REGARDING OFFERING HISTORICAL DATA AND EXPLANATIONS AS TO WHAT GOD PLANNED, THE ORIGIN OF AND ROLE OF EVIL WITHIN THAT PLAN
Clear said in post # 392 “[FONT="]Instead of “contests” and trying to “gain advantage over someone else”, why don’t you try describing in some detail, the earliest and most authentic Christian model of what God was doing and planning before he created and describe God’s plan and the role that evil plays in it. Use the early textual witnesses from Christians who describe these principles in their own words and see if an adequate explanation as to what God's purpose and relationship to evil is, might help others to understand why there is evil in your theological model. They already know that evil in “free agency” alone cannot explain it because, they may assume God could have created a being WITH free agency that did NOT choose to do evil with that agency.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
My point is : Instead of simply repeating the claim that[/FONT][FONT="]“God is good, even if he does evil” in a hundred different ways. They already know this isn't correct and it detracts from your credibility rather than explains the mechanisms underlying why evil exists and any legitimate purpose evil might serve. Why don’t you try and EXPLAIN God’s plan to them, EXPLAIN what GOD was doing before creation and EXPLAIN to them WHY evil exists inside of God’s plan, and EXPLAIN to them the role of evil and allow them to look logically at the entire model and THEN you may find they can use logic and reasoning as well as the rest of us. See if that is helpful to them. Or not.... (I notice that if I give enough information on a subject, the subject and it's parts make more sense, and it is easier to see the logic and rationale of a claim... I didn't get one detractor (so far) in seven sequential posts on the early traditions on the origin of lucifer...so it seems to be fairly efficient - (or no one read it...). I think your use of logic and reason is certainly good enough to try this change in tactic and see if it is helpful.”[/FONT]
[FONT="]Robin1[/FONT][FONT="] replied in post 4000 “The area of concentration you name is also the area which has the least reliable information available. I can supply some basics of the form if X then Y and do so constantly but I tend to stick with more evidenced subjects like moral ontology. “[/FONT]
[FONT="]
I’m not sure why you would claim that this area of concentration has “least reliable information” because, historically, the vast textual data forms a reliable and coherent model of early Judeo-Christian worldview of God and the spirits of mankind in the pre-creation existence. We have many, many, very clear textual witness from early Judeo-Christian literature that explains the early Christian beliefs. The historical witnesses and descriptions, written by early Christians are wonderful and powerful witnesses as to what they believed in and how they themselves interpreted sacred texts.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Not only are these areas of inquiry quite reliable as compared to other areas, especially compared to using your personal theories of moral ontology (or that of other philosophers) in place of authentic Christian moral ontology. While you may feel comfortable with such theories, they do not represent authentic versions of early Christian ontology, but instead, are your own conclusions and theories. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Importantly, you are discussing things that are happening inside of this mortal life and then using your personal theories to make sense of what might have been conditions prior to mortality. Without a correct context of what God was doing PRIOR to mortality, then your premises concerning mortality itself will often be mis-contexted, and dyscontexted just as your creation from “nothing” was. [/FONT]
[FONT="]
The early Judeo-Christians understood that knowledge of the true context of prior events change the context of this life, as well as how it is to be viewed, including our judgments of right; wrong and suffering.[/FONT] For example, Rappaport, II, 263-266 relates the training Moses received when considering this point.
One day, while Moses was out tending sheep, he was meditating about life and it’s meaning when he noticed a traveler come and stop at the well to refresh himself. Unnoticed, a purse of money dropped out of his garments and fell on the ground before he continued on his journey. After a short while another traveller appeared. He refreshed himself with the cool water and, while standing near the well, found the money bag on the ground. He picked it up, rejoiced about the stroke of luck and went happily on his way.
Yet another stranger came after a while who also drank of the water from the well and then proceeded to take a nap nearby. Meanwhile, the first traveler had noticed the loss of his purse and hurriedly returned to the area since he surmised that he could have only lost it while refreshing himself at the well.
When he saw the sleeping man, he awakened him and asked him whether he had found the money, to which the other replied, truthfully, that he had not. However, the first stranger evidently did not believe the others assurance and after some accusations and shouting, a fight between the two ensued.
It was at this point Moses came running from his place of meditation to quell the disturbance and calm the tempers because he had witnessed what had happened. But it was too late. The man who had lost the purse had already killed the innocent man when Moses arrived at the scene. The prophet related his observations to the man, who was quite shaken at his deed, and departed in great sorrow over the loss of his possessions and the knowledge of having killed for no cause.
Moses was also shaken by this experience and he wondered deeply about the justice and benevolence of a God who had permitted such an act to happen.
Lord of the Universe, spoke Moses, “can it be thy will to punish the innocent and let prosper the guilty? The man who hath stolen the money bag is enjoying wealth which is not his, whilst the innocent man hath been slain. The owner of the money, too, hath not only lost his property, but his loss hath been the cause of his becoming a murderer. I fail to understand the ways of providence and workings of divine justice. O Almighty, reveal unto me Thy hidden ways that I may understand.”
And so the Lord proceeded to tell Moses why it was just. The man who had lost the money had inherited it from his father who, in turn, had stolen it from the father of the man who had found it. Therefore that situation had now been corrected. The man who had been killed, had in years past killed the brother of the man who had killed him during the quarrel. Said the Lord to Moses:
Know then, O Moses, that I ordained it that the murderer should be put to death by the brother of the victim, whilst the son should find the money of which his father had once been robbed. My ways are inscrutable, and often the human mind wonders why the innocent suffer and the wicken prosper.
Thus the great prophet-leader was taught the ways and wisdom of God, how to deal with men and how to judge and how not to; all valuable lessons. (Ginzberg, II, 302; Philo, Vita Mosis, 1:12) especially in the context of your debate about iniquities and suffering and moral evils, and why such things exist in this life.
The insight Moses needed was in the PAST he did not know. Similarly, if you had knowledge of events that took place before the creation of the earth and could relate this context to your distractors, they might not make the same kind of moral judgments about suffering as they now do. So, if you can learn a bit about early Christian doctrine and then pass it on to agnostics and non-theists who have very legitimate questions, the authentic theology underlying Christianity would make more sense and they would be less likely to judge incorrectly in the same manner Moses did.
Try giving them data and see what they do with it. Perhaps you could start with Pre-creation existence of spirits of mankind and conditions that formed the context of Creation in authentic and early christian theology. See if it helps.
Clear
σετωφιδρφιω
.