I did not ask you if an evil "spirit" exists. I simply asked if evil exists. So I will ask again. Does evil exist? If so, what is it and who is responsible for it?
Upvote
0
The problem of evil
- Thread starter Norman70
- Start date
grantdenning
Active Member
I believe that people make there own choices as to whether to do good or bad things. I believe that some things appear evil, such as slavery for instance. Yet in the Biblical context, slavery is not considered evil. It isnt even considered bad! So 1st we have to define what evil is.
Upvote
0
So your answer is "No, Evil does not actually exist." So why try to define something that you suggest doesn't exist and what is the Bible talking about in: Isaiah 5:20, Proverbs 8:13, Psalm 23:4, Romans 3:23, Romans 12:19, Psalm 5:4, Genesis 50:20, Genesis 6:5-7, Psalm 64:1-10, James 1:13, 1 Peter 3:9, Romans 12:21, Matthew 6:13, 1 Timothy 6:10, Romans 12:9, Malachi 2:17, 1 Thessalonians 5:15, Proverbs 20:22, Proverbs 17:13, Deuteronomy 17:12, 1 Thessalonians 5:22, Proverbs 3:7, Psalm 97:10 ?....and the list goes on.
Why would the Bible warn us against, protect us from, and punish us for something that doesn't really exist? Lastly, your profile says you are a "Christian". Is that still true?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
grantdenning
Active Member
If the bible is going to warn us against, protect us from, and punish us then it should do a better job at defining evil. If slavery isn't evil, or genocide isn't evil, then I don't know what is!
I don't think I need to conform to YOUR view of Christianity to call myself Christian. There might be Christians who say YOU are not Christian because you don't believe everything they believe in!
Upvote
0
Ok. I am going to ask you bluntly. Do you revere Christ as Lord? I expect a simple Yes or No answer. The reason why I ask is because you are directly in conflict with much of what Jesus himself says in the New Testament. Your comments seem to dismiss the New Testament altogether. If you cannot trust what Jesus Himself says in His own words about Satan and evil, then exactly why do you consider yourself a "Christian"? Heck, you cannot even answer the simple question on whether or not the title "Christian" is an accurate description for you. This only suggests that you are either struggling with this or you would consider this title for yourself to be dishonest.
Upvote
0
Furthermore, just to be clear. Christianity is filled with diversity in thought. Especially when it comes to theology. I wouldn't call a Catholic "non-Christian" for simply having a different theological conviction. However, there are tenants that clearly define what you MUST confess to be able to honestly call yourself a "Christian". These tenants are found on the CF "Statement of Faith". This is not an issue about "my view of Christianity" over your view. It is an issue what THE DEFINED CHRISTIAN VIEW is over your view. To be a Christian, you MUST confess that you:
[You believe] in (Romans 10:8-10; 1John 4:15)
ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6:4, Ephesians 4:6)
the Father (Matthew 6:9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6:3)
Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1:1)
and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1:15-16)
And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11:17)
the Son of God, (Mathew 14:33; 16:16)
the Only-Begotten, (John 1:18; 3:16)
Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1:2)
Light of Light; (Psalm 27:1; John 8:12; Matthew 17:2,5)
True God of True God; (John 17:1-5)
Begotten, not made; (John 1:18)
of one essence with the Father (John 10:30)
by whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1:1-2)
Who for us men and for our salvation (1Timothy 2:4-5)
came down from Heaven, (John 6:33,35)
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, (Luke 1:35)
and became man. (John 1:14)
And was crucified for us (Mark 15:25; 1Cointhians 15:3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 19:6)
and suffered, (Mark 8:31)
and was buried. (Luke 23:53; 1Corinthians 15:4)
And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures. (Luke 24:1 1Corinthians 15:4)
And ascended into Heaven, (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:10)
and sits at the right hand of the Father. (Mark 16:19; Acts 7:55)
And He shall come again with glory (Matthew 24:27)
to judge the living and the dead; (Acts 10:42; 2Timothy 4:1)
whose Kingdom shall have no end. (2 Peter 1:11)
And in the Holy Spirit, (John 14:26)
the Lord, (Acts 5:3-4)
the Giver of Life, (Genesis 1:2)
Who proceeds from the Father; (John 15:26)
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; (Matthew 3:16-17)
Who spoke through the prophets. (1 Samuel 19:20 ; Ezekiel 11:5,13) In one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (1 Peter 2:5,9)
catholic*, (Mark 16:15)
and apostolic Church. (Acts 2:42; Ephesians 2:19-22)
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins**. (Ephesians 4:5; Acts 2:38)
I look for the resurrection of the dead, (John 11:24; 1Corinthians 15:12-49; Hebrews 6:2; Revelation 20:5)
and the life of the world to come. (Mark 10:29-30)
AMEN. (Psalm 106:48)
So, as long as you can honestly confess that all these tenants are true, it doesn't matter what theological difference you have with mine. By definition, you would still be considered "Christian". However, if you cannot confess this to be true. You cannot call yourself a Christian and your profile ought to be updated.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
grantdenning
Active Member
I don't have the time to look at your extremely long list right now, however I have said previously that the only Gospel that I think is reasonably reliable is the gospel of Mark.
It is not necessary to believe that everything in the N.T. is the inerrant word of God, because the writers of the N.T. were not inerrant, & nor was the early church, who had much debate about Jesus. If you read the new testament from Mark (the earliest gospel) to John, you can see how the Christian religion was evolving in its 1st 150 years, from the prophesied Messiah in Mark (an anointed King, NOT God), to Jesus the Equal of God in John. What we have today is a Sect whose side won out. There were other Christian sects who had different views about Jesus whose argument did not win the day. That does not necessarily mean that THEY were wrong, & the version of Christianity that we have today is right! They just didn't have the no's, or the Emperor of Rome on their side when the biblical cannon was finalised.
Similarly, Satan changed from a servant of God in the O.T., to the prince of darkness opposed to God in the N.T.. There is nothing in the O.T. to suggest that this was the case.
Somebody else who mightn't believe everything in the list you just gave me is Jesus himself I think Jesus was verballed in John, who put words in Jesus mouth about who he said he was, & misrepresented by Paul. If Jesus came back today he probably would not recognise the Christian religion we have today as being about Jesus life & teachings. I don't think Jesus meant to start any new religion. His purpose was to reaffirm the teachings of the Torah & the verbal Jewish teachings.
So I don't need to confess anything to you, or to anybody else to prove I am Christian. My version of Christianity might not pass muster with you or the mainstream churches, but I don't care what the mainstream churches think, because they are not the true arbiters of what Christian belief is.
Upvote
0
That is a tenant of the Nicene Creed. If you do not believe it, it is considered heresy by the early church. Do you revere Jesus Christ as Lord? I have asked you a couple time now and yet you still will not answer. Why of all places, on a Christian forum, in a thread reserved for Christians only, are you ashamed to provide a simple answer? These "arbiters" you are dismissing are the Early Church Fathers. Does anyone here on this forum feel ashamed to say Jesus Christ is Lord?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I will be disappointed if you leave this website, grantdenning, although there are a few things you have written which I could discuss with you, the advantage of CF is that we can find a forum where we can express our differences without indulging in an eristic exchange.
I too find it difficult to believe in the virgin birth, and amongst Christians this is a contraversial topic. But we are all Christians, and we will share our different opinions in a friendly exchange. I believe that all of these exchanges lead us closer to the Word of God, who is Jesus, and often has little or nothing to do with the written words in our Scriptures, no matter which English version we are using, or any other modern language translation, or, if we are clever enough, to try to interpret the original languages.
My other discomfort with the Nicene Creed is the use of the phrase "the Son of God". To me this makes no sense if we believe that Jesus IS God, but as I have often said, God came to earth as a man so that men and women and children could relate to Him through Jesus, who was a man. In the OT God's children could not relate directly to God, they wanted intermediaries (e.g. Moses) or kings (Samuel gave them a king, against God's advice). Therefore the writers of the NT used a phrase which ordinary people could relate to, to say Jesus was God would have put them off!
I say again, Christianity is a journey, and we will only reach our destination at death. If this journey in our mortal life is too difficult, which it is, then of course we must give it up. But where do we go? As a mountain climber in my youth, I appreciated the perfectionists who would not stick to the footpath but only scramble on the ridges so as Christians should we too scramble on the ridges?!
I too find it difficult to believe in the virgin birth, and amongst Christians this is a contraversial topic. But we are all Christians, and we will share our different opinions in a friendly exchange. I believe that all of these exchanges lead us closer to the Word of God, who is Jesus, and often has little or nothing to do with the written words in our Scriptures, no matter which English version we are using, or any other modern language translation, or, if we are clever enough, to try to interpret the original languages.
My other discomfort with the Nicene Creed is the use of the phrase "the Son of God". To me this makes no sense if we believe that Jesus IS God, but as I have often said, God came to earth as a man so that men and women and children could relate to Him through Jesus, who was a man. In the OT God's children could not relate directly to God, they wanted intermediaries (e.g. Moses) or kings (Samuel gave them a king, against God's advice). Therefore the writers of the NT used a phrase which ordinary people could relate to, to say Jesus was God would have put them off!
I say again, Christianity is a journey, and we will only reach our destination at death. If this journey in our mortal life is too difficult, which it is, then of course we must give it up. But where do we go? As a mountain climber in my youth, I appreciated the perfectionists who would not stick to the footpath but only scramble on the ridges so as Christians should we too scramble on the ridges?!
Upvote
0
When you get a chance, I would be interested to hear an update as to how your conversation went with your wife on this topic.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
My wife is a very spiritual person but has never spent inordinate time studying the Bible. She enjoys reading the KJV and can quote important Scriptures, but like me is no theologian, and often not very interested in what has been written within the context of Christianity by notable theologians over the centuries.
We have much to read and discuss together. So far, regarding your posts with which I was impressed, not because I was being led into or away from my existing beliefs, but felt that your posts were a very useful summary of how the problem of evil has been discussed by notable theologians, and, of course, a clear indication that the problem has not been solved, and never will be within our lifetimes.
One of my wife's reactions was to say that it was a pity God gave us free will. If we were all puppets on strings, evil would not exist, and there would have been no need for God to have come to this world as Jesus!
We have much to read and discuss together. So far, regarding your posts with which I was impressed, not because I was being led into or away from my existing beliefs, but felt that your posts were a very useful summary of how the problem of evil has been discussed by notable theologians, and, of course, a clear indication that the problem has not been solved, and never will be within our lifetimes.
One of my wife's reactions was to say that it was a pity God gave us free will. If we were all puppets on strings, evil would not exist, and there would have been no need for God to have come to this world as Jesus!
Upvote
0
BarWi
Active Member
- Oct 11, 2018
- 75
- 54
- 71
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
Yes, I get this but don't see that God granting one an ability to create evil and warning against it makes God culpable. This is especially true if the evil created by man is used by God for a good, i.e., by using it to cleanse souls. I believe the evil we produce "kills" us spiritually and God through Christ resurrects us back to life in cleansing hellfire. This seems to be how "infant" souls [in this life] are strengthened to conduct ourselves properly in eternity. A saying is, "No harm, no foul", but here "no harm" is replaced with the blessing of evil as a benefit--so it's hard to see why one would blame God for producing perfect offspring. We may criticize His methods, I certainly feel like objecting sometimes, but it's all good in the end.
Upvote
0
First, I would recommend reading posts #30-35. Second, if God had not granted humanity with free will, it would not be possible for humanity to cause evil unless God directly commands us. To suggest otherwise requires the remove the omni-benevolence of God. The onmi-benevolence of God means that evil cannot be within Him nor can it be emanated or created by Him. Meaning, God cannot be all good because He would be using humanity as a tool to emanate or create evil on His behalf. An evil that could not exist otherwise. Conversely, because God gave humanity free will, humanity has a choice to create or not create evil. An evil that could not exists otherwise. Thus, God is culpable for making evil a possibility. However, because evil is a decision that humanity makes as a result of their free choosing, humanity is culpable for the existence of evil. An evil that could not exist unless humanity freely chooses it to exist.
Upvote
0
@jason_delisle. If I am reading you correctly, one solution for the problem of evil is that because God gave humanity free will, then we are free to choose to do evil. In fact, do you say, that this choice creates evil, which did not exist beforehand, assuming of course our own worldly time, not the infinite time in which God exists?
Before Adam and Eve, let me stick to that simple story about the creation of man, I tend to be a theistic evolutionist along the lines of Teilhard de Chardin, evil did not exist. It only came into existence when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, because they had free will.
We do, of course, need to really distinguish between human evil and natural evil. Teilhard was comfortable with his so-called geosphere, when the earth was created in space and continental drift, earthquakes etc. were common place, and are still going on. It appears that God's creation was abound with natural evil. I have no problem with that, being an evolutionist, so the problem for me rests solely with human evil. When natural evils had settled down a little, Teilhard's biosphere arose, and the natural evolutionary development of life and the multitude of species God was then able to instigate. For me all of this involved a continuation of natural evil, animals eating plants and animals eating animals, because they are not endowed with free will. Again I have no problem with that.
However, as a result of the appearance of homo sapiens sapiens (however that came about) God endowed him with free will, and could choose not to eat animals, or each other! Eating plants would just be a continuation of natural evil already in existence. Teilhard, as you may know, then proposes the noosphere, culminating in the Second Coming (Omega). This is the final stage in God's evolutionary plan, and He did know that by giving human beings free will they would choose evil. With the communication proposed in the noosphere, we will all deny and overcome this evil in ourselves, God, as Jesus, will come a second time, and human evil will be no more.
Not so with natural evil, in all of its manifestations. We now know that even the sun will not last forever in its present form.
Before Adam and Eve, let me stick to that simple story about the creation of man, I tend to be a theistic evolutionist along the lines of Teilhard de Chardin, evil did not exist. It only came into existence when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, because they had free will.
We do, of course, need to really distinguish between human evil and natural evil. Teilhard was comfortable with his so-called geosphere, when the earth was created in space and continental drift, earthquakes etc. were common place, and are still going on. It appears that God's creation was abound with natural evil. I have no problem with that, being an evolutionist, so the problem for me rests solely with human evil. When natural evils had settled down a little, Teilhard's biosphere arose, and the natural evolutionary development of life and the multitude of species God was then able to instigate. For me all of this involved a continuation of natural evil, animals eating plants and animals eating animals, because they are not endowed with free will. Again I have no problem with that.
However, as a result of the appearance of homo sapiens sapiens (however that came about) God endowed him with free will, and could choose not to eat animals, or each other! Eating plants would just be a continuation of natural evil already in existence. Teilhard, as you may know, then proposes the noosphere, culminating in the Second Coming (Omega). This is the final stage in God's evolutionary plan, and He did know that by giving human beings free will they would choose evil. With the communication proposed in the noosphere, we will all deny and overcome this evil in ourselves, God, as Jesus, will come a second time, and human evil will be no more.
Not so with natural evil, in all of its manifestations. We now know that even the sun will not last forever in its present form.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
BarWi
Active Member
- Oct 11, 2018
- 75
- 54
- 71
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
As requested I read those posts. Responses below are to what I feel to be their salient points.
I pointed out that if the evil produced by the will of humans was in God’s plan to serve a greater good, then He would have no culpability in creating humans who have the ability to create evil because He would be making available a positive to humanity from an assumed negative. Second, I pointed out in post #20 that culpability legally requires intrusion on the will of others. The ‘traditional’ case of the problem of evil as quoted above fails to demonstrate intrusion on God's part. Therefore a reduction of God’s qualities doesn't make it to first base unless I'm not seeing the issue clearly.
This notion can be reconciled with the Genesis account of creation if the literal account is sidestepped and taken as a metaphor that describes a process of each human starting life in the perfected condition but inevitably awakening and growing (intellectually and physically) into a falsified world in which each person adopts the same fragmentally falsified condition of all others (Adam’s “sin” passed down ‘genetically’).
Discussions of evil are cumbersome because evil is an effect and discussion of effects is naturally obscure. I’ve developed a metaphysical hypothesis based on Avicenna’s take on truth that the essence of all things is value endued. In reduction, each element of essence exists in either a true or false state. We are created with the ability to falsify our own souls fragmentally, and falsity can be seen to pass naturally to the material sphere through act. This approach denies the Thomistic idea that evil is sufficiently defined as a privation and places privation in (imo) a more reasonable light as an aspect or property of evil. I mention this because it seems to me this approach suggests a more technical—and more logically accurate-- approach to problems like evil. And is helpful in answering the next point I want to address.
This is an example of how evil as an effect blurs proper discussion of the subject. Moving to the theological sphere, the entire Bible is about the destruction of falsity, the cause of evil. The only moral directive God actually gives in Scripture is an exhortation to humanity to adhere to truth. In this perspective evil is produced by falsity corrupting essence and causally, cognitive and emotional functions. Morality can thus be defined as “pressure” raised in the mind by the opposition, tension or resistance found in the juxtaposition of microscopic elements of truth and falsity in essence, which create associated tensions and resistances in the macro realm of mental content and act.
Thus, your comment, “God cannot remove evil by forcing us to choose goodness. This coercion would be a contradiction that goes against his nature. “ would be incoherent on this view. When God removes falsity from the soul, its causal effect on intellectual operation creates in the individual a renewed natural tendency to choose “rightly”, i.e., to form reasons, motives and dispositions toward truth. Free will in this view is not the dictionary definition of “the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies”. Rather, the removal of falsity removes from the soul hindrances that prevent the individual from choosing the true over the false. In being cleansed of falsity, we're being unchained and set free from the chains of falsity/evil. This, in a nutshell, is salvation.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Below is an excerpt from the "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics",( P. 30-32).
The Problem of Physical Evil. The above solution to the problem of evil do not appear to solve the problem of natural disasters. Why tornadoes, hurricanes, an earthquakes? It does not suffice to say that the free will of creatures caused all these. Further, many innocent people are killed in them. How, then, can natural evil be explained. In logical form:
1. Moral evil is explained by free choice.
2. But some natural evil does not result from free choice.
3. Natural evil cannot be explained by free choice of creatures.
4. Hence, God must be responsible for natural evil.
5. But natural evils cause innocent suffering and death.
6. Therefore, God is responsible for innocent suffering and death.
Theists question several premises of this argument. One response to premise 5, for example, is that in this fallen world no one is innocent. We sinned in Adam ( Rom. 5:12 ) and as a consequence deserve death ( Rom. 6:23 ). Natural disaster is a direct result of the curse on creation because of the fall of humankind ( Genesis 3 ; Romans 8 ). It will not be removed until Christ returns ( Revelation 21–22 ). Likewise, proposition 6 is mistaken, since it implies God is morally culpable for taking the life of a creature. This is a category mistake, since it wrongly assumes that, since it is wrong for a creature to take innocent life, it is also wrong for the Creator to do so. But God gave life and alone has the right to take it (cf. Deut. 32:39 ; Job 1:21 ). We did not give life, and we do not have the right to take it. Premise 3 is definitely untrue. For theism can explain all natural evil by reference to free choice. In biblical language, the free choice of Adam and Eve brought natural disaster on this world. In addition the free choice of evil angels accounts for the rest of human suffering. But even putting this possibility aside, which could in itself explain all natural evil, physical suffering can be explained in reference to human free choice.
1. Some suffering is brought on directly by our own free choice. The choice to abuse my body can result in sickness.
2. Some suffering is brought on indirectly by free choice. The choice to be lazy can result in poverty.
3. Some physical evil to others can result from our free choice, as in the case of spouse or child abuse.
4. Others suffer indirectly because of our free choice. Alcoholism can lead to poverty of one’s children.
5. Some physical evil may be a necessary byproduct of a good process. Rain, hot air, and cool air are all necessary for food and life, but a byproduct of these forces is a tornado.
6. Some physical evil may be a necessary condition for attaining a greater moral good. God uses pain to get our attention. Many have come to God through suffering.
7. Some physical suffering may be a necessary condition of a greater moral good. Just as diamonds are formed under pressure, even so is character.
8. Some physical evil is a necessary concomitant of a morally good physical world. For instance, it is good to have water to swim and boat in, but a necessary concomitant is that we can also drown in it. It is good to have sex for procreation and enjoyment, even though it makes rape possible. It is good to have food to eat, but this also makes dying of food poisoning possible.
At this point the critic could always ask why a physical world is necessary. Why did not God make spirits, who could not hurt their bodies or die. The answer is: God did; they are called angels. The problem is that, while no angel can die of food poisoning, neither can they enjoy a prime rib. While no angel has ever drowned, neither has any angel ever gone for a swim or went water skiing. No angel has ever been raped, but neither has any angel ever enjoyed sex or the blessing of having children ( Matt. 22:30 ).
In this kind of physical world, we simply must take the concomitant evil along with the good. Eventually, of course, Christian theists believe God will redeem us from all physical evil too, giving us immortal and incorruptible bodies. But if we had those before we were morally ready for them, we would not have made the necessary moral progress toward being suited to them.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
