The Problem of Natural Evil

[John V]

Because the protection of humans by humans is well-nigh impossible. If - as your lot always claim - God loves us as his children, then the duty of protection of the innocent necessarily falls to God.

I don't generally car for the God-as-father analogy, but it seems to apply here. Suppose you have a gaggle of kids of your own: who is responsible for their protection - you, or children their own age?

Boru

God doesn't claim fathership to the entire race in the Bible.

[Captain Colostomy]

Because the protection of humans by humans is well-nigh impossible. If - as your lot always claim - God loves us as his children, then the duty of protection of the innocent necessarily falls to God.

I don't generally car for the God-as-father analogy, but it seems to apply here. Suppose you have a gaggle of kids of your own: who is responsible for their protection - you, or children their own age?

Boru

God doesn't claim fathership to the entire race in the Bible.

I sense a semantic turd sandwich. He supposedly created humans in his image, and that seems to satisfy the fatherhood bit.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

God doesn't claim fathership to the entire race in the Bible

He certainly seems to do so:

Galatians 4:4-7

But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir.

But even if you have some exegesis which wriggles out of this one, so what? What business does God have punishing those over whom he does NOT claim fathership? Do you let your neighbours discipline your kids?

Boru

[John V]

He certainly seems to do so:

Galatians 4:4-7

But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir.

Incorrect, as the letter wasn't written to all mankind:

Galatians 1
1 Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead), 2 and all the brethren who are with me,

To the churches of Galatia:

But even if you have some exegesis which wriggles out of this one, so what?

So analogies based on parental responsibilities are shown to be faulty.

What business does God have punishing those over whom he does NOT claim fathership?

They're citizens of the world he created.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...There is not only no evidence for a loving, powerful, just god, the evidence stacks up heavily against the existence of one.

Evidence against god? Then what's with all the long threads about how atheists don't have to prove there is no god, burden of proof, etc.? If you have the evidnece then just trot it out and we can all go home.

[Tartarus Sauce]

...There is not only no evidence for a loving, powerful, just god, the evidence stacks up heavily against the existence of one.

Evidence against god? Then what's with all the long threads about how atheists don't have to prove there is no god, burden of proof, etc.? If you have the evidnece then just trot it out and we can all go home.

I'm pretty sure Chas is specifically claiming that there is a stack of counter-evidence against a loving and just god, not against gods as a whole.

[IAmNotHere]

Evil is often a word that is overused without consideration for its true meaning.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Evil is often a word that is overused without consideration for its true meaning.

Perhaps you could give us your definition...

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Perhaps you could give us your definition...

I'll have a lash at it.

Evil is unnecessary harm inflicted on another feeling being. If you have to bash a man's face in to stop him from beating a child, it isn't evil. If you skin a dog because you like the noises he makes, it is.

Boru

[genkaus]

Perhaps you could give us your definition...

I'll have a lash at it.

Evil is unnecessary harm inflicted on another feeling being. If you have to bash a man's face in to stop him from beating a child, it isn't evil. If you skin a dog because you like the noises he makes, it is.

Boru

And what's the criteria for necessity?

In order to hear the dog make the noises I like so much, it is necessary for me to skin it.