The Problem of Evil

[CynthiaCypher]

Right, and when people say that there is a contradiction in a unicorn being simultaneously invisible and pink, that is because they are imposing their own definition of "pink". But the invisible pink unicorn's definition of pink is completely different than our limited human understanding.

Ok, please explain to me how does God's non-intervention make God unloving...

 

[fantome profane]

Ok, please explain to me how does God's non-intervention make God unloving...

If I was standing by watching a young girl being raped and killed and did nothing, how would you describe my attitude? And lets assume I had a cell phone and could summon help easily. But I decided to adopt a "God-like" attitude of non-intervention as this young girl was being beaten and sexually abused, to death. Would you describe this as loving?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

If I was standing by watching a young girl being raped and killed and did nothing, how would you describe my attitude? And lets assume I had a cell phone and could summon help easily. But I decided to adopt a "God-like" attitude of non-intervention as this young girl was being beaten and sexually abused, to death. Would you describe this as loving?

It would be callous on your part. But if God did interfere in this one act of evil, what reason would he have not to interfere and prevent all acts of evil?

Ever thought of that? That maybe non-intervention is the best option. Could you imagine how life would be if God made everything sunshine, rainbows and lollipops. Have you even considered what would happen to human achievement? Well, you would have to say goodbye to that. Hell, I doubt we would have even evolved towards sapience if God decided to prevent all suffering and pain on the earth.

Good loving parents practice non-intervention all the time, I highly doubt my baby would have learned to walk or tie her shoes or go potty if I intervened with every moment of her life.

 

[fantome profane]

It would be callous on your part. But if God did interfere in this one act of evil, what reason would he have not to interfere and prevent all acts of evil?

Ever thought of that? That maybe non-intervention is the best option. Could you imagine how life would be if God made everything sunshine, rainbows and lollipops. Have you even considered what would happen to human achievement? Well, you would have to say goodbye to that. Hell, I doubt we would have even evolved towards sapience if God decided to prevent all suffering and pain on the earth.

Good loving parents practice non-intervention all the time, I highly doubt my baby would have learned to walk or tie her shoes or go potty if I intervened with every moment of her life.

I think this is a false dichotomy. Your are suggesting that either "God" intervenes in everything, or in nothing. Mere human beings are capable of employing judgement in their actions. As you say parents practice non-intervention in allowing their children to learn, even if that means suffering. But no parent will stand by and allow their child to be killed, or to kill another child. Human beings are capable of stepping in and preventing evil without undoing all human achievement. Is "God" less capable of making these judgement calls? Why must it be all or nothing?

Your post #10 was a good response. There you acknowledged that evil exists. But what you are doing now is trying to rationalize evil. In suggesting that non-intervention is the best option what you are in fact doing is denying evil, that young girl being raped and killed is the best possible option. And in my post #7 I indicated that to me that is unacceptable.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I think this is a false dichotomy. Your are suggesting that either "God" intervenes in everything, or in nothing. Mere human beings are capable of employing judgement in their actions. As you say parents practice non-intervention in allowing their children to learn, even if that means suffering. But no parent will stand by and allow their child to be killed, or to kill another child. Human beings are capable of stepping in and preventing evil without undoing all human achievement. Is "God" less capable of making these judgement calls? Why must it be all or nothing?

Your post #10 was a good response. There you acknowledged that evil exists. But what you are doing now is trying to rationalize evil. In suggesting that non-intervention is the best option what you are in fact doing is denying evil, that young girl being raped and killed is the best possible option. And in my post #7 I indicated that to me that is unacceptable.

Well you gave me some stuff to think about. But I still can't reason out why an omnipotent being would not go for all or nothing, why intervene in Jane's life but not Lucy's. Why help the Seahawks win and not the Broncos? And I also do not believe that God see us as God's children either, nor do I think that God is concerned with us as individuals but is concerned with the whole and as whole I mean the whole of the universe.

 

[fantome profane]

Well you gave me some stuff to think about. But I still can't reason out why an omnipotent being would not go for all or nothing, why intervene in Jane's life but not Lucy's. Why help the Seahawks win and not the Broncos? And I also do not believe that God see us as God's children either, nor do I think that God is concerned with us as individuals but is concerned with the whole and as whole I mean the whole of the universe.

Is it really that hard to imaging an entity that might choose to intervene in a rape and murder, but decide not to intervene in a football game?

I have no problem with your description of "God" as being concerned with the whole and less concerned with individual lives. There is no logical contradiction there. But I also would not call that conception of "God" omnipotent and omni-benevolent.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Is it really that hard to imaging an entity that might choose to intervene in a rape and murder, but decide not to intervene in a football game?

I have no problem with your description of "God" as being concerned with the whole and less concerned with individual lives. There is no logical contradiction there. But I also would not call that conception of "God" omnipotent and omni-benevolent.

And I don't call God omni-benevolent. I just don't consider to be unloving if God does not intervene. Now do I consider God to be all-loving? Of course not.

 

[james2ko]

I think this is a false dichotomy. Your are suggesting that either "God" intervenes in everything, or in nothing. Mere human beings are capable of employing judgement in their actions. As you say parents practice non-intervention in allowing their children to learn, even if that means suffering. But no parent will stand by and allow their child to be killed, or to kill another child. Human beings are capable of stepping in and preventing evil without undoing all human achievement. Is "God" less capable of making these judgement calls? Why must it be all or nothing?

I think I would. If I had the omniscience to perceive this act, in the eternal scope of my mind, would be a better option for the child at the moment, and I had the power to bring the child back to life at anytime, as God does.

 

[adi2d]

Well you gave me some stuff to think about. But I still can't reason out why an omnipotent being would not go for all or nothing, why intervene in Jane's life but not Lucy's. Why help the Seahawks win and not the Broncos? And I also do not believe that God see us as God's children either, nor do I think that God is concerned with us as individuals but is concerned with the whole and as whole I mean the whole of the universe.

I can't answer all your questions but as a 12th man I can answer one with three words


LEGION OF BOOM




Be loud. Be proud. GO SEAHAWKS

 

[technomage]

I can't answer all your questions but as a 12th man I can answer one with three words


LEGION OF BOOM




Be loud. Be proud. GO SEAHAWKS

Just in time for your 500th post. Nice timing!

 

[Amechania]

I can't answer all your questions but as a 12th man I can answer one with three words


LEGION OF BOOM




Be loud. Be proud. GO SEAHAWKS

How many Broncos does it take to change a tire?

Just one, unless its a blowout, then the whole team shows up.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I can't answer all your questions but as a 12th man I can answer one with three words


LEGION OF BOOM




Be loud. Be proud. GO SEAHAWKS

Cute.

 

[adi2d]

Cute.

We are dealing with questions that have been asked for generations. Nothing wrong with a little cute once in a while

 

[nazz]

In Valentinian Gnosticism it is thought that evil, error, fear and a whole host of negative aspects are intrinsic to the Pleroma or the Fullness of the Godhead. And in no way do these negative aspects detract from the perfection of the Pleroma but in fact the inclusion of them is what makes the Pleroma perfect.

Hmm, I would not agree with that. Those are aspects of the kenoma.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Hard polytheists don't have the "problem of evil". That's something you monotheists have to deal with. Tsk tsk.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Hmm, I would not agree with that. Those are aspects of the kenoma.

If you read the Gospel of Truth, forgetfulness, error and fear are said to reside within the pleroma but not in the Father. But yes, they are aspects of the kenoma. The Void is just conceptual space, not a realm of just evil. Think of it as a empty canvas or an empty room.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Hard polytheists don't have the "problem of evil". That's something you monotheists have to deal with. Tsk tsk.

They seem to get stuck on the all-good thing. But it wasn't always that way in Judaism. Several times in the Prophets God not only admit to doing evil but boast he does evil and then threaten to do more evil.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

We are dealing with questions that have been asked for generations. Nothing wrong with a little cute once in a while

And I very much appreciated it. It made me smile.

 

[nazz]

I think this is a false dichotomy. Your are suggesting that either "God" intervenes in everything, or in nothing. Mere human beings are capable of employing judgement in their actions. As you say parents practice non-intervention in allowing their children to learn, even if that means suffering. But no parent will stand by and allow their child to be killed, or to kill another child. Human beings are capable of stepping in and preventing evil without undoing all human achievement. Is "God" less capable of making these judgement calls? Why must it be all or nothing?

One thing about that. If one takes the view that all is God then the intervention of a human being to lessen suffering is also an act of God.

 

[fantome profane]

One thing about that. If one takes the view that all is God then the intervention of a human being to lessen suffering is also an act of God.

And so is the intervention of a human being to cause suffering. So if one takes the view that all is "God", then "God" is certainly not omni-benevolent.