The Problem of Evil

[JAL]

You seem to answer a lot of questions that I did not ask. All I ask is if there were a point in history where God did not exist. My question is not about God evolving, changing, awaking, growing muscles, or any of that other stuff you keep bringing to the table; just existing. Judging from what you've said thus far, it seems you believe he always has.

Correct. God has always existed in my view.

 

[Moral Orel]

Impeccably flawless as a ruler? Yes. Has He perfectly realized His potential for virtue? Yes. Incapable of failing us in any way? Yes.

Infinite? No.

How is the fallen world not a failure on His part?

 

[Ken-1122]

Ok but I gave you two versions of 'atheism' (regardless of whether I'm using that term correctly). Let's call it two postures. As I said, the second posture does NOT require faith. The first one does, as far as I can see.

An atheist is just a person who doesn't believe in God. There are a million different versions of people who don't believe in God; some have faith some don't. My point is; just because a person is atheist doesn't mean he has faith.

 

[JAL]

How is the fallen world not a failure on His part?

Tricky question.

Faced with a seemingly impossible situation, He successfully implemented a solution, even if there were some drawbacks. I wouldn't call that a failure on His part.

And yet it's a matter of perspective. Yes, if you want to hold God to an unrealistically high standard such as the guarantee of a reality devoid of potential drawbacks, then yes He failed us. He failed to do the impossible. But the drawbacks, fortunately, last only for a relatively short period of time (since I personally don't believe that hell is everlasting suffering).

Why do I call it a seemingly impossible situation? Here's what God realized sometime after awakening to full sentience - the Totality would likely always be a place of conflict and war, and thus eternal suffering, unless a ruler sufficiently competent kept the peace. To be the quintessential ruler, He essentially had to acquire all knowledge, for example to develop the ability to monitor every particle in the Totality so that He can protect everyone for all eternity. And I know that He labored at least 13 billion years in this endeavor - but it could have been 100 times that long. We don't know.

And He was doing this in solitary confinement. He realized that the loneliness might weaken His resolve, or even cause a nervous breakdown. Therefore He NEEDED to fashion Himself children - the church is also called the Bride of God - because if He were to fail in His mission due to loneliness, we'd all be in danger for all eternity.

And it had to be a bride with free will because no other bride would satisfy His loneliness.

Thus it was an impossible situation. Ideally, He wanted to both:
(1) Guarantee our eternal safety
(2) And guarantee it without a world susceptible to suffering.
But He couldn't safely aim for both 1 and 2. He did the best He could.

 

[Occams Barber]

Oh sorry OccamsBarber, I never looked at your profile. I assumed I was conversing with Christians only on this thread.

For your penance you must go back over this thread and reread my posts then come back and tell me how clever I am.

No it doesn't - it negates one VERSION of the Christian God, that is, one INTERPRETATION of the Bible.

It negates an infinite God. That is all.

It sounds like an interpretation which is peculiar to you. It sounds a heck of a lot like Superman.

In terms of arguments, both atheism and creationism require a degree of faith because we are very fallible creatures.

No JAL. It doesn't require faith not to believe in something when you have no evidence for it's existence. We (humans) do it all the time.

Ultimately belief in a particular religion shouldn't be based on 'arguments' since the process of determining the correct one is especially fallible. Here's what I would advise. You don't believe in a particular religion? Good. You shouldn't. If God exists, He must take it upon Himself to convince you. This doctrine is formally known in Christian theology as the "Inward Witness of the Holy Spirit". I was atheist, but currently I believe in Christianity because at some point a seemingly external Entity has convinced me and I can't shake that belief. There's nothing I can do about it.

YOUR responsibility isn't to select a particular religion but simply to be honest with your conscience. If your conscience is telling you that God MIGHT exist and that, as a result, you should TRY to find Him, then you should do so, for example by saying, "God, if you exist, if you can hear me, then show yourself. Convince me like you've convinced others."

Firstly you're doing the typically Christian thing of confusing god with religion. I don't accept that (supernatural) gods exist. I do accept that religions exist but I can see little point in conducting a conversation with a non- existent supernatural entity.

I don't need my conscience to tell me that a god might exist. Logic tells me that if I can't prove it's non-existence then there is always a remote possibility it exists along with Russell's Teapot and the dragon in the garage. This is a standard atheist position. Faith doesn't come into it.

And as far as I can see, I'm the only Christian whose Christology provides a perfectly clear and perfectly intelligible explanation of how God incarnated Himself.

Careful - statements like this could be interpreted as arrogance.
OB

 

[Moral Orel]

And yet it's a matter of perspective. Yes, if you want to hold God to an unrealistically high standard such as the guarantee of a reality devoid of potential drawbacks, then yes He failed us. He failed to do the impossible. But the drawbacks, fortunately, last only for a relatively short period of time (since I personally don't believe that hell is everlasting suffering).

I don't get this part. You say that a reality devoid of potential drawbacks is an unrealistic expectation, but then you say that there will be a reality devoid of potential drawbacks because the drawbacks are only temporary.

 

[JAL]

I don't get this part. You say that a reality devoid of potential drawbacks is an unrealistic expectation, but then you say that there will be a reality devoid of potential drawbacks because the drawbacks are only temporary.

Unrealistic expectation because attempting both 1 and 2 (two guarantees) was too risky and therefore a failure from the start, because the high risk means that they do NOT constitute a guarantee. Not sure how to be more clear on this point.

But once His loneliness has been SATISFIED, He will end this world and suffering will end forever (at least once those in hell have finished serving their sentence).

 

[JAL]

Maybe I wasn't clear. At that point free will as we know it will come to an end. He will make our desires holy. We'll still have free will to choose among good things, but will no longer try to harm one another.

 

[JAL]

It sounds like an interpretation which is peculiar to you. It sounds a heck of a lot like Superman.

Ok but if He were totally unaccomplished, why worship Him? Yes in some sense God is my superhero, but He does it all with ordinary free will, not with supernatural magic.

No JAL. It doesn't require faith not to believe in something when you have no evidence for it's existence. We (humans) do it all the time...I don't need my conscience to tell me that a god might exist. Logic tells me that if I can't prove it's non-existence then there is always a remote possibility it exists along with Russell's Teapot and the dragon in the garage. This is a standard atheist position. Faith doesn't come into it.

I disagree. I hadn't heard of Russell's Teapot so I took a couple of seconds to look it up. Here's where that analogy fails (feel free to correct me).

The teapot isn't submitted as a solution for how things are the way they are. It really doesn't elicit from me any kind of a stance on reality. Here's an analogy better than the teapot-analogy. Suppose a dinner plate is on the left side of the table. You go to bed, awaken the next morning, and NOW it is on the right-side of the table. This elicits from you a stance on reality. For example you might speculate.
(1) Someone moved the plate by free will (meaning self-propelling free will as I've described it).
(2) The plate moved itself.
(3) Some kind of mechanical cause-effect took place
You don't KNOW the answer because you're a fallible creature. But if you express confidence in one OPINION or another - if you take a stance - it requires a bit of faith, due to your fallibility because you MIGHT be incorrect.

You might reply, "Ok, but maybe it was the flying spaghetti monster who moved the plate. Must we entertain THAT?" Not precisely that, but yes, in principle, yes you DO entertain it because that option is really a flavor of option #1.

Firstly you're doing the typically Christian thing of confusing god with religion. I don't accept that (supernatural) gods exist. I do accept that religions exist but I can see little point in conducting a conversation with a non- existent supernatural entity.

Suppose you're a blind man. You THINK you heard a voice in the room but not sure. Possibly no one else exists in that room, maybe it is just you. Is it really pointless to cry out saying, 'Hey YOU - are you out there? I thought I heard someone speaking'

It really comes down to conscience, as I stated. But you don't have to reassure me about what your conscience is, or is not, telling you - I'll let you give account to God on judgment day.

Careful - statements like this could be interpreted as arrogance.
OB

It's a statement of fact. I don't know of anyone in the history of Christian theology who has postulated a cosmogony akin to mine.

 

[Ken-1122]

Maybe I wasn't clear. At that point free will as we know it will come to an end. He will make our desires holy. We'll still have free will to choose among good things, but will no longer try to harm one another.

Why didn't he just do that in the first place? Why give us this temporary free will considering all the problems it causes?

 

[JAL]

Why didn't he just do that in the first place? Why give us this temporary free will considering all the problems it causes?

I already explained that. The task before Him - the amount of excruciating labor involved - was too daunting. Coupled with the excruciating loneliness - a loneliness remediable only by companions with free will - he feared that His resolve might weaken before His task was completed. Failure was NOT an option, in His view, and I thank Him every day for that recognition. Otherwise you and I might be facing an eternity of suffering - a Totality ridden with perpetual conflict and war.

 

[Halbhh]

Why didn't he just do that in the first place? Why give us this temporary free will considering all the problems it causes?

Love cannot happen without freedom to choose and act (aka 'free will' or just 'freedom' and 'agency').

We all get a chance to take His hand, but it's humble to trust Someone to be simply right always, and yourself not always right.

So there is the basic choice of whether to be humble, or perhaps in a whole different wording, whether to trust God in a truly loving way. To...take His hand.

It seems to fit scripture best to see us as truly able to change and make real choices, suggesting God may have designed us (I think He did) with a true ability to choose that isn't predictable (if it was entirely predictable, then it would be already predetermined). Ergo, we are here in our variety because individual outcomes are not set in stone. We are each a potential that could be realized.

 

[Moral Orel]

Maybe I wasn't clear. At that point free will as we know it will come to an end. He will make our desires holy. We'll still have free will to choose among good things, but will no longer try to harm one another.

Does God have free will?

 

[Halbhh]

I don't get this part. You say that a reality devoid of potential drawbacks is an unrealistic expectation, but then you say that there will be a reality devoid of potential drawbacks because the drawbacks are only temporary.

As I think of it, or my best understanding or guessing is, we are choosing whether to let go of the less good, and take the leap to the best. Internally this is to be new, to be born again, to be humble and trust in the Good. It's a profound, soul altering choice. It's 'faith', but it's also....transformation. It's letting go of something far less good, in order to...leap (in faith) to our true connection with the Good...with God. The veil has been torn by Christ, and we can be changed and brought to God. We are changed by such total surrender of the old and the leap to the new. So, it's a profound experience, and one isn't the same afterwards, once they really go. (of course this isn't even slight equal to simply being raised in a church, but instead it's more like....to me....jumping off a cliff, a trust... it's as if (to me) one leaps off into space on just the idea that there is another cliff out there to land on, another cliff that may have seemed too far, but...one makes it because He helps; I'm trying to get at it with a metaphor, but all the while in a way one knows God is there, and there is never going to be a failing to be taken across, if one truly leaps. It is best to leap in the right direction though, so one needs to listen to the words of the Teacher, the guide, Jesus, in order to leap in the right direction, as it were. That's first.)

 

[JAL]

Does God have free will?

At the outset, His free will was unlimited. However, His desires are now holy, by His own design. He labored at least 13 billion years to maximize His zeal for holiness. At this point He is incapable of unjust or unkind behavior.

I'll explain this more in a separate post.

 

[JAL]

Does God have free will?

Following up on my partial response. So far I said:

"At the outset, His free will was unlimited. However, His desires are now holy, by His own design. He labored at least 13 billion years to maximize His zeal for holiness. At this point He is incapable of unjust or unkind behavior."

Those words of mine summarize the 1st prong in God's two-pronged solution to remaining holy. No temptation is strong enough to move Him to sin.

But that first prong isn't enough because the very nature of free will is such that, over time, His zeal could slowly decline. What's to guarantee that doesn't happen? And if such can happen, how can He guarantee us everlasting safety? Enter the 2nd prong.

Before we proceed any further, I want you to do me a favor. Turn off your immune system. Shut it down. Ok, is it off yet? What's taking you so long? You can't shut it off, can you?

My belief is that God created within Himself an Immune System of sorts that He cannot shut down, to guarantee His everlasting holiness and our eternal safety. Let's see how it works.

Passions - including the zeal for holiness - can be physically imposed. Take for instance how, at puberty, our hormones tend to impassion us toward the opposite sex. As Christians, we all hold to a doctrine called sanctification - the doctrine that if we seek God properly, He will gradually increase our holiness by impassioning us toward righteousness. (The word in bold reflects my conviction that the church has been going about it all wrong for the last 2,000 years - long story).

Specifically it is the third Person of the Trinity - the Holy Spirit - who does this work. (That title is yet another error in traditional church doctrine, the correct tile is the Holy Wind/Breath).

But just as it is His job to MAKE us holy, it is also His job to KEEP God holy. What I'm saying is that the Third Person functions as the divine Immune System providing immunity to sin. God is not currently capable of sin, as I explained, but He could gradually decline in zeal. The Immune System monitors every particle of the Godhead, including those of the Immune System itself, such that if any particle declines even ONE IOTA in holy zeal, the REMAINDER of the Immune System will rush to immediately 'zap' that 'germ' (i.e. rekindle its holy desires).

Why can't God turn it off by free will? Theoretically He can, but only gradually, and therefore it will never happen. Why not? Recall that He is so holy that He cannot sin immediately, first He would have to gradually decline in holy zeal as to recover His original freedom. In the same way, His zeal to keep the Immune System running at top speed is so maximized that He can only gradually decline in the zeal to keep it turned on. He can't just shut it off on a quick decision. The problem is that, if any particle in the Immune System loses even one iota of zeal to sustain the Immune System, the REMAINDER of the Immune System will instantly 'zap' this 'germ'.

As a result, it CANNOT be shut down. He CANNOT turn it off, neither now nor in the future.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The evil of thinking Yahuweh ever changes is beyond cleaning up.

Perhaps it can be repented of, but it is not useful.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I don't get this part. You say that a reality devoid of potential drawbacks is an unrealistic expectation, but then you say that there will be a reality devoid of potential drawbacks because the drawbacks are only temporary.

The unScriptural posts are not meant to be "gotten" - they are deceptive .

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The problem of evil is that we, being not-so-good ourselves, are quite comfortable with it. God instructs us to 'put away evil', but we rather like cozying up to it. It's exciting, profitable, fun, and appeals to that side of our nature. And we are willing to pay the price it exacts on us.

Are you yourself "comfortable" with the false gospel or false teachings or false ideas being presented in this thread ? (the ones as if Yahuweh Almighty Creator ever changes)

 

[Ken-1122]

I already explained that. The task before Him - the amount of excruciating labor involved - was too daunting. Coupled with the excruciating loneliness - a loneliness remediable only by companions with free will - he feared that His resolve might weaken before His task was completed. .

And how does allowing his companions the free will to disobey, reject him, cause destruction, hatred, and war, supposed to make make things easier for him?