BE solves the problem of evil
- Thread starter mighty_duck
- Start date
- Status
God isn't omnipotent. He can only do that which is doable. For example, He cannot travel into the future because it doesn't exist yet. He can not travel back into the past because it is done and gone forever. God can not make a rock so big that He, Himself can not lift it because God can not do the irrational. God is omnicompetent, not omnipotent.mighty_duck said:
No it's not. Lucifer rebelled in heaven and then 1/3rd of the angels rebelled and followed him. Also, during the end times we find the following verse in Revelation 12:7,8 - "And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer."
Last edited by a moderator:
aharvey said:
The beginning, but not the end. By fear, we initially come to The Lord, because we realize we've sinned, and we deserve punishment, but after that, we develop a relationship with Him, and seek Him, and seek to understand His ways, and we are thankful that He loves us, and sent His Son to atone for our sins, so that we may live in eternal paradise with Him, and not apart from Him. By what reason someone would choose not to love Him, I do not know.
sentientsynth
New member
:chuckle:mighty_duck said:
Agreed.
Yes.
Well, I wouldn't say that I worship out of fear. I worship out of a spirit of adoption. God is my Father. But I try to always keep in mind the terror of the Lord.
God is like a lion. Beautiful, powerful, and wonderfully deadly. He's been good to me, for no other reason than because He wanted to. But to others, whose sins aren't covered by the blood of Christ, it is going to be very terrible to find themselves in His hand.
Anyway, I don't think it was your aim to get into theology per se, but that's how I see it.
mighty_duck
New member
I agree. Some of the least convincing atheist arguments involve this square circle type thing.Jefferson said:
In terms of omni-competence, couldn't God make a world where we wouldn't be able to hurt one another, but still retain our free will?
Couldn't God create a world where natural disasters never happened?
Heaven sure sounds a lot like earth... Next you'll tell me I won't be getting 72 virgins.Jefferson said:
mighty_duck
New member
Sounds a lot like the reasons people followed Hitler..sentientsynth said:
While the analogy is flawed, the reasons to worship themselves are badlly placed. You would worship a tyrant just as easily as a benevolent king, simply because of their authority, and fear of repricussions..
Worship out of love is noble. Worship out of fear is closer to cowardice. If God exists, It is probable that this is the smarter course of action. But how can you love such a creature? If I were convinced he existed, I would pay lip service and internally despise him..
A world like that would foster an extreme amount of carelessness and immaturity in people. Adults have learned to live circumspect lives because of the consequences of past carelessness. If there were no consequences to reckless behaviour, every adult today would be running around like immature, bratty, impish, testosterone filled, 15 year old boys with no self control. No thanks. That's not a society I'd want to live in.mighty_duck said:
He did. It was called The Garden of Eden.
mighty_duck
New member
Possibly. But we look down at such behavior today because it has harmful consequences. Not so in a world without suffering.Jefferson said:
So God intended the world to be as you described above?Jefferson said:
And if he could make a world without suffering, why would he make this one, unless he was wanted us to suffer? That doesn't sound like an all-good God.
The immature behaviour itself is a harmful consequence. We are made in God's image and it is our honor and privilege to have the wonderful opportunity to mature towards God's level of maturity. A world without consequences would severely stunt that growth.mighty_duck said:
It's not our suffering God desires but our growth. And growth often requires pain. As the old saying goes, "no pain, no gain."
Is a parent that spoils their child a good parent or a bad one?
Even in the Garden of Eden, if Eve one day invented a coffee pot and carelessly spilled some boiling hot coffee on her hand, she would have blistered.
Last edited by a moderator:
mighty_duck
New member
Hi Jefferson,Jefferson said:
While I don't agree that human suffering as a result of human evil is logically necessary, and I believe you still have a ways to go to prove this necessity, I'd like to move to a more clear cut case.
Why are natural disasters, horrible diseases, and droughts logically necessary? (If they aren't logically necessary then an omni-competent and good God would prevent them).
While you may claim these help us grow, you need to show why it would be impossible for us to grow in any other way..
mighty_duck said:
Why not consider them to be natural consequences of a fallen world? Why would God be obligated to intercede to prevent such things in a fallen world when He has already told us it is now being run by Satan (the god of this world).
We human beings are naturally curious as to why a God who loves us would permit such things to happen, because we believe we wouldn't if we were running things, but on the other hand God has told us that His ways are not the same as our ways. Perhaps our problem is that we have no way of knowing what is going on in the spiritual realm, and hence we have insufficient information to make an informed judgment about such matters.
I seem to recall that God has only promised to comfort us in our sufferings, not make all bad things go away or never happen in the first place. Even St. Paul did not receive a "cure" for his "thorn", for God merely told him : "My grace is sufficient".
This relies on the assumption that disease and natural disasters do not bring about good. Indeed, a quick glance at scripture will reveal that human perceptions of goodness do not always reflect Godly perceptions of goodness. To argue that a good God would not allow such things to happen because they are not good assumes that humans possess an absolute perception of goodness.mighty_duck said:
mighty_duck
New member
If human suffering is in and of itself a good thing, then that is one sadistic God.Johnny said:
The end result of disease and natural disasters may be good, but are they logically necessary? If not, then God could have brought about that same end result, just without the suffering involved.
mighty_duck
New member
Where did I say that? That was a Jefferson interpretation.Toast said:
What I said is that God could have made a world where people could not harm each other, at least physically.
Or a world were natural disasters didn't happen.
The fact that suffering exists which is not logically necessary, is proof that God is not all good (or not all powerful, or just doesn't exist).
Lol, and here the debate comes around full circle to where we were in the beginning. MIghty_duck, God couldnt have given people the ability to love one another without the ability to hate one another. If we didnt have the ability to hate one another, we would be like robots. Love has to be freely given, otherwise its not love.
mighty_duck
New member
That doesn't help much.Toast said:
People could still hate each other, but not have the ability to physically harm each other.
And it still doesn't answer what freely given love has to do with natural disasters, diseases, etc.
Well, I guess God could seperate us so that each of us could be in some sort of a jail cell, where we could still talk to each other, but not be able to physically affect one another. Is that a reasonable way to live?
And in case you didnt get what I was saying, when love is not freely given, and we hurt one another, we deserve punishment.
And in case you didnt get what I was saying, when love is not freely given, and we hurt one another, we deserve punishment.
- Status