(Untitled)

Dec 06, 2007 20:45

Hello, Everyone ( Read more... )

suffering, evil, being christian, questions

Leave a comment

Comments 94

From daily bible readings =) ktcaop December 7 2007, 01:53:57 UTC
Ezekiel 33 ( ... )

Reply

Re: From daily bible readings =) meralog December 7 2007, 02:05:20 UTC
So are you saying by these quotes that it is ok for God to allow evil, but not ok for us as humans? Is this understanding correct? If this is correct, would it be also correct to say that we cannot follow God as an example in this regard?

Please answer my questions directly, I am still confused.

Reply

rogueblack December 7 2007, 02:26:12 UTC
God can allow Satan to perform evil for a greater purpose known to God. Being an all-powerful omnipotent being, God is capable of reasoning that we are not. We are flawed. He is not. While God does not do evil, the evil that he allows is for good, whether or not we're keen enough to understand why. Since all existence revolves around Christ, not people, it's important to accept that not everything is about us even when it happens to us.

Reply

meralog December 7 2007, 02:31:26 UTC
Thanks. I would appreciate a direct answer though. Will I be commiting evil myself, if I am in a power to stop evil, but dont?

Reply


catholic_heart December 7 2007, 02:30:21 UTC
I think your question requires a more thorough understanding of how it is that God allows evil (haha, as if any of us can really understand that!). First, basically what you are really alluding to is why would God give us free will if with free will we have the ability to choose evil? St. Augustine answers this in Book 2 of On Free Choice of the Will. Basically, free will of itself is a good, but it is an intermediate good, because it can be used for good or for evil. But if we are not given free will, we have no capacity to choose to live rightly. And taking away the ability to choose to live rightly would itself be evil, which God cannot do by His nature. Free will is the only way in which humans can choose the highest good, which is God. Were God to intervene in such a way that He took away our free will, He would also be taking away our ability to choose God ( ... )

Reply

meralog December 7 2007, 02:48:55 UTC
So, would it be correct to conclude, that because it is evil for God to remove the ability of bees to sting, but he provided the means to overcome the bees, I would need to act the same? I.e, talk about Christ to someone who about to rape a child in front of my eyes and I have a taser (stun) gun in my hands?

Reply

catholic_heart December 7 2007, 03:56:59 UTC
No, because the relationship between you and the bees is analogous to the relationship between God and us; however, the same relationship does not exist between you and the potential rapist. You have free will to prevent evil from happening, and therefore should do so. The analogy there wouldn't be should you prevent the bees from stinging, but rather should one bee stop another bee from stinging.

Reply

meralog December 7 2007, 04:02:06 UTC
Can God be used as an example? See my discussion with Pastorlenny below. If I see a higher good (potential victim is going to end up in Paradise or what not), should I allow evil to happen?

Reply


pastorlenny December 7 2007, 03:00:24 UTC
Great question! My position is an unqualified "It depends." Here's why. I find that people often want to extract a particular scriptural principle and operate on that principle. Yet scripture has examples on both sides. The Ezekiel passage seems to explicitly speak of intervening against evil -- as do the many other cases where someone saves someone else (Solomon's wise custody decision comes to mind, as do the various times that prophets intervened to make sure Israel or Judah won the day ( ... )

Reply

meralog December 7 2007, 03:05:58 UTC
This seems a bit dangerous to me. Because it in a way implies moral ambiguity of God... We then can't really say that He is good, whatever God does is according to His seemingly morally ambigous will, so then we can do just the same, right? I agree with the notion of internal judgement, but who is the judge?

...

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

meralog December 7 2007, 03:26:48 UTC
Ahhh... Godel's theorem :)

If nothing can be said about moral standards, then why even say anything? Why write scriptures, develop theologies, philosophies and religions?

Seems like the first quotes from OT imply personal responsibility anyway... But in other hands, God is a Potter who creates us out of clay (nothing) as pots, then it seems its all God's responsibility anyways... Seems very confusing to me...

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

meralog December 7 2007, 03:16:45 UTC
Ok... Several questions though

"a perfect world awaits the believer anyways, and death is a natural part of the present process thereto"

according to this reasoning, it would seem I dont really have to stop anything (like a murder of a child) from happening, since there is a perfect world ahead anyway? Is this correct?

That God uses the righteous to stop the wicked, instead of stopping the wicked himself, is a recurring theme in the Bible. How do you know that he hasn't led you to that spot, precisely so that you can help out and show your resolve?,

Then how come it is not happening at all times? If I am in power to send an army to help against the wicked, but I dont do it at all times, will I be only partially good?

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

meralog December 7 2007, 03:35:11 UTC
what makes you think that God is capable of using righteous humans to stop all human wickedness

I thought God of Christianity is omnipotent

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

meralog December 7 2007, 04:25:07 UTC
If I was an instrument of a God, whos overall plan is not to me (to Whom the end justifies the means), how would I make a determination in such a case? Would I not be interfering with God's long-term plan?

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

meralog December 7 2007, 04:40:37 UTC
But isn't Christ a part of triune Omnipotent God as a Son?

Reply


Leave a comment

Up