If a Holy God exists, then why does he allow evil to exist?
>>383687
>Evil
I think you mean why does He allows the world for us to be like it is for every animal, cruel and brutal?
Gee, maybe Humanity isn´t all that special, huh?
dat free choice 2powerful senpai
He is not all powerful. People are placed on Earth to follow the doctrine of God, the good people follow it (or if not, just be generally good people), and the bad people, don't, and generally act like God. This is what the whole "path to righteousness" is. At least, that's what I believe.
>anthropomorphic gods
This meme again
>>383735
Why would he create the world to be cruel and brutal for animals?
Because we deserve it. This life is our punishment. God is just and we are criminals.
>>383765
So God is so far beyond our frame of moral reasoning?
Then why does he fill his holy texts with examples of his moral judgments and edicts?
>>383772
What do you mean?
>>383687
Because God entertains himself seeing us suffer and struggle, all of those things are part of his master plan.
I mean, 'God Complex' is called like that for a reason
>>383687
Evil is championed by the free will bestowed upon His creation.
>>383772
Their wisdom is sound and derives from Truth, but the idea of a personal God and ONLY a personal God is debasing. God should not stoop down to our frame of reference, as just a judge or King writ large. The anthropomorphic God is the Small Face of the true God, the Unmanifest.
>>383781
Because these moral adages ultimately derive from the experience of God as infinite, eternal consciousness. Morality is just a way to talk about the relationships of units in a system, and so when we realize the multiplicity of this system emanates from a primordial unity, God, the true God, we realize both God and the Good at the same time
Evil is the absence of Good, "Evil" people merely choose not to do good, all about free will
>>383687
1/2
>>383839
2/2
>>383903
Yes, of course evil exists. Just read the Bible. Evil is mentioned plenty of times.
>Again the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the LORD, and because they did this evil the LORD gave Eglon king of Moab power over Israel.
Judges 3:12
>>383687
That's a silly question.
What made you think a Holy God wouldn't allow evil to exist?
Uncreative thread gets uncreative reply.
>>383914
>Israelites did evil in the eyes of the LORD
So what the Israelites did, was according to God, evil. What if his concept of evil is different from ours?
>>383945
Then you're not Christian
>>383687
ffs how many samey threads can you faggots spam at one time?
We were created to love God. Love is impossible without freedom so we were given freedom with a slight option for being evil. We took that option and now we do evil because we've become corrupted. We can still do evil because we're still free. If God wiped the world of evil we would cease to be free and he would invalidate our reason for existing.
Then Jesus came to let people be evil and still get to heaven if they at least try to be good. That's the state of humanity now, each person can choose to live according to a fallen nature or a blessed nature. Still free, still capable of love and evil, and in your case, still posting babbys first checkmate theists argument.
>>383914
Evil is the absence of good
God does not allow evil to exist, we do, when we choose not to do good
>>384353
>We were created to love God
Why does God need to be loved?
>If God wiped the world of evil we would cease to be free and he would invalidate our reason for existing.
This sounds like the obvious best option, it removes all the evil. Our reason for existing is shit anyway, invalidate it and be done.
>>383765
Spinoza pls
Free will, muh fallacies, muh purpose
/25 more threads of this shit
At least attack free will and not just ask the same questions over and over.
>>384473
>Why does God need to be loved?
I don't know. Why do you want anything? I guess it makes God happy. Why is that even important?
>obvious best option
Why? It removes our freedom because there is no choice. It would be like forced marriage. God wants to be chosen, isn't it obvious that the situation of choosing requires multiple options to choose from?
>our reason for existing is shit anyway
Sweet opinion, but you're not in charge of deciding how good that reason is.
>invalidate it and be done
Why would we? It works perfectly well.
>>384725
>getting baited into a dichotomy the anon implied
Plz
>>384739
Who gives a fuck. Baited or not, his shitty thread is rekt and I can pasta this reply until his kind is no more.
>>384725
>I don't know. Why do you want anything? I guess it makes God happy. Why is that even important?
I thought God was perfect and didn't need anything. It is important because you just said it is the entire reason we exist.
>Why? It removes our freedom because there is no choice.
How is that a bad thing? It gets rid of all the evil. Getting rid of all evil cannot, by definition, be a bad thing. In fact, it is the best option.
>>384817
>he thinks that shitty little copypasta will resolve the problem of evil
>>384852
>God is perfect = doesn't need anything
There is no proof that this is the case. Anyway it doesn't matter. He had a reason and he did it. We're concerned with what happened next.
>Getting rid of all evil cannot, by definition, be a bad thing.
Your definition is false because you're mixing two meanings of 'good' in the same logical sentence.
1. moral
2. efficient, high quality or enjoyable
>(...) in fact, it is the best option.
It isn't, as I said, freedom is essential for this to work. You can't have freedom without choice. No evil, no freedom. How difficult is this, I mean you can write so surely this isn't beyond your comprehension.
>>384912
>implying there is such a thing as 'a problem of evil'
Only in your mind you memeing fag. If you're acting so smug I bet you can refute it.
>>384921
>There is no proof that this is the case.
Perfection, by definition, does not lack anything. Need of love or something else means He wasn't perfect to begin with.
>Anyway it doesn't matter. He had a reason and he did it. We're concerned with what happened next.
We can't just assume this is true. For example, I find it more likely that a God did not create us, and certainly not for the purpose of loving him. So no, this is a point that needs to be addressed. It can't be swept under the rug or assumed true.
>Your definition is false because you're mixing two meanings of 'good' in the same logical sentence.
I'm not confusing anything. If God wishes to be moral he should take the most moral actions. Removal of all evil is the most moral action that can be taken.
>It isn't, as I said, freedom is essential for this to work. You can't have freedom without choice. No evil, no freedom. How difficult is this, I mean you can write so surely this isn't beyond your comprehension.
You seem to assume, without reason, that freedom is somehow a moral thing while also being the cause of all immorality. Evil is what God does not desire. If X causes all evil then it is in God's best interest to remove X. Your assumption that he needs X is wrong by definition of evil (and by definition of perfection as shown above)
>>383765
>>384979
>Perfection, by definition, does not lack anything.
That's the definition of completion. Perfect beings can lack things, for example God lacks sin, God lacks a material body, a perfect /his/ lacks atheists and so on.
>I find it more likely that a God did not create us, and certainly not for the purpose of loving him.
The Bible has some verses that could act as proof for my case.
“All things were created by him and for him.” (Col. 1:16)
"I have loved you with an everlasting love" (Jer. 31:3)
"We are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus..." (Eph. 2:10)
>If God wishes to be moral he should take the most moral actions. Removal of all evil is the most moral action that can be taken.
It's like saying logic is illogical. God IS morality. He defines it. The concept exists for you to comprehend because He radiates it. If God says killing babies is ok then it is moral, He is the source of it all. You're using a subjective human perspective to judge what He does.
And once again, you misunderstood my argument about freedom. You've fixated on removing evil but it cannot be done if our destiny is to fulfill. Remove evil and you remove the purpose of our existence, we may as well be destroyed completely. Note that a tree of choice was present in the paradise even when Adam and Eve were pure and sinless, it was a token choice for freedom to be possible. Freedom in this case has fundamental importance because our relationship with God relies on freedom. And you can't make someone love you, it's the antithesis of love.
Also note that even when evil exists God can get what he wants. So it's not necessary to remove it.
How is this argument unironically happening? Nobody has, or ever will define "free will", "choice", or anything in that vein, because introducing any sort of logic into their argument makes it impossible.
I have seen chinese cartoons with better metaphysics than you people.
>>385342
>muh definitions
How did this post unironically happen? Nobody has, or ever will define "nobody", "ever", "defining", "logic" or anything in that vein, because introducing any sort of logic into a relativists head makes it explode in a gory shower.
I have cared more for polynesian rice dumplings than for your contribution, guy.
>>385391
So neither of us has an argument then. That's just as good as me winning, because your side is the one making initial claims. And you can't fault this reasoning without undermining the logic you use for everything.
Zoroastrianism has the right idea, the benevolent god is not all powerful and it's opposed by an equally powerful evil god.
Great thread.
If God was as human-like as people imagine it, it would go insane the moment it became aware of itself relative to the rest of the world.
>>385416
What's an argument? What's winning? What's a side? What's a claim? What's a fault and who has the right to decide on its terms? Who and in what conditions can make definitions? What ontological framework is proper for the process of defining? What's a flumbargh? Why am I not in Venezuela? If I stand on railway tracks and plug a battery up my ass will I go fast like a train? If I don't see your posts do you stop being a stupid fucker? Life is full of scary unknowns and uncertainties, huh? [spoiler]Hint: it is impossible not only to progress but to function if you want to define every single things. So fuck off with your pretentious shit. [/spoiler]
>>385320
>That's the definition of completion.
So you're saying God is not complete?
>The Bible has some verses that could act as proof for my case.
I'm afraid Bible verses are not proof. I could just as easily say God made us so that we may build paper cranes and it would have an equal amount of justification as those verses.
>Remove evil and you remove the purpose of our existence, we may as well be destroyed completely.
Again, this sounds like the moral thing to do.
>Also note that even when evil exists God can get what he wants. So it's not necessary to remove it.
Evil is by definition something that God doesn't want. So not only would it be the moral thing to do, it would be His preference to remove all evil. Obviously evil exists (he hasn't removed it), so this leaves us with two options.
1. God desires evil.
2. God does not exist.
Saying that God desires for humans to be made in such a way that allows evil is to say that God desires evil.
>>385718
>So you're saying God is not complete?
As in: lacks a defining characteristic - no. As in: doesn't contain everything that exist - yes. Also I never said he needs love, just that he wants it.
>I'm afraid Bible verses are not proof
I thought we were talking about YHWH all the time? If not, I'll take my leave. If we're talking about YHWH then the Bible is proof as the only thing we have.
>This sounds like the moral thing to do.
For you. You can't define what's moral, God can. And even if, you'd invalidate humanity? God would get slave robots instead of friends. You want to burn the entire house because there is a spider inside. There is even a parable in the gospels about this exact thing
24 (...)The kingdom of heaven is like what happened when a farmer scattered good seed in a field.
25 (...)an enemy came and scattered weed seeds in the field and then left.
26 When the plants came up and began to ripen, the farmer’s servants could see the weeds.
27 The servants came and asked, “Sir, didn’t you scatter good seed in your field? Where did these weeds come from?”
28 “An enemy did this,” he replied. His servants then asked, “Do you want us to go out and pull up the weeds?”
29 “No!” he answered. “You might also pull up the wheat. 30 Leave the weeds alone until harvest time. Then I’ll tell my workers to gather the weeds and tie them up and burn them. But I’ll have them store the wheat in my barn.”
Note that this may imply that at some point the removal of evil will indeed happen (some believe it to be at the end of the world), but it won't just be 'bam, I removed the concept of evil from existence", but people freely choosing to be good and all that remains being thrown away. So evil will be removed at some point, but in a subtle manner and without ruining freedom.
So in short we could say that God desires freedom to exist and for that a choice must exist. He allows evil, but doesn't desire it.
It's not why God allows evil to exist, but why we allow evil to exist. It goes back to our characteristic of free will. People have the free will to be evil.
he permits it but he has already seen to its end
>>385789
>As in: lacks a defining characteristic - no. As in: doesn't contain everything that exist - yes
Interesting, since Catholics at least hold that God is the grounds of all reality, so he would contain everything that exists.
>Also I never said he needs love, just that he wants it.
Interesting that a celestial universe-grounder desires something as petty as human love. Love is only really useful in the animal kingdom for pair bonding, it increases chances of reproduction being successful.
>For you. You can't define what's moral, God can.
But you yourself said that humanity as it is brings all the evil into existence. It is moral, by definition, to remove this evil. I'm not applying my morals here, obviously I think humans are great for my own reasons and wouldn't want to destroy them. But by your definitions, God destroying humanity would be the greatest moral action.
>Note that this may imply that at some point the removal of evil will indeed happen (some believe it to be at the end of the world)
If God has the desire to remove evil then he would have done it already (or not made evil humans in the first place).
>So evil will be removed at some point, but in a subtle manner and without ruining freedom.
The solution is simple. God makes our minds like his. He has free will and doesn't do evil, so he should have done the same with us.
>So in short we could say that God desires freedom to exist and for that a choice must exist. He allows evil, but doesn't desire it.
But the way he made us (freewill + flaws) will always result in breaking his rules and creating evil. So God desires much more than love and freedom, because he sets up so many laws about what you can eat, do with your genitals, say, and what days you should worship. This implies a very nuanced God that desires more than just love (or freedom or choice).
If the most important things for God were that you are free and that you love Him, he would have put us in Heaven with him already.
Why is every thread on this board about religion?
>>385451
Is this a Heidegger manga
>>385890
Because it interests people, if you don't like it then make a thread you like or fuck off
>>385924
What aspect of Heidegger does that seem like it's evoking?
>>385882
>God is the grounds
Doesn't follow
>contain everything that exists.
Same as you don't contain words you say (information) waste you've made (matter) or heat you've made (energy). The belief that god is all and all is god is pantheism. Catholics just believe that God created everything and is omnipotent and omniscient with all that entails.
>Interesting that [God] desires something as petty as human love.
God is love, and anyone who doesn’t love others has never known him. (1 John 4:8)
Love (as in Greek 'Agape') was and still is a pretty big deal in Christianity. You're thinking love as in eros, but in greek language those are different things. There are 6 different Greek words that could be translated as love in English.
>God destroying humanity would be the greatest moral action.
By my definitions whatever God does now is the greatest moral action (He is the point of reference for morality). Evil existing is moral as long as people can always choose good instead.
>If God has the desire to remove evil then he would have done it already
Humans are not evil, sins are. That's where "love the sinner, hate the sin" originates from.
God loves humans and hates sin and wants sin removed from us before he can take us in.
>He has free will and doesn't do evil, so he should have done the same with us.
He doesn't do evil because He is the origin of Good. I guess it takes power to deny evil altogether. But it doesn't matter now anyway, because since Jesus' sacrifice you get to be a good guy even if you sinned a lot. That's why it was such an elegant, gentle solution. You get back everything that is lost and still respect people's choice to say 'no'.
>But the way he made us (freewill + flaws) will always result in breaking his rules and creating evil.
I don't know why the rules exist. But I know the law is fulfilled so incidental breaking of rules is no longer a problem. As long as you feel sorry and repent, you're still with God.
>>383773
Seriously this,aren't we because of adam and eve's bullshit?why isn't the answer to this question just it's a punishment?
>>383840
There is no free will in heaven. The only thing you get is to be an angel and wait for the next world to be born so free will can exist again.
>Not defecting to satan
>being gods lapdog instead of being damned to eternal sentience
do you even human?
>>387849
In order for good actions to exist people must be inherently evil.
>>387981
Humans being turned into angels is nanny-level thology and utter bullshit. You're like people going into nietzsche threads to say 'b-but he was sad'
>>387988
So God can't do anything good because he isn't inherently evil?
>>383687
Pretty much after the fall, God was like "oh so y'all niggas want to have your own will and be free? I'll let you be free. Fuck you guys."
So pretty much we're the problem. We wanted our free will and we're reaping the consequences.
Also, if the worlds united together to stop world hunger and crime, the world would be a much better place. A lot of the suffering in the world is because we're all too selfish to do something about it.
And another thing to keep in mind is that the suffering we experience in this world is only for an infinitesimal period of time.
