The Problem of Evil, Free Will, and the "Greater Good"

[FallentoReason]

If you default to honestly questioning God and view Him as He presents himself scripturally, then you will eventually find Him dispite yourself and your initial motives... IF you stay true to looking to understand the God of the bible and not some ideal of Him.

I still retain a little knowledge of God from my particular brand of Christianity I was a part of. I'm eager to hear every special-pleaded version of him though in order to show people why I can't personally believe in their particular take of the concept. It has never been easier to do this than through philosophy.

The Jews who followed Christ back then what were they called? Jews or Christians? (They were Christians, matter of fact there was a big debate on whether or not one had to become a jew first and then convert to Christianity.) Even so the remaining Jews that are here are here in accordance to what Chirst said. (That the Jewish people will not be disolved/pass from this earth till His second comming.)

I was waiting for the generic Not All Will Be Saved apologetic. You never fail to leave me disgusted at the injustice your book promotes. Will you be able to live with yourself in eternal bliss knowing your stock answers made people walk the other way?

[Minimalist]

We talked about this the word for generation also translates into 'people' as in the Jewish people. The Jewish people have not 'passed away' have they?

Drippy, just because you invent an excuse does NOT mean that rational people buy it. You are going to have to learn that. When you were a kid did you clap very hard for Tinkerbell, too?

[Godscreated]

It seems that many Christians try to avoid the problem of evil by arguing that God has given men "free will", but doesn't this just hide the problem behind another layer of abstraction?

Syllogistic Argument:
I. If a being is omnipotent, then he has a means to every end to which any other being has a means, and he carries out all means to which he wills the ends.

II. If a being is omnibenevolent, then every end that he wills is good, and he wills all ends that are good and to which he has a means.

III. There exists at least one scenario in which there exists two distinct beings (A and B) such that A carries out a means to an evil end E, and B has a means to an end E' such that if B would have carried out the means to E' then A would not have had the means to E.

Proof: Assume there exists some being G such that G is simultaneously omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then G has (I) but does not carry out (III) the means to E'. Hence, G does not will E' (I) which implies that E' is not good (II). Assuming objective morality, it is then, therefore, wrong for B to carry out the means to E'.

Intuitive Appeal:
Bob hates Bobbette and decides that he is going kill her, but first confides in his close friend Bobby. Bobby could call the police and stop Bob, but since he also hates Bobbette, he decides to let his friend go through with his sinister plan. Since Bobby has a means to stop Bob from killing Bobbette, certainly an omnipotent god would also have some means. This god could act to stop the murder but does not; thus, he does not want to stop the murder. If this god is also omnibenvolent, he or she wants only what is good, so the act of stopping Bobbette's murder must not have been good. Assuming objective morality, it would have been wrong for Bobby to stop Bob. To put it plainly, either no omnipotent, omnibenevolent god exists, or it is wrong to inhibit another from evil. Both are absurd in light of Biblical Christianity.

Omnibenevolent, this is something non-believers made up so they could have their argument, scripture does not portray God as omnibenevolent. Doing away with this pretense would destroy half of what you argue.

[Esquilax]

Omnibenevolent, this is something non-believers made up so they could have their argument, scripture does not portray God as omnibenevolent. Doing away with this pretense would destroy half of what you argue.

And turn god into your garden variety near omnicidal dickwaffle. So much better.

[goodnews]

The un-scriptual "christiandom" doctrin of "free moral agency" is down to translators adding the word{ free before will} it should be translated "own will" Ephesians 1:11 In whom { Jesus } also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him { God } WHO WORKETH ALL THINGS AFTER THE COUNCEL OF HIS OWN WILL: This verse crushes the "free will" doctrin, this does not mean we cannot make choices but then those choices are neither free as everything is cause and effect etc: God in this verse and many others, tells us that He operates everything and is resposible for everything "christiandom" hates this because if they where to belive it, then they could not threaten unbelievers with their un-scriptual burning hell fire myth.

[Venom7513]

To put it plainly, either no omnipotent, omnibenevolent god exists, or it is wrong to inhibit another from evil. Both are absurd in light of Biblical Christianity.

Actually, the first is not. Biblical Christianity (especially the OT) does not portray god as omnibenevolent.

I have always interpreted the Christian God's omnibenevolence as an assertion about the nature of good rather than the nature of God. It seems that "good" is in essence defined as the will of God.

What are the other options? God arbitrates some standard for good that he cannot or does not follow, or is good determined by something other than God altogether?

---

The un-scriptual "christiandom" doctrin of "free moral agency" is down to translators adding the word{ free before will} it should be translated "own will" Ephesians 1:11 In whom { Jesus } also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him { God } WHO WORKETH ALL THINGS AFTER THE COUNCEL OF HIS OWN WILL: This verse crushes the "free will" doctrin, this does not mean we cannot make choices but then those choices are neither free as everything is cause and effect etc: God in this verse and many others, tells us that He operates everything and is resposible for everything "christiandom" hates this because if they where to belive it, then they could not threaten unbelievers with their un-scriptual burning hell fire myth.

This view is especially fascinating to me because it not only charges the Christian God with omission of good, it blames him for all evil directly.

Am I understanding your belief properly, or am I putting words in your mouth?

[purplepurpose]

God is original GM(game master) He created servers to support game called "matrix" a dramatic play. Where souls only acts like AI in robots.
We are not artificial but original God created intelligence an individual part of his consciousness given free will to serve God. If God consciousness is like a Sun then ours is like a tiny particle of light which Sun gave life to.

[goodnews]

God is responsible but he is not to blame, there is a differance, Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil : I the LORD do all these things. God uses evil, thats why he created Satan or better called our adversary, You see God is still creating us, thats why He put the Tree of Knowledge which held both knowledge of { good and evil } in Eden, We carnal mankind are sinning machines, God had planned for us to sin, how else are we to know what is good if we have no idea what is evil ?? Would you know what is up if you did not know what is down etc: We choose to sin all of us do , we are to blame for our choices, but not responsible, God has it all planned out, think about it, Why else would He send us a Saveior, who by the way Jesus has saved us all not just a few lucky Christians who hold the true doctrins, thats another of there un-scriptual blasphemys.

[Venom7513]

God is original GM(game master) He created servers to support game called "matrix" a dramatic play. Where souls only acts like AI in robots.
We are not artificial but original God created intelligence an individual part of his consciousness given free will to serve God. If God consciousness is like a Sun then ours is like a tiny particle of light which Sun gave life to.

At the risk of being Ad Hominem, consider dropping the dose on your LSD. ;-)

While I would love to respond to this objection, I have NO idea what that strange collection of words is supposed to mean.

---

God is responsible but he is not to blame, there is a differance, Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil : I the LORD do all these things. God uses evil, thats why he created Satan or better called our adversary, You see God is still creating us, thats why He put the Tree of Knowledge which held both knowledge of { good and evil } in Eden, We carnal mankind are sinning machines, God had planned for us to sin, how else are we to know what is good if we have no idea what is evil ?? Would you know what is up if you did not know what is down etc: We choose to sin all of us do , we are to blame for our choices, but not responsible, God has it all planned out, think about it, Why else would He send us a Saveior, who by the way Jesus has saved us all not just a few lucky Christians who hold the true doctrins, thats another of there un-scriptual blasphemys.

How can someone be responsible but not to blame? Isn't that exactly what being responsible is?

According to good 'ol Dictionary.com: responsible - Being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it.

But let's ignore the technical definitions for a moment. If I'm understanding you correctly, a man could load a gun knowing that when shot it would kill, put it up to his head, pull the trigger, and be responsible for his death (since it was his plan to kill himself), but still somehow be not to blame (since ultimately it was the gun that killed him). This is absurd in any context that I can comprehend.

Either I'm missing something or your point isn't even self-consistent.

---

Omnibenevolent, this is something non-believers made up so they could have their argument, scripture does not portray God as omnibenevolent. Doing away with this pretense would destroy half of what you argue.

While it's true that it would do away with my argument, it also seems that it would leave the notion of good in crisis. As I mentioned in a previous post, with God, but not as a basis, how can one go about recognizing or even defining good?

[Mystic]

I think you have to look at the whole system. Is the system good and for the best? This is the question when it comes to ultimate benevolence.

I think the fact he gave us the ability to organize ourselves, to try to prevent crimes, try to implement justice or benevolence, is better than God interfering.

If God interfered, he would be expected to interfere for every situation, and that takes away the noble will of humanity towards implementing justice and benevolence. It would also take away diversity in the human experience and personality choosing.

All the praise earned through the system would not be there if we were treated like kindergarten kids, with no ability to advance and work together for well being.

The system is what it is, as harsh as it is, gives us opportunity to be better people then living in a care bear kindergarten world where everyone was just naturally a saint with no struggle against evil.