Evil still exist, but not for long

HEADER FOR Expressions

(Click picture to go back to Table of Contents)

Welcome

Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."

God bless you...

Evil still exist, but not for long

Forum: Theological Expressions
Re:

What happens when we die? (Confused)
Re:

Ah, science to the rescue again (Interested )
Re:

Hi Interested, what did St Peter said about time? (eom) (Seeker)
Re:

Hi Seeker (Interested )
Re:

Things Creationists Hate
Re:

Answers to Things Creationists Hate (edmund)
Re:

Theodicy (Seeker)
Re:

Problem solved, God is good! (Benjamin)
Re:

God is good, but evil still exists, it's not solved (Seeker)
Date: 2001, May 31
From: Benjamin

Hi Seeker: Seeker: So the fact that evil still exists means that god is either unable to solve it or unwilling to solve it, or both. Benjamin: Guess you must have not grasp what I have said in the last post. My point was that God has already dealt with the problem of evil and will remove it entirely when He comes again. But more later. Seeker: Why? Why would god who is all-holy allow evil to exist side by side with him, even in the supernatural realm? Benjamin: I’m afraid my answer stops at where Scripture has not revealed. God is sovereign and He has His own purposes why certain things are allowed temporarily. It is futile to speculate and second guess what’s on God’s mind. But God has already revealed to us what will take place concerning sin and evil. Seeker: So god's creation is flawed with evil? But we are suppose to be created in his image. So if we are flawed, that means the creator is flawed too. Why would a perfect creator create something that is flawed? Benjamin: That’s not correct. When God finished with creation, God said it was good, meaning perfect. The man which was perfect reflected the image of God, but he is not God. He has limitations to his ability and capability but that does not impair his perfection as a created being. If God did not design Adam to be able to fly, that is not a flaw. There is no flaw in God’s handiwork. God did not create a flawed human, rather He created a person with the ability and freedom to choose. Is freedom of choice a flaw? What do you think? Seeker: The comeback may well be that Adam was created perfect, but became flawed due to the exercise of free will. This merely means that there was a latent flaw in the product, waiting for the right moment to manifest itself. So Adam was not created perfect. He only seem to be perfect. Why and how can a all-powerful god make such a mistake? Benjamin: Perhaps you need to define what is perfection. Does it include freewill or exclude freewill? If Adam had not sinned against God, we would still be in a state of perfection today. Adam’s perfection was not superficial or apparent, it was real. You should not position the argument as a mistake on God’s part. Should God be faulted for giving man free choice? But I would like to caution against philosophising for philosophising sake. Is this issue and the resolution of this issue first and foremost critical and central to your decision to embrace Christ? If this issue really bothers you and is not just a stall, then I think it is worthwhile to dwell on it, though I must admit that I don’t have all the answers, and neither would it be reasonable to expect that any Christian can know all the answers. Seeker: Why is our human instant solution too simplistic? Why is being simplistic no good? What is "His higher ways"? So far, it just seem to mean continued suffering. Benjamin: Well, perhaps you can tell me what kind of solution you have in mind. I believe I can also show how flawed it is. Simplistic means to not consider other pertinent factors. God’s higher ways means that it defies our human wisdom. For example, the Jews looked for a political Messiah, but God’s way is two pronged, the King will come first as a lowly servant. He works first in the hearts of men, giving time before He comes again to judge the world. The Jews couldn’t understand God’s ways. Likewise the Greeks could not understand how the cross (a symbol of shame and defeat) can be the very source of power unto salvation. Seeker: >>>Our human solutions do not do justice to God’s character.<<< Why? God's character is, inter-alia, all-powerful and all-loving. Surely, asking for reprieve from evil and suffering is not too much to ask from a merciful being? There is evil and suffering. Solution is to remove evil and suffering. What is wrong with this "human" solution that will not do justice to god's character? Benjamin: Perhaps you have not given much thought into it. Perhaps like many other atheists you have a caricature of God which is not the God of the Bible. God is not all lovey dovey. You must not emphasize God’s love and mercy at the expense of God’s holiness and righteousness. Should the Judge of the world fail to exercise justice? If in our human courts we will decry any judge who simply decides to show love to a mass murderer and set him free, should we reduce the standard of God to that of a man? Seeker: "His holiness" should have prevented evil from even existing in the first place. "His justice" is mislaid because he created Adam flawed and vulnerable in the first place (see earlier point). He allowed satan to live and he deliberately allowed him into the garden to tempt Eve into sin. And now he wants us to pay for the price of this sin. Doesn't sound very just to me. Benjamin: Sounds like you would make a better God, but then that would cost you your atheist status! Well, I won’t pretend that I can fully answer your questions. But just because there are unanswered questions do not mean that there is no God. At most it is an aspect of God that we cannot comprehend. Seeker: I can understand physical death. Actually, so do the many who kill themselves to escape this life. Surely, this can't be the solution? The solution is to rid this world of evil and suffering, something an all-powerful and all-loving god can EASILY accomplish. Having to come down to earth in human form, preaching, dying, then resurrecting (which are all simple things for an all-powerful being) just seems a convoluted and ineffective solution. Benjamin: Well it does seems to me that you think you might have a better solution to evil than God has! But of course you do not have that capability to carry it out. God’s solution is also to get rid of evil and suffering, but it will be done according to His ways, not ours. One thing for sure, it there was ever a better way to solve the problem than that which He has effected, God would have beaten you to it. ; ) Seeker: >>>It takes the death of an infinite God-man to pay for the sins of the whole world.<<< This is the strange thing. It seems like a clumsy and not very brilliant solution when all it takes is just a simple "wave of the hand", "snap of the fingers", "twitch of the nose", "nod of the head" from the almighty. Benjamin: Ah so this is the kind of simple solution you have. The problem with such instant quickfixes is that God is not a fairy God-father who take orders from man. Secondly, your solution leaves a gaping hole in God’s character, which given a chance, you will zero in and attack nonetheless. If God simply eradicate the problem of evil, we will all end up in hell instantly. Is that your idea of a solution? Or maybe you want everyone to end up in heaven? But then, would you like to meet Hitler there? Does that appease your sense of justice? You will have to think harder to arrive at a better solution, one that brings out the love of God AND does not diminish the holiness of God at the same time. Seeker: >>>So to answer the question, God HAS ALREADY DEALT with the problem of evil on Calvary 2000 years back.<<< Can't be. Evil and suffering still exist. Benjamin: But they won’t when He comes back. In fact, God has instituted civil laws and set civil authorities in place to restraint human wickedness in the present time. Seeker: And meanwhile, for 6000 (according to YEC) years or so, AND still counting, mankind (actually billions of people) has to endure the terrible pangs of evil and suffering. Doesn't make sense. Benjamin: Aren’t you glad it was only 6,000 years and not 15 billion years? As I have mentioned earlier, the pain we face today points back to the Garden of Eden when Adam sinned. And in a sense death was a “blessing” because otherwise the world will be full of sinful people living forever! And also think about it, the evil and suffering came about because of man’s choice. Wars, crimes, murders, these are acts of men, not God. You may mention natural calamities, but they are again a testimony to a cursed earth due to the disobedience of man. Moreover, the suffering caused by these calamities pales miserably compared to the totality caused by human acts. One question which I would like you to answer: Have you noticed that you have posed the question of evil in moral terms? That is, you have embraced some kind of moral standards and assumed that there is a moral basis for asking this question. But why should you even pose this question when it is an evolutionary world devoid of goals and purpose and morals? That’s not very consistent with yourself, isn’t it? In fact, it can be argued that you shouldn’t even be asking this question, for asking it presupposes that God exists. Seeker: >>>A loving God gave man the freedom to love Him back in a reciprocal relationship. Man abused that freedom to disobey God, bringing upon Himself the consequences of disobedience.<<< I put a jar of candy in a room with a child, telling him specifically not to eat it. Then I put a trickster who hates me in the same room with this child. It doesn't take a lot to foresee what is going to happen. Benjamin: Your analogy is flawed. Adam was a full blown adult, not a fumbling toddler. He had full thinking faculties and is very intelligent. He had only one rule to obey. He had everything else to enjoy. He was also told the consequences of disobedience. Now put yourself in the scenario. Imagine your father put you in a room full of goodies, tell you everything is yours except one thing. If you take it you would loose everything and suffer a terrible fate. Then someone came into the room, someone you don’t even know who ask you to do the very thing your father forbade. He twisted the words of your father and caused you to think ill of him that he should deny you even of one thing. You begin to be unappreciative and ungrateful for the other things you enjoy freely. You begin to doubt whether your father really means what he says by the consequences. And then you did the wrong thing. You may then argue that it was Adam who sinned and it shouldn’t be passed down to us. But why should you question this when you don't question the unbroken link from primordial pond scum to man? Seeker: So, maybe we can say, it's the child's fault. He disobeyed my clear, specific instruction not to eat the candy. Alright, even so, surely I must share part of the blame for knowingly and deliberately exposing him to such a scenario in the first place. Benjamin: Only God knows why the tree of knowledge was there or that Satan was allowed into the Garden. He never told us those reasons. Bible scholars could only arrive at the conclusion that it was not inconsistent with the free choice of man. Seeker: >>>That’s retribution, what a man sows he reaps.<<< Requiring punishment and retribution is not the trait of an all-loving and all-merciful god. Benjamin: I hope you have given more than a cursory thought to your own reply. Think about the deeper implications of such a God. Seeker: God deserted man when he allowed satan to tempt Eve. Where was he when satan was sweet-talking Eve? Benjamin: Let God be true and every man a liar. God, being omnipresent, was surely with Eve. Eve could even recall God’s prohibition. In fact, the Bible says Adam was there right beside Eve! So you have God’s word and another person to be the restraining factors. Being tempted is not a sin. In a sense you might even say that God has already “tempted” Adam and Eve with all the other goodies they can enjoy. But they rejected God and believed the words of a stranger. Seeker: I can't imagine anyone refusing eternal life. Benjamin: Well you are a classic case study! Why won’t you accept what the Bible says? Isn’t it because you do not trust the Word of God? That’s exactly what Adam and Eve did back then. They did not trust God’s words to them. Seeker: Surely, if people can spend time, effort, money and risk silicon implants to stay young, reaching out to god is a far simpler solution, IF he exists. Problem is, in line with our other discussion on scientific evidence, there is no evidence that he exists. So you can't blame people for refusing to come to him. He just doesn't seem to be there. Benjamin: You see, the problem we have is deep rooted. We have a problem with sin. We hate to be exposed for our wickedness. We think we are good. We don’t wish to be accountable for our lives. If we do evil, we hope no one catches us. And we hope to live as though we are free and accountable to no one. Before Darwin, being an atheist was pretty difficult as it was not defensible. But Richard Dawkins echoed the height of arrogance when he said that evolution made it possible for him to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. That is simply self-delusion but atheism must have its crutches. Moreover, how does evolution address the problem of evil? Is it capable of providing answers to these questions? What explanatory power does it have? Does it offer a better answer than the Bible? I see it as more reasonable to critique something if you have a better alternative or suggestion or are in a better position to resolve it. Regards, Benjamin