Questioning the Problem of Evil once again

[instantc]

Here is what I find slightly baffling about the Problem of Evil.

The argument essentially says that the present world is not what the universe would look like if it were ruled by a loving and powerful ruler. I.e, there is too much evil in the world.

There is too much evil in the world, that strikes me as an odd thing to say. What would be an appropriate amount of evil for an almighty ruler to allow? Is it logically possible to know happiness without knowing any suffering? Some variants of the PoE say that it is the unnecessary suffering that disproves God, but is any suffering completely unnecessary or gratuitous? I don't think so. Some instances of suffering may be highly disproportionate to the potential positive consequences, but every instance of suffering has at least some conceivable positive consequences.

I think that one who wants to endorse PoE also has to define where he draws the line with regard to the acceptable amount of suffering, i.e he should define what amount/type of suffering would be consistent with the God hypothesis. He would then have to show that a world with those conditions would be (1) conceivable and (2) desirable.

To make it short, if you are to claim that this is not how a loving God should act, then you should be able to explain how it is that a loving God should act. If you say that this is not what a universe ruled by a loving ruler looks like, then you should, according to the rules of inference, first have a vision of what a universe ruled by a loving ruler does look like.

What do you think?

[ttruscott]

...

Given all that has gone before, I see a weakness in 6D.

But nevermind. I suppose all this is the result of seeking definitive answers to evil by reference to a book that cannot possibly bear the weight.

All the best

From past conversations I believe Bust Nak will attack on 6c. Free will must be open to contradicting possibilities or the choice is not free but forced by the opposite not being available...ie only being able to only chose what is offered is not free but constrained.

BUT for me, seeing the necessity of free will and accepting that hell is real, I am forced to see that the creation of evil had to be allowed by necessity too or the GOD who is love would never have done it that way, sigh.

Peace, Ted

[tariki]

...

Given all that has gone before, I see a weakness in 6D.

But nevermind. I suppose all this is the result of seeking definitive answers to evil by reference to a book that cannot possibly bear the weight.

All the best

From past conversations I believe Bust Nak will attack on 6c. Free will must be open to contradicting possibilities or the choice is not free but forced by the opposite not being available...ie only being able to only chose what is offered is not free but constrained.

BUT for me, seeing the necessity of free will and accepting that hell is real, I am forced to see that the creation of evil had to be allowed by necessity too or the GOD who is love would never have done it that way, sigh.

Peace, Ted

Yes, I find you stronger on logic than on empathy.

While I appreciate that you see Merton as presenting a "lame" Christianity, I myself find much to ponder on his words from "Rains on the Unspeakable"

At one point Merton says that the "deeper question" is the very nature of reality itself.

Is such a reality inexorable consistency........Is reality the same as consistency?...........the reality of the real world is not consistent.

The world of consistency is the world of justice, but justice is not the final word.

There is, above the consistent and the logical world of justice, an inconsistent illogical world where nothing "hangs together", where justice no longer damns each of us to their own darkness. This inconsistent world is the realm of mercy.

(Christianity).......has the temptation.....to make the cross contradict mercy.......to say that Christ has locked all the doors, has given one answer, settled everything, leaving all life enclosed in the frightful consistency of a system outside of which there is seriousness and damnation, inside of which is the intolerable flippancy of the saved - while nowhere is there any place left for the mystery of the freedom of divine mercy which alone is truly serious, and worthy of being taken seriously.


All the best

[ttruscott]

...

Yes, I find you stronger on logic than on empathy.

...

My work for the past 40 years has been with abusive, violent and sociopathic teens. Every one came from an emotionally abusive violent family. They all were the biggest cause of their own problems, their own worst enemy. Empathy waned.

I rejected YHWH over the false doctrine that HE decided who would go to hell and made hell for them to go to. After GOD called me back to HIMself, hell, I mean when HE killed me with guilt for the suffering I myself was causing others, HE taught me about PCE and that every person chose their own way based upon what they most wanted to get out of being alive contrary to all good orthodox doctrine so while my ire at the church increased my empathy for the fate of non-believers also waned.

GOD did not create anybody as a sinner...all sinners are self created.
Everyone had the same chance to accept salvation for any and all future sin and experience heaven.
I refuse to feel responsible for those who rejected that chance.

GOD did not create hell for sinners. Hell is what is outside of HIS perfect creation for HIS holy Church. Hell is what is not heaven, that which was not created for HIS pleasure. Scripture says that GOD takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked but HE also created all things for HIS pleasure which implies to me that the experience after the judgement was not created by HIM or for HIM but is a nothing of uncreation wasteland, whether consciously experienced or a place of uncreatedness even for them I do not know.

So all I can say to those who hate YHWH for hell, is you should have worried about that a long time ago... I sympathize but I do not share your turmoil any longer.

Peace, Ted

[tariki]

...

Yes, I find you stronger on logic than on empathy.

...

My work for the past 40 years has been with abusive, violent and sociopathic teens. Every one came from an emotionally abusive violent family. They all were the biggest cause of their own problems, their own worst enemy. Empathy waned.

I rejected YHWH over the false doctrine that HE decided who would go to hell and made hell for them to go to. After GOD called me back to HIMself, hell, I mean when HE killed me with guilt for the suffering I myself was causing others, HE taught me about PCE and that every person chose their own way based upon what they most wanted to get out of being alive contrary to all good orthodox doctrine so while my ire at the church increased my empathy for the fate of non-believers also waned.

GOD did not create anybody as a sinner...all sinners are self created.
Everyone had the same chance to accept salvation for any and all future sin and experience heaven.
I refuse to feel responsible for those who rejected that chance.

GOD did not create hell for sinners. Hell is what is outside of HIS perfect creation for HIS holy Church. Hell is what is not heaven, that which was not created for HIS pleasure. Scripture says that GOD takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked but HE also created all things for HIS pleasure which implies to me that the experience after the judgement was not created by HIM or for HIM but is a nothing of uncreation wasteland, whether consciously experienced or a place of uncreatedness even for them I do not know.

So all I can say to those who hate YHWH for hell, is you should have worried about that a long time ago... I sympathize but I do not share your turmoil any longer.

Peace, Ted

Sorry Ted, but your peace - at least as it seems to me - has been bought at far to high a price.

When one considers your claim that "GOD did not create anybody as a sinner...all sinners are self created" etc, and place it alongside your other claim that a child that dies proves by its death that it is a sinner who has freely chosen sin, then really one must question the book that taught you such nonsense, or at least the theology you read into such book.

Making claims, as you do here, that your guidance has come from God makes no odds; claiming how "he" called you back. I have read the testimonies of many who were "lead" and "guided" and "called back".........to "Gods" other than your own version.

Sorry Ted, I have no turmoil over any thought of the torments you seem to think exist. For reasons other than your own.

All the best.

[Bust Nak]

Like this?
6a. GOD is eternal and so to create persons to share willing love as eternal beings has a higher value than mortal beings would have.
6b. The FREE of free will means not forced nor constrained by GOD in any way.
6c. Free will must be open to contradicting possibilities or the choice is not free but forced by the opposite not being available...ie only being able to only chose what is offered is not free but constrained.
6d. Having the ability to create a willing love by free will means that the possibility must be open for someone to chose 'not love', ie hate or indifference.
6e. One natural consequences of rejecting GOD through hate or indifference is to self create oneself as eternally evil in eternal enmity with GOD and HIS church, unless under the promise of salvation by GOD as the sinner cannot save himself.
6f. Hell is the other natural consequence of choosing hate or indifference to GOD and HIS promises of salvation from sin, as all sinners outside of HIS salvation must live outside of HIS created reality to save HIS Church from their eternal hate which is contrary to HIS purpose of sharing willing love in heaven.

Therefore assumption 7 is wrong and cannot exist within a plan of using true free will to find those who wanted to share divine willing love, unless every person in creation chose to accept that offer.

7) Assume nobody is going to hell is denied.

Yeah, like that, now all you have to do is show the steps from the premise that the possibility for someone to chose not to accept that offer (6d) would logically mean someone would not accept that offer.

From past conversations I believe Bust Nak will attack on 6c. Free will must be open to contradicting possibilities or the choice is not free but forced by the opposite not being available...ie only being able to only chose what is offered is not free but constrained.

Yes, something alone the lines of I can't choose to shoot lazer beams out of my eyes which means my free will is not truely free. But I feel I can let that slide for now as the above is a more pressing objection.

[ttruscott]

Morning,

...

6d. Having the ability to create a willing love by free will means that the possibility must be open for someone to chose 'not love', ie hate or indifference.

...

Yeah, like that, now all you have to do is show the steps from the premise that the possibility for someone to chose not to accept that offer (6d) would logically mean someone would not accept that offer.

...

Well now I'm lost: if they choose not to accept it, it seems logical to assume they will not accept, no? I guess they could change their mind before making a binding choice, <shrug>.

Why do I have the feeling there must be more to your question...it seems superficial so I'm obviously no getting it.

Peace, Ted

[tariki]

Morning,

...

6d. Having the ability to create a willing love by free will means that the possibility must be open for someone to chose 'not love', ie hate or indifference.

...

Yeah, like that, now all you have to do is show the steps from the premise that the possibility for someone to chose not to accept that offer (6d) would logically mean someone would not accept that offer.

...

Well now I'm lost: if they choose not to accept it, it seems logical to assume they will not accept, no? I guess they could change their mind before making a binding choice, <shrug>.

Why do I have the feeling there must be more to your question...it seems superficial so I'm obviously no getting it.

Peace, Ted

Just to butt in, as I understand it, there would be the possibility that GIVEN the possibility of being able to choose from two offers, all would in fact choose just one of them.

Yet, really, I see no need for supposing the need for a "binding" choice, as I have said previously. (The implication of what I said previously is that only the choice for God can possibly be "binding")

But as I have also said, as far as I am concerned, there is no way that ANY text, however "holy", can offer any genuine basis for any of this discussion.

All the best

[ttruscott]

Morning,

...

6d. Having the ability to create a willing love by free will means that the possibility must be open for someone to chose 'not love', ie hate or indifference.

...

Yeah, like that, now all you have to do is show the steps from the premise that the possibility for someone to chose not to accept that offer (6d) would logically mean someone would not accept that offer.

...

Well now I'm lost: if they choose not to accept it, it seems logical to assume they will not accept, no? I guess they could change their mind before making a binding choice, <shrug>.

Why do I have the feeling there must be more to your question...it seems superficial so I'm obviously no getting it.

Peace, Ted

Just to butt in, as I understand it, there would be the possibility that GIVEN the possibility of being able to choose from two offers, all would in fact choose just one of them.

YES! ...could instead of would...might instead of would.

Yet, really, I see no need for supposing the need for a "binding" choice, as I have said previously. (The implication of what I said previously is that only the choice for God can possibly be "binding")

A non-binding choice is pretty tough in this instance, but it is not GOD that binds:
1. the choice for eternal life in heaven must be by free will.
2. Enslavement to sin binds, forces, coerces and constrains the the will, so it is NOT FREE.
3. Once a person is enslaved / addicted to sin they cannot, will not, seek salvation.
4. Therefore they are 'self bound' by their choice, not by GOD, but by the addicting nature of evil that controls the intent of a man.

GOD has no need for a binding choice but HE did warn us of the natural consequences of choosing against HIM as self creating yourself as bound by sin for eternity unless you asked for HIS salvation from this binding before the choice to be evil was made.

But as I have also said, as far as I am concerned, there is no way that ANY text, however "holy", can offer any genuine basis for any of this discussion.

It offers a great basis for discussion as history proves but it does not offer a full discussion nor proof - we must still react to the Bible and the ensuing discussion it generates with faith or disbelief according to whom we have chosen to be in relation to YHWH long past.

Peace, Ted

[Bust Nak]

YES! ...could instead of would...might instead of would.

Exactly my point. You have a logical possibility, not a logical necessity. And as I said, achieving a goal via non-necessity intermediate steps, is less than optimal.

[tariki]

Morning,

...

6d. Having the ability to create a willing love by free will means that the possibility must be open for someone to chose 'not love', ie hate or indifference.

...

Yeah, like that, now all you have to do is show the steps from the premise that the possibility for someone to chose not to accept that offer (6d) would logically mean someone would not accept that offer.

...

Well now I'm lost: if they choose not to accept it, it seems logical to assume they will not accept, no? I guess they could change their mind before making a binding choice, <shrug>.

Why do I have the feeling there must be more to your question...it seems superficial so I'm obviously no getting it.

Peace, Ted

Just to butt in, as I understand it, there would be the possibility that GIVEN the possibility of being able to choose from two offers, all would in fact choose just one of them.

YES! ...could instead of would...might instead of would.

Yet, really, I see no need for supposing the need for a "binding" choice, as I have said previously. (The implication of what I said previously is that only the choice for God can possibly be "binding")

A non-binding choice is pretty tough in this instance, but it is not GOD that binds:
1. the choice for eternal life in heaven must be by free will.
2. Enslavement to sin binds, forces, coerces and constrains the the will, so it is NOT FREE.
3. Once a person is enslaved / addicted to sin they cannot, will not, seek salvation.
4. Therefore they are 'self bound' by their choice, not by GOD, but by the addicting nature of evil that controls the intent of a man.

GOD has no need for a binding choice but HE did warn us of the natural consequences of choosing against HIM as self creating yourself as bound by sin for eternity unless you asked for HIS salvation from this binding before the choice to be evil was made.

But as I have also said, as far as I am concerned, there is no way that ANY text, however "holy", can offer any genuine basis for any of this discussion.

It offers a great basis for discussion as history proves but it does not offer a full discussion nor proof - we must still react to the Bible and the ensuing discussion it generates with faith or disbelief according to whom we have chosen to be in relation to YHWH long past.

Peace, Ted

Sorry Ted, missed this up until now.

I have to say that I find it totally impossible to follow your logic as you seem to swing from eternal choices already made, to a Bible that is there to be "reacted to", to an enslavement to sin that makes it impossible to seek salvation, then claim that from eternity others have sought and apparently found such salavtion, yet such has been - and must be - by their free choice. Sorry mate, really, it is all to much, at least for me.

I have spoken about "free will" before and of how it is in one sense a red herring as far as "salvation" is concerned, so I won't go there again.

As far as history showing how the Bible offers a basis for discussion, perhaps the only history you are aware of is a Christian Eurocentric one. Such would seem to be so, which could be why you only seem able to relate to YHWH with a Reform Theology bias.

There are other "holy" books and other perspectives.

All the best