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,
So if we act, knowingly or unknowingly, on a desire to diminish God or even to diminish faith in God, then we can be certain we’ve made a losing move.
The answer to the question of evil is given to us by God in his word. One of the best is the book of Job.
Job shows us what to do.
I am not sure what you want me to “give” you...
Sold! Anything to avoid evil, misery, and suffering! Regards,For unless you want a world in which mankind is like a cloud or a robot, then allowing evil is a necessary good [...]
Ask your wife is she wants a android or you who choose here above the competition. Perhaps you only want a Stepford wife. Coming all too soon.
“What to do” is not an answer to the problem of evil.
It is an answer of “what to do” after disaster strikes.
I think we can agree that WWII was evil. If we hadn’t come together to fight it, which in itself may have been a “good” that overwrote any bad, think of how things would be different. The British Empire might still control half the world, probably bad. The population explosion of which I was a fragment, might not have happened. (I’ll call that really bad.) All the advances like antibacterials, radar, safer and faster transportaion, countless advances in medicine and technology, all good, would be very late in coming. The space race, which gave us artificial hearts and microcircuits, would probably not have happened. The super safe consumerist world that we’ve all profited by since 1945 would probably be later in coming or not at all. (The whole reason it happened was the American navy was the only one to survive the war.) I could go on and on, but the point is by allowing that one evil so much good resulted that I wouldn’t undo the war if I could. (Certainly, if I’d lost my whole family my view might be different.)
I face a third order vibration of this issue daily. My sister is in a declining mental state. If I help her in anything, I own that thing for the rest of eternity, and she loses the ability to do that thing. If I help her up from a seated position, she lost the opportunity for that tiny bit of exercise that she desperately needs. It irritates her mightily that I take this view, but the more I do for her the worse she gets. I can see where God might take the same view.
I always like to answer this one with another question...
If God were to eliminate all evil from the earth at 3pm Central time today, would you still be here at 3:01pm CST?
Then begin the conversation.
“Certainly, if I’d lost my whole family my view might be different.”
That is exactly the issue—who gains and who loses and why?
Some folks want to “blame the victim” but in many cases that does not align with true fairness.
“Happy talk” is when folks try to console the unjustly harmed victim with quotes from Scripture without tackling head on the question of “why us” or “why me”.
If there is no moral and unchanging law... there is no evil...
At that point right/wrong is purely subjective and ever changing...
So if there is no God... there is no real evil... only transient and subjective wrongs...
The problem of evil is hard, because this life is hard, full of both joy and unbearable pain and suffering. Jesus’ answer to the problem is just wait. He will conquer evil and will reign on earth dealing with suffering once and for all. He was either insane or he was who He claimed to be and has the power to make His promises come true. I’m counting on the latter. One thing I find interesting is that those who indict God with the problem of evil fail to apply the same standard to themselves. Although we humans are not omnipotent, we nonetheless have some limited power to fight evil. If we are not using our finite power to it’s fullest extent to thwart evil are we not guilty of our own personal problem of evil?
I think a lot of people believe in a magic wand type of God. And if you look at creation it’s far from a wave of the magic wand. I’m thinking... timelessly linear.
Would heaven be enjoyable if a lot of people were there who preferred to be somewhere else?
Thanks, though in forum answers and debates I try to use freely available sources.
bfl
The believer in God has to account for the existence of unjust suffering.
The atheist has to account for the existence of everything else.
People like to think that this is Heaven. It is not. God told Adam and Eve what to do and what not to do. They ignored it. Now people continue to disregard the laws of the creator then they tell Him how He should run the world.
I’m asking for a substantive answer rather than some form of repeating the question.
Have you read the book of Job?
What did Job do? What he did answers the question of evil.
“The believer in God has to account for the existence of unjust suffering.
The atheist has to account for the existence of everything else.”
Exactly correct—on both points.
This question is never asked of Muslims or Hindus or any other religion who espouses God.
If there was no evil, what would Democrats do?
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.