The Problem of Evil

[Immanuel Can]

so not intospoiling, nor the opposite beating the spirit out of an animal. something in the middle is the best option.

I find you actually never have to hit an animal. You just have to make the rules clear to them, and that means finding the way to "speak" that they understand. And they want to obey you...they just don't always know what you want. So you've got to be patient, and find the right way to "explain" it to them. Then they cooperate.

So, for example, to get a dog house-trained, you don't have to hit it; you just have to use a method like kennel-then-outside, when you notice they're getting close "the point," to get them to realize that messes go out in the yard; then they'll faithfully follow that rule...with the odd accident, sometimes. But they'll be trained.

thanks for reply.

You're welcome. Seriously, get a new friend. You don't owe it to the old one to grieve a long time. They wouldn't care about that. Turn your grief into something positive, and help out a new animal.

[bahman]

Animal suffering was my concern when I said which kind of good could possibly come out of evil? One kicks a dog. How God can possibly turn this into good.

We didn't say that kicking dogs was ever good. It's always evil, in itself, we agreed. We asked a different question: namely, how could allowing somebody the choice to "kick dogs," or to do any other kind of evil, be ultimately a better things than preventing him from doing evil?

Dogs shouldn't be in the fallen world. Humans are free to kick each other. Problem solved. The problem is that animals are in the fallen world. So we got a problem with good God.

And we've already established that there's one way: if the only way for human beings to have freedom of will was to give them the genuine option not only of doing good, but also the freedom to choose evil, then letting them have that freedom would not make their evil into good; but it would imply that creating beings capable of genuine free will was perhaps a very great good in its own right -- one worth risking, and even allowing, that some of these free beings will abuse their freedom to kick dogs...or whatever else they may choose to do.

Let's make it personal. Is telling lies evil? Is coveting others' possessions evil? Is sleeping with your neighbour's wife evil? And so on. The Bible says that all these things are evil; but what do you say?

If you agree with the 10 Commandments on these points, and say that these things -- lying, greed, adultery -- are evil, then let me ask you this: should God prevent you from even having the potential to do these things? Or should he allow you the freedom to be able to, but to choose to tell the truth, be unselfish, and be faithful instead?

Would you rather be free or controlled?

I like to be free. Creating an agent with the potential to do evil is evil. Creating an agent with the potential to do good is good.

[Immanuel Can]

I like to be free. Creating an agent with the potential to do evil is evil. Creating an agent with the potential to do good is good.

But think carefully.

Is there any meaningful sense in which we can say a being was "free to do good," when all the time he was not free to do anything but that "good"? Is it not obvious that that is not free will at all, but rather a case of a being being programmed robotically to do good only?

To have freedom to be good, one must also have had the option to have done otherwise. And that option has to be genuine: if it was hedged off and prevented by circumstance, then you never had the freedom to do it at all, and so the fact that you chose the good is no longer a freely chosen or morally significant thing: you couldn't do anything but what you happened to do, then.

[bahman]

I like to be free. Creating an agent with the potential to do evil is evil. Creating an agent with the potential to do good is good.

But think carefully.

Is there any meaningful sense in which we can say a being was "free to do good," when all the time he was not free to do anything but that "good"? Is it not obvious that that is not free will at all, but rather a case of a being being programmed robotically to do good only?

No. You still can choose between different goods in a world that is good. Heaven for example.

To have freedom to be good, one must also have had the option to have done otherwise. And that option has to be genuine: if it was hedged off and prevented by circumstance, then you never had the freedom to do it at all, and so the fact that you chose the good is no longer a freely chosen or morally significant thing: you couldn't do anything but what you happened to do, then.

No.

[Immanuel Can]

No. You still can choose between different goods in a world that is good.

That moves the problem to slightly different terms, but doesn't change it. For we could easily accuse God of not always making the BEST good happen, and cry out that he's letting second-rate goods happen instead. So again, if God is morally-bound always to make only the best possible thing happen, then there is no possibility of human freedom.

To have freedom to be good, one must also have had the option to have done otherwise. And that option has to be genuine: if it was hedged off and prevented by circumstance, then you never had the freedom to do it at all, and so the fact that you chose the good is no longer a freely chosen or morally significant thing: you couldn't do anything but what you happened to do, then.

No.

Yes. How can you say, "I am free" when you never ever have even the possibility to choose anything different from what you did?

Robotics, again.

[gaffo]

so not intospoiling, nor the opposite beating the spirit out of an animal. something in the middle is the best option.

I find you actually never have to hit an animal. You just have to make the rules clear to them, and that means finding the way to "speak" that they understand. And they want to obey you...they just don't always know what you want. So you've got to be patient, and find the right way to "explain" it to them. Then they cooperate.

agreed, i did not beat Fidget, just bopped her head a few times while she was curled up and carried back to my house. not into beating any living creature.


-per corporal punishment, per me - my mom spiold the shit out of m (raised by a single mom - i got by with more than i should have - always ran wild - hoping my mom would slap me down but never did................thankfully i had enough self sence via aging out of adolesence to fix myself............but i do think a good slapdown would have fixed me a few yrs earlier (or a father figure - which i never had the blessing of) - i think this is a boy thing, girls problems are different i think. (ie girls raised by single moms fair better)

the best thing to happen to me was to be paddled HARD in middle school by Mr Paine - and it was painfull, and i know i deserved it at the time - something my mom would never do (wanting to be friends with me - instead of my master)

anyway, just sayin.

You're welcome. Seriously, get a new friend. You don't owe it to the old one to grieve a long time. They wouldn't care about that. Turn your grief into something positive, and help out a new animal.

I shall in a few months. big beliver in the city pound (NOT kill free shelters - they don't kill so why go there instead of where the do?). as the place to go to.


thanks for reply Sir.

[Immanuel Can]

thanks for reply Sir.

You're most welcome.

[gaffo]

Dogs shouldn't be in the fallen world. Humans are free to kick each other. Problem solved. The problem is that animals are in the fallen world. So we got a problem with good God.

now you are refering to the good book Jubalees. interesting work. and one i personally like.

not in the Canon, but highly revered for centuries 20 centuries ago up there with the Enoch works (book of and Secrets of)

[bahman]

No. You still can choose between different goods in a world that is good.

That moves the problem to slightly different terms, but doesn't change it. For we could easily accuse God of not always making the BEST good happen, and cry out that he's letting second-rate goods happen instead. So again, if God is morally-bound always to make only the best possible thing happen, then there is no possibility of human freedom.

No. It solve the problem completely. Can you do evil in Heaven? No, because of the beatific vision. GIve the vision to all humans in order to solve the problem of evil.

To have freedom to be good, one must also have had the option to have done otherwise. And that option has to be genuine: if it was hedged off and prevented by circumstance, then you never had the freedom to do it at all, and so the fact that you chose the good is no longer a freely chosen or morally significant thing: you couldn't do anything but what you happened to do, then.

No.

Yes. How can you say, "I am free" when you never ever have even the possibility to choose anything different from what you did?

Robotics, again.

I am still free to choose between good things.

[bahman]

Dogs shouldn't be in the fallen world. Humans are free to kick each other. Problem solved. The problem is that animals are in the fallen world. So we got a problem with good God.

now you are refering to the good book Jubalees. interesting work. and one i personally like.

not in the Canon, but highly revered for centuries 20 centuries ago up there with the Enoch works (book of and Secrets of)

Interesting.

[gaffo]

Dogs shouldn't be in the fallen world. Humans are free to kick each other. Problem solved. The problem is that animals are in the fallen world. So we got a problem with good God.

now you are refering to the good book Jubalees. interesting work. and one i personally like.

not in the Canon, but highly revered for centuries 20 centuries ago up there with the Enoch works (book of and Secrets of)

Interesting.

do you konw about that work? - it is interesting BTW - lol - written around 200 BC - so fully known in Jesus time.

anyway in that work the myth is that prior to the "fall" animals and man could literally talk to each other, all were vegitarians (what was it the Levits? some sect anyway that refused to eat meat, and John the Baptists was a member of - he was an Essene techically, but my knowledge is limited so do not know if the Essenes were vegitarian).

anyway the theme of that book is that after the "fall", the since Adam infected the rest of the world, man could no longer talk to the animals (St Francis could they say - prob there is a link to Jubalees theology about him? - maybe he was so good that he could and others could not - and yes i now Francis was a millian later - but there might be a ultural link there), that infection created the carnivores - i.e. eating meat is evil - for man and animals - refer to the perfect world and the restoration of that world at the end times - i.e. Jesus makes many reference of "when the lion with lie with the lamb and eat straw" - Jesus know about Jubales and affirmed its theology and beleived at the end times lions will no longer be carnivores.


I'm an Atheist - as you no doulbt must know by now.

i just have an interest in theology - even if forgotten by modern Chrsitians/Jews. so they are just more ignorant of thier religian than i am.

what else is new.

[Immanuel Can]

No. You still can choose between different goods in a world that is good.

That moves the problem to slightly different terms, but doesn't change it. For we could easily accuse God of not always making the BEST good happen, and cry out that he's letting second-rate goods happen instead. But God isn't just "a little bit good": He's the absolute Source of all goodness, health, life and light. He's the consummate good...and so those who stand in relationship to Him must also become consummately good, or they are not fit companions for a righteous God.

As the Word of God says, "You shall be holy, as I am holy."

So again, if God is morally-bound always to make only the best possible thing happen, and only to relate to the kinds of friends who also only ever do the BEST possible thing, then there is no possibility of human freedom.

But God cares about human freedom: and one main reason He does, is that he wants men and women to have a free choice of associate with Him. He wants us to be individuals, consciences, identities...in short, real people who freely choose to be his friends and beloved ones. This consummate good, this BEST good, is simply impossible if we never had a choice but to choose it in the first place.

And what does it mean when we say, "To have a choice other than to be in relationship freely with a righteous God?" What if one of the things it means is to have the option to kick dogs? Or to do much worse. What if having genuine freedom to choose to know and love God means that we also have to have the option to reject Him, though He is the source of all that is right, good and true, and to choose "the Other"?

What is that "Other"? If He is righteous, it can be nothing other than that which is unrighteous...dark, evil, false and cruel. And kicking dogs probably fits that description, doesn't it?

[gaffo]

off topic - sorry.

but related to Jubalees.

the first theolgy of why Satan and his legion fell was due to lust of mortal women - refer to Genesis and the "men of renoun, and the niphilum' sometime around Jesus time the nerrative changed from the Legion fell due to lust to on eof Pride - refer to The Apocaylypse.

sometime shortly aftr Jesus time the mainline theology of why the Legion fell became on eof pride and not lust. since 200 AD or so the former became dogma and the latter uttly ignored.

ot rejected, just ignored.

so rejectd by default - and now forgotten by modern jews/christians.

[Immanuel Can]

the first theolgy of why Satan and his legion fell was due to lust of mortal women - refer to Genesis and the "men of renoun, and the niphilum'

"Satan and his legion" are not at all mentioned in that passage, actually. And the meaning of the whole "Nephilim" reference is a matter of much debate but little actual information. Best not to speculate too wildly. We don't seem to have the textual basis to make any definite claims about that one.

[bahman]

now you are refering to the good book Jubalees. interesting work. and one i personally like.

not in the Canon, but highly revered for centuries 20 centuries ago up there with the Enoch works (book of and Secrets of)

Interesting.

do you konw about that work? - it is interesting BTW - lol - written around 200 BC - so fully known in Jesus time.

anyway in that work the myth is that prior to the "fall" animals and man could literally talk to each other, all were vegitarians (what was it the Levits? some sect anyway that refused to eat meat, and John the Baptists was a member of - he was an Essene techically, but my knowledge is limited so do not know if the Essenes were vegitarian).

anyway the theme of that book is that after the "fall", the since Adam infected the rest of the world, man could no longer talk to the animals (St Francis could they say - prob there is a link to Jubalees theology about him? - maybe he was so good that he could and others could not - and yes i now Francis was a millian later - but there might be a ultural link there), that infection created the carnivores - i.e. eating meat is evil - for man and animals - refer to the perfect world and the restoration of that world at the end times - i.e. Jesus makes many reference of "when the lion with lie with the lamb and eat straw" - Jesus know about Jubales and affirmed its theology and beleived at the end times lions will no longer be carnivores.


I'm an Atheist - as you no doulbt must know by now.

i just have an interest in theology - even if forgotten by modern Chrsitians/Jews. so they are just more ignorant of thier religian than i am.

what else is new.

Thanks for the further explanation. I was not aware of that work. Good read.