Like this:
2 bloggers like this post.
What answers does the Bible give for the “problem of evil”?
November 30, 2011 by defendtheword
One Response
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Posts
- Ravi Zacharias Answers Stephen Hawking
- ‘Why God Won’t Go Away’ by Alister McGrath
- John Stott on Principles For Whole Life Discipleship
- John Stott on death
- What answers does the Bible give for the “problem of evil”?
- Are the New Testament manuscripts reliable?
- How do we explain the Bible’s 400,000 errors?
- What is the Heart of the Gospel?
- John MacArthur Rebukes Joel Osteen
- Philosophical Apologetics, the Church, and Contemporary Culture
- Briliant New Free Bible Softwere The Word
- Jerusalem Tunnel Provides Glimpse of Jewish Revolt
- Longer life expectancy ‘puts people off religion’
- In Search of the Historical Jesus
- Who is there like you Lord
-
Top Posts
- Free Audio MP3 Bible (New Testament) NKJV and NIV
- CATHOLIC TEACHINGS REGARDING COMMUNION Vs PROTESTANT
- Bible
- Is the Bible really True? (John MacArthur)
- 'Why I Am Not A 5 Point Calvinist' - By Dr. Norman Geisler
- Early Non Biblical Writings that mention Jesus and his followers
- Free Bible software – Online Bible
- Faith comes by hearing
- Weaning Evangelicals Off the Bible - TA McMahon
- Is There Any Proof of Jesus Other Than the Bible?
Archives
Pages
-
Recent Comments
Categories
Meta
Category Cloud
Tildeb: Yes, the bible tells all kinds of ‘quasi’-answers to the problem of evil, none of which successfully allow for an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, benevolent god.
Defend the Word: I’m suppressed, that for someone who does not have degree in theology you are so quick to give your insight into interpretation and commentary on the character of God. Same can be said about both Dawkins and Attenborough, neither is thinking outside the box, and are very much conforming to the standards well understood by anyone who even briefly examined the arguments between Atheists and Christians. There is nothing new in what you say it has been successfully refuted many times.
Tildeb: This video doesn’t help but points out how each scriptural answer to the problem of evil is really a question about the reason for suffering. Although theological apologists love to blame humanity for suffering, what they conveniently ignore is the inherent suffering of sentient creatures with a fully functioning nervous system in nature.
Defend the Word: That is just not true, I don’t think that atheists have monopoly on logic or compassion. Truth is completely elsewhere, your assertion is just that, unsupported by the facts. Secondly we do differ in our views on priority and grading structure, The Bible is clear that humanity is at the top, whilst for Evolutionists we are just link in the chain no different to monkeys or slugs. Therefore we are never going to fully match our thinking and assertions. But that is OK as long as we understand out starting points we can explain why certain things are said and claimed.
Tildeb: The prey/predator system is full of suffering independent of man when if designed would not have to be this way… in fact, should not be this way. Anyone with even a very basic human understanding of morality (tongue in cheek) could do a better job, a fairer job, a more compassionate job than what is attributed to god, something as simple as a shut off switch in the brains of these creatures being eaten alive, starving to death, or suffering the fate of a parasite, viral infection, or a parastoid like this that eats its host alive from the least damaging part to the final feast of necessary organs just before attaining maturity:
Defend the Word: This is again not a new accusation but often repeated attack on the integrity of the God of the Bible. However it stems from the lack of the proper understanding and lack of willingness to learn. Here is one simple rule we should all follow, in the same way that good apologist would attempt to understand point of view that atheist may present likewise atheist should try to avoid that old chestnut of trying to impose 21st century western logic upon the thinking of the ageless God.
Here is a simple thought you should consider, you and I are here debating religion but we are both limited with time and knowledge. And neither are applicable to God. When you and I are long gone and forgotten teachings that are in the Bible will still be there. God will still look at his creation and offer his mercy and love to all who seek him honestly and completely.
Bible gives us clear reasons why things are not perfect the way they use to be, some humans are refusing to accept that they (Suffering in nature) are result of humanities fall into sin and would rather find an excuse that is simply not there. What lies beneath the veneer can soon be revealed when the life’s pressure points are squeezed that ugly staff starts to ooze out. How often did you get the surprise when someone suddenly showed their ugly side unexpectedly? That is what sin does to us, and most of all God is continually showing his love, forgiveness and tolerance which is not endless. One day we all will have to stand before him and none of us will live forever. His continuous encouragement, promise that one day we will have new heaven and new earth, free from suffering is a promise that displays loving character that you will only find with God.
By all accounts what you see in the Bible is that God goes beyond what our earthly parents are prepared to do for us. And for you as evolutionist you would try to persuade us that any selfless act of parents is only furthering of the genetic code. So by all accounts if we are to maintain humanity which you ridicule we should look to the higher source. And that source is offered to us by God, so as you can see your argument is driven by your philosophy and is by no means explaining away biblical interpretation of suffering in this world.
Tildeb:
Narrated by Dawkins:
youtube.com/watch?v=LdbQehQ-Hqk
Narrated by Attenborough:
youtube.com/watch?v=SLvuevf__Ok&feature=player_embedded
As you can see, the ‘quasi’-answers offered by theologians for a nature red in tooth and claw are not answers at all for this system of suffering, but merely a superstitious substitute dressed as a pious answer for “I don’t know.”
Defend the Word: On the contrary there are no unknowns here, what you see is plausible explanation, if there is a God, if Bible is true then the story presented makes perfectly good sense. Your refusal to accept it is simply your preference and is in no way adequately rebating or even ridiculing “limited intelligence Christians”. If anything its showing the missteps of your argumentation, your dots are not connected properly because your lines are blurring, modern concepts with eternal facts; Western philosophy with truth and atheistic faith with science.
The Bible does not care what we think about it, it is simply stating the facts that we can seek and question and that is in fact encouraged. But when Bible is stating this, please note that there are conditions, our seeking is not in order to prove our hypothesis, but to find the truth. This seeking of God needs to be whole heartedly applied otherwise it will only become an attempt to disprove something that could simply not be done.
Nobody here is advocating that we should suspend laws of logic or science but that we should go in faith from what is known and build on it until we arrive to the point of the unknown. We have so much of the good and solid proofs of God and his love for humanity that there is a little doubt and reason to doubt his intention and assessment on the condition of the human kind since the fall of humanity. Our modern ethics may prevent us to think strait but we should make sure we apply same standards across the board otherwise we may be accused of double standards and faulty logic. We could not seek to make God guilty if we refuse to accept that sin and guilt should be driven by the God given morality. If morality is evolved and not God given then you have no right to impose your values on others.
But if you are raising this question then you are in fact heavily borrowing from the Christian dogmatic teaching. So be careful what you pick and choose to tackle. If you are invoking this argument you are in fact invoking God and you could not have it both ways. If he is not there you could not use this argument of morality and suffering and if he is there then his explanation could and should necessarily be true and correct. That I hope is not too difficult to follow once you break this argument to its basic components. And note this is not about winning the argument but about finding the sound truth, this is after all what the Bible is encouraging us to do.
1. God equals morals,
2. No God no morals,
3. No morals no need to attack him with your argument,
4. If you want to make God feel guilty you are using his laws therefore borrowing from Christianity, right and wrongs don’t evolve they are simply there. Therefore morality is eternal in nature and part of God’s character and his creation.
5. If you invoke Gods law you invoke God
6. If there is a God his argument is wiser than ours as he is a creator not you and I
Kind regards
Merry Christmas and happy New Year.
Defend the word