Bahnsen on the problem of evil

[John Powell]

Bahnsen part 1

THEFIVESOLAS:
I highly recommend the following article on "The Problem of Evil" by Dr. Greg Bahnsen.

http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa105.htm


POWELL:
I just read Dr. Bahnsen's two essays. I've taken a few portions to comment on.

BAHNSEN:
The Problem of Evil (Part 1)
By Dr. Greg Bahnsen

It is important for the Christian to recognize -- indeed, to insist upon -- the reality and serious nature of evil. The subject of evil is not simply an intellectual parlor game, a cavalier matter, a whimsical or relativistic choice of looking a things a certain way. Evil is real. Evil is ugly.


POWELL:
I'm thinking that evil doesn't exist outside of the minds of man and God. Physical things exist. Good and evil are subjective value judgments put upon ideas and physical things.

BAHNSEN:
The "problem" of evil has not always been properly understood by Christian apologists. They have sometimes reduced the difficulty of the unbeliever's challenge to Christianity by conceiving of the problem of evil as simply the angry presentation of evidence contrary to the alleged goodness of God. It is as though believers profess God's goodness, but then unbelievers have their counterexamples. Who makes the best case from the facts around us? The problem is presented (inaccurately) as a matter of who has weightier evidence on his side of the disagreement.


POWELL:
I disagree. I think it’s a good idea to treat this as a court case in which the Christian God is on trial with Christian apologists defending and religious skeptics prosecuting Him for alleged crimes. The Christian refuses to put their own God on trial claiming, evidently, that He is above reproach. An OmniGod would not be bothered by having His behavior challenged.

BAHNSEN:
Perhaps the unbeliever takes "good" to be whatever evokes public approval. However, on that basis the statement "The vast majority of the community heartily approved of and willingly joined in the evil deed" could never make sense.


POWELL:
Sure it could make sense. It suggests that the author of the quote and the population minority that he aligned himself with considered the actions of the vast majority of the community to be evil. That happens often in society. The majority didn't think it was evil, but this minority did.

BAHNSEN:
The fact that a large number of people of {sic} feel a certain way does not (or should not rationally) convince anybody that this feeling (about the goodness or evil of something) is correct.


POWELL:
Why not? Isn't it more likely that a proposition is true the more people believe it is true? I think so in general that's true, but certain fields are such that majority opinion is notoriously unreliable.

BAHNSEN:
Ethics does not reduce to statistics, after all.


POWELL:
Sure it does. I have my subjective opinion. You have yours. We may or may not agree. To the extent we agree our opinion is less subjective, more objective. As more and more opinions are seen to agree with ours then that opinion decreases in subjectivity and increases in objectivity.

BAHNSEN:
Ordinarily, people think of the goodness of something as evoking their approval -- rather than their approval constituting its goodness!


POWELL:
That's true, but I think mostly because most of our value judgments are based on an earlier determined standard. For example, we try something and like it so we consider it to be good. Whenever we encounter that thing again we judge it to be good.

BAHNSEN:
Even unbelievers talk and act as though there are personal traits, actions or things which possess the property of goodness (or evil) irrespective of the attitudes or beliefs or feelings people have about those traits, actions or things.[5]


POWELL:
I think Bahnsen is reading too much into strong expressions of moral outrage by religious skeptics. He seems to think that if someone strongly expresses their opinion that means the person thinks it's not just their opinion (and the personal opinions of many other people), but it’s the absolute truth. People often express a strong peculiar preference, even demand their opinion be catered to, although they might recognize that others could have a different opinion. People are opinionated.

BAHNSEN:
There are even further problems with taking "good" to be whatever evokes the approval of the individual (rather than public at large). Not only does this too reduce to subjectivism, it absurdly implies that no two individuals can make identical ethical judgments.


POWELL:
That shouldn’t be so surprising since people are different with different ethical judgments.

BAHNSEN:
When Bill says "Helping orphans is good," he would not be saying the same thing as when Ted says "Helping orphans is good." Bill's utterance means "Helping orphans evokes Bill's approval," whereas Ted's would mean "Helping orphans evokes Ted's approval" -- which are altogether different matters.


POWELL:
So what if they are different? We have that problem with most, if not, all our definitions. Probably mathematical concepts like “one” and “two” are the most universal. What one person means by a word doesn’t necessarily exactly mean what any other person means when they use the same word. Just ask men and women what they mean when they tell each other “I love you.”

BAHNSEN:
Not only would this view make it impossible for two people to make identical ethical judgments, it would likewise (absurdly) imply that a person's own ethical judgments could never be mistaken, unless he happened to misunderstand his own feelings![6]


POWELL:
It doesn't make it impossible for two people to make almost the same ethical judgments and that may be the best one can hope for. I don't see how it implies that a person's ethical judgments could never be mistaken just because such things are subjective. For person A’s subjective opinion to be “mistaken” would be when compared with a more objective standard, the combined opinion of a larger sample.

BAHNSEN:
The unbeliever might turn, then, to an instrumental or consequential understanding of what constitutes objective goodness (or evil). For instance, an action or trait is good if it tends to achieve a certain end, like the greatest happiness of the greatest number. The irrelevance of such a notion for making ethical determinations is that one would need to be able to rate and compare happiness, as well as to be able to calculate all of the consequences of any given action or trait. This is simply impossible for finite minds (even with the help of computers).


POWELL:
Impossible to do with perfect precision, ok. But who says the estimates have to be perfect to be useful? This would be a more scientific approach to the problem, but Bahnsen doesn’t like it.

BAHNSEN:
But more devastating is the observation that good may be taken to be whatever promotes general happiness only if it is antecedently the case that generalized happiness is itself "good." Any theory of ethics which focuses on the goodness of achieving a certain end (or consequence) will make sense only if it can establish that the chosen end (or consequence) is a good one to pursue and promote. Instrumental theories of goodness eventually must address the issue of intrinsic goodness, so that they can correctly determine what their goals ought to be.


POWELL:
We all agree that happiness is good, so we feel comfortable using that as a criterion to judge other things as being good or bad. There may be some “picking oneself up by your own bootstraps” in this approach but that’s how things are done sometimes despite complaints by philosophers that this is wrong. Just look at how the dictionary defines core words like “do” to be “execute” or “perform” and then defines “execute” and “perform” to be “do.” or “be” defined as to “exist” and then “exist” defined as to “be.” One I especially enjoyed was that the definition of “is” *IS* the “third person singular present indicative of be.” Yea, right. True, but so missing the point. Some words are core to the language. You can’t really define them properly in terms of the language since they define the language. You just use them as you use the similar words in your own language (if it's a foreign language) or you use them as they seem appropriate to you to use (if it's your native language).

cont.

John Powell

[John Powell]

Bahnsen part 2

BAHNSEN:
The Problem Of Evil (Part 2)
By Dr. Greg Bahnsen

Both the believer and the unbeliever will want to insist that certain things are evil, for instance cases of child abuse (like those already mentioned). And they will talk as though they take such moral judgments seriously, not simply as expressions of personal taste, preference or subjective opinion. They will insist that such things are truly -- objectively, intrinsically -- evil. Even unbelievers can be shaken from their easy and glib espousals of relativism in the face of moral atrocities like war, rape, and torture.


POWELL:
Sometimes people feel very strongly about their personal opinions. That doesn't make those opinions not opinions.

BAHNSEN:
That is why I am encouraged when I see unbelievers getting very indignant with some evil action as a matter of principle. Such indignation requires recourse to the absolute, unchanging, and good character of God in order to make philosophical sense. The expression of moral indignation is but personal evidence that unbelievers know this God in their heart of hearts. They refuse to let judgments about evil be reduced to subjectivism.


POWELL:
I think Bahnsen is getting too encouraged over too small a thing.

Why does he use "heart" in the antiquated way of the Bible when he could say something more scientifically accurate like "emotional mind"?

I don't refuse to let the judgments be reduced to subjectivism. That’s what I think they are.

BAHNSEN:
1. GOD IS ALL-GOOD.

2. GOD IS ALL-POWERFUL.

3. EVIL EXISTS.

4. GOD HAS A MORALLY SUFFICIENT REASON FOR THE EVIL WHICH EXISTS.


POWELL:
Beautifully protective of evil done by God! With this reasoning, God could do anything immoral, yet not be judged immoral. God could annihilate everything except us and Himself and we would have to concede by this argument that even though it sure looks like God broke His promises, He must have had an overriding good reason. He could send all the good people to hell and all the bad people to heaven and those tormented people in hell would have to confess by this argument that God must have a good reason for appearing to be so unjust.

This does not provide a reliable criterion to distinguish between a good God and an evil Demon. The evil Demon could do evil but we mortals would judge that it must be good because He must have some hidden good reason for His actions. A truly good God wouldn’t need this argument to protect Him from the judgments of humans because His actions would be so obviously good to us that there would be no “mystery” as there appears to be with the Christian God.

BAHNSEN:
And the question with which Adam and Eve were confronted way back then was precisely the question which unbelievers face today: should we have faith in God's word simply on His say-so, or should we evaluate God and His word on the basis of our own ultimate intellectual and moral authority?


POWELL:
If that were really the choice, between the Word of an Omnibeing vs. our own intellectual and moral authority then Bahnsen might have something. However, it's not really "God's word vs. man's word" but it's "the interpretation of the Bible or views of certain men who claim to represent God" vs. "the interpretation of the Bible or views of other men." It's not God vs. man, but man vs. man. Bahnsen doesn’t seem to understand that.

If it really were God’s view vs. man’s view then let God come down and tell us clearly what His view is. Oh no, God doesn’t do that, the apologist says, He’s already revealed His will in the Bible and I will tell you what that meaning is. Excuse me, the skeptic justifiably replies, I want to hear it from the horse’s mouth. If I were God I’d make my opinion clear to the world. God should do the same. But God must have some good reason for leaving us partly in the dark, says the apologist . . . and so it goes around and around. It’s like the young child struggling with the fact that his parents are evil.

If God does evil as we understand evil and He’s an Omnibeing then He better give us a good reason for doing it, not just expect us to assume He has a good reason, or we are justified in criticizing Him. That’s my opinion.

John Powell

[Hitch]

I suggest a review of Job.

H

[John Powell]

Hitch:

I suggest a review of Job.

H

POWELL:
Does that mean you think Job is a literally true story including the scenes between God and Satan?

Do you think it was right what happened to the family of Job?

John Powell

[undead]

Bahnsen's argument is bull. He says:


When they are presented with a logically adequate and Biblically supported solution to the problem of evil (viz., God has a morally sufficient but undisclosed reason for the evil that exists), they refuse to accept it, again because of their lack of faith in God. They would rather be left unable to give an account of any moral judgment whatsoever (about things being good or evil) than to submit to the ultimate and unchallengeable moral authority of God. That is too high a price to pay, both philosophically and personally.


Firstly, When God permits the adulterer to commit adultery, God willed it and purposed it. It is always totally unjusified from any moral angle whatever.

The only conclusion is that the acts of God are above morality. This is the conclusion from Job. The acts of God can't be questioned by man. See also Paul in Romans "Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?", Therefore, when Bahnsen claims "God has a morally sufficient reason", he is talking hogwash. God cannot be subjected to the dictates of human morality. Otherwise, evil would not be evil, but good, because it would be in accordance with morality.

Bahnsen has misunderstood the entire problem of evil. He seems to claim that evil is morally justified, but if it was, it would not be evil. The whole point about evil is that it is immoral and one should never seek to morally justify it from God's point of view, as though God were some kind of human overlord meeting out just judgments in the form of evil to certain people. If you do, the pagan will rightly kick your argument into touch, and disbelieve all the more, because that argument is ludicrous.

What is the solution to the problem of evil? Ultimately, that God is creator and has a right to do with his creation whatever he wants. And just as he has a right to make alive and send goodness, he had the right to take away and bring evil. The reason he does it is inherently bound up in man's continuing rebellion against God and God's desire to make perfect the elect through suffering.

Considerations of morality simply don't enter into the argument. Bahnsen is seriously awry.

[TheFiveSolas]

Undead wrote:

Bahnsen has misunderstood the entire problem of evil. He seems to claim that evil is morally justified...


Bahnsen was most assuredly NOT trying to justify the evil actions of men (i.e., your adulterer example). Nor is Bahnsen trying to say that God is allowed to act evilly simply BECAUSE He is God. You have completely misunderstood what he was saying.

Simply put, Bahnsen was showing that unbelievers are unjustified in claiming that God has committed evil actions. He does this by proving that unbelievers have NO objective and universally binding standard by which they can rationally judge ANY of God's (or anyone else's for that matter) actions as being truly evil.

Bahnsen was also defending the view that God is good and just, and therefore when He does something that unbelievers consider "evil", God MUST have a morally justifiable reason for doing whatever the action in question is. In other words, God is NEVER evil in how He acts and unbelievers are mistaken (and without rational ground) when they claim He has.

Hope that made sense. Bahnsen was one of my favorite professors and I couldn't let your misunderstanding of his position go without trying to clear things up.

If you need me to explicate further, just let me know.

[stevencarrwork]

03-12-2003 @ 11:11 PM
undead:

Bahnsen's argument is bull. He says:


When they are presented with a logically adequate and Biblically supported solution to the problem of evil (viz., God has a morally sufficient but undisclosed reason for the evil that exists), they refuse to accept it, again because of their lack of faith in God.





This defense is also being discussed in the debate between pate and me.

[stevencarrwork]

03-13-2003 @ 03:14 AM
TheFiveSolas:
Simply put, Bahnsen was showing that unbelievers are unjustified in claiming that God has committed evil actions. He does this by proving that unbelievers have NO objective and universally binding standard by which they can rationally judge ANY of God's (or anyone else's for that matter) actions as being truly evil.

Bahnsen was also defending the view that God is good and just, and therefore when He does something that unbelievers consider "evil", God MUST have a morally justifiable reason for doing whatever the action in question is. In other words, God is NEVER evil in how He acts and unbelievers are mistaken (and without rational ground) when they claim He has.



So presumably Bahnsen claims that believers do have grounds for claiming that acts of God are evil.

But , of course , they would never do so.

I seem to recall a Muslim variation of this.

1) Prophets never sin
2) Muhammad was a prophet
3) Therefore, no murder commissioned by Muhammad was sinful
4) As we have shown that nothing done by Muhammad was sinful, this proves that Muhammad was a prophet, as prophets are without sin.

Of course, if Bahnsen truly believes that unbelievers are unjustified in viewing the Holocaust as evil, the only correct response is to back slowly away from him , trying to avoid eye contact.

Suffering can , however, be objectively (if perhaps not always very accurately) measured.

[undead]

03-13-2003 @ 05:06 PM
stevencarrwork:
But, of course , they would never do so.


God claims his own acts are evil, so who are believers to disagree with him?

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].

[John Powell]

undead:
God claims his own acts are evil, so who are believers to disagree with him?


Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].



POWELL:
Where an older translation of scripture makes God look bad in a way that can't be resolved to their satisfaction, you shouldn't be surprised to find newer translations that attempt to resolve it. This verse has been translated by some so that the "evil" implies "physical evil" or calamity like tornadoes and such things, not moral evil.

Did God visit the translators to clarify this is what He meant or did they just decide this on their own?

I'm no expert on these things, but Young's Literal Translation, which tried very hard to make the English translation as literal as possible, says:

Isaiah 45 (YLT):
7 Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I [am] Jehovah, doing all these things.'

John Powell

[undead]

03-14-2003 @ 12:16 AM
John Powell:
Isaiah 45 (YLT):
7 Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I [am] Jehovah, doing all these things.'

John Powell

That certainly adds a new dimenion to Gen 1:1

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God "prepared" the heaven and the earth".


Anyway, evil happens according to God's purpose and will, and since he does not intervene to prevent it, he is as culpable for it as man failing to intervene to save a drowning child. The difference is that God can get away with it, simply because of who he is.

[John Powell]

undead:
That certainly adds a new dimenion to Gen 1:1

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God "prepared" the heaven and the earth".


Anyway, evil happens according to God's purpose and will, and since he does not intervene to prevent it, he is as culpable for it as man failing to intervene to save a drowning child. The difference is that God can get away with it, simply because of who he is.


POWELL:
I think the theist argument is that God needs that evil for some mysterious purpose that no one seems to be able to come up with other than that free will is great and to have free will we must be able to do evil.

I have tried to argue that things for us would be better in the long term (eternity) if we were without free will on Earth, but I haven't had much persuasive success. Perhaps that would be a good debate topic.

John Powell
An athe-ist or strong atheist

[TheFiveSolas]

stevencarrwork wrote:

So presumably Bahnsen claims that believers do have grounds for claiming that acts of God are evil.


Not at all. Bahnsen's argument was that only the Christian worldview (specifically the God revealed in Scripture) can provide the rational foundation for ethics. And since God is the standard by which all actions are judged and has revealed that He is inherently good, it follows (within the Christian worldview) that God cannot commit evil acts.

Now when someone comes along to challenge this they first need to put forth a rational alternative that is both objective and universally binding upon all men.

[John Powell]

THEFIVESOLAS:
Not at all. Bahnsen's argument was that only the Christian worldview (specifically the God revealed in Scripture) can provide the rational foundation for ethics. And since God is the standard by which all actions are judged and has revealed that He is inherently good, it follows (within the Christian worldview) that God cannot commit evil acts.

Now when someone comes along to challenge this they first need to put forth a rational alternative that is both objective and universally binding upon all men.


POWELL:
I take it then that you believe that your Christian moral code is rational, objective, and universally binding. Could you list a few of these principles in your Christian code and explain how they are

1. moral
2. objective
3. universal
and
4. rational

If you can't do that then what justifies you in criticizing an atheist's moral code that might not be all of these things?

I've been told by skeptics that Christians have trouble with this challenge, but I would like to see that personally.

John Powell

[stevencarrwork]

03-14-2003 @ 05:01 AM
TheFiveSolas:
Now when someone comes along to challenge this they first need to put forth a rational alternative that is both objective and universally binding upon all men.


I'm curious to know where the Bible provides a rational foundation for ethics - a word not in the Bible.


Can you tell me why God's commandments (eg He who curses his mother or father shall be put to death - Matthew 15:4) is binding on all men? Because God says so?

Or perhaps you can tell me why what God says is good? Because God says so? This is as circular as if I said that everthing I say is good.

Or is it because God is bigger and might makes right?

And as whatever God does is good, the creation of HIV , smallpox, and rabies by God was good. Please explain why.

Alternatives are easy. Good is whatever I say it is.

This is objective (my sayings are a matter of record) and binding on all men. I admit there are unbelievers who do not accept that, but I say that they are evil, and in my worldview, that is correct.

So my worldview , arguing from my presuppositions, is totally consistent.

[stevencarrwork]

03-14-2003 @ 05:40 AM
John Powell:



POWELL:
I take it then that you believe that your Christian moral code is rational, objective, and universally binding.

I've been told by skeptics that Christians have trouble with this challenge, but I would like to see that personally.



It is easy to see why.

Christians claim some of God's commandments were binding on Jews before Jesus and are no longer binding on Christians.

This makes it very hard for them to claim that all of God's commandments are universally binding on all men.

They can only claim that some of God's commandments are binding on some men, and some are binding on others.

[Jaltus]

First off, let us clear up some exegetical problems.

It does mean "physical evil" or whatever. The word is "evil" for a gloss, but it never refers to moral evil, only natural disaster genre evil. Look it up, if you feel the need.

Next, the word for create in Genesis 1:1 does mean create. The parallel you are taking from Isaiah uses a different word, so you are making an illegitimate lexical transfer (or gloos transfer, as it were).

Now, as to the main concept of this thread, John Powell's argument assumes that God determines everything. The problem is, of course, that most Christians do not hold to such a thing. Taking on the Calvinist concept of God in the PoE argument is easy, but the Arminian view of God has the free will defense, which is quite solid.

Just felt the need to put my $0.10 in, since I left my pennies in my coat.

[stevencarrwork]

03-14-2003 @ 05:55 AM
Jaltus:

First off, let us clear up some exegetical problems.

It does mean "physical evil" or whatever. The word is "evil" for a gloss, but it never refers to moral evil, only natural disaster genre evil. Look it up, if you feel the need.

Next, the word for create in Genesis 1:1 does mean create. The parallel you are taking from Isaiah uses a different word, so you are making an illegitimate lexical transfer (or gloos transfer, as it were).


Thanks for that clarification. What is the word for 'create' in Isaiah 45:7? 'Is it 'bara'?

What is the Hebrew name for the Book of Genesis? Is it 'barashit' from the first two words? (bara means create, of course)

And what is the word for 'evil' in Isaiah 45:7? Is it 'ra'? What is the word for evil in Genesis 2:9, when talking about the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

[stevencarrwork]

Let us not forget what the Christian worldview says.

It says there are powerful demons, capable of deceiving us, and highly motivated to deceive us.

So Christians cannot even claim that their memories of what the Bible says is objective, as they claim Satan can change their memories, to deceive us.

So there goes any attempt at building an objective Christian world view.

[John Powell]

stevencarrwork:
Thanks for that clarification. What is the word for 'create' in Isaiah 45:7? 'Is it 'bara'?

What is the Hebrew name for the Book of Genesis? Is it 'barashit' from the first two words? (bara means create, of course)

And what is the word for 'evil' in Isaiah 45:7? Is it 'ra'? What is the word for evil in Genesis 2:9, when talking about the tree of knowledge of good and evil?


POWELL:
It looks like it's also "ra." So, evidently the "evil" in Isa 45:7 is the same word as the "evil" in Gen 2:9. Whether they mean the same thing in both contexts is another question.

John Powell

[Jaltus]

Yup. My bad, Steven (or do you go by Steve?).

Of course, nobody dealt with the main thrust of my post, but I have no problem finishing off the side issue first.

[stevencarrwork]

03-14-2003 @ 06:46 AM
Jaltus:

Yup. My bad, Steven (or do you go by Steve?).

Of course, nobody dealt with the main thrust of my post, but I have no problem finishing off the side issue first.

Your main point appeared to be that the words in Isaiah 45 were not the one the Genesis - a claim not borne out by the Bible.

Your other point is a question for Christians to settle among themselves.

[Jaltus]

Actually, I was thinking that John Powell could narrow his argument (to be against the Calvinist idea of God) or else widen it (to include all Christian conceptions of God).

[John Powell]

Jaltus:

Actually, I was thinking that John Powell could narrow his argument (to be against the Calvinist idea of God) or else widen it (to include all Christian conceptions of God).

POWELL:
It needs to be somewhat narrow. I would surely NOT want to widen it to include ALL Christian conceptions of God because my own former Mormon belief would not feel serious danger from the argument. To me God was very very knowledgeable, powerful, and good, not the philosophical superlatives of these.

John Powell

[Chappie]

BAHNSEN:
The "problem" of evil has not always been properly understood by Christian apologists. They have sometimes reduced the difficulty of the unbeliever's challenge to Christianity by conceiving of the problem of evil as simply the angry presentation of evidence contrary to the alleged goodness of God. It is as though believers profess God's goodness, but then unbelievers have their counterexamples. Who makes the best case from the facts around us? The problem is presented (inaccurately) as a matter of who has weightier evidence on his side of the disagreement.

POWELL:
I disagree. I think it’s a good idea to treat this as a court case in which the Christian God is on trial with Christian apologists defending and religious skeptics prosecuting Him for alleged crimes. The Christian refuses to put their own God on trial claiming, evidently, that He is above reproach. An OmniGod would not be bothered by having His behavior challenged.

Powell, I believe that God is above reproach in that any attempt to reproach him will ultimately result in failure. But I also believe that it is because God is above that God does not have a problem with men putting him on trial.

Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.
- show in context -

Placing God on trial was precisely what the theme of the book of Job is all about. When God's goodness and righteousness was called into question by Job, God came down and defended himself.

When God came down to judge Sodom & Gomorrah, Abraham called God's righteousness into question.

23And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?

God reasoned with both Job and Abraham.. God never uses his righteousness as opposed to our unrighteousness as a source of pride or arrogance. God loves it when men place him on trial, he walks into the judgment hall with a smile, and he leaves with an even bigger smile, because he has nothing to hide.
[ Walking in the light ] This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.
1 John 1:4-6 (in Context) 1 John 1 (Whole Chapter)

He is excellent on the witness stand. Men are converted to Christ because of his righteousness when men place God on trial. Men have been converted while trying to prove that he does not exist…

[shunyadragon]

Powell, I believe that God is above reproach in that any attempt to reproach him will ultimately result in failure. But I also believe that it is because God is above that God does not have a problem with men putting him on trial.

Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.
- show in context -

Placing God on trial was precisely what the theme of the book of Job is all about. When God's goodness and righteousness was called into question by Job, God came down and defended himself.

When God came down to judge Sodom & Gomorrah, Abraham called God's righteousness into question.

23And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?

God reasoned with both Job and Abraham.. God never uses his righteousness as opposed to our unrighteousness as a source of pride or arrogance. God loves it when men place him on trial, he walks into the judgment hall with a smile, and he leaves with an even bigger smile, because he has nothing to hide.
[ Walking in the light ] This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.
1 John 1:4-6 (in Context) 1 John 1 (Whole Chapter)

He is excellent on the witness stand. Men are converted to Christ because of his righteousness when men place God on trial. Men have been converted while trying to prove that he does not exist…Understanding good and evil from the perspective of a Stone Age God in the OT is a problem, because God in th OT does appear to perform some pretty nasty violent acts. I do not believe taking the view that God's actions are above reproach and judgement. The more realistic view is that the OT is the Stone Age view of God or Gods common all over the world and does not represent the reality of God. The OT image of the anthropomorphic cruel, vindictive jealous warrior sandbox God is truely absurd in today's world and just gives fuel to the good argument atheists have against God.

From the Baha'i perspective evil is not a problem. Part of the nature of existence is the cyclic birth, life and death that involves physical suffering. Things like the Holocaust, Cambodian ethnic cleansing are neither caused or not caused by God. Natural disasters come and go without any consequence to the journey of the soul. God does not interceed on behalf of one person or many in the natural course of events. The journey of the soul, spiritual suffering, and what we may call salvation are not related to earthly physical and natural suffering, which of themselves is not evil.

There are not any demons led by a lesser evil God bent on decieving and corrupting humanity except in the foolish Greco-Roman mythology of traditional Christianity.

Explanations and justifications for God's actions are not necessary when we look out into existence and witness a very nature way that our lives and the history of existence happens.

God is not the chess player with the white pieces.
God is the sea and we are the fishes.

[HRG_new]

Placing God on trial was precisely what the theme of the book of Job is all about. When God's goodness and righteousness was called into question by Job, God came down and defended himself.

However, this defense amounted in the end only to "Shut up, I am stronger than you".

[Calvinist4Him]

POWELL:
I'm thinking that evil doesn't exist outside of the minds of man and God. Physical things exist. Good and evil are subjective value judgments put upon ideas and physical things.

And where did Bahnsen suggest that evil exists outside of the minds of bodies (whether they be flesh or spiritual)?

And as for subjective value judgements, I ask, why should you not act upon desires which you might consider evil if they benifit or please or seem good to you?

But even more puzzling, I think, for the moral relativist, and the cultural relativist, is the question concerning how a person can make value judgements in the first instance? IOW, by what standard is good good and evil evil? Do we not rely upon another standard which judges between the two? I think the other standard which judges between values is the conscience...and objective values are accounted for only through the invisible voice of God speaking to the invisible conscience.

[HRG_new]

Placing God on trial was precisely what the theme of the book of Job is all about. When God's goodness and righteousness was called into question by Job, God came down and defended himself.

But this defense consisted essentially of "Shut up - I'm stronger than you!".

[shunyadragon]

And where did Bahnsen suggest that evil exists outside of the minds of bodies (whether they be flesh or spiritual)?

And as for subjective value judgements, I ask, why should you not act upon desires which you might consider evil if they benifit or please or seem good to you?

But even more puzzling, I think, for the moral relativist, and the cultural relativist, is the question concerning how a person can make value judgements in the first instance? IOW, by what standard is good good and evil evil? Do we not rely upon another standard which judges between the two? I think the other standard which judges between values is the conscience...and objective values are accounted for only through the invisible voice of God speaking to the invisible conscience.If your going bring in an invisible voice of God speaking to the conscience to account for objective values, than that explains everything world wide. There is no need for Divine Revelation, God can whisper his wishes in everyones ear to reveal his message of objective morality. The apparent universality of moral and ethical standards was demonstrated in the thread where I presented the Six-Nation Iroquois Native American culture as equal or superior to anything in Judeo-Christian heratage before 1840. Moral and ethical standards appear to be somewaht universal with humanity regardless of religious persuation.

[learning]

POWELL:
I'm thinking that evil doesn't exist outside of the minds of man and God. Physical things exist. Good and evil are subjective value judgments put upon ideas and physical things.



learning:
I would think normally you could say that , (concerning evil) but I have heard of a music group (and they weren't a religious group, just a bunch of guys who were singers) who went over to sing and entertain some of our Canadian peace keeping troops in Bosnia a few years ago. They were interviewing these singers on what is was like over there, and one guy said something that stuck in my mind. He said 'The evil was so thick over there you could feel it or taste it.' Now this was back a few years ago when the terrible killing was going on and had mostly stopped, but the threat of it was still great.

I do believe that we can sometimes sense when something evil is going to happen. Many people have said this when walking down a street when they feel someone is about to rob them or something. Many women have sensed this before they were abused. Sometimes children sense evil when a supposed nice neighbor is being 'too nice' and we are told now, to tell children to trust their feelings if they sense something is 'not right' with anyone, whether they know that person or not, they can leave or refuse to sit on someone's lap. etc.

[Calvinist4Him]

If your going bring in an invisible voice of God speaking to the conscience to account for objective values, than that explains everything world wide.

No, because the inclusion of the invisible voice of God does not exlude other invisible voices...like the invisible voice of Satan for example. And there are other factors to consider...

There is no need for Divine Revelation, God can whisper his wishes in everyones ear to reveal his message of objective morality.

I disagree. You are assuming that everyone or anyone can hear the invisible voice of God as clear as a bell, but I would argue that such is not the case. The effects of sin on the heart and mind of fallen humanity should be taken into account when referring to the Christian concept of God, and the nature of man according to Christianity.

The apparent universality of moral and ethical standards was demonstrated in the thread where I presented the Six-Nation Iroquois Native American culture as equal or superior to anything in Judeo-Christian heratage before 1840.

Superior? :lmbo: Maybe in your mind...

Moral and ethical standards appear to be somewaht universal with humanity regardless of religious persuation.

I would agree with C. S. Lewis, who said something to the effect that although there are differences in different cultures, the differences do not amount to a total difference.

[Chappie]

But this defense consisted essentially of "Shut up - I'm stronger than you!".

If that is all that you got of reading the book, might I suggest another reading. This time study more so than read...