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,
Yes. Pure evil. You'll find out.
Yet you want others to delve into THEIR personal reasonings that GOD comes off as a meany in your mind.
Better?
I seems you have NO 'worldview' as it's not been posted as to what kind of god will suit you.
You DO like to grade the papers of the other students!
It's still early yet.
Job was certainly in this category before disaster (from the human view) came his way.
Now now.
Negotiating the price with a hooker does NOT turn you into a hooker.
Thank GOD!
I was beginning to think you were perfect.
Umm, it's the TITLE of this thread!
If God is all powerful, then why can’t he stop evil from happening? That would mean he’s not all powerful. If God refuses to prevent evil, then he can not be all good. So can a Christian explain how God is all powerful and good in this case?
You did read the title before joining the thread, right?
It's not about what I want. It's about the question posed in the title. If you don't want to answer it, get off the thread!
It's a legitimate question that legitimate Christian theologians and others have been discussing for centuries.
Regards,
Using the Book; you do have a bit of a point here:
Since Jesus did NOT heal everyone that came His way, He just MUST have been a poor 'god'; allowing all the suffering that was so needless.
So; if He was lack in this manner He (why do I even capitalize that?) surely could NOT have been GOD Himself (As a TRUE god would take care of every one's ills and ails and pain and loss.)
It sure seems as though you want it.
You managed to echo the article's sentiments in about every reply you've posted here.
It's a legitimate question that legitimate Christian theologians and others have been discussing for centuries.
Are these 'others' considered 'legitimate'; too?
What defines (in your mind - I can't read it) legitimacy?
Can a mere deplorable speak what they think without their words being shredded as they pass thru an undefined filter?
Read later.
What I, personally, want is not relevant to this conversation.
You managed to echo the article's sentiments in about every reply you've posted here.
You mean: I've remained on topic, and managed to avoid ad hominems (until I was accused of being literal "hell spawn")? Thank you!
Are these 'others' considered 'legitimate'; too?
Nit-picking, splitting hairs, and arguing about the meaning of "is." So now I can't even refer to "others" without you criticizing that I haven't posted their credentials.
What defines (in your mind - I can't read it) legitimacy?
I see now that you are not going to "let me speak" without demanding that I exactly define every common, everyday term - like "legitimate" - I use. What better way to "bog down" the conversation?
You are doggedly attempting to make this conversation about me, about my personal sentiments. That is a distraction and a deflection from the actual topic at hand - about which you don't seem to want to talk anymore.
Regards,
This is not a comment about a specific "mistranslation" or "misinterpretation" but the Bible in general.
Given that Holy Scripture is authored by the Holy Spirit, this comes dangerously close to (if not well over the line of) the unforgivable sin.
And, to add insult to injury, the person making this statement tries to get a "true believer" to join him by agreeing that the Bible is in a "sorry state."
As an aside, the person making the following statement is apparently unaware that Western civilization itself rests on a foundation of Judeo/Christianity as set forth in the Bible.
"Cannot even a True Believer decry the sorry state of the Bible?! Why can't even a True Believer lament the fact that the Bible has been distorted, heavily redacted, badly translated, etc.?... Don't you agree that the Bible is in a sorry state?
What kind of god will satisfy you?
I know what a True Scotsman is, but a True Believer eludes me.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Hebrews%2011:6
Shirley; among all this chaff one can ascertain a composite manuscript that would be fairly accurate due to so many minds and hearts adding (and subtracting) from what could be known as the Averaged Bible.
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. And he said unto me.
Amen...
In His time the evil of this world will be destroyed and we will be with Him for eternity... no more suffering... only a peace and joy that’s surpasses all understanding.
Come Lord Jesus, come.
And in your list of versions, here is the difference between the (Protestant) King James Bible and the (Catholic) Douay-Rheims Bible:
KJB: "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.What the heck. Look at all those differences! What confusion. Commas and colons and capital letters..."of" instead of "to"!Douay-Rheims Bible: "But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him."
BTW, I particularly enjoy studying the Apocrypha. Whether one believes them or not, the Ethiopian Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, and the Book of Giants provide a fascinating backstory to Genesis 6, the Flood, Jude 1:6, and the OT accounts of the conquest of Canaan.
I won't be lured into a rhetorical side-path! I won't be goaded into breaching a new topic! Not until the title question is settled - or at least adequately explored.
The various answers proposed so far, from the "apologists," are:
1. How dare you demand that God answer to you, a mere worm? Such insolence! (Ignoring that fact that no one here has, in fact, directly called upon God Himself to justify Himself - I certainly haven't!)
2. Before we address that question, we have to first establish your credentials: I didn't see you at Mass last Sunday; do you have an explanation? When did you last go to Confession? How much do you tithe to the Church? Can you provide a letter from your Stake President / Diocesan Bishop / etc. verifying that you are a parish member in good standing? Because you are not deserving of an answer unless you are already a True Believer! (Circular Logic.)
3. Well, in my Bible (which omits some books contained in your Bible, and also adds some books not included in your Bible), it says... < vague statement that can be interpreted one way, or another >
4. Natural catastrophes aren't actually all that common! (= Complete denial of actual historical records and generally available statistics.)
5. Very many people throughout History (and Pre-History) probably have suffered greatly, but
a. Due to Adam's Fall, all Creation is likewise in a fallen state, so natural catastrophes happen, and it would not be in line with Divine Justice if God intervened (except due to fervent prayer - but even that isn't a very reliable, sure-fire method).
b. Because of Adam's Sin, we are all deserving of ever imaginable torture that has ever been visited upon otherwise innocent persons (e.g., newborn children).
c. Suffering is actually good for you! Yes! It's beneficial to your Salvation! As long as you are in the proper state of mind (kinda hard for a six-year-old with no extensive theological training, but you get my drift), an impacted wisdom tooth, infection with brain-eating amoebae, or an extended stay in a Nazi concentration camp can actually elevate us, make us holier, and bring us closer to God! It can even show us God's Grace! (Huh!?) What's not to like?!
d. According to God's unfathomable Plan, it might be that 99.9% of all humans ever born are destined to burn in the eternal flames of Hell - but that's necessary for "Free Will" to exist. Yes, "Free Will" is somehow so important that the eternal suffering of the bulk Mankind can be safely dismissed. The Salvation of the other 0.1% of Mankind is compensation enough for the damnation of the other 99.9%!
e. The eternity in Heaven that the Chosen Few will enjoy justifies the (comparatively) petty suffering they endured during their earthly sojourn. The pain they suffered while on Earth - cancer gnawing away at their innards for years, being slowly tortured as a Heretic, watching their children being raped and then having their brains beaten out before their eyes, etc. - will seem, in retrospect, like a trivial inconvenience when reclining on one's heavenly Barcalounger.
Regards,
There simply are no gross inaccuracies (aside from some inconsequential copyist errors), and distortions, or actual contradictions in doctrine in the 66 books of the Bible, despite its volume and many duplicate accounts (and , and man being the stewards of it, except in the echo chamber of ignorant atheistic propaganda, which apparently is all you have read, and not extensive examinations of cited texts and explanations If I need a heart operation, and have the choice between two medical documents - one written by modern heart surgeons, and the other dating back thousands of years, which has undergone numerous massive edits by medieval clergymen (Council of Nicaea, etc.), is missing WHOLE BOOKS, etc. - of course I am justified in being suspicious of the ancient document.....I am no Mormon apologist - I referenced the Book of Mormon only as one of the latest examples of the contamination of the Bible. The damaged done to it by the Council of Nicaea and by Luther only compound it.
Poor analogy, while the idea that the Bible underwent undergone numerous massive edits (which means there was a settled established volume to edit) by medieval clergymen as related to the Council of Nicaea, and is missing WHOLE BOOKS (missing from what established canon?) if related to that, indicates subscription to refuted propaganda, with its Council Myth, which is akin to Da Vinci Code fiction . https://historyforatheists.com/2017/05/the-great-myths-4-constantine-nicaea-and-the-bible/ can help here.
Instead, rather than missing books from an established canon, then as with discerning men of God as being do, likewise were writings progressively so, with a general consensus among devout on both essentially being due their surpassing qualities and attestation, and not due to magisterial judgments (the NT church actually began in partial dissent from one), if not always uniform.
RC sources themselves affirm : “the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia>Canon of the Old Testament; htttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)
The Protestant canon of the Old Testament is the same as the Palestinian canon. (The Catholic Almanac, 1960, p. 217) And it is doubtful that the LXX at that time contained the Deuteros. discredited "The Books of Maccabees, though regarded by Jews and Protestants as apocryphal, i.e., not inspired Scripture, because [it is] not contained in the Palestinian Canon or list of books drawn up at the end of the first century A.D." (https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_PDN.HTM)
And rather than Nicaea establishing any canon, then as substantiated, the status of the Deuteros (and sometimes a very few other books), was permissibly debated among Catholic scholars until Trent defined the canon - after the death of Luther Other writings claiming Divine revelation, such as Gnostic literature had been rejected before Nicea, which did not decide the Biblical canon nor alter its text anyway!
Apart from that, as for "massive edits by medieval clergymen," whatever this means is the issue. I will first state that any insinuation that the Bible was edited to conform to Catholic doctrine is absurd. If they had the power to do so then they were very negligent, since it would not be hard to add a few words to support distinctive Cath. teachings that are simply not found in the Bible. Pray to angels and saints in Heaven? The planning of a named successor to Peter? The mention of the status of Mary and prophecy of her ascension? Paul teaching elders on the Eucharist being a essential spiritual food (like as he stated of the word of God)? Etc. Just a few words needed. More would be as Rome continued its romanization, resulting in fabrications being used.
As for edits in general, when dealing with ancient writing materials that had a relative short expiration date, thus requiring copies and copes of copies, and with stewardship and translation (from basically 3 languages) of the original accounts and transmission and translation of its approx. 800,000 words being committed to man, and with thousands of mss of varying size (if most being fragmentary) and quality, surpassing anything of like antiquity, esp with its volume, and with spelling errors, paraphrasing, copyist and translators preferences, etc. then of course not all mss nor translations of the text of the Bible today are exactly the same as when each was originally penned centuries ago.
Note also that the premise that "older" mss (which have the most variation) are more reliable transmissions than relatively more recent ones, is specious, since the latter can be a copy of a more ancient one (though there is 94% agreement between the NT text held in common between the NA/UBS critical text and the Byzantine MSS.
Even in Islam, despite the Quran (which depends upon an existing Biblical canon for its claim of further revelation) being much later than the Bible and written on far better material, and with attempted purification of variant texts, textual variants in Quranic manuscripts are a reality.
So much for an explanation, while contrary to your argument, and Bible attackers allegations of rampant interpolations that changed doctrine, mss variations simply do not mean that we do not have reliable transmission of doctrinal truths of Scripture, as hardly any of the variations (which are a very small percentage among the approx. 800,000 words of Scripture) affect the latter.
And as study and technology has helped to uncover differences among copies, so it also enables us to see what is said in original languages and their meaning. But one would have to read the apologetical works on such to realize this, and not just the works of myopic skeptics. Which imagine such things as that the word translated "virgin" in Matthew 1:23 from Is. 7:14 never denotes a virgin in Hebrew, and that words in duplicate accounts not all being exactly verbatim what was said (as in accounts of the trial o Christ) impugns the Divine inspiration of them, in which the Spirit can expand or contract and paraphrase what was said for the benefit of the intended readers, while providing a fuller revelation of truth that can be conveyed. And that differing accounts are necessarily contradictory, versus complimentary, and who typically ignore context and genre in their myriad of allegations. Which I should not have to deal with myself here.
An even only cursory examination of the Eastern Orthodox Bible, the Greek Orthodox Bible, the Lutheran Bible, and the Roman Catholic Bible quickly shows VAST DIFFERENCES. Namely that ENTIRE BOOKS are missing from one and present in the other, or vice-versa....he absence / addition of entire books should be regarded as more than merely "significant." Rather, it should be considered to be CATASTROPHIC!
Absurd. You are simply reiterating what you said before, and ignores my response. Just what VAST DIFFERENCES exist in teaching due to the 7 extra books of Rome, let alone the two additional books of the EOs? At best I can only think of two instances in these books that would somewhat help RC doctrine. How CATASTROPHIC was the inclusion of apocryphal books in the KJV for approx 274 years? If the type of literature was not recognized, some of the inspired record of what Solomon concluded in Ecclesiastes as revealing the reasoning of his natural mind would be a problem as would be such fantastic fables as the apocryphal book of Tobit.
Since the position that these apocryphal books were not part of what the Lord Jesus referred to as "all the Scriptures" (Lk. 24:27) is what is best evidenced, then the real issue is the premise of Catholicism (as well as Mormonism) to be sure supreme authority on what it from God, as she proclaims herself to be.
they still demonstrate that an honest person humbling seeking enlightenment today is confronted by a bewildering variety of heavily redacted versions to choose from.
More polemical propaganda of propaganda, as if a humbling seeking enlightenment today is confronted by a bewildering variety of heavily redacted versions to choose from. Hardly any persons even know what you are talking about, while at 71 and 45 years as a Christian (in the NE even) I have never met a humble salvation-seeking soul who was bewildered even as to what Bible to find the Truth in. Such a heart finds the bread of life even though many versions water it down.
; don't mean to harp on it, but some of your sentences have jumbled syntax, making it very difficult to decipher your meaning)
I apologize for that, but while, by the grace of God, I have only needed medical care once (piece of rust from exhaust system stuck in my eye) in over 40 years (and having left all to serve God in 1986, without solicitation, or welfare, but seeing God act according to His word in response to obedience), and can still run with kids and handle wrenches, etc. yet my stiff typo-prone arthritic fingers are a test of my patience, taking hours to post replies, and my slowing mind gets fatigued, and thus even proof reading is neglected.
In addition, after thousands of thousands of posts dealing with various objections over the years (thus I sometimes cobble replies together) I also ask myself why I should expend more time and energy when others have already dealt with such as your objections.
So this is it, I intended to be done with taking such time with your replies. And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart. (Jeremiah 29:13)
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.