A
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.
I can figure out only two ways Christians can reconcile the problem of evil.
1) Change their construct of God, so that God either doesn't love everyone or that God can't do anything.
2) Avoid thinking about the logical invalidity. E.g., let's say Jimmy says A plus B equals C and also says C minus B does not equal A; but he fails to perform the algebra which will show not both of those can be true.
If #1 is selected and their construct is changed by saying God doesn't love everyone, then it raises the question of how Christians can reconcile a god that doesn't love us enough to protect us from things like natural disasters, rapists, murderers, etc.
Help me along.Free will is the best answer I can give you.
I'm glad you mentioned Hitler. If God loved all those Jews, then why didn't he strike Hitler dead with a heart attack before he could have tortured all those Jews?While God wants us to be a certain, He doesn't control us like Hitler.
Does the Christian God simply not care if a rapist chooses to molest an innocent 12 year old girl? Wouldn't the Christian God have the power to intervene and prevent the rape - especially if he can do anything? If he is capable of preventing the rape, but doesn't, the only possible explanation is that he doesn't love the child enough to prevent the rape. That would then raise the question of why worship such a malevolent God?He gives us free will to make decisions on our own. We are all born with a basic sense of right and wrong. People decide to hurt other people plain and simple.
If God loves the people who are in the path of a destructive tornado, but does nothing, then he is not behaving in accordance with his love for the people. If God does love them, but does nothing, then the only explanation is that God isn't capable of preventing the tornado.As far as natural disasters go I think free will plays into that as well. Everyone pretty much knows the weather "bad spots" so to speak in the US and other parts of the world. If you move to Florida, your going to get hit by a hurricane, Oklahoma, you will see a tornado. People make up there own minds to move to these parts and can't blame God when these weather events happen.
Adam and Eve sinned, so the earth was cursed and after the flood came the tornado's.Help me along.
How does free will come into play if a tornado rips through a city in Oklahoma? While the people may have freely chose to live in that part of Oklahoma, the tornado didn't freely choose to rip through that area. And if God can do anything, then can't he freely choose to divert the tornado to an unpopulated region?
I'm glad you mentioned Hitler. If God loved all those Jews, then why didn't he strike Hitler dead with a heart attack before he could have tortured all those Jews?
Does the Christian God simply not care if a rapist chooses to molest an innocent 12 year old girl? Wouldn't the Christian God have the power to intervene and prevent the rape - especially if he can do anything? If he is capable of preventing the rape, but doesn't, the only possible explanation is that he doesn't love the child enough to prevent the rape. That would then raise the question of why worship such a malevolent God?
If God loves the people who are in the path of a destructive tornado, but does nothing, then he is not behaving in accordance with his love for the people. If God does love them, but does nothing, then the only explanation is that God isn't capable of preventing the tornado.
Is the God of a God-centered Christianity capable of doing anything? Does it love everyone? If so, then we still have the same problem?The only way it makes sense is if one were to consider Christianity as God-centered and not humanity-centered. If it is humanity-centered and we have an all-loving God and that is it, then--why is this world such a bad place? Why doesn't God, in all His power, and in His ability to do whatsoever He wishes to do, if He loves everyone--why is there suffering?
This is not good news for people who maintain that a Christian god would favor Christians over non-Christians.I understand if suffering only happens to "bad" people. Yet it happens to "good" people too.
Then am I correct if I were to say Christians are mistaken when they say "God loves everyone"?I tried believing in God under a non-denominational banner without the sense of it being God-centered, but I could not get past this idea of why is the world such a bad place if God is all-loving? Those who are fervent in their devotion to Him still suffer. It did not make sense.
There is a lot more I can say on it (such as though God has ultimate power, the world is under the limited power of Satan and those who are not in Christ are servants of him; they cannot do any good to the will of God--they are completely without this capability. It is only when God condescends to give them the gift of faith that He frees them from their bondage to Satan and imparts to them a craving to serve Him. That is just one part of it, but there's lots more I don't have the time to go into), but that is the basis of it.
When we consider Christianity as humanity-based, that is when it all falls apart and things just don't add up (though one can certainly avoid the harsh truth and say, "Oh, no, no no--God loves us all." And though that is certainly true, it is not a love where He promises to provide us with all earthly, physical and materialistic benefits with no chastisement. I think people confuse this with love).
I sense that you are reconciling the problem of evil by going with option #1 - that either God doesn't really love everyone and/or can't really do anything. Am I correct?Under the God-centered idea, it is still very complex [and if one is still fixed under the humanity-centered idea of Christianity, the idea of serving such a God might not impart this gushy feeling of love because it is not all about us (nevertheless it should, if we love God)], but that is because He is incomprehensible--there is not one person who can fully understand His mind and have complete knowledge of Him.
How much effort have you placed into this understanding? The reason I ask is because there is a great deal more than two Christians around here, and that many Christians is how many perspectives you may encounter.I can figure out only two ways Christians can reconcile the problem of evil.
The word I will contest with you here is the word "Can't'". I don't think your conclusion is correct. If you were to say that God chooses not to do anything in some cases, then I would support your observation. Choosing to believe that will lead you to ask why He makes that decision, and it might lead you to a greater understanding of Him.1) Change their construct of God, so that God either doesn't love everyone or that God can't do anything.
I would like to understand why you think God's tolerance of evil equates to a "logical invalidity". Could you explain this for me?2) Avoid thinking about the logical invalidity. E.g., let's say Jimmy says A plus B equals C and also says C minus B does not equal A; but he fails to perform the algebra which will show not both of those can be true.
Then you're saying that He should protect cauliflowers from possums and snails from being stepped on. That would be a world where we have no control over ourselves (granted, there are people who feel that they are in that situation eg.Stephen Hawking Denounces God & Freewill). This world just naturally is dangerous, and it is dangerous for a variety of reasons. You're confusing yourself by thinking that natural disasters are comparable to rape or murder.If #1 is selected and their construct is changed by saying God doesn't love everyone, then it raises the question of how Christians can reconcile a god that doesn't love us enough to protect us from things like natural disasters, rapists, murderers, etc.
I can figure out only two ways Christians can reconcile the problem of evil.
1) Change their construct of God, so that God either doesn't love everyone or that God can't do anything.
2) Avoid thinking about the logical invalidity. E.g., let's say Jimmy says A plus B equals C and also says C minus B does not equal A; but he fails to perform the algebra which will show not both of those can be true.
If #1 is selected and their construct is changed by saying God doesn't love everyone, then it raises the question of how Christians can reconcile a god that doesn't love us enough to protect us from things like natural disasters, rapists, murderers, etc.
Is the God of a God-centered Christianity capable of doing anything? Does it love everyone? If so, then we still have the same problem?
This is not good news for people who maintain that a Christian god would favor Christians over non-Christians.
I sense that you are reconciling the problem of evil by going with option #1 - that either God doesn't really love everyone and/or can't really do anything. Am I correct?
If God can do anything, then why didn't he prevent the tornadoes?Adam and Eve sinned, so the earth was cursed and after the flood came the tornado's.
I'm not the one positing a god. I'm asking about the god others have posited. Perhaps you can tell me why God doesn't punish those who hurt others rather than punish people in such an arbitrary/random manner that is no different than if there were no god.Why doesn't kill God everybody who hurts someone else?
Please explain how things like tornadoes and tsunamis are evil.He'll deal with evil in the end, but He's patient and wants everybody to get saved.
So you're saying you reconcile this by saying God is incapable of doing anything. Am I correct?He gave the authority over the earth to Adam, Adam gave it to satan. People still serve the devil and do bad things. Easy to blame God for it. If He did whatever He wanted everybody was saved and healed and there was no more pain. He can't do anything if someone doesn't want to, christian or not. He can't do anything on earth unless His Body (christians) invite Him and pray and it's limited, you can't pray away every tornado. Those are birth pangs, because we get a new heaven and a new earth and all sin and pain will be gone.
Thanks for the welcome.Hello Akureyri, welcome to the forums! I am glad to see you here asking questions like this. I hope you get good value from it.
I've done an extensive amount of study on the logic behind this. There is no other way to reconcile the problem of evil - whether there are two Christians or two billion Christians.How much effort have you placed into this understanding? The reason I ask is because there is a great deal more than two Christians around here, and that many Christians is how many perspectives you may encounter.
Perhaps some background is in order. Many of the Christians I have encountered claim God can do anything. They are either right or they are wrong. If they are wrong, then the statement "God can do anything" is inaccurate, meaning if God exists, then the statement "God can't do anything" would have to be accurate or correct.The word I will contest with you here is the word "Can't'". I don't think your conclusion is correct. If you were to say that God chooses not to do anything in some cases, then I would support your observation. Choosing to believe that will lead you to ask why He makes that decision, and it might lead you to a greater understanding of Him.
Many Christians posit that God can do anything and loves everyone. This means if a child is about to get raped by a rapist, God would love the child enough that he would stop the rapist from raping the child. Since we know that rape of children does occur, then it would follow that if God exists, he either:I would like to understand why you think God's tolerance of evil equates to a "logical invalidity". Could you explain this for me?
No confusion at all. So if a child loses his loving Christian parents due to a destructive tornado, and God loves that child, then it means he wasn't capable of preventing that tornado from killing his parents. And if the child's parents get killed by the tornado and God can do anything, then he didn't love that child enough to prevent the tornado from killing his parents. Once again, this is pretty simple stuff.Then you're saying that He should protect cauliflowers from possums and snails from being stepped on. That would be a world where we have no control over ourselves (granted, there are people who feel that they are in that situation. This world just naturally is dangerous, and it is dangerous for a variety of reasons. You're confusing yourself by thinking that natural disasters are comparable to rape or murder.
I can understand why you have that impression. But I don't have a habit of putting blame on things which I don't even believe to exist.My impression at this stage, is that you're blaming God for what you don't like in the world. Is that a fair summary?
If your child were raped by a rapist, would you say it's OK - simply because of some words written in a holy book?Akureyri,
The most loving act of eternity is described in Romans 5:8, But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
What do you think are the reason(s) God doesn't intervene and prevent tsunamis, tornadoes and earthquakes from killing loving parents and leaving their children as orphans, people losing their homes or people suffering serious injuries?We can understand why natural disasters occur. What we do not understand is why God allows them to occur. Why did God allow the tsunami to kill over 225,000 people in Asia? Why did God allow Hurricane Katrina to destroy the homes of thousands of people?
Please help me along. Why is it necessary for there to be catastrophic events for one to think about eternity? Don't humans have free will such that they can think about eternity in the absence of catastrophic events?For one thing, such events shake our confidence in this life and force us to think about eternity.
People are naturally inclined to seek the comfort and support of their community in the face of a major catastrophe. That's probably why church attendance is extra high after a major hurricane destroys a city.Churches are usually filled after disasters as people realize how tenuous their lives really are and how life can be taken away in an instant.
Really? He's good, yet he sits there and does nothing to help or protect the innocent child who is getting violently raped? Are you positing a God who can do anything and loves everyone?What we do know is this: God is good!
When and where did these miracles occur? And what natural disasters were prevented? Try to be specific. I'd like to know. Please cite your sources too. ThanksMany amazing miracles occurred during the course of natural disasters that prevented even greater loss of life.
So you're saying Christian ministries would serve no purpose if there were no major catastrophes such as hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes. Am I correct?Natural disasters cause millions of people to reevaluate their priorities in life. Hundreds of millions of dollars in aid is sent to help the people who are suffering. Christian ministries have the opportunity to help, minister, counsel, pray, and lead people to saving faith in Christ! God can, and does, bring great good out of terrible tragedies (Romans 8:28)
I see these type of arguments all the time but lets take it further than you have. Someone at the north pole is freezing to death so now God has to melt all the snow and change the climate of the region so they can live. Someone is stranded on an island after they stupidly crash their boat into the rocks and they are starving to death so now God much dry up the entire ocean so they can walk to another island to find food. God sees a gang of kids out to harm others so he puts them all in cages to prevent them from hurting people. Someone at work wants to take a pencil home (steal it) so God now forces the guy to put the pencil back and doesn't allow him to ever use pencils again at that company. Someone wants to live near an active volcano and when it erupts God now has to stop the volcano for good as long as they live near it. We now have nobody allowed to even say things to others that hurt their feelings and God is put into conflicting situations where two people could be hurt having God change things to protect them both in which end in a paradox unable to either save neither one or both but can save one of them from harm. God can divert tornadoes but then a farmer is killed and his farm destroyed and his family and heritage is gone forever and he now blames God. God would have to not allow tornadoes to do any harm nor could any natural disasters ever harm anyone nor can anyone ever be harmed to satisfy the never ending blame God for any resemblance of evil in the world game.
I'm not looking to satisfy my desire for heaven on earth. I'm trying to get a better understanding of how Christians reconcile the problem of evil.In other words no matter what explanation we give you it is never going to satisfy your desire for heaven on earth which is what you are claiming God must do to prove himself to us.
God is limited in his power by his nature, he tends to do things starting with natural ways resorting to miracles rarely when a natural solution is acceptable. You have created a straw man God that doesn't mesh with what the Bible equates and thus is invalid for any Christian to defend actions against.You're describing a god who is limited in his power. For example, when you say God would have to melt the polar ice cap to save the guy at the North Pole, a god that could do anything could transport the guy to a warm climate. If he is limited such that his only option to save the guy would be to melt the ice cap, then he can't do anything - and therefore isn't the type of god I'm raising question about.
I'm not looking to satisfy my desire for heaven on earth. I'm trying to get a better understanding of how Christians reconcile the problem of evil.
I've read all of this, God isn't obliged to change the world back to how it was before Adam and Eve rebelled against him. I don't think God can just get rid of all the natural disasters without "reformatting" the Earth... or wiping it clean and starting over that would include wiping out mankind in the process as ANY sin that man would have would infect his creation and start the cycle yet again. Sin and free will coexist in this earth and God is not required by his nature to prevent sin he has made a way to deal with it and we must accept Jesus in that will. You are demanding God deal with sin yet allowing people to reject Jesus which is his way to deal with it. It is your free will here to put God on trial that God allows you that you would have him extinguish to prevent people from harm. In other words if rape wasn't allowed you wouldn't be posting this stuff you too wouldn't be allowed to disbelieve in God the way you are here.Please re-read my opening post:
I can figure out only two ways Christians can reconcile the problem of evil.
1) Change their construct of God, so that God either doesn't love everyone or that God can't do anything.
2) Avoid thinking about the logical invalidity. E.g., let's say Jimmy says A plus B equals C and also says C minus B does not equal A; but he fails to perform the algebra which will show not both of those can be true.
If #1 is selected and their construct is changed by saying God doesn't love everyone, then it raises the question of how Christians can reconcile a god that doesn't love us enough to protect us from things like natural disasters, rapists, murderers, etc.
Not a straw man God at all. I'm talking about a god that is posited by many Christians - one that can do anything (e.g. stop a tornado, stop a rapist) and one that loves everyone. If you don't believe such a god exists or that a god does exist, but can't do anything, then you have reconciled the problem of evil by having a construct of God such that he is incapable of doing anything. Am I correct?God is limited in his power by his nature, he tends to do things starting with natural ways resorting to miracles rarely when a natural solution is acceptable. You have created a straw man God that doesn't mesh with what the Bible equates and thus is invalid for any Christian to defend actions against.
If God can do anything, then he could prevent natural disasters without "reformatting" the Earth. Do you believe in a god that can't do anything?I've read all of this, God isn't obliged to change the world back to how it was before Adam and Eve rebelled against him. I don't think God can just get rid of all the natural disasters without "reformatting" the Earth... or wiping it clean and starting over that would include wiping out mankind in the process as ANY sin that man would have would infect his creation and start the cycle yet again.
I'm not demanding God do anything. I'm merely saying a god that can do anything and loves everyone can't logically exist in the presence of mass calamities and mass suffering.Sin and free will coexist in this earth and God is not required by his nature to prevent sin he has made a way to deal with it and we must accept Jesus in that will. You are demanding God deal with sin yet allowing people to reject Jesus which is his way to deal with it.
If God can do anything, he could wire me differently so that I believe he exists.It is your free will here to put God on trial that God allows you that you would have him extinguish to prevent people from harm. In other words if rape wasn't allowed you wouldn't be posting this stuff you too wouldn't be allowed to disbelieve in God the way you are here.
Akureyri said:I can figure out only two ways Christians can reconcile the problem of evil.
1) Change their construct of God, so that God either doesn't love everyone or that God can't do anything.
2) Avoid thinking about the logical invalidity. E.g., let's say Jimmy says A plus B equals C and also says C minus B does not equal A; but he fails to perform the algebra which will show not both of those can be true.
If #1 is selected and their construct is changed by saying God doesn't love everyone, then it raises the question of how Christians can reconcile a god that doesn't love us enough to protect us from things like natural disasters, rapists, murderers, etc.
Just because God has the power to do things doesn't mean his nature and relationship with man and earth posit such so equating it must be so that is contrary to how God reveals himself is a strawman argument.Not a straw man God at all. I'm talking about a god that is posited by many Christians - one that can do anything (e.g. stop a tornado, stop a rapist) and one that loves everyone. If you don't believe such a god exists or that a god does exist, but can't do anything, then you have reconciled the problem of evil by having a construct of God such that he is incapable of doing anything. Am I correct?
I don't believe God can do anything it is an illogical assumption that can put God in opposition to himself. I believe God cannot do things that are against his nature. I don't believe God can destroy himself because his nature prevents it. I don't believe God can sin because of his nature. I don't believe God can force people to love him because of his nature. Now that I have made examples of God not doing everything I seriously doubt you are not going to stop using the nonsensical argument to try and trap Christians into defending your straw man.If God can do anything, then he could prevent natural disasters without "reformatting" the Earth. Do you believe in a god that can't do anything?
I guess you completely ignore Jesus death on the cross, God does love everyone this world to him and the suffering is miniscule compared to eternity and God suffered beyond anything we could imagine on the cross to save us from an eternity of suffering and you don't even blink at that but are whining about a very short period of time people suffer here on earth. God allows us free will and he raises up people to help with man's suffering. God does help with it but this is man's world and God doesn't intervene to rule the world and interfere. Your idea of love is to be a tyrant in the end because God would have to rule the world and not allow us sin and in it not allow us free will to do as we please here.I'm not demanding God do anything. I'm merely saying a god that can do anything and loves everyone can't logically exist in the presence of mass calamities and mass suffering.
You must believe he exists somehow or you are playing Don Quixote here.If God can do anything, he could wire me differently so that I believe he exists.
No confusion at all. So if a child loses his loving Christian parents due to a destructive tornado, and God loves that child, then it means he wasn't capable of preventing that tornado from killing his parents. And if the child's parents get killed by the tornado and God can do anything, then he didn't love that child enough to prevent the tornado from killing his parents. Once again, this is pretty simple stuff.
Perhaps some background is in order. Many of the Christians I have encountered claim God can do anything. They are either right or they are wrong. If they are wrong, then the statement "God can do anything" is inaccurate, meaning if God exists, then the statement "God can't do anything" would have to be accurate or correct.
I've done an extensive amount of study on the logic behind this. There is no other way to reconcile the problem of evil - whether there are two Christians or two billion Christians.
If your child were raped by a rapist, would you say it's OK - simply because of some words written in a holy book?
What do you think are the reason(s) God doesn't intervene and prevent tsunamis, tornadoes and earthquakes from killing loving parents and leaving their children as orphans, people losing their homes or people suffering serious injuries?
So you're saying Christian ministries would serve no purpose if there were no major catastrophes such as hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes. Am I correct?
If God can do anything, he could wire me differently so that I believe he exists.
I can figure out only two ways Christians can reconcile the problem of evil.
1) Change their construct of God, so that God either doesn't love everyone or that God can't do anything.
2) Avoid thinking about the logical invalidity. E.g., let's say Jimmy says A plus B equals C and also says C minus B does not equal A; but he fails to perform the algebra which will show not both of those can be true.
If #1 is selected and their construct is changed by saying God doesn't love everyone, then it raises the question of how Christians can reconcile a god that doesn't love us enough to protect us from things like natural disasters, rapists, murderers, etc.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?