• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
15,510
10,385
79
Auckland
✟437,905.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
To understand this one needs to appreciate the big picture regarding the spiritual battle that prevails.

A high ranking created angel rebels and takes 1/3 of his kind with him.

He is anti-God and dedicated to destroy all good. Hating man who has been given His image and the future right to judge angelic host and to share in eternity.

He seeks to devour man and is constantly scheming against him, bringing wars motivated by evil, deceiving millions through false religions, tightening his grip on the world's commerce as a way of ultimate control.

Why is he allowed to do this - because there was a covenant made to give him dominion in the created spiritual realm before Eden, a covenant in time that he broke through disobedience. As God is faithful to His promises, this agreement plays out until judgement. So he remains with some power to act in disobedience but the cross put a 'stake in the ground' and gave the Church direct access to God's power to be a light in the world.

So from eternity's perspective the temporary suffering in this life authored by the enemy of souls is infinitely eclipsed by God's love in Jesus.

So let's not blame God for the injustices we see, when sufferings of the elect are more than compensated for though His eternal promises, and the author of destruction is to blame.
 
Upvote 0

royal priest

debtor to grace
Nov 1, 2015
2,666
2,656
Northeast, USA
✟196,434.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I don't know how this is compatible with these verses:

10 he does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities.
11 For as high as the heavens are above the earth,
so great is his love for those who fear him;
12 as far as the east is from the west,
so far has he removed our transgressions from us. (Psalm 103:10-12 NIV)

18 “Come now, let us settle the matter,”
says the Lord.
“Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool. (Isaiah 1.18 NIV)
I have no doubt there were many people suffering under the brutality of the holocaust who had "settled the matter", who were true believers and by their faith in Christ had their sins removed from them as far as "the east is from the west". Those people would have taken heart by the promises of Scripture that their suffering, as terrible as it was, was for their eternal well-being. God teaches us in His word that we ought to rejoice when we are afflicted (James 1:2) because God deals with us as a Father. The suffering experienced by believers is not a condemning punishment from God, but a Paternal discipline by which we are taught to live in humble obedience and dependence upon God.
Unbelievers are not taught to love God and repent of their sin when they suffer. Rather, they become embittered toward Him and become hardened in their sins.
Hebrews 12:7-10
God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness.
 
Upvote 0

Sérgio Junior

Active Member
Sep 29, 2015
104
69
Sao Paulo
✟269,601.00
Country
Brazil
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
To understand this one needs to appreciate the big picture regarding the spiritual battle that prevails.

A high ranking created angel rebels and takes 1/3 of his kind with him.

He is anti-God and dedicated to destroy all good. Hating man who has been given His image and the future right to judge angelic host and to share in eternity.

He seeks to devour man and is constantly scheming against him, bringing wars motivated by evil, deceiving millions through false religions, tightening his grip on the world's commerce as a way of ultimate control.

Why is he allowed to do this - because there was a covenant made to give him dominion in the created spiritual realm before Eden, a covenant in time that he broke through disobedience. As God is faithful to His promises, this agreement plays out until judgement. So he remains with some power to act in disobedience but the cross put a 'stake in the ground' and gave the Church direct access to God's power to be a light in the world.

So from eternity's perspective the temporary suffering in this life authored by the enemy of souls is infinitely eclipsed by God's love in Jesus.

So let's not blame God for the injustices we see, when sufferings of the elect are more than compensated for though His eternal promises, and the author of destruction is to blame.
I don't know if I believe in a "spiritual battle", the Apostle St. Paul in Colossians 2:15 says: "And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross".

I don't believe that all evil in the world exists only because of Satan and those other 1/3 that accompany him.

I never read anywhere in the Bible this covenant made with Satan, and that the result of this covenant was to give the dominion of this world to the Satan (or Anti-God).

Although in my OP I said that I have a negative image of God at the moment, at no point in this topic have I blamed God (at least not directly) for Holocaust deaths, I just don't understand how the attribute of omnibenevolence can be compatible. in this world where the Holocaust and other such tragedies occurred.
 
Upvote 0

Sérgio Junior

Active Member
Sep 29, 2015
104
69
Sao Paulo
✟269,601.00
Country
Brazil
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
I have no doubt there were many people suffering under the brutality of the holocaust who had "settled the matter", who were true believers and by their faith in Christ had their sins removed from them as far as "the east is from the west". Those people would have taken heart by the promises of Scripture that their suffering, as terrible as it was, was for their eternal well-being. God teaches us in His word that we ought to rejoice when we are afflicted (James 1:2) because God deals with us as a Father. The suffering experienced by believers is not a condemning punishment from God, but a Paternal discipline by which we are taught to live in humble obedience and dependence upon God.
Unbelievers are not taught to love God and repent of their sin when they suffer. Rather, they become embittered toward Him and become hardened in their sins.
Hebrews 12:7-10
God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness.
There are times when I agree with all this and I have hopes for these things, but there are also times when I think God doesn't care so much about his creation and so I think ideas like these: "rejoicing in grief", "well to be eternal " are childish.
 
Upvote 0

royal priest

debtor to grace
Nov 1, 2015
2,666
2,656
Northeast, USA
✟196,434.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
There are times when I agree with all this and I have hopes for these things, but there are also times when I think God doesn't care so much about his creation and so I think ideas like these: "rejoicing in grief", "well to be eternal " are childish.
The root of your dilemma seems to be that you do not trust God at His Word.
 
Upvote 0

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
15,510
10,385
79
Auckland
✟437,905.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't know if I believe in a "spiritual battle", the Apostle St. Paul in Colossians 2:15 says: "And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross".

Paul also said: "And if I have forgiven anything, I have forgiven it in the presence of Christ for your sake, in order that Satan should not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes..

And Peter said "Be sober-minded and alert. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in your faith and in the knowledge that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kinds of suffering.…

And James said... "Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

So the need for active resistance to Satan is well established since the cross.

On the question of God giving authority and responsibility to Satan - this is a no brainer. Matters are not invalid through lack of scriptural mention. He was given the title the Prince of the Power of the Air - that would have come with authority and responsibility which he violated.
 
Upvote 0

Sérgio Junior

Active Member
Sep 29, 2015
104
69
Sao Paulo
✟269,601.00
Country
Brazil
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
So let's not blame God for the injustices we see, when sufferings of the elect are more than compensated for though His eternal promises, and the author of destruction is to blame.
Do you think Satan is to blame for all the tragedies that have already happened, are happening and will still happen in this world?

The root of your dilemma seems to be that you do not trust God at His Word.
I have always taken my faith and trust in God and his Word (Jesus Christ) very seriously, but that does not mean that I haven't doubts or even "crises of faith" to the point that I raise questions like the one I am doing in this OP
 
Upvote 0

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,424
7,159
73
St. Louis, MO.
✟415,046.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Suppose an intelligent alien--like the Mr. Spock character in Star Trek--visited our planet. He studied our history extensively and observed how humans behave and how our societies operate. He formulated conclusions using strict principles of logic, reason, and cause-an-effect relationships. But he based his conclusions solely on objectively verifiable data, without emotionalism or preconceived notions. He would definitely conclude that many humans believe in a god. But it is totally illogical to believe that this god has an all-benevolent moral nature. The rational conclusion is one of 3 possibilities:

1) God is evil, and deceptive.
2) God is morally dualistic--both benevolent and malevolent.
3) God has no moral nature and is uninvolved.

The only foundation for belief in an all-benevolent god is faith. Faith in scripture and religious tradition.
 
Upvote 0

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
15,510
10,385
79
Auckland
✟437,905.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Do you think Satan is to blame for all the tragedies that have already happened, are happening and will still happen in this world?

Not at all - as in the case of Job, he was allowed to bring tragedy but with boundaries...

Tragedy will also come through the natural consequences of a fallen and cursed world.

Tragedy will also come through disobedience to God's word.

It is a mixture.
 
Upvote 0

Sérgio Junior

Active Member
Sep 29, 2015
104
69
Sao Paulo
✟269,601.00
Country
Brazil
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Suppose an intelligent alien--like the Mr. Spock character in Star Trek--visited our planet. He studied our history extensively and observed how humans behave and how our societies operate. He formulated conclusions using strict principles of logic, reason, and cause-an-effect relationships. But he based his conclusions solely on objectively verifiable data, without emotionalism or preconceived notions. He would definitely conclude that many humans believe in a god. But it is totally illogical to believe that this god has an all-benevolent moral nature. The rational conclusion is one of 3 possibilities:

1) God is evil, and deceptive.
2) God is morally dualistic--both benevolent and malevolent.
3) God has no moral nature and is uninvolved.

The only foundation for belief in an all-benevolent god is faith. Faith in scripture and religious tradition.
Sometimes I try to understand how it is possible to believe in an all benevolent God in our present state of the world and universe within the field of reason, but I think this is only possible within the field of faith.
 
Upvote 0

Sérgio Junior

Active Member
Sep 29, 2015
104
69
Sao Paulo
✟269,601.00
Country
Brazil
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Tragedy will also come through the natural consequences of a fallen and cursed world.

Tragedy will also come through disobedience to God's word.

It is a mixture.
Do you think events like the Holocaust happened as an act of Jewish disobedience for disobeying God's Word?
 
Upvote 0

Tolworth John

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mar 10, 2017
8,276
4,681
70
Tolworth
✟414,919.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So you think all evil has entered the world because of a man who ate a fruit? Sorry, I dont take the first 3 chapters of Genesis in a literal way!
I'm not blaming God directly, I just discuss the idea that He didn't intervene in tragedy situations like the Holocaust.
They complain because they don't believe in Jesus, maybe??

Yes sin entered the creation because Adam disobeyed a direct command.

As to atrocities, why should God intervien in any of the many that have occured.

We are moral beings responsible for our actions.

Imagine how some people would behave if no matter what they did there was no consquence of that action.
 
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,223
South Africa
✟324,143.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
It's very difficult for Christians to discuss these question related to post Holocaust Theodicy, and when they discuss the most they say is about freewill (which frankly, for me is a way to avoid the question).
Please expand on why free will is avoiding the question? The way I see it, human evil exists solely on account of free will, of choice; and biblically in the Eden narrative that also seems the case.

As to the Holocaust, humans have done a lot of comparable evil - we just forget it, as it was so long ago. The Mongols built a pyramid of human skulls when they conquered Baghdad; the Aztecs sacrificed 50000 people on one occasion when rededicating a temple, in a most gruesome heart-ripping fashion; the Carthaginians burned babies and infants in tophets for centuries; even the rape of Nanking is forgotten though more recent; etc. The problem is no worse or more difficult today, than it was for Augustine or Calvin or Peter and Paul while being persecuted - right back to Christ Himself, being tortured on the cross and Forsaken by God.

Clearly it matters deeply to God, at least in the Christian understanding of Him, that His children are suffering - else why would He give Himself over to it in the Incarnation? It reminds me of Shusaku Endo's Silence, where Jesus tells Rodrigues to trample on the fumie, to ease his suffering, because that is why He came in the first place.

If I look at human history, I don't see any evil that can be put at the doorstep of God. I see evil done by men, for selfish and usually sinful reasons, either knowingly or denying the existence of absolute moral values. Blaming God for not preventing the Holocaust, is denying the Agency of the SS officers that carried it out, or the high ranking Nazis that conceived it in the first place.

Left to our own devices, we create a dark and forboding world. Biology and Psychology somewhat agree, with their Selfish Genes and ulterior motives they assume. If you take away God, you take away the principle that Goodness might underlie the whole story. Another poster here claims observing history makes God appear indifferent or evil - nothing can be further from the case, as we see the slavery, or ending human sacrifice, or Sati in India, done under the Aegis of religion. As in all things, it has been abused as well, but those that abused it, felt the need to excuse their actions. In essence, they embraced an exception and created a relativistic niche. Non-religious evil, such as the Holocaust or Communist acts or the great wars of Conquest, were celebrated as 'good' actions by their participants, for Noble ends. The difference isn't more stark, that where God touches, something of the better impulses of man bubbles up from a fairly dark swamp of subconscious desires, complexes and self-justification.

Even our daily actions can be construed as sin to fellow men after all, as all these environmental consumerist issues make far more plain example than the more abtuse reasoning one used to need to show it. We all incrementally play some part in the evil elsewhere, be it buying that chocolate that used child-labour in Ivory Coast, or so. But do individual acts bear as much blame? I mean, we prosecuted the Aushwitz accountant as an accessory, or the railways that helped shipped people there, right to holding Germany as a whole accountable as some odd perpetual blood debt. It is a totalising narrative of cause, webs of responsibility on either active or passive grounds. Into this gap steps a Man that says He knows your sins, and takes them upon Himself as a scapegoat, laying bear this framework of blame. A Maximillian Kolbe would never have taken another man's place, if we were not all the sinful children of God that are all rebellious in one way or another. For Nature is not Evil; neither the parasitic wasp nor the Lion; except where we anthropomorphise it, and the ethical framework of man in toto, demands a form of the Good, or it sinks away into the bloodied hands of the relativists.

At heart, you need to decide on axiomatic grounds: Is the world mostly Good, mostly Evil or indifferent. From personal experience, the day to day with my children and other people, it is overwhelmingly Good. Evil occurs, sometime absolutely abhorrently. I just read about how child rape is skyrocketting thanks to the Internet, for instance. However, clearly the baseline, the intention if one can call it thus, is for most people to have a good life. I can't see how you can look at a normal day and conclude this the product of evil, which seems the exception rather than the rule; and indifference shifts even more into debates on free will, as it has to assume an incoherent determinism that effectively abolishes agency in entirety.

The thornier problem in any theodicy is less the benevolence of God than justifying His omnipotence. This is why so much comes to hinge on Free Will.

Have you read Dostoeyevsky's Brothers Karamazov?
 
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,223
South Africa
✟324,143.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Suppose an intelligent alien--like the Mr. Spock character in Star Trek--visited our planet. He studied our history extensively and observed how humans behave and how our societies operate. He formulated conclusions using strict principles of logic, reason, and cause-an-effect relationships. But he based his conclusions solely on objectively verifiable data, without emotionalism or preconceived notions. He would definitely conclude that many humans believe in a god. But it is totally illogical to believe that this god has an all-benevolent moral nature. The rational conclusion is one of 3 possibilities:

1) God is evil, and deceptive.
2) God is morally dualistic--both benevolent and malevolent.
3) God has no moral nature and is uninvolved.

The only foundation for belief in an all-benevolent god is faith. Faith in scripture and religious tradition.
An intelligent alien coming to earth would not think in any way like this. Firstly, you are assuming the primacy of Aristotlean Logic; Secondly, Baconian development thereof in New Philosophy and the Novum Organon; and thirdly, giving it an Enlightenment flair of the deist.

This whole piece is so steeped in Western paradigms and thought patterns as to be unequivocally the product thereof - I'd go so far as even saying an Anglo-French subset of it.

For instance, 'Objectively verifiable data'? Verified as to what? Our physics nowadays says everything is observer dependant, relative or in flux. So, you assume on a macroscopic scale? But once more, I see a table, but 'objectively' it is a sea of particles - however I can only come to that conclusion via a series of reasoned theorums, based of sense-perception and thus mediated by my framework within which I place any such data. Why can you so blithely assume intersubjectivity valid, my green-blooded friend? Why is there such a primacy between your internal reasoned notions and an external 'objective' set, when subjectively experienced and there are no real hard borders between the organism and the world it inhabits?

You'd even import Abrahamic concepts of evil and deception, instead of say, a dharmic conception of void and illusion, or monistic Musumi. Either of these can just as easily be seen as 'objectively verifiable'. Now you would universalise a very specific set of Western notions.

Good luck. This whole is so philosophically contradictory as to seem almost farce. The preconceived and a priori notions here are an unbelievably thick peel; that surrounds a baseline Russian nesting doll that assumes an essentially European Christian worldset, and at its core rests the simple idea that it would be unfair for God to let us get hurt if He was a good guy. This is a childish impulse, the same as that when a young child thinks his parents' unfair to deny him a chocolate, or when they stop him doing something he wants to, or when he blames them for scuffing his knee when he disobeyed them for the umpteenth time and slid down the bannister.

It is utterly illogical to try and reduce complex moral problems to a tiny set of syllogisms. Besides, we need to determine what you mean by 'god' therein, as depending on the classical definitions, your statements aren't even logically valid themselves - such as ascribing both benevolence and malevolence to God as an option, which makes no sense unless you synthesise a form like Zurvan in Zoroastrianism or a form of Monism.
Logically, either we face a very complex system indeed, or we must deny the essential veridicality of the moral itself, as per Nietschze or so.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

royal priest

debtor to grace
Nov 1, 2015
2,666
2,656
Northeast, USA
✟196,434.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I have always taken my faith and trust in God and his Word (Jesus Christ) very seriously
Our faith in God is going to fluctuate because we are mutable. God and His truth are immutable. We need to learn to trust Him in spite of what we feel like believing in a given moment. Afflictions might feel like His hates us, but His Word tells us it is because He actually loves us and wants to ensure our sanctification.
 
Upvote 0

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,522
16,853
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟772,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
"Where in Scripture does it say that God is omnibenevolent?"

This word doesn't exist in the Bible, as you may know this is a Latin term and that means "all good" and "infinite benevolence", and it seems that some verses give this idea (such as Psalm 100: 5, James 1:17 and Mark 10:18).
Rom 11:22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.
 
Upvote 0

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,522
16,853
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟772,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I don't know if I believe in a "spiritual battle",

2 Corinthians 10:3
For th
ough we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, 4 for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. 5 We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ,
 
  • Like
Reactions: royal priest
Upvote 0

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,424
7,159
73
St. Louis, MO.
✟415,046.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
An intelligent alien coming to earth would not think in any way like this. Firstly, you are assuming the primacy of Aristotlean Logic; Secondly, Baconian development thereof in New Philosophy and the Novum Organon; and thirdly, giving it an Enlightenment flair of the deist.

This whole piece is so steeped in Western paradigms and thought patterns as to be unequivocally the product thereof - I'd go so far as even saying an Anglo-French subset of it.

For instance, 'Objectively verifiable data'? Verified as to what? Our physics nowadays says everything is observer dependant, relative or in flux. So, you assume on a macroscopic scale? But once more, I see a table, but 'objectively' it is a sea of particles - however I can only come to that conclusion via a series of reasoned theorums, based of sense-perception and thus mediated by my framework within which I place any such data. Why can you so blithely assume intersubjectivity valid, my green-blooded friend? Why is there such a primacy between your internal reasoned notions and an external 'objective' set, when subjectively experienced and there are no real hard borders between the organism and the world it inhabits?

You'd even import Abrahamic concepts of evil and deception, instead of say, a dharmic conception of void and illusion, or monistic Musumi. Either of these can just as easily be seen as 'objectively verifiable'. Now you would universalise a very specific set of Western notions.

Good luck. This whole is so philosophically contradictory as to seem almost farce. The preconceived and a priori notions here are an unbelievably thick peel; that surrounds a baseline Russian nesting doll that assumes an essentially European Christian worldset, and at its core rests the simple idea that it would be unfair for God to let us get hurt if He was a good guy. This is a childish impulse, the same as that when a young child thinks his parents' unfair to deny him a chocolate, or when they stop him doing something he wants to, or when he blames them for scuffing his knee when he disobeyed them for the umpteenth time and slid down the bannister.

It is utterly illogical to try and reduce complex moral problems to a tiny set of syllogisms. Besides, we need to determine what you mean by 'god' therein, as depending on the classical definitions, your statements aren't even logically valid themselves - such as ascribing both benevolence and malevolence to God as an option, which makes no sense unless you synthesise a form like Zurvan in Zoroastrianism or a form of Monism.
Logically, either we face a very complex system indeed, or we must deny the essential veridicality of the moral itself, as per Nietschze or so.

Let’s keep it simple. My point is that if God (and I’m specifically referring to the Abrahamic God) was evil and deceptive, the world could look exactly as it does now. Other than faith, there is no way to know God’s moral nature. Or if God even has a moral nature.

And honestly, my intention is not to disparage faith. All of us, including non-theists, hold some beliefs based on faith. I’m just reminding everyone of this epistemological fact.
 
Upvote 0

Robban

-----------
Site Supporter
Dec 27, 2009
11,604
3,167
✟804,951.00
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Divorced
Let’s keep it simple. My point is that if God (and I’m specifically referring to the Abrahamic God) was evil and deceptive, the world could look exactly as it does now. Other than faith, there is no way to know God’s moral nature. Or if God even has a moral nature.

And honestly, my intention is not to disparage faith. All of us, including non-theists, hold some beliefs based on faith. I’m just reminding everyone of this epistemological fact.

The human is the only specie created in His image.

The human is the only specie to have been endowed with,
1, Freewill.
2, the ability to reason,
3, a sense of morality.

In that sense were we created in His image.
 
Upvote 0