The Problem of Evil
- Thread starter xphineasx
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
G
God can change His mind, God chooses not to see everything, I don't know how it works exactly but God knows everything but doesn't know everything, here's a verse to ponder:
Psalms 11:4 *¶The LORD is in his holy temple, the LORD'S throne is in heaven: his eyes behold, his eyelids try, the children of men.
Also the two agreements (covenants) were different, one was if you sin you die, the other one was if you believe you live. one was based on man getting to God the other God getting to man. There is so many differences between the two, the law was only a shadow of what is to come.
I'm feeling more lazy than usual, here's something more to ponder that I ccp:
Law always has a place and work distinct and wholly diverse from that of grace. Law is God prohibiting and requiring; grace is God beseeching and bestowing. Law is a ministry of condemnation; grace, of forgiveness. Law curses; grace redeems from that curse. Law kills; grace makes alive. Law shuts every mouth before God; grace opens every mouth to praise Him. Law puts a great and guilty distance between man and God; grace makes guilty man nigh to God. Law says, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth"; grace says, "Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." Law says, "Hate thine enemy"; grace says, "Love your enemies, bless them that despitefully use you." Law says, do and live; grace says, believe and live. Law never had a missionary; grace is to be preached to every creature. Law utterly condemns the best man; grace freely justifies the worst (Luke 23:43; Rom. 5:8; ! Tim 1:15; 1 Cor. 6:9-11). Law is a system of probation; grace, of favor. Law stones an adulteress; grace says, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." Under law the sheep dies for the shepherd: under grace the Shepherd dies for the sheep.
Psalms 11:4 *¶The LORD is in his holy temple, the LORD'S throne is in heaven: his eyes behold, his eyelids try, the children of men.
Also the two agreements (covenants) were different, one was if you sin you die, the other one was if you believe you live. one was based on man getting to God the other God getting to man. There is so many differences between the two, the law was only a shadow of what is to come.
I'm feeling more lazy than usual, here's something more to ponder that I ccp:
Law always has a place and work distinct and wholly diverse from that of grace. Law is God prohibiting and requiring; grace is God beseeching and bestowing. Law is a ministry of condemnation; grace, of forgiveness. Law curses; grace redeems from that curse. Law kills; grace makes alive. Law shuts every mouth before God; grace opens every mouth to praise Him. Law puts a great and guilty distance between man and God; grace makes guilty man nigh to God. Law says, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth"; grace says, "Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." Law says, "Hate thine enemy"; grace says, "Love your enemies, bless them that despitefully use you." Law says, do and live; grace says, believe and live. Law never had a missionary; grace is to be preached to every creature. Law utterly condemns the best man; grace freely justifies the worst (Luke 23:43; Rom. 5:8; ! Tim 1:15; 1 Cor. 6:9-11). Law is a system of probation; grace, of favor. Law stones an adulteress; grace says, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." Under law the sheep dies for the shepherd: under grace the Shepherd dies for the sheep.
R
In my opinion, I think alot of people have a misunderstanding of evil because of how disastorous it can be. I used to beleive that GOD was the cause of it because I always thought he was in control over everything. However, now I've come to realize wheares GOD is getting stronger so is the devil. I don't think GOD is the actual cause for the suffering but isn't fully in control of how it happens. I don't think he'd wish harm on his creations.
J
My computer fails to accept any and all God claims. Thus it is an atheist. My finger-nail fails to acept any and all God claims. Thus, it is an insufficient definition.
Got a couple things for you.
YouTube - Canal de carmvideos <--- click
YouTube - Another Response to Lack of Belief of Atheists <--- click
So if meaning is self-assigned, isn't it ultimately illusory to demand anything in regards to self? Seems arrogant to do so.
Karma is dependent on the existance of the Hindu gods. What you speak if would require a redefining of the term as a general guilt-trip by the individual. Which would further imply that all morality is subjective.
Despite that you've already stated that you yourself do not believe an objective moral standard exists, and it is you who we are discussing about.
Is this where the semantical word games begin?
Which makes them ultimately subjective and arbitrary. Moral opinions, not moral facts.
How so? You just said they don't exist.
This would be more along the lines of epistimology, not so much ontology. Ontology asks the question, "Is human suffering actually immoral?" You've already stated that as an existentialist you reject the existance of objective moral truths. As a result, you can not make moral judgements as all you can do is, "I think X is wrong" or "I find X to be undesirable".
[qute]Yes. See? You're beginning to understand existentialism. [/quote]
To begin would require a lack thereof prior to, which there was no lack.
Two semantical word games at once?
Do Adam and Even run around Falcon punching and conjuring up tornados? I think you aren't fully paying attention to what I write, especially given that you seem to miss a lot of points.
Adam and Eve do not directly cause miscarriages and tornados. I did not once say that. I stated that the fall of man brought these things into the world.
Got a couple things for you.
YouTube - Canal de carmvideos <--- click
YouTube - Another Response to Lack of Belief of Atheists <--- click
So if meaning is self-assigned, isn't it ultimately illusory to demand anything in regards to self? Seems arrogant to do so.
Karma is dependent on the existance of the Hindu gods. What you speak if would require a redefining of the term as a general guilt-trip by the individual. Which would further imply that all morality is subjective.
Despite that you've already stated that you yourself do not believe an objective moral standard exists, and it is you who we are discussing about.
Is this where the semantical word games begin?
Which makes them ultimately subjective and arbitrary. Moral opinions, not moral facts.
How so? You just said they don't exist.
This would be more along the lines of epistimology, not so much ontology. Ontology asks the question, "Is human suffering actually immoral?" You've already stated that as an existentialist you reject the existance of objective moral truths. As a result, you can not make moral judgements as all you can do is, "I think X is wrong" or "I find X to be undesirable".
[qute]Yes. See? You're beginning to understand existentialism. [/quote]
To begin would require a lack thereof prior to, which there was no lack.
Two semantical word games at once?
Do Adam and Even run around Falcon punching and conjuring up tornados? I think you aren't fully paying attention to what I write, especially given that you seem to miss a lot of points.
Adam and Eve do not directly cause miscarriages and tornados. I did not once say that. I stated that the fall of man brought these things into the world.
Inanimate objects that lack consciousness don't have the ability to accept or reject God claims. I'm sorry that you disagree with the dictionary definition of atheism.
I don't believe that morality begins with religion at all. In fact, all societies, regardless of religion, have morals. Morals are a human, cultural invention to promote the needed social harmony that we need as a social group.
I'm not sure what you mean. It's arrogant to have goals for myself?
I've met atheists who believe in Karma.
And yes, I DO think morality is subjective. But KARMA as a concept implies an objective morality, which can be believed in without a God or religion.
Sure. Yeah.
Maybe? What words are you debating my use of?
Sure. I dont think moral FACTS exist.
Based on my own moral code, which is derived from both cultural and social factors. I believe that we should act in the benefit for the social group.
Sure. Yes.
Really? Because you seem to not understand it very well.
"Evil" is one of those words that's imbued with a lot of objective moral premises that I reject.
So....you're blaming man kind for things that people have no control over?
I'm not sure what you mean. It's arrogant to have goals for myself?
I've met atheists who believe in Karma.
And yes, I DO think morality is subjective. But KARMA as a concept implies an objective morality, which can be believed in without a God or religion.
Sure. Yeah.
Maybe? What words are you debating my use of?
Sure. I dont think moral FACTS exist.
Based on my own moral code, which is derived from both cultural and social factors. I believe that we should act in the benefit for the social group.
Sure. Yes.
Really? Because you seem to not understand it very well.
"Evil" is one of those words that's imbued with a lot of objective moral premises that I reject.
So....you're blaming man kind for things that people have no control over?
G
Good thread for unbelievers to take note whom seek the Lord when he calls. But as you stated, your an Atheist, and never knew God....even tho you must have be exposed to scriptures.....well if your on christianchat.com, I do hope so lol.
If your not Gods Elect/Seed it doesn't matter what We believers tell you...however it make nice discussion for this website.
God bless all.
J
Apparently P.Z Myers does tooo......
So it's non-binding.
You didn't say goals. You were speaking of value-assignments. These perceived values are ultimately illusory in that no value actually exists.
Karma isn't attempting to say that morality exists, but rather that the sum of our actions makes us who we are and we regulate ourselves. It would only further argue for a subjective morality.
Then be consistant in application of your own philosophy.
Many atheists I have debated on the issue try to define morality in a self-serving manner than rather a neutral manner. They may agree that morality is defined as right/wrong but will go on to define right/wrong to be semantically biased.
You can not condemn anything as immoral with only opinions.
You're belief in dooing what you consider to be beneficial to anyone isn't binding.
Then do so.
Substantiate or rescind
Does evil exist?
Here's some glasses, put them on, re-read what I posted.
So it's non-binding.
You didn't say goals. You were speaking of value-assignments. These perceived values are ultimately illusory in that no value actually exists.
Karma isn't attempting to say that morality exists, but rather that the sum of our actions makes us who we are and we regulate ourselves. It would only further argue for a subjective morality.
Then be consistant in application of your own philosophy.
Many atheists I have debated on the issue try to define morality in a self-serving manner than rather a neutral manner. They may agree that morality is defined as right/wrong but will go on to define right/wrong to be semantically biased.
You can not condemn anything as immoral with only opinions.
You're belief in dooing what you consider to be beneficial to anyone isn't binding.
Then do so.
Substantiate or rescind
Does evil exist?
Here's some glasses, put them on, re-read what I posted.
A
that explains a lot.
the Lord Rebuke you.
1 Corinthians 10:13
No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.
James 1:12-14 (New King James Version)
Loving God Under Trials
12 Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him. 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.
the Lord Rebuke you.
1 Corinthians 10:13
No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.
James 1:12-14 (New King James Version)
Loving God Under Trials
12 Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him. 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.
G
I don't know the answer to that.
Logically I would say no but if God knows the end from the beginning, then He has to be all knowing, The way I understand it is this creation, this timeline we are in is like a bubble enclosed in eternity and eternity is forever backwards and forwards in time at the same time.
God and Jesus both are the great I am, meaning 1000 years ago God is and 10,000 years from now God is and right now God is as well at the same time. And thats why the Jewish people had a cow when Jesus said I am that I am.
God created an envelope that he could look into and this envelope will one day be completely gone through and then reprinted.
Your asking for answers and I'm giving you what I have, but that doesn't mean i'm right about everything, understanding God is like an ant trying to understand a human.
Logically I would say no but if God knows the end from the beginning, then He has to be all knowing, The way I understand it is this creation, this timeline we are in is like a bubble enclosed in eternity and eternity is forever backwards and forwards in time at the same time.
God and Jesus both are the great I am, meaning 1000 years ago God is and 10,000 years from now God is and right now God is as well at the same time. And thats why the Jewish people had a cow when Jesus said I am that I am.
God created an envelope that he could look into and this envelope will one day be completely gone through and then reprinted.
Your asking for answers and I'm giving you what I have, but that doesn't mean i'm right about everything, understanding God is like an ant trying to understand a human.
Last edited: