Epicurean Paradox

[Drich]

No, they don't believe god kidnapped their baby, but they are wondering why god would allow such a thing to happen given that he is allegedly omnipotent and benevolent.

Omni benevolent is a nice sentiment but is not a biblical trait of God.

Why did god sit idly by as this horrible event happened just to preserve free will?

Because that is the purpose of this life. It is choice. The parent's choice, the baby's future choices, the kidnappers choice. If God interrupts a decision that would preserve your temporary physical life, then how could he not intervene in a bad choice that would destroy your eternal life? If God is making all of these choices for us then why not make just automatons programed with His express will?

Assuming the Christian doctrine that we are all sinners making us evil, why would an omnipotent god's only option be to kill everyone?

Because God above all else is Righteous, This means God's righteousness dictates limits on the Love He is willing to extend. Righteousness Demands a Death for sin. Because we are all sinners we would all be fated to die because of our sin.

---

So we all deserve to be on a hit list of some kind? We're all that evil? I think that's just another one of those bare assertions (and were it true, god is responsible for putting us here, knowing full well what we would do correct? Problem of evil territory yet again). You still haven't wriggled out of the problem of evil, you're just avoiding it. Is it safe to assume at this point that you don't actually feel the need to address it? You'd rather argue about something else? I'm cool with that, let's roll with it. God isn't responsible for evil, care to make a list of all the other things he isn't responsible for? I could add a few things to a list like that myself. Hell, we may find common ground.

What problem? Perhaps if you define it, because obviously you see a problem that I do not.

[Nine]

Omni benevolent is a nice sentiment but is not a biblical trait of God.

god can be an asshole? Reminds me of the invention of lying

[The Grand Nudger]

The problem of evil is that it exists, weighed against the claims of omni-benevolence and omnipotence. We've come full circle where you avoid this problem by removing omni-benevolence. Good for you, and I suppose I get to ask again, "So, god is not omnibenevolent then?" and maybe this time you wont try to salvage it with bullshit about "unauthorized biographies" and "enough truth", right? Let me be clear, I agree with you completely as to whether or not the biblical god is omnibenevolent. I don't think that the god of the bible is a force for good at all, merely a force for it's own desires. It just so happens that I think that this god's desires are malevolent. Epicuras seemed to feel that such a god would not be worthy of worship (the able but not willing variety-similar to the not able and not willing variety), I agree.

[Drich]

I get why God might not stop a 4-year-old from getting raped if free will for the rapist is so damn unimaginably important. Sure, apparently it's okay to threaten him with hell after he dies, but the occasional mild electrical shock in this life would be just too much freakin' much interference. But why would God allow a 4-year old die a slow and agonizing death from an accident of nature like an earthquake or a parasitic infection? Where does the almighty free will figure in there? What free will imperative is served by letting us get hit with stuff we could not possibly foresee or defend against? What about natural evil?

I know you have heard this answer before. But we live in a fallen world. What that means is that at the time of the fall the reigns of this world the care for it and all of the things in it including infections and earth quakes are now our responsibility to manage and to deal with. If We want to be like God and enjoy the freedom it offers, we also have to accept the responsibility of that job.

That means it is up to us to manage disease and sickness, it is up to us to manage the damage and destruction of the planet, or to pick up after said D&D has ravaged the land. Again it is all apart of freewill. If you want to be independent of the Expressed will of God then it is on you to manage the ALL of consequences of that desire. If you want to be God then be God and hold back the hurricanes an keep the tornadoes from destroying entire cities.. Can't? Then how about we do our part in stopping the one thing that has taken more lives and destroyed more land than all of the natural disasters to this point. War. This is well within the firm grasp of man and yet we still have war. War is a far greater threat than anything else that has plagued man from the time of the garden. Why wasn't that on your list?

[Faith No More]

Because that is the purpose of this life. It is choice. The parent's choice, the baby's future choices, the kidnappers choice. If God interrupts a decision that would preserve your temporary physical life, then how could he not intervene in a bad choice that would destroy your eternal life? If God is making all of these choices for us then why not make just automatons programed with His express will?

But why is choice the purpose? Personallly, I would rather be an atuomaton if it meant no more evil in the world.

[Drich]

The problem of evil is that it exists, weighed against the claims of omni-benevolence and omnipotence. We've come full circle where you avoid this problem by removing omni-benevolence. Good for you, and I suppose I get to ask again, "So, god is not omnibenevolent then?" and maybe this time you wont try to salvage it with bullshit about "unauthorized biographies" and "enough truth", right?

Sin is anything not in the Expressed will of God

Evil is a malicious intention to be out side of that expressed will

Not all sin is Evil, but all evil is sin.

Right there did you see it? Evil is not a thing. Evil is the description of a malicious desire to be outside of God's expressed will. Evil is like a hole. A hole is not a physical/tangible object. It is the description we give when there is a void or a lack of material in an object. Like in a wall or in a donut.

Evil is the intense lack of desire to be in the expressed Will of God. If God demanded/forced that we be in said will then their could not be "freewill." Evil is apart of the gift of free will. It is the proof that free will exists.

For Free Will is biblically defined as having the ability of being outside of the expressed will of God. In otherwords it is the ability to sin. Evil is the extreme end to sin. therefore underscoring the principle/gift of free will.

[The Grand Nudger]

God is not a thing, god is a description we give when there is a void or hole in our knowledge.

Talking hares are Aesoply defined as.....

Less asserting, more demonstrating. We have a couple of threads about freewill, maybe you should go float your "proof" there?

[Drich]

Because that is the purpose of this life. It is choice. The parent's choice, the baby's future choices, the kidnappers choice. If God interrupts a decision that would preserve your temporary physical life, then how could he not intervene in a bad choice that would destroy your eternal life? If God is making all of these choices for us then why not make just automatons programed with His express will?

But why is choice the purpose? Personallly, I would rather be an atuomaton if it meant no more evil in the world.

So we can decide where we want to spend eternity. Do we want to live with out sin for an eternity with God? or do we want to be eternally seperated from God?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'll take separation, thanks. An eternity with you and your god? Count me out.

[NoMoreFaith]

So there is no such thing as evil in the world at all, except when committed by true believers in God.

Agnostic Atheists are exempt from evil, since it is neither malicious nor intended to be outside will of God. You cannot maliciously intend to refuse something which you do not believe exists and for which no evidence exists. It would be like saying you are maliciously intending to refuse the will of a spaghetti monster. It cannot be malicious nor intentional.

So only the deeply convinced religious can commit evil?

Actually.. starting to agree with you here Drich.