choose.
Thanks God! I'm-a-climbin'!
Certainly God could, but the premise that He must in order to be good is simply absurd! For one thing, you must disallow the ability to choose, and alternatives to obedience to God, and of consequences for actions, at least evil ones, and which affect others. Plus you must effectively presume omniscience in order to assert "that at least GOD should exert Himself to.. at least eliminate all Human suffering stemming from, e.g., natural catastrophes."
So which alternatives listed do want to choose? Disallow the ability to choose, and alternatives to obedience to God, and of consequences for actions, at least evil ones, and which affect others?
If we are to blame God for taking life or allowing the abuse of it, why do we not thank Him for giving life, and both good things and good laws, and repent for our misuse and abuse of such?
And would this occur if all the world obeyed what God taught in His universal moral laws?
And where did the moral sense of abhorrence of such abuse come from? Why is this abuse not the norm?
And in the light of all that can be known, not only in this life but for eternity, what was the effect of this terrible abuse?
How did this work to prevent more demonic destruction? Where is the child now?
To see and know creation is a posteriori, not a priori.
Creation is evidence of the Creator.
When someone comes to me and proclaims,
"God exists! And Creation is in a Fallen State because etc... and Natural disasters are a result of our sinful nature and... Free Will would be impossible without the possibility of choosing Sin and... So you see, if a baby isn't immediately baptized before it dies, then it will suffer for all Eternity... Well, there's this place called 'Limbo' where... No, Consubstantiation is Heresy! ...And then the Indians, who were actually Lamanites... So if you wear these magic underwear..."
My first response will be: "Oh, really? That's interesting! What proof do you have? What arguments can you marshal?
You are unfairly (ingenuously?) equating that with denial.
Asking for proof/evidence is a perfectly legitimate precursor to employing ones powers of reasoning!
Regards,
God gave Man and Woman free will. Eve abused it 1st and Adam followed.
Who you gonna blame now?
Always love your humorous / sarcastic interjections, Good Buddy!
Even if they sometimes distract from the topic at hand.
Regards,
Justice delayed is Justice denied!
The Justice should have been meted out immediately! Would have saved us a whole lot of suffering.
To say nothing of those weird 1980s hairstyles! / humor
Regards,
Here’s howw: The free will given to objects of creation was used for unrighteousness.
Of note—when those children are with God, their tears and their sorrows will not only be gone. “Gone” includes forgotten.
“Asking for proof/evidence is a perfectly legitimate precursor to employing ones powers of reasoning!”
Yes, that sounds right.
But only when we acknowledge the limits of proof.
For example, can you prove to me, or to yourself, that what you see in front of you is not a hallucination?
He is either God of All or not at all.
I’m surprised nobody has responded to your post.
That is a huge point.
I choose none of the above.
Best to the point post on this thread.
Most people hate the answer to your point.
I just realized that my first comments to my article was for another article I planned to post and comment on and which I used https://poe.com for. It was text that was on my clipboard and I somehow posted it as a comment here, but belongs in this powerful testimony to God's great grace: . Will post here later, by the grace of God.
p
snark
Indeed: His love and kindness and grace would be entirely superfluous!
By the same token: If I didn't bang my head against the wall, I wouldn't know how good it feels to stop!
If I have to renounce Free Will to avoid suffering - even at the cost of never experiencing His love and kindness - then I choose NO SUFFERING.
It is the most-logical choice.
(Imagine, before the beginning of Creation, an infinitely merciful and infinitely wise Being pondering all the suffering that would ensue, and then saying, "Eh, maybe better not!" Instead, of simply doing nothing, He chose to knowingly inflict great suffering on many of His children.")
Regards,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.