The Problem of Evil and Free Will

[RDKirk]

I base it on scripture:

Matthew 4:4
"Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"

This suggest that we can't even live unless God speaks.

This caused me to connect it to these verses:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. -- John 1

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. -- Colossians 1

 

[DogmaHunter]

I base it on scripture:

Matthew 4:4
"Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"

This suggest that we can't even live unless God speaks.

Ow, so it is a religious statement. Not a factual statement.

 

[Chriliman]

Ow, so it is a religious statement. Not a factual statement.

If you're insinuating that all religious statements are not factual then you've already rendered yourself biased against religious statements.

In your world view, no religious statement can be factual, only scientific statements can be factual, except when those scientific statements suggest a creator God, then they're religious statements and therefore not factual.

You value human knowledge of nature, rather than the knowledge of God and God Himself and this will be the case for you until you come accross a reason to seek God.

 

[RDKirk]

Ow, so it is a religious statement. Not a factual statement.

This response caused me to check what forum I was in.

Oh, yes. It's still "Christian Apologetics."

That makes me unsurprised to see a religious statement now and then.

 

[Chriliman]

The only way I see to obtain this Godly type Love is by what Jesus said and we might have experienced in life: “…he that is forgiven much Loves much…”, so if I truly humbly accept as a purely charitable gift God’s forgiveness of my unbelievable huge debt of sin, I will automatically obtain an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type love). If I do not humbly accept God’s charity in the form of forgiveness for lots of reasons, I will not obtain this Love, so how else do I get it?

You're right, we can only obtain this Godly love from God Himself through Jesus Christ and His grace gives us time to accept His love, which is this current life on a perishable earth, where God is influencing people, but not forcing people(robots) to accept His love.

So it seems that we agree that we must willingly accept God's love for the love to be genuine, but where we may disagree is that even if one turns away from God to go their own way, they may still be able to accept His love again at a future time as the prodigal son story reveals.

I think people turn away from God a lot and realize their error and go back to Him and He accepts them because He has always loved them with Godly love.

 

[bling]

I'm not really trying to say "must be this way" so much as I'm trying to understand how you understand it to be a certain way. But perhaps I'm making assumptions and getting ahead of myself. So I'll just start by asking: is there a chance, no matter how small, that God will sin in the future? If there is no chance whatsoever, then what is it about God that makes you certain He never will sin? If you aren't certain, well, then that opens up a whole bunch of other questions...

God is not going to do that which He hates. God has the power to keep from doing that which He hates. God's will is such that nothing can override His will. It does not have to be a knee jerk reaction for God to do it every time all the time.

 

[bling]

You're right, we can only obtain this Godly love from God Himself through Jesus Christ and His grace gives us time to accept His love, which is this current life on a perishable earth, where God is influencing people, but not forcing people(robots) to accept His love.

So it seems that we agree that we must willingly accept God's love for the love to be genuine, but where we may disagree is that even if one turns away from God to go their own way, they may still be able to accept His love again at a future time as the prodigal son story reveals.

I think people turn away from God a lot and realize their error and go back to Him and He accepts them because He has always loved them with Godly love.

I think Christians do sin and like the prodigal son leave the Father and can return.

 

[Moral Orel]

God is not going to do that which He hates. God has the power to keep from doing that which He hates. God's will is such that nothing can override His will. It does not have to be a knee jerk reaction for God to do it every time all the time.

So that's a "no"? There is 0% chance that God will ever do things He hates. There is a 0% chance God will ever stop hating evil. And although true, nothing can override His will, there is a 0% chance that His will will be to do evil. His will is always 100% certainly never going to do evil things. The question is about probabilities, not instinctiveness. We'll get to the idea of it being inherent in Him after I'm sure that you're sure that God won't ever do evil. If you can never be sure, then that's a different line of questions.

Your answer doesn't distinguish God from Adam though. From us, with the sin nature we have now, sure, but Adam supposedly had the power to not do evil (disobey). And although God could override Adam's will, He didn't. The only distinguishing thing might be that Adam wasn't made to "hate evil" since he had to eat from that tree to even know what it was. Is that what Q is? A hate for evil? We all "hate evil", but only sort of. We don't "hate" all evil. We all enjoy it when we're doing some things we aren't supposed to.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If you're insinuating that all religious statements are not factual then you've already rendered yourself biased against religious statements.

I'm biased against unsupported statements.

The thing I was getting at, is that you made that statement as if it was a factual statement. While in reality, it's merely what you believe.

In your world view, no religious statement can be factual, only scientific statements can be factual, except when those scientific statements suggest a creator God, then they're religious statements and therefore not factual.

Factual statements are those statements that can be demonstrated to be correct.

You value human knowledge of nature, rather than the knowledge of God and God Himself and this will be the case for you until you come accross a reason to seek God.

Human knowledge can be shown to exist.

 

[DogmaHunter]

This response caused me to check what forum I was in.

Oh, yes. It's still "Christian Apologetics."

That makes me unsurprised to see a religious statement now and then.

I have no problems with religious statements, per say.
I have problems when such statements are not stated religiously, but rather presented as if they are established facts.

 

[RDKirk]

I have no problems with religious statements, per say.
I have problems when such statements are not stated religiously, but rather presented as if they are established facts.

Then you should regularly and frequently have such problems in a "Christian apologetics" forum.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Then you should regularly and frequently have such problems in a "Christian apologetics" forum.

It's an issue all over the forum.

 

[bling]

So that's a "no"? There is 0% chance that God will ever do things He hates. There is a 0% chance God will ever stop hating evil. And although true, nothing can override His will, there is a 0% chance that His will will be to do evil. His will is always 100% certainly never going to do evil things. The question is about probabilities, not instinctiveness. We'll get to the idea of it being inherent in Him after I'm sure that you're sure that God won't ever do evil. If you can never be sure, then that's a different line of questions.

Your answer doesn't distinguish God from Adam though. From us, with the sin nature we have now, sure, but Adam supposedly had the power to not do evil (disobey). And although God could override Adam's will, He didn't. The only distinguishing thing might be that Adam wasn't made to "hate evil" since he had to eat from that tree to even know what it was. Is that what Q is? A hate for evil? We all "hate evil", but only sort of. We don't "hate" all evil. We all enjoy it when we're doing some things we aren't supposed to.

You need to go back and reread some of my old posts. Adam prior to sinning is very much different from God in that Adam does not have Godly type Love (this is man's earthly objective). Adam and Eve are not accepting God's charity as charity, since there is no reason for them to humble themselves to the point of accepting charity (they have not done anything wrong) since God should love them (a wonderful parent's love for an obedient child) they are accepting His Love as a lower form of love (parent for child).

The only way man will humble accept pure charity from God is out of a huge need for charity (sinning). Sin has a purpose.

 

[Moral Orel]

You need to go back and reread some of my old posts. Adam prior to sinning is very much different from God in that Adam does not have Godly type Love (this is man's earthly objective). Adam and Eve are not accepting God's charity as charity, since there is no reason for them to humble themselves to the point of accepting charity (they have not done anything wrong) since God should love them (a wonderful parent's love for an obedient child) they are accepting His Love as a lower form of love (parent for child).

The only way man will humble accept pure charity from God is out of a huge need for charity (sinning). Sin has a purpose.

I remember all of that. But when I asked what the difference is between God and humans that ensures He will never sin, you didn't simply say "Godly type love". You said before that He might choose to get rid of His Godly type love. You keep trying to answer the whole thread at once, and I'm trying to slow this down because we muddled everything up. You want a definition for Q and that's what I'm trying to get from you.

Is "Godly type love" Q? Because God has "Godly type love" there is 0% chance He will ever sin at any point in the future. There is 0% chance He will ever not have "Godly type love" because He does not change. He is love, and He will never cease to be love. Are these statements true? You still haven't confirmed, directly, that there is 0% chance God will ever do anything evil.

 

[Hawkins]

I remember all of that. But when I asked what the difference is between God and humans that ensures He will never sin, you didn't simply say "Godly type love". You said before that He might choose to get rid of His Godly type love. You keep trying to answer the whole thread at once, and I'm trying to slow this down because we muddled everything up. You want a definition for Q and that's what I'm trying to get from you.

Is "Godly type love" Q? Because God has "Godly type love" there is 0% chance He will ever sin at any point in the future. There is 0% chance He will ever not have "Godly type love" because He does not change. He is love, and He will never cease to be love. Are these statements true? You still haven't confirmed, directly, that there is 0% chance God will ever do anything evil.

God's ultimate goal is to build an eternity we call heaven for angels and humans to live with Him forever. God on the other hand is completely sin incompatible. So in order to live with God in a forever realm, humans need to be holy too.

Law is thus set up to measure who can be qualified to live in such a realm. Law thus is defined in terms of God's nature. Humans thus need to obey the Law in order to be compatible with God's nature, as Law is defined in terms of His nature. It's more or less like His likes and dislikes. To put it another way, He hates or dislikes something which you are expected not to do it if you want to live with Him in a forever realm. He won't sin because it's something He hates.

Law from a legal perspective, is to serve as a measurement to see who can be qualified to live with God. It thus doesn't apply to God Himself. You don't need to examine God using Law to see if He's qualified to live with Himself!

 

[Moral Orel]

You need to go back and reread some of my old posts. Adam prior to sinning is very much different from God in that Adam does not have Godly type Love (this is man's earthly objective). Adam and Eve are not accepting God's charity as charity, since there is no reason for them to humble themselves to the point of accepting charity (they have not done anything wrong) since God should love them (a wonderful parent's love for an obedient child) they are accepting His Love as a lower form of love (parent for child).

The only way man will humble accept pure charity from God is out of a huge need for charity (sinning). Sin has a purpose.

I don't know where you get your ideas about what the best kinds of love are. But looking at any other relationship we can see, your ideas are completely backwards. The best kind of love is not coerced, but given freely. What you've described is extortion. You say the best kind of love is when we ask for God's love because He made the universe in a way that makes us miserable? Note that I didn't say "God makes us miserable". I worded it in the round-a-bout-indirect way that you're positing.

I would say the best kind of love is the kind you want to give, and not the kind you need to give. If you only love God because He saves you from the world that sucks, then I wouldn't call that love genuine. If you love someone, and you don't need anything from them, and you don't want anything from them, that love is much more genuine.

If my wife and I met because I pulled her from a burning building and saved her life, or if we met, created an honest connection, found we had things in common, worked with each other well, played with each other well, etc. Which sounds like genuine love, and which sounds like love out of obligation?

So it seems fine to me to say that God genuinely loves us, because He doesn't need anything from us. But given your explanation, I can't say that people could genuinely love God because they only do so because of what He'll do for them. Whether that be an eternity in Heaven, or even if it is just solace from the evil world He designed, people don't love God just because they love Him, and that isn't genuine.

I don't know if I'm going to get a direct answer about the chances of God doing evil. You and Hawkins both phrased it, "God isn't going to do something He hates" which just begs the question, "will God change what He hates?". A nice direct, "there is 0% chance God will ever do anything evil" would be clear. So far you guys haven't been clear, and I am wondering if that is intentional or not...

 

[Moral Orel]

God's ultimate goal is to build an eternity we call heaven for angels and humans to live with Him forever. God on the other hand is completely sin incompatible. So in order to live with God in a forever realm, humans need to be holy too.

Law is thus set up to measure who can be qualified to live in such a realm. Law thus is defined in terms of God's nature. Humans thus need to obey the Law in order to be compatible with God's nature, as Law is defined in terms of His nature. It's more or less like His likes and dislikes. To put it another way, He hates or dislikes something which you are expected not to do it if you want to live with Him in a forever realm. He won't sin because it's something He hates.

Law from a legal perspective, is to serve as a measurement to see who can be qualified to live with God. It thus doesn't apply to God Himself. You don't need to examine God using Law to see if He's qualified to live with Himself!

Right, I get that. So to completely oversimplify, let's pretend God is a yardstick. God is not just a yardstick, He is the yardstick. We know that all the measurements on that yardstick are always going to be perfect, and we check all other yardsticks for accuracy against the original. Sound good so far? Now just make all the other yardsticks that come later start out at the exact measurements of the original yardstick instead of taking sticks and bending and stretching them until they come as close as you can, but never quite right. Does God lack the ability to make perfect yardsticks? If so, why? If He can, but chooses not to, why not?

And just to be crystal clear, there is 0% chance His nature will ever change, right? Ours change all the time. I used to hate peanuts when I was growing up, but now I kind of like them. But that doesn't ever, ever happen with God, correct?

 

[Moral Orel]

@Chriliman
Any reason you stopped responding to me?

 

[Chriliman]

"Could" isn't what I said. Obviously He is capable of anything. I said He "might" go torture a puppy. It may happen because we both have free will.

Hey Nicholas, when you say God might torture a puppy, this implies he has some potential desire to do that. When I say God could torture a puppy, I'm pointing out that he's capable of doing that, but not that he might do it because he has no potential desire to do it.

If you're sure that God won't go torture a puppy, then what is the difference between God and humans that lets you know for certain that He won't choose to?

We can know all that we need to know about God by reading His word and understanding who Jesus is and what He has done. Jesus is God's word made flesh for our sake so that we may comprehend God and accept who He is.

Do you enjoy discussing these things and thinking through who God is because you're looking for a valid reason to believe in Him or are you of the mindset that all of this is fantasy and therefore no matter what I say, your mind is made up?

 

[Moral Orel]

Hey Nicholas, when you say God might torture a puppy, this implies he has some potential desire to do that. When I say God could torture a puppy, I'm pointing out that he's capable of doing that, but not that he might do it because he has no potential desire to do it.

Saying "potential desire" seems weird. I wouldn't say I have a potential desire to torture puppies, but that I have a potential to desire to torture puppies. It feels like an important distinction. God doesn't have the potential to change His desires, at least not when it comes to evil though, right?

We can know all that we need to know about God by reading His word and understanding who Jesus is and what He has done. Jesus is God's word made flesh for our sake so that we may comprehend God and accept who He is.

You wanted a definition for Q, that's what I'm trying to get at.

Do you enjoy discussing these things and thinking through who God is because you're looking for a valid reason to believe in Him or are you of the mindset that all of this is fantasy and therefore no matter what I say, your mind is made up?

Neither. I'm looking for a better understanding of Christianity without expecting that anyone will be able to make it all make sense. It seems that I'm waiting for a personal revelation/experience in order to start being a believer (and some Christians have posited that is the case as well) so I don't expect our conversation to ever convert me. But that doesn't mean I haven't been shown to be wrong about a few things I thought of Christianity in the past on these boards and I have a better understanding now because of it.

I'm starting to get the impression that you don't want to bother with this conversation unless a conversion is the driving force behind it, so feel free to let me know if you don't want to continue.