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.
The problem of evil is in response to claims that God loves everyone. This is often phrased as "all-loving". Whether or not he loves sin isn't necessary to show that the problem of evil means that a god who loves everyone and can do anything doesn't exist.
The issue of "all-loving" has already been clarified with establishing that God loves all human children. If he allows these children - who he loves - to be brutally molested, then obviously he's limited in his power to stop the culprit.Actually "all-loving" is a reference to God loving everything (hence the famous deer burning to death slowly in a forest fire).
But if God does not love sin, he does not love everything - making the problem of evil defunct (because it rests on God loving everything).
Actually "all-loving" is a reference to God loving everything (hence the famous deer burning to death slowly in a forest fire).
But if God does not love sin, he does not love everything - making the problem of evil defunct (because it rests on God loving everything).
Perhaps the better way of phrasing the problem then would be why would Christians call their god a loving father, when, if described to someone without mentioning that it's god they're referring to, most (if not everyone) would say this person is anything but a loving father.
The issue of "all-loving" has already been clarified with establishing that God loves all human children. If he allows these children - who he loves - to be brutally molested, then obviously he's limited in his power to stop the culprit.
And I already pointed out to you that God can only do what is real; and real means a universe in which suffering happens and is unavoidable.
A human father dooms his children to suffering, because all life suffers; is he any less loving because of that?
When you don't build a straw god (one who is supposed capable of doing that which is unreal), the same applies to God.
You might say we are just looking for excuses for a God we believe in....but I would say you appear to be looking for excuses to keep not believing.
Says the Calvinist. Is it really needed, or just redundant, to blame a sinner for sinning if he can't by his own volition respond to grace and it's only up to God? A bit like blaming a rock that falls for falling.
Sorry, how does that apply to what I said?
Or are you just doing a wormtongue and changing the subject when given evidence that blows your argument?
Neither, really.
I'm just seeing your icon up there and assuming you mean it when you have it there.
And like I said, that has what exactly to do with what I said?
And I already pointed out to you that God can only do what is real; and real means a universe in which suffering happens and is unavoidable.
A human father dooms his children to suffering, because all life suffers; is he any less loving because of that?
When you don't build a straw god (one who is supposed capable of doing that which is unreal), the same applies to God.
You might say we are just looking for excuses for a God we believe in....but I would say you appear to be looking for excuses to keep not believing.
Are you saying God is physiologically incapable of stopping a rapist from raping a child?And I already pointed out to you that God can only do what is real; and real means a universe in which suffering happens and is unavoidable.
False analogy. Human fathers aren't posited to be able to do anything.A human father dooms his children to suffering, because all life suffers; is he any less loving because of that?
Please elaborate. And explain what you mean by "unreal".When you don't build a straw god (one who is supposed capable of doing that which is unreal), the same applies to God.
I'm not looking for excuses to do anything. And I certainly don't need an excuse to not believe in something for which there is no evidence of.You might say we are just looking for excuses for a God we believe in....but I would say you appear to be looking for excuses to keep not believing.
Another good question is whether or not there is suffering and/or evil in heaven. Christians would say no. Therefore, God is capable of creating a world in which there is no suffering or evil.I don't see how a world without suffering is logically impossible. How is suffering a logical necessity?
As a counter example:
Imagine a world without physical evil and which everyone is determined to do the right and just action. This world is logically possible. Therefore, suffering is not a logical necessity.
They're wrong before they begin because they have posited a logically impossible God. It's logically impossible for an all-powerful and all-loving god to exist in the presence of mass calamity.Like most on this board you are trying to set a question up that makes the person answering wrong no matter what they choose. You try to not even give them a chance, they are wrong before they can begin.
My answer remains.
This is another reason why i believe some of my brothers overstate the importance of "free will". Some say God gave us free will because "he doesnt want robots". That love requires free will. Yet they say that there will be no evil, no sin, and no suffering in heaven. Is there to be free will in heaven?God allows evil to be on earth such that those leaning to it will be removed. The righteous thus will be qualified, under open witnessing, to enter heaven where evil no longer exists.
And I already pointed out to you that God can only do what is real; and real means a universe in which suffering happens and is unavoidable.
A human father dooms his children to suffering, because all life suffers; is he any less loving because of that?
When you don't build a straw god (one who is supposed capable of doing that which is unreal), the same applies to God.
You might say we are just looking for excuses for a God we believe in....but I would say you appear to be looking for excuses to keep not believing.
Imagine a world without physical evil and which everyone is determined to do the right and just action. This world is logically possible. Therefore, suffering is not a logical necessity.
I can imagine a world where teleporting unicorns exist; it doesn't then follow that they can.
God can only make a universe that does not contradict itself.
A universe that does not contradict itself must contain suffering because creatures in a universe must by definition be finite; and finite creatures must face disappointment (which all suffering is in essence) because they each have different and conflicting goals at some point.
What's contradictory about a universe in which this does not happen?
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?