Board index ‹ Jesus

[jimwalton]

> These are all examples of adaptions of an ecosystem. The ecosystem is not omnipotent, but God supposedly is. He can therefore iron out the worst parts, can he not?

Yes, they are examples of adaptations of an ecosystem. Of course the million-dollar question is: are these the creation of an intelligent God or the fortuitous adaptations of happenstance? And I've been trying to establish that possibly God in His omnipotence could "iron out the worst parts," but in doing so would He also iron out the good parts? I have tried to argue that a dynamic system (which includes the worst parts) is superior to a static system (where the good necessarily goes out with the bad).

> Why can't NATO and the UN exist without Nazi Germany?

The reality of human nature tells us that without a causative common enemy, even alliances deteriorate into hostilities.

> Is slavery needed for Law, travel and trade? These things exist in modern societies that don't have slavery.

Slavery is not needed for law, travel, and trade, and yet even the modern human trafficking abomination is bringing forth human effort—compassion, networking, and legislation—to combat this boil on humankind.

> Why not make the universe more good by not having the unnecessary evil?

You're obviously free to disagree, but I think that God created the best possible world, and I thought I explained why.

• It's the only way we can truly be human rather than robotic
• It's the only way reasoning, science, and love can exist
• A dynamic world is superior to a static one
• A better plan on God's part is to share our suffering and redeem the evil rather than prevent it in the first place (which may not have been possible anyway).

[Book Mitten]

> The reality of human nature tells us that without a causative common enemy, even alliances deteriorate into hostilities

How come? Do all your friendships rely upon an enemy?

[jimwalton]

No, of course not. This question was about political entities like NATO. NATO was formed after WWII in response to a common enemy. It thrived during the Cold War and the threat of Russia, a common enemy. Once the USSR broke up and and the Berlin Wall came down, NATO almost lacked a raison d'être (except fear). President Trump pushed for a reformulation of NATO and bickers with the other NATO nations to pull more of their own weight. Recently NATO struggles with infighting (renegade Turkey!).

That's what I'm talking about, not personal relationships.

[Book Mitten]

> The Bible says that a time will come when all things that need to be have been accomplished, and evil will be purged from the world.

And what about people born in that time? Will they miss out on the good that comes from evil?

> I'm not sure I said evil was necessary. Evil is evil, and it is not good. But it's there and does play a part in life and can be redeemed—used for ultimate good.

Your second sentence seems to suggest that evil is necessary. If it isn't, then evil isn't needed for the ultimate good. The only other option is that what we are referring to as evil isn't really evil by biblical standards, if biblical standards are meant to be consistent.

> It can be seen as evil because that is its nature, and it's a utilitarian argument (the ends justify the means) to which I don't agree. I'm a deontologist, meaning that the rightness or wrongness of an act derives from the action itself and not from solely the consequence of the act. If a person is ethical and seeking a justifiably ethical end, then he should be ethical at all times without exception. The means are just as important as the ends.

I agree, particularly with your last sentence. This is why I can't love a God that uses evil means to create the kingdom of heaven.

> I see this all the time. I have personally intervened for people about to commit suicide to assure them of meaning in life, that all hope is not lost, that there's a reason to live, and that they are loved (all ideas that come from God). I know Christians around the world for many years (and still at work today) to reduce, punish, and eliminate human trafficking (kidnapping and prolonged cases of evil). I know Christians around the world today working in China (both explicitly and covertly) to subvert their governmentally-approved human rights abuses. There are Christian in North Korea, Iran, The Democratic Republic of Congo, and Somalia to relieve human suffering. God is "in the mix" in the lives, work, and example of His people, and is effecting great change.

A few points here.

1.) As I was saying, those efforts are the efforts of us and us alone. If you were to argue differently and say that God was to be praised for the amount of goodness in us, then he is also responsible for the extent to which we don't do good.

2.)The cases of philanthropy are not only carried out by Christians. Moreover, many people commit crimes in the name of Christianity.

3.) These actions are adaptive to already existing evil. I'm sure that if those good people saw a crime such as trafficking about to occur they would prevent it.

> I had hoped that I explained that even a perfect being must work within non-self-contradiction and within the confines of reality and logic.

Sure. All I'm saying is that God standing by while evil occurs, even if humans adapt by their own virtues, seems illogical if he is defined as omnibenevolent.

[jimwalton]

> And what about people born in that time? Will they miss out on the good that comes from evil?

You seem to be wondering, "Isn’t heaven a place where all possibilities of evil are overridden without sacrificing the joys and creativity of the human mind?" Yes it is, but once we get to heaven the rules will change, because everyone there will have made the conscious choice to submit our wills to the will of the Father. Heaven is possible because after I chosen the good and submitted my free will totally to the sovereignty of God, He can now grant a world of complete good without interfering with my free will. Such a world is now possible because once my character has been completely sanctified by Christ on the basis of my choices, the abolition of suffering is possible because it is no longer needed to produce character in me. None of this could have been possible ahead of time, but only by process, choice, and new creation based on the redemptive work of Christ, salvation, faith, sanctification, and glorification.

> evil isn't needed for the ultimate good.

Possibly not, but since dynamism and free will are necessary for life as we know it, then evil is an inevitable consequence, and it can still be used for ultimate good even if it is not necessary for ultimate good.

> This is why I can't love a God that uses evil means to create the kingdom of heaven.

I guess we'd have to talk about what you mean by this. What "evil" means does God use?

> As I was saying, those efforts are the efforts of us and us alone.

You can't know this. The Bible is quite clear that God often works through the actions of humans. How can you be sure it is "us alone"?

> If you were to argue differently and say that God was to be praised for the amount of goodness in us, then he is also responsible for the extent to which we don't do good.

When I motivate my children to make a good decision, am I also responsible when they don't make a good one? I say no, because they are free agents. I have influence, but not control.

> The cases of philanthropy are not only carried out by Christians.

Correct. There are many good and humanitarian people who are not Christians. That reality doesn't nullify God at work in people.

> many people commit crimes in the name of Christianity.

Also correct. People are free agents. We have a tremendous capability for nobility and cruelty. We also have capability for hypocrisy and pride. Life is dynamic, and a principle of proportionality is alive and well: strengths and weaknesses have a way of balancing each other. Just as there is great nobility there is proportional depravity.

> All I'm saying is that God standing by while evil occurs

I don't know where you get your assumption that God is "standing by." I have heard many people speak of people coming along "just at the right time" to prevent some horror, or of not going somewhere where a tragedy later occurred where they should have been. It's just impossible to conclude that God is inactive. That's something you can't know.

[Book Mitten]

> None of this could have been possible ahead of time, but only by process, choice, and new creation based on the redemptive work of Christ, salvation, faith, sanctification, and glorification.

If process and choice and new creation is required, and these things are built upon salvation, redemption and sanctification (things which imply a prior state of imperfection) then doesn't this seem to imply that Christianity requires evil?

> Yes it is, but once we get to heaven the rules will change, because everyone there will have made the conscious choice to submit our wills to the will of the Father.

Why doesn't everyone come to salvation in this life if God is so compelling? Shouldn't his greatness be so bright as to lead all to him through their own desire?

[jimwalton]

> doesn't this seem to imply that Christianity requires evil?

I don't know if "requires" is the best way to express it. Evil is certainly a reality that must be confronted. It was probably inevitable, given that all created things are not God (who is uncreated). Only in those senses would I possibly say evil is "necessary." I'm reticent, without thinking it further and deeper, to commit myself to more than that.

> Why doesn't everyone come to salvation in this life if God is so compelling?

Great question. I can't understand it, myself. I find the evidence for God SO much stronger than the evidence again. I find the reality of God in my life so real. I find the sense of the Scriptures so convincing.

But I know many others, such as yourself, have a completely different reaction to the same data. The Bible talks about spiritual blindness (2 Cor. 4.4) and intellectual darkness (Rom. 1.21, 28).

> Shouldn't his greatness be so bright as to lead all to him through their own desire?

It is interesting that from what we know of the origin of Satan: he was good, had access to the presence of God, and yet rebelled against him. We are left to wonder how that was possible.

[Book Mitten]

> he was good, had access to the presence of God, and yet rebelled against him. We are left to wonder how that was possible

Are people able to do this in heaven?

> But I know many others, such as yourself, have a completely different reaction to the same data.

We have different experiences, as I stated earlier. We obviously have overlapping knowledge, but there is difference all the same.

> The Bible talks about spiritual blindness (2 Cor. 4.4) and intellectual darkness (Rom. 1.21, 28).

I despise Paul's intellectual smugness. Just saying that your opponents are blind isn't an argument. It's a copout.

> Great question. I can't understand it, myself. I find the evidence for God SO much stronger than the evidence again. I find the reality of God in my life so real. I find the sense of the Scriptures so convincing.

The reality of God in your life isn't there for everyone. I have attempted to communicate with God myself and ask questions, but I've not recognised anything I can make out as him.

> I don't know if "requires" is the best way to express it. Evil is certainly a reality that must be confronted. It was probably inevitable, given that all created things are not God (who is uncreated).

And yet still God decided to create and punish. I can't love such a God.

[jimwalton]

> Are people able to do this in heaven?

No. Everyone who is in heaven will have already submitted their will to God by choice and commitment. That's how we got there.

> I despise Paul's intellectual smugness. Just saying that your opponents are blind isn't an argument. It's a copout.

I know it can be read as smugness and as vilifying one's enemies. At least one other alternative is possible: it's true. If the Bible is consistent and true (I believe both), then there are spiritual forces at work to deceive and derail humans. Arguments don't cure blindness, and I often find on this forum that arguments—even persuasive ones—don't persuade. Nor does the accumulation of evidence or compelling personal testimony.

> And yet still God decided to create and punish.

Any judge is there to reward innocence and punish guilt. Without that, there would be no such thing as justice, and only chaos and mayhem. I don't fault God for punishing wrong; I expect a righteous judge to do that. Are you saying that people should just be able to get away with whatever? that there are no fair consequences?

[Book Mitten]

> evil isn't needed for the ultimate good.

> Possibly not, but since dynamism and free will are necessary for life as we know it, then evil is an inevitable consequence, and it can still be used for ultimate good even if it is not necessary for ultimate good.

Are dynamism and free will not necessary for the ultimate good in your eyes? I thought you were arguing the opposite. Apologies if I misunderstood. If they are, and evil is an inevitable consequence, then how can evil be considered evil?

> strengths and weaknesses have a way of balancing each other. Just as there is great nobility there is proportional depravity.

There's plenty of excess that is unproportional and unbalanced.

> When I motivate my children to make a good decision, am I also responsible when they don't make a good one? I say no, because they are free agents. I have influence, but not control.

By those standards, If they make a good decision, their efforts are their own to the extent that you don't have ultimate influence. Your influence is your own effort. Ultimately though, I'm talking about humans in relation to God, particular those that are virtuous and haven't heard of Christianity.

>> As I was saying, those efforts are the efforts of us and us alone.
> You can't know this. The Bible is quite clear that God often works through the actions of humans. How can you be sure it is "us alone"?

Because to the extent that we do not act virtuously, God is not there, and God not being there in cases of excessive evil conflicts with omnibenevolence as far as I'm concerned. Likewise, how can you deduce that God is responsible for the good, if some atheists and agnostics are virtuous as well?

> I guess we'd have to talk about what you mean by this. What "evil" means does God use

Damning people to eternal torture. You can say all you like that God treats everyone fairly, but that is an unsupported assertion.
Personally, seeing evidence of atrocities towards innocent people makes me think differently. People are treated unfairly all the time.

> I don't know where you get your assumption that God is "standing by." I have heard many people speak of people coming along "just at the right time" to prevent some horror, or of not going somewhere where a tragedy later occurred where they should have been. It's just impossible to conclude that God is inactive. That's something you can't know.

There's also millions of situations where this doesn't happen.