Malaclypse the Younger

luvluv

It seems literally impossible for you to speak a sentence without making some sort of logical fallacy or error of argument.

As a human being, whatever action I take to prevent evil must spring from what I perceive to be evil.

You have not established that preventing what you believe to be evil is itself moral. This is the crux of the discussion. If it is moral, then actual events contradict the assertion of an omnibenevolent god. If such prevention is not moral, then your own actions are immoral, and you shouldn't prevent evil.

If you are asking God to do the stopping, then God (like you and I) would have to stop evil as HE perceives it. Not as you or I perceive it. And it stands to reason that his perception of evil would be different than ours.

If god's perception of evil is different than ours, then our perception is simply wrong, or it is meaningless to call god "benevolent" in any way.

Therefore, if you ask God to stop all evil, he will stop that by stopping YOU, not just the bad guys, but YOU, from lying, lusting, and all the rest....

You have not established that a god exists, much less actually believes that "thoughts" are evil.

Regardless, since thoughts or actions with no consequences entail no actual suffering, they do not contradict an omnibenevolent god. The POE would not apply in such circumstances.

So Jerry, I have to ask, do you want God to stop all evil, or do you just want him to stop the evil that happens to you?

This is a category error, a nonsequitur and a straw man fallacy. It is the presence of all suffering caused by others which contradicts the presumption of omnibenevolence, not that the suffering is personal.

On what grounds could God stop your niece from being abused, and not stop every other person in the world from being abused?

As noted, time and again, the POE references all suffering, not just personal suffering.

So I'm asking you, do you want God to stop all evil or do you just want Him to stop one incident of evil?

It is any and all suffering that contradicts omnibenevolence. The operative dichotomy is suffering vs. "evil" not all vs. some.

As to masterbation, God might consider that harmful to yourself.

The idea that masturbation causes suffering is simply ludicrous.

Again, if it is God who is responsible for stopping evil, he will stop the things he considers to be evil.

As noted above, either we our conception of "evil" is in accordance with god's, or it is simply wrong, or it is unjustified to call god "benevolent".

You might perceive there to be a great moral gap between you masterbating and someone raping a child, but to God that gulf might not exist.

I simply cannot believe that you mean this statement. Only a morally corrupt deluded cult-indoctrinated person without a shred of compassion or a basic level of intelligence would possibly compare masturbation to rape. Clearly, the only charitable interpretation is that you misspoke.

If you are giving God the responsibility to stop everything He considers to be evil, then He might not share your moral viewpoint that you are supposed to leave certain types of sin alone. That is certainly not the impression you get from the God of the Bible.

Do you actually read the bible? The impression one gets of the character Yahweh is one of a purely evil malign thug lacking even the morals of a terrorist. To worship such a character indicates nothing other than pure moral corruption and the enthusiastic approval of genocide, slavery, murder, rape, incest, and infanticide and deceit. This statement is not hyperbole: The character of Yahweh either performs, approves of or does not condemn each and every item on the above list.

To consider such a being a moral exemplar or paragon is, by my lights, to embrace pure evil, pure hatred, pure sadism, and invite the contempt of everyone who values happiness, love and joy.

To label such a being "loving" is to pervert the feeling of love into something so disgusting and twisted that even christian are obliged to close their eyes to the plain meaning of their own "morally authoritative" text.

I believe it is a logical impossibility to give someone free will and to guarantee the outcome of their decisions.

Precisely so. The POE shows a contradiction between the existence of our moral freedom, our ability to perpetrate suffering, and the existence of an omnimax god.

I believe it is a logical impossibility to teach someone how to love other peope (which, again, is God's purpose, not the elimination of evil) while simply deleting the consequences of their actions when they choose not to do so.

What you "believe" is a logical impossiblity is irrelevant. Logical possibility and impossibility is provable.

In this case, many alternatives exist, For instance, an omnipotent god could impose the consequences before the suffering was actually inflicted. There is no logical contradiction here, merely an outcome you yourself do not desire (since you apparently desire the existence of suffering.

It is logically impossible to expect maturity and the ability to give love from a person who has never been able to make a wrong decision.

It is not logically impossible. It is merely not the actual case. However, maturity is an attribute. It need not, logically speaking, be developed, it might simply be granted by an omnipotent god.

The fact that maturity does actually need to develop is merely to note that such is the case in this actual world. It does not show that it is logically necessary.

I pointed out the impracticalities in an attempt to convince you that you do not want to live in the world you claim you want to live in.

Impracticality is simply not an objection when considering the actions of an omnimax god.

But if God's goal is indeed to have a universe populated by beings who do not simply demonstrate the absense of evil but the presence of love... it is impossible for him to arrive at that by simply deleting our ability to do evil.

The same objection as in my previous post applies. If this premise is true, then it is logically impossible to call a god "loving".

Vegatables don't do evil, but I hardly think that God (or you) would be satisfied in a universe filled to overflowing with harmless vegatables.

Obviously this is not the only way to eliminate evil and suffering.

A universe which was without evil, yet which was also without real love, would be a worse universe than the one we have, in the mind of the God of the Bible.

Since the character of Yahweh in the bible spends the entire first half of the book smiting everyone in sight (when he isn't benignly smiling on rape and incest), it is arguable that such a deity, were he to exist outside the deluded imagination of bronze-age pretechnological goat herders (and cult-indoctrinated ideological slaves), would prefer a universe full of evil for its own sake.

As ironic as this sounds, if we did not have the option, and even sometimes the desire, to hate each other... then our decision to love each other would not mean anything.

A bifurcation fallacy (false dilemma). The decision to love contrasts with indifference, not the desire to inflict suffering. And the entire population of the world, save for a couple of dozen people, are completely indifferent to my happiness; this fact causes me no suffering at all.

You seem to think that the ultimate good would be a universe in which no one can harm anyone else, but I think that while that universe would be "safe", it would be cold, sterile, and dead.

This would be true if and only if the only meaningful decision was to not inflict suffering. I pity you if your imagination is so limited.

Will you please stop saying stuff like this. I'm not asking a god to do anything: I do not ask imaginary fictional characters to do anything.

Aren't we arguing about why God does not prevent evil? Since you are an atheist, and you are participating in this discussion, I assume we are discussing at least a hypothetical God. So why are you suprised when I bring Him up in the discussion?

That's not the issue.

You yourself asked why doesn't God prevent evil, therefore you are asking something of what you consider to be an imaginary fictional character.

No, I'm saying that the existence of suffering contradicts the premise of an omnimax god.

First, you are not omnibenevolent. So the comparison is inept.

That's exactly my point. The comparison is inept. And you brought the comparison up, which begs the question of why you compared God's respobsibility to our responsibility in the first place?

The comparison is inept because you object based that a condition (corruptability) that applies to the police but does not, by definition, apply to a god.

Me stopping a single act of evil is not comparable to giving God the obligation to stop all evil.

But you stopping a single act of evil is comparable to god stopping a single act of evil. The inequality applies only the scope, knowledge, and corruptability, not to the moral nature of the act itself. And again I must note that issues of scope, knowledge and corruptability are irrelevant when discuss an omnipotent, omnsicient and omnibenevolent deity.

It does not logically follow that since I am obligated to stop a single act of evil that God is therefore obligated to stop all acts of evil.

It logically follows that since you are obligated to stop all evil you know about and have the power to stop, under the social constraints necessary to prevent you from acting evilly yourself, then a benevolent god, by definition would, by definition do the same thing. And an omnimax god by definition has perfect knowledge of all evil, unlimited power to stop it, and cannot act evilly. Therefore, we can conclude from the presence of evil and suffering that no such god exists.

And wouldn't it therefore stand to reason that God's conception of "good" and "evil" might be vastly different from both of ours?

No. An omnimax god would ensure that there is no ambiguity regarding what constitutes evil. It is ludicrous to imagine otherwise.

I frankly believe that even if an omnimax god did exist, it would consider your moral beliefs ridiculous

He might, or he might not. On what are you basing this? Do you assume that omniscience must think as you do?

This is a belief statement not a fact statement, but it is admittedly overreaching. It is more accurate to say that I myself find your moral belief ridiculous.

You appear to consider ordinary natural thoughts to be evil.

Most religious traditions do, including the Bible.

This is unsurprising, since most religious traditions appear to exist to exert mind control over its followers for the personal, economic and political gain of its priesthood and rulers.

And as I said to Jerry above, if you ask Him to stop all evil you don't get to pick and choose what evil he stops.

Of course, since an omnimax god is also perfectly rational, were one to exist, I would, of course, agree with its conception of evil.

Again, there is no controversy with God over the evil nature of lust or greed or pride.

There is a controversy between the only participants known and agreed upon to actually exist: You and me.

If God decided to stop all evil, he wouldn't poll to take our opinions on what is evil and what is good.

Nope. But we would know and necessarily agree, since a benevolent god would, if it existed, not impose the suffering of irrationality.

If we assume that an omnimax God exists, and that He has his own opinions on what is right and wrong, and that this opinion sometimes differs from ours...

It is not proven that this opinion would ever differ from ours.

...the fact that his morality differs from your would not constitute a controversy. It would only mean that you were mistaken.

Or that you were mistaken. However, neither of us can prove that the other is mistaken.

Again, that only follows if God does not consider some thoughts to be evil.

It is not proven that an omnimax god would consider thoughts evil.

The God of the Bible clearly does.

We are not talking about the god of the bible, we are talking about an hypothetical omnimax god. It is clear from a reading of the text of the bible that not only is Yahweh not omnibenevolent, not even benevolent, but malevolent. The followers of this fictious character are either so deluded that they cannot read and understand the authoritative text of their own religion, or they are so contemptibly morally corrupt as to approve of genocide, slavery, murder, rape, incest, and infanticide and deceit.

We cannot categorically rule out the possibility that an omnimax God might not consider some thoughts to be evil. And if He did, the only way he could prevent us from that particular sin is to have some direct control over our thoughts. This might not derive from a lobotomy, I was exagerating to make the point, but it would certainly involve some sort of mind control at the very least.

My mind is already controlled by its structure. I don't feel jealousy, anger, hatred because I want to, I just feel them. Their emergence is not under my conscious control. So this is not a problem in principle, it's already happening. And, of course, there is no such thing as a practical problem for an omnimax god.

Oh really? What if God knows that red wine is much better for you than white wine? What if God knows that fish is much better for you than chicken? What if God believes some philosophies ( like subjectivism or jingoism or whatever) to be evil, and therefore does not allow you to study them?

This is not an objection. A god that permitted freedom in those sorts of decisions would not be considered at all nonbenevolent. Or, I might simply be mistaken; if I knew that such decisions would cause human suffering, I wouldn't choose according to my taste.

1) Would you please make a list of freedoms that do not involve any morality.

I have above. We do not consider any of those decisions morally relevant.

I believe that you will a) not be able to name more than a half dozen decisions that are totally devoid of moral content (if indeed you can think of one) and b) be left with decisions that are not very important.

Actually, the contrary is true. Of the decisions I actually make, almost none of them are morally relevant.

2) Can you address my belief that a universe in which moral freedom does not exist would also take away meaningful human relationships, since they require moral freedom?

Either you're mistaken, or your entire life is taken up with a struggle not to inflict suffering on other human beings. If the latter is true, I pity you. I myself rarely even consider inflicting suffering on others, and when such thoughts occasionally bubble up from my subconscious, they are treated with the ridiculousness they deserve.

[ March 25, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

ex-preacher

In your attempt to evade the horns of the trilemma, it appears that you have successfully impaled yourself on at least two of them.

First, you seem to (I'm not quite sure here) concede that sin could exist in heaven. Could you give me a straight answer: Will it be possible for someone to sin in heaven? Just a yes or no will do. Will there be rape in your heaven?

Second, you seem to suggest that God can help certain people not sin. Is this in exchange for some of their free will? This brings up the question: Could God have designed a better system on earth?

Your claim that people freely choose God then he helps them not sin has many problems. Are you suggesting that it is possible for a Christian to live a sinless life on earth? If so, you must be aware that you are departing from orthodox Christianity. What do you do with the many, many Christians who constantly confess that they have fallen short but are forgiven daily?

luvluv

Jerry, the point I am trying to make to you is that God does not think as you do.

You seem to be asking why doesn't God stop the evil YOU want stopped, and leave us to alone to do the evil YOU want to be allowed.

The short answer is because God does not work for you, and He is not obligated to obey the parameters of the jurisdiction you are drawing around Him.

You seem to think that only the innocent should be allowed to be spared from pain and harm. Firstly, I don't think God shares the opinion that only the innocent should be spared from harm. The doctrine of grace would seem to assume that God cares equally for the guilty and the innocent, and that if He were to act directly to end suffering He would do it for everyone. That's just how He is. I think that's clear from the parable of the prodigal son and the doctrine of Grace. The entire idea of Calvary is that Jesus died in order to rescue people who were not innocent.

Again, I feel that you are underestimating the harm that even small actions that we engage in have in the long-run. Wouldn't God have had to have stopped the pornographer from taking pictures of the girl in the first place? Wouldn't he have had to stop the greed of the men who founded the magazine in order to prevent them from preying upon young women? In such a world as you envision, the pornographic magazine would not exist. And wouldn't God stop people from selling a product like cigarettes which God knows would hurt those who smoked them? If God acted directly to protect the innocent, many of the questions you are asking simply wouldn't be meaningful.

You seem to ask why God isn't a comic book crime fighter. Why doesn't he just swing in on a batarang when somebody is about to get mugged or robbed and then go away when we want to masturbate or gossip. My answer is that evil starts from the very small things you want to stop God from interferring with. The molestation of your niece started as a thought in that sick guy's head.

To sum this up, my answer, whether you accept it or not, is that...

1)God could not directly intervene to stop some evil and not others.

2) I think it affords us a greater dignity for God to not follow behind us and correct all of our mistakes, but leaves much of the work to us to try to create a better society... and to try to work to better ourselves. You could follow your children around 24/7 and you could pretty much ensure that they would behave, but they would never grow up. Neither would we if our actions never had consequences.


3) If God were going to directly intervene, it would be by His own standards, not yours, and you might not like the results.

I'm sorry if that's unacceptable to you, but that's the truth as I see it.

I might ask you, however, to respond to my objections in a meaningful way instead of simply re-typing your questions after every one of my posts.

ex-preacher

Our text today is James 4:17: "Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it sins."

God sees all sorts of evil that he could prevent, but he chooses not to. Therefore, God sins.

Christian response: Ah, but God works in mysterious ways. Besides, you cannot hold God to the standards he set for humans.

Me: So you mean he makes the rules, he doesn't have to follow them?

Xn: Exactly!

Me: So God can murder, steal, lie, create disease, send earthquakes, watch a rape or a Holocaust without interfering, and he still isn't sinning?

Xn: Now you're getting it!

Me: Is there any possible heinous act that is so horrific that God would be sinning if he did it or allowed it?

Xn: Nope. You see, anything God does by definition cannot be wrong. He is above our morality or understanding. You may not like it but that's the way it is.

Me: Your God is a jerk. How can you worship him?

Xn: If I don't, he'll send me to hell.

Me: (stealing a line from "Roots") Better a free man in hell than a slave in heaven.

luvluv

Mal, first I'll just say that I believe I have the right to post my opinions without constantly being insulted. I think our discussion has become counterproductive, so this is the last time I will reply to you if you insist upon peppering your responses with attacks. It's clear you and I disagree, it does not therefore follow that I am evil, or brainwashed, or an idiot. It does not even follow that we should be unpleasant with each other.

The answer to your first objection is very simple. It is possible for God to do evil, he just has never done it. The possibility of evil does not mean the existence of evil.

You say, with delicate tact:

"I simply cannot believe that you mean this statement. Only a morally corrupt deluded cult-indoctrinated person without a shred of compassion or a basic level of intelligence would possibly compare masturbation to rape."

I meant only to imply that God could consider both acts wrong.

You say:

"Logical possibility and impossibility is provable."

Then prove it is impossible for God to exist.

The argument of evil vs suffering is a new one on your part, which is why I wasn't answering it. I think the answer is that God considers some things worse than suffering, among those, slavery. God could only totally end human suffering by limiting our free will.

You say:

"An omnimax god would ensure that there is no ambiguity regarding what constitutes evil. It is ludicrous to imagine otherwise."

And if He takes away our ability to disagree with Him over good and evil, wouldn't he be taking away some THOUGHTS?

To my chicken/red wine response, you say:

"This is not an objection. A god that permitted freedom in those sorts of decisions would not be considered at all nonbenevolent."

By YOU. He certainly would be considered nonbenevolent by vegetarians for the chicken and the fish and by tee-totalers for the wine. Your opinion as to what is evil is not an argument. The fact that YOU would not consider the eating of chicken a big moral issue does not mean that it isn't for many people (witness the numerous vegetarian thread on this message board) or for God.

"if I knew that such decisions would cause human suffering, I wouldn't choose according to my taste."

And again, you are leaving out animal suffering. Is it your opinion that an omnimax God would be indifferent to animal suffering? Much of your argument is based on your own opinion of good and evil, which may not be shared by God.

You have not proven that an omnimax God would force everyone to share His opinion of good and evil.

You say:

"1) Would you please make a list of freedoms that do not involve any morality.

I have above. We do not consider any of those decisions morally relevant."

So in your world, the only decisions human beings would get to make would be at the dinner table. And you would consider that world to be morally superior to this one?

"Of the decisions I actually make, almost none of them are morally relevant."

The decision to put gas in your car in a world where the profits from that gas are used to build weapons and where the emmissions from the use of that gas threaten the environment and the lives of your progeny... even that is a moral decision. The decision to spend time on the internet instead of with your family or friends, the decision of how you will conduct your argument with me, whether you will be insulting or pleasant, that is a moral decision. My friend, you hardly make a decision that does not involve morality.

Name some decisions that you think don't involve morality, and I will show you how they do. Just name one.

If you had no moral freedom, you would have no freedom at all. You would have a snail's freedom, or a centipedes. That's what you think a good God would do?

You say:

"Either you're mistaken, or your entire life is taken up with a struggle not to inflict suffering on other human beings."

I don't confine evil simply to suffering. (C.S. Lewis has a great passage in the Problem of Pain on this very subject). I know, for instance, that my nephew looks up to me. Therefore I know the decision to drink or to smoke in his presence would cause him harm, as he would be likely to emulate me. I know that while being insulting is not actually causing suffering in the physical sense, it is not treating others as I would like to be treated, which is the Christians measurement of good and evil. I am not necessarily causing suffering if I ignore the hungry and the homeless in my community (I didn't CAUSE their suffering) but I feel I am responsible for their well-being.

If all of these things make me a worse person than you, please let me know. Evil is more than just suffering, good is more than just not suffering.

Does gossip hurt people? And do you gossip? Are women in the aggregate hurt by being thought of us sexual objects? And do you, occasionally, think of women thusly? Were any of the clothes you own made in sweatshops? Do you have enough disposable income to alleviate some of the poverty that exists around you? And do you do that? All these things are FREE WILL, MORAL DECISIONS. Decisions that you want zapped away by the God you conceive, on the grounds that a loving God will make our decisions for us. I object to that definition.

Mal, YOU define evil simply as suffering. Therfore you believe God should make a universe in which no one suffers. But God may not share your conception that evil is simply the presence of suffering. His definition might be different from yours, as you have not proven that an omnimax God would have to make all beings agree with Him on morality. What you and Jerry are basically asking is "Why can't God govern the universe the way I want Him to?"

Here are my answers:

1) Meaningful human relationships are impossible without free-will. Without the choice to treat people badly, the decision to treat them well would not constitute goodness.

2) God's definition of evil is not confined to suffering. Far from wanting to rid the world of suffering of the innocent, God seems to think, with Martin Luther King, that unearned suffering is occasionally productive (non-violent protest, hunger strikes, etc.). Suffering can induce compassion that makes people change their ways.

3) God's purposes are different from yours. He does not simply desire a universe without evil. If that were the case, He would not have created us in the first place. He seems to desire a universe populated by individuals who have chosen to love him out of their own free will, even when that choice involved suffering and sacrifice on their part. He seems to consider that more valuable than simply the love of people who had no other option except to love Him.

I'll obviously read your responses, and depending on your tone, I'll respond. But if this is the end, I have enjoyed our debate and I hope to have other discussions with you on this board that will perhaps remain more civil.

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

luvluv

ex-preacher:

The possibility of evil does not mean the presence of evil. I think it will be possible for sin to occur in heaven, inasmuch as we will not be robots, but I don't think that means that sin will be present. As I said before, I believe even God and Jesus have the possibility to do evil, they simply never have and never will do it. Perhaps the people in Heaven will be the same. However, I certainly hope you will not base any opinions on what Heaven will be like based on my or any other humans opinions. This is just a question that can't be answered by human beings.

God can help certain people not sin because THEY HAVE ASKED HIM TO. God helps me not to sin, because I, of my own free will, have asked Him to. I clearly stated that the conditions on which God actually makes himself availiable to help people are when they ask Him to.

And the fact that God helps people not to sin does not mean that God makes people perfect. God basically has to be invited into every area in my life, or He won't go there. If I want God to help me stop masturbating but not to bother me about gossiping, then God will eventually respect that. The principle of free will continues to apply. Whenever I decide I will not go along with what God says, that's how it is. God's help does not mean that God is taking away my ability to sin. I never implied that, I only said that God would take a more direct hand in helping us avoid sin.

Vorkosigan

He seems to consider that more valuable than simply the love of people who had no other option except to love Him.

We don't have any option other than to love him. The other choice is eternal death, Luv. A really loving god would give us the option to reject it without punishment.

Michael

Jerry Smith

For the last time, my argument has nothing to do with whether it is necessary to prevent any or every act of evil, per se. Until you show the relevance of that necessity or lack of necessity to my argument, please leave it out of our discussion.
Everyone on this forum, everyone I know apart from cynical radicals, will agree that if a rape is witnessed by someone with knowledge and power to stop it, that someone is only Good if they do stop it, and they are accessories to the crime (which is Evil) if they do not stop it. This has nothing to do with whether rape is evil. Explain why God has an excuse for His crime of accessory to rape?

This is a misreading of my argument. It is morally necessary to prevent the innocent from being harmed. It is not morally necessary to prevent a person from doing something risky or harmful to themselves. You cannot be an accessory to smoking cigarettes.

Is it, or is it not, Good for anyone to watch an act that brings harm to the innocent and not to intervene, given they have the power to do so?

To answer that question, we just have to determine whether it is morally necessary to prevent the pornographer from taking pictures of the girl...
1) Who is harmed by the woman being naked?
2) Who is harmed by the photographer seeing her that way?
3) Are all parties willing to endure this harm for the sake of their choices?
4) Is there harm in the taking the picture?
If no, then there is no need to intervene. I sure don't see any reason to. If you can find a good reason that intervention is necessary, then tell me, and I will agree that God should have stopped it.
If you hypothesize that somewhere down the road there might be harm - for instance, that someone will view the pornography and then rape a girl, the answer is that THIS is what should be prevented - the girl must be protected. It could be done by preventing the photo session, but it could be prevented and allow free-will to all parties except the rapist if God merely stops the rape.

Why not? See above...

Why not? See above...

No they wouldnt - we would have no need of this discussion. God's omnipotence and omnibenevolence would then be obvious.

But did not bring harm to her until he actively did a very big thing, that God was very much capable of preventing (assuming God is all-powerful)

Prevention of evil need not be discussed here. But I would like to know why He couldn't!

This does not excuse me from being an accessory to rape or murder or child abuse or any such. The dignity of the child-molester is a lesser concern than the dignity of the child.

If God were going to directly intervene in the instances I discuss, He could conceivably be called "Good." Granted that God could do it in a way that was bad, but at least the potential would be there that we might have a God that we could call Good.

When your objections start dealing with my argument, I will start dealing with your objections. If your objections only go to the argument that you think I should be making, I have little choice but to either give up (as I am tempted to do),or try to explain my position again. If you are telling me that my position logically entails the position that your objections apply to, show me how. I think you will fail, because I am morally obligated to never be an accessory to rape, but I do not think I am morally obligated to "bust" and the makers of a skin magazine. Show me how one necessarily entails the other, how prevention of harm to the innocent requires prevention of all evil, then I will listen to your arguments about what the world would be like if God prevented all evil.

This is probably my last effort. Please do me the courtesy that I asked for in my last post:

ex-preacher

I must say that I admire your willingness to admit the possibility of sin in heaven. I do not think such a position is consistent with the Bible, nor with the vast majority of Christians, but still, it takes guts. If there is the possibility, I think we can reasonably assume that sin would eventually occur in heaven. You have been arguing that the ability to do evil and to harm others is essential to free will. Are you now willing to say that it would be possible for someone in heaven to actually hurt someone else (physically, or spiritually)? What kind of heaven is that? What happened to "no pain, no tears, no sorrow"? Since suffering has so many positive side-effects, do you think there will be suffering in heaven?

<strong> I missed this. Please tell me how you would know that God or Jesus had done evil. Give either a specific example or just a general way of determining that they had sinned.

<strong> The usual dodge.

<strong> So how is heaven different from Arkansas? I was a Christian for 30+ years and a preacher for 12 of those years. I know and you know that every Christian struggles constantly with "sin." Indeed, every Christian I have ever known has admitted that they occasionally sin. They all claim that God helps them overcome sin, but they still sin. How will heaven be any different? Will God suddenly provide super-strength that he currently refuses to supply? Will the elimination of Satan have ended temptation? So why doesn't he eliminate Satan now? Or are you arguing that True Christians (TM) on earth never sin?

You are in an impossible position:

either free will is possible in heaven without evil being possible (in which case I ask: why didn't God create the world that way in the first place? ;

or evil in heaven is possible and given free will, inevitable. There will be rape in heaven;

or, there will be neither free will nor evil in heaven.

luvluv

Jerry, my contention is that if God stops your niece from being molested, be must stop all nieces from being molested. Do you agree or disagree with that?

If you disagree with that, then while God preventing your niece from being molested would satisfy you, there would be a million other parents or uncles in your situation still doubting the benevolence of God.

Also, dealing with your cigarette analogy, what of the innocent dependent children who are orphaned by cigarette smoke every day? They are innocent victims of the man's choice to smoke cigarettes. So even if God were to intervene by your standards, this very demonstrable evil would still exist. And then it would one of those children, and not you, currently having this discussion with me.

As for the pornography analogy, again what of the girls parents and loved ones? If your niece were to start appearing in pornography, would you suffer from that? What about your children, would you be so "live and let live" about it if it were your daughter who was having those pictures taken? People do suffer from pornography, probably none more so than the innocent loved ones of the women involved. I don't think there is a such thing as a victimless crime.

God cannot prove his goodness to the world simply by being good to you. He would have to do it for everybody. I can guarantee you, there are thousands of people who believe that their daughter or sister or niece narrowly escaped the very kind of abuse that your niece suffered, and they attribute this escape to God. That does not suffice for you, however, since your niece was not spared.

Again, if you want to give up feel free to do so, but my answer to your argument is that God could not possibly establish his goodness by directly intervening only in a few actions. Even if he were to do so only by the criteria you mention, the crime-fighter God, He would still leave millions of innocent people to suffer from wounds their loved ones inflicted on themselves. It would not eliminate people from seeing their loved ones commit suicide, or become drug addicts, or otherwise throw away their lives. As Dr. King says, we live in an inescapable network of mutuality. There is no such thing as something you do which has no effect on somebody else.

Therefore, self-inflicted harm, inasmuch as it causes suffering to the loved ones of the person who is inflicting harm on themselves, would have to be included if we are to enforce your rules.

If this isn't clear, I guess you better look for a better person to make your case to. Sorry if I have failed you, I'm just a guy, and I did my best.