God permits evil because we need to know

[timothyu]

An infinitely powerful God needed to enlist the assistance of Adam and Eve to rectify a situation?

How does one make a better model of a failed angel?

 

[JAL]

How does one make a better model of a failed angel?

Why would an infinitely self-sufficient God instill radical freedom in an angel? Just for the fun of it?

 

[timothyu]

Why would an infinitely self-sufficient God instill radical freedom in an angel? Just for the fun of it?

Why has the computer realm moved to AI?

 

[JAL]

Why has the computer realm moved to AI?

Huh? I don't see the connection.

 

[timothyu]

Huh? I don't see the connection.

We take the same chance with AI, to a degree giving up control to a new being.

 

[JAL]

We take the same chance with AI, to a degree giving up control to a new being.

Seems you are pulling me into a debate on the ethics of AI.

I'm not sure of the relevance. You and I are finite beings. We are not infinitely self-sufficient. Therefore, by default, we have some inherent justification to create things to solve our problems. Whereas an infinite God has no such excuse/justification.

 

[timothyu]

Therefore, by default, we have some inherent justification to create things to solve our problems.

Of course as we live in a universe of opposing forces. However, how we go about creating things to solve our problems is what God /Jesus taught. We were shown force against force is useless, compromise is temporary, but loving all as self solves all. So it boils down to which way is best, man's or God's? I guess it depends on what a person is after, material gain or contentment.

 

[JAL]

Of course as we live in a universe of opposing forces. However, how we go about creating things to solve our problems is what God /Jesus taught. We were shown force against force is useless, compromise is temporary, but loving all as self solves all. So it boils down to which way is best, man's or God's? I guess it depends on what a person is after, material gain or contentment.

Look, the title of this thread seems to be a synonym for The Problem of Evil. I want to plumb the problem to the same depth as an atheist would, and still be able to tell him, "I have a solution. Here is WHY God permits evil."

Your starting point seems a bit more ipso facto. You seem to be asking the question, "Given that God has permitted evil, how then shall we live? And how can we retain a somewhat positive outlook on life?"

 

[timothyu]

Here is WHY God permits evil."

Determining who is grain and who is tare by their choice of material gain or contentment seems to fit the bill.

 

[JAL]

Determining who is grain and who is tare by their choice of material gain or contentment seems to fit the bill.

Again, if you haven't justified God's institution of (potentially) self-destructive degrees of human freedom, you're not plumbing The Problem of Evil to the same extent that an atheist would. You're only treating it superficially.

In fact it only gets worse. Theodicy is actually a two-part endeavor. After justifying radical freedom, the second part is to provide a viable theory of Adam - the church has failed on both counts. Why would a God who claims to be perfectly good, kind, and fair let 100 billion descendants suffer consequences for his sin? Maybe I'll provide some links where I resolve THAT issue as well.

 

[timothyu]

Why would a God who claims to be perfectly good, kind, and fair let 100 billion descendants suffer consequences for his sin?

Why do you send your child out the door without trying to micromanage ever aspect of their life?

 

[JAL]

Why do you send your child out the door without trying to micromanage ever aspect of their life?

Relevance? Bear in mind that the behavior of a finite parent is not always a valid analogy for an infinite God. In some cases it is, but we have to be cautious there.

 

[Noxot]

Let me get this straight. An infinitely powerful God needed to enlist the assistance of Adam and Eve to rectify a situation?

he doesn't have to but he could if he wanted to.

Whereas an infinite God has no such excuse/justification.

he has a lot of love to give? what kind of being would think that it would not be a big deal to suffer a life of mortality? What exactly does the concept of infinite love imply? Would it not eventually get an idea such as this world and experience we are now going through? What if he never came up with the idea but some souls he made came up with it? if he said it was no good but they ate of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil anyways, then it implied that they have some kind of power which would make sense if they were made in the image of God.

what if God would have let Adam eat of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil after he had matured enough? Jesus Christ matured enough and he handled the world fine. This world is an extreme place, it is nothing like a perfect or Ideal World. But it affords a very unique experience.

 

[Noxot]

Evil is like an ingrown toenail. It is almost nothing to Freedom. if evil was such a great thing then God would want us to do it. If evil was so wonderful God himself would do it. Evil is a hindrance to our freedom, not an advantage. Evil is a quenching of our spirits. Evil is the lack of joy. goodness can give birth to freedom but evil can only be born from freedom, it cannot give birth to Freedom. Evil is slavery. It is delusion, it is biting and devouring of one another. To be mortal is to be evil. Mortality of itself has no use. Only things full of love and wisdom have use. If we cannot make good with mortality then we have failed.

Vulnerability would seem to have no place in reality. Being indestructible is the ideal. But I think we did find a use for vulnerability. Would God love us if we died? Would God love us if we lost our Beauty? If we forgot everything and were pathetic creatures, what would we be like? Could we know God if we were blind?

 

[JAL]

he has a lot of love to give? what kind of being would think that it would not be a big deal to suffer a life of mortality? What exactly does the concept of infinite love imply? Would it not eventually get an idea such as this world and experience we are now going through? What if he never came up with the idea but some souls he made came up with it? if he said it was no good but they ate of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil anyways, then it implied that they have some kind of power which would make sense if they were made in the image of God.

what if God would have let Adam eat of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil after he had matured enough? Jesus Christ matured enough and he handled the world fine. This world is an extreme place, it is nothing like a perfect or Ideal World. But it affords a very unique experience.

I'm not following you. If this is a rebuttal of my words, could you please clarify the nature of your objection?

 

[Noxot]

I'm not following you. If this is a rebuttal of my words, could you please clarify the nature of your objection?

I'm thinking about theodicy.

This corruptible world is justified because of infinite love and relationship with God. Having all Divine qualities, God overflows with the world and inferior states of being. I would not exist like this unless I decided to. God would not force me into an inferior state of being. That I have this power shows how closely related to God that I am.

Without freedom it is God's fault that I exist like this. But if it is his freedom that caused me to be like this then it was his choice. If he decided then he is the one suffering, not me. I do not believe that I can exist if I do not have freedom because spirit and freedom are the same thing. It is too unbearable a reality to think that God would enslave me, that he would cast me to this hell called Earth.

I can even conceive of a reality where God created me like this -- a mortal ugly corruptible creature. As long as he will save me from this condition and never let me experience it again, I don't mind a little bit of sadism if he loves me. I don't mind if he told me a meaningless joke called my life and this world. And I enjoy surprises. If he surprises me with divinity then I'll be happy to be mortal at first. That way he can wipe all the tears from my eyes. Don't you think it's beautiful what he would do for his bride?

What is important is that in ourselves we can justify God even though that there is evil. We should also justify ourselves. After all one of the main reasons for existence is love, so what we feel and think matters. But we don't have to justify evil at all. It is right that the lost perceive hell, it is a natural affection to feel over God when you don't know him.

 

[JAL]

My arguments challenge the traditional theory of an infinitely self-sufficient God who creates our souls ex nihilo. If your premises are different, perhaps my arguments don't apply to you.

I'm thinking about theodicy.

This corruptible world is justified because of infinite love and relationship with God.
Having all Divine qualities, God overflows with the world and inferior states of being.

Unclear.

I would not exist like this unless I decided to. God would not force me into an inferior state of being. That I have this power shows how closely related to God that I am.

Why would an infinitely self-sufficient God grant you such radical freedom? Such exposure to temptation? Just enough rope to hang yourself? Just for the fun of it?

Without freedom it is God's fault that I exist like this. But if it is his freedom that caused me to be like this then it was his choice. If he decided then he is the one suffering, not me. I do not believe that I can exist if I do not have freedom because spirit and freedom are the same thing. It is too unbearable a reality to think that God would enslave me, that he would cast me to this hell called Earth.

You seem to be vacillating on whether it is your freedom, or God's freedom, responsible for your current suffering.

And I enjoy surprises. If he surprises me with divinity then I'll be happy to be mortal at first. That way he can wipe all the tears from my eyes. Don't you think it's beautiful what he would do for his bride?

Let's suppose I am voting in my community for father of the year. I have 2 nominees in mind.
(1) The first father shields his kids from pain and hurt.
(2) The second one incites them to tears all the time - but is faithful to wipe those tears away!
Which father's behavior is more beautiful in your opinion?

Look, I'll say it again. Atheists aren't fooled by traditional shallow treatments of the Problem of Evil.

I can even conceive of a reality where God created me like this -- a mortal ugly corruptible creature. As long as he will save me from this condition and never let me experience it again, I don't mind a little bit of sadism if he loves me. I don't mind if he told me a meaningless joke called my life and this world. And I enjoy surprises. If he surprises me with divinity then I'll be happy to be mortal at first. That way he can wipe all the tears from my eyes. Don't you think it's beautiful what he would do for his bride?

An infinitely holy God must be beyond reproach in ALL His actions. His willingness to wipe away the tears isn't sufficient warrant for sadistic behavior.

What is important is that in ourselves we can justify God even though that there is evil.

Yes, the goal of theodicy is to justify God's actions in the context of evil. I still fail to see how traditional theodicies succeed.

We should also justify ourselves. After all one of the main reasons for existence is love, so what we feel and think matters. But we don't have to justify evil at all. It is right that the lost perceive hell, it is a natural affection to feel over God when you don't know him.

Unclear.

 

[JAL]

- A simple analogy shows that traditional theories of Adam are unjust. See post 489 on this thread:
What About Progressive Sanctification?
- Moreover Ezekiel 18 affirms that a child shall not pay for the sins of his father, such as father Adam.
- Furthermore, traditional theories self-contradict in their (futile) attempts to explain HOW we received a sinful nature from Adam. See for example post 494 on this thread:
What About Progressive Sanctification?
- Only in the last 50 years, it seems, has any mainstream theologian, namely Millard J. Erickson, postulated a viable theory of Adam. In his famous systematic theology textbook, possibly used in every evangelical seminary in the world, he stated:

"We were all physically present in Adam, such that we all sinned in his act" (Erickson, Christian Theology)

Erickson's stance seems similar to mine - see the opening post on this thread for my view.
Isn't God evil, if He allowed Adam's fall to harm us?

 

[timothyu]

If any other mammal became self aware there would be war between the species.

 

[JAL]

- I don't know why I've ever bothered to post a rebuttal to Calvinism. Anyone who thinks that a loving God would predestine people to hell isn't thinking rationally - and certainly isn't taking seriously the Problem of Evil. But here I go again. As we shall see, Adam is a key player in that debate.
- Understandably, Calvinists see the Arminian reading of the election verses as too watered-down, too reduced in force. My theory of Adam allows me to take those verses at full force, for example I'm completely comfortable with 100% sovereign election and 100% monergistic regeneration.
- As my links explained (post 98), God created one physical soul named Adam, and each of us are pieces of it. In my view the elect - chosen before the foundation of the world - are a number of Adam's microscopic parts.
- Here's the clincher: we don't for sure how those elect particles are distributed today! My theory is that everyone's soul consists, in part, of some elect particles. ALL men are the elect. For a given individual, however:
(A) his potential election is REALIZED in this life, if he happens to get saved, OR
(B) if he doesn't get saved, God passes the elect particles to someone else in the next generation.

Thus ANYONE can be saved. Contrary to Calvin's assumptions, election doesn't preclude it. By default, all men are the elect, unless and until they happen to die unsaved. This truth explains the optimism in Paul's evangelism:

"Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some." (1cor 9).

and likewise explains the pessimism in his soteriology:

"I endure all things for the sake of the elect [i.e. all men], so that they too MIGHT obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory" (2Tim 2:10).