Philosophy: Problem of Evil Part 1
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 авг 2024
- Part 1 of a trilogy. Greg Ganssle (Yale University) lays out a classic argument that God does not exist, called 'The Problem of Evil'. He distinguishes two versions of that argument, which are sometimes called 'the deductive' and 'the evidential' version. He goes into some details on the deductive version.
Help us caption & translate this video!
amara.org/v/EqFa/
![PHILOSOPHY - Religion: Reason And Faith [HD]](/img/1.gif)
Mackie admitted that Alvin Plantinga has refuted the logical problem of evil and that God could exist and there would still be evil. “Since this defence is formally possible, and its principle involves no real abandonment of our ordinary view of the opposition between good and evil, we can concede that the problem of evil does not, after all, show that the central doctrines of theism are logically inconsistent with one another” (J. L. Mackie, The Miracle of Theism [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982], 145).
I think Plantinga was wrong, and I'm going to refute him. I think it is logically possible for a God, being omnipotent, to have been able to create a universe in which humans have free will and yet can only do good, since they could still choose *what kinds* of good things to do.
Also, Plantinga's argument doesn't address why such a God would find it necessary to create natural evils.
So yes, the "central doctrines of theism" are still logically inconsistent.
The problem with this is you first have to accept his definition of God. Then you can accept these logical deductions. I think this is more about logic than evil.
First question needs to be: What is evil? Second question: What is good?
You end up mired in semantics, semiotics, etiology, etc.
+isolotus its relative across different cultures. My understanding is that the only real global taboo is incest and with logical reasons.
all you need to do is use individual religions' idea of good and evil and god and prove a contradiction to lead to at least an agnostic point of view
@@sekops100 Really? That's the thing you think should be forbidden above all else? You could say rape or discrimination or killing for fun but brother and sister going at it under sheets is what repulsed you the most?
What bothers me the most are stupid people
Hi William!
Ganssle does, in fact, address those very worries in later videos. What did you think of that discussion?
You know, I'm not sure it is so obvious that 4 is in error; I think it takes a little work to show how the existence of evil is compatible with God's goodness (if it is).
As an atheist I don't necessarily disagree with the conclusion of this video, but this video doesn't really address the actual Problem of Evil. The Problem of Evil isn't about whether or not God exists, but rather hypothetically if there was a God, how could that God be good if that God created this universe, wherein evil obviously exists? I wouldn't say omnibenevolence is an actual property of God by God's most basic or "popular" definition (along with, say, omnipotence and omniscience). The Euthyphro Dilemma shows that God's "goodness" would always be relative to something else (whether it would be his own personal conception of "goodness" or from a higher, more objective standard) so it wouldn't be an inherent property of God. The problem of Evil isn't really whether or not God is inherently good, but why should *we personally* consider such a God to be good for creating a world replete with evil and suffering.
Many apologists use the "free will" argument to solve the problem of evil, saying that God wanted to give humans free will and evil exists as a natural consequence, but even this argument falls flat, since it doesn't explain the existence of natural evils and it is entirely conceivable for there to exist a universe in which its inhabitants could only do "good" or altruistic actions, yet could still choose *what kinds* of good things to do, still having freedom of choice (which I understand may not be the same thing as "free will," but I don't believe in pure, unimpeded FREE will, regardless of the existence of a God or not).
Ultimately, there's no way to justify an omnipotent and omniscient God creating a universe in which evil exists. If there was a God, that God would be undeniably evil.
Or, he could be neutral, capable of great good, or great evil, depending on his mood or desires.
+starslayer159 Or look how easy it is to invent gods
well before jesus he pretty much slaughtered sinners but after he forgave all human sins
Did you know that more people die because they are too fat, then of starvation on this world?
And more people commits suicide, then there are people who dies in wars?
Ultimately it depends on a chicken or the egg question.
"Are people evil because religion is evil?"
"Or is Religion evil because people are evil?"
In the end it is because WE humans are evil by nature, and will will not admit it and pushes it over on religion and politics.
To imagine a world where this was not so, where every crisis did not result in new atrocities, where every newspaper is not full of war and violence. Well, this is to imagine a world where human beings cease to be human.
"As a species we're fundamentally insane tally. Put more than two of us in a room, we pick sides and start dreaming up reasons to kill one another:"
I've always got the feeling that God ( if god excites) is afraid to meddle in our affairs too much. The more he meddles, the more dependent we become, and the more fanatical we act. By acting subtly and by involving himself as little as possible it may benefit us in the long run, since it forces us to take care of ourselves.
That paragraph is a little too heavy, so heres a kitty face to lighten things up (^・ω・^ )
Bismillah
Your argument is missing some key questions/possibilities. Is there a thing as pure evil? In evil is there an element of good and vice a versa? What is the greatest good and greatest evil? Do you believe that if a greater good is combined with a lesser evil the conclusion is ultimately good? Is evil and good a perception? In that why do you see evil and not good? What is your role with evil and are you fulfilling it? And most importantly what does the alleged verbatim word of God say on these topics? God bless.
Thanks! Your compliment keeps us motivated! We welcome you to visit our channel regularly, since we upload new content often.
In meanwhile, be sure to subscribe to our channel and "like" us on Facebook if you haven't already (link to Facebook is on our channel)!
But what about those who don't believe in omnibenevolence but are still theists?
If "there are limits to what an omnipotent and omniscient being can do," then why worship it, and if "God is not wholly good," why worship it? The Theists always know how to misuse logic or use it against themselves.
Alex Smit
Bismillah
God obeys His own laws which is a reflection of integrity consistency and master design and intelligence. Glory be to Him.
How do you define wholly good? If a greater good is combined with a lesser evil to create the greatest good what is the conclusion? There is so much you are not considering. Ultimately I have to ask you what does the alleged verbatim word of God say on the questions you have? If you don’t know then you are not serious about finding the truth only the answer that suits you best and thus you are waisting your time. If you are serious you need to find the answer to this final question. God bless.
i really enjoyed this, thanks for helping me find my inner christ
3:40 distress =/= evil. evil has a very specific definition in the bible. for example, slavery is not classed as evil in the bible, infact it is unambiguously condoned.
In discussing this philosophical argument, there are two types of evil: moral evil, which is intentionally caused by humans, and natural evil, which occurs when natural processes lead to or necessitate living beings suffering. How the bible defines evil is irrelevant to this argument.
@@karinnehiyama6818 ?
But God has nothing to do with the Bible.
The answer to the "problem of evil" is known once one understands: a) what 'God" is, b) what YOU are, and c) the reason why you are experiencing this world of LIMITATION. And the answer to all of these questions is revealed (in a most compelling fashion I must say) in my book "The Holy Grail is Found." Yes, the answers are available to those who TRULY desire and seek Truth. But, unfortunately, they are a tiny minority, as most people seek to LIMIT Truth to their desires....which, as it turns, was our Original Error; the error that landed us in this realm of limitation in the first place!
In Hindu Mythology, it is believed that God is forgiving and he waits for the moment until the evil is unbearable and then eliminates it. So if that's true then He has no need to eliminate Evil at one go and can give fare chances to the Evil itself
if that god is omniscient he should know in advance whether the evil is going to become unbearable, with no need to wait for that to happen. plus, if he is wholly good he should not let any evil exist, bearable or not. plus, if he regards as bearable some of the evil that exists in the world (example: children dying from disease and starvation, rape, torture etc) his benevolence is even more to be doubted.
The premise "it's pretty obvious evil exists" at 4:51 is an undefined assumption that was used to conclude the argument. "Evil" defined as "profoundly immoral and malevolent" is subject to time and culture. The Mayans routinely sacrificed humans and considered it very holy, but today we see it as barbaric and evil. What is evil is highly dependent on individual (and collective) perception. Evil exist only in hindsight, that is, conclusions based on conscious thought which is influenced by our pre-conscious and subconscious (where reason usually takes a backseat to what we feel). I have always found this statement helpful when thoughts of condemnation arise: "Forget not that the witness to the world of evil cannot speak except for what has seen a need for evil in the world". In essence, evil is not real except to those who need it to be real. Highly subjective.
So the raping of a child is not necessarily an evil thing?
You said evil is subject to time and culture. That implies that a culture cannot be deemed an evil culture. But that begs the question: Why is it impossible for a culture to be evil? Why are the Mayans, for example, immune from being considered an evil people?
But firstly you need to define what is evil at least
Too easy. Anything that causes suffering is evil. Done.
I feel like ‘God’ is used as a straw man in this debate. Evil is a human problem. We as a sentient species should decide what is considered evil and implement punishments for those who perpetuate it.
Humans allow evil. The question os why?
This totally hinges on a very narrow definition of god and its properties. The facts about evil are only depicted here as leading to two outcomes; "God does not exist" or "It's most likely that god does not exist", however its clear there are many other possibilities, including but not limited to "God exists but chooses to allow evil", "God exists and cannot stop evil", or even "god no longer exists".
and let's say that god is omnipotent, so he can create a creature that he can't predict, even thought omnipotent means he can predict anything.
what's wrong in here is that your view about omnipotence is absolute wrong.The only one that describe good and evil cant be described by the describtion that he made
The term "omnipotence" is not classically defined as being _"able to anything, even that which is logically absurd."_ It must be logically possible, under the most common definition. Therefore, if something is not logically possible (i.e. square circles, married bachelors, and pre-determined free will) it is not something God can do.
Premise 4 doesn't make any sense. I mean.. says who? What does "wholly good" imply. Premise 1 can be misinterpreted and is where everything else gets affected.
Which "God" is being used in this argument? Mormon, Christian, Catholic, Islam, etc?
Because the claim that a god exists in Christianity is different than the claim that a god exists in Islam.
The differences between the nature of these two gods couldn't be more stark. Not to mention the one
thing in the philosophical argument that is needed for this discussion is never brought up - justice.
The argument is postulating that the god in question is all good, all powerful, and all knowing. So then
the observation of evil is what shows a contradiction in this god's nature because an all good god
seemingly must not allow for evil. The issue with this is that it in no way addresses this god's
desire to enact justice and righteous punishment upon evil. The argument assumes that this
god isn't doing anything about evil and is seemingly avoiding the discussion of mankind's
responsibility for evil actions.
The argument is flawed from the outset because it does not address which god, and it does not
address mankind's responsibility for evil.
the god being used in this argument is the 3 O god, a being which is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent
I believe the easiest premise to attack would be premise 4. Does it mean that if one is wholly good one must get rid of evil? In fact what does it even mean to be good?
Agreed. I also think premise 2 is highly tentative. What does it mean to be evil?
Just a few immediate observations ( I have not listened to the rest of the series yet - Ganssle must address these points).. Mackie's premises are clearly in error:
No. 3: There are things that God cannot do. He cannot make a square circle, etc. etc. No. 4: "A wholly good being always eliminates or prevents evil." Not quite: It's our meagre understanding of eternity and of the big picture that's the problem, not God's goodness. Certainly we see God working seeming evil in the Bible.
"Premise 1: God exists and is wholly good, omnipotent and omniscient."
That's not a premise. Those are three premises. Remove the last two and you already solved the problem. A God who isn't necessarily omnipotent and wholly good wouldn't have anything to worry about given the rest of the argument. Heck, most religions in history did not believe in a wholly good and omnipotent God. If you want your theism to remain consistent, just stop asserting your God is wholly good and omnipotent.
I think assumption 4 and 6 about god's obligation to eliminate all evil doesn't necessarily have to be true. God can be wholly good and still allow evil, right? If he didn't allow evil he would be denying free-will and isn't that a form of evil? I'm agnostic btw
+Michael Newell Now prove free will. You just openly admitted that free will is a bad thing, and we as a society understand this. If a woman is being raped her free will is being infringed, and if a cop arrests the rapist than his free will is being infringed. The problem of evil is why I can say that i'm certain a benevolent deity doesn't exist.
wasn't the whole point of jesus sacrificing himself that god would forgive all human sins?
How does god keep creeping into these philosophy videos anyway?
Because God is a subject of study in philosophy. He surely isn't studied in science.
In a Nut shell...
Knowing a 1" equation or wether God does or doesn't exist does nothing to stop the day to day spinning of the world.
But it should indicate:
- our fragile state in the universe.
- what we need to do as a race.
Consider the garden in which we live, we were born into it.
Our existence is owed by no small part to this garden for without it we would not have been.
As primitives or early man we would perhaps unknowingly have been chosen by mother nature to eat the fruit and insects/ animals to naturally spread the seeds with 'messy' seed nutrient. Evolution.
Common ground between evolution and creation story genisis.
Eden and the creation of man and woman to tend to a garden.
The message is clear to me in both. ( Of course you decide if I'm mad ion rambling).
Further more I have found that crusifixtion may also have another meaning.
Crusifixtion indicates anyone or everyone is 'tied' to a tree.
Symbolising the life of nature, (The tree of life).
I have also found a link between many ancient cultures and civilizations.
A great many have this tree of life relationship.
So though gods and belief maybe different, I think that we can all agree that our relationship with one another is the same.
We must keep planting the seeds.
Be fruitful and multiply it's seed.
Even if we don’t dig too far into premise 3 regarding whether God can do anything, which absolutely has its issues which require elaboration and refinement of this premises, this argument is over simplified and missing some steps.
A good and omniscient God will take steps to maximize the amount of good.
If greater good can arise from the existence of evil than can arise if evil never exists, then God will allow evil to come into existence.
If God can eliminate all evil, he will do so in the best and most beneficial way possible (for he is good).
Eliminating all evil in the best possible way will require a certain duration of time for it to be accomplished.
Now the conclusion changes to “Greater good can arise from the short term existence of evil than can arise if evil never ever exists, so God has allowed evil to come into existence. God is now in the process of eliminating all evil in the best possible way and eventually there will be no evil”….which perfectly aligns with what has been communicated to us in scripture.
That would conflict with omnipotence, because if a god was omnipotent then they could just stop all evil just like that
Premisse 4 is false, because the real purpose of a wholly and intelligent God is the development of the free will (autonomy) of the individuals. Eliminating or preventing evil is a secondary purpose in this case. More correct to say in premisse 4 is that God always punishes evil, but doesn't ever prevent or eliminate evil. Then the contradiction disappears.
Eliminating or preventing evil is an utilitarianism aim, which first purpose is happiness. But if God exists and He is intelligent, happiness is only a conditioned purpose (by morality), so it's still possible evil exists, in order to make possible free performances of the individuals. This last is the real goodness and not the simple happiness distribution.
Rafael Gasparini Moreira
Great point but also one has to ask what time frame we are referring to? Theist believe this world is not the end and that there is an afterlife in which some do not encounter evil. Hence evil will eventually be eliminated from the domain of some.
For God to punish, he must judge ie. not unconditionally love. Since God is omnipresent he must be in "evil" so it is him punishing himself, which is a human condition (auto immune disease for example) and not something the Universe would do.
We need to stop trying to make God into a human being with character traits etc. We need to broaden our perspectives.
What about heaven, Rafael? Isn't that supposed to be a realm without suffering?
premise 4 is true given the 3 O definition of god, but of course you could define god in any other way to make any of those premises false like you just did
Firstly, this can’t be a argument of certainty against god.
But we can answer this from the Islamic theology.
1. Life is a test and hardship has to exist in a test to determine the result of the afterlife.
2. Sometimes a punishment from god.
3. It is to see who you turn to when faced with this situation. Do you follow god.
4. Good couldn’t be understood without bad existing.
6. Many hardships have wisdom behind it and god knows why he did what he did.
5. Moral evil is due to free will of humans and other entities.
These can debunk the whole problem.
Also, how can an atheist claim moral wrongdoing, they have no objective basis on it. Under naturalism, good and evil are mere made up concepts
The argument falls apart in step 4. I consider myself to be primarily good, my actions are good, but I don't do very much at all to _eliminate_ evil. The assumption is that the God character has an impetus to eliminate evil because it is good. The problem is that the same God character created evil in the first place. I believe the mistaken assumption here is that the God character is good, when in reality it had to create an entity as hideous as Satan to appear _relatively_ good.
Thank you so much!
Its absolutely obvious evil exist .those who deny it shd not be taken seriously.
Evil does not exist only ignorance life does not care about your choices society does.
Premise 4 is jacked up.
I'm not saying this is absolutely true, but maybe consider this idea: Good is what most glorifies God. The actions of evil aren't good, because they don't glorify God (ex. blasphemy). However, there is a reason the omnipotent God permits evil. God permits evil for the sake of His own redemptive glory. Because God is omnipotent, the practice of evil can only exist as long as he permits it.
And glorification is the genuine belief/recognition of God's qualities (omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, etc.). One who recognizes these glorifies God.
Hi stev, in order to say that God permits evil for the sake of his own redemptive glory, wouldn't you have to maintain that a world where God permits evil would result in more glory to God than a world where God does not permit evil? If the good is that which most glorifies God, and the actions we typically call evil result in more glory to God than would have occurred if such actions had been prevented, wouldn't it logically follow that therefore the actions we typically call evil (such as rape and murder) are actually good because they bring glory to God?
@@itsbotirlll Also, if evil is that which does not bring glory to God, and the act of murder and the act of watching cartoons both equally don't bring glorification to God (i.e. belief/recognition of god's qualities), does that mean that murder is equally evil as watching cartoons?
@@chad969 I would say that the glory comes from the contrastedness of the evil with the holiness of God, not necessarily the evil deed in itself. Many hold the opinion that a world with permitted evils that are ultimately overtaken and destroyed by God is the most God-glorifying world; so yes, I wouldn't say that's far-fetched.
Maybe consider the passage in Genesis where, in light of how Joseph's brothers terribly treated him, he said, "you meant it for evil, but God meant it for good." I'm not gonna claim I've solved the Problem of Evil, but I think that could be a good place to ponder on. Thanks for the reply!
You know maybe this is coming from a more emotional position than a logical one, but if someone told me they knowingly allowdd a child to get cancer for the express reason of gaining glorification from curing them, "good" would be the last adjective I'd be calling them.
If he can't figure out a better way of flexing those muscles, then he's clearly not too bright.
The premise 1 is flawed. How about this: God is not omnipotent?
Then you have a being that isn't the Abrahamic God most people think of when you say "god."
YES! FINALLY, SOMEBODY GETS THAT ONE OFF MY BACK!
I AM God, BTW.
Christian philosopher william lane craig has tons of answer to that problem
why do these people blame God for all the evil in the world?
Do you think that when a dying person next to you is trying to reach for his crucial medicine and you do nothing at all, leaving him to die for no reason, then you're morally clear?
This premise exercise is entertaining at most, but it isn't to be taken seriously.
You're making premises with highly subjective concepts of which we have no clear understanding of, who the hell knows what wholly good means or if evil exists, or what evil even is.
You can arrive at a contradiction if you choose very specific definitions to those terms with specific assumptions, does that have any meaning or represent any conclusion in reality? No.
@Odeuida123 and what would those highly subjective concepts be?
Ibn taymiyah: Evil is relative
I'm agnostic but I can tell you the logic of this is shoddy at best.
god is omnipotent, so he defines "good", and it means good isn't always eliminating evil. it's like you sue the law with the law it self.
I have two questions:
How can you know that good isn't always eliminating evil?
What is more good: a place totally good, or a place good and evil and how can you know?
Lets say you have a baby in front of you about to be hit by a truck but you can save it. The baby being hit is evil and it is still your fault if it dies, you cannot be good and not save the baby. Surely god if he existed would have the power to save the baby (if he didn't why call him god, he clearly is not all powerful) but wouldn't. To me thats evil
does it bother you at all that if god deemed all murder to be good, then it would be good?
The premise that evil exists is a waste of time. It is only a relevant concept if you take the theist position seriously. A proper atheist position does not presume agency behind chance events, so premise #2 is hardly relevant to our position,. In fact, you can simply state 1. There is no god, and 2. There is no evil and proceed directly to a later argument in this series which states "irregularities in the universe" make everything happen - like psychopaths being empathy deficient through genetics or terrible childhoods (more likely genetics, IMO) and religious people wanting to kill other religious people based on the "whoops, wrong god" theory fueled by the evolutionary throwbacks from tribalism. This eliminates all the mental wrangling and multiple premises required to humour the theist position and contains no contradictions, either logical or evidential. "Good" as a concept is only relevant to the theist position as well. I also noticed that "evil" at one point in this series appeared to be equated to "anything which upsets people" (the absolute rubbish "sweets before breakfast" analogy). I don't think any philosopher should reasonably buy into that analogy - it's a false equivalent with rape, starvation, child cancer, tapeworms living in people's brains, child soldiers, diseases which cause late term foetal terminations, because there are no conceivable benefits.
Shane
Name something more moral than Love? & name something more just than bringing forth life with free will?
Name anyone from mankinds history who willingly died for the people that were against him, even though he didn’t need to. the individual has to be an evil person from history because according to you God is evil.
What is love? What is it's function? How is love moral?
There is no free will. Free will is an illusion. Our behaviors are a combonation of our genes and neuroplasticity in response to the environment. Neither of which we can have accurate control over. Therefore there is no freedom of will where our actions are predicated by things outside of our control.
Why do people objectively die for others? Why is such a disregard for the self seen as a good thing? In my opinion it is because selflessness is a social mechanism propagated for others to save themselves with the will of others. Just a conditioning utilized for the survival of our genes.
If there is a God I cannot see how that being would be all powerful, all knowing, and benevolent. This universe is horrific awe. With it's disease, murder, genocides, madness, and a whole host of other overwhelming things. Every millisecond billions of organisms die horrible deaths. Our bodies are constantly at war. We have to cause other beings suffering for our own sustenance. Where is God in all of this? Our spiritual ideologies seem to be not much more than psychological coping mechanisms.
My attempt at this philosophy thing.
Premise 1: God is all Good, Omniscient, Omnipotent
Premise 2: Evil cannot exist under first premise.
Premise 3: Good will exist under the first premise.
Premise 4: Evil exists.
Premise 5: Good exists.
Conclusion: Premises 2 and 3 cancel each other out, and therefore are invalid premises for the existence of God.
I am a theist and I disagree with premise 2 & 4. I understand God to be absolute truth, objective reality, and the essence of existence. Evil is inconsistency with God and thus truth, reality, and existence. Thus, evil is literally nothing or "nothingness" if you prefer. This is why I disagree with premise 2 because evil does not exist because evil is nothing/nothingness and when permitted to take effect the effect is destruction. I disagree with premise 4 because without the possibility of evil (nothingness) you can have no free will and therefore no love which I think is the greatest good, the greatest producer of being.
Innocent suffering and sin is so complicated it needs a lot more premises we can’t understand the whole picture because we are not God
God will eliminate all evil and punish it in hell.
You poor lost souls.
I don't believe in God. I have an alternative argument for "the problem of evil". What if there is no such thing as "evil" in our universe. I recognize that bad things happen. I recognize that there are things are generally good(and bad) for most people. I feel that all bad things exist because we(as a species) have not learned all of our lessons yet.
This is so simple and surprises me i seem to be the only one that gets it. How can evil not exist and yet there still be a God? The simplest explanation is.....God is unfonditional love ie. no judgenent. With no judgement, things just ".are." Hence from the eyes of God, evil, good, bad, good, up, down, hot, cold etc do not exist. Once we get that, any remaining info from any religious book because useless and worthless along with the religion itself
@ MrCoach 1968 Not to insult your intelligence (seriously) not to be insulting, but religion itself is just a belief. That is you (we) believe in something or you (we) do not believe in something. You have made the case that you do not believe in God.
The question at hand could be better stated as: If God is the creator of all things, then why did God create evil?
@@erniesulovic4734 Just for my understanding, and not in the way of me "firing" back at you, (keeping this respectful, so please, no insult intended what so ever) are you saying that God does exist (in your viewpoint) God can (or does or is) exists only under certain conditions? Is it possible for good to exist outside of evil? (If p=q, and not p but q then not q) would that not be a logical fallacy? Again, none of this is meant in the way of insults. I am just curious and trying to have civil conversations.
@Mr coach 1968 I forgot to add that I firmly whole-heartedly 100% agree with you about every religion having their own idea about God. (Every religion is a cult, I believe that 100%) To that aspect, and being very honest, I do not have a response/justification. My belief is that no matter what the subject matter is, there is going to be some dissension (to a certain degree or another) the question is, how do we work through those so we can come to a common ground? No matter, you are going to have your ideas and I am going to have my ideas (autonomy) but does that somehow change who we are?
@@erniesulovic4734 No,I think your words tie in nicely. If "thinking" makes it so, then how does one arrive at (or how does one) develop those "forms" of thinking? If nothing is good and nothing is bad, then it does not exist. But that can't be possible because the good versus bad concept is taught to us from very early ages. (Murder is bad, not killing someone is good) I won't say thousands of years, but hundreds of years ago, this stuff was being taught. For Shakespeare to arrive at that conclusion, he had to somehow arrive at that conclusion himself. :)
@@erniesulovic4734 so not so much "religion" but perhaps spirituality? I can get on board with that. In that sense I believe it is a long journey. In some ways I believe life is a journey and not a destination (although I am not sure how to explain that process all the way through logically). But yeah, I can def. understand seeking a balance. Good call!!
Evil and good does not exist
Yeah, killing a pregnant woman and cannibalizing on her baby isn't evil.
.
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Get rid of the god bit then we can start having rational discussions.
All this debate about GOD I seen his glory with my own eyes eventually every single human being will see Christ face to face as I have. I don’t understand everything about suffering especially sick children but God knows exactly what has to be done and in the end his church will live with unending joy free all all the curses we endure today.
God uses the bad to bring the good? That means it's good to commit evil deeds, since god will just bring good out of it anyway!
@Winston Jen Modern social righteousness often differs from the righteousness of the Bible. “A wrong deed is right if the majority of people declare it not to be wrong.” By this principle we can see our standards shifting from year to year according to the popular vote. Divorce was once frowned upon by society, and laws against fornication and adultery were strictly enforced. But now divorce is accepted by society, and fornication is glorified in our literature and films.
Another way to call evil good is to say that morals are relative. “As the occasion, so the behavior.” We have changed our moral code to fit our behavior instead of changing our behavior to harmonize with our moral code. Nothing is firm today. We are not on solid ground. Young people are shifting from one side to the other. Morally, they are drifting aimlessly without compass or guide.
@@dearthcharles5764
The bible condones slavery. Guess we should get rid of the 13th Amendment.
Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's slave. 1 Corinthians 7:21-22
Slaves, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God. Ephesians 6:5
Slaves, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ. Colossians 3:22
Masters, give unto your slaves that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven. Colossians 4:1
Let as many slaves as are under the yoke count their masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise ... he is proud, knowing nothing.... From such withdraw thyself. 1 Timothy 6:1-5
Slaves, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God. Titus 2:9-10
Slaves, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. 1 Peter 2:18
If good and evil are what god decrees to be good or evil, then he could turn around today and decree that torture for fun is good.
@@winstonjen5360 1 Cor. 7:21 please x-ref 1 Cor 7:24. I urge you to consider the apostle Paul. Was he not in bondage, and yet worshiped God? Our position in life has no (should not) have any bearing in our relationship with Christ. Bondage is not always "physical" slavery. X-ref Rom. 8:21; v:15; Heb. 2:15; Gal. 2:14
Note also that "Bondage" is also used without any association of slavery Acts 20:19; Rom. 6:6, 7:6, 12:11; Gal. 5:13.
The word Bondage (In the Hebrew) literally became known as "to denote any kind of bondage or to be in bondage"
In these verses the apostle(s) shows that Christianity makes no change in our civil connections.
Just three chapters into the story of God’s creation, humanity gave up its freedom by choosing to rebel against God.
The loss of physical freedom was often tied to spiritual disobedience like worshiping false gods. the long-term effects were both physical and spiritual.
To say that the Bible "condones" slavery had nothing to do with God.
Today, are we not slaves to Cesar? (Money, paying bills) are we not slaves to children? (raising them, caring for them) The list goes on. In essence, marriage is a bondage of slavery (till death do us part). Should we let those things change our relationship with God? So, to your point, yes, there is slavery, and yes, it has been around for thousands of years. Can God abolish this? Yes, he could. No doubt. But then, that would be taking autonomy away from individuals. God would be imposing his will upon humanity.
@ Winston Jen I forgot to add (or say): right, wrong, indifferent, there should be (notice I said should be) a separation between church and state. I know for a fact that is not 100% true or accurate. However, that does not preclude individuals within the church from voicing political opinions. (In other words, the church as a whole, should not be sanctioning any one political view point or another) Yeah, I know, that is not reality. Never the less, (in terms of the Bible) there is no correlation between it and the 13th amendment.
@@dearthcharles5764
The bible advocates slavery. Not once does it speak out against slavery as an institution.
Art thou called being a slave? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's slave. 1 Corinthians 7:21-22
Slaves, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God. Ephesians 6:5
Slaves, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ. Colossians 3:22
Masters, give unto your slaves that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven. Colossians 4:1
Let as many slaves as are under the yoke count their masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise ... he is proud, knowing nothing.... From such withdraw thyself. 1 Timothy 6:1-5
Slaves, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God. Titus 2:9-10
Slaves, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. 1 Peter 2:18
God belief is a rationalization, but it is not reasonable.
I AM GOD!
OF COURSE IT IS NOT REASONABLE. Why else do you think I require faith?
IDIOT!
Bunch of junk!
Straw Man Fallacy. You assume evil cannot exist if there is a holy God but this is a false assertion. #Freewill