Food for thought.

[Chriliman]

That is debatable. But I understand that is something you have to believe to keep up the rest of your worldview.


No. Evil, as you explain it, would not be possible in a creation, as you explain it. But here also I understand that you cannot believe that. I follows from your own statements, but if you were to make to connections, you would have to admit that your basic beliefs are wrong. And again I understand that you cannot do that.


Considering that there are quite a number of people out there who believe that God exists, and is completely different from what you believe, I'd say it is not as easy as you make it.

If an eternal foundational God creates evil for an eternally good purpose, which is to maintain free will in the created beings so they can freely choose to follow him or not, what argument do you have other than "I don't believe in that God"?

 

[jenny1972]

Yes, I would agree to that. But there are some - many - who would not. Those who think that there is absolute good and absolute bad... and that following what they think is "divine rule" is the first and disagreeing is the second. Makes it kind of difficult to come through to these people.

all i know for a fact is that God exists and that God communicates concepts to me that i know are not from my own mind . as to the details of God and the universe i am not all knowing and doubt if i ever will be i am satisfied with not knowing i am simply satisfied and happy with the things God does reveal to me . Human beings do not like mysteries we want to figure everything out and we are naturally curious beings and God for the most part is a mystery . I guess you can say i am an agnostic believer as agnosticism is the belief that absolute knowledge is unattainable . where do you fall in the spectrum of belief what is your world view?

 

[Davian]

We stand on what the Bible says and it says we have to make a choice when it comes to Jesus. That's about all I can say.

I find it less likely that I could make a choice to believe in a guy that is supposedly alive (in some yet-to-be-explained manner) after 2000 years that is also (somehow?) an intelligence without a brain any more than I can choose to believe that I was abducted by aliens last night, or that my home is currently on fire.

Could you choose to believe that you were abducted by aliens last night?

So what do you do when you stumble over a theological fault such as this? Do you just pick yourself up and continue preaching like it never happened? Evade and misdirect, as Chriliman does?

 

[anonymous person]

I find it less likely that I could make a choice to believe in a guy that is supposedly alive (in some yet-to-be-explained manner) after 2000 years that is also (somehow?) an intelligence without a brain any more than I can choose to believe that I was abducted by aliens last night, or that my home is currently on fire.

Could you choose to believe that you were abducted by aliens last night?

So what do you do when you stumble over a theological fault such as this? Do you just pick yourself up and continue preaching like it never happened? Evade and misdirect, as Chriliman does?

What theological fault are you referencing?

 

[Davian]

What theological fault are you referencing?

Could you answer my question first? Could you choose to believe that you were abducted by aliens last night?

 

[anonymous person]

Could you answer my question first? Could you choose to believe that you were abducted by aliens last night?

If was abducted, sure. I would believe I was abducted.

 

[Chriliman]

Could you answer my question first? Could you choose to believe that you were abducted by aliens last night?

I've told you that I don't expect you to believe in God without convincing evidence. Now when I say convincing, I mean convincing for you personally.

I have no convincing evidence that I was abducted by aliens last night so of course I can't willingly believe it.

 

[Davian]

If was abducted, sure. I would believe I was abducted.

Why would you need for it to have happened? Can you not simply choose to believe that you were abducted by aliens last night?

 

[Received]

If an eternal foundational God creates evil for an eternally good purpose, which is to maintain free will in the created beings so they can freely choose to follow him or not, what argument do you have other than "I don't believe in that God"?

I never liked this attempt at theodicy. Evil that is teleologically integrated with goodness becomes good. It's one thing to say that God can allow good to come from evil, but we still have to call evil evil -- a useless negation that in each case would be better not present. Even if you say that evil is allowed because of free will, you're not explaining why this evil is allowed, and for the person whose life is wrecked by the evil of others won't find any consolation at all in an argument attempting to justify free will and evil in this way.

Evil exists, and God isn't omnipotent insofar as he doesn't prevent it from happening, free will or not. The only way you can preserve this omnipotence is to say, as above, that God allows evil because he integrates it teleologically with goodness, but this means evil isn't really evil but implicit goodness. Child abuse is never implicit goodness.

 

[anonymous person]

Why would you need for it to have happened? Can you not simply choose to believe that you were abducted by aliens last night?

I am not going to believe I was abducted by aliens if I was not abducted by aliens. This is kind of silly to me, these questions you ask. I cannot tell if you are serious or jesting.

 

[Chriliman]

I never liked this attempt at theodicy. Evil that is teleologically integrated with goodness becomes good. It's one thing to say that God can allow good to come from evil, but we still have to call evil evil -- a useless negation that in each case would be better not present. Even if you say that evil is allowed because of free will, you're not explaining why this evil is allowed, and for the person whose life is wrecked by the evil of others won't find any consolation at all in an argument attempting to justify free will and evil in this way.

Evil exists, and God isn't omnipotent insofar as he doesn't prevent it from happening, free will or not. The only way you can preserve this omnipotence is to say, as above, that God allows evil because he integrates it teleologically with goodness, but this means evil isn't really evil but implicit goodness. Child abuse is never implicit goodness.

His ways are above our ways. We percieve child abuse as horrific, but God may know the one doing the evil which He allowed will be punished for willingly doing it and the victim will be used to glorify God later in life. Who knows maybe the perp will realize how evil he is after God has punished him so severely. If I was doing something wrong that could kill me, I'd want someone to take drastic action to get me to stop.

My point is we can't know the reasons behind the good and the evil we perceive, but God does know.

However, we can know the end result will be good for those who believe.

 

[Received]

His ways are above our ways. We percieve child abuse as horrific, but God may know the one doing the evil which He allowed will be punished for willingly doing it and the victim will be used to glorify God later in life. Who knows maybe the perp will realize how evil he is after God has punished him so severely. If I was doing something wrong that could kill me, I'd want someone to take drastic action to get me to stop.

My point is we can't know the reasons behind the good and the evil we perceive, but God does know.

However, we can know the end result will be good for those who believe.

Used in this context, saying his ways are higher than our ways is an appeal to ignorance.

And if evil has a necessary place in the greater good, who are you to stop evil from happening in any instance? This philosophy creates a real sense of passivity. Given that God pretty much clearly commands that we overcome evil with good always, you can't say that some evil is necessary for a greater good.

 

[Chriliman]

Used in this context, saying his ways are higher than our ways is an appeal to ignorance.

And if evil has a necessary place in the greater good, who are you to stop evil from happening in any instance? This philosophy creates a real sense of passivity. Given that God pretty much clearly commands that we overcome evil with good always, you can't say that some evil is necessary for a greater good.

Evil can only be stopped by the power of Jesus. Every man will be held accountable for what they have done. Those in Christ will be rewarded for their good deeds and those apart from Christ will be punished.

God already knows who His children are even though some of His children may not yet know they are His.

 

[Received]

Evil can only be stopped by the power of Jesus. Every man will be held accountable for what they have done. Those in Christ will be rewarded for their good deeds and those apart from Christ will be punished.

God already knows who His children are even though some of His children may not yet know they are His.

So if an atheist stops child abuse, Jesus is working through him?

 

[Davian]

I've told you that I don't expect you to believe in God without convincing evidence. Now when I say convincing, I mean convincing for you personally.

I have no convincing evidence that I was abducted by aliens last night so of course I can't willingly believe it.

You would then agree that what you believe is not under your conscious control? You are unable to simply will yourself to believe something?

 

[Davian]

I am not going to believe I was abducted by aliens if I was not abducted by aliens. This is kind of silly to me, these questions you ask. I cannot tell if you are serious or jesting.

I am serious. It seems that your theology holds one accountable for what one believes, with you referring to it as a choice (#336). This is a thought experiment. Can you believe that you were abducted by alines last night? Can you not choose to do so? Or are beliefs not a choice?

 

[lupusFati]

...
*facepalm*

 

[Davian]

So if an atheist stops child abuse, Jesus is working through him?

Hypothetically speaking, why would Jesus (if he exists and he is all that the Christians claim him to be) require the presence of an atheist to stop such an act?

 

[Received]

Hypothetically speaking, why would Jesus (if he exists and he is all that the Christians claim him to be) require the presence of an atheist to stop such an act?

No idea.

Good seeing you too, grouchface.

 

[Freodin]

If an eternal foundational God creates evil for an eternally good purpose, which is to maintain free will in the created beings so they can freely choose to follow him or not, what argument do you have other than "I don't believe in that God"?

Well, if you were to read my last posts regarding that, you would see what argument I already made "other than 'I don't believe in that God' (Which was an argument that I didn't have made.)

But I have tried to get you to acknowledge this argument for three? four? posts now... and you simply don't.

Rational... you keep using this word, and if my name was Inigo Montoya, we knew what would come now.

I tried my best.