The existence of evil

[Meerkat]

On 10/30/2017 at 7:14 AM, changed said:

The trouble with the "have to be tested" argument: Why are some people tested more than others?  Why are some people tested beyond their limits of endurance?  Why are some people sent to outer darkness by their tests, while others are given easy tests which allow them to enter the celestial kingdom?  

We don't know who is sent to outer darkness.  Mortality isn't the end of our curriculum.  We don't understand all the circumstances surrounding the tragedies we observe in life.  I believe much will be resolved by Christ, as described in 1 Peter 3: "18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. "  The work if redemption goes on beyond this veil of tears.

Consider Job, "a perfect man," and his trials: "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will maintain mine own ways before him.  He also shall be my salvation: for an hypocrite shall not come before him."  No matter how hard it gets, we each have a choice.  I believe the statement "God will give us the greatest reward and the least punishment that we deserve."  If you and I can comprehend that some circumstances are not fair, our merciful Father is far more fair minded, compassionate and understanding than we are.  He will make all things right in the end.  He has an eternity to work with us.  It may only take us an aeon or two to work past the worst issues we dealt with in our time on earth.  Maybe the compassion we are called upon to learn is much deeper than we realized.

[Meerkat]

On 10/31/2017 at 2:48 PM, smac97 said:

You mean "means" other than one's personal preferences?  Well, the Judeo-Christian ethic is a biggie.  And for Latter-day Saints, we also lay claim to revelatory guidance through personal revelation, and also prophets and apostles.

But what do you say when you come across an individual who feels good about the same things you think are "evil?"  

Again, when you come across an individual who feels that adultery is "beautiful?"  Or theft?  Or sucker-punching random strangers on the streets of New York?  Is the person who enjoys doing these things justified?  Can he simply say "Hey, I think beating on people I dislike is a good thing.  It makes me feel good.  It's cathartic"?  

Okay.  So what "experiment" do you use?  How do you distinguish "good" from "evil?"

Thanks,

-Smac

We don't know why people do things.  An all knowing Father can look past the apparent circumstances and put it in context.  Maybe a person is bi-polar, and gets the idea the best thing to do is jump off a bridge, or step out in front of a car.  Does he take into account the potential lifelong PTSD of the driver who killed him?  Probably not.  People on all sides of tragedies should be learning things.  Fortunately, our job isn't to judge the ultimate outcome of anyone, only to learn from what we see and do.

Do you have regrets for anything you have done?  I do.  And I have been and am being educated by those regrets.  How severe are your regrets?  How old were you when that remorse settled in on you?  We musn't turn from God because of the severity of other people's trials.  We must learn from them and try to see them through the lens of compassion through which God sees us.

[clarkgoble]

On 11/4/2017 at 7:07 AM, Gray said:

I think Mormonism at least has a less problematic God regarding this issue than most theisms that have a God capable of intervening. If the stories in scripture of God's dramatic intervention in the world were to be understood as metaphor, and it was said that God was powerless to intervene, then the problem would be solved.

Well I think Mormonism just expands upon the "there's a purpose to all this" and comes up with a pretty compelling idea that gives the outlines of an explanation. Instead of humans being made for God to praise him, God's whole plan is saving humans as best he can. God's all powerful but still limited in key ways so the only way he can help people develop is by providing experiences for them. Further he only does this if they want it. i.e. we have to choose to come to this world, having seen the sorts of things that went on in similar worlds before. 

As someone else noted, it's not a fully informed choice since we've not lived quite as finite as that before. But I think it's a sufficiently explained choice that we're able to take the risk. (Almost by definition any risk isn't fully informed if it's a risk for a new experience -- yet in practice we don't say such choices aren't free)

The big question for accepting this model is whether we have good reasons to think these types of experiences are necessary, as I mentioned earlier. So it's not a total answer to the problem of evil but it's a better answer than I think anyone else can give.

On 11/4/2017 at 7:16 AM, Gray said:

But they're pretty dominant in mainstream western theism, right?

Yes, nearly universally the Greek conceptions shape the intellectual conception of pantheism in the west - even those sorts arising out of earlier religious traditions. That doesn't mean the platonic or stoic conceptions are embraced wholeheartedly. But the reasons of calling the universe (or it's soul) God arise out of such concerns. Otherwise typically people just call it panpsychism (if they think an element of mind perfuses the universe but prefer to not call that God for various reasons).

Quote

My theology is meaningful to me, and I don't need it broadcast from a conscious being out in the universe somewhere for it to be "real". Sacredness and the spiritual are very real to me, but those terms also don't have any supernatural or quazi-supernatural connotations for me.

I should note the idea of an atheistic spiritualism is becoming more popular. I personally question what "spiritual" means in this context. Although from the people I've read defending it (it's becoming popular among atheist scientists) there is a loose similarity to more deistic or theistic conceptions. I suspect Buddhism as an influence is becoming pronounced here.

So I hope you don't take me as criticizing your view. I certainly don't intend that. I can appreciate it. I was more just confused over what you meant.

Quote

Mormonism isn't totally free from Greek influence either - there's a lot of it in the NT, which of course influences our own notions about the soul and increasingly about the nature of God.

Oh, and I've actually written a fair bit on this. I think there's at least similarities to certain aspects of neoplatonism, albeing changed quite a bit. My main problem with greek influence was the Christians trying to reconcile the greek absolutism with the still somewhat personal God of the old testament. But despite Mormons frequently condemning greek thought as the source of the apostasy there's a lot of greek though in Mormon thought. Indeed as I think I've mentioned Orson Pratt's theology is basically a stoic conception of God - perhaps due to reading how Tertullian was a materialist and embracing elements of Tertullian's thought. (It's not quite clear where Pratt got his ideas - he was mainly exposed to the Scottish Realists - the the similarity to the Stoics along with elements of Spinoza and Priestly is undeniable)

[changed]

On 11/4/2017 at 2:35 PM, pogi said:

I am not avoiding anything.  I am trying to understand what you think is moral or not.  Is it always and absolutely immoral, or not, to allow someone to suffer when one has the power to intervene?  My question is, is that absolutely true? Without knowing the answer to that question, and how it applies to us, how can you judge God?  The concept of judging God makes me laugh!

I have already explained God’s role in suffering through the atonement.  To which I hear no response from anyone.  How could there NOT be a purpose to it if God himself chose to suffer with us instead of alleviating all suffering?

god did not suffer with us (unless you believe in the trinity).  Jesus suffered, not god.  

[changed]

9 hours ago, Meerkat said:

We don't know who is sent to outer darkness.  Mortality isn't the end of our curriculum.  We don't understand all the circumstances surrounding the tragedies we observe in life.  I believe much will be resolved by Christ, as described in 1 Peter 3: "18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. "  The work if redemption goes on beyond this veil of tears.

Consider Job, "a perfect man," and his trials: "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will maintain mine own ways before him.  He also shall be my salvation: for an hypocrite shall not come before him."  No matter how hard it gets, we each have a choice.  I believe the statement "God will give us the greatest reward and the least punishment that we deserve."  If you and I can comprehend that some circumstances are not fair, our merciful Father is far more fair minded, compassionate and understanding than we are.  He will make all things right in the end.  He has an eternity to work with us.  It may only take us an aeon or two to work past the worst issues we dealt with in our time on earth.  Maybe the compassion we are called upon to learn is much deeper than we realized.

he does not make all things right in the end.  If outer darkness exists, if anything other than the celestial kingdom exists, it is not all made right in the end.  I would never be happy in heaven knowing there was a hell, could you?  

[pogi]

1 hour ago, changed said:

god did not suffer with us (unless you believe in the trinity).  Jesus suffered, not god.  

Jesus is not the Father, but he is God the Son, our Creator and member of the Godhead.  He is one in heart, mind, and purpose with the Father.  He is the one who, after hearing the plan said “here am I, send me.”  Why would he do that if there was no purpose to it?  Was Jesus duped into some meaningless atonement for our suffering?  And why would God the Father allow it?  Do you think he enjoyed watching Christ suffer?  No, the Father suffered in Christ’s suffering and in our suffering as well...as any Father would.

”knowers thou the condescension of God? (1 Nephi 11)”

“God himself shall come down among the children of men...(Mosiah 15).”

Jesus is God and willingly came down and suffered with us.

Edited November 6, 2017 by pogi

[Bobbieaware]

2 hours ago, changed said:

he does not make all things right in the end.  If outer darkness exists, if anything other than the celestial kingdom exists, it is not all made right in the end.  I would never be happy in heaven knowing there was a hell, could you?  

According to the immutable law that speaks to the necessity of there having to be diametric opposition in all things otherwise there is no existence, heaven cannot exist without there also being a hell. Additionally, those who exist in hell are there because THEY WANT TO BE THERE and have not even the slightest desire to enter any of the kingdoms of glory. And because the law of moral agency is also eternal and immutable God must allow those who want to exist in hell to have their wish  granted for, according to the laws of heaven, he can force no man to do anything he doesn’t want to do — so the sons of perdition get their wish.

31 And also they who are quickened by a portion of the telestial glory shall then receive of the same, even a fulness.

32 And they who remain (the sons of perdition) shall also be quickened; nevertheless, they shall return again to their own place, to enjoy that which they are willing to receive, because they were not willing to enjoy that which they might have received.

33 For what doth it profit a man if a gift is bestowed upon him, and he receive not the gift? Behold, he rejoices not in that which is given unto him, neither rejoices in him who is the giver of the gift.

In the sense that everybody gets exactly what they desire and are prepared to receive, all things are made as right as they can properly be made to be in the end, while simultaneously holding inviolable the law of moral agency. And remember, it’s because Lucifer and the 1/3 host wanted to abolish hell out of existence — something that cannot be if there is to be an existence —  that they were cast out of heaven. Like so many unrealistic progressives out there (I’m not saying you necessarily are one) you appear to make an unrealistic desire for a virtually compelled perfection the enemy of the good.

Edited November 6, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[changed]

9 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

According to the immutable law that speaks to the necessity of there having to be diametric opposition in all things otherwise there is no existence, heaven cannot exist without there also being a hell. Additionally, those who exist in hell are there because THEY WANT TO BE THERE and have not even the slightest desire to enter any of the kingdoms of glory. And because the law of moral agency is also eternal and immutable God must allow those who want to exist in hell to have their wish  granted for, according to the laws of heaven, he can force no man to do anything he doesn’t want to do — so the sons of perdition get their wish.

31 And also they who are quickened by a portion of the telestial glory shall then receive of the same, even a fulness.

32 And they who remain (the sons of perdition) shall also be quickened; nevertheless, they shall return again to their own place, to enjoy that which they are willing to receive, because they were not willing to enjoy that which they might have received.

33 For what doth it profit a man if a gift is bestowed upon him, and he receive not the gift? Behold, he rejoices not in that which is given unto him, neither rejoices in him who is the giver of the gift.

In the sense that everybody gets exactly what they desire and are prepared to receive, all things are made as right as they can properly be made to be in the end, while simultaneously holding inviolable the law of moral agency. And remember, it’s because Lucifer and the 1/3 host wanted to abolish hell out of existence — something that cannot be if there is to be an existence —  that they were cast out of heaven. Like so many unrealistic progressives out there (I’m not saying you necessarily are one) you appear to make an unrealistic desire for a virtually compelled perfection the enemy of the good.

no one wants to be in hell.  

some are "chosen" others are shunned. it's a caste system, with some who are favored and others who are cast into darkness.  

you did not answer the question - you are perfectly happy in heaven, while knowing others are miserable and suffering for eternity in hell?  I guess you did answer the question - you have no love for others, do not care that they are in hell, and so you can be perfectly happy in heaven.

[Bobbieaware]

24 minutes ago, changed said:

no one wants to be in hell.  

some are "chosen" others are shunned. it's a caste system, with some who are favored and others who are cast into darkness.  

you did not answer the question - you are perfectly happy in heaven, while knowing others are miserable and suffering for eternity in hell?  I guess you did answer the question - you have no love for others, do not care that they are in hell, and so you can be perfectly happy in heaven.

When one is unfamiliar with the scriptures, or misunderstands them, he is subject to falling into all sorts or erronius thinking. What follows is a description from the scriptures of how the Lord and the inhabitants of heaven feel about the fate of those who are thrust in hell. It doesn’t sound like they’re happy or indifferent about it.

28 And it came to pass that the God of heaven looked upon the residue of the people (those who were being thrust into hell) and he wept; and Enoch bore record of it, saying: How is it that the heavens (the inhabitants of heaven) weep, and shed forth their tears as the rain upon the mountains?

29 And Enoch said unto the Lord: How is it that thou canst weep, seeing thou art holy, and from all eternity to all eternity? (Moses 7)

[Calm]

1 hour ago, changed said:

no one wants to be in hell.  

some are "chosen" others are shunned. it's a caste system, with some who are favored and others who are cast into darkness.  

you did not answer the question - you are perfectly happy in heaven, while knowing others are miserable and suffering for eternity in hell?  I guess you did answer the question - you have no love for others, do not care that they are in hell, and so you can be perfectly happy in heaven.

Have you ever read The Great Divorce by CS Lewis?  I don't agree with all of it (for example I don't believe anyone ends up there forever unless outer darkness is something along those lines of those who move further out away from anyone because the only company they want is themselves), but I think its depiction of hell is about as close as we mortals can imagine it.  It is not Hell because of what God does to people, it is hell because of what the people choose for themselves (what they choose to think, desire such as to control others, how they choose to interact or not interact).  Essentially they refuse to look at existence from any other way than their self centerness even though God gives them endless chances to see others living a different, more loving, joyous way and choosing to change themselves.

No one is cast into outer darkness in my opinion, they walk into it willingly because the other choice requires them to open themselves up to others.  No one who reaches out to God is shunned.  They may not be ready to enter his presence fully but he provides ways, including limiting his presence to what people can endure, so they can move closer and closer until they are as near to him as they desire, even to the point of becoming fully one with him as Christ has.

LDS doctrine on hell is significantly different than mainstream Christianity.

No one suffers for eternity in hell (that part of Spirit Prison where people who have chosen to distance themselves from God, refuse to accept the Gospel once they are taught and understand it) .  They are either redeemed through Christ, suffer for themselves till purified and end up in the glorious Telestial Kingdom (and perhaps are able to progress to the Celestial Kingdom even then according to some church authorities such as Talmage iirc), or they end up by their own choice in outer darkness which we have no clue about nor do we know their ultimate fate (according to Brigham Young iirc).

A parent may sorrow for the children who refuse to come home, but for God that will be very, very few even if some don't choose to move into the main house, but decide to live a distance from the heart of the family.  The very few that choose to completely turn their back on the family no matter how accommodating the family is willing to be (the family cannot become what they are not though, which is what those seeking outer darkness demand if they are to stay with the others...they demand God to cease to exist, at least as God), those that end up in outer darkness, I do believe God in his love sorrows for their loss and what might have been.  But the only way he can bring them out of outer darkness is to change who they are.  

Would you give your kids a lobotomy if that was the only way you could get them to love you or would you allow them to be who they want to be?

You may believe that God could find a way to force everyone to love him while they still remain who they fundamentally are.  I don't believe modern revelation allows for that, but instead it has been revealed that freedom to be who we are means God must be willing to let us go as his other option is to change us into shells of who we are.

Edited November 6, 2017 by Calm