A Brotherhood of Man

Nouveau

Well-known member
That depends on the kind of control you think God has on nature. Spontaneous things can happen which God might "foresee" but not directly cause (e.g. the genesis of smallpox, some think, evolved from a rodent virus that was then transmitted to human beings), and there might be other agents involved in changing the natural world. - This would all be separate to the point of whether God Himself could legitimately cause certain lifeforms to exist that threaten other lifeforms.
If God is the author if nature, and smallpox is a part of nature, then God caused it. If things are happening in nature spontaneously that God has no control over, then He is not in fact the author of nature as Christianity claims.

Why? God gave angels/demons free will too. Again, He might allow their interference with the material world.
Then God would still be morally culpable. We don't put a knife in the hand of a lunatic and then sit back respecting his free will while he rampages through a kindergarten. Who could worship a deity who cares more about the freedom of demons than of the suffering of children?

I'm not saying that any particular individuals that turn away from God become more susceptible to death but as a species and as a world in general. There are far worse things than diseases and if diseases actually cause people to turn back to God, then that can be an overriding factor.
I think my point stands. There is no logical necessity in the species or world in general becomeing more susceptible to death and disease as they turn away from God. If this is how the universe works, then it is either because God designed it that way, or because these are fundamental aspects of reality over which God has no control.

We might be materially better off but are we spiritually better off? I don't know. I'm just saying that it could be possible and, if so, then it doesn't disprove a loving God.

As I've said, there might be good reasons for allowing the disease, let alone the fact (which very few people consider) that the disease (or virus) has some kind of existence of its own, which is a good (obviously, with bad outcomes for us, though).
It might be abstractly possible, but it isn't a possibility anyone takes seriously. Again, no-one stood up in opposition to eradicating smallpox on the grounds that we'd be spiritually worse of without children dying in pain, or because the disease itself has rights. Anyone arguing this would have been dismissed as certifiably insane, and there is no reason to think differently in hindsight. Again, when it comes to practical action we all know that smallpox was an unnecessary evil that we are all better off without.

I think Singer does take it to extremes. Have you read "Famine, Affluence and Morality"? He basically argues that anyone who doesn't "give till it (almost) hurts" to help those in need is immoral and by implication (rather than outright stating it) is something like a criminal.
It has been many years since I read Singer, and you're right that he argues for a position most would be uncomfortable with. But that's really beside the point here, as there is no such personal cost or sacrifice required of God in removing deadly diseases, or just not sending them in the first place.

I'd consider someone negligent for failing to intervene and prevent suffering when they have the authority or responsibility to do so, e.g. a physician in a hospital who neglects his patients' health. While God has the authority to do so, I don't think He has the responsibility to do so.
This doesn't really answer the question. Obviously I'm asking under what conditions you think one would be morally responsible for failing to intervene and prevent suffering. My position is that one is responsible when one has the knowledge and resources to do so, at minimal cost to oneself. What other conditions would you add? And why shouldn't God be responsible - just like a doctor for his patients - for the well-being of those he created in the world he created for them?
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Monotheism is nuanced. For example, Christianity has a first, second, and third person of a presumed Godhead which they claim is monotheism. It depends how one defines it.

It is not that the first loving God cannot overpower the second but that the first is repairing the damage of the latter over time. For example, the universe was lifeless before it produced life in us. The death and ignorance that existed in our universe has been reversed in us. We have potential for good and for growing in knowledge about ourselves. The first loving God throws nothing away because He prefers to make it new. Our suffering is a result of the Fall but it is only temporary.
Yes, polytheism with a primary God of limited ability or competence will also answer the problem of evil.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
Yes, polytheism with a primary God of limited ability or competence will also answer the problem of evil.
If that is what you choose to believe. IMO there is a better explanation for our suffering than a-theism.
 
Last edited:

Nouveau

Well-known member
If that is what you choose to believe. IMO there is a better explanation for our suffering than a-theism.
I believe that polytheism and a limited-power God can answer the problem of evil. That's not controversial. Of course I don't believe that is the answer, because I'm not a theist. But if you have a better answer than the one you just gave then I'm all ears.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
I believe that polytheism and a limited-power God can answer the problem of evil. That's not controversial. Of course I don't believe that is the answer, because I'm not a theist. But if you have a better answer than the one you just gave then I'm all ears.
I cannot deny the existence of evil in our world. But rather than focusing on the glass half-empty I would rather see it half-full and God is filling the glass. We just have to be patient.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
What's the difference? A cornerstone of presuppositional apologetics is that god can make things known to us in a way that we are sure of their veracity without proof. You may not be a presupper, but any version of God includes that talent.
Well, I'm not a presuppositionalist and I find that kind of argument (e.g. Plantinga's warranted Christian epistemology) somewhat dubious. I think God works through the natural world to persuade us and that, in general, He doesn't overpower our free will.
Again, I'm not asking for individual accountings for this or that specific suffering. I am asking for exactly what you are eluding to - an understanding of the macro explained consistently, clearly, and directly by the almighty father of all, not an accounting for the micro. That understanding hasn't been instilled in anybody. It has to be fabricated by a philosophy. Don't believe me, just ask Job. He was granted exactly what I am talking about. A face to face with the entity that sold his health and happiness for a wager.
I don't think an account of the macro is possible because there may be different reasons for every specific case. I've given some suggestions above as what might be general responses to the problem of evil. I don't see anything wrong with having to think up these responses. Grace perfects nature, it doesn't destroy or overpower it; that is, God has given us certain faculties to use and develop.

With regards to Job, he didn't get an answer to his questions over suffering - he had an encounter with God Himself. People do have these encounters and they change people's lives.
There are hundreds of thousands of theological speculations, some of which you call truths (I don't know how Christians got so lucky to pick the truths). This alone proves a hiddenness. If he does not directly correct us in this life, he waits for a time that is way out of reach for us and too late to reveal himself. This is the definition of hiddenness.
I agree that God is, to a degree, hidden. However, I also think a lot of what is called divine hiddenness is the result of, as Lewis calls it, us not having the faces to see God. It's kind of like someone who has depression can't see beauty or goodness anywhere. We might try to point such things out to them but they haven't the eyes to see them.
So you say. I say you have projected yourself on a dream of eternity. Compared to your speculation, that requires grand philosophies and apologetics, is an Occam's Rasor issue for me. One you start wading into apologetics... oh what a confusing and complicated web you start to weave, and chop through when it tangles you in the contradictions. Just read Aquinas, Ignatius, Irenaeus, etc..... They tried very hard to make sense of Paul's confusion and fabrication.
You can say it's a projected dream of eternity, that's fine. Unfortunately, it's a double-edged sword, as psychological explanations can just as equally be given for atheism. So, I much rather stick to arguments.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
I cannot deny the existence of evil in our world. But rather than focusing on the glass half-empty I would rather see it half-full and God is filling the glass. We just have to be patient.
I agree it is better to be optimistic. But I don't think that warrants favouring theism over atheism when it comes to the problem of evil.

BTW, I'd like to credit posters like Thistle, JH, and yourself. There's a lot of good discussion going on here, making CARM healthier than it's been for quite some time.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
I agree it is better to be optimistic. But I don't think that warrants favouring theism over atheism when it comes to the problem of evil.

BTW, I'd like to credit posters like Thistle, JH, and yourself. There's a lot of good discussion going on here, making CARM healthier than it's been for quite some time.
Thanks. I enjoy my discussions with a-theists. You guys keep me on my toes. You make me think about what and why I believe. I have a soft spot for you guys because you, like me, demand evidence. My profession is in biomedical science.
 
Last edited:

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Okay, let's assume you are right. Why is the alternative any better? In that case, smallpox is a terrible thing that kills people and causes suffering and there's no redeeming reason at all. That seems to be a more despairing scenario.
Yes, but that has no bearing on what scenario is true.
However, as I think I said before, since I believe God is the ground of morality,
He cannot by His very nature commit a moral evil. Therefore, allowing natural and moral evils must not be morally evil acts. Okay, how can that be the case? It can be the case if (a) there is no evil intention, (b) the act itself is not intrinsically evil, and (c) the circumstances are not such that make it evil. So, in evaluating God allowing a natural evil like smallpox, I do not think he would do so because He wants people to suffer and die - so (a) doesn't apply - and I don't think allowing an evil is in itself an intrinsically evil act (as opposed to causing an evil), so (b) doesn't apply. I think (c) is the trickiest. And it's where I think we just don't have enough knowledge. For instance, any person X in the circumstances where smallpox is allowed might contract it and indeed suffer terribly and die, but those circumstances might also bring them closer to God and save their eternal lives, which would be an overwhelming good. I'm not claiming that's always the case, only that it's a possible circumstance. And so, knowing what kind of God exists, I'll give Him the benefit of the doubt.
The question is, could God have made this universe without smallpox? The answer is, because He's omnipotent, yes. But He made this universe with it, knowing full well the consequences. That makes Him morally responsible.
How do you know what the world would be like if there were or were not a God? It's very possible there would be no world if there were no God.
We would see natural things behaving naturally, and have explanations for them that don't involve the supernatural. Which is what we see.

Additionally, there are aspects of the world - such as morality - that point to some kind of transcendent grounding.
I don't think so, in the sense you mean it. The grounding of morality lies within our intelligence. The ideas of right and wrong and fairness are ideas that will naturally occur to thinking creatures like the idea of numbers will.
I can see where you're coming from but I'm not convinced by the existence or extent of evil as counting against God. As a Christian, I've seen the great evil human beings can commit, as well as the great love, so I'm quite open to the world being like anything. Christians also believe that evil has affected the natural world too.
I don't expect you would find the existence of disease and the immense suffering it causes contradictory with the idea of a loving God. When people deconvert, it typically takes a long time and a lot of thought. Such is human nature.

The point you haven't answered is, that God being omnipotent and omniscient means he could have created this world without disease, but did so knowing full well the consequences.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
If God is the author if nature, and smallpox is a part of nature, then God caused it. If things are happening in nature spontaneously that God has no control over, then He is not in fact the author of nature as Christianity claims.
There's a difference between being the creator and sustainer of something, and controlling every aspect of it continually. God's "control" is His lordship, not His deterministic mechanics.
Then God would still be morally culpable. We don't put a knife in the hand of a lunatic and then sit back respecting his free will while he rampages through a kindergarten. Who could worship a deity who cares more about the freedom of demons than of the suffering of children?
Let's say you had to annul everybody's freedom to stop the lunatic from misusing his, would that suffice? That's the case here. God doesn't arbitrarily do this or that but it flows from His nature necessarily. God's respect of free will applies to all or to none. If free willed creatures are created as a good in themselves - and I'd argue they are - then to annul their freedom would be an evil and a directly caused evil, which God cannot do; thus, the permission of a lesser or equal evil. And God does care about the suffering of children - that's why He came and suffered Himself, that's why He wants them to have eternal joy in sharing His life.
I think my point stands. There is no logical necessity in the species or world in general becomeing more susceptible to death and disease as they turn away from God. If this is how the universe works, then it is either because God designed it that way, or because these are fundamental aspects of reality over which God has no control.
Well, if all life is dependent on God necessarily, how can it not follow that the more one moves away from God, the more one's life is lost?
It might be abstractly possible, but it isn't a possibility anyone takes seriously. Again, no-one stood up in opposition to eradicating smallpox on the grounds that we'd be spiritually worse of without children dying in pain, or because the disease itself has rights. Anyone arguing this would have been dismissed as certifiably insane, and there is no reason to think differently in hindsight. Again, when it comes to practical action we all know that smallpox was an unnecessary evil that we are all better off without.
I don't think we know this. How can we know this since we don't know all the factors involved?
It has been many years since I read Singer, and you're right that he argues for a position most would be uncomfortable with. But that's really beside the point here, as there is no such personal cost or sacrifice required of God in removing deadly diseases, or just not sending them in the first place.
He did backtrack a little - even in the same article. And, again, God doesn't "send" deadly diseases.
This doesn't really answer the question. Obviously I'm asking under what conditions you think one would be morally responsible for failing to intervene and prevent suffering. My position is that one is responsible when one has the knowledge and resources to do so, at minimal cost to oneself. What other conditions would you add? And why shouldn't God be responsible - just like a doctor for his patients - for the well-being of those he created in the world he created for them?
I would also ask what is lost by intervening, how often/much should I intervene and, if so, must this be consistent.

Some questions:
- What level of suffering is too much to tolerate and why?
- If a good is lost by intervening, should I still intervene?
- Should I (or God, in this case) intervene in every instance of suffering to stop it?

Doctors are responsible to patients because of their jobs. God isn't in the same position. He never promised humanity a pain-free life nor did He promise to remove all or even any of our sufferings in this life.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
Yes, but that has no bearing on what scenario is true.
True. Sorry, I thought you were using that line of argument but then went back to your post and saw you weren't. My mistake.
The question is, could God have made this universe without smallpox? The answer is, because He's omnipotent, yes. But He made this universe with it, knowing full well the consequences. That makes Him morally responsible.
I agree, if the consequences are solely or overwhelmingly negative, but I'm trying to argue that they're not. That there are positive consequences too. And then, I don't really judge the morality of an action based on consequences. However, if we did, that would mean that God is morally responsible for every "negative" aspect of reality.
We would see natural things behaving naturally, and have explanations for them that don't involve the supernatural. Which is what we see.
But that presupposes that "natural things behaving naturally" would even be possible in a universe without God. Furthermore, what about things that are harder to account for on a materialistic or mechanistic level?
I don't think so, in the sense you mean it. The grounding of morality lies within our intelligence. The ideas of right and wrong and fairness are ideas that will naturally occur to thinking creatures like the idea of numbers will.
They might be ideas that naturally occur but what makes them true or false ideas? Grounding is about substantiating morality not really its genesis.
I don't expect you would find the existence of disease and the immense suffering it causes contradictory with the idea of a loving God. When people deconvert, it typically takes a long time and a lot of thought. Such is human nature.
I probably don't think this way because (a) it actually fits the Christian worldview; (b) many wise people have reflected on this problem and provided fairly satisfactory responses; (c) I don't think physical suffering is the worst thing that can happen to people (even Socrates told us that); (d) I believe in a God who entered suffering and experienced it Himself; (e) there are many, many good and beautiful things in this world too; and (e) admittedly, I haven't undergone massive suffering myself.
The point you haven't answered is, that God being omnipotent and omniscient means he could have created this world without disease, but did so knowing full well the consequences.
Sure. But maybe the world He created without diseases would have had less good things about it. Maybe the presence of things like diseases brings about the existence of good things too.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
There's a difference between being the creator and sustainer of something, and controlling every aspect of it continually.
Can you expand on that difference? What prevents God from having continual control over every aspect of nature? Does He have limited awareness or limited power?

Let's say you had to annul everybody's freedom to stop the lunatic from misusing his, would that suffice? That's the case here.
I don't think that's even remotely the case here. Why would God have to annul everyone's freedom just to prevent the devil from inflicting smallpox upon us? We override the freedom of criminals all the time in the name of justice. Why couldn't God do the same?

Well, if all life is dependent on God necessarily, how can it not follow that the more one moves away from God, the more one's life is lost?
Because there's no contradiction involved in God's choosing to sustain even those who move away from Him. To deny this is to place external constraints on God - aspects of reality over which He has no control.

I don't think we know this. How can we know this since we don't know all the factors involved?
As I said, it's a practical certainty proven by the absence of anyone arguing for the reintroduction of smallpox.

I would also ask what is lost by intervening, how often/much should I intervene and, if so, must this be consistent.

Some questions:
- What level of suffering is too much to tolerate and why?
- If a good is lost by intervening, should I still intervene?
- Should I (or God, in this case) intervene in every instance of suffering to stop it?
Good questions, but I think it's only fair that you answer mine first. What additional conditions would you require to be present for someone to be responsible for failing to intervene to remove or prevent suffering?

Doctors are responsible to patients because of their jobs. God isn't in the same position. He never promised humanity a pain-free life nor did He promise to remove all or even any of our sufferings in this life.
I don't think that holds up at all. Would you defend a parent who dumped their baby in the trash, claiming they never promised to raise and feed it, and that it isn't their occupation? Surely creating a sentient life places one in a position of at least some moral obligation.
 

treeplanter

Well-known member
I agree. I don't believe God does "consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon us". Have you some examples?
I'll just start with this:

God drowned innocent babies in the Flood
Ostensibly, He did so in order to save them from a fallen world and resurrect them to a better one

God could have brought these babies to Heaven without forcing them to inhale water and painfully suffocate to death
Instead, He consciously and purposefully chose to inflict the needless harm of drowning
 

treeplanter

Well-known member
I'm not sure I get the connection. (Can you explain it a little more, please?) Saying that God's nature is existence means that He is the only necessary existent. "Might makes right" is basically a pragmatic approach to morality. We don't believe God is right because of His strength but because He is the ground of moral values and obligations.

I don't know what tradition of Christianity you are talking about (Calvinist, maybe?) but in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, human nature is fallen (wounded) but not corrupt and wicked. Even if people act in corrupt and wicked ways, human beings are essentially good. Our conscience is in fact a means by which we recognise such corruption and wickedness is our actions and thoughts and try to be better. I mean, if we were evil by our natures, how could we possibly recognise the Good as worth pursuing?

I agree, being a parent or cop doesn't grant one the right to behave immorally. I was just trying to ascertain that moral obligations can change depending on who you are and your relations with others. And I'd agree with regards to God. Treeplanter, I think your comment here: "He does NOT have a moral right to do as He pleases with impunity just because He happens to be creator" suggests to me you don't really understand where I'm coming from. From the Catholic tradition (especially of scholasticism), God doesn't act willfully (that is, arbitrarily) but necessarily according to His nature, which is essentially God. God doesn't have the freedom to act with impunity and do evil just because He is God. His actions are always good de factor. Therefore, when I approach a difficulty with regards to God and morality, I try to see how the two can be harmonised.
I'm not saying that you are claiming that God is always right because of His strength

What I mean is that you seem to be saying that 'the might of His very existence is what makes Him right' and I don't see that as any different than saying that "might makes right"

"Might" can mean more than just strength, right?
"Might" can also mean a nature synonymous with existence itself, no?

Bottom line is that you are insisting that He is always right, no matter what, because of who He is

I get what you are saying, the "mightiness" of who He is means that He is the only necessary existent and, as such, the ground of moral values and obligations

I get it, but I dismiss it
I disagree with you, Jonathan

Moral values and obligations should NOT be assumed on the basis of a being existing as the only necessary existent
Moral values and obligations should be judged based on results

God should NOT get a free pass to behave immorally simply because of who He is

God should be held to the standard that we have devised and adopted as in accordance to the consistent results that we have observed in adhering to said standard

It may be, as you have suggested elsewhere, that God's actions are ultimately right even if and when they appear to be immoral as judged against our human understanding and collective moral code, but if this is the case, then God owes it to us to show us that His actions are, indeed, good and just

"It's not our place to question God" ain't gonna cut it
If He truly cares about us and wants us to come to Him then He owes it to us
He owes it to us to prove to us, for example, that drowning babies was good and just

At the very least, God owes it to us to make it clear to us that He is right even if and when He refuses to explain Himself and/or we are incapable of comprehending His explanation

"You just have to trust in Him because He is the ground of morality" ain't gonna cut it

What would cut it?

God physically appears to me and audibly speaks to me - assuring me that while it may appear as if He has done wrong - He has not and, someday, this will be explained and made clear to me
 

5wize

Well-known member
I'm not sure I get the connection. (Can you explain it a little more, please?) Saying that God's nature is existence means that He is the only necessary existent. "Might makes right" is basically a pragmatic approach to morality. We don't believe God is right because of His strength but because He is the ground of moral values and obligations.

I don't know what tradition of Christianity you are talking about (Calvinist, maybe?) but in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, human nature is fallen (wounded) but not corrupt and wicked. Even if people act in corrupt and wicked ways, human beings are essentially good. Our conscience is in fact a means by which we recognise such corruption and wickedness is our actions and thoughts and try to be better. I mean, if we were evil by our natures, how could we possibly recognise the Good as worth pursuing?

I agree, being a parent or cop doesn't grant one the right to behave immorally. I was just trying to ascertain that moral obligations can change depending on who you are and your relations with others. And I'd agree with regards to God. Treeplanter, I think your comment here: "He does NOT have a moral right to do as He pleases with impunity just because He happens to be creator" suggests to me you don't really understand where I'm coming from. From the Catholic tradition (especially of scholasticism), God doesn't act willfully (that is, arbitrarily) but necessarily according to His nature, which is essentially God. God doesn't have the freedom to act with impunity and do evil just because He is God. His actions are always good de factor. Therefore, when I approach a difficulty with regards to God and morality, I try to see how the two can be harmonised.
I see pantheism not Catholicism here. You state “God doesn’t act willfully but in accordance to “his” nature” adds a gratuitous pronoun.

Once the proper alchemy is performed on the above thought you subtract out “willfull” and “act”, of your own admission, which at that point sentience is no longer prescribed so you can also eliminate “him” and any characteristic of omnipotence which basically eliminates the term “God”.

You are only left with pure nature
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
Can you expand on that difference? What prevents God from having continual control over every aspect of nature? Does He have limited awareness or limited power?
No, but He might choose to allow the universe (and lifeforms within it) to take their course.
I don't think that's even remotely the case here. Why would God have to annul everyone's freedom just to prevent the devil from inflicting smallpox upon us? We override the freedom of criminals all the time in the name of justice. Why couldn't God do the same?
Because God's actions flow necessarily from His nature. This means that if God is morally permitted to annul an agent's free will to stop an evil outcome, He must necessarily stop any agent's free will to stop an evil outcome. Again, God doesn't make arbitrary choices but acts with consistency. As an analogy, it would be like a judge who sends someone to prison for murder. If every person before the court has committed murder in the same way, the judge will send them all to prison; he won't just arbitrarily choose to send this one but not that one.
Because there's no contradiction involved in God's choosing to sustain even those who move away from Him. To deny this is to place external constraints on God - aspects of reality over which He has no control.
It's not about God's choice but the creatures'. God can't forcibly change the will of a person to make him want to choose God and so if they choose to move away from God they necessarily will lose life.
As I said, it's a practical certainty proven by the absence of anyone arguing for the reintroduction of smallpox.
That doesn't help since perhaps the good has been achieved through the eradication of smallpox.
Good questions, but I think it's only fair that you answer mine first. What additional conditions would you require to be present for someone to be responsible for failing to intervene to remove or prevent suffering?
Additional conditions could include if they knew that by intervening they would be causing a greater evil or perhaps even making things worse for the person undergoing the suffering. We see examples like this all time time, e.g. if someone is going through withdrawal symptoms (which are a form of suffering), we won't give them more heroin (or whatever the drug) to ease the suffering.
I don't think that holds up at all. Would you defend a parent who dumped their baby in the trash, claiming they never promised to raise and feed it, and that it isn't their occupation? Surely creating a sentient life places one in a position of at least some moral obligation.
But God's relationship to us isn't like a parent to a baby. Parents are naturally obliged to care for their children and babies are helpless; I don't see why God is naturally obliged to care for us (in the same way as a parent, e.g. feed and clothe) and we are not helpless. It would suffice for Him to provide us with the conditions where we could care for ourselves.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
I'm not saying that you are claiming that God is always right because of His strength

What I mean is that you seem to be saying that 'the might of His very existence is what makes Him right' and I don't see that as any different than saying that "might makes right"

"Might" can mean more than just strength, right?
"Might" can also mean a nature synonymous with existence itself, no?

Bottom line is that you are insisting that He is always right, no matter what, because of who He is

I get what you are saying, the "mightiness" of who He is means that He is the only necessary existent and, as such, the ground of moral values and obligations

I get it, but I dismiss it
I disagree with you, Jonathan

Moral values and obligations should NOT be assumed on the basis of a being existing as the only necessary existent
Moral values and obligations should be judged based on results

God should NOT get a free pass to behave immorally simply because of who He is

God should be held to the standard that we have devised and adopted as in accordance to the consistent results that we have observed in adhering to said standard

It may be, as you have suggested elsewhere, that God's actions are ultimately right even if and when they appear to be immoral as judged against our human understanding and collective moral code, but if this is the case, then God owes it to us to show us that His actions are, indeed, good and just

"It's not our place to question God" ain't gonna cut it
If He truly cares about us and wants us to come to Him then He owes it to us
He owes it to us to prove to us, for example, that drowning babies was good and just

At the very least, God owes it to us to make it clear to us that He is right even if and when He refuses to explain Himself and/or we are incapable of comprehending His explanation

"You just have to trust in Him because He is the ground of morality" ain't gonna cut it

What would cut it?

God physically appears to me and audibly speaks to me - assuring me that while it may appear as if He has done wrong - He has not and, someday, this will be explained and made clear to me
The simple, clear answer that you are waiting for is this: El is “true God and Father” who alone is good. Elohim is the Son of El and Elohim is many. Elohim is plural containing potential for both bad and good signified by the archetypes, YHWH Elohim and Ruach Elohim (aka Jesus Christ; 2 Corinthians 4:6), respectively. The first condemns/kills and the latter saves, hence Yeshua (English: Jesus) means salvation.
 
Last edited:

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
I'll just start with this:

God drowned innocent babies in the Flood
Ostensibly, He did so in order to save them from a fallen world and resurrect them to a better one

God could have brought these babies to Heaven without forcing them to inhale water and painfully suffocate to death
Instead, He consciously and purposefully chose to inflict the needless harm of drowning
Going on the scenario that "God drowned innocent babies in the Flood", I'd suggest (a) we don't know the condition of suffering these babies experienced (perhaps they were unconscious or unaware) or perhaps they died rather quickly; (b) even if they did go through suffering, maybe it wasn't needless - the suffering of someone can help redeem others.
 
Top