Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Abrahamic religions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam insist that God is all-good, all-powerful, and all-benevolent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. This core belief is non negotiable with People of the Book.
And that is the problem. Christianity, especially, has serious issues reconciling an all powerful God with the existence of evil. This is the paradox that cannot be resolved.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?"
"Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent."
"Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?"
"Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God."
Epicuras
If you think about this paradox, it is apparent that there is no way out without accepting that God condones the existence of evil. If Christianity approached the issue of suffering and evil like that of Zoroastrianism that is represented by Ahura Mazda and Ahriman, light and dark, there would be no conflict or paradox.
The Epicuras trilemma gets under your skin, like a sliver. But there is no resolution. Either God is powerful and evil, or he is weak and ineffectual.
The Abrahamic religions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam insist that God is all-good, all-powerful, and all-benevolent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. This core belief is non negotiable with People of the Book.
And that is the problem. Christianity, especially, has serious issues reconciling an all powerful God with the existence of evil. This is the paradox that cannot be resolved.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?"
"Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent."
"Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?"
"Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God."
Epicuras
If you think about this paradox, it is apparent that there is no way out without accepting that God condones the existence of evil. If Christianity approached the issue of suffering and evil like that of Zoroastrianism that is represented by Ahura Mazda and Ahriman, light and dark, there would be no conflict or paradox.
The Epicuras trilemma gets under your skin, like a sliver. But there is no resolution. Either God is powerful and evil, or he is weak and ineffectual.
Comments?
If one adopts the idea of two opposing forces neither of which can triumph over the other, that either replaces the idea of an all powerful god (name your own) who created everything and can do anything He wants with a lesser being who doesn't have everything his own way -which rather replaces the doctrines of the religions of the Book with something more Romano Greek, Hindu or Chinese, or one has to suppose that it is set up to let the evil happen. Which is the source of the big doubt -maker, The problem of Evil. Epicurus didn't have Christianity in mind, but Zeus, but it is still a thought today.
04-27-2017, 11:17 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianberkeley
If you think about this paradox, it is apparent that there is no way out without accepting that God condones the existence of evil.
Comments?
And this is where all the apologists get into 'justifying' why god allows such evil and commits such 'evil.'
Think about this - God demands and places upon his human subjects a duty to not only do justly but to render justice in the face of moral evil. As such we have an obligation under God to act against evil to ameliorate such actions and if we do not do so we are failing in our moral duty.
Imagine if a crime was committed an we did not act to stop or punish such perpetrators but let them go ans said I'll get to it years later knowing full well of their actions and propensity to act in such a manner. That would be considered a dereliction of moral duty and immoral in itself knowing full well the consequences that such a person would continue to do evil in the world.
Yet God sits aloft his Holy Hill and allows evils to persist but only offers justice some time in the future. Why does not God have a duty to render justice when evil is committed in his presence and when it takes place and not some time in the future?
Is it simply because he either does not exist or is incapable or unwilling to do so. Yet all of those are antithesis of the major religions. As such if God is willing and able he then operates under a double standard contrary to his own moral code requiring justice when evil is done and should be considered evil himself.
And this is where all the apologists get into 'justifying' why god allows such evil and commits such 'evil.'
Think about this - God demands and places upon his human subjects a duty to not only do justly but to render justice in the face of moral evil. As such we have an obligation under God to act against evil to ameliorate such actions and if we do not do so we are failing in our moral duty.
Imagine if a crime was committed an we did not act to stop or punish such perpetrators but let them go ans said I'll get to it years later knowing full well of their actions and propensity to act in such a manner. That would be considered a dereliction of moral duty and immoral in itself knowing full well the consequences that such a person would continue to do evil in the world.
Yet God sits aloft his Holy Hill and allows evils to persist but only offers justice some time in the future. Why does not God have a duty to render justice when evil is committed in his presence and when it takes place and not some time in the future?
Is it simply because he either does not exist or is incapable or unwilling to do so. Yet all of those are antithesis of the major religions. As such if God is willing and able he then operates under a double standard contrary to his own moral code requiring justice when evil is done and should be considered evil himself.
I choose the one where this god does not exist.
We'll probably get a lot of prattling on about 'free will' from the apologists, but that doesn't change anything. it just means that God values free will above, say, 50 million dead in World War II. Above countless abused children. Above untold victims of rape and murder. And so forth.
Further, it ignores the fact that we don't have free will to do everything even as it is. We can't live forever (or, for that matter, much beyond 100 years). We can't escape from black holes. We can't go faster than light. If God can erect those sorts of impenetrable barriers that humans cannot surmount, surely - if God existed and was benevolent and so motivated - he could make it physically impossible to, say, abuse a child. Or commit rape. At the very least, he could design a world in which there were not terrible infectious diseases, or where children did not get cancer. And just like in our current world in which we cannot do everything but are still free to chose from myriad courses of action, we'd still have whatever passes for free will.
But we live in a world full of those horrors, and many others. Thus, there cannot be an omnibenevolent deity.
Of course, the Problem of Evil does not preclude the existence of deities - God, Zeus, whatever - that are callous power-tripping pricks. So there's that.
And this is where all the apologists get into 'justifying' why god allows such evil and commits such 'evil.'
Think about this - God demands and places upon his human subjects a duty to not only do justly but to render justice in the face of moral evil. As such we have an obligation under God to act against evil to ameliorate such actions and if we do not do so we are failing in our moral duty.
Imagine if a crime was committed an we did not act to stop or punish such perpetrators but let them go ans said I'll get to it years later knowing full well of their actions and propensity to act in such a manner. That would be considered a dereliction of moral duty and immoral in itself knowing full well the consequences that such a person would continue to do evil in the world.
Yet God sits aloft his Holy Hill and allows evils to persist but only offers justice some time in the future. Why does not God have a duty to render justice when evil is committed in his presence and when it takes place and not some time in the future?
Is it simply because he either does not exist or is incapable or unwilling to do so. Yet all of those are antithesis of the major religions. As such if God is willing and able he then operates under a double standard contrary to his own moral code requiring justice when evil is done and should be considered evil himself.
I choose the one where this god does not exist.
What's worse is - if they become Born again and repent - they get away with it.
As such if God is willing and able he then operates under a double standard contrary to his own moral code requiring justice when evil is done and should be considered evil himself.
This exactly. I have often wondered why this 'God' character expects us to act in a way that he doesn't act himself.
It's a dictatorial instinct - the Big Bosses impose strict moral cods on their followers which they don't follow themselves and from which the followers are excused whenever it suits.
One might wonder whether that means the Dictator has to be there after all, but the fact is that a an oligarchy of Dictators can use a very weak (or better still, non existent) figurehead for their own authority.
It's great! They only have to keep the illusion of Kingship going and they can have whatever they want, and are answerable to nobody. Literally!
The Abrahamic religions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam insist that God is all-good, all-powerful, and all-benevolent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. This core belief is non negotiable with People of the Book.
And that is the problem. Christianity, especially, has serious issues reconciling an all powerful God with the existence of evil. This is the paradox that cannot be resolved.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?"
"Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent."
"Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?"
"Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God."
Epicuras
If you think about this paradox, it is apparent that there is no way out without accepting that God condones the existence of evil. If Christianity approached the issue of suffering and evil like that of Zoroastrianism that is represented by Ahura Mazda and Ahriman, light and dark, there would be no conflict or paradox.
The Epicuras trilemma gets under your skin, like a sliver. But there is no resolution. Either God is powerful and evil, or he is weak and ineffectual.
Comments?
God is all human adjectives that describe it. It can be no other way.
an all good god or all bad god are childish notions.
The logic associated with postulating an all powerful, all knowing Christian deity falls apart before one needs to even consider the issue of evil and suffering in the world.
If there is a deity which incorporates the characteristics assigned to it by Christianity, we are left with a god who knows full well that if it creates the Earth and humans, it will eventually have to take on the form of a human and endure horrible suffering to redeem their sins. Knowing this in advance, the deity goes ahead anyway and creates the Earth and humanity.
Obviously an all powerful all knowing deity could have avoided its necessary suffering by either not creating the Earth, or by creating humanity with natures which did not permit sin. That such a deity failed to take these alternatives suggests:
A) It actually isn't all knowing or all powerful
B) It actually isn't there
C) Despite being all powerful and knowing it felt a need to suffer for some reason
or
D) The deity just isn't that bright....I mean which human being would duplicate the situation where he or she is fully aware that if he or she takes a certain action, it will inevitably result in the actor having to endure great and unnecessary suffering, and then goes ahead with the action?
The above was typically my starting point when I was arguing with my Catholic school teachers about the program that they were trying to sell to me. None of them came anywhere close to a satisfactory answer to those questions and instead took refuge behind that all purpose panacea....."Its a mystery of faith" or "We cannot hope to know the mind of the Almighty." I would respond to that second version by asking the priests and brothers what they thought that they were doing marketing themselves as god's representatives and agents on Earth if it isn't possible to know the mind of the Almighty. They couldn't answer that either.
The Abrahamic religions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam insist that God is all-good, all-powerful, and all-benevolent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. This core belief is non negotiable with People of the Book.
And that is the problem. Christianity, especially, has serious issues reconciling an all powerful God with the existence of evil. This is the paradox that cannot be resolved.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?"
"Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent."
"Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?"
"Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God."
Epicuras
If you think about this paradox, it is apparent that there is no way out without accepting that God condones the existence of evil. If Christianity approached the issue of suffering and evil like that of Zoroastrianism that is represented by Ahura Mazda and Ahriman, light and dark, there would be no conflict or paradox.
The Epicuras trilemma gets under your skin, like a sliver. But there is no resolution. Either God is powerful and evil, or he is weak and ineffectual.
Comments?
Neither.
El/Yahweh, as opposed to the concept of philosophical monotheism assigned to these deities, are simply deity characters in ancient mythos. Yahweh is no more or less evil than other war deities in other mythos. The duo or trio (for trinitarians) are not omnimax, and their original characteristics and attributes fit within the context of ANE traditions.
The concepts posited by philosophical monotheism speak of a very different deity stripped from its indigenous and tribal roots of the ANE. What it is, is the god of the philosophers, a generic monotheistic entity given the historical roots of a once-henotheistic ANE tradition. The two have been amalgamated. It was the only way for either concepts, one indigenous to the ANE, like all others of that time, and the other an abstract concept born of early philosophers, to survive and thrive.
It's also why I pay no mind to them. They're meaningless when separated, which they should be, given the origins of how both concepts developed and evolved throughout time.
Also, Jewish theology doesn't claim El/Yahweh is omnimax. Most Reform and Reconstructionist Jews view El/Yahweh as a deistic entity that is removed from the doings and happenings of humankind. The omnimax characteristics are associated with the mainline Christian concept of El/Yahweh, Jesus, and Holy Spirit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
