Why does God not stop the evil?

[seeking Christ]

Morality is in how a society conducts itself. It is not personal opinion.

This could be a thread in itself! Either here, or in E & M

 

[seeking Christ]

If you realize that the statement "truth is knowable" is not only not a tautology, but is in fact false

While the statement is certainly not a tautology, you cannot demonstrate it to be in fact false.

 

[seeking Christ]

At the bottom of each post you will find a

button that will facilitate keeping your post with the one you are responding to.

Thanks

Because its so hard for you to read consecutive posts?

 

[seeking Christ]

All this is implying that God is uncapable of meaningfully experiencing and exercising love.

Not at all! This refers to us, not Him. You seem to be losing track of the difference?

He doesn´t have the choice to sin, he didn´t undergo a maturing process
- all that which you picture as necessary for being a loving entity.

You are confused. We are created beings, He is not. If He created us with no choice, love would not be in our capacity. He has ALWAYS had choice! How have you missed that aspect of the Gospel? You have really never heard "He was tempted in all points like us, yet without sin?"

Please factor this in and adjust accordingly.

And, since you brought up earth vs. heaven: Why is it that people are still not mature enough short before their death (they still make unloving choices etc.), but suddenly in heaven they are sinless and perfect?
God, quite obviously, must have the means to cause this change.

Good question! I was thinking of this, but neglected to write it out. It is still a mystery, that we will be changed "in the twinkling of an eye." We can change ourselves to a point via repentance, prayer, theosis, etc. Try as we might, that will never be sufficient. We still need Him. There is obviously some element of co-operation.

So I am confident he won´t.

This statement is HUGE. Not a single Saint comes to mind that was willing to say he was confident God will not condemn a single soul, even though there was at least one that really thought God would redeem even satan, eventually.

The more I learn, the more I have no opinion on the matter.

Full responsibility with all the consequences, or rather a more symbolic responsibility that practically doesn´t change anything?
Please explain which responsibility God has taken for our failures, how he did that, and what that means practically.

First we're going to need more concise terms. I like to use "spirit vs flesh." Practicality from our perspective would be within what I'm calling "flesh." Consequences might include a criminal going to jail, and ordinarily God does nothing to remove those. What would be the point? Spiritually speaking, consequences would be the law of sin and death, which Jesus has born for us on the Cross, becoming Christ. That changes EVERYTHING, and yet you'll notice this takes faith, and still leaves us subjected to hope. Also notice the proximity of these two to love. Faith hope and love go together.

To determine what this means practically is what the life of the Church focuses on, and it is as unique as the individual.

 

[Tinker Grey]

On what absolute standard do you base that statement that I should accept it as more than just your opinion?

It's observable. It is the way social species survive.

 

[quatona]

Not at all! This refers to us, not Him. You seem to be losing track of the difference?

No - the question, however, is: Why did God not create us differently than we are?

You are confused.

Indeed - with all the confusing information I get that´s inevitable.

We are created beings, He is not. If He created us with no choice, love would not be in our capacity.

Why not?

He has ALWAYS had choice!

God has a choice to sin? I have been told that God can´t even be in the presence of sin. I have been told that "God is Love". Have I been lied to?

How have you missed that aspect of the Gospel? You have really never heard "He was tempted in all points like us, yet without sin?"

I have heard that about Jesus, not about CreatorGod.

Please factor this in and adjust accordingly.

Ok. God is capable of sinning. Noted.

Good question! I was thinking of this, but neglected to write it out. It is still a mystery, that we will be changed "in the twinkling of an eye." We can change ourselves to a point via repentance, prayer, theosis, etc. Try as we might, that will never be sufficient. We still need Him. There is obviously some element of co-operation.

Ok, I appreciate your honesty. "It´s a mystery" is as far from being an explanation as it gets. If, in a sequence of arguments and explanations, "it´s a mystery" shows up, the entire sequence is worthless as an explanation.

This statement is HUGE. Not a single Saint comes to mind that was willing to say he was confident God will not condemn a single soul, even though there was at least one that really thought God would redeem even satan, eventually.

They probably hadn´t heard your statement that omnipotent God "isn't relishing the thought of condemning a single one of us!"

The more I learn, the more I have no opinion on the matter.

Ok.

First we're going to need more concise terms. I like to use "spirit vs flesh." Practicality from our perspective would be within what I'm calling "flesh."

Which immediately causes me to ask my question more precisely: "Why did God create us as physical beings?". Creating us as spiritual beings would have prevented most of the problems that we are talking about.

Consequences might include a criminal going to jail, and ordinarily God does nothing to remove those. What would be the point? Spiritually speaking, consequences would be the law of sin and death, which Jesus has born for us on the Cross, becoming Christ.

I´m not seeing how it makes any sense that problems caused by our being physical should have spiritual consequences. And apparently they don´t: With our ceasing to be physical, we (or at least some of us) are having removed those consequences.
As for the "law of sin and death": Since you have been submitting that God is equipped with free choice - did he have the choice to establish this law the way he did, or didn´t he have this choice?

That changes EVERYTHING, and yet you'll notice this takes faith,

No, to be honest, I haven´t noticed that. "Faith" hasn´t been subject to our conversation, so far.

To determine what this means practically is what the life of the Church focuses on, and it is as unique as the individual.[/quote]

 

[Davian]

Because its so hard for you to read consecutive posts?

If it were clear that they were consecutive, I would not have asked.

Thanks for caring.

 

[Davian]

...

Morality is in how a society conducts itself. It is not personal opinion.
...

This could be a thread in itself! Either here, or in E & M

Indeed. Or it could go to the Life Sciences forum.

I did think it a waste of time how Elio was asking everyone's opinion of various hypotheticals, when what really matters is the action one takes (or the actions taken by individuals as a group) in a given situation. What you *said* you would do is of little consequence to your descendants.

 

[mathetes123]

So you were projecting your experience onto the majority of others. How do you justify that? You certainly don't talk for me.

Moral arguments can be based on reason, compassion, empathy, wellness/well being, or some combination of those, so you are mistaken there.

It would appear so, although one might find consensus of opinion on many subjects.

Morality is in how a society conducts itself. It is not personal opinion.

That people act as if there are objective morals does not establish objective morals.

If you think there are objective morals, please provide a few examples, and demonstrate how they are objective.

The 10 commandments given by your creator are objective morals. Your conscience confirms it, though you will deny it.

 

[horrace99]

Exactly.The Bible says we are all born into sin and are naturally evil and if God got rid of evil He would have to get rid of alot of the stuff that atheists and agnostics enjoy because alot of stuff in society is said to be evil in the Bible.

And since we are all born into sin then God would have to get rid of us.God wants people to think for themselves and do good things out of the goodness of they're hearts.God is patient and wants everyone to be saved

 

[horrace99]

@mathetes123

what do you mean ''your creator'' if God just our Creator then who is your Creator? God you Creator even if you don't believe it

 

[Davian]

So you were projecting your experience onto the majority of others. How do you justify that? You certainly don't talk for me.

Moral arguments can be based on reason, compassion, empathy, wellness/well being, or some combination of those, so you are mistaken there.

It would appear so, although one might find consensus of opinion on many subjects.

Morality is in how a society conducts itself. It is not personal opinion.

That people act as if there are objective morals does not establish objective morals.

If you think there are objective morals, please provide a few examples, and demonstrate how they are objective.

The 10 commandments given by your creator are objective morals. Your conscience confirms it, though you will deny it.

The Ten Commandments- the basis of our laws and morals - YouTube

Try again? Do you have anything that is actually objective?

 

[horrace99]

@quotana

God created us perfect but it was our choice to choose sin.

God is Not capable of sin.Sin means to rebel against God and God can't rebel against Himslef its impossible

 

[mathetes123]

@mathetes123

what do you mean ''your creator'' if God just our Creator then who is your Creator? God you Creator even if you don't believe it

He is the creator of everything that exists. Why would you assume I was suggesting He is not my creator?

 

[Davian]

<snip>

There are at least seven things a subjectivist/relativist cannot do:

Rule #1- Relatives can't accuse others of wrong doing.

Rule #2- Relativists can't complain about the problem of evil.

Rule #3- Relativists can't place blame or accept praise.

Rule #4- Relativists can't claim that anything is unfair or unjust.

Rule #5- Relativists can't improve their morality.

Rule #6- Relativists can't hold meaningful moral discussions.

Rule #7- Relativists can't promote the obligation of tolerance.

...

Are you not describing moral nihilism?

"Moral nihilism is distinct from moral relativism, which does allow for moral statements to be true or false in a non-objective sense, but does not assign any static truth-values to moral statements, and of course moral universalism, which holds moral statements to be objectively true or false."

Moral nihilism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Presenting a strawman of [an] argument, then attacking it, is not good argumentation.

 

[Tiberius]

I said evil is a lack or privation of something good. There is a difference.

Evil is not a lack of good. A lack of good is indifference.

If I see a criminal act taking place and I do nothing to stop it, is that evil? No. That is apathy. But if I go and contribute to that act, then it is evil.

Your parents had you knowing that having you would make it possible for you to choose to do good or evil, to love or to hate, to heal or to wound. They also had you knowing that having you would make it possible to be loved and to be hated, to be hurt, or to be healed. But you are responsible for the evil and wrong you do, not them.

But there's a difference.

Parents do not have the ability to prevent it entirely. God does. And yet doesn't.

If everyone lived as if morality was objective, (they do), then this would be a very good reason to conclude it was objective.

So, objectively speaking, why do so many people disagree about whether it is okay to smack a disobedient child? Where's your objective morality?

 

[Elioenai26]

Evil is not a lack of good. A lack of good is indifference.

And according to Jesus Christ, being indifferent to one in need is evil. It is called a sin of ommission, not doing the good one knows one should.

If I see a criminal act taking place and I do nothing to stop it, is that evil? No. That is apathy. But if I go and contribute to that act, then it is evil.

Both are equally sinful in the eyes of a Holy God who commands us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

But there's a difference.

Parents do not have the ability to prevent it entirely.

Of course they do. They can choose not to have children, or keep them locked inside of the house all of their lives.

God does. And yet doesn't.

And what would God have to do to prevent evil entirely? Think about it seriously.

So, objectively speaking, why do so many people disagree about whether it is okay to smack a disobedient child? Where's your objective morality?

Disagreement on corporal punishment is a disagreement on how one should discipline a child.

What is not in disagreement is that children should be raised to respect their elders and to be taught that wrong action has consequences. This is universally true, in every culture, at every time, at every place. It is an objective moral value that we all intuitively know to be right.

Your illustration also fails because you say that objective morality does not exist BECAUSE people have disagreements about morality.

But that simply does not follow. It does not follow that there are no objective truths regarding morality because people have disagreements on applied ethics any more than it follows that there are no objective truths regarding physics because physicists don't know or agree about what the true unified theory of physics is. There are several models and proposals out there. But that doesn't mean that they all equally true and physics is whatever floats your boat- does it?

Again...

Saying that disagreements regarding morality necessarily means there are no objective moral truths is as absurd as arguing that because not everyone believes the earth is round (you can follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter) that therefore the geometry of the earth is therefore relative; or that because some people believe that the Apollo moonlandings were a government hoax that therefore it is subjective as to whether Americans landed on the moon. This is why moral subjectivism or relativism is very widely rejected in contemporary ethics.

And...

Even if we do find moral disagreement, so what? It does not follow from the mere fact of disagreement about an issue that there is no objective truth regarding that issue. For example, suppose we disagreed on the date of Barrack Obama’s birthday. The mere fact of such disagreement does not prove that there is no objective truth on this issue. That is, it does not follow that Barrack Obama wasn’t born on a certain date, or worse, that he was never born at all! So why should it be any different with respect to moral issues? The mere fact that people disagree about moral issues does not alone prove that there is no objective truth in morality.

And...

Suppose the Ethical Relativist insists that the mere fact of disagreement regarding the objectivity of moral principles does prove that ethical objectivism cannot be true, and that there is therefore no objective truth in morality. In saying this, the ethical relativist is affirming the principle: “Disagreement about X implies that there is no objective truth about X.” The problem is that this negates the relativist’s own position. For there is clearly no universal agreement regarding the truth of ethical relativism! Hence, according to the ethical relativists own principle [that disagreement about X implies there is no objective truth about X] it follows that ethical relativism cannot be objectively true!

Also...

Disagreement is over-rated: In many cases disagreements are not moral disagreements at all, but rather, factual disagreements. For example, many people who live in India do not eat cows because they believe in reincarnation. That is, they believe that cows may possess the souls of deceased human beings. In the U.S. we do not tend to believe cows have human souls. For this reason, we eat cows -
but we do not eat Grandma. It appears on the surface that there is a fundamental disagreement in moral principle between Indians and Americans. This is a hasty conclusion, however, for both cultures believe it is wrong to eat Grandma; it is just that the Indians believe the cow may actually be Grandma, while we do not. Thus it is a disagreement regarding the facts and not a disagreement in fundamental moral principles that divides our culinary habits. (Francis J. Beckwith, "Philosophical Problems With Moral Relativism." (Christian Research Journal, Fall 1993, pp. 20.)

The kicker...

Disagreement actually demonstrates that moral relativism is false. Since relativism is based on the idea that there are no objective right and wrong. Disagreement needs at least two opposing opinions. Both feeling they are in the right, otherwise there would be no disagreement. Disagreement itself invalidates Relativism because disagreement requires someone to “be right”. Relativism would dictate that no party is right because all in essence is only relative. Therefore, there could never be disagreement since all is relative.

 

[Elioenai26]

Are you not describing moral nihilism?

Moral relativism is being described.

 

[Davian]

Moral relativism is being described.

Not according to wiki. And you are on record of having conflated atheism with nihilism.

Describe moral nihilism, in your words, in a manner that differentiates it from moral relativism.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

so·ci·o·path

/&#712;so&#650;

si

&#601;&#716;pæ&#952;, &#712;so&#650;

&#643;i-/ Show Spelled [soh-see-uh-path, soh-shee-] Show IPA
noun Psychiatry. a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.





Your reluctance to condemn child rape as wrong regardless of people's subjective opinions about it is evidence of a sociopathic disposition.

This comment is riddled with irony. You defend genocide and then reprimand others as sociopaths? Your own ostensibly 'objective' moral code is plagued with inconsistencies that call into question its objectivity and yet you lecture others on relativism? Your defence of genocide speaks to your inability to make the case for why theistic morality is rationally superior to a morality that does not presuppose gods.