Problem of Evil Revisited

[Milton Platt]

Which ones are right?

My point is not that they're right or wrong. My point is that we made these conditions up, and we have no idea whether they're accurate or not.

So why did we make these conditions up as opposed to some others? What are we gaining from our having done so?
Why are you arguing with other people's idea of God instead of defending/debating your own? What do gain from doing that?

Because the concepts are always presented as truthful and people who believe these things argue that others should believe them as well. If they never presented them as factual in arguments FOR their god, there would be no reason to mention them.

And because they bear mentioning in a thread about the problem of evil.

 

[PureX]

Because the concepts are always presented as truthful and people who believe these things argue that others should believe them as well. If they never presented them as factual in arguments FOR their god, there would be no reason to mention them.

Very few theists are 'evangelical'. Many theists are agnostic, meaning that they recognize their inability to 'know' that what they have chosen to believe about God, is true. You shouldn't allow a few unfortunate meetings with religious zealots taint your understanding of theism, your view of all theists, or even of all religious Christian theists.

 

[Milton Platt]

Very few theists are 'evangelical'. Many theists are agnostic, meaning that they recognize their inability to 'know' that what they have chosen to believe about God, is true. You shouldn't allow a few unfortunate meetings with religious zealots taint your understanding of theism, your view of all theists, or even of all religious Christian theists.

I realize no all Christians are evangelical. I address those who are. Thanks.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

It is called free will. Why would God want a bunch of automatons?

Would you want your computer to do whatever it wanted instead of doing what you wanted?

Oh, and welcome, btw.

 

[Stevicus]

I didn't say there is no God. I said we are inventing our own ideas about what God is, what God does, what God 'says', what God demands of us, and how God punishes us when we don't comply (or doesn't punish us when we think God should). But our ideologies don't validate or invalidate, nor define the existence or nature of "God". They only define what God conceptually 'looks like', to us.

And being that these god-concepts effect us, and those around us, through our actions, I believe we should take responsibility for them. And ask ourselves why we are holding onto the god-concepts that we are. And how doing so is effecting us, and effecting those around us, through our actions.

Yes, I can agree with this to a large extent. That's primarily why I'm agnostic, but then again, it's the religionists who go around propagating these "god concepts" which leads to discussions such as the "problem of evil." But it's not just in how we define "God," but how we define "humans." Religion implies that humans are somehow "special" and are not a part of nature or the animal kingdom.

It would be much easier to say that humans are a product of nature and that we function mainly on instinct and emotion. There's no need to take responsibility for who and what we are; we only take responsibility for what we do. And even then, our responsibility is to other humans, not to "God."

 

[PureX]

I realize not all Christians are evangelical. I address those who are. Thanks.

Why? Why are you focused only on them, when they make us such a small fraction of religious theists?

 

[PureX]

Yes, I can agree with this to a large extent. That's primarily why I'm agnostic, but then again, it's the religionists who go around propagating these "god concepts" which leads to discussions such as the "problem of evil." But it's not just in how we define "God," but how we define "humans." Religion implies that humans are somehow "special" and are not a part of nature or the animal kingdom.

Keep in mind that most religious adherents are not intent on propagating their respective religious ideologies. They are simply expressing their theological ideals through their words and deeds. It's only a fraction of religious Christianity that is actively trying to 'propagate' it's religious ideology.

And everyone thinks their "special" in some way or other. That's the purpose of ego. Unfortunately, some people wrongly conflate their ego with their religious, political, social, and/or economic ideology, and become "zealots". And I agree that these people are a problem for the rest of us, but it's not an exclusively religious problem, and it's not derived from religion. It's derived from misapplied ego.

It would be much easier to say that humans are a product of nature and that we function mainly on instinct and emotion. There's no need to take responsibility for who and what we are; we only take responsibility for what we do. And even then, our responsibility is to other humans, not to "God."

It might be easier to say that, but it would also be rather vague, imprecise, and somewhat inaccurate. We humans are a lot of things, simultaneously, and some of them directly contradict. We are animals, for sure, but we are also a much more then that. We have transcended the realm of animal-being to the realm of self-creating cognitive entities, living in animal bodies. And along with this transcendence comes a lot of confusion, contradiction, and unknowing.

But there is no going back, now. We need to embrace what we have become, and are becoming, and try to move forward with courage and wisdom.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

From freewill of course.

Good = obedience to GOD
Evil = disobedience to GOD

It is called free will. Why would God want a bunch of automatons?

FYI: instead of taking this thread off track, I've started a new one:
What do you mean by "free will?"

 

[Fool]

The problem of evil is often presented as logic and reasoning for a non-benevolent God. I know it's a pretty common argument on these forums so I will be brief. I have always reconciled the problem of evil by seeing God and humans as a father child relationship of unconditional love. In the case of unconditional love, can it be said that God would necessarily allow evil due non-favoritism?

Has anyone seen the movie The Shack? Well this movie uses that argument as a man struggles with faith after losing thier youngest to a human monster. It uses a horrific example to address the problem of evil so if anyone has seen the movie, that's the kind of context I'm looking for. Why would God allow such horrible atrocities?

interesting logic that a parent is guilty by association to it's offspring, who choose the dark side. evil flourishes because of inner darkness and illogic and ignorance

there are two choices: to serve self vs other self or to serve others as self, or all. selfishness serves only self. selflessness serves all as self.

an individual seen as separate from other self can only serve self to a point and the ability fails due to logical relationships. the individuate self would be at odds with everyone over everything that isn't recognized as the egos and based on subjective hierarchies. even one's enemies would be found in one's household. there would always be a struggle of power, war, between self and other self.

the objective of love doesn't work on hierarchies. it makes all equal. friendship is two bodies being of one mind.




John 15:15
I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.

John 15:13
Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Keep in mind that most religious adherents are not intent on propagating their respective religious ideologies. They are simply expressing their theological ideals through their words and deeds. It's only a fraction of religious Christianity that is actively trying to 'propagate' it's religious ideology.

That's really the only religious contingent apart from politicized Muslims that matter to most unbelievers. We say it often: Most of us don't care what others believe. We care what they say and do. The Wiccans, Satanists, Jews, Baha'i, etc.. make pretty good neighbors. Not so much the much of the Christian church.

Here's a few articles I read this morning. These are all religious bigots:

Bigots: Trans Candidates Only Elected Because We Let Women Vote

Jackson: God Will Punish Those Who Vote for Democrats

Roy Moore Accused of Molesting 14-Year Old Girl

Wiles on Texas Church Shooting: Thanks, Obama!​

That's the face of Christianity we see, and that's the part many of us are concerned about. Christians and others that do no behave that way are of no concern. As I said, they are welcome neighbors.

Maybe if a few more decent people could rise to prominence in the church it might offset the incredibly disproportionate number of prominent Christians that demean the church's reputation, and with it, words like religion and theism.

And maybe if the fervent evangelists posting on RF and other Christians elsewhere showed some disapproval of people like those above, it might not seem so much like even the non-offenders either approved or were indifferent to them.

It's not your fault, but you are probably affected by it.

 

[Fool]

That's really the only religious contingent apart from politicized Muslims that matter to most unbelievers. We say it often: Most of us don't care what others believe. We care what they say and do. The Wiccans, Satanists, Jews, Baha'i, etc.. make pretty good neighbors. Not so much the much of the Christian church.

Here's a few articles I read this morning. These are all religious bigots:

Bigots: Trans Candidates Only Elected Because We Let Women Vote

Jackson: God Will Punish Those Who Vote for Democrats

Roy Moore Accused of Molesting 14-Year Old Girl

Wiles on Texas Church Shooting: Thanks, Obama!​

That's the face of Christianity we see, and that's the part many of us are concerned about. Christians and others that do no behave that way are of no concern. As I said, they are welcome neighbors.

Maybe if a few more decent people could rise to prominence in the church it might offset the incredibly disproportionate number of prominent Christians that demean the church's reputation, and with it, words like religion and theism.

And maybe if the fervent evangelists posting on RF and other Christians elsewhere showed some disapproval of people like those above, it might not seem so much like even the non-offenders either approved or were indifferent to them.

It's not your fault, but you are probably affected by it.

unfortunately negative news and actions are the one that grab the most attention. i had a retired teacher tell me that it wasn't the "good" students that did the work, came and went, but the bad students he recalled. or as I've heard it stated as an idiom, the squeaky wheel gets the oil, the attention that is.

people recall direct trauma to themselves more than the perpetrator. People only realize the intrinsic value of something when they have to work for it. The perp usually doesn't work that hard for what it cost the victim.

evangelizing a belief system; such as, christianity, islam, any belief system is like having a uniform code in school, military, society.

dressing everyone up like dolls doesn't insure they are gonna behave appropriately. its just a fashion statement. style never goes out of fashion even if fashion goes out of style.

 

[Hawkins]

The problem of evil is a problem for any theist in my view, whether benevolent or not because the world is full of suffering and I even hesitate to say calling all a dream makes it any better. Does apathy or malevolence make more sense for a deity given the state of the world, or no god makes more sense perhaps, that this world proves we are left to our own devices? I am open to suggestions.

I believe that you have made wrong assumptions. Earth is more like a filter of an aquarium. Heaven is the main purpose, which is the aquarium. We need a filter in order to secure the clear water in the aquarium. Filter is supposed to be dirty, everything may potentially contaminate the aquarium is supposed to remain in the dirty filter.

The second assumption one may have made mistakenly is that God doesn't do things at will. He doesn't bring you to Heaven simply because He knew before hand that you are a good person. The legitimacy for you to reach Heaven is under open witnessing (by angels or any chosen entities) with an open judgment.

 

[columbus]

Why? Why are you focused only on them, when they make us such a small fraction of religious theists?

Because they are the problem! Or at least one of the biggest moral problems the human race is up against.

The irrational and incoherent belief that God is omnimax and benevolent, but the world is drenched in ignorance and suffering is the fundamental tenet of Abrahamic religion. Once you get people to believe that, you can get them to believe lots of other irrational and incoherent things. Lots of that stuff manifests in the real world, causing all sorts of evil things.
Tom

 

[Hawkins]

Because they are the problem! Or at least one of the biggest moral problems the human race is up against.

The irrational and incoherent belief that God is omnimax and benevolent, but the world is drenched in ignorance and suffering is the fundamental tenet of Abrahamic religion. Once you get people to believe that, you can get them to believe lots of other irrational and incoherent things. Lots of that stuff manifests in the real world, causing all sorts of evil things.
Tom

The problem is rather humans don't have the intelligence to figure things out correctly. God if exists is supposed to have much high intelligence then humans.

Nothing is irrational if you are willing to read.
======
I believe that you have made wrong assumptions. Earth is more like a filter of an aquarium. Heaven is the main purpose, which is the aquarium. We need a filter in order to secure the clear water in the aquarium. Filter is supposed to be dirty, everything may potentially contaminate the aquarium is supposed to remain in the dirty filter.

The second assumption one may have made mistakenly is that God doesn't do things at will. He doesn't bring you to Heaven simply because He knew before hand that you are a good person. The legitimacy for you to reach Heaven is under open witnessing (by angels or any chosen entities) with an open judgment.
======


of course, yet another wrong assumption often made is that humans are with equal intelligence with God.

The same day you apply your intelligence to judge the good or evil of God, the same day you shall surely die. That's the prophecy made in Genesis.

 

[columbus]

Earth is more like a filter of an aquarium. Heaven is the main purpose, which is the aquarium. We need a filter in order to secure the clear water in the aquarium.

This is one of the most evil things generally taught by Abrahamic religionists.
That some people are worthy, but many or most(sometimes even the vast majority) are disposable scum. Good people are the ones who are similar to and agree with you. The ones you don't like or agree with, God hates too.
That's flat out evil, but very common amongst religionists.
Tom

 

[PureX]

Because they are the problem! Or at least one of the biggest moral problems the human race is up against.

Really? Even bigger than unquenchable greed, willful ignorance, and a propensity for violence as a first resort to problem-solving? Because I really don't see religious evangelism as being that big a problem when we can all very easily just say "no thanks". But greed, ignorance, and violence seem to be a part of us all, and that's causing us no end of suffering.

The irrational and incoherent belief that God is omnimax and benevolent, but the world is drenched in ignorance and suffering is the fundamental tenet of Abrahamic religion. Once you get people to believe that, you can get them to believe lots of other irrational and incoherent things. Lots of that stuff manifests in the real world, causing all sorts of evil things.
Tom

Except that you really can't "get people to believe" anything. They believe what they want, regardless of what you or I say, do, or think about it. And that's not the fault of "Abrahamic religions". That's the fault of the human condition. A condition to which YOU are just as subjugated as anyone else. And through which YOU are just as likely to be as immunized against your own irrationality as anyone else.

 

[columbus]

he problem is rather humans don't have the intelligence to figure things out correctly. God if exists is supposed to have much high intelligence then humans.

And God makes us each exactly as we are and puts us in the situations we live in.
If God made us more perceptive, smarter, and more rational than He does the problems would get resolved. But He keeps making clever apes with opposable thumbs, who are fragile, instinct driven, and ignorant, when He could easily make us less similar to our evolutionary forebears.

I think that's why so many religionists can't abide evolutionary science. It demonstrates clearly that their god image and world view are flat out wrong, irrational and incoherent.
Tom

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This is one of the most evil things generally taught by Abrahamic religionists.
That some people are worthy, but many or most(sometimes even the vast majority) are disposable scum. Good people are the ones who are similar to and agree with you. The ones you don't like or agree with, God hates too.
That's flat out evil, but very common amongst religionists.
Tom

Luke 15:7
there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

So it's the opposite actually, under God everyone is worthy

As opposed to 'scientific' ideas like eugenics, phrenology, etc

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Really? Even bigger than unquenchable greed, willful ignorance, and a propensity for violence as a first resort to problem-solving?

Have you read the Christian Bible? Are you familiar with the Christian church and its history - the violence, anti-intellectualism, and ravenous greed? Do you know how much wealth the Vatican has? Or Joel Osteen?

Because I really don't see religious evangelism as being that big a problem when we can all very easily just say "no thanks".

I think he said that evangelists were the problem, not their ring on the doorbell. The links I just provided are all evangelists. I would like them much better if all they did was to ring the doorbell.

Except that you really can't "get people to believe" anything. They believe what they want, regardless of what you or I say, do, or think about it.

The church disagrees. They know how much they lost when they and their prayers were removed from the public schools, and how much it would help them if they could get state-led prayer and creationism to the young minds in public schools not being brought to churches. Apocryphally, Loyola is reported to have said, " Give me the child for the first seven years and I will give you the man"

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The same day you apply your intelligence to judge the good or evil of God, the same day you shall surely die.

Good news for atheists, bad news for Christians. The latter judge their god - usually good - the former, not believing in gods comment on the morality of a what they consider a mythical character.

Here's an ethical dilemma for you. The Christian god and its hell are real, billions of human souls are eternally trapped in hell being tortured by the demons God stocked it with, man discovers a way to subdue this god, to release all of the souls in hell, and to trap the god in its own hell for eternity to be tortured just as it was so willing to do to others.

Would that be justified?

It's a rhetorical question. I realize that if you are a Christian, you are compelled to say no. I am not. I find that to be just.