Fiction & Theodicies

[Kane]

And all you got to do is attend a child psychology class or go and turn on the TV to see what happens when one spoils children.

Your evidence that "God's interventions to stop evil would spoil humanity" is to tell me to attend a child psychology class or watch TV. You are not furnishing me with evidence to support your claim; you are pleading with me to do the work of sussing out the evidence to support your claim. You have to do that yourself.

What 'evil' are we talking about God ending?

Not to sound greedy, but let's just start with all of it.

Why is it all God's fault that we refuse to listen to what he told us to do to start with?

Didn't your God set up the conditions under which people inevitably refused to listen? Your God is at fault because he throws aeons-long temper tantrums over his people living out the parameters he set up.

So you have not come across the idea that a parent that doesn't discipline their children and simply takes care of their every need doesn't end up being some of the most spoiled brats around? Just Google 'spoiled children' and see the results you get, you end up with children that can't function and have serious emotional and behavioral issues. Why do you suppose that is?

Again, why do you parallel God and parents and their methodologies as if they're on the same level? How does your analogy between God and parents even apply, given the nature of God and the "fallen" nature of humanity in Christian theology?

Successful sure, if you ignore the millions starving to death all over the world, the easily preventable and curable diseases that people suffer and die from every single day, or the millions that are forced into slavery by human trafficking then yeah... we are quite successful. Let me ask you this one Kane, if we followed this:

James 2:14-17, NIV

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

would the world wouldn't be how it is currently?

Are you sure you read what I wrote correctly?

Since I do not believe God works that way nor is that the current goal of this world. Remember, Christians do not believe that our current situation is all there is, but believe this is just a tiny part of the picture, so even if one lives 100 years, what is 100 years compared to eternity?

Of course you don't believe God works that way because, if you did, you would have the same questions I do about his refusal to stop the tide of events he set in motion.

Too bad I'm not an atheist and vote for 2 instead. Perhaps you can explain why you pick 3 because I do think sean is right here. I think you are largely emotionally involved here to such a degree that it clouds your reasoning

You are making assumptions, and not arguing your position. Deal with the topic, please, rather than attempting to parse my personal states.

plus if there is no God, why is evil or suffering wrong?

Because as a species, we understand that that which acts against our personal welfare damages our chances to survive. So we apply a category called 'morality' to such questions of welfare and detriment in order to discuss such things reasonably.

Isn’t that just how things are and we should learn to just ‘deal with it’?

It's obvious that that's how things are. But what do you mean by "just 'deal with it'"?

The fact you think something is wrong here indicates a problem with the fundamental nature of how the world currently is, but how can there be such a problem if the world is all that exist?

If you have a vested interest in your own continuance, I'm sure you can figure out an answer to your own question without having to rely on a three-letter answer; i.e., God.

How can the fundamental nature of the world be wrong? Perhaps the reason you believe something is wrong with the world is because something really is wrong with the world?

I haven't said there's anything wrong with the world. You have. That is your own Christian ideology speaking. I agree that some things act against our comforts and survival; I also agree that that's the way things are. I do what I can to act against destructive occurrences. But my motivations and actions aren't on the docket. Your allegedly existent God's are. So let's stick with the subject: provide evidence that God's interventions against evil would spoil humanity.

[lilpixieofterror]

Your evidence that "God's interventions to stop evil would spoil humanity" is to tell me to attend a child psychology class or watch TV. You are not furnishing me with evidence to support your claim; you are pleading with me to do the work of sussing out the evidence to support your claim. You have to do that yourself.

Well Kane, I do find it quite amazing that I seriously need to support the idea with anything beyond observation because what is 'evil' in your view? I've known some children that thing it is evil for their parents to make them eat their veggies, so should God respond to such a request or are you asking why should God stop people from doing their free will and ignoring what they were told to do anyway? Again, God gave us a code to live by, so do you think God should force people to live by this code? Is that what you are getting at? Basically, what is 'evil'? Quantify it and explain, in detail why X action is evil, but Y is not. Can you do that and back it up with evidence beyond your opinion? Likewise, do you want God to make us into mindless robots that can neither do good nor evil, but simply obey?

Not to sound greedy, but let's just start with all of it.

So God should prevent parents from grounding their children because many kids find that as evil? See my point? We need to know what is 'evil' and what isn't 'evil' because we can even begin to ask for all of this.

Didn't your God set up the conditions under which people inevitably refused to listen? Your God is at fault because he throws aeons-long temper tantrums over his people living out the parameters he set up.

So it is all God's fault that people do what they want to do instead of making us all mindless robots that are forced to obey and can only obey? Is that really what you want, a God that acts like the ultra strict parent that never lets their kids do anything?

Again, why do you parallel God and parents and their methodologies as if they're on the same level? How does your analogy between God and parents even apply, given the nature of God and the "fallen" nature of humanity in Christian theology?

Because just as children are allowed to disobey their parents and do their own things, so are we. God already gave us good advice in how to live our lives and what we should and shouldn't do within it. So it is all God's fault that people refuse to listen? So again, you want the God that is the ultra strict parent that steps in whenever you believe something bad is about to happen. Nice... so again, have you actually watched the movie Bruce Almighty? How well did the whole 'answering everybody’s prayers' work out in the movie?

Are you sure you read what I wrote correctly?

Sure and you are trying to blame God, just as the child tries to blame their parents for why they did what they did. Just as a parent didn't tell their child to go out and get themselves drunk, God didn't tell us to go out and do bad things, did he? Nope, he gave us plenty of tips in how to live a better life and how to deal with evil in our world. Instead of whining about it, perhaps you should... follow the advice already given instead of complaining that God doesn't solve every problem, for us?

Of course you don't believe God works that way because, if you did, you would have the same questions I do about his refusal to stop the tide of events he set in motion.

No, I asked those questions and found them to be rather silly and thus I moved onto something more productive because it was not God that told me to lie to my parents, I did it. It was not God that told me to disobey his commandments and attempt to plot my own way, it was me. It was not God that told Hitler to start a war that killed at least 100 million people, Hitler made that choice all by himself. God instead said to "love one another as we love ourselves" to put faith into action instead of 'wishing others well'. I know it is crazy, but instead of throwing a fit about the evil in our lives, perhaps we should follow the advice God gave us instead of simply whining that he didn't act like a nanny God? I married somebody with a disability because of that good advice. Why should I not consider him as a good partner just because he has a disability? Shouldn't I love him as I love myself and let whatever happens between us, happen (which is interesting that God tells us that we need to love ourselves too)? Shouldn't I put my faith into action and actively help him with his disability, instead of just moving on and finding somebody that isn't a 'broken good'? See, that is the good advice God gave us that I decided to follow and just think what would happen if we all decided to do the same. Would the world be how it is today? Again, instead of whining about it, put faith into action and DO something about it.

You are making assumptions, and not arguing your position. Deal with the topic, please, rather than attempting to parse my personal states.

Sure I am, you are just too caught up in this nonsense to see anything else. You complain that God 'does nothing', but totally ignore the fact he gave us good advice to follow and then you blame him that we do not follow it instead of looking at ourselves and learning it is OUR personal failures that are to blame, not God's. You basically want the ultra strict God that prevents every sort of perceived evil in the world, including preventing good parents from disciplining their children.

Because as a species, we understand that that which acts against our personal welfare damages our chances to survive. So we apply a category called 'morality' to such questions of welfare and detriment in order to discuss such things reasonably.

And yet, we all die and our species will, sooner or later, die off and just be a whisper in the winds of time in the atheist world view. So why not do whatever you want and just learn how not to get caught?

It's obvious that that's how things are. But what do you mean by "just 'deal with it'"?

That is just what I mean, instead of whining about it, do something about it.

If you have a vested interest in your own continuance, I'm sure you can figure out an answer to your own question without having to rely on a three-letter answer; i.e., God.

And as I pointed out, the logical conclusion to atheism is we all become worm-dirt and we all die a meaningless death and our species, sooner or later, will be forgotten and a nature will not miss us. That is the logical conclusion of atheism that amazingly, most atheists ignore. I wonder why...

I haven't said there's anything wrong with the world. You have. That is your own Christian ideology speaking. I agree that some things act against our comforts and survival; I also agree that that's the way things are. I do what I can to act against destructive occurrences. But my motivations and actions aren't on the docket. Your allegedly existent God's are. So let's stick with the subject: provide evidence that God's interventions against evil would spoil humanity.

I already did and you simply ignore the answer and expect me to bring forth piles of evidence for something that is confirmed though simple observation. Have you not noticed that those that had parents that did everything for them can't function in the real world and have serious emotional and behavioral problems that last all of their lives? The funny thing is that the ultra-strict God you seem to be wanting to advocate also would cause serious emotional and behavioral problems too, so really, the only way you could prevent this would be well... to make all of humanity into mindless robots that simply did what they are told (you can volunteer to be first, if you so desire). Sure, it would be a world without evil, but one without good either. See, I have thought about this issue far more then you seem to think I did because this is where your argument would logically lead, so what one do you choose?

[Kane]

Well Kane, I do find it quite amazing that I seriously need to support the idea with anything beyond observation because what is 'evil' in your view?

What is evil, in my view? That which acts against our personal welfare and damages our chances of survival, or stops it altogether.

So it is all God's fault that people do what they want to do instead of making us all mindless robots that are forced to obey and can only obey? Is that really what you want, a God that acts like the ultra strict parent that never lets their kids do anything?

You can't think of a middle ground? It's either robot-people or free-willing nonchalants the whole way? Your scriptures suggest a middle way in Genesis: God being fully bodily present to his children. I think I'm a better parent than your God: I don't hide myself away for aeons just because my kids did something I told them not to. Instead, I continue to walk and talk with them. I don't sacrifice any of them to make the rest of them fear me and love me more; I don't have other people tell them vague things I've said that, assumedly, are for their betterment. By doing as much (and not doing as much, just to keep with the contrast), I have struck up a middle-ground between their wills and mine, their preferences and mine. It seems to me your God could do with some parenting lessons.

Because just as children are allowed to disobey their parents and do their own things, so are we. God already gave us good advice in how to live our lives and what we should and shouldn't do within it. So it is all God's fault that people refuse to listen? So again, you want the God that is the ultra strict parent that steps in whenever you believe something bad is about to happen. Nice... so again, have you actually watched the movie Bruce Almighty? How well did the whole 'answering everybody’s prayers' work out in the movie?

You want me to take from a light-hearted, entirely silly movie a parallel with Christian free-will theology, and then somehow realise that because Bruce got a little stressed-out and things went wonky, that your omnimax deity couldn't handle granting everyone's desire to not have evil in the world? Is your all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God so incompetent that he couldn't rise above the level of a Tom Shadyac/Jim Carrey portrayal?

Sure and you are trying to blame God, just as the child tries to blame their parents for why they did what they did. Just as a parent didn't tell their child to go out and get themselves drunk, God didn't tell us to go out and do bad things, did he?

Ever read the Old Testament? Are you going to tell me that God didn't tell people and animals to go out and do bad things? Or is it because it was God that unleashed she-bears on children that he gets a free pass? It's not bad because God did it?

Nope, he gave us plenty of tips in how to live a better life and how to deal with evil in our world. Instead of whining about it, perhaps you should... follow the advice already given instead of complaining that God doesn't solve every problem, for us?

Again, my contention was for you to prove your assertion that God's removal of evil would spoil humanity? Because, definitionally, removing the bad and keeping the good isn't spoiling anything at all. In fact, it's quite the opposite. One could very easily argue that being spoiled is a 'bad' or 'evil' thing, and that for God to not prevent that, too, would mean that he is incapable of eradicating evil; that humanity is, in fact, spoiled already because there is evil. That is, afterall, what the notion of sin attests to: that humanity is already spoiled. So I don't think you really have a point when you suggest that humanity would be spoiled if God removed evil. That assertion is kind of like suggesting that rotten apples would be worse-off if the rot was cut out of them. It's contradictory.

No, I asked those questions and found them to be rather silly and thus I moved onto something more productive because it was not God that told me to lie to my parents, I did it. It was not God that told me to disobey his commandments and attempt to plot my own way, it was me. It was not God that told Hitler to start a war that killed at least 100 million people, Hitler made that choice all by himself. God instead said to "love one another as we love ourselves" to put faith into action instead of 'wishing others well'. I know it is crazy, but instead of throwing a fit about the evil in our lives, perhaps we should follow the advice God gave us instead of simply whining that he didn't act like a nanny God? I married somebody with a disability because of that good advice. Why should I not consider him as a good partner just because he has a disability? Shouldn't I love him as I love myself and let whatever happens between us, happen (which is interesting that God tells us that we need to love ourselves too)? Shouldn't I put my faith into action and actively help him with his disability, instead of just moving on and finding somebody that isn't a 'broken good'? See, that is the good advice God gave us that I decided to follow and just think what would happen if we all decided to do the same. Would the world be how it is today? Again, instead of whining about it, put faith into action and DO something about it.

Yes, the same petition to "do something about it" is equally levied against your God as it is from you to me. The difference is one of scope: your God can deal with it all, allegedly. I can deal with one thing at a time, to varying degrees of success and failure. Given our relative levels of competence, tell me, who is more responsible to see an end to evil?

And yet, we all die and our species will, sooner or later, die off and just be a whisper in the winds of time in the atheist world view. So why not do whatever you want and just learn how not to get caught?

Because that's not how I enjoy living my life.

And as I pointed out, the logical conclusion to atheism is we all become worm-dirt and we all die a meaningless death and our species, sooner or later, will be forgotten and a nature will not miss us. That is the logical conclusion of atheism that amazingly, most atheists ignore. I wonder why...

Yes, you're right: for some atheists that is the logical conclusion. But the wonderful thing about not believing in the supernatural is that it doesn't stop a variety of perspectives from happening in the natural. Which is to say, there is no one perspectives among atheists about the meaning of life. Atheists are largely agreed about one thing, and one thing only: that there is no God/gods. After that, it's a potpourri, baby!

I already did and you simply ignore the answer and expect me to bring forth piles of evidence for something that is confirmed though simple observation. Have you not noticed that those that had parents that did everything for them can't function in the real world and have serious emotional and behavioral problems that last all of their lives?

Beyond movies and television, I've never known anyone, anyone, whose parents did everything for them.

The funny thing is that the ultra-strict God you seem to be wanting to advocate also would cause serious emotional and behavioral problems too

Well, the allegedly "true" religion of Christianity that God left in his stead doesn't seem to be turning out more emotionally and behaviourally suitable people. So despite God's lackadaisical approach so far, people don't seem to be getting better emotional and behavioural results? Now what? The ultra-strict God would cause problems, in your estimation, and the lackadaisical God seems to cause problems, too. God's a trouble-maker. Seems better just to ignore him until he goes away, don't you think?

so really, the only way you could prevent this would be well... to make all of humanity into mindless robots that simply did what they are told (you can volunteer to be first, if you so desire). Sure, it would be a world without evil, but one without good either. See, I have thought about this issue far more then you seem to think I did because this is where your argument would logically lead, so what one do you choose?

First, I haven't made any judgments on how much you've thought about this issue. I don't know you, or what you spend your time doing (other than TWeb), so please don't make assumptions about my estimations of you.

Second, I had a wonderfully imaginative idea when I was in bible college. I was confronted with the same robot/free-will conclusion that you're putting in front of me now. So I proposed to my theology professor, at the time, that the absence of evil in the world doesn't necessarily preclude free-will; it just means that people would choose freely between things that are good. And because my professor suggested at the time that there would be no 'good' just as there would be no 'evil,' I stated that that is simply not the case if we are to read carefully what the bible states: that God made creation, he made people and he declared them 'good' and 'very good' before 'evil' was ever an issue.

So now I ask you, how would the removal of evil preclude free-will if God had already declared what he created 'good' before evil was ever an issue?

[JimL]

lilpixieofterror: So it is all God's fault that people do what they want to do instead of making us all mindless robots that are forced to obey and can only obey? Is that really what you want, a God that acts like the ultra strict parent that never lets their kids do anything?

If we can achieve the free willed perfection that the Christian God apparently wants from us in order to recieve his promised reward of eternal bliss, then he could have created us that way in the first place. And if you disagree, then explain to me how we can achieve in ourselves what God could not achieve in our making?

[robertb]

If we can achieve the free willed perfection that the Christian God apparently wants from us in order to recieve his promised reward of eternal bliss, then he could have created us that way in the first place. And if you disagree, then explain to me how we can achieve in ourselves what God could not achieve in our making?

Doesn't the "Christian God" give one a get out of jail free card for the belief in Jesus Christ? Thus, is the Christian God really asking one to "achieve free will perfection" as you say?

[lilpixieofterror]

What is evil, in my view? That which acts against our personal welfare and damages our chances of survival, or stops it altogether.

And what is your 'personal welfare'? Lots of people have different degrees of what endangers their personal welfare and damages their chances of survival because there actually is many kids that do find having to eat their veggies against their 'personal welfare'.

You can't think of a middle ground? It's either robot-people or free-willing nonchalants the whole way?

Since most of the evil in our world is caused by our own choices, then the best and fastest way to take care of evil is the element that causes us to choose evil, mainly our free will. If you think that is wrong, go check out your local news and see how many problems are caused by 'natural evil' and how many are caused by 'human evil'. Even the most destructive natural disaster in American history (the Hurricane in Galveston, TX) or world history (The China flood that killed about 1.5 million) pales in comparison to the 70 million or more killed in WWII or the Mongols that killed 60 million or more during their invasion of India or let us not forget WWI in which over a million people died in one battle. So if you look at the facts, we seem to do a far better job of killing one another then 'natural evil' does.

Your scriptures suggest a middle way in Genesis: God being fully bodily present to his children. I think I'm a better parent than your God: I don't hide myself away for aeons just because my kids did something I told them not to. Instead, I continue to walk and talk with them. I don't sacrifice any of them to make the rest of them fear me and love me more; I don't have other people tell them vague things I've said that, assumedly, are for their betterment. By doing as much (and not doing as much, just to keep with the contrast), I have struck up a middle-ground between their wills and mine, their preferences and mine. It seems to me your God could do with some parenting lessons.

And yet... you are ignoring reality and history. If you haven't noticed, Adam and Eve still sinned and they still did things they shouldn't do and by extension, caused harm to themselves and others, even when God was with them. Even then, it seems the only way to rid the world of evil is to take care of the problem of our will to choose evil instead of God. Next, you whine that God isn't present for all these events and yet again, my parents are not watching me right now and preventing me from doing things, did your parents act that way towards you? The parents I know that were overly strict have children with some serious psychological problems in their later lives. Again, even with my parents physically present and physically alive, all they could do is teach me right and wrong and hope I make that right decision because they can't watch over me all the time and even if they could, should they?

You want me to take from a light-hearted, entirely silly movie a parallel with Christian free-will theology, and then somehow realise that because Bruce got a little stressed-out and things went wonky, that your omnimax deity couldn't handle granting everyone's desire to not have evil in the world? Is your all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God so incompetent that he couldn't rise above the level of a Tom Shadyac/Jim Carrey portrayal?

In other words, you just ignore the point and whine and think you know more than an all knowing and all loving God. Again, it is pretty close to reality because what happened when everybody got their desires and wishes? Chaos and why did chaos happen? Perhaps because God knows better than you and I and knows what we need better then we know? Again, just as parents often times know what their children need more than we do, so does God.

Ever read the Old Testament? Are you going to tell me that God didn't tell people and animals to go out and do bad things? Or is it because it was God that unleashed she-bears on children that he gets a free pass? It's not bad because God did it?

Again, who made the decision to assault a prophet? It seems you want to give humanity a free pass and blame God for the decisions humans make... it wasn't God that told the pagan religions to kill their children in sacrifices to false gods, it was humans that did it. Again, why are you ignoring that little fact?

Again, my contention was for you to prove your assertion that God's removal of evil would spoil humanity?

And you have just ignored where you are wrong at and sound like a pouting child that is mad that God doesn't do things the way you want, in order to exist. Did you stop to think the very reason I have such a wonderful and caring person as a husband is because of what he has gone through in life? Again, I would think and all knowing and all loving God knows far more what we need in our lives then you or I do, do you think you know more than an all knowing and all loving God?

Because, definitionally, removing the bad and keeping the good isn't spoiling anything at all. In fact, it's quite the opposite. One could very easily argue that being spoiled is a 'bad' or 'evil' thing, and that for God to not prevent that, too, would mean that he is incapable of eradicating evil; that humanity is, in fact, spoiled already because there is evil. That is, afterall, what the notion of sin attests to: that humanity is already spoiled. So I don't think you really have a point when you suggest that humanity would be spoiled if God removed evil. That assertion is kind of like suggesting that rotten apples would be worse-off if the rot was cut out of them. It's contradictory.

No, you're just ignoring reality and making up your own reality because you don't like what the facts show. Again, was it you or God that has chosen to do the evil things in your life? Was it God or Hitler that decided to start a war that killed tens of millions of people? Was it God or humanity that chooses to do evil and horrible things to one another? All God did was give us a code to live by and give us the choice to follow that code or not to and it seems you want to blame God because people choose not to follow that code, just as you can't force your children to live by a code, unless you take away your free will, neither can God without removing your free will and thus you miss the point again. Humanity, if God did everything for us and kept our free will would be quite spoiled and yet, you seriously want me to prove this. It is pretty laughable that I have to prove a pretty accurate observation because what happens to children that have parents, whom give them their every desire? Why are you ignoring evidence against your case, just to repeat yourself again? Plus, you don't know if you are right, you just THINK you know more than God and you just IGNORE evidence against your position in which most of evil on the planet is either a direct result of humans or indirectly, humans add to it though our own choices in our lives. Sure, an earthquake is a natural disaster, but why doesn't the US see the destruction from earthquakes that we see in places like India? It is because we have found ways to build stuff here to better withstand earthquakes, while people in India are too poor to do the same. Perhaps if we followed God's commandments to help out those in need, not nearly as many people would die as a result of an earthquake? Again, who is cause or adding onto the evil in our world? God or humanity?

Yes, the same petition to "do something about it" is equally levied against your God as it is from you to me. The difference is one of scope: your God can deal with it all, allegedly. I can deal with one thing at a time, to varying degrees of success and failure. Given our relative levels of competence, tell me, who is more responsible to see an end to evil?

And yet, you want to totally ignore the solutions God would have to use to end evil and simply make up your own solutions because you are personally involved in this and not thinking logically. You bring up the garden of Eden, but totally ignore the fact that even with God directly present in their lives, Adam and Eve still choose to sin. Even if God present with David, David still choose to sin. Even with Jesus performing miracles before the disciples, Peter still denied him 3 times. Again, you just ignore evidence against your case and ignore the problem of evil's source. It is our ability to choose that is the problem so in order for God to fix it, he would have to remove it. Why are you not getting this?

Because that's not how I enjoy living my life.

So you enjoy your life by ignoring the logical conclusion of your own belief system?

Yes, you're right: for some atheists that is the logical conclusion. But the wonderful thing about not believing in the supernatural is that it doesn't stop a variety of perspectives from happening in the natural. Which is to say, there is no one perspectives among atheists about the meaning of life. Atheists are largely agreed about one thing, and one thing only: that there is no God/gods. After that, it's a potpourri, baby!

So many atheist simply ignore the logical conclusion of their belief system and make up whatever makes them feel good and believe it, without evidence, because it makes them feel good. Got to love those that ignore reality and make up their own logic.

Beyond movies and television, I've never known anyone, anyone, whose parents did everything for them.

I've seen it and they are some of the most spoiled, self centered, narcissistic people I've ever known.

Well, the allegedly "true" religion of Christianity that God left in his stead doesn't seem to be turning out more emotionally and behaviourally suitable people.

That is because there is a difference between claiming to be a Christian and actually being one. You were a minister once, you should know as well as I do that just because somebody says they are a Christian, doesn't mean they are one.

So despite God's lackadaisical approach so far, people don't seem to be getting better emotional and behavioural results? Now what?

Sure it does, for those that actually follow it. I know, crazy stuff that people actually have to follow the good advice they are given, who would of ever thought listening and following would be something you have to do, for it to work?

The ultra-strict God would cause problems, in your estimation, and the lackadaisical God seems to cause problems, too. God's a trouble-maker. Seems better just to ignore him until he goes away, don't you think?

No because does ignoring good advice make life better or does it simply seem it might, but it doesn't do a thing, does it? I know it's crazy to believe God actually would expect us to work at things in our life, but try it... it really works.

First, I haven't made any judgments on how much you've thought about this issue. I don't know you, or what you spend your time doing (other than TWeb), so please don't make assumptions about my estimations of you.

You seem to be implying I haven't, such as what you bring up below. You really should read more; this issue has long been debated and long refuted. Even if God present, Adam and Eve still choose to sin, did you notice that little fact?

Second, I had a wonderfully imaginative idea when I was in bible college. I was confronted with the same robot/free-will conclusion that you're putting in front of me now. So I proposed to my theology professor, at the time, that the absence of evil in the world doesn't necessarily preclude free-will; it just means that people would choose freely between things that are good. And because my professor suggested at the time that there would be no 'good' just as there would be no 'evil,' I stated that that is simply not the case if we are to read carefully what the bible states: that God made creation, he made people and he declared them 'good' and 'very good' before 'evil' was ever an issue.

And yet, you are ignoring facts against your case, Adam and Eve, even with God directly present with them, still choose to sin and every character in the Bible, even if God directly present or making his presence obvious to them, still sinned. What did Israel do as soon as Moses left them for a few weeks to go and talk to God, did they worship God or did they build an alter to a false God and begin to worship the idol? Did Moses always do what God asked of him or did he too, sin? Did the disciples sin? Did the prophets sin? Did Adam and Eve sin? If I was your professor, I would have made sure I pointed that little fact out to you and made it plainly obvious that even when God was directly present in all of these people's lives or made his presence known, people still seem to know they know better, just as many teens seem to think they know better than their parents and that they parents don't know what they are up to (I have a sister-in-law that is at that age and she doesn't think any of us know any better either). God gave us the choice to follow his commandments or not to, so it is again God's fault that people choose not to?

So now I ask you, how would the removal of evil preclude free-will if God had already declared what he created 'good' before evil was ever an issue?

That is because at that time, people didn't choose to sin dear, just as your car is not broken at X time, but it is broken at Y time. Again, why are you ignoring facts against your view? Did any character of the Bible always follow God?

[lilpixieofterror]

If we can achieve the free willed perfection that the Christian God apparently wants from us in order to recieve his promised reward of eternal bliss, then he could have created us that way in the first place. And if you disagree, then explain to me how we can achieve in ourselves what God could not achieve in our making?

In other words,

"GOD DOESN'T DO THINGS THE WAY I WANT TO EXIST!!!"

Go ahead and show how God could have given us the choice to obey him or not to and not given us the choice to do evil. I will enjoy watching you twist and spin your way out of this one Jimmy boy.

[JimL]

In other words,

"GOD DOESN'T DO THINGS THE WAY I WANT TO EXIST!!!"

An old and pointless canard lilpix!

Go ahead and show how God could have given us the choice to obey him or not to and not given us the choice to do evil. I will enjoy watching you twist and spin your way out of this one Jimmy boy.

No need to twist and spin, I already suggested it in my previous post. If we ourselves can become a certain way, achieve a certain mindset, then certainly an all powerful creator could have created us with that mindset to begin with. Your answer is that the creator is less powerful than the created, that the creator is incapable of doing what his creation can do. If you make it into your heaven will you not still have free will, will you not still have a choice to do right or wrong? Your answer of course is yes, because free will is the whole point and yet you will always choose the right thing in heaven because you have achieved a certain mindset that predisposes you to make the right choices. Now, if you can end up that way, then you could have been created that way in the first place. God can do anything that it is possible to do, no? So, if it is possible to achieve a certain mindset, then it is possible for a God, who can do anything that it is possible to do, to have created you with that mindset to begin with.
But I did notice lilpix, that as usual, you failed to answer my question. "How is it that we can achieve in ourselves, that which God could not achieve in our making?" Is God less powerful than are we?

[Kane]

LPoT--

Unless you can provide solid evidence that God's interference in evil would spoil humanity, you have nothing further to add to the conversation that advances it in any way. Until you can support your assertion, your point is entirely agnostic; that is, neither knowable or unknowable. It is a trinket adorning the dressed-up agnosticism that is your theology.

What you have offered so far is that observing people provides evidence of evil; and that that's just the way things are because we have free will. What you have not done is furnish solid evidence for your assertion that humanity would be made worse-off if God stepped in and dealt with the problem of evil. That is your challenge. It has been my challenge to you and SeanD this whole time. Until you can provide evidence to support your claim, everything else you write is simply peripheral.

[seanD]

LPoT--
What you have offered so far is that observing people provides evidence of evil; and that that's just the way things are because we have free will. What you have not done is furnish solid evidence for your assertion that humanity would be made worse-off if God stepped in and dealt with the problem of evil. That is your challenge. It has been my challenge to you and SeanD this whole time. Until you can provide evidence to support your claim, everything else you write is simply peripheral.

I did furnish proof, but you’re not looking at it in the full theological perspective I gave to you. The suffering here and now is not so much for the of benefit humanity in general (though I did show you where these basic principles apply to humanity even outside of God’s purpose), but to benefit those who are obedient to God. When a solider goes through rigorous training, he’s not training for ordinary civilian purposes but purposes that have much higher implications -- and in light of that, I gave your scripture to support that theological premise.

[Kane]

I did furnish proof, but you’re not looking at it in the full theological perspective I gave to you. The suffering here and now is not so much for the of benefit humanity in general (though I did show you where these basic principles apply to humanity even outside of God’s purpose), but to benefit those who are obedient to God. When a solider goes through rigorous training, he’s not training for ordinary civilian purposes but purposes that have much higher implications -- and in light of that, I gave your scripture to support that theological premise.

And I countered that the physical challenges that are laid-out for soldiers are not equivalent to enduring moral evils such as rape and murder. A challenge is not equivalent to moral evils.

[JimL]

I did furnish proof, but you’re not looking at it in the full theological perspective I gave to you. The suffering here and now is not so much for the of benefit humanity in general (though I did show you where these basic principles apply to humanity even outside of God’s purpose), but to benefit those who are obedient to God. When a solider goes through rigorous training, he’s not training for ordinary civilian purposes but purposes that have much higher implications -- and in light of that, I gave your scripture to support that theological premise.

Sean, I thought that the claim of christianity was that all men are sinners, disobedient to God; so what do you mean by separating the obedient from the disobedient? Perhaps I am misinterpreting your meaning, but if I have you right, it doesn't seem make a lot of sense.

[seanD]

And I countered that the physical challenges that are laid-out for soldiers are not equivalent to enduring moral evils such as rape and murder. A challenge is not equivalent to moral evils.

The sufferings of the world indeed have a wider scope than the sufferings of the military, as we as human beings know no limits to our evil nature, and those that are obedient to him go through horrible situations with the rest of the world as a result. But the theology is that God gives them guidance and strength to go through it. How much of a factor his help is and our own endurance is impossible to say because it depends on each individual and their own measure of faith.

Sean, I thought that the claim of christianity was that all men are sinners, disobedient to God; so what do you mean by separating the obedient from the disobedient? Perhaps I am misinterpreting your meaning, but if I have you right, it doesn't seem make a lot of sense.

Obedience = repentance and then acknowledging him in all your ways ever after. Christianity 101.

[JimL]

The sufferings of the world indeed have a wider scope than the sufferings of the military, as we as human beings know no limits to our evil nature, and those that are obedient to him go through horrible situations with the rest of the world as a result. But the theology is that God gives them guidance and strength to go through it. How much of a factor his help is and our own endurance is impossible to say because it depends on each individual and their own measure of faith.






Obedience = repentance and then acknowledging him in all your ways ever after. Christianity 101.

So you are not really making a distinction between sinners and non sinners, or the obedient and the disobedient, but between those who acknowledge and repent of their disobedience and those who do not. Now how does this factor in to what you said before? Why is suffering for the benefit of the obedient? On second thought, I think what you probably mean is that suffering is to the benefit of the believers as opposed to the non believers. Is that right? So, everybody suffers, but only the believers benefit from their suffering? By benefit I take you to mean that by suffering they become better people or something like that, the crucible effect so to speak? But why do you think this only applies to christians or believers? Do you think that only christians or believers can become better people? And to repeat a question that I asked lilpix: Don't you think that if we can become better people through suffering that God could have created us that way without the suffering?

[seanD]

So you are not really making a distinction between sinners and non sinners, or the obedient and the disobedient, but between those who acknowledge and repent of their disobedience and those who do not. Now how does this factor in to what you said before? Why is suffering for the benefit of the obedient? On second thought, I think what you probably mean is that suffering is to the benefit of the believers as opposed to the non believers. Is that right? So, everybody suffers, but only the believers benefit from their suffering? By benefit I take you to mean that by suffering they become better people or something like that, the crucible effect so to speak? But why do you think this only applies to christians or believers? Do you think that only christians or believers can become better people? And to repeat a question that I asked lilpix: Don't you think that if we can become better people through suffering that God could have created us that way without the suffering?

As I tried to explain to Kane, there is a general principle that through suffering and adversity, we become stronger and develop better characters (a la the reason behind military training). Of course, this sometimes has the reverse effect. This is a common principle that I honestly thought everyone knew was true. As far as God's specific plans, yes, the suffering only benefits the believer within that context (we can presume since there is no real evidence that there is a grander plan for unbelievers), which is the explanation of why God doesn't stop the evil -- it's ultimately for the benefit of the believers.