Dualism: A solution to the problem of evil

[bartdanr]

I believe we lived with God before coming to this earth. That was our "learning to walk" time and God helped us from getting hurt. Now, however, the time came for us to be on our own and learn what it likes to grow up. If I let my kids live with me forever they'll never learn all there is to know about being an adult so, when the time is right, they'll need to leave. Like God, I'll always make myself available for a call if they need help. Sometimes they'll get the help they need and sometimes they'll need to have the experience for themselves.

Hi Nutshell, thanks for your post.

Theoretically, how would our lives here on earth look different had we not gone through this "learning to walk" time? How might it be worse than it is now?

Honestly, it's hard for me to accept this theory of the pre-life, because it implies that when babies are born they have some kind of survival skills (whether physical or spiritual) that keep them from spiritual or physical harm, or to help them learn valuable lessons from that harm. However, it seems like in many cases they pre-life lessons didn't do much good...unless one believes that, for example, a child going through physical, psychological or emotional abuse has been given a unique opportunity by God. If that were the case, then I would think it a divine service to abuse children--so that they might develop spiritually more.

However, I think the only "lessons" that children who are abused learn are (1) people are evil; and (2) never trust anyone again. It takes years to unlearn those lessons, if you manage to survive the abuse.

Peace

 

[bartdanr]

Hi Katzpur, thanks for the post.

First of all, in case you hadn't stopped to consider it, you are a human being, not a quality.

Good point.

Yes, something could exist without its opposite also existing. But it could have no relative value. Good could exist without evil, but we could not recognize it as something worthwhile without being able to conceive of its absence.

I don't think so--because in the end, this could make me very selfish: wishing for horrible things to happen to others so I can appreciate my life better. For example, if someone loses their right arm, and I realize that that could have happened to me (and so I appreciate my right arm that much more)--then I would hope to see all kinds of evil befall others just so I could appreciate what I have that much more.

And in my mind, it really doesn't matter if good had relative value or not. I don't see what is gained from that. Must a child know that other children are abused before she loves her parents?

No, of course it couldn't. But are you saying the Tsunami was "evil"? Certainly, from our perspective, it was "tragic." But again, God sees things from a different perspective than we do, so I don't think we can legitimately see everything that appears to have a negative impact on us as wrong, evil, wicked, etc.

Again, this goes back to the argument that God's knowledge is greater or God's standards of good and evil are different than ours. Since this is a faith statement, I can't say "you can't believe that", but I can say that I can't believe that. I can't see how a Tsumani accomplished anything good that God, if s/he was all-powerful, couldn't accomplish another way. If one has this belief, then even if God is truly evil to the core, that wouldn't be recognized. All manner of evil and wickedness woud be "justified" with our statement "God knows best." We then become unable to recognize good from evil.

No He couldn't have, because, as I said before, it would be impossible for anybody to choose good if there was no alternative.

Even if there was a theorectial alternative that no one chose? For example, I can chose to steal from my employer or not, but I never have stolen from him. Does that mean that I had no free will to steal if I want to?

If you believe in the Christian idea of the fall, did Adam and Eve not have free will until they actually chose to sin? Or Lucifer was not free until he chose to rebell?

Are you asking if He could allow John to murder Bob and at the same time prevent Bob from dying?

There are several ways. Certainly, if you believe in miracles, then God sometimes does this very thing. God could have let John murder Bob and then resurrect Bob.

But if God arbitrarily decides who can murder whom (and s/he could prevent all murder), then why does God not do so? To accomplish some great "plan"? Again, I question that by this standard we could ever call God "good" in any meaningful sense.

Peace

 

[Aqualung]

*What of those who had the briefest of lives, and could not experience good or evil (like an infant who dies shortly after birth)? Would they then have the opportunity to experience good and evil before a permanent afterlife? (A belief in reincarnation at this point would help establish some experiential "balance").

Well, I'm not really sure where the church stands on this view, but in my opion, babies who die (or people who just don't know the difference between good and evil, like the severely mentally retarded) are really here for our own benefit. They chose to come to earth, and not be able to live it to the extent of others, but in return for such a sacrifice they will be exhalted. Now, those are just my views on that one. Don't go thinking that's what we all think.

*None of us have had quite the same experience with good and evil. Some have had lives full of more evil than others. Does this mean that their reward will be greater? Does this mean that they have higher spiritual evolution? Will those with little evil in their lives experience some evil in the afterlife in order to "balance the scales" (not necessarily in a judicial way, but in the realm of human experience)? (Again, reincarnation might help here.)

You can't look at this as people experiencing "more" evil than others. everybody experiences exactly as much evil as they can stand against. I don't thnk the fact that some people can resist more will count for them, because what's necessary is that you choose to resist whatever amount you may experience.

*If the eternal state is eternal bliss, will only those who experienced to most profound pain truly enjoy it more?

I don't know.

*If the experience of pain and suffering (including death) is pedalogical in nature, then how is this needed in an eternal life of bliss? What valuable lesson does this teach us?

I just helps us grow up. We would never be able to return to a state in which we would be able to return to our father in heaven if we didn't grow. These pains help us grow, so that we can become worthy to be with him again. The more we grow, the greater our chance of getting back to him is.

 

[bartdanr]

Thanks for your post, Aqualung.

Well, I'm not really sure where the church stands on this view, but in my opion, babies who die (or people who just don't know the difference between good and evil, like the severely mentally retarded) are really here for our own benefit. They chose to come to earth, and not be able to live it to the extent of others, but in return for such a sacrifice they will be exhalted. Now, those are just my views on that one. Don't go thinking that's what we all think.

I can see if the suffering of the innocent was a choice in the pre-life, then it is easier to accept. (The idea of "Karma" and reincarnation also helps explain evil.)

You can't look at this as people experiencing "more" evil than others. everybody experiences exactly as much evil as they can stand against. I don't thnk the fact that some people can resist more will count for them, because what's necessary is that you choose to resist whatever amount you may experience.

But why would God make certain people able to stand more evil than others? Why make some weak in this area, and others strong?

I don't know.

That is always an acceptable answer.

I just helps us grow up. We would never be able to return to a state in which we would be able to return to our father in heaven if we didn't grow. These pains help us grow, so that we can become worthy to be with him again. The more we grow, the greater our chance of getting back to him is.

Did God, therefore, also go through suffering to grow up? Was the suffering of Christ necessary for God to "grow up"?

And why does suffering produce the growth that we need? For example, there is no doubt that adversity can make us tougher, better able to weather future adversities. But how would this prepare us better for an eternal life of bliss that is free from adversity? Sometimes adversity builds character; but sometimes I'd rather be free from pain than have character. Some of us have plenty of character already.

Peace

 

[Aqualung]

But why would God make certain people able to stand more evil than others? Why make some weak in this area, and others strong?

He didn't make them better able. They grew that way.

That is always an acceptable answer.

Thanks.

Did God, therefore, also go through suffering to grow up?

yes.

Was the suffering of Christ necessary for God to "grow up"?

I don't know if it was so much so he could grow up as so he could help us grow up.

And why does suffering produce the growth that we need? For example, there is no doubt that adversity can make us tougher, better able to weather future adversities. But how would this prepare us better for an eternal life of bliss that is free from adversity? Sometimes adversity builds character; but sometimes I'd rather be free from pain than have character. Some of us have plenty of character already.

A lot of it is just to prove to god that we will do it. We have to prove that we want it enough to follow him in all that he asks, even if the immediate rewards aren't as great as what the devil offers.

 

[bartdanr]

Hi Aqualung, thanks for the post.

He didn't make them better able. They grew that way.

What makes a person grow in a particular way? I would think that a combination of innate nature with experience makes them grow in a particular way. If God is all powerful, then couldn't s/he have given us all a similar innate nature and similar experience?

Thanks.

You're welcome!

yes.

Do you believe in an infinite regression of divine beings? If not, when did the cycle begin? Could you please elaborate on your views of God's origins?

I don't know if it was so much so he could grow up as so he could help us grow up.

If the crucifixtion wasn't for God to grow up, how did God suffer to grow up?

A lot of it is just to prove to god that we will do it. We have to prove that we want it enough to follow him in all that he asks, even if the immediate rewards aren't as great as what the devil offers.

So what role, if any, does grace play in this viewpoint?

Peace

 

[Aqualung]

What makes a person grow in a particular way? I would think that a combination of innate nature with experience makes them grow in a particular way. If God is all powerful, then couldn't s/he have given us all a similar innate nature and similar experience?

God couldn't give them all similar innate nature. That's not the way it works.

Do you believe in an infinite regression of divine beings? If not, when did the cycle begin? Could you please elaborate on your views of God's origins?

I don't know where it started. I don't think it's too far fetched to think that he lived a life like we're doing, except better than most of us, and through that progressed.

If the crucifixtion wasn't for God to grow up, how did God suffer to grow up?

The crucifixtion was for Jesus to grow up. He did that by allowing himself to become an ultimate sacrifice for his father, yet still allowing all the glory to go to his father.

So what role, if any, does grace play in this viewpoint?

Grace comes in becuase even though I CAN do what he wants me to, I frequently don't. Grace comes in to save people after they have tried so hard, yet still have sinned.

 

[bartdanr]

Hi Aqualung, thanks for the post.

God couldn't give them all similar innate nature. That's not the way it works.

Again, we get back to what God could and couldn't do. Ultimately, I don't believe that anyone really believes that God is omnipotent in the traditional sense.

I don't know where it started. I don't think it's too far fetched to think that he lived a life like we're doing, except better than most of us, and through that progressed.

I know that this is a basic LDS view, and I find it fascinating. However, I have not adopted it as my own belief.

The crucifixtion was for Jesus to grow up. He did that by allowing himself to become an ultimate sacrifice for his father, yet still allowing all the glory to go to his father.

This leads to another topic--you can see my thread on "Was Jesus' Sacrifice Significant" if you want to see my opinions on this one.

Grace comes in becuase even though I CAN do what he wants me to, I frequently don't. Grace comes in to save people after they have tried so hard, yet still have sinned.

Do you think that there are times when we cannot resist doing evil, and that is why grace is necessary? Or that there are times when we chose to do evil, and that is why grace is necessary?

IMO, grace is unnecessary if we are unable to resist sin. Sin is a matter of choice, or it is no sin.

Peace

 

[Aqualung]

Again, we get back to what God could and couldn't do. Ultimately, I don't believe that anyone really believes that God is omnipotent in the traditional sense.

True, but I've never claimed I thought that in the first place, so what are you getting at?

I know that this is a basic LDS view, and I find it fascinating. However, I have not adopted it as my own belief.

Well, that's fine. IT's not official doctrine, and whether or not he was once a man does not in any way change our relationship to him, or change all that he has done for us in any way.

This leads to another topic--you can see my thread on "Was Jesus' Sacrifice Significant" if you want to see my opinions on this one.

You can look at the thread called "Was Jesus' Sacrifice Significant" to see my views on that one as well.

Do you think that there are times when we cannot resist doing evil, and that is why grace is necessary? Or that there are times when we chose to do evil, and that is why grace is necessary?

The second one. Humans are inherently more likely to choose the sin. Nobody, except Jesus, has been able to live a life without sin. It's just hard to overcome.

 

[bartdanr]

Hi Aqualung, thanks for your post.

True, but I've never claimed I thought that in the first place, so what are you getting at?

What I'm getting at is this: the traditional "problem of evil" arises when three incompatable things are put together: (1) God is all-good; (2) God is all-powerful; and (3) evil exists. Many theists will at first say they believe in all three, but in fact I believe that very few actually believe in the second point. What's interesting to me, however, is even when the second point is ultimately denied, the other two points are often denied as well. For example, people will often say that God is good, but a standard of goodness that is not the same as ours.

What's also common is the response that evil is not really evil--that ultimately the existence of evil is a good thing, something that helps us develop. If I understand you correctly, that's what you're saying.

For me, if you simply say "God is not all-powerful", then it isn't necessary (or desirable) to explain that God's goodness is different from how we would define goodness, or that evil doesn't really exist. Once you deny God's omnipotence (in the traditional sense), then the "problem of evil" evaporates.

I believe that God is good, and a goodness how humans would typically recognize as goodness. I believe that evil exists, and it is truly evil. Sure, not everything we consider "evil" at a given time is evil (for example, taking a foul-tasting medicine when you're three years old); but somethings are, at the core, evil without redemption: torturing people for your pleasure; the sexual molestation of children; withholding justice from someone because of their race. There is no redeming features of these aspects of evil, and I believe God hates them, and would wipe them out if s/he could. People are free to disagree with me, of course.

Well, that's fine. IT's not official doctrine, and whether or not he was once a man does not in any way change our relationship to him, or change all that he has done for us in any way.

I think it would have a significant influence on our relationship with him/her. I'm not saying it's wrong, but I don't think it would have no bearing on our relationship. But this is a little off-topic, though it might be an interesting thread to start.

You can look at the thread called "Was Jesus' Sacrifice Significant" to see my views on that one as well.

Yes, I appreciated your comments there.

The second one. Humans are inherently more likely to choose the sin.

Why are humans more likely to choose sin? Did God create us in such a way to prefer sin over righteousness? Do you believe that there is an inherent "sin nature" that we have ever since the fall, as many Christians do?

Nobody, except Jesus, has been able to live a life without sin. It's just hard to overcome.

If we have truly free wills, why is sin hard to overcome?

Peace