how can a loving God and evil co-exist?

Remove all ads!

I was trying to say he made us how he sees us.

 

From a straightforward point of view, it is the classic 'problem of evil'.

The traditional Judeo-Christian God is, like Chevalier suggested, omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent.

If you're thinking of the traditional Judeo-Christian God there seem to be two optiions to me: 1) don't believe it exists (which isn't the same as believing it does not exist) or, 2) bite the bullet and commit yourself to believing that it exists and that this world is as perfect a world as possible where free will exists.

The way I take the problem of evil to work is that if God is omnipotent he could change the world, if God was omniscient he would know how to change the world, and if God was omni-benevolent he would change the world. I take Chevalier (Edit because I initially thought Chevalier was Grey Magistrate - the names are so similar I guess) and many others to be denying the third portion of what I just wrote - to be saying he wouldn't change the world because there has to be a world with free will to be as perfect as possible.

The problem others have with this is that there seems to be a lot of needless suffering that serves no real purpose and is completely divorced from free will. Kids are born with Tay Sachs - where is the free will in that? Animals suffer horribly in the wilderness - where is the free will in that? Bad weather kills large amounts of people - where is the free will in that? There just seems to be lots and lots of bad, dare I say evil, in the world that can't be laid at the hands of free will.

I suppose another option is to deny that all of this stuff is evil but I haven't really had anyone bite that bullet before. The more common response is essentially: 'God works in mysterious ways' which is I beleive what Chevalier refers to in his second post when he says we can't understand. Unfortunately, this isn't a particularly satisfying or compelling answer to someone questioning - it sounds too paternalistic.

Even if the problem of evil is true though it wouldn't mean there wasn't a god it would simply mean that if there is one it wouldn't be (omnipotent AND omniscient AND omni-benevolent).

If I could believe in God I would (Edit to say that's not what I mean; I mean that I would prefer to be a believer) - I do not personally understand the atheists who try to destroy the faith of others. Personally, I have a great deal of respect for a lot of what various religions have to offer. I don't believe there is no god either, I simply don't have a belief and believe an answer is unknowable. I've had a discussion before about whether you could force yourself to believe in God, essentially brain-washing yourself (is that possible?) to believe in God. For example, make an honest effort at reading the Bible or whatever parrticular book, attending a church, going to scripture classes etc. Over a course of years I thought you may actually be able to move from a state of non-belief to a state of belief by wrapping yourself in a particular faith. I have this weird belief in epistemic responsibility though and just couldn't get myself to do it but I dunno, it might work.

Edit - and as an aside, there isn't any proof of a god by Aquinas or anyone nor is there any proof that there is not a god - all purported proofs one way or the other have been refuted rather well.

[ October 31, 2003, 20:16: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

To continue on a slightly off-topic note so dont I understand how some people can draw the conclusion that just because you cant prove that there is no God then the Bible/Koran/whatever has to be true. The possibility of a divine being has nothing to do with the divinity of any gospel.

 

-The Crucible, Act Four, Rev. Nathan Hale

 

OK, I have to open my big mouth. LNT, I will try to answer your question based upon my personal beliefs, and Christian philosophy as a whole. Bear in mind that there is no quick and easy answer, a subject this obscure can’t have an easy answer. Ignore the responses like “God works in mysterious ways” or “we can’t hope to understand the hand of God” or “Everyone will get their just rewards in the end”…these statements may be true, but they are woefully insufficient to answer your question.

First, evil…it does exist (here I stand in disagreement to my friend Manus, et al), but we must begin with defining what it is. Evil is everything that is in opposition to the desires and needs of life that causes suffering. From a human standpoint, evil is the discrepancy between what is and what should be. This discrepancy has haunted human thought for all time and it leads to a need to understand both the nature of evil and its origin.

By observation we can see three distinct natures to evil:
1. Physical evil causes harm to man, either bodily or mentally. Simple examples of physical evil are death, accident, sickness, but also include poverty and oppression that result from imperfections in our social organization. Mental suffering, depression, even the inability to understand those things we cannot are other types of physical evil.
2. Metaphysical evil is the more natural manifestation of evil in the world. Storms, earthquakes, droughts, even the very actions of a predatory animal ending the life of another animal in order to secure its own existence. Philosophers have debated whether metaphysical evil is really evil at all but just “how the world was made”, but the Christian response has an answer for the existence of this evil as well, so we’ll leave it in the natures of evil.
3. Moral evil is an action that is in violation to a person’s moral order. Christianity has also called this type of evil “sin”. My moral order may be different from your moral order, and although religion is typically the force that shapes moral order in most people, it is not a requirement. Try to think of it more as an act against conscience. All people are capable of moral evil, not just someone who ascribes to a given Faith.

Sometimes the evil we observe is actually a combination of more than one kind at a time, like a famine and deaths due to food riots or greed and the subjugation of another person or persons. Most philosophers are in general agreement as to the nature of evil. There are some who state that evil is merely a “lesser good”, but that theory falls apart in the face of syllogistic logic, and is not the aim of my response. Where philosophies differ radically is in the question of the origin and purpose of evil, and Christian philosophy, in my opinion, does a far better job of answering that question.

Gonna post this now and answer more later.

 

Late-Night-Thinker, God sent part of himself to show an example for living and to bear all the pain in the world (past and future) on the cross. Think about that for awhile. It wasn't just the nails and the suffocation Jesus was dealing with, it was all the pain that resulted from mankind's sin, all at once. And he survived it and death because he wanted his creation to have free will but still have a way to be with him in eternity if they chose to do so.

If he can bear all the pain in the world on the cross, surely we can each bear a small amount of pain and even help our neighbors bear there's. If it results in death, so be it. We all die sometime. If you believe in Christ Jesus, you are saved and will spend eternity with him through God's grace. Have faith. Fight the good fight. If you believe in Jesus then you know he has something better planned for his believers -- people who want to get rid of their sins, rid of evil, and live like God intended from Day 1, but still respecting man's free will. Live as best you can, by Jesus' example. There can be no better role model. No other man has yet to raise himself from the dead. No one else can claim that. Who was this man that lived a sinless life, healed others, hung out with sinners, died on the cross, bearing all mankind's sins, and then rose to tell the tale? Jesus. Unless you can raise yourself from the dead I wouldn't mock his words or his parables.

Perservere. Don't fear pain and death, just do the best you can. And in the end Jesus will raise you and you will live with him as it should have been from Day 1, no sin, no pain. This gift will not be something you earn nor is it a reward for being a goody two shoes. It is a gift from the grace of God, which you can receive through faith. You will have to loose your ego to accept this. The alternative is clear. You spend the rest of eternity in more sin and more pain in the absence of God, left with God's number one enemy, deceiver of man, Satan. Hey, the choice is yours. Choose wisely. It's ok to have doubts, but resolve them while you can. I'd like to see all of you in heaven someday. My words are harsh out of love, not for any other reason. So no hard feelings. Peace be with you in whatever you decide.

 

Oh I can start ranting about every "contradiction" in the bible I've found.
We can just grab a few verses, Psalms and books and toss it at the opposition like tossing mud.
But that would spoil the conversation wouldn't it?

I've found a greater force in my life, me.

I am the center of my world, right? Is there any other? One who is not hidden behind veils of doubt?
I have created truth, right? Have I not given everything a position in my world? Have I not found a use for everything that came into my world? Have I not created moral?

Should I then believe in myself? Yes.

I can say, that the last Christian died on the cross, every Christian follows their heart and calls it Jesus.

To quote Nietzsche

 

@Morgoth: You told us what you believe, but did nothing to answer the question at hand, unless of course you believe that YOU are responsible for all the evil in the world. If that is the case, be advised that we are summoning an army of Valar who will forthright chain you in the void! IIRC, self-awareness typically develops in the fetus. Perhaps there is an alternate way of thinking that comes up with answers that are more involved than “I exist because I do”.

Back to the topic at hand… we come to the need to explain the existence of evil in the world. Philosophically, there are three methods that attempt to account for evil. I will go over the first two briefly, as they have little to do with Christian theology.

1. Existence is evil. Good is only an illusion and the pursuit of this illusion is what makes the human race exist. This is the basis of Buddhism, which states that one can never be happy in a world where the only reality is misery, and the only goal to seek is a non-existent state of impersonal called Nirvana. A more modern representation of this is the system of Pessimism, a “faith” espoused by Schopenhauer and others which is best summed up his tenet that “pleasure is the partial and temporary absence of pain”. This school of thought does not eliminate the existence of God or a Creator, but does portray God as disaffected, detached, sometimes amused as creation futilely runs through the maze of life.
2. Evil is part of nature. This sophism equates metaphysical evil with all other forms of evil. It views evil almost as an entity that exerts its will upon life. There is no origin of evil…it is part of nature itself. These systems reject any notion of Creation or God. Moral evil is not truly evil, but an error. These errors can be corrected by improving the social circumstances of man. It is this logy that gives birth to Humanism, Socialism, Communism, Atheism and secular philosophers like our good friend Nietzsche. In the spirit of goodwill, I will refrain from offering comment on the durability of these dogmas.
3. Evil is the manifestation of one of the two opposing principles or forces at work in this world. It is due to the duality of these oppositions that the strange blend of evil and good are apparent in our world. This school of thought is illustrated in the teaching of Zoroastrianism, one of the oldest of the world religions. It has served as the cornerstone of thought for Plato, Pythagoras, Aristotle, Heraclites, and many great philosophers of antiquity. It was the foundation of faith for the Hebrews, the Gnostics and finally the Christians. It is from here that we will move to a more applicable understanding of the existence of evil in our world.

I will now post and wait to finish at a later time. I somehow feel that my efforts may be wasted. If any of you have an interest in hearing more, please reply by either posting to that effect on this thread or sending me a pm. Perhaps it would be best just to let this subject die if no one really cares.

 

Hey Hackenslash, I like your first definition of evil, as that which is not good, which is therefore the same as your second and third definitions in your third post, but you have completely misinterpreted Buddhism, and Nirvana.

Buddhism is just the same as Christianity, they follow the teachings of Gautama, Budhism (only one d) is the older, a sort of occult philosophy.

Budhists and Buddhists alike agree with your third definition, they only say that Good and Evil, as a duality, are actually two parts of the same thing, and all else except that one is an illusion. This maya of our present lives is 'evil' because it is so differentiated from that one source, which is absolute, and 'good' life, love, all these are merely the essence of what this absolute is. They do not believe in a personal "God" but they do believe in many apperceptive gods, Nirvana is the becoming of such a god, an aware being as part of the infinite universe (and therefore non-being, as it is infinite). I'm sure some philosophers ascribe to your first definition, but Bud(d)hists are not among them in the way you have ascribed.

Of course, all three of your definitions can be seen as true, Good and Evil as a duality of existence, and evil as the absence of good, and therefore every much a part of this reality, where evil is simply an error, a deviation from good, manifested as a mindset, as all thought have an existence of their own, and that this reality, as it contains such an abundance of this, is in itself evil, and as such is an illusion, as evil only exists as the absence of good.

Of course, I think your final description is the most definitive.

Morgoth is however, right on topic with what he says, and I couldn't agree with him (especially that quote) more than I do. You see, we are responcible for the situations around us, we create both good and evil, there is no line between ourselves and the rest of reality, but as those most aware of ourselves, we exert the greatest impact upon it.

Sure, the nature of the universe means that in the end, only good comes from an action, whether good or evil, but this does not mean that it isn't still our choice that this happens, it is just inevitable for us to eventually make this decision on our own. A lot of harm can be done in the meantime however, and this is what we should consider.

For anyone who is undecided, I suggest dying; you may not understand everything, but you will be closer to comprehending this than any of us are now.

Evil is just an oppurtunity to learn, an oppurtunity to do more (or become more) aligned to 'good', and is often done for exactly this purpose.

 

I apologize to all for my misinterpretation of the theology of Buddhism. My studies of Buddhism have been perfuntory at best and serve mostly to enable my mouth to get wider to accomodate more of my foot . I am writing this off the top of my head as I have been at work (yeah...sure I'm working) and I may have been confusing Buddhism with Confucianism or Taoism.

Anyway, Christian philoshiphical theology is a distinct offshoot from the third school of thought, and incorporates a relatively unique factor upon the power of evil in our world...the human will. That's what I'll cover next...Hey, I said I was at work!

You know, Manus, I can't help but wonder, as you and I exchange thoughts and as I incurr the animosity of anti-theists like Shura and Morgoth, if Late-Nite Thinker really just needed a hug. Later all.

 

You may have a point there Hacken Slash! Let's just hope that while we're all swapping rhetoric, he doesn't go and do something crazy like convert to the Church of Scientology! Ahh Travolta, where did you go wrong?

 

Tom Cruise, too. Part of the reason Nicole Kidman left him (hey, Manus, she's an Aussie, too isn't she?). Travolta is a little easier to swallow, I just remember him as Vinny Barbarino and don't expect much else!

Anyway, hey L-NT, what's the verdict. You started this mess, do you still want to hear the likes of Manus and I beat our heads against the wall , or just have a group hug and go out for a pint ?

 

First and foremost, I would like to say my dream is to become a respected scientist. I am leading my classes (number one in bio, two in chemistry) and more than that, I have a natural affinity for the workings of Nature. Nature is easy to understand. Essentially, everything runs downhill.

From the moment of the Big Bang until this very second, Nature has moved from organization to unorganized stability. This is essentially the second law of thermodynamics.

At the moment of Creation, all of reality was perfect. All matter and all energy perfectly symmetrical and in a word...the same. Perfection of reality is God. Reality, as we know it, is the unraveling of that perfection.

Reality is a parasite living off of the decaying matter and energy of God. We are less than the perfection of God, and have no choice in the matter (pun!), as the unraveling of God was necessary for our existence. Did God have to make it this way? Could he not have defined the rules of existence to support a more eternal and less chaotic reality? I do not believe God could have, as I choose to believe God is a loving entity and would have made reality most suitable for love to exist.

I believe God made the universe, soul wrenching flaws and all, the way it is in order to support the most varied and numerous forms of life, and hence love, to exist.

What life and love lies out there among the numerous points of light that could each support a whole society uniquely clamoring for the perfection that was denied in the very moment perfection was sacrificed?

Are there any answers here? Somehow, there is for me.

I think the underlying theme of existence is each other. We are not alone. As long as I care for the person next to me, I have surpassed the underlying march towards chaos and in effect, have earned a soul. It is the very act of love, so at odds with the inevitable isolation of spread matter and energy that will one day be reality, that grants me the right to know God.

Did God die to give us life? Perfection certainly did. Either way, love does indeed exist. I thank God for that.


Edit...LOL, just read the scientology remark...
that's funny. Well, I guess I have created my own scientology. I suppose it is not so bad if I found the answer before the telling...either way, Travolta ruled in Saturday Night Fever.

 

Hacken Slash, evil is in percieving.

Please speak for yourself, that I am not believing in a 'God' but me, doesn't mean I am (openly) hating the theists

[ November 01, 2003, 15:10: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

Mysterious ways is one. It may well be perceived as paternalistic by non-believers. The other is that God is a higher being, we are lower beings. Thus we can't understand Him fully, because He's beyond our cognition and understanding - the way you wouldn't expect a fly to understand humans. This works even for politheists. Where you have a single deity, omniscent and omnipotent, it becomes even more obvious, as you can for sure tell that you're not omniscent or omnipotent. With our limited cognition we can't understand a being with universal, total cognition. It's logical even if you add 'if it existed' and the existence of any gods at all is a non-fact for you.

Laches, how would God make everyone happy without removing free will? Having an innate disease or being a murder victim isn't a result of your free will, of course. But then there's other people's free will and all implications of it. There are the laws of physics, of nature etc, in short: the mechanics of the world.

 

More like shattered.

 

And the people call their God ununderstandable, like a fly can't understand a human.

They gave their God a name, but when did a fly ever name us?
They told me their God is good, benevolent, omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, but when could they ever understand Him enough to tell me how He is like?
They say that there are two kinds of evils in this world, Evil, and stealing free will, more evil than Evil iself.

And God chose the lesser evil, Evil, but whoso is powerful enough to force God to a decision?
Evil forced God, for God had to chose one of them.

 

Where would free will be then if God enforced good? God is eternal, evil isn't. God was prior to evil and evil came into existence as a result of choices made of free will.

As for names, we didn't give God a name. We refer to Him as God (essentially: the god). He doesn't need a name, he is God. Iehovah is 'I am who I am', which is God. Actually, Iahveh is more proper and Iehovah is a result of mediaeval theologists putting the vowels from adonai (Lord) into ihvh, but that's not the point

 

But that isn't the problem of evil. Here, from a quick search I like this little site:

Manus seems to bite the bullet and deny that there is evil. Chevalier seems to be saying essentially that the world is as perfect as possible (with we can't understand God thrown in to explain why we don't realize this). The problem to me seems to be that both of these are anti-intuitive and don't correspond with our experience. Free will only explains one type of evil.

Personally, I really don't have much regard for most existentialists, particularly Nietzsche or Sartre, but I do have a certain amount of fondness for Kierkegaard who was a devout Christian and said essentially "Yeah, Christianity seems to have contradictions. That's why we have faith."

[ November 01, 2003, 17:49: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

Uhm, isn't God omnipotent?
God can enforce good without taking our free will, if he is omnipotent that is.

[ November 01, 2003, 19:27: Message edited by: Morgoth ]