[Guest]

i saw this question in summa theologica, a really great book but i werent satisfied with the answer

if god is good then how can he made devil or how can he let mon do evil ???????

[Guest]

i saw this question in summa theologica, a really great book but i werent satisfied with the answer

if god is good then how can he made devil or how can he let mon do evil ???????

Good questions. I'll respond with two more questions to help reason on this, followed by some Biblical reasoning that the atheists on the forum will probably prefer to skip:

1. If a man is a good father and teaches his children well, how could one of his children ever grow up to become a criminal?

2. Would a good father ever allow his children to suffer? Would he ever knowingly allow someone else to inflict pain on his children? What if the child had a tumor and the temporary pain was due to life-saving surgery?

According to the Bible, God did not create the Devil. He created an angel who had free will and chose to rebel against his maker. The word "devil" comes a Greek word meaning slanderer, and highlights the idea that by turning against God and convincing Adam and Eve to likewise reject their creator, the devil was slandering God. By his words to Eve in Genesis chapter 3, he implied that God is not a good ruler, and that humans are better off choosing for themselves what is good and what is bad.

Thinking about this helps us understand why God has allowed suffering and evil to continue. The rightfulness of his sovereignty has been challenged. The Devil contended that we are better off without God's authority. In order to settle the issue, it was necessary to allow time to pass without God's involvement in human affairs. There would have to be enough time to prove that no matter what man did, they would never be able to successfully govern themselves. Like the father that allows his child to undergo painful surgery, God has allowed a period of suffering for the purpose of resolving these issues, knowing that it would only be temporary. By means of the hope of salvation offered in the Bible, the end result would be beneficial for mankind. When compared to eternity, the timespan of human suffering is an insignificant amount of time.

That's a lot wrapped up in a nutshell, and even though I haven't provided much to go on, there is a lot of support for this in the Bible, and it's an explanation that many people have never considered.

[Guest]

1. If a man is a good father and teaches his children well, how could one of his children ever grow up to become a criminal?

Apples and oranges. A human father is not responsible for creating the mind of his son.

2. Would a good father ever allow his children to suffer? Would he ever knowingly allow someone else to inflict pain on his children? What if the child had a tumor and the temporary pain was due to life-saving surgery?

Apples and turnips. Life saving surgery has value. Allowing a child to be raped or tortured has none and is sick and evil. If I told you I was allowing a child to receive surgery you wouldn't blink an eye. If I told you a child was being tortured in unimaginable ways but I decided to allow it I'm sure you would be outraged. Somehow not only does God get a free pass from being thought of as a sicko, the same acts that we would considered as sick if performed by a person are thought of as "loving" or "wise" or "all good" when it’s claimed they were performed by God.

According to the Bible, God did not create the Devil. He created an angel who had free will and chose to rebel against his maker.

Irrelevant. The mind of the animal, human, or mythical angel is dependent on which choices that being will make regardless of "free will". God not only created that mind, He knew what choices it would make in advance. What sense does it make for God allowing billions of humans to suffer because HE created a disobedient angel? The bottom line is that Judeo-Christian-Islamic God is stronger than the devil and is ultimately responsible.

Even if I were to accept that we all have free will, this does not excuse a god from making some humans like Jeffrey Dahmer with brains that are incapable of feeling empathy. Clearly you must see that his supposed free will to commit atrocious acts is not equal to yours or mine.

I you were a god, would you create beings with defective brains that find pleasure in torturing the babies of your creations?

Would you allow the nature you created to have earthquakes and tsunamis that cause your creations to suffer and leave babies and children orphans?

If we were fellow gods, and I told you I planned on doing those things to my creations and also plan on writing a book for them to follow that includes instructions for dealing with slaves, selling children into slavery, killing homosexuals and stoning to death adulterers until I came to their planet as a man and plan on forgiving them for their sins by allowing myself to be tortured and crucified would you not think of me a sicko?

What about animals suffering? Did they fall from grace too?

Thinking about this helps us understand why God has allowed suffering and evil to continue.

No, it doesn't. It helps us to see what a poor job men have done trying to rationalize how an evil god who wants homosexuals to be stoned to death, condones slavery, and would send billions of kind Buddhists and Hindus to a lake of fire because they heard about Christianity but decided to stick with what they’ve got is all-good and loving.

[Guest]

i saw this question in summa theologica, a really great book but i werent satisfied with the answer

if god is good then how can he made devil or how can he let mon do evil ???????

I BELIEVE GOD DOES WHAT HE DOES FOR A PURPOSE AND WE SHOULDN'T WORRY BOUT WHAT HE DOES CUZ HE'S GOD!!

[Guest]

if there is a god then I see three possibilities, though there are probably more

1. his reasons are too complex for us to fathom

2. the whole "fallen angel" thing

3. He did it because he wants us to be happy, perhaps?

I mean, you can't know happiness without experiencing sadness can you?

I've heard that before, and the reasons kinda escape me

but I dunno

[Guest]

if there is a god then I see three possibilities, though there are probably more

1. his reasons are too complex for us to fathom

Then there's nothing to discuss and it absolves one from using his intellect to decide if an god who made everything is responsible for evil.

2. the whole "fallen angel" thing

I brought up in my post how God would be ultimately responsible.

3. He did it because he wants us to be happy, perhaps?

I mean, you can't know happiness without experiencing sadness can you?

There's a few problems with that. For one, there are humans that go their whole lives with nothing but misery and no nothing of happiness, such as starving children in Africa. The other problem is that you can absolutely know happiness without being subjected to evil. You can appreciate good without the existence of evil. Winning a race is good, but losing it is not evil. Buying a toy for your daughter is good, but not doing so is not evil when she already has a playroom full of toys.

[Guest]

I could argue, but I'd probably make a bad argument, honestly I couldn't think of something to say to your response to my third answer

I also didn't try too hard, and don't want to go back and forth for 10 pages

well then it's those two first possibilities

seeing as you haven't ruled them out

[Guest]

You get in a horrible car accident tomorrow and you see a body lying next to you wearing the exact same clothes you were. You think that is weird and then realize that it doesn't have a head. Then what do you say about God. Bad things happen, get used to it. God is good because even now you and I can be forgiven for things we've said or done and be allowed into heaven for eternity. Suffering is a blip of existance on earth.

[Guest]

Apples and oranges. A human father is not responsible for creating the mind of his son.

That God would be responsible for creating the mind of an angel who chooses to do evil does not make him responsible for the evil, any more than the father is responsible for the actions of the criminal son. The scope and scale is different, but I don't believe it's an invalid comparison.

Apples and turnips. Life saving surgery has value. Allowing a child to be raped or tortured has none and is sick and evil.

Isn't that a matter of perspective? What if some sicko terrorists threatened to rape and torture a child unless you provided them with nuclear weapons? You would be forced to choose the lesser of two evils, and your allowance of something you rightly find repulsive would not indicate any fault on your part.

Of course, you could counter that God would have the power to prevent both outcomes, but I believe that in a sense, his hands were tied in that he is bound to the moral laws that he instituted. When the Devil challenged the rightfulness of God's rule, he contended that we are better off without God's authority. However, without a superior force to guide human behavior or mitigate other causes of suffering, such as natural disasters, such a separation from God would only result in pain and misery. An all-wise God would surely be aware of this and want to prevent it, but what could he do? If he destroyed the rebels, this wouldn't resolve the issues the Devil had raised, and would only further call into question his goodness. How could he clear his name of reproach and vindicate the rightfulness of his sovereignty? Apparently, God concluded that the best solution was to allow sufficient time to pass to prove the Devil wrong. He must have decided that allowing the temporary suffering of humanity was better than the alternatives. In addition, he made provision for individual salvation and an arrangement whereby the damage would be undone and his original purpose for mankind carried out (the Kingdom of which Jesus often spoke).

You are correct in saying that a painful surgery should not be compared to rape and torture. I wasn't doing so. I was simply pointing out that since we can accept the benefit of temporary suffering in one case, the same principle could apply to God's tolerance, if we look at humanity as a whole. To be fair, from the standpoint of an atheist, is each human life really that valuable? From a cosmic viewpoint, our whole planet doesn't even register as dust on the scale, it's so insignificant. And what about when you factor in time? If God's purpose was for humans to have eternal life, are the few short years of suffering endured right now really that terrible? I don't think your portrayal of the personality of a would-be-creator is as objective as you believe.

God not only created that mind, He knew what choices it would make in advance ...

This does not excuse a god from making some humans like Jeffrey Dahmer with brains that are incapable of feeling empathy ...

It helps us to see what a poor job men have done trying to rationalize how an evil god who wants homosexuals to be stoned to death, condones slavery, and would send billions of kind Buddhists and Hindus to a lake of fire because they heard about Christianity but decided to stick with what they’ve got is all-good and loving.

Don't set up the straw man, please. I don't believe God knew what choices his creation would make in advance. I don't believe that he "made" Jeffery Dahmer, or individually makes any people the way they are, for that matter. We are the product of our genetics and environment, combined with our own decisions. Perhaps Dahmer got dealt a bad hand, but he still made the choice to be a homicidal freak. And I certainly don't believe that God sends people to a lake of fire to burn eternally. I don't believe the Bible teaches that either, and you're welcome to debate that point in a separate thread if you wish. If you're going to argue everything, please stick to arguing my words, not your pre-conceived ideas about religious belief in general.

[Guest]

That God would be responsible for creating the mind of an angel who chooses to do evil does not make him responsible for the evil, any more than the father is responsible for the actions of the criminal son. The scope and scale is different, but I don't believe it's an invalid comparison.

I explained how that comparison is invalid. A father does the best he can teaching his son how do be a decent human being; he did not create the brain, the evolutionary process that would result in that brain, etc. Decisions aren't just made depending on how one is raised; the brain your dealt with has at least an equal part. With a disobedient angel, God made both the brain and the environment that angel would be in. God is ultimately responsible.

Isn't that a matter of perspective? What if some sicko terrorists threatened to rape and torture a child unless you provided them with nuclear weapons? You would be forced to choose the lesser of two evils, and your allowance of something you rightly find repulsive would not indicate any fault on your part.

Of course, you could counter that God would have the power to prevent both outcomes, but I believe that in a sense, his hands were tied in that he is bound to the moral laws that he instituted.

Moral laws he instituted? Rubbish! You haven't provided any rationale reason God would have to let innocent children and animals suffer. There is no terrorist with a nuclear weapon forcing Him to choose between two evils. And none of this explains suffering from diseases and natural disasters.

When the Devil challenged the rightfulness of God's rule, he contended that we are better off without God's authority.

So? We're responsible for what the Devil did? Is the Devil as powerful as God or could God have done something about it?

However, without a superior force to guide human behavior or mitigate other causes of suffering, such as natural disasters, such a separation from God would only result in pain and misery. An all-wise God would surely be aware of this and want to prevent it, but what could he do? If he destroyed the rebels, this wouldn't resolve the issues the Devil had raised, and would only further call into question his goodness. How could he clear his name of reproach and vindicate the rightfulness of his sovereignty? Apparently, God concluded that the best solution was to allow sufficient time to pass to prove the Devil wrong. He must have decided that allowing the temporary suffering of humanity was better than the alternatives. In addition, he made provision for individual salvation and an arrangement whereby the damage would be undone and his original purpose for mankind carried out (the Kingdom of which Jesus often spoke).

Maybe that will actually make sense to someone else here...but I doubt it.

You are correct in saying that a painful surgery should not be compared to rape and torture. I wasn't doing so. I was simply pointing out that since we can accept the benefit of temporary suffering in one case, the same principle could apply to God's tolerance, if we look at humanity as a whole. To be fair, from the standpoint of an atheist, is each human life really that valuable? From a cosmic viewpoint, our whole planet doesn't even register as dust on the scale, it's so insignificant.

You're not making much sense. We don't look at the scenario of God's decisions from an atheist's point of view. An atheist's point of view doesn't involve believing any gods exist. But us atheists generally DO care about their fellow man suffering, regardless of whether or not there's an afterlife or the suffering will be eternal.

And what about when you factor in time? If God's purpose was for humans to have eternal life, are the few short years of suffering endured right now really that terrible?

Brilliant. "Hey little men that I've created, stop making such a big deal about rape, murder, torture, tsunamis that take your parents away and leave you homeless- things will be okay in the next life". That's pretty sick and doesn't explain why allowing temporary suffering isn't evil.

Don't set up the straw man, please. I don't believe God knew what choices his creation would make in advance.

No straw man. Christians generally believe God is omniscient. He is either omniscient and allowed His plan to result in so much evil making Him responsible for it, or He chose not to know what would happen making Him irresponsible and purposely non-omniscient.

I don't believe that he "made" Jeffery Dahmer, or individually makes any people the way they are, for that matter. We are the product of our genetics and environment, combined with our own decisions. Perhaps Dahmer got dealt a bad hand, but he still made the choice to be a homicidal freak.

No, he didn't. He no more chose to have zero empathy then we have no choice to be unable to commit Dahmer like acts. If we all had Dahmer's exact brain and environment- we'd all be Dahmers. God is ultimately responsible.

And I certainly don't believe that God sends people to a lake of fire to burn eternally. I don't believe the Bible teaches that either, and you're welcome to debate that point in a separate thread if you wish. If you're going to argue everything, please stick to arguing my words, not your pre-conceived ideas about religious belief in general.

Uhh, no, it doesn't work that way. I'm not here to interview you and find out what you think about God before I post on the problems of God and evil the OP chose to discuss.

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Mark 16:16

“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” John 3:36

[Rev 20:10] And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.[Rev 20:15] If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Can you answer this for me?:

If we were fellow gods, and I told you I planned on doing those things to my creations and also plan on writing a book for them to follow that includes instructions for dealing with slaves, selling children into slavery, killing homosexuals and stoning to death adulterers until I came to their planet as a man and plan on forgiving them for their sins by allowing myself to be tortured and crucified would you not think of me a sicko?

What about animals suffering? Did they fall from grace too?

[Guest]

This is not about if God exist or doesn’t. If you read the original post it asks how can God………. When a question like this is asked, the unstated premise is God exist.

Why should God allow or not allow anything. We as a human race rejected Gods godhood and placed ourselves in his place. As a race we determine what is good and what is evil and what we think is best for us. To God we are evil and disobedient.

The question should be “Why do good things happen to bad people?”

As to why did God create an angle that would become satin? Change the question to. “Why would God Create any being that could disobey him?” God wants us to love him.

If God created all beings without free will to reject him, then we would always obey him; but that wouldn’t be love that would be servitude. Love can only be if we are given the choice. For example: If you were to give flowers to your sweetheart because you had to not because you respected them, cared for them and wanted to make them feel good, then the act of giving flowers means nothing.

When you are given a choice, it doesn’t matter what anyone knows, the choice is yours.

[Guest]

This is not about if God exist or doesn’t. If you read the original post it asks how can God………. When a question like this is asked, the unstated premise is God exist.

The question of whether or not God can be all good if He allows evil in the world does not rest on a premise that God exists. If you think a thread is taking a left turn from the intended topic, PM me.

[Guest]

I think this is just an exercise in logical possibility. In this case, I believe the existence of God is a necessary truth for this argument.