The Problem Of Evil?

[mossrose]

I appreciate that but your beliefs are subjective and preconceived.

As are your own.

The point I made and that neither seer or yourself have actually addressed is that if this deity is omniscient It had foreknowledge of what the serpent would do [which poses the question why did It create the serpent?] It also knew exactly what Eve and Adam would do.

It therefore appears to have set up Its creation [humans] to fail and created a problem [i.e. sin] of Its own making and with full foreknowledge.

If this entity is believed to be omniscient then It knows everything, i.e. Past, Present, and Future. And this entity knows [and has known because it is outside time] everything that every single one of Its creations [not just humans] will do and has done.

I think the point has been quite clearly addressed. We (not you) understand that God is omniscient, had complete foreknowledge of what not only the serpent would do, and what Adam and Eve would do, but what every person who ever lived would do.

Not one of us has denied that point. God did not set His creation up to fail, nor did He create the problem. He just KNEW beforehand that it WOULD happen, and created anyway, knowing that the solution to sin, salvation through the death and resurrection of God the Son, would bring about His glory.

You seem to get the concept, but you fail to apply it properly.

[Cow Poke]

I'll wager they are still subjective and still preconceived.

And I'll wager that you're among the nuttiest of the nutty we've had on Tweb.

[Alien]

I think the point has been quite clearly addressed. We (not you) understand that God is omniscient, had complete foreknowledge of what not only the serpent would do, and what Adam and Eve would do, but what every person who ever lived would do.

Not one of us has denied that point. God did not set His creation up to fail, nor did He create the problem. He just KNEW beforehand that it WOULD happen, and created anyway, knowing that the solution to sin, salvation through the death and resurrection of God the Son, would bring about His glory.

You seem to get the concept, but you fail to apply it properly.

I'm wondering if you are putting forward the "best of all possible worlds" idea? That suggests that God couldn't create a better world for reasons we don't understand, and implemented the design that would produce the least possible suffering. It does address the problem, but seems rather unlikely, don't you think?

Also, are you ignoring "natural" evil? That's where a tree falls on someone's head through no fault of the person involved. Or, the suffering of innocents? How about a baby that is born with an incurable physical condition that results in a short life filled with unbearable pain. Difficult to make that a punishment for something the unfortunate infant did, no?

What I'm suggesting is that no amount of salvation, which seems to take effect after our lives are over, will take away that undeserved suffering.

[mossrose]

I'm wondering if you are putting forward the "best of all possible worlds" idea? That suggests that God couldn't create a better world for reasons we don't understand, and implemented the design that would produce the least possible suffering. It does address the problem, but seems rather unlikely, don't you think?

I am putting forward the way it is. I am not imagining another, better world, because what we have is what we have. It is as God made it and I fully believe that He made it according to His will and His sovereign design. I will not suppose that I can remotely know what other designs the Lord may or may not have thought about. He did what He did, according to His own reasons.

Also, are you ignoring "natural" evil? That's where a tree falls on someone's head through no fault of the person involved. Or, the suffering of innocents? How about a baby that is born with an incurable physical condition that results in a short life filled with unbearable pain. Difficult to make that a punishment for something the unfortunate infant did, no?

I'm not ignoring "natural evil". But that is part of fallen creation. Scripture mentions common grace, as in "the rain falls on the just and the unjust", and hence there is common evil, as well. That's what death is.

But you have to take it back the Fall. And God's omniscience and God's sovereignty. And who are we to understand the mind of God? All of this is trying to unscrew the inscrutable.

What I'm suggesting is that no amount of salvation, which seems to take effect after our lives are over, will take away that undeserved suffering.

Salvation takes place in the here and now. Today is the day of salvation! Man is appointed to die once, and after this comes judgment.

And who are we to say who deserves suffering? We all suffer undeservedly.........in our own eyes. Many times we do deserve it. I'm not about to be stupid enough to go play on the freeway, but it is my own fault if I choose to do so and get hurt or dead.

Innocent people suffer, even children. Many not-innocent people do not suffer........now. But their judgment will come, have no doubt.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I think the point has been quite clearly addressed. We (not you) understand that God is omniscient, had complete foreknowledge of what not only the serpent would do, and what Adam and Eve would do, but what every person who ever lived would do.

Correction you "believe" all that. You cannot claim to "understand" the mind of a creator supreme being. To do so would be rather arrogant

Not one of us has denied that point. God did not set His creation up to fail, nor did He create the problem. He just KNEW beforehand that it WOULD happen, and created anyway, knowing that the solution to sin, salvation through the death and resurrection of God the Son, would bring about His glory.

1. You are suggesting this Being intentionally, and with full foreknowledge, did all this?
2. That It deliberately "KNEW beforehand" what suffering would result?
3. And that It would then have to send part of Itself to be tortured and sacrificed to atone for the situation It had knowingly instituted?
4. Meanwhile the suffering and horror would continue for another two thousand years with no signs of any abatement?

I recommend you think about that. That scenario would certainly support Epicurus' conclusion that god is malign, which forms part of the conundrum sometimes called The Epicurus Dilemma, and which was paraphrased for the OP in this thread.

.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I am putting forward the way it is. I am not imagining another, better world, because what we have is what we have. It is as God made it and I fully believe that He made it according to His will and His sovereign design. I will not suppose that I can remotely know what other designs the Lord may or may not have thought about. He did what He did, according to His own reasons.



I'm not ignoring "natural evil". But that is part of fallen creation. Scripture mentions common grace, as in "the rain falls on the just and the unjust", and hence there is common evil, as well. That's what death is.

But you have to take it back the Fall. And God's omniscience and God's sovereignty. And who are we to understand the mind of God? All of this is trying to unscrew the inscrutable.




Salvation takes place in the here and now. Today is the day of salvation! Man is appointed to die once, and after this comes judgment.

And who are we to say who deserves suffering? We all suffer undeservedly.........in our own eyes. Many times we do deserve it. I'm not about to be stupid enough to go play on the freeway, but it is my own fault if I choose to do so and get hurt or dead.

Innocent people suffer, even children. Many not-innocent people do not suffer........now. But their judgment will come, have no doubt.

If "It is as God made it and I fully believe that He made it according to His will and His sovereign design" then God created "natural evil" by knowingly allowing his creation to fail. From that it therefore follows that the Fall need never have happened.

[tabibito]

Correction you "believe" all that. You cannot claim to "understand" the mind of a creator supreme being. To do so would be rather arrogant.

Yet again you seek to impose a meaning on a word (understand) that does not apply in the relevant context of the sentence. No claim was made that the writer understands God.

[Machinist]

Have you every read CS Lewis' "The Problem of Pain?"

No I have not. What does he talk about in the book. It's difficult for me to read books.

I am interested in how God made a Soul.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Yet again you seek to impose a meaning on a word (understand) that does not apply in the relevant context of the sentence. No claim was made that the writer understands God.

No mere mortal can understand [as defined below] the mind [and by that the underlying motives of] a supreme creator being:

Understand:
To perceive the meaning of; grasp the idea of; comprehend:.
to be thoroughly familiar with; apprehend clearly the character, nature, or subtleties of:
to assign a meaning to; interpret:.
to grasp the significance, implications, or importance of:

Nor do I find the god that mossrose believes in particularly attractive.

It had [and has] the power to prevent suffering/misery/horror [aka evil] but did not [and still does not]. It deliberately introduced that "evil" in full foreknowledge of the suffering/misery/horror that would result.

As Epicurus asked then why call it God?

[Machinist]

That is, I am interested to learn, or to understand how God made a Soul. In light of Ex Nihilo, everything came from God. If God gave Adam and Eve an aspect of Himself, and that aspect turned against Him, then there must be some kind of opposing force inherent within God.

[tabibito]

No mere mortal can understand [as defined below] the mind [and by that the underlying motives of] a supreme creator being:

Understand:
To perceive the meaning of; grasp the idea of; comprehend:.
to be thoroughly familiar with; apprehend clearly the character, nature, or subtleties of:
to assign a meaning to; interpret:.
to grasp the significance, implications, or importance of:

Nor do I find the god that mossrose believes in particularly attractive.

It had [and has] the power to prevent suffering/misery/horror [aka evil] but did not [and still does not]. It deliberately introduced that "evil" in full foreknowledge of the suffering/misery/horror that would result.

As Epicurus asked then why call it God?

"We understand that God is omniscient, ..."
the optional "that" shows what is understood - not God himself, but (the concept, as it were) that God is ~. Omitting "that" would not change the fact that no claim had been made to understand God.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

"We understand that God is omniscient, ..."
the optional "that" shows what is understood - not God himself, but (the concept, as it were) that God is ~. Omitting "that" would not change the fact that no claim had been made to understand God.

That an individual claims to understands that this entity is omniscient does nothing to alter my later comments on this malevolent entity and who wants that for a god?.

[tabibito]

That an individual claims to understands that this entity is omniscient does nothing to alter my later comments on this malevolent entity and who wants that for a god?.

If you are half as educated as you claim about such matters you will be well aware of the origins of the concept of God's omniscience (as knowing absolutely everything).

[Sparko]

I fully understand what you have written but I do not think it is apt. There is no comparison between a human parent and a theological construct or concept.

The difference being that I do not exist outside time and I am not omniscient.

Then you have no business criticizing how God is handling the problem of evil.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

If you are half as educated as you claim about such matters you will be well aware of the origins of the concept of God's omniscience (as knowing absolutely everything).

Had you bothered to read back through the last few pages of this thread you would know that that is the point I have been making.

This entity deliberately, and with foreknowledge, set up Its creation [humans] to fail, while being cognisant of the horror and misery that would ensue. It then somewhat perversely, and again with foreknowledge, sent part of Itself to be tortured and sacrificed to undo a situation It had set up.

One wonders what Dr Freud would have made of all that.