Greg Boyd's Warfare Worldview

[The Pixie]

The "Warfare Worldview" is one way Christians try to resolve the Problem of Evil.

Quotes are from here, on the ReKnew web site, by Greg Boyd.

The trinitarian warfare worldview seeks to reconcile our experience of radical evil with the conviction that reality is created and sustained by an all-loving, all-powerful God. Six principles form the foundation for this view. These principles are based on Scripture’s account of God’s battle with Satan as well as our experience with the war-zone reflected in the world around us.

In this view our world is a battleground, and God is engaged in an on-going war with Satan.

There are some big theological issues to ask about that - the most obvious being why an all-powerful god allows Satan to continue. It does not matter how powerful Satan is, if God is all-powerful he must be able to readily defeat Satan any time he wants. If there is an on-going war between God and Satan then either God is not all-powerful, and indeed he is comparable to Satan, or God chooses to allow the war to go on because it suits his purpose.

The idea that God and Satan are comparable in their power is like Zoroastrianism, which has a supreme being, Ahura Mazda, in conflict with a destructive god, Angra Mainyu, and there is some evidence that Zoroastrianism was a significant influence on Judaism during and as it emerged from the Captivity. But it is not a common Christian view, as Christians usually take the view that God is all-powerful.

And that leaves me wondering if God wants this war to continue; he is using Satan to serve God's own purpose.



Boyd presents a six point argument, and I will look at each point in turn.

1. "Love Requires Freedom"​

Boyd's argument is that for it to be love, you need to be able to choose it, given that a computer cannot love. But is that true? Can you choose to love someone? In my experience, love just happens; it is not a conscious choice.

I think what Boyd really means is that God wants us to freely choose to worship him, which is not quite the same, but Christians have this "God is love" meme they like to promote, and the two get conflated.

Much of the Old Testament is about persuading people to worship God, rather than the other gods of the culture, and the Captivity is rationalised as punishment for them not doing so. Further, Jesus said God's greatest command was to love God, and indicates that who goes to heaven and who goes to hell is determined to whether you worship God (though Christians seem to have very mixed views on this).

The theological implication of this is that God's over-riding priority here is his ego. Everything comes down to him wanting us to freely choose to worship him because that strokes his ego, whereas having robots programmed to worship him does not.

And if that causes suffering in mankind, well that is just collateral damage.

Bear in mind that that collateral damage is billions suffering in hell for eternity. Apparently that is less important than stroking God's ego.

2. "Freedom Implies Risk"​

Boyd says "The freedom to choose or reject love constitutes a risk for God. Creatures may make choices that oppose his will for their lives and the lives of others." If Boyd is right, the risk is far greater for the creature - it could end up in hell suffering for eternity.

"God considered love to be well worth the risk inherent in giving his creatures freedom." Yeah, well good for him, he is not the one likely to end up suffering for eternity.

Clearly what is important is stroking God's ego. It is not like he gives a damn about people, right?

Christians will tell you God loves everyone, but there is no way that that is compatible with this view of God. This is a God who wants you to love him to stroke his ego, and will accept that you are more likely to end up suffering for eternity than not for that purpose.

That is not love on his part. That is the antithesis of love.

3. "Risk Entails Moral Responsibility"​

He goes on to say; "God’s creatures are held responsible for how they use their freedom." But remember, this is only with respect to whether you choose to love God or not. Christians like to say that God is just, that he punishes bad people. But really this is just about that one commandment to love God. All God cares about is if you stroke his ego, and therefore whether you go to heaven or hell is determined by that, not by whether you murder people or donate freely to charity.

4. "Moral Responsibility is Proportionate to the Potential to Influence"​

Boyd says; "The potential a creature has for love is proportionate to the creature’s potential for evil." I am not sure where he gets that from, but possibly comparing pets to people? A dog has a limited capacity for love, and limited potential for evil, compared to a person. But that is nonsense as dogs are not moral agents - they have no sense of right and wrong - so let us assume this is not what he is say, but rather he is comparing different people.

Some people, being in a position of power, have more potential to influence, more potential for evil, than other people at the bottom of the ladder. In feudal times, for example, the king had all the power, the serf had none. Would it be fair to say that the king's potential for love was vastly more than the serf's? Of course not.

5. "Power to Influence is Irrevocable"​

This is the biggy, in my view - the answer to the Problem of Evil - so here it all is:

"Genuine freedom must be irrevocable. If it can be revoked, creatures cannot be held responsible for their use of it, nor can they fully realize their potential for love. Within the parameters of the freedom God gives creatures, God must tolerate evil. Since God is omnipotent, he is able to accomplish his will within these parameters without compromising his own integrity or limiting the potential of his creatures by revoking their freedom."

Boyd is saying that if a man decides to commit rape, the freedom to do that cannot be taken away from him, because if it can (i.e., if God intervenes to stop him), then the man cannot be held responsible for attempting the act. I am not sure why not. God knows what he intended, and Jesus said just looking at a woman with lust is as bad as rape, so why can God not punish the attempted rape?

Even more bewildering is where Boyd says "... nor can they fully realize their potential for love". How does God intervening to prevent rape stop people from fully realising their potential for love? It makes no sense.

6. "Power to Influence is Finite"​

This is essentially the usual "Jam tomorrow". We are assured God will defeat Satan one day - but no suggestion as to why God is waiting so long - and then we can all stroke God's ego for eternity!

I am left unconvinced.

 

[CrowCross]

I am left unconvinced.

So what?

I read the end of the book.....you lose.

 

[TeabagSalad]

So what?

I read the end of the book.....you lose.

How does he lose? You haven't even addressed any of the points made. You just claimed to have read the book and declared victory.

Can you address any of the points at all?

 

[CrowCross]

How does he lose? You haven't even addressed any of the points made. You just claimed to have read the book and declared victory.

Can you address any of the points at all?

It's the same ole' same ole' ...if God is love then why this argument. There is a thousand answers to that question none of which will be acceptable. So I say....so what?

 

[mikeT]

I read the end of the book.....you lose

... he said, unable to address a single point made by this thread's author.

---

@The Pixie - interesting analysis. I confess that these days, I don't have as much patience with such things, but that's no reflection on your effort here. I loosely agree with everything you've written, but one point stood out for me...

Similar to what you wrote, the fifth in the list is the most effective of the bunch IMHO. If valid, it essentially solves the problem of evil; none of the other list items are necessary. The problem is that it argues God is constrained by His creation: "God must tolerate evil" (emphasis mine). If there is something God "must" do, He cannot be all-powerful. An omnipotent being has the ability to not be constrained by the consequences of His own actions.

As I've argued elsewhere, the problem of evil coinciding with free will can be addressed simply by not allowing evil to be born. Instead of removing the free will of His creatures, God can simply decide not to create them: the rapist never exists, the murderer never grows into someone with the urge to kill, Hitler never writes human history.

Omnipotent creator beings can never logically be forced to do anything, not even by themselves.

 

[CrowCross]

... he said, unable to address a single point made by this thread's author.

---

@The Pixie - interesting analysis. I confess that these days, I don't have as much patience with such things, but that's no reflection on your effort here. I loosely agree with everything you've written, but one point stood out for me...

Similar to what you wrote, the fifth in the list is the most effective of the bunch IMHO. If valid, it essentially solves the problem of evil; none of the other list items are necessary. The problem is that it argues God is constrained by His creation: "God must tolerate evil" (emphasis mine). If there is something God "must" do, He cannot be all-powerful. An omnipotent being has the ability to not be constrained by the consequences of His own actions.

As I've argued elsewhere, the problem of evil coinciding with free will can be addressed simply by not allowing evil to be born. Instead of removing the free will of His creatures, God can simply decide not to create them: the rapist never exists, the murderer never grows into someone with the urge to kill, Hitler never writes human history.

Omnipotent creator beings can never logically be forced to do anything, not even by themselves.

You present the same tired argument. You act as if you know God.

Just for the record some day "evil" will be destroyed and chucked into the lake of fire. But you guys seem to ask...why is God waiting? the answer...who knows??? You certainly don't.

Maybe God wants to demonstrate his "all" to His creation...Love, mercy, grace, compassion....justice....and evil is present to allow for this to happen. Just saying. At the same time you don't have the ability to answer the question nor seem to have the ability to recognize the "options" presented in the answers you have received in the past and will receive in the future.

As I said above.."There is a thousand answers to that question none of which will be acceptable"...and I will add, to you.

So, I also say to you....so what???

 

[romishpopishorganist]

The "Warfare Worldview" is one way Christians try to resolve the Problem of Evil.

Quotes are from here, on the ReKnew web site, by Greg Boyd.


In this view our world is a battleground, and God is engaged in an on-going war with Satan.

There are some big theological issues to ask about that - the most obvious being why an all-powerful god allows Satan to continue. It does not matter how powerful Satan is, if God is all-powerful he must be able to readily defeat Satan any time he wants. If there is an on-going war between God and Satan then either God is not all-powerful, and indeed he is comparable to Satan, or God chooses to allow the war to go on because it suits his purpose.

The idea that God and Satan are comparable in their power is like Zoroastrianism, which has a supreme being, Ahura Mazda, in conflict with a destructive god, Angra Mainyu, and there is some evidence that Zoroastrianism was a significant influence on Judaism during and as it emerged from the Captivity. But it is not a common Christian view, as Christians usually take the view that God is all-powerful.

And that leaves me wondering if God wants this war to continue; he is using Satan to serve God's own purpose.



Boyd presents a six point argument, and I will look at each point in turn.

1. "Love Requires Freedom"​

Boyd's argument is that for it to be love, you need to be able to choose it, given that a computer cannot love. But is that true? Can you choose to love someone? In my experience, love just happens; it is not a conscious choice.

I think what Boyd really means is that God wants us to freely choose to worship him, which is not quite the same, but Christians have this "God is love" meme they like to promote, and the two get conflated.

Much of the Old Testament is about persuading people to worship God, rather than the other gods of the culture, and the Captivity is rationalised as punishment for them not doing so. Further, Jesus said God's greatest command was to love God, and indicates that who goes to heaven and who goes to hell is determined to whether you worship God (though Christians seem to have very mixed views on this).

The theological implication of this is that God's over-riding priority here is his ego. Everything comes down to him wanting us to freely choose to worship him because that strokes his ego, whereas having robots programmed to worship him does not.

And if that causes suffering in mankind, well that is just collateral damage.

Bear in mind that that collateral damage is billions suffering in hell for eternity. Apparently that is less important than stroking God's ego.

2. "Freedom Implies Risk"​

Boyd says "The freedom to choose or reject love constitutes a risk for God. Creatures may make choices that oppose his will for their lives and the lives of others." If Boyd is right, the risk is far greater for the creature - it could end up in hell suffering for eternity.

"God considered love to be well worth the risk inherent in giving his creatures freedom." Yeah, well good for him, he is not the one likely to end up suffering for eternity.

Clearly what is important is stroking God's ego. It is not like he gives a damn about people, right?

Christians will tell you God loves everyone, but there is no way that that is compatible with this view of God. This is a God who wants you to love him to stroke his ego, and will accept that you are more likely to end up suffering for eternity than not for that purpose.

That is not love on his part. That is the antithesis of love.

3. "Risk Entails Moral Responsibility"​

He goes on to say; "God’s creatures are held responsible for how they use their freedom." But remember, this is only with respect to whether you choose to love God or not. Christians like to say that God is just, that he punishes bad people. But really this is just about that one commandment to love God. All God cares about is if you stroke his ego, and therefore whether you go to heaven or hell is determined by that, not by whether you murder people or donate freely to charity.

4. "Moral Responsibility is Proportionate to the Potential to Influence"​

Boyd says; "The potential a creature has for love is proportionate to the creature’s potential for evil." I am not sure where he gets that from, but possibly comparing pets to people? A dog has a limited capacity for love, and limited potential for evil, compared to a person. But that is nonsense as dogs are not moral agents - they have no sense of right and wrong - so let us assume this is not what he is say, but rather he is comparing different people.

Some people, being in a position of power, have more potential to influence, more potential for evil, than other people at the bottom of the ladder. In feudal times, for example, the king had all the power, the serf had none. Would it be fair to say that the king's potential for love was vastly more than the serf's? Of course not.

5. "Power to Influence is Irrevocable"​

This is the biggy, in my view - the answer to the Problem of Evil - so here it all is:


Boyd is saying that if a man decides to commit rape, the freedom to do that cannot be taken away from him, because if it can (i.e., if God intervenes to stop him), then the man cannot be held responsible for attempting the act. I am not sure why not. God knows what he intended, and Jesus said just looking at a woman with lust is as bad as rape, so why can God not punish the attempted rape?

Even more bewildering is where Boyd says "... nor can they fully realize their potential for love". How does God intervening to prevent rape stop people from fully realising their potential for love? It makes no sense.

6. "Power to Influence is Finite"​

This is essentially the usual "Jam tomorrow". We are assured God will defeat Satan one day - but no suggestion as to why God is waiting so long - and then we can all stroke God's ego for eternity!

I am left unconvinced.

In order for the atheist to argue that God cannot exist becasue evil exists, the atheist has already made a objective value judgement. Implicit in their claim is that there is evil. In order for the atheist to know that there is evil, they have to have some standard of reference, some world where evil does not exist, otherwise, how could they know evil exists? How could they know that reality should not be as it is? Implicit in the claim that evil exists, is also a claim that there is good, and that the atheist knows what this goodness is.

Thus, we can turn the "Evil exists, therefore there can be no God" argument on its head. Goodness exists. If God exists and God is evil, and goodness exists, he must not be God, becasue if he was, goodness would not be allowed to exist!"

Now my question:

Why shouldn't God allow evil to exist? From the Catholic perspective, it is the atheist, not the Catholic that needs to explain the existence of evil if there is no God---and the atheist needs toe explain how he knows there is evil when there is no objective standard of reference.

From the Catholic perspective, the world, given Original Sin is exactly the way it is supposed to be. God does not save us from the consequences of OS (human morality) becasue we need to see and understand the consequences of sin, and where sin leads. If God saved us from those consequences, we would not take sin seriously, nor God, for that matter. From the Catholic Christian perspective, the existence of evil makes perfect sense. Note also that moral evil arises from a misuse of the freedom God gave us. Our choices determine who we are. We can be what God created us to be, or we can choose not to be. But there are consequences to that. God takes our freedom very seriously. We have the power through the use of this freedom to affect the world around us for better or for worse.

Catholics do not believe that Jesus came, suffered and died so we don't have to. They believe that Jesus entered into and took on him the curse of sin as an act of love. The curse of sin are the consequences of OS. Inso doing he left in place the consequences of sin, but transformed them. Now, our suffering and death bring redemption. Thus, God uses evil to sanctify, perfect, and transform us--IF---we follow after the example of Christ and take up the crosses God gives us willingly and offer it in union with Christ to the Father. IF we do this, as Christ, then we have the promise of receiving the same glory Christ has that was revealed in the Resurrection. Hence, evil is actually--very necessary to the unfolding of God's plan--as he uses it--against itself becasue of the Incarnation.

Again, please explain to me why evil should not exist if there is an all-powerful, loving God.

 

[TeabagSalad]

In order for the atheist to argue that God cannot exist becasue evil exists, the atheist has already made a objective value judgement. Implicit in their claim is that there is evil. In order for the atheist to know that there is evil, they have to have some standard of reference, some world where evil does not exist, otherwise, how could they know evil exists? How could they know that reality should not be as it is? Implicit in the claim that evil exists, is also a claim that there is good, and that the atheist knows what this goodness is.

Thus, we can turn the "Evil exists, therefore there can be no God" argument on its head. Goodness exists. If God exists and God is evil, and goodness exists, he must not be God, becasue if he was, goodness would not be allowed to exist!"

Now my question:

Why shouldn't God allow evil to exist? From the Catholic perspective, it is the atheist, not the Catholic that needs to explain the existence of evil if there is no God---and the atheist needs toe explain how he knows there is evil when there is no objective standard of reference.

From the Catholic perspective, the world, given Original Sin is exactly the way it is supposed to be. God does not save us from the consequences of OS (human morality) becasue we need to see and understand the consequences of sin, and where sin leads. If God saved us from those consequences, we would not take sin seriously, nor God, for that matter. From the Catholic Christian perspective, the existence of evil makes perfect sense. Note also that moral evil arises from a misuse of the freedom God gave us. Our choices determine who we are. We can be what God created us to be, or we can choose not to be. But there are consequences to that. God takes our freedom very seriously. We have the power through the use of this freedom to affect the world around us for better or for worse.

Catholics do not believe that Jesus came, suffered and died so we don't have to. They believe that Jesus entered into and took on him the curse of sin as an act of love. The curse of sin are the consequences of OS. Inso doing he left in place the consequences of sin, but transformed them. Now, our suffering and death bring redemption. Thus, God uses evil to sanctify, perfect, and transform us--IF---we follow after the example of Christ and take up the crosses God gives us willingly and offer it in union with Christ to the Father. IF we do this, as Christ, then we have the promise of receiving the same glory Christ has that was revealed in the Resurrection. Hence, evil is actually--very necessary to the unfolding of God's plan--as he uses it--against itself becasue of the Incarnation.

Again, please explain to me why evil should not exist if there is an all-powerful, loving God.

Because an all-powerful and loving God would be able to stop evil from happening.

 

[TeabagSalad]

It's the same ole' same ole' ...if God is love then why this argument. There is a thousand answers to that question none of which will be acceptable. So I say....so what?

That's a rather long winded way of saying you can't address the points.

 

[Temujin]

In order for the atheist to argue that God cannot exist becasue evil exists, the atheist has already made a objective value judgement. Implicit in their claim is that there is evil. In order for the atheist to know that there is evil, they have to have some standard of reference, some world where evil does not exist, otherwise, how could they know evil exists? How could they know that reality should not be as it is? Implicit in the claim that evil exists, is also a claim that there is good, and that the atheist knows what this goodness is.

Thus, we can turn the "Evil exists, therefore there can be no God" argument on its head. Goodness exists. If God exists and God is evil, and goodness exists, he must not be God, becasue if he was, goodness would not be allowed to exist!"

Now my question:

Why shouldn't God allow evil to exist? From the Catholic perspective, it is the atheist, not the Catholic that needs to explain the existence of evil if there is no God---and the atheist needs toe explain how he knows there is evil when there is no objective standard of reference.

From the Catholic perspective, the world, given Original Sin is exactly the way it is supposed to be. God does not save us from the consequences of OS (human morality) becasue we need to see and understand the consequences of sin, and where sin leads. If God saved us from those consequences, we would not take sin seriously, nor God, for that matter. From the Catholic Christian perspective, the existence of evil makes perfect sense. Note also that moral evil arises from a misuse of the freedom God gave us. Our choices determine who we are. We can be what God created us to be, or we can choose not to be. But there are consequences to that. God takes our freedom very seriously. We have the power through the use of this freedom to affect the world around us for better or for worse.

Catholics do not believe that Jesus came, suffered and died so we don't have to. They believe that Jesus entered into and took on him the curse of sin as an act of love. The curse of sin are the consequences of OS. Inso doing he left in place the consequences of sin, but transformed them. Now, our suffering and death bring redemption. Thus, God uses evil to sanctify, perfect, and transform us--IF---we follow after the example of Christ and take up the crosses God gives us willingly and offer it in union with Christ to the Father. IF we do this, as Christ, then we have the promise of receiving the same glory Christ has that was revealed in the Resurrection. Hence, evil is actually--very necessary to the unfolding of God's plan--as he uses it--against itself becasue of the Incarnation.

Again, please explain to me why evil should not exist if there is an all-powerful, loving God.

There is no evil. There are uncomfortable, bad even horrific things, but there's no malign disembodied force for bad. I say this as someone who has worked in a high security prison with some very disturbed and disturbing offenders. Blaming their offending on an evil force is not credible in my mind.

You are inaccurately describing the more general sense of the problem of evil. Bad things happen. You don't have to be a believer to know that what is happening in Gaza or Ukraine is bad, and being made worse by deliberate human acts. That's the case whether or not there's a Satan orchestrating it. The general problem of evil is Why does God allow bad things to happen?

This thread concerns a special case. Given for the sake of argument that Satan exists, then why hasn't God got around to defeating him? It's not the atheist case that evil exists. That's the believer's position. One explanation that the believer puts forward is that the evil emanates from Satan in opposition to God's wishes. Ok, says the OP, if that's the case, then these arguments stem from that position. If you want to argue that there's no Satan and no such thing as evil, then that's fine. We revert to the general position of why does God allow nasty things to happen to people, and why does he allow people to do nasty things to others and get away with it

 

[CrowCross]

That's a rather long winded way of saying you can't address the points.

That's a cop out way of saying I addressed the point and you have no response. Which is OK as I expect that from you.

 

[CrowCross]

Because an all-powerful and loving God would be able to stop evil from happening.

....and the bible says He will. Human history is a wisp of smoke in the breeze.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

There is no evil.

Yes, I know. "There is no evil" says the moral relativist. Then you turn around and behave as if there is when you vehemently defend a woman's right to........"choose" to "terminate" her pregnancy. You behave as if those who are against this right to........"choose" are violating something that is sacred. You behave as if pro-lifers are sacreligious, as if they are desecrating the sacred.

Forgive me for not believing you when you claim there is no evil. You say that, but you do not behave as if such is the case.

However, please note that I was responding to a poster who seems to believe there is evil. in order to argue that there can be no god becasue there is evil, you first have to believe that there is objective evil. In order to believe this, you have to have a standard of refence. The problem is that by denying God, the atheist has no objective standard by which to assert that evil exists. Who is to say the way the world is, is evil? What is evil to one, is good to another. It is just nature. There is no right or wrong in it, it just is.

There are uncomfortable, bad even horrific things,

How do you know this if there is no evil? See--this is the problem I have with you. You claim there is no evil, then assert there is evil. Do you not know that "uncomfortable, bad, horrific" things---are just different words for---"evil?"

but there's no malign disembodied force for bad. I say this as someone who has worked in a high security prison with some very disturbed and disturbing offenders. Blaming their offending on an evil force is not credible in my mind.

But Catholics like me do not blame bad behavior on a............"malign force for bad" is it? We do not blame bad behavior on a "malign force for bad" otherwise known as "Satan." We blame bad behavior--on--get this---bad choices, otherwise known as--a misuse of the freedom we are given. It is the left that blames bad behavior on anything but bad choices. The left blames bad behavior, not on choices but on victimhood, imbalances of power, etc. Always some invisible malign force that causes people to behave badly. For the left, people never behave badly--because they--get this---choose to do so, and want to do so. For Christians, people behave badly becasue they make bad choices, and they make bad choices becasue they want to do so.

You are inaccurately describing the more general sense of the problem of evil. Bad things happen.

Bad things happen? Once again you sneak in a backdoor standard. Bad things happen? How do you know they are bad without some standard of reference?

You don't have to be a believer to know that what is happening in Gaza or Ukraine is bad,

No, you don't. What you DO need to know this, is some objective standard of reference. By what objective standard of reference are you asserting that what is happening in the Gaza strip bad? Maybe that is just evolutionary biology happening. The strong are killing the weak so that the strong survive to pass on their genes. In that sense, what is happening is good--from an evolutionary biological perspective. Whoever is strongest will survive and adapt. Their genes will get passed on, which will make our species stronger.

Science is real, you know. I mean--that is what the left is always shouting at us. "Follow 'the Science'" and "Science is real!" Well, I am just following "the Science" like the left says.

and being made worse by deliberate human acts.

What deliberate human acts? Actions are neither good nor bad. They are only good or bad from the reference point of the one doing them or receiving them. Unless, of course, you have some kind of standard by which you are measuring this. What is your standard, sir?

That's the case whether or not there's a Satan orchestrating it. The general problem of evil is Why does God allow bad things to happen?

Sir, you seem, for some reason, to think by by using words like "bad" "uncomfortable" and "horrific" that somehow these mean something different from, you know----"EVIL." They don't sir. They are different words that describe the same reality: EVIL.

Whatever word, sir, that you want to use, to describe "evil" you have to explain what your standard of reference is. How do you know that these things are "bad" "uncomfortable" and "horrific" objectively? Note that storms that destroy, once again, from an evolutionary biological perspective are actually very necessary for the thriving of life. They purge nature, and they also by killing people--prevent overpopulation.

It is our scientific progress--that has been a game changer----which is actually from an evolutionary biological perspective---bad. Had we not developed science and technology, there would be no climate change, would there? It is "Science" that is destroying our world.

This thread concerns a special case. Given for the sake of argument that Satan exists, then why hasn't God got around to defeating him?

First, God has destroyed him. The game is already won.

Second: God allows Satan a certain amount of freedom in order to test us and prove us. You need the dark to show the light.

It's not the atheist case that evil exists.

Then why do atheists make such stupid arguments like "Gee whiz, you know? Evil exists, therefore God cannot!"

That's the believer's position.

Again, then why do atheists constantly whine and moan about evil and God cannot exists becasue there is evil?

One explanation that the believer puts forward is that the evil emanates from Satan in opposition to God's wishes.

Yeah--if they are gnostic! That reasoning is not representative of mainline Christianity. God's sovereignty permits Satan to behave as he does becasue God uses evil to bring our good.

Ok, says the OP, if that's the case, then these arguments stem from that position. If you want to argue that there's no Satan and no such thing as evil, then that's fine. We revert to the general position of why does God allow nasty things to happen to people, and why does he allow people to do nasty things to others and get away with it

And I attempted an explanation of this in my original post. Re-read it.

 

[Howie]

The "Warfare Worldview" is one way Christians try to resolve the Problem of Evil.

Quotes are from here, on the ReKnew web site, by Greg Boyd.


In this view our world is a battleground, and God is engaged in an on-going war with Satan.

There are some big theological issues to ask about that - the most obvious being why an all-powerful god allows Satan to continue. It does not matter how powerful Satan is, if God is all-powerful he must be able to readily defeat Satan any time he wants. If there is an on-going war between God and Satan then either God is not all-powerful, and indeed he is comparable to Satan, or God chooses to allow the war to go on because it suits his purpose.

The idea that God and Satan are comparable in their power is like Zoroastrianism, which has a supreme being, Ahura Mazda, in conflict with a destructive god, Angra Mainyu, and there is some evidence that Zoroastrianism was a significant influence on Judaism during and as it emerged from the Captivity. But it is not a common Christian view, as Christians usually take the view that God is all-powerful.

And that leaves me wondering if God wants this war to continue; he is using Satan to serve God's own purpose.



Boyd presents a six point argument, and I will look at each point in turn.

1. "Love Requires Freedom"​

Boyd's argument is that for it to be love, you need to be able to choose it, given that a computer cannot love. But is that true? Can you choose to love someone? In my experience, love just happens; it is not a conscious choice.

I think what Boyd really means is that God wants us to freely choose to worship him, which is not quite the same, but Christians have this "God is love" meme they like to promote, and the two get conflated.

Much of the Old Testament is about persuading people to worship God, rather than the other gods of the culture, and the Captivity is rationalised as punishment for them not doing so. Further, Jesus said God's greatest command was to love God, and indicates that who goes to heaven and who goes to hell is determined to whether you worship God (though Christians seem to have very mixed views on this).

The theological implication of this is that God's over-riding priority here is his ego. Everything comes down to him wanting us to freely choose to worship him because that strokes his ego, whereas having robots programmed to worship him does not.

And if that causes suffering in mankind, well that is just collateral damage.

Bear in mind that that collateral damage is billions suffering in hell for eternity. Apparently that is less important than stroking God's ego.

2. "Freedom Implies Risk"​

Boyd says "The freedom to choose or reject love constitutes a risk for God. Creatures may make choices that oppose his will for their lives and the lives of others." If Boyd is right, the risk is far greater for the creature - it could end up in hell suffering for eternity.

"God considered love to be well worth the risk inherent in giving his creatures freedom." Yeah, well good for him, he is not the one likely to end up suffering for eternity.

Clearly what is important is stroking God's ego. It is not like he gives a damn about people, right?

Christians will tell you God loves everyone, but there is no way that that is compatible with this view of God. This is a God who wants you to love him to stroke his ego, and will accept that you are more likely to end up suffering for eternity than not for that purpose.

That is not love on his part. That is the antithesis of love.

3. "Risk Entails Moral Responsibility"​

He goes on to say; "God’s creatures are held responsible for how they use their freedom." But remember, this is only with respect to whether you choose to love God or not. Christians like to say that God is just, that he punishes bad people. But really this is just about that one commandment to love God. All God cares about is if you stroke his ego, and therefore whether you go to heaven or hell is determined by that, not by whether you murder people or donate freely to charity.

4. "Moral Responsibility is Proportionate to the Potential to Influence"​

Boyd says; "The potential a creature has for love is proportionate to the creature’s potential for evil." I am not sure where he gets that from, but possibly comparing pets to people? A dog has a limited capacity for love, and limited potential for evil, compared to a person. But that is nonsense as dogs are not moral agents - they have no sense of right and wrong - so let us assume this is not what he is say, but rather he is comparing different people.

Some people, being in a position of power, have more potential to influence, more potential for evil, than other people at the bottom of the ladder. In feudal times, for example, the king had all the power, the serf had none. Would it be fair to say that the king's potential for love was vastly more than the serf's? Of course not.

5. "Power to Influence is Irrevocable"​

This is the biggy, in my view - the answer to the Problem of Evil - so here it all is:


Boyd is saying that if a man decides to commit rape, the freedom to do that cannot be taken away from him, because if it can (i.e., if God intervenes to stop him), then the man cannot be held responsible for attempting the act. I am not sure why not. God knows what he intended, and Jesus said just looking at a woman with lust is as bad as rape, so why can God not punish the attempted rape?

Even more bewildering is where Boyd says "... nor can they fully realize their potential for love". How does God intervening to prevent rape stop people from fully realising their potential for love? It makes no sense.

6. "Power to Influence is Finite"​

This is essentially the usual "Jam tomorrow". We are assured God will defeat Satan one day - but no suggestion as to why God is waiting so long - and then we can all stroke God's ego for eternity!

I am left unconvinced.

Boyd in an open theist. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[5wize]

In order to argue that there can be no god becasue there is evil, you first have to believe that there is objective evil. In order to believe this, you have to have a standard of refence. The problem is that by denying God, the atheist has no objective standard by which to assert that evil exists. Who is to say the way the world is, is evil? What is evil to one, is good to another. It is just nature. There is no right or wrong in it, it just is.

......

What you DO need to know this, is some objective standard of reference. By what objective standard of reference are you asserting that what is happening in the Gaza strip bad? Maybe that is just evolutionary biology happening. The strong are killing the weak so that the strong survive to pass on their genes. In that sense, what is happening is good--from an evolutionary biological perspective. Whoever is strongest will survive and adapt. Their genes will get

It is just plain wrong that your god is a prerequisite for recognizing a human standard of either good or evil. I agree we need to have a standard of one to recognize a standard for the other, but there is no way that this objective standard is anchored in a subjective supernatural third party.

Objective good and objective bad is felt as a parochial (not transcendent) common reality of what we are as humans and what we all commonly strive for. That being the preservation of our lives. For some reason we ALL objectively think that is important, and we don’t need any third party supernatural guidance to seat that very objective reality in us. Objective morality is as rote and parochial in us our amygdala is with its fight or flight response.

So what do we do being infected with this drive for our own existence? Over time we build strategies of living together to promote this common drive - this parochial reality about us. One thing we learned is that we are a fragile desperate species and if we do not want our safety threatened by another, we better make sure we do as much as we can to not threaten others and minimize as much desperation as possible for all. This is the objective, very parochial, and natural morality that drives us, that lives in us. It’s not some transcendent fiat of some third party supernatural god.

 

[5wize]

The "Warfare Worldview" is one way Christians try to resolve the Problem of Evil.

Quotes are from here, on the ReKnew web site, by Greg Boyd.


In this view our world is a battleground, and God is engaged in an on-going war with Satan.

There are some big theological issues to ask about that - the most obvious being why an all-powerful god allows Satan to continue. It does not matter how powerful Satan is, if God is all-powerful he must be able to readily defeat Satan any time he wants. If there is an on-going war between God and Satan then either God is not all-powerful, and indeed he is comparable to Satan, or God chooses to allow the war to go on because it suits his purpose.

The idea that God and Satan are comparable in their power is like Zoroastrianism, which has a supreme being, Ahura Mazda, in conflict with a destructive god, Angra Mainyu, and there is some evidence that Zoroastrianism was a significant influence on Judaism during and as it emerged from the Captivity. But it is not a common Christian view, as Christians usually take the view that God is all-powerful.

And that leaves me wondering if God wants this war to continue; he is using Satan to serve God's own purpose.



Boyd presents a six point argument, and I will look at each point in turn.

1. "Love Requires Freedom"​

Boyd's argument is that for it to be love, you need to be able to choose it, given that a computer cannot love. But is that true? Can you choose to love someone? In my experience, love just happens; it is not a conscious choice.

I think what Boyd really means is that God wants us to freely choose to worship him, which is not quite the same, but Christians have this "God is love" meme they like to promote, and the two get conflated.

Much of the Old Testament is about persuading people to worship God, rather than the other gods of the culture, and the Captivity is rationalised as punishment for them not doing so. Further, Jesus said God's greatest command was to love God, and indicates that who goes to heaven and who goes to hell is determined to whether you worship God (though Christians seem to have very mixed views on this).

The theological implication of this is that God's over-riding priority here is his ego. Everything comes down to him wanting us to freely choose to worship him because that strokes his ego, whereas having robots programmed to worship him does not.

And if that causes suffering in mankind, well that is just collateral damage.

Bear in mind that that collateral damage is billions suffering in hell for eternity. Apparently that is less important than stroking God's ego.

2. "Freedom Implies Risk"​

Boyd says "The freedom to choose or reject love constitutes a risk for God. Creatures may make choices that oppose his will for their lives and the lives of others." If Boyd is right, the risk is far greater for the creature - it could end up in hell suffering for eternity.

"God considered love to be well worth the risk inherent in giving his creatures freedom." Yeah, well good for him, he is not the one likely to end up suffering for eternity.

Clearly what is important is stroking God's ego. It is not like he gives a damn about people, right?

Christians will tell you God loves everyone, but there is no way that that is compatible with this view of God. This is a God who wants you to love him to stroke his ego, and will accept that you are more likely to end up suffering for eternity than not for that purpose.

That is not love on his part. That is the antithesis of love.

3. "Risk Entails Moral Responsibility"​

He goes on to say; "God’s creatures are held responsible for how they use their freedom." But remember, this is only with respect to whether you choose to love God or not. Christians like to say that God is just, that he punishes bad people. But really this is just about that one commandment to love God. All God cares about is if you stroke his ego, and therefore whether you go to heaven or hell is determined by that, not by whether you murder people or donate freely to charity.

4. "Moral Responsibility is Proportionate to the Potential to Influence"​

Boyd says; "The potential a creature has for love is proportionate to the creature’s potential for evil." I am not sure where he gets that from, but possibly comparing pets to people? A dog has a limited capacity for love, and limited potential for evil, compared to a person. But that is nonsense as dogs are not moral agents - they have no sense of right and wrong - so let us assume this is not what he is say, but rather he is comparing different people.

Some people, being in a position of power, have more potential to influence, more potential for evil, than other people at the bottom of the ladder. In feudal times, for example, the king had all the power, the serf had none. Would it be fair to say that the king's potential for love was vastly more than the serf's? Of course not.

5. "Power to Influence is Irrevocable"​

This is the biggy, in my view - the answer to the Problem of Evil - so here it all is:


Boyd is saying that if a man decides to commit rape, the freedom to do that cannot be taken away from him, because if it can (i.e., if God intervenes to stop him), then the man cannot be held responsible for attempting the act. I am not sure why not. God knows what he intended, and Jesus said just looking at a woman with lust is as bad as rape, so why can God not punish the attempted rape?

Even more bewildering is where Boyd says "... nor can they fully realize their potential for love". How does God intervening to prevent rape stop people from fully realising their potential for love? It makes no sense.

6. "Power to Influence is Finite"​

This is essentially the usual "Jam tomorrow". We are assured God will defeat Satan one day - but no suggestion as to why God is waiting so long - and then we can all stroke God's ego for eternity!

I am left unconvinced.

Great post. Agree with most of it, but I’m not sure you have #5 sussed out right. I don’t think what Boyd is referring to by revoking freedom means that god will intervene thus making the perpetrator not responsible for his intentions because the act doesn’t occur. I think what he is referring to is that if freedom is revokable, then it is borrowed from god, can be regulated by him, taken and given at his will, and thus not really ours given over for full responsibility. That is the faux freedom of a puppet state. This is what brings sense to the part about realizing a full potential for love. Did you love your dad’s car when you knew he granted it to you and would take it back at his will as much as you loved your own when you finally got it, were fully responsible for it, and no one had any say in it other than you?

I think it’s that kind of thing.

This is why I think Christianity is a great hypocrisy. God hasn’t granted us freedom at all. The whole thing is regulated by his final judgement. He just let us loose to hang ourselves with our own freedom when he really granted us none in the long run.

 

[5wize]

What you DO need to know this, is some objective standard of reference......

In order to argue that there can be no god becasue there is evil, you first have to believe that there is objective evil. In order to believe this, you have to have a standard of refence. The problem is that by denying God, the atheist has no objective standard by which to assert that evil exists.

Here’s something interesting for you to ponder concerning your need to presuppose an opposing objective standard before you can suppose its polarity (such as good or evil). Before the creation, there was no mundane.... no rocks, trees, animals, people.... nothing of mundane matter at all.

So what was divine without its opposite standard? You couldn’t have the divine without the objective standard of the mundane. According to your logic then, the divine is a subjective result of the objective mundane. The divine didn’t exist until the mundane made it so..... or, the divine is the creation of the mundane, not the other way around.

Maybe that’s really why it seems that god goes along with whatever happens down here.... he has no choice... the mundane defines and dictates to him - not the other way around.

 

[The Pixie]

Great post. Agree with most of it, but I’m not sure you have #5 sussed out right. I don’t think what Boyd is referring to by revoking freedom means that god will intervene thus making the perpetrator not responsible for his intentions because the act doesn’t occur. I think what he is referring to is that if freedom is revokable, then it is borrowed from god, can be regulated by him, taken and given at his will, and thus not really ours given over for full responsibility. That is the faux freedom of a puppet state. This is what brings sense to the part about realizing a full potential for love. Did you love your dad’s car when you knew he granted it to you and would take it back at his will as much as you loved your own when you finally got it, were fully responsible for it, and no one had any say in it other than you?

I think it’s that kind of thing.

But if that is the case, what is to stop God intervening to stop murder?

He would be limiting the freedom of the murderer, but at the same time he would be increasing the freedom of the victim, and over all the extra freedom of the victim over the rest of their life would be far greater than the momentary stopping of freedom for the murderer. And that is before you even get to the morality of enabling murder.

I do appreciate you do not side with Boyd!

This is why I think Christianity is a great hypocrisy. God hasn’t granted us freedom at all. The whole thing is regulated by his final judgement. He just let us loose to hang ourselves with our own freedom when he really granted us none in the long run.

Agreed. Freedom is revoked, so to claim it is Irrevocable is nonsense.

 

[The Pixie]

In order for the atheist to argue that God cannot exist becasue evil exists, the atheist has already made a objective value judgement. Implicit in their claim is that there is evil. In order for the atheist to know that there is evil, they have to have some standard of reference, some world where evil does not exist, otherwise, how could they know evil exists? How could they know that reality should not be as it is? Implicit in the claim that evil exists, is also a claim that there is good, and that the atheist knows what this goodness is.

What exactly do you mean by "evil" here? Terrible things happen - droughts, famines, hurricanes, etc. that cause great suffering. Mankind has further perpetrated great suffering. Are these things "evil"? Or do you see "evil" as some kind of force acting behind the scenes to cause all those terrible things? Not that it matters either way to the argument.

All the atheist has to do is observe that there is a lot suffering in the world, which is objectively true.

The Problem of Evil is best summed up as: Why is there so much suffering in the world if there is a God who loves each of us, who is all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly good. Although it has "evil" in the title, the argument itself sidesteps that issue.

Thus, we can turn the "Evil exists, therefore there can be no God" argument on its head. Goodness exists. If God exists and God is evil, and goodness exists, he must not be God, becasue if he was, goodness would not be allowed to exist!"

Great, you have proved there is no perfectly evil, all-powerful god. but I do not think anyone was suggesting that.

Now my question:

Why shouldn't God allow evil to exist? From the Catholic perspective, it is the atheist, not the Catholic that needs to explain the existence of evil if there is no God---and the atheist needs toe explain how he knows there is evil when there is no objective standard of reference.

God is supposed to be perfectly good and all-powerful. How can a being like that allow evil to exist? Choosing to permit evil when you can readily stop it is not compatible with being perfectly good.

I do not need to know how I know there is evil, I do not even did to believe there is evil. All I have to do is point out that your belief system has some fundamental inconsistencies, and that it should therefore be rejected as false.

From the Catholic perspective, the world, given Original Sin is exactly the way it is supposed to be. God does not save us from the consequences of OS (human morality) becasue we need to see and understand the consequences of sin, and where sin leads. If God saved us from those consequences, we would not take sin seriously, nor God, for that matter. From the Catholic Christian perspective, the existence of evil makes perfect sense.

This is even worse!

Now your perfectly good God has purposefully set up the world such that we are born sinful!

There are around 7 billon people on the planet, and only about 2 billion are Christians. God choosing to create us with Original Sin means that over 70% of the world's population will fail. And God knows that, because he is all-knowing, and chooses to do nothing about it (not for nearly 2000 years away).

Note also that moral evil arises from a misuse of the freedom God gave us. Our choices determine who we are. We can be what God created us to be, or we can choose not to be.

God created us to be sinful. That is what the doctrine of Original Sin pretty much says.

That is why over 70% of the world's population will fail; we were created to fail.

But there are consequences to that. God takes our freedom very seriously. We have the power through the use of this freedom to affect the world around us for better or for worse.

How do you know God takes this seriously? God does not do anything; he does not lift a finger to give material help or hinderance.

If God did not give a hoot, how would the world be different to what we see today?

Catholics do not believe that Jesus came, suffered and died so we don't have to. They believe that Jesus entered into and took on him the curse of sin as an act of love. The curse of sin are the consequences of OS.

God cursed us with Original Sin. Then God took on God's curse, so now... we are still cursed.

Inso doing he left in place the consequences of sin, but transformed them. Now, our suffering and death bring redemption.

Redemption from the sinful nature God cursed us with, right?

Why did God choose for suffering and death to be required to achieve redemption?

Thus, God uses evil to sanctify, perfect, and transform us--IF---we follow after the example of Christ and take up the crosses God gives us willingly and offer it in union with Christ to the Father. IF we do this, as Christ, then we have the promise of receiving the same glory Christ has that was revealed in the Resurrection. Hence, evil is actually--very necessary to the unfolding of God's plan--as he uses it--against itself becasue of the Incarnation.

God uses evil to sanctify... War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

What exactly do you mean by "evil" here? Terrible things happen - droughts, famines, hurricanes, etc. that cause great suffering. Mankind has further perpetrated great suffering. Are these things "evil"? Or do you see "evil" as some kind of force acting behind the scenes to cause all those terrible things? Not that it matters either way to the argument.

Are droughts, families, hurricanes, etc, evil? Actually--no. It turns out that they are very necessary as the keep nature in balance.

Without hurricanes, the oceans at the equator would overheat. Droughts help to rejuvenate wetlands. Forest fires help rejuvenate forests. In essence, nature has a way of purging itself. The things we experience as bad or evil wind up being necessary for the overall good of the planet.

In short, the things we experience as evil from nature are not inherently evil. On the other hand, people commit moral evils becasue they choose to do so. They choose to do so becasue they misuse the freedom that God gave them.

All the atheist has to do is observe that there is a lot suffering in the world, which is objectively true.

What is objectively true is that some experience pain in this life, while others do not. Explain to me WHY this should NOT be the case. Explain to me what is wrong with this. The minute you say "That people experience evil is objectively true" you are sneaking in a backdoor standard. You speak as if this should NOT be the case. Why should it NOT be the case?

The Problem of Evil is best summed up as: Why is there so much suffering in the world if there is a God who loves each of us, who is all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly good. Although it has "evil" in the title, the argument itself side steps that issue.

Why should an all powerful God stop evil? That is the question you are not answering. If in some way---allowing the evil to happen is good for us--then stopping the evil would be bad.

You know the old saying "No pain, no gain?" At the level of the spiritual life in God, that is analogous. No pain, no gain--from the Christian perspective. If there is something for us to gain by being allowed to experience evil, then stopping evil would be bad, not good.

Consider: you have a coach who pushes their player to keep lifting weights--even though they are tired and exhausted, becasue the coach knows they have it in them. You have a coach who does not push their players through the pain, and the minute the player complains, the coach immediately stops pushing them and lets them go take a nap. Of the two coaches, who would you say is the better coach? Of the two players, which player will benefit more? It is analogous with God and our spiritual life.

God is supposed to be perfectly good and all-powerful. How can a being like that allow evil to exist? Choosing to permit evil when you can readily stop it is not compatible with being perfectly good.

It is----if there is a greater good to be gained from allowing it. That is what you do not seem to grasp.

I do not need to know how I know there is evil,

Well, yeah you do--since you are the one asserting that evil exists. I assert there is a God, you immediately ask "How do you know? Prove it." You do not accept as an answer "I don't need to know how I know that."

I do not even did to believe there is evil. All I have to do is point out that your belief system has some fundamental inconsistencies, and that it should therefore be rejected as false.

What inconsistencies?

This is even worse! Now your perfectly good God has purposefully set up the world such that we are born sinful!

God didn't. Haven't you read the Bible? The reason we experience the limitations of the flesh is becasue--man, not God messed up. God isn't the problem. We are.

There are around 7 billon people on the planet, and only about 2 billion are Christians. God choosing to create us with Original Sin means that over 70% of the world's population will fail. And God knows that, because he is all-knowing, and chooses to do nothing about it (not for nearly 2000 years away).

God didn't create us in sin. God created us sinless. We decided to sin. Read the Bible. It explains all this.

God created us to be sinful. That is what the doctrine of Original Sin pretty much says.

No it isn't. Read the Bible for heaven's sake before you go spouting off about things you do not understand.

That is why over 70% of the world's population will fail; we were created to fail.

Again, read the Bible before you go spouting off and blaming God for why things are they way they are.

How do you know God takes this seriously? God does not do anything; he does not lift a finger to give material help or hinderance.

And in so doing, that allows for the goodness in us to come out. If God did everything for us, how could we grow, mature, and become perfected in goodness and love?

Analogy: you have two married couples. One couple is married for 50 years and went through a lot of suffering for different reasons. The other had a great life and no suffering. Of the two couples, which couple do you think would be better able to deal with strife, pain and suffering? Which couple do you think has a more perfect and mature love? Which couple do you think is in a better position to offer advice to other couples who are struggling?

If God did not give a hoot, how would the world be different to what we see today?

If God didn't give a hoot, there would be no Christianity, becasue there would be no Jesus, no Incarnation, no passion, death, Resurrection, and the promise of God with us. Human suffering would not have redemptive value; it would have no point, no meaning, no power, no nothing.

God cursed us with Original Sin. Then God took on God's curse, so now... we are still cursed.

No, WE cursed us with OS. God took that curse on himself so that the curse of sin could be turned on its head and become redemptive.

Redemption from the sinful nature God cursed us with, right?

No, redemption from the sinful nature we gave ourselves in misusing our freedom.

Why did God choose for suffering and death to be required to achieve redemption?

Because those are the consequences of sin.

God uses evil to sanctify...

Yes. No pain, no gain.