questioning God
In a discussion on Wink’s exploration of the myth of redemptve violence, Colin commented this:
As Epicurus put it:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”or, as “Star Trek’s” Gene Roddenberry opined:
“We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.”
An interesting question, what do you think?
March 31st, 2004 at 10:20 am
dare I say it but yet again someone who needs to read Genesis 3.
Obviously these people merely want to be puppets!
March 31st, 2004 at 12:37 pm
Puppets is one of the terms that I thought of.
The problem of evil does not have a good answer, to be honest.
I think one consideration that dances near an answer might be free will. If we could not chose to love or reject God, would it be love? More like puppets on a string. Human evil involves making choices that destroy rather than build up. We are given that choice as an act of love by God.
Regarding natural evil; tornados, etc. We could say God is responsible, if we understand that this thing we call God is what keeps the laws of physics in place.
As an example, if a child falls from a roof, I don’t believe that is God’s will. So why is it allowed? Possibly, part of the answer is that we don’t know what harm would have been caused by the law of gravity being suddenly suspended. We can’t see the big picture. Accidents happen, and I think that God grieves with us when they do. The cross suggests to me that God is not indifferent to human suffering.
The final thought is that I think it is a difficult thing to now what is really good, and what is really bad. We know our perception of the thing, based on our frame of reference. Sometimes I wonder about things that are labeled as evil, or “bad experiences.”
Entire libraries could be filled on books on the question of theodicy. If anyone has a real interest in looking into further, John Hick’s work, “Evil and the God of Love,” is quite good. Although Wink does an excellent job addressing the question as well.
March 31st, 2004 at 12:37 pm
I believe that the answer is contained in the “Shema,” the traditional Jewish call to prayer:
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD thy God is ONE:
The LORD is One.”
March 31st, 2004 at 12:39 pm
Believe it or not, we had no idea the other one was posting here at exactly the same instant, and we sure didn’t confer on our answers! I thought I was right after Homer, but Jake got in there a split second before me.
March 31st, 2004 at 1:01 pm
You snooze, you lose, my dear. Heh heh.
Demi and I are married. I am at the kitchen table, and she is upstairs. We communicate via blogs. Weird marriage, eh?
March 31st, 2004 at 2:15 pm
ah, sounds like Dan and I!
April 1st, 2004 at 11:23 am
Jake and Demi,
don’t you think it is all related to original sin, Genesis 3 dare I say it again.
It not only affects humans but the earth as well.
Also no-one was forced to eat the fruit remember.
April 2nd, 2004 at 7:13 am
That’s a tough one, Phil. But what if God chooses not to be omnipotent? If we accept that then the problem of evil disappears - God allows us to do our own thing. But then why does God “interfere” by answering some prayers and not others? Why does He help my mum get a good parking space at the shopping centre, but He chooses not to heal a child dying of AIDS? The ‘free will’ argument is a very good one, but there is still a huge amount of mystery (something that I’m still trying to get comfortable with … for a guy who likes to find “the answer” to everything it’s pretty tough!).
April 2nd, 2004 at 10:56 am
questioning God II
One of our recent posts has sparked a little bit of a discussion about God’s role in preventing suffering, answering prayer etc, and I thought I would share one of my formative experiences in this regard. A couple of years ago, in a small group I was a…
April 9th, 2004 at 3:37 pm
I think most people have a complete misconception of who we call God. God is neither able, willing, malevolent nor omnipotent, but omnipresent. People view Him, even the fact that they call Him a him which I am guilty of obviously, as some sort of being, or greater being. As if he has some sort of conciousness, as we can understand conciousness. God is far beyond any being or conciousness we can possibly imagine. In the novel Angels and Demons by Dan Brown, he explains God exactly how I have viewed him for years. As pure energy, in fact, ALL energy, which would encompass mass itself since mass is just trapped energy, and is from which mass was formed. Which brings me to his omnipresence. If you read the Gospel of Thomas, which you will not find in the Bible or any sanctioned religous text since the Catholic Church declared it was heresy because it states that everything Jesus preached goes against everything the Catholic Church was built upon. This book contains the only written record of what Jesus actually said. A quick note about the Gospel: Written by Thomas, aka Judas Iscariot, who by the way did not “betray” Jesus, but helped Jesus do what he had to do. Anyways, in this book, in “Saying 75″ Jesus said, “I am the light that is over all things, all came forth from me, and all attained to me. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Pick up a stone and you will find me there.” What Thomas wrote about Jesus’ sayings goes against everything Catholics believe in. He states that a heirarchail church structure is the complete opposite is what Jesus preached, it was what he was against. Remember the story about when Jesus flipped over the offering table in front of that church? Which is what lead to his crucifiction. James, the brother of Jesus, (Yes he did have siblings, as Catholic doctorine would like you not to believe) is the true heir of christianity, not Paul. In Romans 3:7 the King James Bible states “For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?” which is a mistranslation. The true translation from Greek says “For if the truth of Elohim has increased by way of my lying and untruths and is his honour and glory, why am I still being judged as a sinner?” Paul, for a lack of a better definition, is FULL OF SHIT. He was looking for power, not to spread the word of God. Anyways, my woman just got home, so I will end my rant here. If I have time I will come back and say more.