Why does God not stop the evil?

Davian said:

lol. The burden of proof is always on the one making the claims. That would be you.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I do not feel compelled or obligated to enter into any of your arguments.

Shout Glory

Thought I'd chime in on the whole issue of "Eternal Punishment for Non-eternal sins".

Having been a Christian, the answer given me was that guilt is proportional not only to the offence, but also to the offended party's status. Since God is infinitely great the punishment will be infinite.

This isn't such a bad concept in that it is seen somewhat on a lighter scale in society. For example: An offence committed against a king merits greater punishment than the same offence being done against a servant.

Cush said:

Sorry, I do not feel compelled or obligated to enter into any of your arguments.

Shout Glory

Click to expand...

You did. I am still waiting for your response here.

No glory yet.

Davian said:

You did. I am still waiting for your response here.

No glory yet.

Click to expand...

No. For that to be binding one would have to enter into one of your arguments voluntarily and knowingly. As stated in clause "a" of your literary contract: I am here only according to my own volition.

Shout Glory

Cush said:

Hello gottservant,

God is omniscient therefore little room exists for assumptions. Correct?

I still say there is a greater purpose for allowing evil to exists, whether natural or human. In the case of Lazarus from the perspective of Mary and Martha, they could of questioned Jesus, doubted, or lost faith. Why God do you allow evil to occur and do not intervene on my behalf for my benefit in my timing?

Click to expand...

Poor analogy; Lazarus dying was not an example of evil. Evil is what Hitler did. Evil is what Amin and Stalin did. When people ask why God doesn’t stop evil, they mean the atrocities that occasionally happen that any decent human being would stop if they could. A natural death is not evil

Cush said:

Call me simple, I don't see a problem of evil.

Click to expand...

Are you telling me you don’t see a problem with what Hitler, Stalin, Amin did? I've got a feeling you do.

K

Carmella Prochaska said:

Reminds me of a comic strip I saw once, where a man was reading the newspaper & saying "Why doesn't God stop the murders in schools?" & a lady replied, "Didn't you know? God isn't allowed in schools anymore."

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's comical.

Sick.

Suffering and evil is good. Why would God need or want to stop it?

Ken-1122 said:

Poor analogy; Lazarus dying was not an example of evil. Evil is what Hitler did. Evil is what Amin and Stalin did. When people ask why God doesn’t stop evil, they mean the atrocities that occasionally happen that any decent human being would stop if they could. A natural death is not evil


Are you telling me you don’t see a problem with what Hitler, Stalin, Amin did? I've got a feeling you do.

K

Click to expand...

Sorry, I can't say that there is a way for me to feel comfortable with condemning the world for acting as the world. I mean many of the arguments here center around Christian belief and behavior. Why criticize people for going against the teachings of Christ if one opposes Christ?

The world is the world. God gave us the way out through His only beloved Son. Men reject that and it is there own free will.

Lastly, you're right. There are two evils in the world: natural and human. The natural evil in the world in that story could be death. The human evil in that story could be seen as one of delay. It is only the perspective of an unbeliever in that context that I explored, that is, how one could find fault, criticism, and condemnation against Jesus -- God for His decision.

Now, will someone Shout Glory

Cush said:

No. For that to be binding one would have to enter into one of your arguments voluntarily and knowingly. As stated in clause "a" of your literary contract: I am here only according to my own volition.

Shout Glory

Click to expand...

Only with religion would there be glory in abandoning your claims.

lol.

32k said:

Suffering and evil is good. Why would God need or want to stop it?

Click to expand...

I agree to a certain degree. Suffering or evil can be the very thing we rise above. The urgency and such are ours. The glory to God in that story came when Jesus resurrected Lazarus. The same can be said in any of our lives, through circumstance God can be given His rightful glory.

I prayed once for wealth. Instead through suffering I was given the gold of heart. At the time I had not known what was best for me. Now I understand that I do not know what is best, but have faith in God and His ways!

32k said:

Thought I'd chime in on the whole issue of "Eternal Punishment for Non-eternal sins".

Having been a Christian, the answer given me was that guilt is proportional not only to the offence, but also to the offended party's status. Since God is infinitely great the punishment will be infinite.

This isn't such a bad concept in that it is seen somewhat on a lighter scale in society. For example: An offence committed against a king merits greater punishment than the same offence being done against a servant.

Click to expand...

Poor analogy. The only reason the king merits greater punishment of an offender than the same offence committed against a servant is because if the king is harmed, everybody in the kingdom is affected. If I commit an offence against you, and God chooses to be offended by my crime against you; nobody else is affected by my offence except you and God. A better analogy would be the crime against a rich man vs the same crime against a poor man which should merit the same punishment.

The idea that an eternal being should merit more punishment than the same crime against a temporary being is IMO backwards. A person who has only a limited time to live has less time to get over the crime than someone who lives forever. The eternal being should merit less punishment if anything

Ken

Ken-1122 said:

Poor analogy. The only reason the king merits greater punishment of an offender than the same offence committed against a servant is because if the king is harmed, everybody in the kingdom is affected. If I commit an offence against you, and God chooses to be offended by my crime against you; nobody else is affected by my offence except you and God. A better analogy would be the crime against a rich man vs the same crime against a poor man which should merit the same punishment.

The idea that an eternal being should merit more punishment than the same crime against a temporary being is IMO backwards. A person who has only a limited time to live has less time to get over the crime than someone who lives forever. The eternal being should merit less punishment if anything

Ken

Click to expand...

Adam was crowned. Your argument actually supports the consequences and righteous decision God has already made.

I like the idea from this short story and the message that it conveys:

At the end of time, billions of people were scattered on a great plain before God's throne. Most shrank back from the brilliant light before them. But some groups near the front talked heatedly - not with cringing shame, but with belligerence.

"Can God judge us? How can he know about suffering?" Snapped a pert young brunette. He ripped open a sleeve to reveal a tattooed number from a Nazi Concentration Camp. "We endured terror ... beatings ... torture ... death!"

In another group a Negro boy lowered his collar. "What about this?" he demanded, showing an ugly rope burn. "Lynched for no crime but being black!"

In another crowd, a pregnant schoolgirl with sullen eyes. "Why should I suffer?" She murmured. "It wasn't my fault."

Far out across the plain were hundreds of such groups. Each had a complaint against God for the evil and suffering he had permitted in the world. How lucky God was to live in heaven where all was sweetness and light, where there was no weeping or fear, no hunger or hatred. What did God know of all that men had been forced to endure in this world? For God leads a pretty sheltered life, they said.

So each of these groups sent forth their leader, chosen because they had suffered the most. A Jew, a person from Hiroshima, a horribly deformed arthritic, and a thalidomide child.

In the centre of the plain they consulted with each other. At last they were ready to present their case. It was rather clever. Before God could be qualified to be their judge, he must endure what they had endured. Their decision was that God should be sentenced to live on earth - as a man!

Let him be born a Jew. Let the legitimacy of the birth be doubted.
Give him a work so difficult that even his family will think him out of his mind when he tries to do it.
Let him be betrayed by his closest friends.
Let him face false charges, be tried by a prejudiced jury and convicted by a cowardly judge.
Let him be tortured.
At the last, let him see what it means to be terribly alone.
Then let him die, and so that there can be no doubt that he died, let there be a great host of witnesses to verify it.

As each leader announced his portion of the sentence, loud murmurs of approval went up from the throng of people assembled. When the last had finished pronouncing sentence, there was a long silence. Nobody uttered another word. No one moved.

For suddenly all knew that God had already served his sentence.

Cush said:

Sorry, I can't say that there is a way for me to feel comfortable with condemning the world for acting as the world. I mean many of the arguments here center around Christian belief and behavior. Why criticize people for going against the teachings of Christ if one opposes Christ?

The world is the world. God gave us the way out through His only beloved Son. Men reject that and it is there own free will.

Lastly, you're right. There are two evils in the world: natural and human. The natural evil in the world in that story could be death. The human evil in that story could be seen as one of delay. It is only the perspective of an unbeliever in that context that I explored, that is, how one could find fault, criticism, and condemnation against Jesus -- God for His decision.

Now, will someone Shout Glory

Click to expand...

I don’t think most people take issue with Jesus, IMO Jesus was a very moral man; Most of the complaints come from the God of the Old Testament. It appears the behavior and decisions of Jesus is much different than that of the Gof of the Old Testament.

Ken

It was the God of the OT that buckled my knees when I had seen His glory, His morality, and His virtue, His Majestic nature amongst so many attributes that I realized I had lacked, and that mankind lacked. When I gave up on man, God shone bright.

I love the God of the OT -- Jesus Christ. If you think that the God of the OT is bad, wait till the second coming of Jesus Christ.

Shout Glory

Elioenai26 said:

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?

Click to expand...

If you see a parent let their child kick other people, steal from others and break things while the parent does nothing, you would say that the parent is doing wrong.

However, if the parent punishes the child by killing them, that is also wrong.

How many times did God use death as a punishment for trivial crimes in the Bible? Turning Lot's wife to a pillar of salt all because she wanted one last look at her home town, for example.

In any case, my answer to why God doesn't stop evil would have to be because he doesn't exist.

Ken-1122 said:

The idea that an eternal being should merit more punishment than the same crime against a temporary being is IMO backwards. A person who has only a limited time to live has less time to get over the crime than someone who lives forever. The eternal being should merit less punishment if anything

Ken

Click to expand...

I thought the same but there is no such thing as a finite sin or crime. If I murder someone who later would produce children and grand-children etc. The murder has a domino-effect that continues indefinitely into the future.

32k said:

I thought the same but there is no such thing as a finite sin or crime. If I murder someone who later would produce children and grand-children etc. The murder has a domino-effect that continues indefinitely into the future.

Click to expand...

The domino-effect may last forever, but the crime itself is finite. All of our decisions will have a domino-effect. You don't punish someone for the domino-effect, just the crime.

Ken

Ken,

My point was that events in time are infinite in consequences. All events within time are unbounded events, meaning they create streams of cascading consequences which fan out from each event.

32k said:

Ken,

My point was that events in time are infinite in consequences. All events within time are unbounded events, meaning they create streams of cascading consequences which fan out from each event.

Click to expand...

So how is this making your case that crimes against an infinite person merit infinite punishment, and crimes against a finite person merits temporary punishment?

Ken

The result is that the total amount of guilt from a single crime remains constant indefinitely