The existence of evil

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It seems that Judeo-Christian thinking does not do this.  Rather, it posits that "good" and "evil" are defined by God, not by individual "subjective determinations."  

 

Butting in, please ignore if needed.

Does God define all good and evil?  Or is it not up to each individual to essentially take the principles (as in found in scripture or elsewhere) and define his/her own way.  If it were God speaking loudly to us regarding each situation defining good and evil, then you'd have a point.  But that's not how it works.  It is individuals in their subjective way, often using outside resources (like scripture) to help each of us make our decisions regarding what's good and evil.  Most of humanity wants something good, we each though, subjectively go about accomplishing it differently, taking different steps, often doing questionable things. 

[Bernard Gui]

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Free will is not the ability to choose your circumstances. Being raped is not a violation of one’s free will.

Who is getting these easy tests you speak of besides maybe children who die before accountability? I have never met anyone whose life I would consider easy in the sense of quickly achieving eternal life.

At a recent addiction recovery support group, someone asked, “Is anyone in here willing to swap their trials for anyone else’s trials?” There were no takers, but a lot of laughs.

My sufferings brought about by the evils of addiction have taught me lessons I don’t believe I could have learned any other way. Oh....”Is there any other way?” Isn’t it better that we pass through sorrows?

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Butting in, please ignore if needed.

Does God define all good and evil?  Or is it not up to each individual to essentially take the principles (as in found in scripture or elsewhere) and define his/her own way.  If it were God speaking loudly to us regarding each situation defining good and evil, then you'd have a point.  But that's not how it works.  It is individuals in their subjective way, often using outside resources (like scripture) to help each of us make our decisions regarding what's good and evil.  Most of humanity wants something good, we each though, subjectively go about accomplishing it differently, taking different steps, often doing questionable things. 

I think it works both ways and just depends on how a person is looking at the issue.  

Like you said, because we are left to determine for ourselves what God has outlined as good and evil, the process is subjective.  However, ultimately, there will be a reckoning of sorts where we will be 'graded' on our ability have determined what was good and evil correctly.  God is the authority on what actually is good and evil, and that's not at all subjective.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

At a recent addiction recovery support group, someone asked, “Is anyone in here willing to swap their trials for anyone else’s trials?” There were no takers, but a lot of laughs.

My sufferings brought about by the evils of addiction have taught me lessons I don’t believe I could have learned any other way. Oh....”Is there any other way?” Isn’t it better that we pass through sorrows?

"The devil you know is better than the devil you don't."

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Butting in, please ignore if needed.

Does God define all good and evil? 

According to Joseph Smith, yes:

Quote

God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said, "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.

I am comfortable with this concept, even though it leaves plenty of room for interpretation.

Right out of high school I went into the Army.  I was trained in how to use weapons to kill other people.  I was willing to cede the decision about the morality of killing to my superior officers (within constraints, of course).  Fortunately, I was never actually called upon to inflict death upon another person.  I have great compassion and empathy for those who are so called upon.

My point is this: We as a society are fine with letting political and military and law enforcement leaders decide when killing other people is okay.  If I can reconcile myself with living in such a society, then ceding authority to prophets, seers and revelators to provide guidance on spiritual matters is pretty much a walk in the park.

27 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Or is it not up to each individual to essentially take the principles (as in found in scripture or elsewhere) and define his/her own way. 

I'm not sure I follow.  Peter counseled us that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

So I think I would put it this way: "It is up to each individual to essentially take the principles (as found in scripture or elsewhere) and, through study and faith and discussion and in counsel with those that are in authority, define his/her own way in the hope that this way is congruent with God's will."

27 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If it were God speaking loudly to us regarding each situation defining good and evil, then you'd have a point.  But that's not how it works.  It is individuals in their subjective way, often using outside resources (like scripture) to help each of us make our decisions regarding what's good and evil.  Most of humanity wants something good, we each though, subjectively go about accomplishing it differently, taking different steps, often doing questionable things. 

Yep.  I think we humans are way too adept at rationalization and equivocation.  For example, I have been amazed and appalled at how hard some of us work at rationalizing circumvention of the Law of Chastity to fit "his/her own way."  This is why personal revelation and study should generally be paired with counsel from past and present prophets and apostles.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Brother Bear]

36 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Butting in, please ignore if needed.

Does God define all good and evil?  Or is it not up to each individual to essentially take the principles (as in found in scripture or elsewhere) and define his/her own way.  If it were God speaking loudly to us regarding each situation defining good and evil, then you'd have a point.  But that's not how it works.  It is individuals in their subjective way, often using outside resources (like scripture) to help each of us make our decisions regarding what's good and evil.  Most of humanity wants something good, we each though, subjectively go about accomplishing it differently, taking different steps, often doing questionable things. 

I agree with you. As a poster noted on another thread (discussing a different but ultimately similar discussion) the litmus test is our own tasting of the fruit to see if it tastes good to us. Whether we say that something is good or bad because God said so, or that things are good or bad regardless of what God says, or some other reason is irrelevant IMO. I don't think I can know those things. But I think I can know whether certain beliefs "taste" good to me. 

[stemelbow]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it works both ways and just depends on how a person is looking at the issue.  

Like you said, because we are left to determine for ourselves what God has outlined as good and evil, the process is subjective.  However, ultimately, there will be a reckoning of sorts where we will be 'graded' on our ability have determined what was good and evil correctly.  God is the authority on what actually is good and evil, and that's not at all subjective.

I think we'll be surprised someday, after all of this.  We'll be able to see that which we thought was good was actually not so good.  I also think God resides in the gray.  He allows us to work it out ourselves, as we try and reconcile between good and evil, and will be less about judging based on whether we figured it out and more on what came of us in our hearts.  I'd guess there'll be some subjectivity in it all.  I don't know that He's as concerned about absolutes as we tend to think of HIm to be. 

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

I agree with you. As a poster noted on another thread (discussing a different but ultimately similar discussion) the litmus test is our own tasting of the fruit to see if it tastes good to us. Whether we say that something is good or bad because God said so, or that things are good or bad regardless of what God says, or some other reason is irrelevant IMO. I don't think I can know those things. But I think I can know whether certain beliefs "taste" good to me. 

exactly.

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

According to Joseph Smith, yes:

I am comfortable with this concept, even though it leaves plenty of room for interpretation.

and

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure I follow.  Peter counseled us that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

Scripture is only private interpretation.  It is nothing else.  I'm not sure what he has in mind when he references "prophecy of the scripture". 

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So I think I would put it this way: "It is up to each individual to essentially take the principles (as found in scripture or elsewhere) and, through study and faith and discussion and in counsel with those that are in authority, define his/her own way in the hope that this way is congruent with God's will."

Yep.  I think we humans are way too adept at rationalization and equivocation.  For example, I have been amazed and appalled at how hard some of us work at rationalizing circumvention of the Law of Chastity to fit "his/her own way."  This is why personal revelation and study should generally be paired with counsel from past and present prophets and apostles.

Thanks,

-Smac

Not sure what more to say.  Sounds like you have helped the case that it's all subjective, as practiced int his world. 

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Scripture is only private interpretation.  It is nothing else. 

I think Latter-day Saints are bound by more than their "private interpretation" of scripture.  The General Authorities, particularly the Presiding High Priest, has authority which trumps mine.

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure what he has in mind when he references "prophecy of the scripture". 

Not sure what more to say.  Sounds like you have helped the case that it's all subjective, as practiced int his world. 

"Subjective" means:

Quote

1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).
2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual:
a subjective evaluation.
3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.

I had thought we were referencing definition #2.  That being the case, no, it's not "all subjective."  Judeo-Christian Ethics are not based on "whatever you as an individual feel is right or wrong at any point in time."  Rather, good and evil are determined by God, and in the LDS paradigm, that means such determinations are made by the individual not through his personal preferences, but rather through scriptures, personal revelation, and guidance from living prophets and apostles.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[clarkgoble]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

According to Joseph Smith, yes:

God having a correct judgment about evil we can trust is not the same as defining or making good and evil.

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think we'll be surprised someday, after all of this.  We'll be able to see that which we thought was good was actually not so good.  I also think God resides in the gray.  He allows us to work it out ourselves, as we try and reconcile between good and evil, and will be less about judging based on whether we figured it out and more on what came of us in our hearts.  I'd guess there'll be some subjectivity in it all.  I don't know that He's as concerned about absolutes as we tend to think of HIm to be. 

To me, gray, when used in conjunction with the ideas of good (white) and evil (black), implies a mixture of the two.  I don't see how God could reside in the gray, when understood in that way.  

But if we are talking about human definitions of good and evil, then I agree that we are probably rarely completely correct and that some of what is actually good or evil, we currently consider to be in the wrong camp to some degree or another.  

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

God having a correct judgment about evil we can trust is not the same as defining or making good and evil.

I think it is.  God "judging" something as good or evil seems to be equivalent to God "defining" something as good or evil.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Bobbieaware]

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

The trouble with the "free will" argument - god does not protect the free will of victims.  When it is a question of God allowing a rapist to rape someone, or God allowing the victim to protect themselves,  God chooses to protect the rights of the rapist  There is no free will for victims.  

The trouble with the "evil is educational" argument:  If you want to learn something, say to learn what "love" is, who/what would be the best way to teach this lesson?  Aparently god believes the best way to teach 20% of women and children what love is, is to allow them to be repeatedly raped and abused.  This has been my experience - and I am not making up the 20% number, that is what the percentage is for US college students ... the numbers are higher in other countries.  

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?  

 

What seems at first blush to be an exceedingly difficult issue to satisfactorily resolve is actually a very simple one to explain.

In order for existence to have any meaning and purpose there must be an allowance made for the existence of evil, in all its ugly manifestations, set up in eternal opposition to goodness. In 2 Nephi 2, the prophet Lehi testifies that without evil there can be no existence, and without the freedom to chose to participate in ultimate evil the can be no ultimate goodness (God). Therefore, if we are going to live in the real universe we must realize there must be an allowance for ultimate evil, otherwise ultimate good cannot exist as its diametric opposite and there can be no God.

So we are left with two basic choices: 1) Refuse to believe there is a God and surrender to the idea that existence is filled with injustices and terrible injuries that will never be judged, redressed nor healed. Or 2) Believe there is a God who has no choice but to allow evil to exist in all its hideous expressions (otherwise there is no existence), but because God is ultimately good and because he has all power he will ultimately judge and redress all evil and heal all those who have been i injured thereby. Either way the world remains just as it is, but the unbelievers are left disconsolate and  without hope,  while at the same time the believers in the restored gospel can lay hold on the bright hope that the God of infinite and eternal power and goodness will win in the end every single time.

 Any discussion beyond the above basic realities will only serve to muddy the waters — a fruitless and frustrating endeavor of forever learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth. 

Edited October 31, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Gray]

20 hours ago, pogi said:

That is not true.  It is not evil to suffer.  They are not the same.  The mother giving birth to a child suffers pain - that is not evil.  The child being born suffers pain, that is not evil.  Suffering is what life is made of, and life is not evil.  It is true that suffering can be the cause and result of evil, but that suffering does not equate to evil.  Innocent people suffer because of evil, but that does not make them evil. 

You're reframing this to mean "ordinary" suffering, but that's not taking into account the full spectrum of human suffering. 

[Gray]

20 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Sorry. I should have learned to shutup going through all that. My bad. I've made that mistake a few times here. My apologies.

Roughly the point is that when people called the universe God, they were making a claim based upon certain attributes of God. The problem for a pantheist is that calling the universe God carries with in assumptions about what the universe has to be like. This has a very, very long history in the west from ancient times up through modern times. So to call oneself a pantheist is to be making claims about what the universe is like.

The reason this entails the problem of evil is that evils in the universe can undermine the claim the universe is God in the same way that evils in the universe can undermine claims there's an interventionist God controlling the universe. Merely saying the universe isn't conscious doesn't really avoid that problem.

No need to apologize!

Okay, according to my personal pantheism, which says:

• God = the totality everything that exists
• God is not a conscious being with agency
• God does not speak or think
• Consciousness is an emergent property of discrete parts of the universe, namely in human beings, but these conscious beings have limited power/agency 

Where does this God become on the hook for the problem of evil, keeping in mind that this God is not  omnibenevolent, omniscient, or omnipotent. If this God is on the hook, does this make the universe on the hook for evil, even if you don't choose to call the universe God? 

 

 

 

Edited October 31, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

So how is God different from a planet, or a chair, or a hydrogen atom?

Only different in scope. God is everything that exists. The planet or chair or atom are a part of God. 

[Gray]

18 hours ago, Brother Bear said:

I think many who accept the premises of the problem of evil can find a sufficient resolution by believing that all things work together for our good, that God does nothing save it be for our good, and that all that unfair in this life will be made right through Christ's atonement. Whether those ideas work for you is a separate, personal matter. 

A big part of Jesus' message is that God will eventually dry the tears of the just. That doesn't make it so that those tears never happened, however, so I don't think that can answer the problem. 

[Gray]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

But that is the very point of LDS theology:  Beings have always existed.  Existence did not have a beginning, but describes infinity -- an infinite regress of gods, and intelligences coeternal with the gods.

Gods always existed, but they weren't always Gods, right? Each God has an origin story before they became a God. 

[Gray]

12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

How so? Is there any redemption, compensation, forgiveness, retribution, justice, mercy, in your form? As DEATH says in a Terry Pratchett‘s somewhat pantheistic Discworld,  THERE IS NO JUSTICE. THERE IS JUST ME.”

The problem of evil is not, "evil is a problem." The problem of evil is: "God is all knowing, all good and all powerful. Why doesn't he stop the evil?" Without a God that looks like that, the problem of evil doesn't exist. Essentially the problem of evil is an inconsistency between the state of the world and a theology that implies the world should actually be different. 

Bonus points for the Discworld reference though. 

Edited October 31, 2017 by Gray

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Brother Bear said:

I agree with you. As a poster noted on another thread (discussing a different but ultimately similar discussion) the litmus test is our own tasting of the fruit to see if it tastes good to us. Whether we say that something is good or bad because God said so, or that things are good or bad regardless of what God says, or some other reason is irrelevant IMO. I don't think I can know those things. But I think I can know whether certain beliefs "taste" good to me. 

So randomly beating strangers to a pulp is "good" as long as it passes the foregoing litmus test.  Same with murder.  Theft.  Kidnapping.  Rape.  Any conceivable act can pass this "if it feels good, do it" litmus test.

Which means that the test does not seem very useful in differentiating good from evil, after all.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think Latter-day Saints are bound by more than their "private interpretation" of scripture.  The General Authorities, particularly the Presiding High Priest, has authority which trumps mine.

Not for you.  You still have the authority to reject any interpretation they offer. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

"Subjective" means:

I had thought we were referencing definition #2.  That being the case, no, it's not "all subjective."  Judeo-Christian Ethics are not based on "whatever you as an individual feel is right or wrong at any point in time."  Rather, good and evil are determined by God, and in the LDS paradigm, that means such determinations are made by the individual not through his personal preferences, but rather through scriptures, personal revelation, and guidance from living prophets and apostles.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Ok. Not all subjective.  But in each case an individual's determination through scripture, personal revelation, and guidance from living prophets (particularly since we are free to decide what we want and don't want) is a subjective determination. 

[stemelbow]

57 minutes ago, bluebell said:

To me, gray, when used in conjunction with the ideas of good (white) and evil (black), implies a mixture of the two.  I don't see how God could reside in the gray, when understood in that way.  

But if we are talking about human definitions of good and evil, then I agree that we are probably rarely completely correct and that some of what is actually good or evil, we currently consider to be in the wrong camp to some degree or another.  

I'm not seeing what you mean.  But that's ok.  I'm happy enough to consider we disagree in part and move on. 

[Gray]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I was taking the issue seriously, but I also was too pugnacious in my remarks to you.  I apologize.

Thanks,

-Smac

I really appreciate that Smac, thank you

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, Gray said:

The problem of evil is not, "evil is a problem." The problem of evil is: "God is all knowing, all good and all powerful. Why doesn't he stop the evil?"

He does "stop the evil."

• "These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." (John 16:33)
• "For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith." (1 John 5:4)
• "Fear not, little children, for you are mine, and I have overcome the world, and you are of them that my Father hath given me.  And none of them that my Father hath given me shall be lost."  (D&C 50:41-42)
• "He that is faithful and endureth shall overcome the world." (D&C 63:47)
• "When he shall deliver up the kingdom, and present it unto the Father, spotless, saying: I have overcome and have trodden the wine-press alone, even the wine-press of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God."  (D&C 76:107)
• "And again, another angel shall sound his trump, which is the seventh angel, saying: It is finished; it is finished! The Lamb of God hath overcome and trodden the wine-press alone, even the wine-press of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God."  (D&C 88:106)
• "And then, if thou endure it well, God shall exalt thee on high; thou shalt triumph over all thy foes."  (D&C 121:8)

God does "stop the evil."  He allows it to happen, but then he provides a complete remedy for any harm caused thereby.  Complete.  That is what the Atonement does.  It overcomes the pain and consequences of evil, and prevents them from continuing.  Forever.

Quote

Without a God that looks like that, the problem of evil doesn't exist.

I think the "the problem of evil" stems from a misunderstanding of God.  Joseph Smith put it this way:

Quote

Let us here observe that three things are necessary for any rational and intelligent being to exercise faith in God unto life and salvation. First, the idea that he actually exists; Secondly, a correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes; Thirdly, an actual knowledge that the course of life which one is pursuing is according to His will.

The "Problem of Evil" is, in my view, accounted for and addressed in the LDS paradigm.

Quote

Essentially the problem of evil is an inconsistency between the state of the world and a theology that implies the world should actually be different. 

But that inconsistency does not seem to be endemic to the LDS paradigm.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 31, 2017 by smac97