Steve wrote:I suggest you read our previous dialogue on the same subject to refresh your memory about the loose ends in your theology that you left untied (viewtopic.php?f=62&t=2043&st=0&sk=t&sd=a).
Perhaps you could specify the loose ends ---- not that I will necessarily be able to tie them. No one has yet been able to come up with a satisfactory solution to the “problem of evil” after hundreds of years of thought by the world’s thinkers. So it is unlikely that you or I will solve it. Nevertheless, I think I have some answers which address a number of relevant issues which have been considered insoluble.
In your most recent post, you wrote:
People who ascribe either a "higher purpose" for God's active causation of such heinous acts, or a "higher purpose" for God's failure to intervene, at most seem to blaspheme the God of Love or at least seem to exhibit a very low view of His loving character!
From this we must deduce that you believe one or more of the following propositions:
a) God does not see evil acts that are about to occur (even though any mere human in the right position to do so would see them plainly enough);
b) God sees them, and wants to prevent them, but has no ability to dispatch angels or other means of protection for the potential victims (contra innumerable promises that God has given His people);
c) God does have both the awareness (a) and the ability (b) to intervene and does not do so—but He has no "higher purpose" for His choice of non-intervention (meaning either that God's choices are purposeless, or else motivated by low purposes).
Okay, I affirm (a) as you have expressed it. I deny that God “sees into the future” as Arminians claim, but in another sense He does “see evil acts that are about to occur.” Even we fallible humans “see” acts that are about to occur. We may “see” that a child is about to get run over by a car unless we snatch the child out of the way. Actually we (and God) are not
seeing anything; we are
predicting what will likely occur from our knowledge of the facts. The driver of the car may swerve in time, and the child wouldn’t have been killed anyway. A strong pang of conscience may arise in the one about to do the evil act, and he may change his mind about doing it, and so God’s prediction might not come true.
I do deny (b). For it is the case that God is omnipotent, and has the power to intervene.
(c) [up to the dash] can be interpreted in a way in which case I affirm it, and in another way in which case I deny it. God does not say to Himself, “I am going to allow this man to rape and kill that little girl, so that I can teach her parents a lesson. They have been too focused on self-serving materialism, concentrating on making money and ignoring Me. This tragedy should shake them out of their lethargy!”
However, if “higher purpose” is interpreted as applying to His respect for the free will He has given man, or His decision to maintain the stability of this complex universe, then I would have to deny that there is no “higher purpose.”
When I made my statement about “higher purpose”, I had in mind the former.
Usually you are very rational in your arguments, except when this particular subject comes up. It seems that, when something as emotional as this topic arises, you see yourself as independent of divine revelation, speaking without any scripture as your authority, and you do so in denial of the whole counsel of scripture on the topic.
My statements have no basis in emotionalism. Rather, they rest upon my strong belief in the character of God, that is, His pure LOVING character. Indeed, I have seen you make points which are similar or identical to the ones I have made when you are addressing the possibility of the ultimate reconciliation of all to God. But when you are addressing “this particular subject”, your thoughts about the loving character of God seem to evaporate, while you believe Him in some sense responsible for all the atrocities of evil man.
The problem is evil is stated as follows:
1.There is evil in the world.
2. God does not prevent it.
3. Therefore either He lacks the power to do so, or He lacks the love to do so.
Your solution seems to be that He lacks the love to do so.
I know that, at times like this, your wont is to say "I have Jesus as my authority, not the Bible." However, Jesus believed in the Bible, and He even unambiguously affirmed in His teaching every point in my thesis.
Please specify all the points of your thesis and how Jesus affirmed them --- or if you have already done this, please provide me with a link to the page.
I think your entire thesis rests upon the sentiment that inflicting pain and suffering as a redemptive tool upon rebellious children is below the dignity of Christ, and therefore of God.
Not at all! If that were my “sentiment”, then would I declare the Lake of Fire to be a place or state for remediation of sinners? Rather my entire thesis rests on the fact that God is LOVE, and that love can be tough and can cause pain --- just as is the case with a human father. But just as a loving human father doesn’t discipline his children by breaking their bones or stabbing them with a knife, so the heavenly Father doesn’t discipline His children by sending rapists, murderers, and torturers to abuse them.
Yet Christ says the opposite about Himself (Rev.3:19), and other scriptures state the opposite about the Father (Prov.3:12/ Heb.12:6). I know that your rejoinder is that you actually do affirm God's loving discipline—but you draw the line at such extreme suffering as rape, murder, etc. What I want to know is how you know where to draw the line, since in your reasoning you remain entirely aloof from any divine revelation on the topic.
I draw the line where any sensible person draws it. Everyone knows the difference between a father disciplining his children by spanking, or limiting their movements or denying them privileges, as opposed to the child abuse I described above. Are you incapable of seeing the difference? Do you believe God was disciplining you by giving you a promiscuous wife, and “taking” another wife away from you? I don’t believe God had anything to do with either of those matters.
You use emotional language, like "child abuse," apparently expecting us to allow a child to be the one who determines whether his discipline is excessive or appropriate.
Nonsense! It has nothing to do with a child determining anything. There is an objective difference between discipline and child abuse, and I think all of us know where to draw the line between the two, if not precisely, at least approximately.
No child has an adult's perspective to understand the necessity or degree of discipline that is called for. Likewise, no human has as much knowledge as has God with regard to what kind of suffering is appropriate to bring about eternal restoration and healing.
Irrelevant.
It is dangerous to appeal to the example of Jesus in order to trump both the Old and the New Testaments—especially when you have to ignore a considerable portion of Jesus' own teachings in the process.
I don’t think I’m ignoring either a “considerable portion” or any portion.
