BE solves the problem of evil

[mighty_duck]

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?

We are already in a cell. I can't fly. I can't teleport. I can't dance. There are many things I will to do, but can't. My freedom is limited. Yet we still call it a reasonable way to live, becasue that is all we know.

And you continue ignoring my other question - what does freely given love have to do with natural disaster?

And in case you didnt get what I was saying, when love is not freely given, and we hurt one another, we deserve punishment.

Are you saying that suffering is punishment for love not freely given? How very godly to punish the innocent and reward to wicked. If he were omnipotent or omni-competent, suffering could be avoided, or at least placed at the feet of the guilty parties.

Keep in mind that "love not freely given" doesn't automatically mean someone gets hurt. There is a whole range of feelings between love and neutrality that don't hurt anyone.

 

[Toast]

Nice try duck. Loving someone doesnt necessarily mean taking their hand in marriage, agreed? God expects us to love our neighbor, which one of the things that follows is not hurting them without cause. Do you not agree we should love our neighbor?

Also, to answer one of your questions, which should seem obvious to you by now, natural disasters are a result of the fall(sin/rebellion) of man. When man fell, so did creation, and God withdrew some of His sustaining power which keeps creation in check. He did this as a punishment.

And, to answer one of your first complaints, that we already live in a kind of cell, becaues of our limited powers. With greater powers comes greater responsiblites, so why would God give us greater powers when we cant even handle the ones we have right now responsibly?

 

[mighty_duck]

Nice try duck. Loving someone doesnt necessarily mean taking their hand in marriage, agreed? God expects us to love our neighbor, which one of the things that follows is not hurting them without cause. Do you not agree we should love our neighbor?

Not a very nice try, toast. As long as I don't act against someone, I love them?? That's the worst definition of love I've come across.
There are people I detest, but would still not harm. Does that mean I love them? If so, you have redfined the word beyond recognition.

Also, to answer one of your questions, which should seem obvious to you by now, natural disasters are a result of the fall(sin/rebellion) of man. When man fell, so did creation, and God withdrew some of His sustaining power which keeps creation in check. He did this as a punishment.

Punishing innocents is a good criteria for someone not being all good. According to your own words, God likes for us to suffer. Punishing us for someone else's action is justice in your book?

And, to answer one of your first complaints, that we already live in a kind of cell, becaues of our limited powers. With greater powers comes greater responsiblites, so why would God give us greater powers when we cant even handle the ones we have right now responsibly?

I didn't ask for greater power, if anything I asked for less. The argument that this would ruin our free will (or have us living in a cell) is very flawed.

 

[Toast]

Of course, you have to misrepresent my position dont you? Not harming someone without cause is one of the attributes of loving your neighbor. There! I spelled it out for you. There are other attributes of course, but you get the idea. Another one would be, its unloving to hate your neighbor without cause.

About punishing the innocent? Not so much. Maybe punishment wasnt the best word. God is simply allowing mankind the freedom to stew in their own muk. When the fall happened, He withdrew some of His sustaining power. Why should God protect those who hate Him from the consequences of their own evil acts? Its better to allow them to reap the consequences, so they can mature. The real punishment will be eternal seperation from God. And you will be punished according to your own sin, according to your own wicked choices, not according to others'.

You didnt ask for greater power? If flying and teleporting isnt greater power, then I dont know what is. But maybe you could demonstrate how my argument is flawed by showing how God could have made an existence where there would be no suffering without limiting our free will severly, and decreasing the enjoyment of life tremendously.

 

[mighty_duck]

Of course, you have to misrepresent my position dont you? Not harming someone without cause is one of the attributes of loving your neighbor. There! I spelled it out for you. There are other attributes of course, but you get the idea. Another one would be, its unloving to hate your neighbor without cause.

We're getting off track. How does "love must be given freely" justify human suffering?
I don't have to love my neighbor to not hurt him. I could hate his guts (justifiably) and still not harm him.

God is simply allowing mankind the freedom to stew in their own muk.

How very good and godly of Him

When the fall happened, He withdrew some of His sustaining power. Why should God protect those who hate Him from the consequences of their own evil acts?

He should if he were all good. If, on the other hand, he is the small minded God made in mans image, then he is certainly justified in his behavior.

All I ask is that you don't try to sell the notion that he is all good.

You didnt ask for greater power? If flying and teleporting isnt greater power, then I dont know what is. But maybe you could demonstrate how my argument is flawed by showing how God could have made an existence where there would be no suffering without limiting our free will severly, and decreasing the enjoyment of life tremendously.

Can you imagine how fun life would be if we could fly, teleport, and shoot lasers out of rear ends? Has God has decreased the enjoyment of life by choosing to withhold these powers from us?

I would argue no. In the same way, limiting our powers to hurt one another wouldn't decrease enjoyment of life.

 

[Toast]

So you think hating someone's guts for no good reason doesnt have the potential to hurt them and cause them to suffer? You think that's justifiable? Interesting..

Also, please explain how God could "limit" our powers in such a way that we would have no way to harm one another and potentially cause suffering to someone. I want to hear your concept for how God could have done it better. I'm all ears.

Also, you apparantly have an issue with an all good God allowing sinners to reap what they sow, and hopefully mature that way. But what would you have an all good God do? For He could justifiably punish us when we sin, and send us away from His presence, into the darkness, for the wages of sin are death, but God is so loving and merciful, He gives us a chance(s) to repent, so that He can forgive us, and not punish us. God doesnt have to tolerate being around people who cause others to suffer. You have a problem with that? Then you are the evil one, not God, my friend.

 

[Jefferson]

Greg Bahnsen puts the problem of evil this way:

1. God is all good.
2. God is all powerful.
3. Evil exists.

The critic argues that if God is all good, and all powerful, evil should not exist.

The critic overlooks a perfectly reasonable way to assent to all three of these propositions:

4. God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil that exists.

(this is a presupposition a believer must evaluate everything through, since the Bible tells us God is good)

Bob's statements "Love cannot be forced" and "Some love is worth enduring much evil" are a way of explaining #4 from Bahnsen.

I'm not at all good at presuppositional apologetics, but I can at least share that much.
I'm also aware that Bahnsen is a Calvinist, and I like his book, but disagree with some of his beliefs.

(Anyone who's read "Always Ready" by Greg Bahnsen would recognize some of the wording I used above. I'm giving him credit here)

In other words the Calvinist answer is, "Well, it's a mystery."

 

[Gurucam]

Greg Bahnsen puts the problem of evil this way:

1. God is all good.
2. God is all powerful.
3. Evil exists.

The critic argues that if God is all good, and all powerful, evil should not exist.

The critic overlooks a perfectly reasonable way to assent to all three of these propositions:

4. God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil that exists.

(this is a presupposition a believer must evaluate everything through, since the Bible tells us God is good)

Bob's statements "Love cannot be forced" and "Some love is worth enduring much evil" are a way of explaining #4 from Bahnsen.

I'm not at all good at presuppositional apologetics, but I can at least share that much.
I'm also aware that Bahnsen is a Calvinist, and I like his book, but disagree with some of his beliefs.

(Anyone who's read "Always Ready" by Greg Bahnsen would recognize some of the wording I used above. I'm giving him credit here)

What about: God and evil are only what we esteem in accordance with our human delude perception of things. (note: Romans: 14 verse: 14 and Shakespeare' nothing is ever wrong or right, only thinking make it so)

The only qualification being that, there is a season for everything.

 

[Gurucam]

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?

God did exactly that.

One simply has to come under His grace and relate to and associate with, only others who are also under His grace (i.e. one's neighbors in Christ) in order to live this heavenly reality on earth. This is the life of Christians.

Be careful however many who are called Christians are not the real thing. The great majority seems to be, simply, aspiring Christians. They still esteem laws and are therefore under law and not under grace.

Indeed Jesus did confirm that many would be called to Christianity but few will become authentic Christians.

For example to love is grace. However to love and seek to posses under social, moral, religious and/or judicial laws is not grace. Urgings of love for people, things and circumstances in God's creation, arises and are sustained in one's heart, only under God's volition. These urgings of love also dissolves under God's volition.

To be under grace of God, one must unconditionally obey these urgings of love through all three phases of arising, being sustained and dissolving. This means that people must stay together for as long as love's urgings are sustained within their individual hearts for each other. However when these urgings of love are not longer sustained within one's heart, one must dissolve these relationships and associations. This always happens harmoniously under God's grace.

This is indeed very natural and spontaneous for humans. This is the way that God intended humans to be guided and live. This is the way that the 'original Adam and Eve' lived.

This approach to life would not work for the unaware (i.e. those with 'vails' over their heart). They must have the protection which social, moral, religious and/or judicial laws offer. God simply cannot guide them directly through their essentially closed hearts.