Humans choose evil

Some people harp on about how a benevolent God could never allow evil to exist, but without examining the question properly. Assuming humans were created, without having the free will to choose there would be no glory in Gods creation of human beings would there. Humans would be more like robots, programmed only to obey. And at what point did God ask people to become slave drivers, traders of everything rotten, tainted with innocent blood, when did he force them in a certain direction, and demand that they pollute the earth, abuse it, start wars and kill everyone, when did the Gods demand you be selfish and think only of yourself, demand you are unkind to others, greedy, intolerant, capricious, egotistical and petty, stupid and ridiculous, and why would you worship a God who is a bully like this, a tyrant who must enjoy discord then ? You wouldnt. Some will say, “what about those born into terrible circumstances who have no choice but to suffer, this is evil?” Yes of course, but then examine the situation further.

Its the decisions humans make with their free will that create the conditions we call evil, for people to be born into in the first place, not the decisions that Gods make, if it were true that Gods allowed evil because they were evil themselves, they wouldnt be very good Gods would they, obviously. They would be pathetic, wretched entities, as many humans are, not worthy of your adoration & praise, and there would be a way to escape them because of this. And I would be the first to try. But its humans I would sooner try to escape. Many of them are so sensitive and petty much of the time, you cant say anything and they are lashing out, they know nothing about themselves, the world they live in or the rest of the cosmos really despite all the space exploration, the advance in technology, all their schooling, if they are being honest, humans will admit their intellect understands very little, and that their hearts are filled with contradictory passions which have them headed in all kinds of directions with disasterous consequences, none of which they are in control of, yet they talk like they are in complete control and understand themselves, space, time, our planet and the rest of the cosmos. Of course, they are impeccable !

But they only recently learned to walk upright, talk, use their thumbs, (the little rascals) they are still very much like infants, this is why we must be patient with them, and tolerate their philosophical temper tantrums. Knowing that when they grow up things will be different.

I won’t deny that humans choose evil, but I will question your argument…

IF God is both omnipotent and loving then God would not - not even in the name of “free will” - condone suffering. To a loving God, suffering is necessarily unacceptable. To an omnipotent loving God, suffering would necessarily cease to exist (since God would not be able to accept its existence and God would have the power to stop it).

To a loving God the cessation of suffering trumps upholding free will. In other words, if it comes to choosing whether we are saved from suffering or whether our freedom is maintained, God, as a loving God, would always choose the former.

Given there is suffering in the world, God cannot be both loving and omnipotent. I suggest we drop the omnipotence bit to resolve this difficulty.

Granted, you never mentioned the word “omnipotent”, but I have a feeling it’s lurking behind the scenes…

I get a little tired of the same old humanistic reasoning processes that lead to the same old “astounding revelations…” none of which are any more astounding now than they were when someone first had them.

To demonstrate my point, consider Mr. Disciple of Light.

Sir, you speak as if you’re not a human, and yet you reason just like all other unregenerate humans who consider themselves to be the final arbitrator and interpreter of “fact.” It’s also incredibly presumptuous of you to make sweeping generalizations when (given the truth of your claim) you (as a human) can’t make sweeping generalizations in the fist place.

Have you done the necessary statistical research to demonstrate the truth of this claim:

Many of them are so sensitive and petty much of the time, you cant say anything and they are lashing out, they know nothing about themselves, the world they live in or the rest of the cosmos really despite all the space exploration, the advance in technology, all their schooling, if they are being honest, humans will admit their intellect understands very little,

Are we to just take your word for this? If you had to present a numerical value to the term “many” as you’ve used it here, what would it be?

You’ll have to forgive me for not being convinced by your argument.

Furthermore, in trying to critique the orthodox Christian conception of God, you present a non sequiter.

Assuming humans were created, without having the free will to choose there would be no glory in Gods creation of human beings would there.

Let’s forget about the wealth of material written on this topic for a moment and simply ask the question…what IF humans were robots? How would that nullify God’s glory? It is in no way apparent that it would.

(If you wish to critique the Christian conception of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility, I’d suggest Martin Luther’s classic book “Bondage of the Will” or Johnathan Edwards’ book “Freedom of the Will.” Also, for a more recent discussion, see A.W. Pink’s book “Sovereignty” which can be found here: reformed.org/books/pink/index.html )

Until you have studied the Christian conception of these doctrines you shouldn’t try to critique them. (I’ve recently posted an article in the “Essays and Thesis” section of this forum demonstrating why any attempt to give man autonomous freedom essentially dethrones God.)

At least Alyoshka comes right out and admits that he/she has no problem disregarding the God of scripture in favor of a God that better suits his/her desired autonomy.

In the end, it’s what all unregenerate folk do, (and sadly it’s been my experience that even many Christians are willing to do so as well.)

Shotgun:

I don’t disregard the God of Scripture. Rather I embrace the God of Scripture as precisely that: a character in a story. The difference between DiscipleOfLight and I is that DiscipleOfLife makes God an historical/ontological reality. To me God’s reality doesn’t extend beyond the fictional account that’s been handed down to us.

Nevertheless, I see this fictional portrayal of a character called God as the source of endless inspiration. The way of life this character evokes and the promises it makes are a beacon to anyone who wants to live the good life.

Does that actually work on some Christians Aly?

You dethrone the God of scripture.

You’ll have a really tough job convincing anyone otherwise.

How do I dethrone the God of Scripture?

By saying God is a fictional entity rather than onto-historical?

Am I wrong to say that Scripture is story? Am I wrong to say there is a character called God in these stories? Does Scripture anywhere claim to be historical fact?

I dethrone the God of Scripture in the sense I cast off all LATER assignments to this God, such as omnipotence, omnipresence, etc. However I see such a move as RESTORING the God of Scripture rather than dethroning…

In a very strong sense though you’re right. I have no time for the idea that there is some entity called God out there who rules over us all. And again, where in Scripture is such a thing asserted? Where does Scripture make the claim of historical actuality or that God is in fact a particular entity out there?

The only FACT is that there is a story (or collection of stories) that speak of a character called God. How is that not convincing?

Disciple, you jump from the cliff, sure to fly out, and sink by the force of gravity of evil and the featherless arguments you’ve made to overcome it’s pull.
Evil is not the result of human choice but of God’s action or inaction, provided that, as God, God is omnipotent.
Pharaoh can choose, quite freely, to put to death every hebrew in sight, but God interferes so that his choice does not cause any evil but to himself. Satan can choose, quite freely, to do evil, as Satan would, to Job, but it is God who allows Satan’s choice to be carried out to the demise of the innocent Job.

It is funny that at one point you seek to explain natural evil: “Some will say, “what about those born into terrible circumstances who have no choice but to suffer, this is evil?” Yes of course, but then examine the situation further.” I was thinking that since you were examining every angle that maybe you would find a reason why evil exist and if it does how we can reconcille this with a benevolent idea of God.
You say that:“Its the decisions humans make with their free will that create the conditions we call evil, for people to be born into in the first place, not the decisions that Gods make”…A child born with leukemia or with cancer does not die eventually because of the choices his parents or doctors have made but because of the cancerous cells God allowed in him or her. The child can be born into the best utopia you can imagine and still die innocently.
Now, is such a God who presides over this scenario, evil or impotent to stop the innocent’s suffering? Take your pick. This is the choice that reason presents to you. This is the gravity that pulls you down from the heights of your jump.

You say: “…if they are being honest, humans will admit their intellect understands very little, and that their hearts are filled with contradictory passions which have them headed in all kinds of directions with disasterous consequences, none of which they are in control of, yet they talk like they are in complete control and understand themselves, space, time, our planet and the rest of the cosmos. Of course, they are impeccable !”
So much for your examination. There is apparent evil, then, and this is simply because we do not possess the lofty heights of God’s intellect to see the big picture in which a child dying of leukemia is not a true evil, but only an appearance of evil.
Fair enough, fair enough…the solution is then that we must stop trying to understand God by human concepts such as good and benevolent and just, for God is immense enough that he transcends and escapes the definition for each. Let’s stop talking about God’s justice or how benevolent and loving he is while we still live in a world in which we cannot understand what that means. Let’s admit then that we lack a signified to accompany that signifier when it applies to an omnipotent and benevolent God that co-exists with what negates the applicability, in the human observer, of that predicate.

Aly,

I would say to your first point, that yes, scripture undeniably claims it’s own authority. No ultimate “God” could do otherwise. He must authorize Himself, since there is nothing greater out there for Him to appeal to. Such a discussion would side-rail this thread though, and so, I’ll not go further into that here.

As for the thurst of your last response, I would counter with the claim that without the truth of the God of scripture, (as articulated consistently by Orthodox protestant confessions and writings) that you cannot even reason about particulars of your experience like “bibles” or “words” or “factuality.”

If the Christian God is just a story, then you are still left with forming up some sort of metaphysical scheme with wich to reconcile the unity and particularity of your experience.

Good luck with that…

You say “there is nothing greater out there for Him to appeal to.”

I say God is greatest of all because God serves even the least. God is NOT greatest because God has the most power or the most knowledge or the most presence, but because God has an all embracing love.

And yes, the Christian God is just a character in a story. What do you mean by a “metaphysical scheme with which to reconcile the unity and particularity of my experience”?

There’s a real-life, “metaphysical” book called the Bible. In it there’s a character called God. From it we can extract God’s way of life. In our own life we can adopt this way and become images of God.

In this way, in a sense at least, I make the transition from fiction to history/metaphysics. From fiction we encounter a way of life which our historical life adopts.

I’m not sure I’m addressing you properly though…