Problem of evil, is this a satisfying answer?

[leov]

Why do we need to learn that ? Why can't we, for instance, be unable to do evil ?
Also, what about natural evils that cause suffering ?

I suppose you can find a few in history who are 'naturally' good, but most of us are going through evolution of consciousness process. I also think that those who "unable to doo evil" may be just souls at the top of consciousness evolutionary process. Natural evils help to exercise compassion.

 

[Koldo]

I suppose you can find a few in history who are 'naturally' good, but most of us are going through evolution of consciousness process. I also think that those who "unable to doo evil" may be just souls at the top of consciousness evolutionary process.

I was talking about an actual physical impossibility. Why can't it be impossible to do evil ?

Natural evils help to exercise compassion.

What use is there for compassion in a world where nothing really bad ever happens ?

 

[leov]

I was talking about an actual physical impossibility. Why can't it be impossible to do evil ?



What use is there for compassion in a world where nothing really bad ever happens ?

Do you mean why we are not just created behaving good? It looks that whoever created the system did not want just a bunch o robots and created the world where we can fix our egos on our own.

 

[Koldo]

Do you mean why we are not just created behaving good? It looks that whoever created the system did not want just a bunch o robots and created the world where we can fix our egos on our own.

Not like robots. I don't mean morally incapable of doing evil but rather physically incapable. Why not a world where we are physically incapable of doing evil ?

 

[leov]

Not like robots. I don't mean morally incapable of doing evil but rather physically incapable. Why not a world where we are physically incapable of doing evil ?

I think we do not belong in physical world, I think that physical world is a rehabilitation colony where we really able to hurt each other or care for each other, in a way a theatrical prop, only we , in amnesia, see it as reality

 

[Nimos]

Whatever exists in creation has an equal opposite. Evil exists as an equal opposite of good. It was the only thing that God withheld from his human creation by putting it behind a major penalty, but it still had to be a choice, because they were free willed. All God could do was make it off limits, and leave it up to them to obey him.

So God created the opposite as well? So by creating good he created evil? is that correctly understood?

God issued guidelines for his now imperfect creatures, but if they ignored his rules, they just brought more problems on themselves.

So how do you see this apply to the law of homosexuality and that of witches, can you elaborate on that?

The whole point of the exercise is that humans thought that they could do things better by making their own decisions, so God withdrew his protection and allowed them to see where their decisions would take them. Yet he never left them without his guidance. As far as I can see, all that humans have proven is that they are hopeless at determining their own future. No matter what form of self-rule they have tried, it has ended badly.

So when the Christians helped making slavery in the US illegal they shouldn't have done that? And is what you are saying that we should change the law mentioned above with the witches and homosexuals having sex as God guided us to do, so they still apply? As far as I know these were changed based on our free will.

 

[Nimos]

One thing worth pondering over, when it comes to Judaism/Christianity, is the Book of Job. What do you think the ultimate message of that book is?

To me the ultimate message of the book is about having complete faith in God, that you have to endure through hard times and in the end you will be rewarded for it.

Yet the story is a morale mess with little thought behind it as I see it. To me its clear that the authors attention was on God and faith in him and little to the content and morality of the story.

First of all its a bet between God and Satan, God being omniscient already know that Satan is going to fail, so to me it seems he only do it for self satisfaction. Jobs first children, 9? 10? or how many are killed by Satan while God just stand there, not even caring the slightest, regardless of these children having done nothing and not even part of the bet. That is what really concerns me, the rest is not really important, I think. Why did Jobs children have to die? Obviously he gets it all back in the happy ending, yet no explanation or emotional reaction from Job still having lost his first children, as if they didn't matter at all. Because God in all his goodness rewarded him in the end. So again to me the story is a complete disaster when it comes to morality and God. Which is probably also why most Christians don't really know how to defend it, for good reason.

What I do wonder, is for those that get so distraught about suffering and evil, what about it's opposite? I think there is a tendency to favor suffering and evil over pleasure and happiness, because one is routed in pressure and struggle on the Ego whereas the other one strokes the Ego and can allow for taking it for granted. It's obvious that suffering bothers one's conscience, whereas happiness doesn't.
Generally people don't take suffering for granted, if you catch my drift. They instead let suffering define themselves, gives them a form of identity. Yet happiness and wellbeing, "peace", looses it's thought and attention because it lifts the weight off the Ego.
Y'know, why aren't you troubled when you're happy? doesn't make sense right?

Everyone wants to be happy and whenever something interfere with that, we react to it and it gets our attention. So to me we want to reduce "evil" because the absent of it makes us more happy. So it makes little sense to be troubled when we are happy, but if out happiness is in "danger" then we start to worry.

So eventually I don't see it as a matter of focus, but rather why evil need to be there, if God could remove it, so the question end up being the same I think.

 

[1213]

I found this video with some guy trying to explaining the problem of evil. The guy is a Christian so he is obviously explaining it from that point of view. Its a fairly long video (around 52 minutes) ...

If it takes 52 minutes, I think it is not a satisfying answer. Simple answer is:

Evil is not a problem. It can’t destroy soul, which is the important thing. Evil is just something that people wanted to know. And people were expelled to this first death to learn what it means. This world is like the Matrix, “virtual reality”, where evil things are possible so that we can learn what it means. Luckily this is a short lesson, and those who are righteous, can have eternal life without any evil.

 

[Road Warrior]

I only use the word 'force' when I talk about Star Wars. I haven't used it to describe evil.

e

Thanks for calling me a teenager but I am 30.
I am not trying to prove there is no God.
I am trying to prove there is no omnimax God.



The argument relies on a quite specific concept of God. If, for instance, you were to say God is apathetic towards our existence the argument can't touch that. If you say God is very powerful but not in an unlimited manner, the argument also can't touch that. There are lot of different ways to deal with it. Calling me an angry atheist is not one of them.

The 'problem of evil' has a pretty long story in philosophy. Look it up.

I did use "force" in my defining different perceptions of "evil". You see it as a force, I do not.

I'm 63 and a septuple grandpa.

Sorry, but I strongly disagree on your goal. First, as stated repeatedly, I use the word "God" as a placeholder for the all powerful force behind creation. A god that is not "omnimax" is not a god, just a very powerful being.

If you are arguing against Bible thumpers who claim the Bible is the direct word of God, then, yes, your questions have validity. Since I'm not one of those, your questions are nonsensical to me.

 

[Koldo]

I think we do not belong in physical world, I think that physical world is a rehabilitation colony where we really able to hurt each other or care for each other, in a way a theatrical prop, only we , in amnesia, see it as reality

But we still experience physical suffering nonetheless. What is the justification for this ? The fact you think of our world as a rehab already suggests something is off with us. If God is omnimax, how can this be so ?

 

[Koldo]

I did use "force" in my defining different perceptions of "evil". You see it as a force, I do not.

I don't see it as a force, as I have said before. Those are your words, not mine.

I'm 63 and a septuple grandpa.

Sorry, but I strongly disagree on your goal. First, as stated repeatedly, I use the word "God" as a placeholder for the all powerful force behind creation. A god that is not "omnimax" is not a god, just a very powerful being.

If you are arguing against Bible thumpers who claim the Bible is the direct word of God, then, yes, your questions have validity. Since I'm not one of those, your questions are nonsensical to me.

If you believe in a god that is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent they apply to you. No matter the tradition or religion you come from.

 

[leov]

But we still experience physical suffering nonetheless. What is the justification for this ? The fact you think of our world as a rehab already suggests something is off with us. If God is omnimax, how can this be so ?

Suffering in physical world is allowed by design, human beings led by Golden rule are capable to eliminate many of them, God created Natural Laws, humans break the laws as they desire and suffer because of that, also natural evil give us a chance to give helping hands....our souls are eternal, nothing in physical world can harm them.

 

[Road Warrior]

I don't see it as a force, as I have said before. Those are your words, not mine.



If you believe in a god that is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent they apply to you. No matter the tradition or religion you come from.

A point on which we must disagree.

I believe there is more to existence than we understand. That this existence goes beyond mortality. I expressly do not believe that "God" is an old man on a golden throne killing sinners with thunderbolts, heart attacks or tsunamis. YMMV

 

[Koldo]

Suffering in physical world is allowed by design, human beings led by Golden rule are capable to eliminate many of them, God created Natural Laws, humans break the laws as they desire and suffer because of that, also natural evil give us a chance to give helping hands....our souls are eternal, nothing in physical world can harm them.

Why is suffering allowed though ?
Why is there a need for suffering to exist ?
Why is being able to help people relevant enough to justify natural evil ?

 

[Koldo]

A point on which we must disagree.

I believe there is more to existence than we understand. That this existence goes beyond mortality. I expressly do not believe that "God" is an old man on a golden throne killing sinners with thunderbolts, heart attacks or tsunamis. YMMV

Whether you believe in God as an old man in a throne is irrelevant to the problem of evil. The arguments stands.

 

[Deeje]

So God created the opposite as well? So by creating good he created evil? is that correctly understood?

In all of God's creation, balance is seen in the existence of opposites. We take them for granted, but they are all around us. Think of all the opposites that exist and understand that it is the basis of a scientific principle. Equal opposites exist in all actions. 'in and out....up and down....positive and negative...over and under....for and against...natural and unnatural.....good and evil...etc.

God created everything in balance, but he originally protected humans from evil by placing it behind a very severe penalty. He couldn't eliminate it from their lives completely without compromising their free will.
If humans had simply listened to their Creator and obeyed his direction, no evil thing would ever have befallen them. They brought evil into the world and once that 'genie' was out of the bottle, there was no sending it back, so God used the situation as a teaching exercise for all humanity, as well as for his angelic creation because one of their own had started all this.

Humans were not created to govern their own existence, but only experience would demonstrate the fact that they have no real capacity to exercise power over others....it corrupts them, and always has. It never ends well.

So how do you see this apply to the law of homosexuality and that of witches, can you elaborate on that?

From my perspective, the answer to those questions are contained in scripture. Because humanity became physically, spiritually and morally defective due to their choice to withdraw from the Creator's laws and to formulate their own, God has basically left them to their own devices with a view to teaching valuable lessons that will set precedents for all time to come.
He does not protect us against the consequences of our choices......if he did, the lesson would be lost. We 'reap what we sow.'

This is not to say that humans can control their sexual orientation, or even a propensity to be attracted to spiritism due to having supernatural experiences. But again, God never left humankind without guidance. His written word identified actions that would cause offence to him, but only those who care about what God thinks, will actually follow them. Abberations in human conduct (unnatural leanings in any direction) are part of the defects manifest in all of us, in so many ways.
Part of God's instructions for his chosen nation included specific laws regarding homosexual acts and the practice of spiritism in any form.
Christianity is called a "cramped and narrow road" because it is. "Few " choose to travel on it. (Mathew 7:13-14) The easy road is a dead end.....but the majority will choose it.

For those with gender identity issues, God does not condemn the individual, (understanding the manifestation of their particular imperfection) but only their actions (that go against what is "natural") are condemned. Sex, after all was given to all creatures for procreation....the fact that it was enjoyable is a bonus. The drive is powerful, as we see in nature, but only humans were endowed with a sense of morality. This is God-given and his instructions on moral issues are not negotiable. He will not force obedience, but allows us to choose it of our own free will because of our love for him. Those who love themselves more than they love God will have no compunction about doing what God condemns. They will do what 'they' want....telling God exactly where they stand. It's basically the same for those who willfully engage in spiritistic practices. God leaves us in no doubt how he feels about such things. If we choose the action....we choose the consequences. We are not living this life for no good reason. The Bible explains everything.

So when the Christians helped making slavery in the US illegal they shouldn't have done that?

The people who promoted that kind of slavery claimed to be Christians too, but clearly they were not. No genuine follower of Christ could ever treat a fellow human that way, assuming that because of skin color or nationality, that they can be exploited or mistreated in such a cruel and heartless manner. So whoever helped to make that practice illegal were being good humanitarians, who are not necessarily Christians.

And is what you are saying that we should change the law mentioned above with the witches and homosexuals having sex as God guided us to do, so they still apply? As far as I know these were changed based on our free will.

No Christian is encouraged to meddle in politics, quite the opposite in fact. We are to be "no part of this world" because of who the Bible says is pulling the strings. (1 John 5:19) But if there is a legal way to promote our God-given right to freedom of worship, then we will take it. We rely on God to make the way according to his own will, not ours.

What people do about their gender issues or their practice of spiritism, has nothing to do with us. The law of the land has nothing to do with God's law. People are free to choose their own course.....but as I said, if you choose the path, you choose the destination.

 

[leov]

Why is suffering allowed though ?
Why is there a need for suffering to exist ?
Why is being able to help people relevant enough to justify natural evil ?

As I said , I think that was intentionally , Natural Law governs. This world described as place where we were exiled. You and I may not like it, but it is what it is. I know that's great deal of that suffering is because of human greed.

 

[Nimos]

God created everything in balance, but he originally protected humans from evil by placing it behind a very severe penalty. He couldn't eliminate it from their lives completely without compromising their free will.

So evil as you see it is a requirement for free will? So a person wouldn't be able to help another one without also having the option to not help them or maybe even harm them?

They brought evil into the world and once that 'genie' was out of the bottle, there was no sending it back, so God used the situation as a teaching exercise for all humanity, as well as for his angelic creation because one of their own had started all this.

But weren't evil already there? Meaning Satans action at the time when he deceived Eve was not actually one of evil then. But as Eve failed to resist him and ate the fruit then everything fell apart. So Satan became evil and then all humans could see him as being evil, is that what you mean? My impression or understanding is that Satan already was evil at that point.

Humans were not created to govern their own existence,

Why would God bother with free will then, that seems a bit confusing to me, can you explain that?

For those with gender identity issues, God does not condemn the individual, (understanding the manifestation of their particular imperfection) but only their actions (that go against what is "natural") are condemned. Sex, after all was given to all creatures for procreation....the fact that it was enjoyable is a bonus.

Only Adam and Eve were directly created by God, the rest through procreation, so why would God make it possible for a person to be homosexual, if that is as you say it is, not "natural" and weren't what God intended by making us capable of procreation in the first place?

So you also see the use of condoms, pills etc. as being against the will of God and that people should or ought to be punished just as hard as homosexuals, as they are basically preventing what God intended?

This is God-given and his instructions on moral issues are not negotiable. He will not force obedience, but allows us to choose it of our own free will because of our love for him.

If our moral is given by God and is none negotiable and as most Christians claims Jesus removed the law, then how should we decide moral issues or which should we follow, if these are none negotiable, to me it seems to conflict with free will? Can you elaborate on that?

The people who promoted that kind of slavery claimed to be Christians too, but clearly they were not. No genuine follower of Christ could ever treat a fellow human that way, assuming that because of skin color or nationality, that they can be exploited or mistreated in such a cruel and heartless manner. So whoever helped to make that practice illegal were being good humanitarians, who are not necessarily Christians.

But the Bible doesn't condemn slavery and as a follow up from the question above, if these morals are none negotiable, why should slavery then be considered morally wrong?

No Christian is encouraged to meddle in politics, quite the opposite in fact.

So even if we were through free will to decide our own morals and not use politics, how would we do it, can you explain that, because that seems a bit weird to me, how we would do it then?

What people do about their gender issues or their practice of spiritism, has nothing to do with us. The law of the land has nothing to do with God's law. People are free to choose their own course.....but as I said, if you choose the path, you choose the destination.

Im sorry its really difficult to figure this out I think. Does this only apply to gender issues and the practice of spiritism? or does it also apply to murder, rape etc. or how do you choose which part of God's law is no longer in effect and which are, can you elaborate on that? because that seems very confusing to me, especially with all the other things you have mentions above. Where do we start, what is allowed and what is not allowed and who and how do we decide it, if we can't decide our morals and we shouldn't involve our self with actual methods of doing it?

 

[Road Warrior]

Whether you believe in God as an old man in a throne is irrelevant to the problem of evil. The arguments stands.

Sorry Dude, not it doesn't. You're spinning wheels.

 

[Koldo]

As I said , I think that was intentionally , Natural Law governs. This world described as place where we were exiled. You and I may not like it, but it is what it is. I know that's great deal of that suffering is because of human greed.

Why was it made possible that we were put in exile ? Why was it possible that we were able to commit a transgression that would lead to that ?