Why does God allow Evil?

[Duper]

CLICK

This is another message through the Renewing your Mind site. The message itself is done by a different guy while at a conference. He explores several different ideas. For those who always wonder or use the term \"If there's a God, then why is there ..[insert favorite example]..??!?!?\" Listen to this. it may not be the answer you want, but it is the correct answer.

Link Fixed

[Bet51987]

CLICK

This is another message through the Renewing your Mind site. The message itself is done by a different guy while at a conference. He explores several different ideas. For those who always wonder or use the term "If there's a God, then why is there ..[insert favorite example]..??!?!?" Listen to this. it may not be the answer you want, but it is the correct answer.

(Duper- This is not directed to you in any way whatsoever.)

I listened to all of it but heard nothing new. God created both good and evil and lets the two battle it out every single minute. He doesn't care if those that are good are getting tortured by those who are evil....

But....He loves you?

Really....

Bee

[snoopy]

A couple comments so we're on the same page:

I don't think that \"For God so loved the world\" necessarily means He has set His love upon every individual in the world. The whole world benefits from common grace, but not everyone is individually \"loved\" (I see God loving a person, and electing a person as essentially the same) by God.

The biggest pillar that our personal understand of the gospel stands on is an understanding of the immensity of our own sin. Anyone who claims to be a \"good\" person is sorely wrong when it comes to God's scales. Only God is good. All of individuals of humanity are hopelessly sinful.

People get stuck on the small picture while missing the big picture. Ultimately, the elect will reside for eternity in heaven in infinite joy. Ultimately, all of the sorrows, injustice, and pain of this world will be consumed by the joy of the next world. Ultimately, our pain & suffering is small, short lived, and trite.

People lose perspective that the person who has endured the greatest anguish ever in the world is Jesus Christ himself. He, being God, perfect, took on all of the sin of the world, past, present, and future- causing himself to be separated from the Father. This was more difficult and more painful for Christ than anything we can ever experience.

In the end it comes down to a matter of who's in charge. God refuses to answer to us. If we presume to require Him to answer to us for us to believe in Him, we'll live the rest of our lives waiting. If we realize that God has already provided all of the answers that we need in the Bible & the revelation of the Holy Spirit, we come to a point where we don't have to understand it all.

[Foil]

Bet has a point there, I'm not sure that message really answers the question well.

Personally, even as a Christian, I'm always wary of messages that claim to have *THE* answer for the problem of evil.

Even within mainstream Christianity, there are a number of different viewpoints on the subject:

• \"God didn't create evil\" (evil as simply the absence of good)
• \"God knew good has no meaning without evil\" (evil as necessary opposite)
• \"Evil comes from fallen human nature\"
• \"Evil is a result of God's gift of free will\"
• \"Pain this world doesn't matter, God is primarily concerned with eternity\"
• ... etc.

The problem with those kind of simple answers is that none of them really address the whole issue of evil.

For example, some of them seem to address personal evil (things done by people), but don't even begin to explain natural evil (pain caused by natural events like Earthquakes).

It's a tough, complex problem, and the usual explanations from Christian preachers (even some of my favorites) often only address it at face-value.

When you start asking the tough questions like, \"What about natural evil like the recent tsunamis?\" or \"Why couldn't an omnipotent God create Free Will without the possibility of evil?\", these quick explanations just don't cut it in my book. (The usual quick answers I've heard in response to those questions don't cut it, either.)

[Another thing that complicates the matter is the differing perspectives on God. Even within Christianity, you'll find a huge spectrum of views of God, from the demanding-harsh-punishing-killer-God to the lovey-dovey-everyone-is-okay-God.]

---------------

In my opinion, the only way to really adequately address this issue is a serious study of God's nature. I don't think we can come to any real understanding of why God allows evil until we begin to know who God is.

Not that I'm claiming to, of course. I'll be honest enough to admit I don't have the answers, and there are still questions in my mind.

[Duper]

I forgot to mention that this is the second of 2 halves. In the first one, he defines evil and the different categories.

[Grendel]

Evil lies in the eye of the beholder. Just like good.

[MD-1118]

First, kudos to Grendel. Exactly my sentiments.

Second, a short quote:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God.

Atheists: winning since 33 A.D.

... 'Course, I'm an agnostic - but I do tend to lean heavily towards atheism.

[Aggressor Prime]

Without the possibility of evil, there cannot be choice, something even God has. Now of course God defines good. In so much as God behaves, so much so good exists. But let us look at this problem mathematically.

Let us define the highest number as the best choice, the choice that belongs to God. Then let us define the lowest number as the worst choice, the choice that is completely empty of God. Now let us say we have choices from the integer 0 to the integer 10, a total of 11 choices. We define 10 as the choice that belongs to God, the best, most logical choice. We define 0 as the choice totally removed from God, the most illogical.

Therefore, 10 is the holy choice and 0 is the completely evil choice. Everything in between 10 and 0 is what we call evil, with different degrees. Now we must note that it is impossible to perform choice 0, as doing such a choice requires complete ill logic, and such ill logic cannot be reached from beings that depend on logic to exist, you can't jump from some logic to no logic, for such a jump is like going from some energy to no energy in a pack of matter, it is impossible. There is always some trace amounts of energy for matter in order for the matter to exist (for in all reality, matter is made up of energy). Like matter, anything of existence itself requires some connection to God (logic) to exist (since everything in existence is made up of logic).

Therefore, the complete illogical choice is impossible to choose, and therefore, might not even be able to be known by us mortal humans. It is probably only God who can know such complete evil. Even Lucifer can't choose (or even maybe know) this choice, he probably chooses 1, worst case scenario, his ill logic coming from the serious doubt to believe anything beyond his own existence, allowing ill conceived notions to follow from ill logic (although not totally ill since Lucifer, being a being in existence, still receives the source of his own existence into his logic complex, although he, like all of us, to doubt this source in his mind, seeing the logic that doubts such a source as being able to be doubted as well along with the memory that holds such mental activities).

Now back to the center of our argument. Evil exists because there is the possibility of it, now of course this doesn’t mean we have to choose this evil, everything can be perfect, but we chose not to first in the beginning, causing all to have original sin (but a select few individuals according to the Catholic faith), bringing us the pains of the earth and death. In addition, we have all the sins people commit daily. But I think you people more so want to know why we have the possibility of sin, not why people sin. Why does God let sin happen? Again, it goes back to choice. The only way to remove choice is of course to remove the possibility of choice.

Now some of you may be asking, well then, can’t God just lock us into choice #10, the best and most logical choice? Well, in order to understand why God wouldn’t do that, we must look into what makes choice #10 worth 10/10 and not less. Good is a value, a quality. For a value or quality to exist, it must be able to be compared to something else. Without a comparison, a value or quality is meaningless. Without meaning, something cannot exist. What else cannot exist? Choice #0. So while we cannot know what choice #0 is, we can know it is the choice picked by those who have no choice, forced upon them. It is the choice that is meaningless and by such meaningless is complete nothingness.

In conclusion, by wanting no evil to exist, or really no possibility of evil, you also want nothingness, the worst evil. Ironic, isn’t it?

[MD-1118]

Aggressor Prime, I recommend you direct your attention toward my \"Existential Agnostic Solipsist\" thread. Then I ask you if you consider me to be less or more evil than Lucifer himself. Then I laugh, because whatever your response to that, it's still highly laudable that I am worse than the Devil himself, and all for being nihilistic.

[Jeff250]

An even more difficult question than (1) Why does God allow evil? is (2) Why does God allow so much evil?

For instance, suppose that your explanation to (1) is that free will is the end all be all of existence, so having some evil is the price to pay for it. It still does not seem like there should so much evil. Couldn't God have given us free will but with better characters? (Also, as Foil points out, it takes some handwaving to explain how free will is responsible for natural evil.)

[MD-1118]

Maybe some people are just too picky about what's good and read into things too much. Or too little, as it were.

[Aggressor Prime]

Aggressor Prime, I recommend you direct your attention toward my "Existential Agnostic Solipsist" thread. Then I ask you if you consider me to be less or more evil than Lucifer himself. Then I laugh, because whatever your response to that, it's still highly laudable that I am worse than the Devil himself, and all for being nihilistic.

I read your thread, and I must say, your thoughts remind me of my own. Such thinking is the basis of all thought and I must say I am glad you performed this doubting experiment. It allows you to disconnect from everything and go to the root of yourself.
Although there are some problems. You think like Descartes, that your mind is the same thing as your soul. But this argument has been proven false by science, at least, if you trust science. The mind, our thought processes, can be controlled. Our soul cannot. Our thought processes merely react. They receive input, process, give the choice to the soul, then output. But can the soul think? Well, let us subtract all the thinking events from the mind from the soul and see what we get. In the end, we get both a chooser and something that tells us that we exist.

I don’t believe the brain chooses in so much as it processes what is the best choice and then outputs a choice. That process in between I don’t think has been clarified, nor do I think can be clarified fully, the source of such choice making at least. Of course, we must remember, that the chooser, in order to work, must have choices. Otherwise, we cannot see it as something that exists. Luckily, we have a choice that is the building block of all choices, a choice that roots from the soul (but requires a mind to understand such choices):
1. Choose to dwell on nothingness
2. Choose to take a leap of faith that one’s logic, one’s higher thoughts, the thoughts of the mind (and maybe another mind, what some may call our heavenly body, that exists in the heavenly realm) can be correct

Now while you may think you have chosen #1, you have really chosen #2, otherwise we would not be talking. You pretend the world exists in order to keep yourself from being bored, yet boredom is a quality apart from your soul as we have defined it. Not only do you have this pointing you to #2, you also have the belief that your soul’s logic, once reached into the mind, keeps its logic. Although you sometimes doubt this, I think you are saying that you believe your existence to be true alongside your ability to choose, pointing to your belief that other things exists beyond yourself, a logic of the mind.

So we have established that while you receive the soul’s logic, like everyone, the logic of existence and the logic of choice, you also seem to accept that such logic, when transferred to a mind, which you seem to believe in, keeps its logic. And you believe in boredom. Now let me use your already accepted logic to prove there is a God, which will prove very easy granted your already accepted logic. In fact, my proof is an old one, used by the great theologians of the Catholic past.

You have a concept of comparison. First, by boredom. You see a difference between being bored and being occupied. You also have the concept of having a mind. By such, I imagine that you can also see the ability for a mind to not exist, like in a nothingness. And since you see the mind and soul as the same, let us also say you see the fact that a soul may have the ability to not exist, again in a field of nothingness. You explain that outside of you is nothingness. So we have a comparison. Now how do we add a quality to that comparison, which of course is needed for God to be proven to exist, God being defined as what is best, most logical, perfect, complete?

Well, let us go back to numbers. Let us say 0 is no concept of existence, that is, you have no soul that gives the concept of existence. Let us say 1 is a concept of existence that is not thought about. This does not require a mind, but does require a soul. You have not admitted doing this, but you have, when you are unconscious. Let us say 2 is a concept of existence that is rejected. This requires a soul and a mind, for on the one hand the mind is required to connect the soul to choices. On the other, the soul makes the choice.

Let us say 3 is a concept of existence that is accepted, that one accepts one exist, but does not accept the ability to choose, believing that one is stuck things a certain way and only that way. Of course one can think this by thinking one’s own logic can be flawed. In this way, they can see a faulty logic support one’s existence and not the ability of choice, without realizing them fundamentally connected, for one can choose if one believes he exists or not. Let us say 4 is a concept of existence that is accepted alongside a concept of choice that is accepted, however, one rejects the mind’s existence. In this case, again, there exists a flawed logic, for one cannot have a concept of the chooser’s existence without using a mind to process information within a choice, thus making a choice which is used to associate to the chooser’s existence.

Let us say 5 is a concept that one exists, one can choose, and one has a mind. At this stage, you do not believe anything outside the mind, including difference.

At stage 6, you believe in differences. This is the stage I believe you are at. However, you cannot see values applied to differences, for you see meaninglessness in the world.

At stage 7, you can see values applied to differences, but you cannot see God.

At stage 8, you can see God, but you cannot see anything outside of God and yourself.

At stage 9, you see the world, but you see it through mortal eyes, seeing only things as they appear.

At stage 10, you see the world as it is, as God sees, perfect knowledge.

Ok, now that we have defined the different stages of acknowledging existence, we have put you in the middle. Now, without meaning, we see there are differences, but no item better or worse than another. There is no meaning to any item. Without meaning, you would not care which stage you are in. But that poses a problem to your choice. How? You choose to be in stage 5. You do not want to be in stage 0, nor can you be, since you do not want to not exist, you want to be alone with yourself. And seeing that you strongly attach your mind to your soul, so strongly that you incorrectly see them as the same, you would not even want to be in stages 1-4. You want to be at one with your mind, placing you at least in stage 5, but you see differences. Now I don’t know if you want to see differences or not. But we have enough to continue. You have stages below 6 as less than stage 6, since you are not in these stages. You also have the stages above you that you prefer not to be in, since you want to be alone with yourself. So you place 6 at the top with other choices below that. At that, we can merely place all but 6 on level 1 and choice 6 at level 2. Level 2 in this case is not only different from level 1, but better, for you choose it, you prefer it, you like it.

Now I am not saying level 6 is indeed the best choice, I am saying that you see it as a better choice. You see quality, better and worse, not shades of gray. From here, the proof of God becomes even easier. For we define God as perfect. You see better and worse. How do we go from better to best? Well, easy. Best is merely the top of available choices, better than all the rest. You see all these choices before you and acknowledge choice 6 as best. With this concept of, the best, you have a concept of perfection, something perfect being the best at something, complete, full. This concept of perfection is what we call God. Granted, your concept of perfection, others disagree on. So how do I get you to disagree with yourself, to follow the rest of us?

Well, if you are still reading, it probably means that you care enough to put time aside and follow my logic. With this logic, you probably see how you really belong in choice 7. Yet I just defined God from choice 7, God being the source of perfection. Well, a definition is simple to accept, if you want to flow through this logically, that from point 6 and through following this argument, you show. So let us say that God is this source of perfection, is he just the perfect choice? Well, if we have two perfect choices, why must they be different beings? If they were, while they may be perfect in one regard, they would not be in another. But let us think through this logically. Isn’t everything connected by logic, as we have applied in the beginning of this argument? By that, a perfect being is connected by logic, for his choice is perfect, something made up by logic. But if that choice is correct, being bound by correct logic, all other choices, being bound by the same correct logic, must be perfect. And you can’t have 2 different perfect beings, for both beings would require perfect logic, therefore giving the same choice. Where they deny each other, logic cannot exist, for it must be perfect. Where they agree with each other, they are made into one, for there are no differences to separate them, and things exist apart by their separations, be it time, space, density, or quality. So there is one perfect God, brining you to choice 8.

Now bringing you to choice 9 is a bit tricky. As such, it will require far more time to bring you to this conclusion. And this is a forum, not a book, so I don’t want to turn people off by reading too much. So I will end my argument here respectfully.

[MD-1118]

You make fair and (somewhat) valid points, Prime. Now let me make one that has been milling about in my \"mind\" for some time.

Assuming this reality is the product of my sub-/un-conscious, it further stands to reason that I would be its \"God\" and by definition, my \"mind\" would indeed be real. Just another view.

I don't so much exist as a soul and mind, though. Rather, think of this the way you would think of a flight simulator. No matter how realistic it may seem, it does not qualify you to fly an actual plane. Well, that's not the point I wanted to make. What I mean is, I see my mind as a sort of virtual computer. I use it, but that doesn't mean I think it \"exists\". All the use with none of the hassle. This \"reality\" is basically an interactive illusion (read: hologram to Trekkies) on the framework of my soul. It's all very tidy, and what scares me the most is it makes perfect sense to me. I keep hoping to find something else that makes more sense, but... it never happens. Keep trying, though. As part of my consciousness, there's bound to be some insight with which you can provide me.

Oh, and Prime? Please continue where you left off, I find your line of thought somewhat interesting.

[Bet51987]

AP...

Occam's razor... If a Perfect God had created the Universe, both the Universe and its explanation of such would be much simpler.

The only difference between the God-world and the God-less world is that the God-world needs to be interpreted and made believable.

Bettina

[MD-1118]

Bets... while I agree with the "why" of your statement, I have to disagree on the "how". Reason, while seemingly unrelated, is entirely applicable and follows thus:

What realism calls "the universe", solipsism calls "one's unconscious mind." But these are just different names for the same thing. Both are massively complex processes other than the solipsist's conscious mind, and the cause of all the solipsist's experiences — possibly merely a labeling distinction. Application of Occam's Razor might then suggest that postulating the existence of 'reality' may be a simpler solution than a massive unconscious mind; alternatively the smaller number of entities required to exist for solipsism suggests solipsism is the better choice. In practice, Occam's Razor suffers from a problem in the definition of simplicity. The solipsist would claim that the apparent independence of real world events just shows how good his unconscious mind is at maintaining the illusion. The realist's world may be every bit as complex as the solipsist's unconscious, but when the solipsist dies, the entire universe will cease to exist.

In summation, Occam's Razor is too difficult to define at times. Also, simpler is not always better, since there is no better. Simpler is... well, I'm not entirely sure. Apparently it has a myriad of uses and applications. At any rate, it's just another variable.

[Aggressor Prime]

You make fair and (somewhat) valid points, Prime. Now let me make one that has been milling about in my "mind" for some time.

Assuming this reality is the product of my sub-/un-conscious, it further stands to reason that I would be its "God" and by definition, my "mind" would indeed be real. Just another view.

I don't so much exist as a soul and mind, though. Rather, think of this the way you would think of a flight simulator. No matter how realistic it may seem, it does not qualify you to fly an actual plane. Well, that's not the point I wanted to make. What I mean is, I see my mind as a sort of virtual computer. I use it, but that doesn't mean I think it "exists". All the use with none of the hassle. This "reality" is basically an interactive illusion (read: hologram to Trekkies) on the framework of my soul. It's all very tidy, and what scares me the most is it makes perfect sense to me. I keep hoping to find something else that makes more sense, but... it never happens. Keep trying, though. As part of my consciousness, there's bound to be some insight with which you can provide me.

Oh, and Prime? Please continue where you left off, I find your line of thought somewhat interesting.

Well, first, I really can't continue. You must understand this argument gets very complex to prove the earth's existence and the quality of the earth's existence (which takes much, much more). I mean, to go to step 9 properly, it would take at least a book size text, something I don't think I can properly do, nor do I have the time to do, being that I am just a college student.

And to address your mind complex. I see that you see your mind correctly, for you do not see it as part of your source. It seems that I now see you see your mind and soul as different. Yet it seems like you are trying to say that you believe your mind does not exist. Well, you realize you are using something external from yourself. Whatever that is, we call the mind. Of course we can't at this logic stage prove the mind to be the electrical impulses within a brain, but we can prove it exists because you use it. We just don't really know what it is, but we know some things it can do.

[Drakona]

I am of the opinion that, ultimately, God created evil to destroy it, and for us to overcome it, for the sake of what we would both become in the process.

It's easy to be nice when everyone else is; it's in responding to injustice that we show our true colors. It's easy to be a judge when everyone behaves and every dispute is over stolen candy. God's judgement of this broken world and all its unfairness will be a task worthy of his wisdom alone. Self-control is easy without temptation; patience is easy if you never have to wait; discernment is easy if things are never really unfair.

There are no heroes without danger. There is no forgiveness without wrongdoing. There is no compassion without agony. There is no love without sacrifice. There is no valiance without diligent enemies or noble causes. There is no striving without difficulty. There is no endurance without pain. There is no inner peace without outer turmoil. There is no kindness without need. The heights of art and poetry grow in the depths of sorrow. It took tyranny to make us claim freedom.

I could go on.

Show me a virtue, and I'll show you an evil without which it's all milk and water.

Life is not about what you experience. Life is about what you become. Pain is temporary. How we deal with it changes who we are, and that's eternal. A world without evil would be pleasant, but would be painted in shades of gray and leave us flabby. And that's not what this world is for. This world is not the destination. It is the journey.

(A favorite song. We still want to be reminded that the pain is worth the thunder.)

[Aggressor Prime]

AP...

Occam's razor... If a Perfect God had created the Universe, both the Universe and its explanation of such would be much simpler.

The only difference between the God-world and the God-less world is that the God-world needs to be interpreted and made believable.

Bettina

The problem with a God-less world is that in such a world, we are saying there is no perfect thing. Without perfection, there cannot be comparison. Without comparison, everything looks the same. Then do we make choices based on randomness? If we did, even our language would be random. And such randomness would mean meaningless when not only trying to communicate with others, but also when trying to communicate with oneself. You would not even be able to understand that you exist. Of course you still recieve the signal of existence, having a soul, but beyond that, you won't be able to do anything intelligent.

[Duper]

Drak, did you listen to the audio? It largely says what you just posted. Nice post. (good to read ya again. )

Foil: \"n my opinion, the only way to really adequately address this issue is a serious study of God's nature. I don't think we can come to any real understanding of why God allows evil until we begin to know who God is. \"

I've come to the same conclusion. And I'm more convinced when I read posts here on the DBB.

Snoop: \"In the end it comes down to a matter of who's in charge. God refuses to answer to us. If we presume to require Him to answer to us for us to believe in Him, we'll live the rest of our lives waiting. If we realize that God has already provided all of the answers that we need in the Bible & the revelation of the Holy Spirit, we come to a point where we don't have to understand it all.\"

X2 there also.

Like i said. This isn't the answer most want or are looking for, but I truly believe it's about as spot on as you're going to get.

[Drakona]

Drak, did you listen to the audio? It largely says what you just posted.

Like I have time for that . Glad to hear other folks saying it, though. It's an unusual perspective, but I'm pretty sure it's true.


Edit: Okay, I listened. Painfully. He gets a C- for logical content--barely a passing grade. His main point is mostly correct, but misses the big picture, and strikes some pretty sour notes. "Evil is for God's glory," he declares. He happens to be (partially) correct--evil is for our glory, too--but without some unpacking, the listener is left feeling cheated. The speaker declares that God is loving, but he doesn't sound loving. He sounds mean and demanding. He claims love, but seems okay with making us suffer for his glory. Bee's "Um . . . ok?" response is dead on.

I found the reasoning hasty and overly reliant on the bludgeoning with Biblical logic typical of second-rate thinkers. He PROVED it from the BIBLE and THAT'S SUFFICIENT. It leaves the philosophical curiousity and the common sense unsatisfied. One is left feeling unenlightened and browbeaten.

Paradoxes are learning opportunities. The fact that something looks contradictory means you misunderstand something fundamental. Resolving them is supposed to teach you something. Exploring them should be an exercise in tickling curiosity and culminate in a "eureka" moment. Proclaiming THE ANSWER IS D!!! I CAN PROVE IT!!! BE STRONG AND LIVE WITH IT!!! is not really taking full advantage of the situation.

D- for presentation. Ignores the emotional side of the argument, ignores the love in the equation. Ignores the seriousness of the problem and prefers to focus on the theological debate. Lots of huffing and puffing as though the audience would not listen unless EVERY WORD was EMPHASIZED for MAXIMUM IMPACT. *sigh*

Further loss of points for this particular venue. He completely ignores the agnostic philosophers, basing the entire argument in theology, while insulting the vast majority of theologans. He places technical demands on his audience without good provocation, expecting them to be familiar with "Armenianism" and "Theodicy" (doesn't even give a quickie definition for outsiders--hope y'all remember that stuff from seminary!) and to think of theology, not politics, when he says "Liberalism". You know, I know all that stuff, but wouldn't mind a memory jog. Either he's speaking at a theological convention or he's dead set on impressing everyone with the fact that he should be. Either way, it's not the best presentation for a secular or mixed board.

Overall, on a scale of "Sucky" to "Cool", I give it a "Don't Bother".

[MD-1118]

Beat me to it re: Drakona, Prime.

To the point: You can't prove anything exists, Prime. The one thing I know of that exists beyond all doubt is me, in the truest possible sense... my \"soul\", for the sake of clarity. Everything around me \"exists\" as an extension of my \"soul\", or un-/sub-conscious mind (according to Wiki), but only in a pseudo sense. Mere quantifiable variables. I won't understand this much better until I understand myself on a higher level... which will be difficult when \"better\" and \"higher\" don't exist any more than love and beauty.

EDIT: Neither does truth, for that matter. That's where things really get sticky.

[Aggressor Prime]

An even more difficult question than (1) Why does God allow evil? is (2) Why does God allow so much evil?

For instance, suppose that your explanation to (1) is that free will is the end all be all of existence, so having some evil is the price to pay for it. It still does not seem like there should so much evil. Couldn't God have given us free will but with better characters? (Also, as Foil points out, it takes some handwaving to explain how free will is responsible for natural evil.)

Well, if you are talking about why there is so much evil in the number of evils, it is merely a matter of how many people exist and how much time they react with the world. By having less people or less reaction to the world, you have less good as well as less evil, still good, but less, giving less meaning in the world.

If you are talking about the degrees of evil, since really having a lot of degrees might make it seem even harder to be perfect, since you have to get every point right, then it is a matter of a safety net. You have to understand that we are dependent on God, God being perfection. Difficulty for us is not defined by our quantity of good, like God is 10 and we are 9. Instead, it is the percentage of God, perfect good. So 90%, whether 9/10 or 90/100 is the same difficulty. By having more options, we can have a bigger safety net. Why do I believe this? Well, as I said before, having more options gives good itself a greater meaning. Now God, being the being that defines this meaning, makes an increasing or decreasing of this meaning impossible to tell for humans that stay at a same percent. But by increasing options, we can get closer to perfection easier, since we have closer options, smaller steps. This making of smaller steps is what I believe God did whenever he expanded the covenant. He made an easier path, one that required smaller steps, with the goal still being the same difficult place to reach, but with various aids. In this case, while perfection becomes more complex, this complexity gives it greater meaning that we can understand (we can see ourselves at 99% good as more meaningful than 50% good). And this meaning is good, as meaning is greater than meaninglessness, the greatest evil.

[Aggressor Prime]

Beat me to it re: Drakona, Prime.

To the point: You can't prove anything exists, Prime. The one thing I know of that exists beyond all doubt is me, in the truest possible sense... my "soul", for the sake of clarity. Everything around me "exists" as an extension of my "soul", or un-/sub-conscious mind (according to Wiki), but only in a pseudo sense. Mere quantifiable variables. I won't understand this much better until I understand myself on a higher level... which will be difficult when "better" and "higher" don't exist any more than love and beauty.

EDIT: Neither does truth, for that matter. That's where things really get sticky.

Well, if it is an extension of your soul, you are applying things to your soul that have no source for their effects, therefore they can't have any effects, which means you can't see them at all, extension or not. If you are saying the effects are caused by your soul, then you are atributing the mind to the soul, since the mind is the reasoning element.

Back to you not believing in truth. Again, without truth, without better/worse, without comparison, there cannot be meaning. Differences, yes, but not meaning. You are speaking in English, right? By speaking English, you use logic in your mind to see how words work together by comparison, what is the best word for this case I can easily recall. If you see no differences, if you see everything as having equal value, or meaningless, then how can you understand English? You would understand "nchubhdchugbceuhbdcwuhycdbcvubvefiuhncdincd iuhg8yhr47y578r4y78yt89-gj98hiu 8h y8h vrf8yubh rf8yhg 8yhfru8yrf" as well as "I exist." Different, yes, but with the same meaning. What if I told you "nchubhdchugbceuhbdcwuhycdbcvubvefiuhncdincd iuhg8yhr47y578r4y78yt89-gj98hiu 8h y8h vrf8yubh rf8yhg 8yhfru8yrf" means the opposite of "I exist"? You would see both as true. Yet what if I told you, recall one thing of what I told you?

Would you recall "nchubhdchugbceuhbdcwuhycdbcvubvefiuhncdincd iuhg8yhr47y578r4y78yt89-gj98hiu 8h y8h vrf8yubh rf8yhg 8yhfru8yrf" or "I exist"? You might just say "I exist" and granted "nchubhdchugbceuhbdcwuhycdbcvubvefiuhncdincd iuhg8yhr47y578r4y78yt89-gj98hiu 8h y8h vrf8yubh rf8yhg 8yhfru8yrf" is long enough or made 1000000x longer, I think you will always choose "I exist" because you see it as easier to recall. That is not just different, it is easier, easier relating to value, a value that sees inability as 0% and ability as 100% and some recall difficulty as in between.

[MD-1118]

Indirectly, just as you would say that Jesus is the same as God, and yet a separate entity. Or, like an egg. But really, the Jesus/God comparison is slightly more comprehensive.

Nothing is truly a part of me/my \"soul\", and maybe even \"extension\" isn't the best word. Maybe \"byproduct\" would better suit, or \"spawn\". It makes me think of an idea I had a few days ago.

Suppose we do all exist, just not in the way we think. Suppose we're all basically doppelgangers, little child-extensions of something bigger and incomprehensible... a \"God\" if you will. Now suppose we're here to think, observe, interact... generally \"be\" and collect information. Oh, and \"we\" don't so much exist as humans, but as aforementioned \"Godlets\". We are injected (more or less) into these human bodies, like a hand in a sock puppet, and when we die we leave as surreptitiously as we came. I don't know if we cease to exist as we re-merge with the God-head, or if we retain our separate individualities, or if we merge into one big Consciousness. It's a possibility, and it kinda explains how I see this \"reality\" and my \"mind\" and everything else in conjunction with the real me, my \"soul\". Just a shot in the dark, but it's a thought.

EDIT: You threw me off with the \"nchubhdchugbceuhbdcwuhycdbcvubvefiuhncdincd iuhg8yhr47y578r4y78yt89-gj98hiu 8h y8h vrf8yubh rf8yhg 8yhfru8yrf\" crap edited in there. In response, that really depends on a lot of factors that I can't even BEGIN to list, because there are so many that I'd be here for a very long time. In \"reality\", I could memorise \"nchubhdchugbceuhbdcwuhycdbcvubvefiuhncdincd iuhg8yhr47y578r4y78yt89-gj98hiu 8h y8h vrf8yubh rf8yhg 8yhfru8yrf\" just as easily as I could \"I exist\" if I knew the native language. Things being as they are, \"I exist\" is English and therefore routine. I don't commonly go about saying \"nchubhdchugbceuhbdcwuhycdbcvubvefiuhncdincd iuhg8yhr47y578r4y78yt89-gj98hiu 8h y8h vrf8yubh rf8yhg 8yhfru8yrf to you, friend\", nor do I wonder what the DOW nchubhdchugbceuhbdcwuhycdbcvubvefiuhncdincd iuhg8yhr47y578r4y78yt89-gj98hiu 8h y8h vrf8yubh rf8yhg 8yhfru8yrf Average is today. Quantifiably, \"a\" can have the same meaning as \"nchubhdchugbceuhbdcwuhycdbcvubvefiuhncdincd iuhg8yhr47y578r4y78yt89-gj98hiu 8h y8h vrf8yubh rf8yhg 8yhfru8yrf\", or the opposite; the point I am endeavouring to make is that they both have the same intrinsic value. Their meaning is one given by one person, and one person alone - myself. Sure, I can say that someone said \"nchubhdchugbceuhbdcwuhycdbcvubvefiuhncdincd iuhg8yhr47y578r4y78yt89-gj98hiu 8h y8h vrf8yubh rf8yhg 8yhfru8yrf\" means \"a strange purple animal\" back in 1706, but that doesn't mean I have to take his word for it. There are just as many reasons it could mean \"lemon custard\". That's why I think \"nchubhdchugbceuhbdcwuhycdbcvubvefiuhncdincd iuhg8yhr47y578r4y78yt89-gj98hiu 8h y8h vrf8yubh rf8yhg 8yhfru8yrf\" and \"a\" have exactly the same value, and by default their meanings are, ironically, meaningless.

[Aggressor Prime]

Indirectly, just as you would say that Jesus is the same as God, and yet a separate entity. Or, like an egg. But really, the Jesus/God comparison is slightly more comprehensive.

Nothing is truly a part of me/my "soul", and maybe even "extension" isn't the best word. Maybe "byproduct" would better suit, or "spawn". It makes me think of an idea I had a few days ago.

Suppose we do all exist, just not in the way we think. Suppose we're all basically doppelgangers, little child-extensions of something bigger and incomprehensible... a "God" if you will. Now suppose we're here to think, observe, interact... generally "be" and collect information. Oh, and "we" don't so much exist as humans, but as aforementioned "Godlets". We are injected (more or less) into these human bodies, like a hand in a sock puppet, and when we die we leave as surreptitiously as we came. I don't know if we cease to exist as we re-merge with the God-head, or if we retain our separate individualities, or if we merge into one big Consciousness. It's a possibility, and it kinda explains how I see this "reality" and my "mind" and everything else in conjunction with the real me, my "soul". Just a shot in the dark, but it's a thought.

So basically the soul thinks up the mind, that is the only way you can make something that does not exist as you say. But the problem is, the soul cannot think, otherwise it is the mind and we would not be in this dilemma. If it could think, it could be changed to think a certain way, making it able to be changed by the physical world, making it of non supernatural origin, making its initial functions, the functions that it must have (signal of being + being itself and function of choosing), impossible. The soul cannot be conceived of in mortal minds, for its supernatural qualities far outreach the physics that guide this world and our minds, making it impossible to understand its functioning origin.

Now if we say the mind is created by the soul, then again we give qualities to the soul that don't make sense, the ability to create. In order to create something, the creater must be God. Why? Because creating sets qualities, qualities by which the creater is best and nothing is worse. But of course, a I have said, in order to be perfect in one thing, we must be perfect in all things, and our doubt shows our imperfection, making us not God, not able to create.

Our soul and mind are made by God. We use them to be one with God. Why would God want us to be one with him? Well, ask God. Maybe its the nature of perfection. Not being perfect, I can't really say.

[Aggressor Prime]

Indirectly, just as you would say that Jesus is the same as God, and yet a separate entity. Or, like an egg. But really, the Jesus/God comparison is slightly more comprehensive.

Nothing is truly a part of me/my "soul", and maybe even "extension" isn't the best word. Maybe "byproduct" would better suit, or "spawn". It makes me think of an idea I had a few days ago.

Suppose we do all exist, just not in the way we think. Suppose we're all basically doppelgangers, little child-extensions of something bigger and incomprehensible... a "God" if you will. Now suppose we're here to think, observe, interact... generally "be" and collect information. Oh, and "we" don't so much exist as humans, but as aforementioned "Godlets". We are injected (more or less) into these human bodies, like a hand in a sock puppet, and when we die we leave as surreptitiously as we came. I don't know if we cease to exist as we re-merge with the God-head, or if we retain our separate individualities, or if we merge into one big Consciousness. It's a possibility, and it kinda explains how I see this "reality" and my "mind" and everything else in conjunction with the real me, my "soul". Just a shot in the dark, but it's a thought.

EDIT: You threw me off with the "nchubhdchugbceuhbdcwuhycdbcvubvefiuhncdincd iuhg8yhr47y578r4y78yt89-gj98hiu 8h y8h vrf8yubh rf8yhg 8yhfru8yrf" crap edited in there. In response, that really depends on a lot of factors that I can't even BEGIN to list, because there are so many that I'd be here for a very long time. In "reality", I could memorise "nchubhdchugbceuhbdcwuhycdbcvubvefiuhncdincd iuhg8yhr47y578r4y78yt89-gj98hiu 8h y8h vrf8yubh rf8yhg 8yhfru8yrf" just as easily as I could "I exist" if I knew the native language. Things being as they are, "I exist" is English and therefore routine. I don't commonly go about saying "nchubhdchugbceuhbdcwuhycdbcvubvefiuhncdincd iuhg8yhr47y578r4y78yt89-gj98hiu 8h y8h vrf8yubh rf8yhg 8yhfru8yrf to you, friend", nor do I wonder what the DOW nchubhdchugbceuhbdcwuhycdbcvubvefiuhncdincd iuhg8yhr47y578r4y78yt89-gj98hiu 8h y8h vrf8yubh rf8yhg 8yhfru8yrf Average is today. Quantifiably, "a" can have the same meaning as "nchubhdchugbceuhbdcwuhycdbcvubvefiuhncdincd iuhg8yhr47y578r4y78yt89-gj98hiu 8h y8h vrf8yubh rf8yhg 8yhfru8yrf", or the opposite; the point I am endeavouring to make is that they both have the same intrinsic value. Their meaning is one given by one person, and one person alone - myself. Sure, I can say that someone said "nchubhdchugbceuhbdcwuhycdbcvubvefiuhncdincd iuhg8yhr47y578r4y78yt89-gj98hiu 8h y8h vrf8yubh rf8yhg 8yhfru8yrf" means "a strange purple animal" back in 1706, but that doesn't mean I have to take his word for it. There are just as many reasons it could mean "lemon custard". That's why I think "nchubhdchugbceuhbdcwuhycdbcvubvefiuhncdincd iuhg8yhr47y578r4y78yt89-gj98hiu 8h y8h vrf8yubh rf8yhg 8yhfru8yrf" and "a" have exactly the same value, and by default their meanings are, ironically, meaningless.

I'm not asking you if they mean the same. I just said they mean the same. I asked which is easier to recall given your experience now. You just proved my point. You would have to use something called time (another thing you believe in) in order to study (another thing you believe in) this language. And when I expand it 1000x with no relation to the original, you would have to study it again. But you do recognize that without studying, while they may mean the same and look different, they are different in a matter of value by which you understand and which you do not. Understanding has more than difference, it has value: none, some, full.

[Foil]

I am of the opinion that, ultimately, God created evil to destroy it, and for us to overcome it, for the sake of what we would both become in the process.
...
Show me a virtue, and I'll show you an evil without which it's all milk and water.

Life is not about what you experience. Life is about what you become. Pain is temporary. How we deal with it changes who we are, and that's eternal.
...A world without evil would be pleasant, but would be painted in shades of gray and leave us flabby. And that's not what this world is for. This world is not the destination. It is the journey.

[First, good to see you back here, Drak. ]

Honestly, there are a couple of things that trouble me about that particular explanation. I understand it was just a 'quick synopsis', but it's an argument I'm familiar with, so I'm curious how you and/or Lothar would address the following:

A. Is your premise that good has its 'necessary opposite' derived from something about God's nature?
If so, then is God still intrinsically good, or does His goodness necessitate evil (and what does that imply)?
If not, then what is it about good that 'needs' evil to be valuable, and why would God create a universe where that was the case? (After all, we believe God could have created the universe any way he wanted.)

B. You seem to have a two-fold premise, that "it's about what we become", and "it's about the journey".
What it is about either of those two that necessitates evil? (I.e. Why would God create us as beings who cannot become our full potential without experiencing evil during the journey?)

C. I'll jump on an earlier question, because I think it's a valid one... How would you respond to Jeff250's question above (something like, "Assuming evil is necessary for some greater purpose, why would God create so much evil?")?

D. Regarding your "Show me a virtue, and I'll show you an evil" challenge, what about love? (I believe my newborn son loves Michelle and I in a certain way, but I don't see a need for any evil in order to make that kind of love a virtue.)

[Jeff250]

I'd like to add a couple to Foil's already great list of questions for Drakona. These may overlap somewhat with some of Foil's:

E. I believe I'm correct to surmise that you think that being in this world is all about character building. But would you say that this is an ideal world for character building? My concern: If the aim of this world is to produce people with better characters, it seems like we still could imagine better worlds, even for this aim.

F. How would we know if God sinned? If God knowingly withholds food from a child starving to death, we can claim that he did this for character-building purposes, so this is good. But if God does the opposite and gives food to the starving child, then we can claim that he was helping those in need, so this is good. Would there be an action here that is \"best,\" that God would be obligated to do over the other? And why can't humans be held to this watered down goodness where not feeding starving children is the right thing to do? We could all be saints! As they say, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Bet51987]

After reading all these posts, don't you think that the bible God would constantly be tweaking the good and evil thing? I mean suppose man stopped fighting and began loving and respecting each other, eliminating wars, killings, and pretty much all traces of human evil. God surely would not want a world without evil to continue for millions of years. What would future generations learn?

So, wouldn't God \"tweak\" it to make sure the little damians, child killers, and rapists continue to flourish? Make sure the little mouse still gets killed? That the world always remains brutal?

Doesn't make sense does it.... end sarcasm.

Bettina

[Duper]

After reading all these posts, don't you think that the bible God would constantly be tweaking the good and evil thing? I mean suppose man stopped fighting and began loving and respecting each other, eliminating wars, killings, and pretty much all traces of human evil. God surely would not want a world without evil to continue for millions of years. What would future generations learn?

Where did you ever read that in the bible? The bible states quite the contrary. And man CAN NOT "topped fighting and began loving and respecting each other, eliminating wars, killings, and pretty much all traces of human evil." It's in our very nature. The mold we were formed in so to speak is intrinsically flawed. Thus we can not change on a foundational level of out own volition. If that were the case psychology would be a near perfect science.

[Duper]

Why??

Here is a Q&A to many of the questions ya'll are asking. Listen. Know that these are the theological answers. Answers from men that have studied for centuries. Again, this isn't the feel good \"you're ok, I'm ok\" answer. you will NEVER get that kind of answer from someone who truly knows G-d.

For those who claim to be open minded, listen and know that this is truth. There are no other answers that you will get from someone who knows G-d and knows \"about\" Him. I'm sure there are some variances, but it boils down to this.

God is sovereign. He is in complete control. and I take GREAT comfort in that. Now, to understand what i mean by \"Sovereign\" and \"complete control\" (if you are still reading) then you will Need to listen to the first link, and the link above in this post.
you can also listen to this one. (it's the precursor to the opening link in this thread) Clik!

[Jeff250]

Come on, Duper! Please participate in the discussion. If you think that you know a good answer to a question somebody asked in this thread, put the question in [quote][/quote] blocks and then the answer underneath. It's fun, and plus it's fulfilling. I swear!

(FWIW, I did listen to the original audio, and it wasn't nearly as interesting as some of the text posted in this thread.)

[Bet51987]

Where did you ever read that in the bible? The bible states quite the contrary.

I didn't.. But since this thread describes "choice" I still would like to know what God would do if humans began to behave themselves and through gene research ensured that future generations would not spawn murderers, rapists, despots, etc. So, since future generations would eventually be without real street type evil what would God do...

And, I listened to the audio in your last post but it's just another man with yet another personal interpretation but he did it well.


Sorry if I'm not explaining this well. Busy day.

Bettina

[Duper]

hehe Jeff, I'll add when I have something to say that I think will contribute. I'm not into fluff. I try to make my point with as few words as possible. And i don't debate for debate's sake.

The reason I post the links is that they (they guys or gals talking) are 1. more knowledgeable than be and 2. they say it infinitely better than i.

Bet. God would do nothing because we CAN NOT apart from Him. THAT is what the Whole of Salvation is about. (it's really just that simple)
If you are going to refer to God and \"What would he do\" in a hypothetical framework, you must also work with framework that He set up or there is no sense in asking in the first place as you would not get an accurate conclusion. And personally, I grew tired of \"what ifs\" for fun or just random speculation back in Junior High. My best friend then use to constantly ask me things like \"Hey Biff, what would you do if you looked up and there was a train 5 inches from your face about to drop on your head?\" gee Doug.. I dunno DIE??!??.
Three or four times a day. o.0 So I really don't enjoy engaging in the hypothetical.

Yeah, I know about the busy day thing. had one of those myself.


..there.. better Jeff?

[Foil]

I think Bet's question is a valid one, given the answer we were discussing, \"God created evil as a means for some to become good\".

Bet, I have some of the same issues with that particular explanation, myself. From what I believe about God's inherent goodness, I have to take exception to the point that evil is necessary for good.

Thus I posed the earlier questions to Lothar & Drakona. I don't always agree with their answers, but there aren't many who are more knowledgeable and consistent in their beliefs... so I'm really interested in hearing their response.

[MD-1118]

Agressor, let me put it another way.

The soul doesn't so much \"create\" the mind or anything else as create the illusion that the mind and everything else exists. Everything is based off of perceptions. It's like I told my dad concerning the Bible: Interpretation and extrapolation causes confusion and agitation. In other words, everyone perceives things differently. This even applies to an individual, because an individual can have one or more perspectives, whether or not they conflict.

As far as understanding goes, it's a misnomer. If I ask you what \"all\" means, a very simple, very commonplace word, you'd most likely reply that it means \"everything\" or \"the summation of a thing in its entirety\" or something else to that effect. You'd be right, of course, in the traditional sense that that is the understood definition, but you still haven't explained what it really means. The irony is, it doesn't matter what it means because it may or may not actually have a \"meaning\", at least not in the sense that we see it. \"all\" is, like virtually everything else, a quantifiable variation. Its meaning and purpose change and fluctuate depending on the perspective of the user. It's very, very difficult for me to put into words what I see in my thoughts. Words do piss-poor justice to what I'm trying to convey. Maybe that's because what I see, what I perceive, can't accurately be defined or quantified with the use of language alone. Maybe there's no way I can truly convey my thoughts. This is my endeavour, however.

We learn and interact via the five human senses: taste, smell, touch, hearing, speech. All five of those senses are based on electrical impulses and can easily be deceived. Those impulses can be reproduced, changed, falsified. Ergo, those five senses are fallible and untrustworthy. However, those same five senses are our only link to this world. Without them, this \"reality\" ceases not only to have any meaning, but also to exist to us. So, the only thing that is verifiable as existing to the individual is his psyche, that \"innermost part\" which gives him consciousness, awareness, and lets him know that he does indeed exist. Everything else is but a dream, an illusion that no matter how real it may seem is not, in that sense, real. In a way it is, because it is there, something with which an individual may interact... but the individual's body, the part interacting with \"reality\", is just as much a shadow as everything else. The only \"real\" thing, (and I'm not even sure that word can be applied here because it just doesn't seem to fit), is that individual's \"psyche\", their \"consciousness\", the thing which lets them know that they are, that they experience these illusions and shadows of dreams. Am I making any sense? I'm trying to convey what exactly I consider, deep within, to be the case for me. I don't \"know\" anything else is fake, nor do I \"know\" anything else is real. To what shall I make the comparison? It's like trying to describe beauty to a person whose whole life has known only blindness and apathy. There is no comparison. Still, while I cannot know whether anything exists or not, I continue to \"experience\" it while accepting it as illusion, much like interacting with a dream. It's all I can do.

The problem with having discussions such as these is that there is no unbiased way to have them. It's like a programmer trying to tell a computer what to do using C++ when the computer only knows Visual Basic. It would be much easier if the programmer knew Assembly. There must be a way for the two to communicate properly or no information can be exchanged. But then again, I don't so much mind because I can't prove you or anything else exists, so I'm not really losing anything.

[Herculosis]

We learn and interact via the five human senses: taste, smell, touch, hearing, speech. All five ...

See now, that might be your problem.

[Foil]

Felt like I needed to address this:

... I'm sure there are some variances, but it boils down to this.

God is sovereign....

Quite true, and I certainly agree with the point being made.

However, in my experience, "God is sovereign" is an argument far too often used as a cop-out when the questions get too difficult.

--------

Yes, it's true that we can place our faith in the fact that God is sovereign and in control, has a plan for us, and knows the details of our lives and circumstances better than we do. That's a crucial part of the message of grace, and it's hugely important to Christians.

But as far as I'm concerned, it's not a valid answer to some of the questions posed here.

"Why did God allow this pain/evil?" ... "Well, God knows best, and He's in control."

Sure, it's a valid point and a comfort to some... but it doesn't fully answer the question! We're still left without anything to tell us why.

--------

To make the obligatory parental analogy:

As children we have to place our faith in our parents' goodness when they tell us "Because I said so and I know what's best for you". And that's a good thing, it improves our trust when we see that they really do have our best interests in mind.

But as we mature, that answer eventually isn't enough anymore. In order for us to continue learning and growing, we need our parents to begin to explain why they made their decisions. We need to understand why to be able to emulate them as we grow up. It's often difficult to answer these questions, but it's utterly important.

It's the same with these questions about evil and pain. "God knows best" is perfectly true, and it helps, especially for young Chrstians. But at some point as we mature, we begin asking deeper questions about God's nature, and the "pat answers" just don't cut it.

[Duper]

Felt like I needed to address this:

... I'm sure there are some variances, but it boils down to this.

God is sovereign....

Quite true, and I certainly agree with the point being made.

However, in my experience, "God is sovereign" is an argument far too often used as a cop-out when the questions get too difficult.

--------

Yes, it's true that we can place our faith in the fact that God is sovereign and in control, has a plan for us, and knows the details of our lives and circumstances better than we do. That's a crucial part of the message of grace, and it's hugely important to Christians.

But as far as I'm concerned, it's not a valid answer to some of the questions posed here.

"Why did God allow this pain/evil?" ... "Well, God knows best, and He's in control."

Sure, it's a valid point and a comfort to some... but it doesn't fully answer the question! We're still left without anything to tell us why.

--------

To make the obligatory parental analogy:

As children we have to place our faith in our parents' goodness when they tell us "Because I said so and I know what's best for you". And that's a good thing, it improves our trust when we see that they really do have our best interests in mind.

But as we mature, that answer eventually isn't enough anymore. In order for us to continue learning and growing, we need our parents to begin to explain why they made their decisions. We need to understand why to be able to emulate them as we grow up. It's often difficult to answer these questions, but it's utterly important.

It's the same with these questions about evil and pain. "God knows best" is perfectly true, and it helps, especially for young Christians. But at some point as we mature, we begin asking deeper questions about God's nature, and the "pat answers" just don't cut it.

Foil, I point to what I've already posted:

Now, to understand what i mean by "Sovereign" and "complete control" (if you are still reading) then you will Need to listen to the first link, and the link above in this post.
you can also listen to this one. (it's the precursor to the opening link in this thread)Clik!

If after listening to these you still disagree, there is nothing I can say. That is your choice. The exposition given is adequate and complete. sovereignty is defined with no open ends.

To state a quote from your Avatar there, "Life IS pain. Anyone that says any different is trying to sell you something." Jesus even said something similar to this. Pain is a part of life. it's part of the world we live in. Period. Personally, I don't even consider "why". I don't favor a victim mentality.

[Foil]

So asking the difficult \"why\" questions implies a victim mentality? What about human curiosity, or even the desire to know God on a more intimate level?

I really find it ood that some Christians believe it's a bad thing to consider the difficult questions, as if it implies a lack of faith or something.

Personally, I ask the questions because I want to know God, and I think it's futile to try to emulate Christ without an understanding of God's nature on a deeper level than \"just do what I do, don't ask why\".