Why does God not stop the evil?

[FatalHeart]

I'm glad we see it for what it is. Indeed, I would love God to always be what I think He should be, but with all His evasiveness at times, there have been definitive times in my life with clear miracles and His voice was clearly heard, so for all the prayers He did not answer, or all the questions that I could not find reason for, and all the time I waited for Him, in the end, my seeking to connect with God was not fruitless. It may very well be you have struggled for many years, but my personal experience (and not just personal because God manifested in gold and jewels on the floor for us to walk on in front of more than 40 people) compels me to tell you to continue on with virtue toward this whole God replying to you thing. It is worth it. He does care.

 

[mathetes123]

There is one common question which is often posed as an objection to God's omnibenevolence and that is the question: "why does God not prevent or stop the evil in the world?"

"Why does God not stop all the child molestors and rapists and murderers, why does God not stop this or prevent that or do this or that...."

These types of questions, surprisingly are raised by many atheists. But I find it ironic that the few instance in which we see God acting to stop and to prevent such heinous acts in the Bible, these same objectors claim that God was wrong in in stopping these people!

On one hand, God is blamed for tolerating evil, and on the other hand when He is shown to act in judgment on people who commit such atrocities, He is branded as being a murderer and genocidal!

If there were known to us today, to be civilizations and societies in existence that behaved the way the Canaanites, Amorites and Amalekites, did in making it a regular practice to offer their newborn babies and young children on fiery pagan altars to gods, atheists would be among the many to cry out: "If God exists, then why does He not stop these atrocities!"

Yet, in cases where it is clear that this was happening, when God does act, He is judged as being a genocidal murderer!

It seems to me that the qualm with God is not that He does not act to judge sin, but that He indeed does exist and holds us morally accountable for our sins. It is evidently clear, that in some people's eyes (those who lack belief in God) that whatever God does, He fails to meet their moral standards. Which is ironic, for if there is no objective moral standard, then all we have is opinions, none being any closer to the non-existent standard than any other. And the opinion that God was somehow wrong in ordering the children to be killed is no closer to adhering to this non-existent moral standard than the opinion that God, since He is the author and giver of life, was justified in taking that life.

So what is the objection?

God could address the problem of evil in an instant. He did this in the flood.

 

[Gadarene]

God could address the problem of evil in an instant. He did this in the flood.

It's funny how lacking in imagination an omnipotent deity is sometimes.

 

[Freodin]

I'm glad we see it for what it is. Indeed, I would love God to always be what I think He should be, but with all His evasiveness at times, there have been definitive times in my life with clear miracles and His voice was clearly heard, so for all the prayers He did not answer, or all the questions that I could not find reason for, and all the time I waited for Him, in the end, my seeking to connect with God was not fruitless. It may very well be you have struggled for many years, but my personal experience (and not just personal because God manifested in gold and jewels on the floor for us to walk on in front of more than 40 people) compels me to tell you to continue on with virtue toward this whole God replying to you thing. It is worth it. He does care.

I guess that God was careful enough to ensure that none of the more than 40 people had his handy cam with him at the moment?

 

[FatalHeart]

No, it is on tape because He did it for a while every meeting a long time ago. The tape is old though, I might be able to get my hands on it. Casset.

 

[seeking Christ]

No - the question, however, is: Why did God not create us differently than we are?

I suggest that this would be more productive if looked at from a different angle: what is God's purpose? Hopefully you can see how this is relly the same question, or that there is at least some overlap?

God has a choice to sin? I have been told that God can´t even be in the presence of sin. I have been told that "God is Love". Have I been lied to?

I have heard that about Jesus, not about CreatorGod.

Given that we are examining Biblical theology - Jesus IS Creator God:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:4) In him was life; and the life was the light of men."

Therefore when we see Jesus tempted by sin, we must realize that God (even w/o the body of Jesus) must've had some counterpart to that. Choice. God gets to choose whatever He wants, that's a perk of being God, and part of the definition.

That God is Holy tells us that His choices are consistent and dependable, not haphazard. Therefore God does not sin.

Ok, I appreciate your honesty. "It´s a mystery" is as far from being an explanation as it gets. If, in a sequence of arguments and explanations, "it´s a mystery" shows up, the entire sequence is worthless as an explanation.

Given the context here, this is a cop-out. The mystery spoken of is merely how we will be changed, and what precisely we will become. Yet we know that whatever it is, we will be like Him. and while this is the final page of Christianity, this is also the very first page of proto-Judaism, i.e., the Promise made to Abram before he ever became Abraham.

We see a perfect consistency, and THAT is the point we are addressing here! You had mentioned an inconsistent theology, and I stepped in saying "not so."

They probably hadn´t heard your statement that omnipotent God "isn't relishing the thought of condemning a single one of us!"

Easily proven false:

Ezekiel 33:11 Say unto them, [As] I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live"

Notice that this is OT. How could you miss what's in the NT?

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:17) For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."

Which immediately causes me to ask my question more precisely: "Why did God create us as physical beings?". Creating us as spiritual beings would have prevented most of the problems that we are talking about.

This brings us back to the top of this post, so notice my comment there. First of all, a "spiritual being with no body, is an angel. No part of God's plan includes us losing our physical element.

One of the best angels was cast out of heaven, to earth. He was there already when man showed up. Clearly we are put here to fight this critter. Clearly this is the answer to all your questions on this topic about why we have these problems.

I´m not seeing how it makes any sense that problems caused by our being physical should have spiritual consequences. And apparently they don´t: With our ceasing to be physical, we (or at least some of us) are having removed those consequences.

You have not "ceased to be physical." You can't point me to anyone who has. The idea that that would somehow be better, or is in any way the goal, is gnosticism; a great enemy of the early Church that definitely has at least some inroads yet today.

As for the "law of sin and death": Since you have been submitting that God is equipped with free choice - did he have the choice to establish this law the way he did, or didn´t he have this choice?

God is Just, faithful and true. He cannot make things just any old way. He is reasonable. By taking it upon Himself to make anything at all (in the physical realm) there are a great number of constraints these various conditions place upon Him. We see this everywhere we look: laws of mathematics, physics, logic, language, evidence - you name it.

One of those is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil being in the garden. The story speaks to this very thing.

We sin, we die. By definition. Its part of the deal. God is Life. We exclude Him, we cut ourselves off from life. Having dominion gives us this power.

 

[seeking Christ]

@quotana

God created us perfect but it was our choice to choose sin.

God is Not capable of sin.Sin means to rebel against God and God can't rebel against Himslef its impossible

This is actually compatible with what I wrote. Complex, but compatible. (It just depends on how one us using the word "sin")

 

[seeking Christ]

Evil is not a lack of good. A lack of good is indifference.

If I see a criminal act taking place and I do nothing to stop it, is that evil? No. That is apathy. But if I go and contribute to that act, then it is evil.

You are addressing SUBJECTIVE morality. Roman Catholics might call your scenario here as a "sin of omission."

 

[seeking Christ]

EDIT: Wow. This is nearly 1500 words. You'd better appreciate this.

Good stuff there, thanks!

 

[quatona]

seeking Christ, thanks for putting so much effort in attempting an explanation!

 

[seeking Christ]

Secondly, why doesn't God just snap his fingers and give us everything that comes from that suffering - but without the suffering?

Because life doesn't work that way. The best thing here is to accept reality as it is.

 

[seeking Christ]

So God is killing our loved ones, causing hardships and all those other things - just so we can grow?

Buried in there somewhere is a legitimately profound question, but it is obscured by the accusation of God being the active agent.

 

[seeking Christ]

God could address the problem of evil in an instant. He did this in the flood.

All such stories, which are the main thing we see unbelievers objecting to, convey this very point. We don't really WANT the whole "God snapping His fingers" thing. Better for us to do our part, suffering and all.

 

[seeking Christ]

seeking Christ, thanks for putting so much effort in attempting an explanation!

Thank you for a good discussion ...

 

[Freodin]

All such stories, which are the main thing we see unbelievers objecting to, convey this very point. We don't really WANT the whole "God snapping His fingers" thing. Better for us to do our part, suffering and all.

I literally cringe (and I mean literally literally) when I see such a profound lack of imagination in people.

For all the exchange, for all the arguments in all this thread, it always comes down to this point: the theists show their complete inability to leave their narrow ways of thinking.

 

[Tiberius]

Buried in there somewhere is a legitimately profound question, but it is obscured by the accusation of God being the active agent.

It doesn't matter if God is causing the suffering directly or simply allowing it to happen, even if he isn't actively causing it.

The fact remains that God is permitting all this suffering when that suffering does not need to exist. So why does God allow all that horrible suffering? Just so we can grow? Please. Surely God can find a way for us to grow that does NOT require such suffering.

Indeed, what was going to happen in the Garden of Eden? If Adam and Eve had not disobeyed God, would they have lived in utter peace, lamenting the fact that they would never grow spiritually?

Or would they grow spiritually the better way - by working hard over many years? Like when people work to learn an instrument, or build a home, or raise a child. The important things that really improve us always take a lot of effort over many years. It is this effort itself that improves us. I've done it myself. Many people here have. You've probably done it to. If we really needed to have such suffering inflicted on us in order for us to grow, then God's "perfect" plan for us (before Adam and Eve messed it up) would seem to be fundamentally flawed!

In any case, it's horrid that God would intentionally set up a system in which we NEED to suffer.

And my original explanation remains the best - God doesn't stop the evil because God does not exist.

 

[Elioenai26]

This comment is riddled with irony. You defend genocide and then reprimand others as sociopaths? Your own ostensibly 'objective' moral code is plagued with inconsistencies that call into question its objectivity and yet you lecture others on relativism? Your defence of genocide speaks to your inability to make the case for why theistic morality is rationally superior to a morality that does not presuppose gods.

I have never defended genocide.

 

[Gadarene]

I have never defended genocide.

yes, like holocaust deniers have never defended the holocaust

 

[Elioenai26]

No, I said your posts were disingenious and dishonest.

No, that´s not what I thought, said or meant to say. You are superimposing your idea of "objective morality" upon my statement. Again, that´s being dishonest and disingenious. Since in your subjective morality you don´t find anything wrong with that, there can´t be a fruitful discussion between you and me.

So you do have a concept of right and wrong.

That is encouraging.

You are saying I should find dishonesty and disingeniousness wrong. Well I am glad you feel that way.

As a subjectivist, however, you cannot make that judgment. Your saying I should think like you think. You are saying I should think that being dishonest is wrong and that being disingenious is wrong.

Why? Look at what you said:

Since (your reasoning follows) in your subjective morality you don´t find anything wrong (speaking of moral obligation) with that, (being dishonest) there can´t be a fruitful discussion between you and me.

You see, what you want to say is that it is just your subjective opinion that I am wrong and should be honest and genuine.

But you cannot say that. AS SOON AS YOU SAY THAT I HAVE FAILED IN A MORAL OBLIGATION i.e, that I am wrong for doing (x) (y) or (z) you are not being subjective but objective in your appeal.

You are pointing me towards a moral obligation and saying: "Elioenai26, you should be (x) and because you are not (x), you are wrong."

But if everything is simply subjective, or subject to the individual, I must be allowed the right to respond however I think it is beneficial for me to respond. You can't pass judgment on me, because there is nothing for you to appeal to that can adjudicate between our two opinions, because there is no standard INDEPENDENT of our two SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS to appeal to. IN YOUR VIEW, THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE MORAL LAW that you can point to and say: "Elioenai26, you know that you SHOULD be honest."

That is why it is simple to see that when we are wronged it is in those instances that we affirm objective moral values and duties. You feel wronged because you think someone is being dishonest. As a relativist, you cannot say that. There is no wrong, there is no right. Everything is relative to the individual's perspective.

That is why you cannot be a relativist.

No, I didn´t say anything about "tolerance" or "should". I said your posts were disingenious and dishonest. I don´t enjoy conversations with people who employ those means. I don´t trust you.
Your questions about what I am saying (when I was very clear in what I said) make me wonder whether English is your first language.

When you say:

"Since in your subjective morality you don´t find anything wrong with that, there can´t be a fruitful discussion between you and me."

You just said in the above that since in my view, I do not find anything wrong with being dishonest, there cant be a fruitful discussion between you and me.

That is the same as saying that: "Elioenai26, your subjective morality should tell you being dishonest is wrong."

Its saying the same exact thing.

What you are not understanding is that your usage of phrases that imply ideas like: should, wrong, morality, etc. etc. By their nature cannot be subjective. They are objective because you are telling someone else they way they should act. This is not something a relativist can do.

 

[Elioenai26]

No, the reluctance to condemn behaviour as objectively wrong isn´t covered by the definition above.

Actually it is. Part of the definition of Sociopath is listed below.

Lacking a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

Now, if someone says to me: "Well, I cannot say raping children is objectively wrong. You see, there is no objective duty that humans are responsible for adhering to regarding respecting the sanctity of a child's life. Because of this, the person who rapes a child is not doing anything objectively wrong. It may be my opinion that he is not doing what is conducive to the well-being of the child, but if the rapist has his reasons, then his reasons make his actions justifiable to him and so since he has his subjective opinion, and I have mine, and that is all there is, then well, I cannot say he is objectively wrong."

Anyone who has that line of reasoning is demonstrating they lack a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

Being a remorseless liar, however, is.

You keep talking about being a remorseless liar as if it is wrong to be a remorseless liar. If that is what you believe, then you believe that pepole should be remorseful and honest. But as soon as you say that, you are no longer a subjectivist, but an objectivist.