The problem of evil

[Mars]

"how" is most definitely not "why"

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Many in the world starve because the DON"T HAVE THE ACCESS TO THE FOOD NEEDED TO SUSTAIN THEIR MORTAL bodies like you and I do.

I hate to be condescending but your post above is simply nonsense.

And if you don't want to try to understand the reasoning behind such inequalities of the human species and why some are born into situations where incredible suffering is going to be what they live why are you even trying to discuss it.

You strike me as someone who really has not thought much about this or that you simply do not care.

People could and can bring or send food to those who are starving. It is not an unfixable problem. 

I am saying I already do understand the reasons for death and suffering, and the reasons for most other inequalities among us, too.  It's not that complicated.  Even in the cases when we don't know EVERYTHING involved we can still generally understand.  There are only so many possible reasons.

You strike me as someone who simply fails to understand the reasons, even generally. 

[Teancum]

12 minutes ago, Ahab said:

People could and can bring or send food to those who are starving. It is not an unfixable problem. 

I am saying I already do understand the reasons for death and suffering, and the reasons for most other inequalities among us, too.  It's not that complicated.  Even in the cases when we don't know EVERYTHING involved we can still generally understand.  There are only so many possible reasons.

You strike me as someone who simply fails to understand the reasons, even generally. 

I certainly understand WHY people die. We all die at some point.  I don't understand how I can thank God that I am special enough to go to bed at night with my belly full and so many others go to bed at night with their belly empty.

 

And I agree that the world could solve the world hunger problem but for greed, evil political leaders and so on.  So why were you born into a place a time where your belly is always full at night and so many others were not?

Edited April 7, 2016 by Teancum

[Ahab]

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

The question then is, given the premise of a God who intervenes in human affairs to stop evil/suffering in some cases, why does God fail to intervene to stop evil/suffering in other cases.

If the how is same as the why, then we've stopped talking about an interventionist God. We're just left with natural law, and a God who does not intervene. If we say God is unable to intervene at all, there is no more problem of evil. 

I believe God could intervene in every case but doesn't for the greater good.  The greater good allowing us to learn why and/or how evil is evil and not good.

If nothing bad or evil could ever happen, and if we could never even experience it because God would always intervene to prevent the bad or evil  from happening, we wouldn't even be able to complain about it. No murmuring, not even a negative thought.  And we wouldn't even know what good is either because everything would be same-old same-old,  never changing, and we would always be off in la-la land. Which would also be a bad thing, which God would never allow to happen. 

So we have to have all that is bad so that we can have all that is good, or at least the right to pursue happiness. But what is happiness for some is not or not called happiness to others.  For some of us call evil good, or good evil.

It's really not hard to understand.  But everyone will never agree on everything, including this issue. 

[Ahab]

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I certainly understand WHY people die. We all die at some point.  I don't understand how I can thank God that I am special enough to go to bed at night with my belly full and so many others go to bed at night with their belly empty.

 

And I agree that the world could solve the world hunger problem but for greed, evil political leaders and so on.  So why were you born into a place a time where your belly is always full at night and so many others were not?

Stop and think long enough to answer your questions with the info I've already given to you.

Everybody could be fed with all of the food we have and can grow on this planet. We have the technology to accomplish that right now, regardless of where anyone is on this planet.

Are YOU giving or sending any food to anyone who is starving on this planet?  Or contributing in any way to people who give or send it?

If not, YOU are part of the problem so it is partly your fault.  And yet you can still choose to help if you want to and are able.

[ttribe]

54 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I don't understand all this talk about not understanding why someone has died, or why someone is suffering.   I know there are some cases when we don't know EVERYTHING involved in someone's death or suffering, but generally we can know and understand the reasons why.

Some people died or suffered severe injuries in Belgium recently because some people blew themselves up with some bombs,  with the bombs designed to cause all of that damage. That's why, generally, in that case.

In many parts of the world people often die of starvation, or suffer severe hunger problems,  because they don't eat enough food to sustain their mortal bodies. It's just cause and effect.  If you don't eat well enough your mortal body will die.

Most reasons for death and suffering are easy to understand. Let's cut out the talk about not being able to understand the reasons. 

All you've managed with this post is to provide additional evidence that you lack empathy.  That's a problem, by the way, in case it didn't occur to you.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/stop-walking-eggshells/201201/lack-empathy-the-most-telling-narcissistic-trait

Edited April 7, 2016 by ttribe

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

All you've managed with this post is to provide additional evidence that you lack empathy.  That's a problem, by the way, in case it didn't occur to you.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/stop-walking-eggshells/201201/lack-empathy-the-most-telling-narcissistic-trait

I put my money where my mouth is as much as I am able and by so doing I help to correct the problem in 3 different ways.

Try harder to not bear false witness again. 

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

I put my money where my mouth is as much as I am able and by so doing I help to correct the problem in 3 different ways.

Try harder to not bear false witness again. 

So expressing my observation on the impressions left by your posts is "bearing false witness"?  That's just absurd...and indicative (IMO) of quite a grandiose self-image.  Also, not good.

[Teancum]

16 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Stop and think long enough to answer your questions with the info I've already given to you.

Everybody could be fed with all of the food we have and can grow on this planet. We have the technology to accomplish that right now, regardless of where anyone is on this planet.

Are YOU giving or sending any food to anyone who is starving on this planet?  Or contributing in any way to people who give or send it?

If not, YOU are part of the problem so it is partly your fault.  And yet you can still choose to help if you want to and are able.

Yes Ahab.  You give a generous fast offering and support other local food banks and charities that provide food to those without. 

 

How about you? 

And you ignored my most important question. 

Edited April 7, 2016 by Teancum

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

So expressing my observation on the impressions left by your posts is "bearing false witness"?  That's just absurd...and indicative (IMO) of quite a grandiose self-image.  Also, not good.

When you arrive at a false conclusion about me, yes, it was absurd and not good.

I really don't know if you have a grandiose self-image, though.  Perhaps you arrived at your false conclusion in some other way. 

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

When you arrive at a false conclusion about me, yes, it was absurd and not good.

I really don't know if you have a grandiose self-image, though.  Perhaps you arrived at your false conclusion in some other way. 

A "false conclusion" is not the same thing as "bearing false witness."  But one certainly makes your post sound more in line with scriptural rebukes, right?

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

A "false conclusion" is not the same thing as "bearing false witness."  But one certainly makes your post sound more in line with scriptural rebukes, right?

When you air, as in declare or bear, a false conclusion you have about someone or something, yes, that is exactly what it means to bear a false witness about someone or something.  

The witness was you, and what you said was false,  and you were the one to bear that false witness against me.

Now that you know what it is you were doing, try harder not to do it again. 

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

When you air, as in declare or bear, a false conclusion you have about someone or something, yes, that is exactly what it means to bear a false witness about someone or something.  

The witness was you, and what you said was false,  and you were the one to bear that false witness against me.

Now that you know what it is you were doing, try harder not to do it again. 

Oh well, looks like you don't see any difference between a potential "error" in a declaration, and an intentional lie (which I did not do).  That's okay.  I'm not the least bit surprised at your responses; they are consistent with both my experience and my expectations.

Now, back to your effort to gain control over the narrative in the thread at hand....

Ongoing derail. Poster removed.

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Oh well, looks like you don't see any difference between a potential "error" in a declaration, and an intentional lie (which I did not do).  That's okay.  I'm not the least bit surprised at your responses; they are consistent with both my experience and my expectations.

Now, back to your effort to gain control over the narrative in the thread at hand....

A lie is an intentional misrepresentation, which is why I did not call what you said a lie. I was simply and quickly trying to correct your false witness against me, also asking you not to do that again.

And yes this would be a good time to segway back to the main topic of the thread, which is the problem of evil.

Evil is not a good thing, and those who do things, or say things, that are evil should do something good instead.  

We all have the power to choose what we will do that we can do.

[Vanguard]

23 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think I have been polite in this discussion.  I am only sharing my views and responding to others comments.   I have total respect for those who defer to simple faith even if that does not work for me right now. I think I have said that a few times on this thread,

i am not saying my notion of right or wrong is correct or if there is even a simple notion of right or wrong.  I am trying to reconcile the problem of evil and suffering with what I once believed the attributes of God are.  For me the problem of evil and suffering at least today seem unreconcilable with an involved God of revealed religion.  That's it.  

Does the  analogy of asking if you could save the child in peril you would but understanding if God is real and does not often save the child bother you?  Is it not a fair question?

I don't have any idea what I would do if I were God.  Best I can come up with is how I try to treat my children.  

It seems that somehow my reasoning and comments irritate you.  You seem angry in your post above   I apologize for that.   It is not my intent to make people angry.  This is an issue I think a lot about.  And even pray about.

These are all issues I too have contemplated - who hasn't, right? I remember discussing this very topic with an atheist on a Christian apologetics site several years ago. His position was simply that how can God be considered all-loving when He allows so much tragedy to happen against those who are nor more deserving of it than we are? My response was to ask him what he thought would be more appropriate? Should we expect this all-loving God to eliminate all murdering of innocent children? What about innocent adults? What about rape? What about natural disasters? What about cancer? In other words, where would it stop? And who's line would we use? You can see if we continued down this route and drew this out to its logical conclusion it becomes ridiculous. What about broken arms? How could a loving God permit this? What about depression? Schizophrenia? Anxiety? What about bullying? What about that bad grade I got after I tried so hard? Does he not realize how much emotional torment I put myself through as a result? To make my point I took it to the absurd extreme by suggesting the stubbing of my toe to be evidence that God is indeed not all-loving.

IMO, either we're all in with anything goes or we're all out of the business of any kind of pain/discomfort/discouragement. And if the latter, well then we've gone and turned the entire enterprise on its head haven't we?   

[bluebell]

On April 6, 2016 at 1:13 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This reasoning is fine as far as it goes, but it certainly seems to break down in particular instances and seems to raise as many questions as it answers. How does not helping a mother find her trapped kids in the trunk of a car create any greater good at all? If God helps the mother's neighbor find her car keys, but decides not to intervene the case of trapped children, it seems like there ought to be a very good reason. If we understood this reason, then we could say that we have the answer to the problem of evil. 

The thread that Canard started yesterday on the the cyclone in Fiji (specifically Hamba's sharing of the feelings of an elder he's currently serving with who's from Fiji) is an example of how God does sometimes (often maybe?) give reasons for the 'whys' of life, and for those who are able to see those answers, the problem of evil, at least in that specific experience, has been answered.

[Bobbieaware]

On April 7, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Gray said:

The BOM seems to indicate that there are principles that God is forced to follow, or else cease to be God. But either way, the problem of evil remains 

There is not a problem of evil, there is a reality of evil. This is how it all boils down: The prophet Lehi tells us the reason why there is an existence (as opposed to total non-existence) is because there is INFINITE freedom of choice within a framework of diametric opposition in all the principles of existence.

This opposition that exists within the framework of reality is not, and cannot, be s proximate or near opposition in all things, but it must needs be an infinitely diametric opposition in all things. Otherwise, as Lehi testifies, all things would vanish into non-existences, an that includes God himself. 

For instance, in opposition to God's infinite and eternally perfect love, there exists the neverending reality a destructive hatred that is as perfectly implacable, sadistic and maximally vicious as is God's perfect healing love. It's the same with the eternal principles of justice and mercy. God's justice and mercy are infinitely and eternally perfect, inspired and sustained by the purest of eternally altruistic motives, while a perfectly evil and infinitely destructive spirit of injustice and mercilessness exists in polar opposition to God"s perfectly healing justice and mercy. And what about pleasure? Lehi tells us that in order for perfect heavenly pleasure to exist, there must be the unpleasent reality of unimaginable agony set up in neverending opposition to perfect heavenly pleasure.

Then, most significantly, Lehi goes on to tell us that God cannot, even in the slightest, tamper with this reality affirmed on infinite the eternal principle opposition in all things without causing himself, and all other things, to vanish into total non-existence. But this is where the war in heaven comes into sharp focus. I believe it's likely the adversary, and those who followed him, believed it was possible, and most desirable, to attempt to create a reality in which diametric opposition in all things would no longer exist, and this so that the test of mortality would not have to risk horrors by only allowing what you call "instructive opposition" to exist. But God, and those who followed him (and that includes you), knew that the delicate balance of infinite opposition could not be tampered with without destroying the fullness of free agency and destabilizing, and ultimately destroying, the foundations of reality. So those who opposed reality, the existence of God, and the full expression of free agency were cast out and damned.

So here we are in the only reality that can exist -- the reality of infinite and eternal opposition in all things. A reality where the worst horrors and the greatest joys are possible. And, like it or not, it's the only reality that can exist. But God shows us that he not only talks the talk but walks the walk by sending his only begotten Son into the world to suffer the combined horrors of all us to show us that even Gethsemanic and Golgothic experiences can be for our own good and eternal happiness. And even though Christ initially shrank from experiencing these horrors, he now tells us they were his divinely appointed gateway to the fullness of eternal joy and love.

And finally, in the pre-earth life we were thoroughly apprised of the solemn fact that we could face those unspeakable horrors while dwelling in this fallen state. Yet we all agreed to come here and shouted for joy at the prospect. We wanted to come here even though we knew the test of mortality could be a grueling and even shockingly horrific test. But come we did because we believed our Father when he promised us that it would all be worth it in the end.

But the war in heaven continues as the adversary tries, in a new realm, to convince the sons and daughters of men that God is unjust for upholding and sustaining the only reality, and viable test for spiritual growth experience, that can exist. We are free to to continue to rage against the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or we can find peace by choosing to believe God really does know best.

 

Edited April 13, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[Gray]

20 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

There is not a problem of evil, there is a reality of evil. This is how it all boils down: The prophet Lehi tells us the reason why there is an existence (as opposed to total non-existence) is because there is INFINITE freedom of choice within a framework of diametric opposition in all the principles of existence.

This opposition that exists within the framework of reality is not, and cannot, be s proximate or near opposition in all things, but it must needs be an infinitely diametric opposition in all things. Otherwise, as Lehi testifies, all things would vanish into non-existences, an that includes God himself. 

For instance, in opposition to God's infinite and eternally perfect love, there exists the neverending reality a destructive hatred that is as perfectly implacable, sadistic and maximally vicious as is God's perfect healing love. It's the same with the eternal principles of justice and mercy. God's justice and mercy are infinitely and eternally perfect, inspired and sustained by the purest of eternally altruistic motives, while a perfectly evil and infinitely destructive spirit of injustice and mercilessness exists in polar opposition to God"s perfectly healing justice and mercy. And what about pleasure? Lehi tells us that in order for perfect heavenly pleasure to exist, there must be the unpleasent reality of unimaginable agony set up in neverending opposition to perfect heavenly pleasure.

Then, most significantly, Lehi goes on to tell us that God cannot, even in the slightest, tamper with this reality affirmed on infinite the eternal principle opposition in all things without causing himself, and all other things, to vanish into total non-existence. But this is where the war in heaven comes into sharp focus. I believe it's likely the adversary, and those who followed him, believed it was possible, and most desirable, to attempt to create a reality in which diametric opposition in all things would no longer exist, and this so that the test of mortality would not have to risk horrors by only allowing what you call "instructive opposition" to exist. But God, and those who followed him (and that includes you), knew that the delicate balance of infinite opposition could not be tampered with without destroying the fullness of free agency and destabilizing, and ultimately destroying, the foundations of reality. So those who opposed reality, the existence of God, and the full expression of free agency were cast out and damned.

So here we are in the only reality that can exist -- the reality of infinite and eternal opposition in all things. A reality where the worst horrors and the greatest joys are possible. And, like it or not, it's the only reality that can exist. But God shows us that he not only talks the talk but walks the walk by sending his only begotten Son into the world to suffer the combined horrors of all us to show us that even Gethsemanic and Golgothic experiences can be for our own good and eternal happiness. And even though Christ initially shrank from experiencing these horrors, he now tells us they were his divinely appointed gateway to the fullness of eternal joy and love.

And finally, in the pre-earth life we were thoroughly apprised of the solemn fact that we could face those unspeakable horrors while dwelling in this fallen state. Yet we all agreed to come here and shouted for joy at the prospect. We wanted to come here even though we knew the test of mortality could be a grueling and even shockingly horrific test. But come we did because we believed our Father when he promised us that it would all be worth it in the end.

But the war in heaven continues as the adversary tries, in a new realm, to convince the sons and daughters of men that God is unjust for upholding and sustaining the only reality, and viable test for spiritual growth experience, that can exist. We are free to to continue to rage against the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or we can find peace by choosing to believe God really does know best.

 

Thanks for this well thought out post. I think you make a fair point about agency and good and evil, and God not being able to tamper with the order of the universe. If the answer to the problem of evil is to say that God cannot intervene without destroying everything or without ceasing to God, that's valid. However, in the LDS tradition we have many stories (including stories in scripture) of God directly intervening in very dramatic ways, including interfering with human agency. How can this be squared with your interesting thoughts about not tampering with the nature of reality?