Epicurus riddle.

[Angrboda]

The problem does not come from postulating that God is all-loving.  The other side of omni-benevolence will do, that God is all good.  If you do not accept that God is all-good, then you admit that he is prone to evil, even if only a little bit.  This for most Christians simply will not do.  Thus he is postulated as omni-benevolent, whether or not it's in the bible, for the simple expedient of ruling out the possibility that God has committed evil acts.  This meaning of omni-benevolent is sufficient to restore order to the riddle.

I think if you had a better grasp of Scholastic theology, you would know that evil is defined as privation and that since God is not lacking in any perfection, He cannot be the source of evil.

We could go so many directions with this!

I don't see how this is an objection to what I posted. Unless you're circularly defining evil as privation from good being privation from God, then the problem of corruption of his perfection is the same. Again, is God defined as all-good? Yes he is. And the riddle points out the incompatibility between that perfection and his supposed action in the world. There is a definite privation of God from the world which you've just told me is evil. Riddle restored!