# Free will and the problem of evil.



## SemperFiDawg

Many of you may not be familiar with what is called "The problem of evil".  If you aren't it basically says that the God of the Bible doesn't exist if evil exists and it has been a very powerful argument for the atheistic viewpoint.  

The argument was successfully refuted by Alvin Plantinga and below is a link to a brilliantly written article that details the argument and the refutation in a concise yet detailed manner.  It is well worth reading and becoming familiar with.

It could easily be posted in the AAA forum due to the fact that it disproves one of their strongest arguments against the existence of God.  I chose to post it here because of one simple fact:  It is based on the assumption man has free will and I know that is contested hotly here.   

So here's what I ask of you before you reply.  Understand the argument.  If you're incapable or unmotivated enough to read and understand the article, don't bother making yourself look foolish by regurgitating some doctrine.

What I would really like see is someone provide a refutation of the problem of evil NOT based on free will, because I don't think it's possible.  Prove me wrong.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/


----------



## gordon 2

I do respect your conditions as to participation in this tread.

But...

I often wonder if adam and eve  even in the original estate  
had need of faith and that the fall was due not to will but to the negligence of faith outside of free will? How could they know that taking faith for granted that it would harden their hearts?and usher in evil in man's life and booth them out of God's rest?

So evil is not conditional or dependant on free will but   rather on faith negligence--which is not specifically intended or willed.


----------



## rjcruiser

SemperFiDawg said:


> Many of you may not be familiar with what is called "The problem of evil".  If you aren't it basically says that the God of the Bible doesn't exist if evil exists and it has been a very powerful argument for the atheistic viewpoint.
> 
> The argument was successfully refuted by Alvin Plantinga and below is a link to a brilliantly written article that details the argument and the refutation in a concise yet detailed manner.  It is well worth reading and becoming familiar with.
> 
> It could easily be posted in the AAA forum due to the fact that it disproves one of their strongest arguments against the existence of God.  I chose to post it here because of one simple fact:  It is based on the assumption man has free will and I know that is contested hotly here.
> 
> So here's what I ask of you before you reply.  Understand the argument.  If you're incapable or unmotivated enough to read and understand the article, don't bother making yourself look foolish by regurgitating some doctrine.
> 
> What I would really like see is someone provide a refutation of the problem of evil NOT based on free will, because I don't think it's possible.  Prove me wrong.
> 
> http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/



Disclaimer...I didn't read the article. 

I'm slow....and I'm trying to read the last paragraph in your post above and understand what you're asking for.  All the negatives have me mixed up.

Are you saying that the problem of evil in mankind is based on free will?  

or...

Are you saying that the problem of evil in mankind is not based on free will?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

gordon 2 said:


> I do respect your conditions as to participation in this tread.
> 
> But...
> 
> I often wonder if adam and eve  even in the original estate
> had need of faith and that the fall was due not to will but to the negligence of faith outside of free will? How could they know that taking faith for granted that it would harden their hearts?and usher in evil in man's life and booth them out of God's rest?
> 
> So evil is not conditional or dependant on free will but   rather on faith negligence--which is not specifically intended or willed.



Did you read and understand the link?  Are you trying to change the topic of the thread in the 1st post?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

rjcruiser said:


> Disclaimer...I didn't read the article.
> 
> I'm slow....and I'm trying to read the last paragraph in your post above and understand what you're asking for.  All the negatives have me mixed up.
> 
> Are you saying that the problem of evil in mankind is based on free will?
> 
> or...
> 
> Are you saying that the problem of evil in mankind is not based on free will?



read the link please


----------



## gemcgrew

SemperFiDawg said:


> What I would really like see is someone provide a refutation of the problem of evil NOT based on free will, because I don't think it's possible.  Prove me wrong.



http://www.vincentcheung.com/2005/03/15/the-problem-of-evil/


----------



## hummerpoo

Well, I read it; but only once which would not be the case if it were interesting or exciting.  Much of what crosses the mind while working through the proof is brought out in sections 7-10; significantly that it is an intellectual exercise. "Philosophers claim that you only need to use your imagination."  And that is what Plantinga has done.  He does not appear to be attempting to prove an actual condition, but to show that a condition can be imagined that would oppose the "problem of evil" and ,thereby, philosophically discredit what has been proposed by another philosopher. 

The one thing that I did not catch in the later four sections, if it is there, which jumps out at the reader early in the reading is the assumption that man is omniscient — man knows, in an absolute sense, good and evil.  Without that assumption the whole of the argument is meaningless to the disciples understanding of God.  If man were to be given free-will without absolute knowledge of the eternally good consequences and eternally evil consequences of his choices the only possible outcome is entropy or chaos.


I apologize for the late addition.
The above assumes that Bebee has accurately summarized Plantinga


----------



## gordon 2

SemperFiDawg said:


> Did you read and understand the link?  Are you trying to change the topic of the thread in the 1st post?



No. I don't know what possessed me. My apologies...


----------



## Madman

SemperFiDawg said:


> What I would really like see is someone provide a refutation of the problem of evil NOT based on free will, because I don't think it's possible.  Prove me wrong.
> http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/




It did not prove that evil is a product of free will, it gave a proof for the ability of a loving, omniscient, God to exist in a world with evil.  Does it give the atheist something else to consider?  I believe it does.

It was interesting but for the Christian the presuppositions of atheism and evil are incorrect from the beginning.


----------



## welderguy

SemperFiDawg said:


> What I would really like see is someone provide a refutation of the problem of evil NOT based on free will, because I don't think it's possible.  Prove me wrong.



The book of Job addresses all of these issues.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hummerpoo said:


> Well, I read it; but only once which would not be the case if it were interesting or exciting.  Much of what crosses the mind while working through the proof is brought out in sections 7-10; significantly that it is an intellectual exercise. "Philosophers claim that you only need to use your imagination."  And that is what Plantinga has done.  He does not appear to be attempting to prove an actual condition, but to show that a condition can be imagined that would oppose the "problem of evil" and ,thereby, philosophically discredit what has been proposed by another philosopher.
> 
> The one thing that I did not catch in the later four sections, if it is there, which jumps out at the reader early in the reading is the assumption that man is omniscient — man knows, in an absolute sense, good and evil.  Without that assumption the whole of the argument is meaningless to the disciples understanding of God.  If man were to be given free-will without absolute knowledge of the eternally good consequences and eternally evil consequences of his choices the only possible outcome is entropy or chaos.
> 
> 
> I apologize for the late addition.
> The above assumes that Bebee has accurately summarized Plantinga



No way you read the link, understood it and typed this.  Sorry but NO!

Why even bother replying if you didn't.  It makes absolutely no sense.  There's no obligation compelling you to comment on this.  Senseless.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

welderguy said:


> The book of Job addresses all of these issues.



Didn't read it either huh?  Kinda suprising given the amount of time you spend down stairs in the AAA forum.  Oh well.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Madman said:


> It did not prove that evil is a product of free will, it gave a proof for the ability of a loving, omniscient, God to exist in a world with evil.  Does it give the atheist something else to consider?  I believe it does.
> 
> It was interesting but for the Christian the presuppositions of atheism and evil are incorrect from the beginning.



In hindsight I tend to agree with your first statement, with this caveat.  I think it laid a very strong foundation for that argument.  I tell you what though.  I appreciate not only you reading it but conceding its importance.  Not sure I understand your last statement as you did not elaborate.  Also, because apparently no believers find it interesting I will ask you.  Do you see any other way that a believer could defend the problem of evil if free will does NOT exist.


----------



## hummerpoo

SemperFiDawg said:


> No way you read the link, understood it and typed this.  Sorry but NO!
> 
> Why even bother replying if you didn't.  It makes absolutely no sense.  There's no obligation compelling you to comment on this.  Senseless.



I will say that I understand more now than I did before reading this post.


----------



## Madman

SemperFiDawg said:


> I appreciate not only you reading it but conceding its importance.



I find all aspects of theology important and I am a strong proponent of free will since it is Biblical.  We just need to agree on the definition, but that is for another time. 




SemperFiDawg said:


> Not sure I understand your last statement as you did not elaborate.  Also, because apparently no believers find it interesting I will ask you.  Do you see any other way that a believer could defend the problem of evil if free will does NOT exist.



I think most believers don find it important because they don't want to take the time to searce the Scriptures.


I didn't elaborate on my last statement because you asked to stay on topic.

I was simply commenting on the fact that the beginning of the paper makes presuppositions about God that the Christian does not agree with.  

All I was saying is that the non-beleiver puts up false arguments about God.

As for free will, of course we believe in free will, we have no choice.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Madman said:


> It did not prove that evil is a product of free will, it gave a proof for the ability of a loving, omniscient, God to exist in a world with evil.  Does it give the atheist something else to consider?  I believe it does.
> 
> It was interesting but for the Christian the presuppositions of atheism and evil are incorrect from the beginning.



I'm going to agree with Madman. The link doesn't really prove evil comes from free will. Even if free will exist.

I can't say or understand God and his purpose of evil. Even Christians suffer from the evils of diseases and natural disasters. 
Maybe evil is used by God to show who his children are. Job was mentioned as well. I don't really understand God in that either. 
If God using his omniscience saw that man would be evil by giving him free will, then if he still continued with his plan, what does that say about God? 

It's a good argument/discussion but I can't see where it proves or disproves free will.

What about the logical problem of goodness without God?
Don't hear much about that argument?


----------



## welderguy

SemperFiDawg said:


> Didn't read it either huh?  Kinda suprising given the amount of time you spend down stairs in the AAA forum.  Oh well.



I did read it. You sound like you are expecting me to be excited to have this so I can win debates with atheists, but I'm not. The reason is because Plantinga's logic is flawed, in my opinion. It's based on inaccurate concepts about God, mainly His sovereignty.

I thought Eleonore Stump's argument was the closest to the way I believe, but even she was a little off base, in my opinion.(evil and suffering does not bring about God's gift of salvation)

I'd love to tell you why I think the book of Job explains it much better, but only if you are open to it.(you may think it would derail your thread, and I would understand that)


----------



## Israel

hummerpoo said:


> I will say that I understand more now than I did before reading this post.


Though I don't  regret you have been called a liar, the manner in which you bear it shows you are in very good company.
After all...what's a man to do?
Jesus says the Devil is a liar from the beginning. Satan moves mouths to say "No, Jesus is the liar!"
Obviously a mere man is going to be at an impasse..."who do I believe? One says this of the other, the other says this...of _that_ other" How could one _know_?

This scripture has been on my heart for quite a while, but no, I don't think you will find it in a Bible search. I don't care, at all, frankly, I know who wrote it where it is written: "When a man is true...his testimony is true".

My own testimony has been sullied a bit by my own thinking, given over to some degree by a grandiosity inherently my own to say a thing like "It seems every man wants to belong to something larger than himself" That seems, I hoped, would "let me off the hook".

But rare is the man made willing to enlist to something smaller "than himself", who will refrain from words when finally, words are shown less than the very thing needful.
"Henceforth I have not much to say to you, for the Prince of this world comes, and he has nothing in me"
There always it appears now, that time when "put up or shut up" is demonstrated manifestly as "you will put up, when _you_ are shut up"
Yes, I use the grief you are willing (and quite apparently..._glad_) to suffer in being called a liar...as a launching point. But only to tell you...it is not unseen. I don't choose to confess, I may not even much want to, I am simply more pressed to. Jesus is Lord. I do not mean to steal your crown...but I do enjoy beholding it.

Men cannot but help give themselves away in what they say...but likewise...in what they do not. This remains obviously a mystery to some, but one has been sent as help...to us all. "He shall take of mine and make it known to you".
Now, some would say, gee, are already saying "this thread is being hi-jacked!" But they don't know they already have been, the thief that comes in the night, or at least has been willing to liken Himself to one...is always ready to make off with all the "goods" one hopes to display toward their own righteousness.
What may have been summoned by hope in another thread, that is..."come offer what Paul tells you of what you see going on" is just as appropriate here, as any other, for though we may try to keep our "threads" separate, His weaving is not deterred by our wants.

"There must needs be heresies among you, that those who are approved may be made manifest".


----------



## Artfuldodger

The Atheist ask if God is real, why does evil exist? And the answer is free will? Free will may exist but it's a lame answer as to why God allows evil.

Let's start with Satan. He used his free will and rebelled.(if he had free will) God did not destroy him. God then makes man. Now if we must question God's ways, we might ask, why did God give man free will knowing what it did to Satan? It made him evil. It introduced evil into existence. God made man anyway knowing that Satan whom he allowed to exist, would tempt man. He knew what man would do. God is all knowing.

Even with free will, it doesn't let God off the hook of continuing with his plan of creating man, with evil already present. God had already allowed evil to exist before he created man. Therefore the answer can't be free will, even if free will exists. Why because God had the foreknowledge and continued with his plan.  This is why we don't question God's plan. It is beyond our comprehension. Free will or not.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Two of you guys have pointed out the article doesn't prove that evil comes from free will leading me to re-read my posts.  I can't find where that was ever asserted by me or the author of the article.  If I missed it please point it out, because if I said that then I misspoke.  What I said, I think, is that Plantinga has disproved the Athiest argument that the God of the Bible doesn't exist if evil exists.

As an aside.  For those of you unfamiliar with Plantinga, you should be.  He is without a doubt the most successful phylosophical apologist and intellectual of our time.  His work will go down in history along side C.S Lewis's and Pascal's.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Artfuldodger said:


> The Atheist ask if God is real, why does evil exist? And the answer is free will? Free will may exist but it's a lame answer as to why God allows evil.



No it's not, and again, had your read and comprehended the article you would understand why that is such an ignorant statement.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Both Madman and welder have stated they find Plantinga's presuppositions about God flawed.  Would you guys please elaborate, because I haven't seen it yet.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Artfuldodger said:


> The Atheist ask if God is real, why does evil exist? And the answer is free will? Free will may exist but it's a lame answer as to why God allows evil.
> 
> Let's start with Satan. He used his free will and rebelled.(if he had free will) God did not destroy him. God then makes man. Now if we must question God's ways, we might ask, why did God give man free will knowing what it did to Satan? It made him evil. It introduced evil into existence. God made man anyway knowing that Satan whom he allowed to exist, would tempt man. He knew what man would do. God is all knowing.
> 
> Even with free will, it doesn't let God off the hook of continuing with his plan of creating man, with evil already present. God had already allowed evil to exist before he created man. Therefore the answer can't be free will, even if free will exists. Why because God had the foreknowledge and continued with his plan.  This is why we don't question God's plan. It is beyond our comprehension. Free will or not.



If you want to discuss what I'm about to raise then start another thread, but just what makes you think God created Satan before man, because that's a strong presupposition.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hummerpoo said:


> I will say that I understand more now than I did before reading this post.



Listen.  I'm sorry if I was a bit harsh.  You have my sincere apology, but had you read it completely you would understand that in order to disprove the Athiest argument it's not necessary to posit an absolute or real situation: only one that is logically consistent and sound which he did and the Athiest grudging agreed that he did.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

welderguy said:


> I did read it. You sound like you are expecting me to be excited to have this so I can win debates with atheists, but I'm not. The reason is because Plantinga's logic is flawed, in my opinion. It's based on inaccurate concepts about God, mainly His sovereignty.
> 
> I thought Eleonore Stump's argument was the closest to the way I believe, but even she was a little off base, in my opinion.(evil and suffering does not bring about God's gift of salvation)
> 
> I'd love to tell you why I think the book of Job explains it much better, but only if you are open to it.(you may think it would derail your thread, and I would understand that)



Honestly, yes I'd love to hear it, but please in another thread.


----------



## welderguy

SemperFiDawg said:


> Both Madman and welder have stated they find Plantinga's presuppositions about God flawed.  Would you guys please elaborate, because I haven't seen it yet.



The only way I see(scripturally)to explain evil and suffering in the world is by stating what God has told us, which will be rejected by athiests because they do not have faith.

God told us that He created everything...for Himself.

Col.1
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him.


Everything is for the purpose of glorifying Himself. That's the bottom line .

Even His just wrath upon His creation is for His glory(Ps.76:10). It's His to do whatsoever He will. Who is man(the creature) to question the Creator anyway?

And this text really says it all for me.

Romans 9:22-23
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,


The destruction of anything unholy, by an infinitely holy God, should be the expected result; and his mercy should be the unexpected result.
But , instead we see man in his pride thinking exactly the opposite, when he asks "If God is real,why is there evil in the world?".

Job pondered this and even confronted God with it. Then God,through Eliphaz, put him back in his place right quick.



Plantinga never addressed any of these concepts. He only tried to use logic to appeal to natural logic, leaving out God's just sovereignty over His creation.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

welderguy said:


> The only way I see(scripturally)to explain evil and suffering in the world is by stating what God has told us, which will be rejected by athiests because they do not have faith.



Which is why......




welderguy said:


> Plantinga never addressed any of these concepts. He only tried to use logic to appeal to natural logic, leaving out God's just sovereignty over His creation.


 
He didn't have to address them, and if you re-read the article you will see that he did not leave out God's sovereignty.  In fact it's an integral part of the argument so that statement has me a bit vexed.

For the record.  When Jesus said I am the Way, the Truth .....   I think the Truth is expansive enough to cover logic.  

Or maybe a better way of saying it is because Jesus is Truth and Logic points to Truth,  Logic in it's purest sense points one to Christ.


----------



## Artfuldodger

"What I would really like see is someone provide a refutation of the problem of evil NOT based on free will, because I don't think it's possible. Prove me wrong."

Sorry, I missed what you were looking for.

Plantinga did address God's sovereignty, he just didn't understand it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Artfuldodger said:


> "What I would really like see is someone provide a refutation of the problem of evil NOT based on free will, because I don't think it's possible. Prove me wrong."
> 
> Sorry, I missed what you were looking for.
> 
> Plantinga did address God's sovereignty, he just didn't understand it.



Let me clear it up a bit.  I would like for someone who believes in strict predestination to logically defend it in the face of 'the problem of evil'.  Maybe I was too vague in the OP.

OK.  How did he not understand it given it's an integral part of his argument.


----------



## hummerpoo

SemperFiDawg said:


> Listen.  I'm sorry if I was a bit harsh.  You have my sincere apology, but had you read it completely you would understand that in order to disprove the Athiest argument it's not necessary to posit an absolute or real situation: only one that is logically consistent and sound which he did and the Athiest grudging agreed that he did.



Did I say that he did not succeed in what he set out to do?  I don't think so.  I said that what he did does not require logic based on concrete facts, imaginary facts are sufficient.  Bebee himself points out that many people find his argument less than satisfying because he (I don't remember his exact words) stops short of tying his argument to reality.  Perhaps you should read my post.  I do not plan to reread the article because I have a strong preference for theologically based argument; philosophically founded argument strike me as just men showing off there big brains.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hummerpoo said:


> Did I say that he did not succeed in what he set out to do?  I don't think so.  I said that what he did does not require logic based on concrete facts, imaginary facts are sufficient.  Bebee himself points out that many people find his argument less than satisfying because he (I don't remember his exact words) stops short of tying his argument to reality.  Perhaps you should read my post.  I do not plan to reread the article because I have a strong preference for theologically based argument; philosophically founded argument strike me as just men showing off there big brains.



You can't argue theologically with people(a secular society) who reject theology and it's presuppositions.  What you can do is argue SUCESSFULLY, philosophically, logically sound arguments which in turn opens people's eyes that theological arguments aren't just based on invalid presuppositions.

This is Platinga's contribution: proving to a secular world that theological presuppositions are logical and valid.  Do you realize how BIG that is after 60 years of being taught that Christianity is just a fairy tale based on absurd propositions.


----------



## Madman

SemperFiDawg said:


> Both Madman and welder have stated they find Plantinga's presuppositions about God flawed.  Would you guys please elaborate, because I haven't seen it yet.



I did not say his argument was flawed.  The logic works.
I said non-believers views of God are flawed.


----------



## Madman

SemperFiDawg said:


> This is Platinga's contribution: proving to a secular world that theological presuppositions are logical and valid.  Do you realize how BIG that is after 60 years of being taught that Christianity is just a fairy tale based on absurd propositions.



Yes.  Science and logic got me to where I am.

I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.


----------



## welderguy

SemperFiDawg said:


> Which is why......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't have to address them, and if you re-read the article you will see that he did not leave out God's sovereignty.  In fact it's an integral part of the argument so that statement has me a bit vexed.
> 
> For the record.  When Jesus said I am the Way, the Truth .....   I think the Truth is expansive enough to cover logic.
> 
> Or maybe a better way of saying it is because Jesus is Truth and Logic points to Truth,  Logic in it's purest sense points one to Christ.



The reason I say Plantinga did not acknowledge God's sovereignty is because his whole argument is founded on the free will of man. Man's natural nature is to choose evil over good, every time. It's only by God's divine intervention that we have righteousness.

even...
"the plowing of the wicked is sin"


----------



## hummerpoo

SemperFiDawg said:


> You can't argue theologically with people(a secular society) who reject theology and it's presuppositions.  What you can do is argue SUCESSFULLY, philosophically, logically sound arguments which in turn opens people's eyes that theological arguments aren't just based on invalid presuppositions.
> 
> This is Platinga's contribution: proving to a secular world that theological presuppositions are logical and valid.  Do you realize how BIG that is after 60 years of being taught that Christianity is just a fairy tale based on absurd propositions.



It is true that an argument's inconsistency with the attributes of the Absolute is not a determinant to an atheist.  So the OP could have been:


SemperFiDawg said:


> Many of you may not be familiar with what is called "The problem of evil".  If you aren't it basically says that the God of the Bible doesn't exist if evil exists and it has been a very powerful argument for the atheistic viewpoint.
> 
> The argument was successfully refuted by Alvin Plantinga and below is a link to a brilliantly written article that details the argument and the refutation in a concise yet detailed manner.  It is well worth reading and becoming familiar with.
> 
> http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/



and the remainder of the OP, along with the response to my initial post, does what if it does not suggest that if you do not accept free-will you are too stupid to understand the logic presented in the article?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

welderguy said:


> The reason I say Plantinga did not acknowledge God's sovereignty is because his whole argument is founded on the free will of man. Man's natural nature is to choose evil over good, every time. It's only by God's divine intervention that we have righteousness.
> 
> even...
> "the plowing of the wicked is sin"



Ok I think I get what you're saying.  I think.  It goes back to my original assertion in the first post.  Can you refute the 'problem of evil' without acknowledging man's free will.   Again.  I don't think you can.  Can you?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hummerpoo said:


> and the remainder of the OP, along with the response to my initial post, does what if it does not suggest that if you do not accept free-will you are too stupid to understand the logic presented in the article?



No.  It's simply a challenge to confront the problem of evil without acknowledging man's free will.  Nothing more. Nothing less.
I will say this though.  If there isn't one, if we are just automatons, then I don't see a fault in the atheist argument.


----------



## welderguy

SemperFiDawg said:


> Ok I think I get what you're saying.  I think.  It goes back to my original assertion in the first post.  Can you refute the 'problem of evil' without acknowledging man's free will.   Again.  I don't think you can.  Can you?



It's true, there was a definite problem with evil in the presence of God. That's exactly why He sent His Son. Jesus took care of the problem of evil for all those that the Father gave Him. On the cross, He blotted out those transgressions, He cast them behind His back, He removed them as far as the east is from the West, and He sewed them up in a bag and cast them into the depths of the sea, forever removed them.

Seems to me, there's no more problem. What say you?


----------



## hummerpoo

semperfidawg said:


> ok i think i get what you're saying.  I think.  It goes back to my original assertion in the first post.  Can you refute the 'problem of evil' without acknowledging man's free will.   Again.  I don't think you can.  Can you?





semperfidawg said:


> no.  It's simply a challenge to confront the problem of evil without acknowledging man's free will.  Nothing more. Nothing less.
> I will say this though.  If there isn't one, if we are just automatons, then i don't see a fault in the atheist argument.


↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓



gemcgrew said:


> http://www.vincentcheung.com/2005/03/15/the-problem-of-evil/


↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hummerpoo said:


> ↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
> 
> 
> ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑



Couldn't get the link to open on my phone earlier.  Will try again.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Excerpt from Gem's link



> The Bible insists that the greatest act of moral evil and injustice in human history was conceived and performed by God:



Sorry, but whatever issue this article is purported to address, it does not address the 'problem of evil' as it's commonly understood.  In fact the above excerpt wholeheartedly enforces it.  I hope to be able to address this more in depth when time allows as I have several more criticisms of it, just not the time to address them currently.


----------



## gemcgrew

SemperFiDawg said:


> Sorry, but whatever issue this article is purported to address, it does not address the 'problem of evil' as it's commonly understood.


That remains for you to show.


SemperFiDawg said:


> In fact the above excerpt wholeheartedly enforces it.


That remains for you to show.


SemperFiDawg said:


> I hope to be able to address this more in depth when time allows as I have several more criticisms of it, just not the time to address them currently.


Take all the time you need.


----------



## red neck richie

SemperFiDawg said:


> Many of you may not be familiar with what is called "The problem of evil".  If you aren't it basically says that the God of the Bible doesn't exist if evil exists and it has been a very powerful argument for the atheistic viewpoint.
> 
> The argument was successfully refuted by Alvin Plantinga and below is a link to a brilliantly written article that details the argument and the refutation in a concise yet detailed manner.  It is well worth reading and becoming familiar with.
> 
> It could easily be posted in the AAA forum due to the fact that it disproves one of their strongest arguments against the existence of God.  I chose to post it here because of one simple fact:  It is based on the assumption man has free will and I know that is contested hotly here.
> 
> So here's what I ask of you before you reply.  Understand the argument.  If you're incapable or unmotivated enough to read and understand the article, don't bother making yourself look foolish by regurgitating some doctrine.
> 
> What I would really like see is someone provide a refutation of the problem of evil NOT based on free will, because I don't think it's possible.  Prove me wrong.
> 
> http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/



So you haven't read the Bible then. Adam and eve were not tempted by God or themselves to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From the beginning in Genesis it speaks of a serpent. You may want to read Revelations as well. You know the whole end of the world thing with satan and all. If you are trying to tell me that satan and he double toothpics and evil don't exist I think your mistaken. If you are saying evil exists and you have a choice based on free will then I would agree.


----------



## gemcgrew




----------



## welderguy

SemperFiDawg said:


> .



Any comment on post 38?
I showed you the solution to the "problem of evil", without freewill.


----------



## gordon 2

So why is the argument that God has morally good or sufficient reasons for actions which are viewed good and bad by man not a valid logical argument to atheists?

This classic argument takes out man's free will as a point of proof in the argument and leaves what man calls evil and what God calls evil to one final judge...which is God and within the classic attributes man ( believers and non believers) give Him? Why does this classical argument fall apart logically? For example the statement that God is all knowing would position God as the final judge of what is good, with degrees of good and evil done by Himself and man.???


----------



## gordon 2

welderguy said:


> Any comment on post 38?
> I showed you the solution to the "problem of evil", without freewill.



I think it needs to be presented in a fashion to and for those who seem to think a logical dissertation is to only way to feed  atheist-philosopher gentiles certain realities in the spiritual realms with the off chance that it might pick their humors. In an effort to meet clever sinners where the're at, it seems that jive talking their cleverness is important to some who mean well but perhaps forget that even Paul had a hard time in their arenas-forums. It is  noted  in scripture to not have worked very well at all and mostly passed the time perhaps permitting Paul to heal from his stripes and move on.


----------



## hummerpoo

gordon 2 said:


> I think it needs to be presented in a fashion to and for those who seem to think a logical dissertation is to only way to feed  atheist-philosopher gentiles certain realities in the spiritual realms with the off chance that it might pick their humors. In an effort to meet clever sinners where the're at, it seems that jive talking their cleverness is important to some who mean well but perhaps forget that even Paul had a hard time in their arenas-forums. It is  noted  in scripture to not have worked very well at all and mostly passed the time perhaps permitting Paul to heal from his stripes and move on.



1 Cor. 1:18-31
Here's a teaser out of the middle: "23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Busy weekend along with death in the family last night.  Will reply as time allows.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Was finally able to get around to the article you posted Gem and really digest it in detail.  After reading, re-reading, and checking the referenced verses I gotta say I found it disturbing on many levels.  I will list them out below,  but I will say up front that due to the nature of the problems I found with this article and that YOU provided it as your 'go-to' reference, I hold very little hope for anything constructive coming of this.  OK.  Here we go:

1) The tone of the overall article is defensive and abrasive.  Not only is there no hint of objectivity, Cheung comes off as arrogant and condescending.

2) His arrogance is badly misplaced.  After doing an adequate job of defining the basic argument, he goes on to make broad sweeping statements and doesn't support them.  Not only is this bad form when presenting a premise, it just bad basic writing in general.  In the few instances where he does attempt to support his premise with scripture it's total eisegesis to the point of incredulity.

3)He makes many statements that are just factually dishonest to the point of absurdity.  As with everything else in life the product is only as good as the integrity of the producer, and his dishonesty voided any integrity his position may have held.

4) The flow the article resembles a spoiled brats temper-tantrum.  Angry arrogance followed by one sided, unsupported assertions, concluding with more arrogant emotionalism.

It's an article I would have been ashamed to put my name to and I won't spend any more time on it.    There's a lot better articles out there on determinism.  If you like I can message the links to you, but this one garbage on every level except an emotional one.  Not really supprising given there are very few strict determinist in all of Christianity and personally I've concluded that their views aren't based on logic or scripture.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

red neck richie said:


> So you haven't read the Bible then. Adam and eve were not tempted by God or themselves to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From the beginning in Genesis it speaks of a serpent. You may want to read Revelations as well. You know the whole end of the world thing with satan and all. If you are trying to tell me that satan and he double toothpics and evil don't exist I think your mistaken. If you are saying evil exists and you have a choice based on free will then I would agree.



I don't think you have followed this thread real close.  Just a hunch.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

welderguy said:


> Any comment on post 38?
> I showed you the solution to the "problem of evil", without freewill.



No you showed the solution to the problem of evil which is off topic btw, but I'll let it slide because it may be the very best example of the absurdity of determinism.

God made Jesus (God incarnate) be crucified to pay the price of our sin(a direct result of the evil that God created) that God made us commit. 

Total lunacy given God's Holiness.

There's so much wrong with determinism it would be laughable if no one actually believed in it.

All that said, Its unscriptural beginning as of Genesis 2:16.


----------



## Israel

Brother, what if the question or "problem" is come at all wrong?
This would especially apply to any intercourse with unbelievers.

We could immediately go to the scriptures to "make a case" for this if we need to amongst ourselves, but can we accept, do we accept that the unbelieving mind is all "of darkness" pertaining to all things? Simply, the unbelieving mind has no grasp of good and evil?

I am persuaded Satan himself has no light...at all. He does not even know himself to be of evil, having no knowledge of God and His ways, he is surely also bereft of any self knowledge. Of all, he is the perfection (for want of a better word) of what does not at all know its estate. I would go even farther to say he works believing himself the supreme good...God. 

In short, the "comic book" vision of a malignant entity rubbing its hands together in fiendish delight in hopes of some mischief, should now be wasted upon us. The devil, of all, could be the "nicest" guy of all. Reasonable even, but only to his own reason.

It is when he is contradicted, the fury that he is, is made apparent. But, it should be plain, should it not, that there is only one capable of contradicting him in truth.

And if we need go to the writings, might we not find this, said of those for whom strong meat is prepared "But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."

In one sense then, does not the believer, if speaking with unbelievers find himself, if he be speaking of matters of good and evil in particular and as to their nature...find himself somewhat akin to a man trying explain how light is spectrally refracted and can show the elemental nature of a substance by such to a man who is blind?

There is no way around the cross. For us, gratefully.


----------



## welderguy

SemperFiDawg said:


> No you showed the solution to the problem of evil which is off topic btw, but I'll let it slide because it may be the very best example of the absurdity of determinism.
> 
> God made Jesus (God incarnate) be crucified to pay the price of our sin(a direct result of the evil that God created) that God made us commit.
> 
> Total lunacy given God's Holiness.
> 
> There's so much wrong with determinism it would be laughable if no one actually believed in it.
> 
> All that said, Its unscriptural beginning as of Genesis 2:16.



In short, there is no free will. It's only a perceived freedom. We run around inside the hedge God has around us(Job 1), and think " look at all this free will I have!". Never realizing God is hedging us in at every turn. We sin and think "that was surely of my own doing", but if God had not parted the hedge for you, well.. you get the picture.


----------



## hobbs27

God's sovereignty is limited to a decision He made before the foundations of the world. 
Free will believers give God too much sovereignty.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> God's sovereignty is limited to a decision He made before the foundations of the world.
> Free will believers give God too much sovereignty.



I trust you are just being facetious with these statements.


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> I trust you are just being facetious with these statements.



Well,  only to prove a point. The free willers God is more sovereign than the Calvinist God that has boxed Himself in to a predetermined action. 
 The Bible tells us of a more sovereign God.  One that has given man free will and one that is and has been capable of changing course according to what man did with his free will. 

Without freewill, what is the source of God's wrath?  Does He take anger out on man for something man had no control over?  That's not a just God and my Bible says God is Just,  it says that God repented that He ever made man.


----------



## gemcgrew

SemperFiDawg said:


> 1) The tone of the overall article is defensive and abrasive.  Not only is there no hint of objectivity, Cheung comes off as arrogant and condescending.
> 
> 2) His arrogance is badly misplaced.  After doing an adequate job of defining the basic argument, he goes on to make broad sweeping statements and doesn't support them.  Not only is this bad form when presenting a premise, it just bad basic writing in general.  In the few instances where he does attempt to support his premise with scripture it's total eisegesis to the point of incredulity.
> 
> 3)He makes many statements that are just factually dishonest to the point of absurdity.  As with everything else in life the product is only as good as the integrity of the producer, and his dishonesty voided any integrity his position may have held.
> 
> 4) The flow the article resembles a spoiled brats temper-tantrum.  Angry arrogance followed by one sided, unsupported assertions, concluding with more arrogant emotionalism.


Descriptions are not arguments.

Take as much time as you need.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

gemcgrew said:


> Descriptions are not arguments.



Neither was your linked article.  You posted it.  Defend it.   If there's a point it makes that you feel is defensible then quote it and defend it.  That's more than the author bothered to do.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

welderguy said:


> I trust you are just being facetious with these statements.



Naw.  It's just a straw man.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Here is a more intelligently constructed argument for determinism.
http://www.godcontention.org/christian/william-lane-craig-and-divine-determinism

  The author Timothy McCabe, debates William Lane Craig' s arguments against divine determinacy.   Although I disagree with his conclusion, it's well written and not the hack job offered up by Cheung.  

It's the last sentence



> Having explained this, God calls on all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30). And make no mistake, He will hold you personally responsible for all of your sin unless you call on Christ for forgiveness (John 3:18).
> 
> God bless.


  that perplexes me the most and again illustrates the lunacy of strict determinism.  

To exhort people to respond to God's call when one believes they are total automatons is beyond me.  

If someone can explain this to me I would be most grateful.


----------



## hobbs27

Now this... This is funny, with a bit of truth!

http://babylonbee.com/news/bee-explains-calvinism-vs-arminianism/

The points of Calvinism include total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints, and being a condescending jerk.


----------



## gemcgrew

SemperFiDawg said:


> Neither was your linked article.  You posted it.  Defend it.   If there's a point it makes that you feel is defensible then quote it and defend it.  That's more than the author bothered to do.




Defend what exactly? The only objections you have raised are in regard to the author's style or presentation.

See post #42.


----------



## gemcgrew

SemperFiDawg said:


> To exhort people to respond to God's call when one believes they are total automatons is beyond me.
> 
> If someone can explain this to me I would be most grateful.


Find somebody who believes that people are total automatons and ask them to explain it to you.


----------



## Israel

SemperFiDawg said:


> Here is a more intelligently constructed argument for determinism.
> http://www.godcontention.org/christian/william-lane-craig-and-divine-determinism
> 
> The author Timothy McCabe, debates William Lane Craig' s arguments against divine determinacy.   Although I disagree with his conclusion, it's well written and not the hack job offered up by Cheung.
> 
> It's the last sentence
> 
> that perplexes me the most and again illustrates the lunacy of strict determinism.
> 
> To exhort people to respond to God's call when one believes they are total automatons is beyond me.
> 
> If someone can explain this to me I would be most grateful.


I think of Jonah.
And I think of myself.
And I think of Jonah and myself.


----------



## gordon 2

Israel said:


> I think of Jonah.
> And I think of myself.
> And I think of Jonah and myself.



Yes and through Jonah and yourself and myself and onto the Ninevites who still had/have it in themselves not only to entertain God's word and to distill it in their minds but to actually change behaviors before it was/is too late and too late as , I suppose, due to behaviors too ingrained in evil-- and unable to change!


----------



## SemperFiDawg

gemcgrew said:


> Defend what exactly? The only objections you have raised are in regard to the author's style or presentation.
> 
> See post #42.



Yeah.  I would want to distance myself from it too.
My hunch is you did a quick Google search.  Clicked on the first thing that popped up.  did at best a cursory glance at the first paragraph, then posted the link as the end all-be all refutation to my challenge.  It's not.   Like I said, if you want to discuss anything in ANY of the links I will be glad to, but I'm all but convinced you're incapable of that, otherwise you would have done so by now.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

gemcgrew said:


> Find somebody who believes that people are total automatons and ask them to explain it to you.



Are you now implying you believe in free will?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Israel said:


> I think of Jonah.
> And I think of myself.
> And I think of Jonah and myself.



In what sense?   Be concise please.


----------



## welderguy

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yeah.  I would want to distance myself from it too.
> My hunch is you did a quick Google search.  Clicked on the first thing that popped up.  did at best a cursory glance at the first paragraph, then posted the link as the end all-be all refutation to my challenge.  It's not.   Like I said, if you want to discuss anything in ANY of the links I will be glad to, but I'm all but convinced you're incapable of that, otherwise you would have done so by now.





He gave you what you asked for. Now the ball is in your court. I have yet to hear you say anything tangible in defense, only loads of sarcasm and whining.


----------



## hummerpoo

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yeah.  I would want to distance myself from it too.
> My hunch is you did a quick Google search.  Clicked on the first thing that popped up.  did at best a cursory glance at the first paragraph, then posted the link as the end all-be all refutation to my challenge.  It's not.   Like I said, if you want to discuss anything in ANY of the links I will be glad to, but I'm all but convinced you're incapable of that, otherwise you would have done so by now.




Disparagement of person is not an argument, whether it's Cheung or GEM.
(Ad Hominem fallacy)

Your McCabe link does not address the problem of evil, therefore, is off-topic.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

welderguy said:


> He gave you what you asked for. Now the ball is in your court. I have yet to hear you say anything tangible in defense, only loads of sarcasm and whining.



Oh Brother!   I give up.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

hummerpoo said:


> Disparagement of person is not an argument, whether it's Cheung or GEM.
> (Ad Hominem fallacy)
> 
> Your McCabe link does not address the problem of evil, therefore, is off-topic.



Ditto.


----------



## Israel

I will try to answer two things at once...though one was not addressed for answer regarding my post on this thread and what I believe I have come to discern as _a_ (if not the root of _the_) problem of good and evil. 

But since I see (to me at any rate) the two inextricably bound, I will answer in regards to comments made about Jonah, in which I was asked to "please be concise".

We can, at least for this moment, disregard the matter (though a very _obvious matter_) of Jonah's misconceptions regarding his ability to somehow thwart, or oppose by his own means, the will of God.

Could we consider the fundamental thing, or at least what Jonah considered fundamental in "moving him"? Is it not this?

“Ah, Lord, was not this what I said when I was still in my country? Therefore I fled previously to Tarshish; for I know that You are a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who relents from doing harm.  Therefore now, O Lord, please take my life from me, for it is better for me to die than to live!”

Is it not that Jonah had come to the place of preferring death than seeing the mercy of God extended to those whom he knew as enemy? But really...what of this?

If we cut through all of it, Jonah's experience of anger, his being completely oblivious to what was taking place with the gourd and the worm...do we not find, that even though Jonah "used" the words mercy, lovingkindness, etc...he himself really had no understanding at all, of the things he spoke? Oh, he thought he did, and even his saying of "I knew you'd forgive 'em"...even more or less gives the impression he knew a bit about God's working...when it came to the specific matter of mercy, it's meaning, its true significance (as he would find out...when finally provoked deeply enough...and confronted)...he showed he really knew not a thing about that which he thought he understood. Or ar least understood "well enough" in which to judge good and evil.

There are so many assumptions I can testify to, so many misread connections and inferences from a thing grace, and grace alone allows me to speak of...and that is mercy...that were I too (as I trust presumption would surely warrant) to be "called on the carpet" for manifest demonstration of truth in it, a thing I claim to see in some measure, know in some measure...even be (if one can receive it)...preach in some measure...I have little doubt that in the blazing light...I'd be presumptuous to think I'd fare better than Jonah...fare better than John falling "as one dead".
Mercy...it's so beyond all I can fathom...and it is, in one way the ultimate manifestation of it that men are "allowed" to be, much less (or much more depending your view) that a man...in being...is even "let" to speak. But I can see this only for myself. If I have been made to see anything, at all.

Do we not find this reiterated in the debtor who pled for mercy? "have patience with me" he cried. He "thought" he knew of what he asked, of what he spoke. But what does his practice reveal? He knows nothing of the very thing he was...even..."allowed" to ask for. To some, this may seem a matter of just playing with words.
For me, it is not.

The son who "thought" he knew his Father, stayed and worked for his father while his prodigal brother had to learn what he had to learn (and showed he actually knew his Father a bit better than the stay at home.) It is only upon the return of the prodigal, and by the return of the prodigal, and the Father's subsequent actions...that a thing "there"...needing to be exposed by such a provocation of what seemed all "unseemly"...could finally come to light. What darkness of understanding in the "good" son. But only brought to light...by the very "thing" his brother had been made...to be...a prodigal.

"you have not even given me a goat to celebrate with my friends!"

Is that a true statement? I mean...what if we looked at their history...might we not find that statement...on the face...true? The Father didn't say "Oh, don't you remember that time I did..."


But the Father says something this "good" son had to hear, was never in the necessary place to hear (due to his assumptions)...and in the saying of it puts the "lie" to the _fact_ the "good" son had previously spoken.
"All that I have is yours"...in short...you wouldn't have ever even had to ask...this is, and has always been...at your disposal.


How far is that "_truth_"...from the _fact_ the "good" son uttered?

(Do you ever think the "good" son came to a place where he said "Oh! Thanks be to God my brother was made to be such as he was, and in his coming home angered me to the point of total frustration so that I could finally get to hear my father say a thing I never even suspected...but is now too wonderful for me to grasp!")

God does indeed know the only way of getting us "face to face".



Yes...I have seen a man who will pound a pulpit for hours about mercy and grace...and still live like a pauper in the quid pro quo of things, who can sing with the voice of an angel "His Eye is on the Sparrow", and still demand a "something" from another as righteous demand this "other" show himself fit for God's Kingdom. In practice showing he has never known the God who feeds freely...what neither sows, nor reaps...offers absolutely nothing in labors, yet cannot fall to the ground apart from the Father's knowing. "And of how much more value"...Jesus tells us.

It really is either ALL of gift, or really of none. Our sorest labors, our most grievous piercings...are toward provoking that thing out of hiding where it sits as King in all presumption and assumptions...and calculates always a plan to repay...always presenting the most seeming noble of motive (yet of such so transparency and diabolical miasma made plain to the Spirit) that it is always about "trying" to escape mercy...for that _thing_ finds mercy...the greatest offense of all. That thing lays most grievous burdens, will of compulsion travel over sea and land to make disciples..."like itself"...trumpeting...itself. It will kill rather than have "its good" spoken ill of. It knows not, nor can it "leap for joy" when rebuffed.

_It _cannot receive the faith of the Son of God. Gift _is always_ all of torment to it. Mercy.

Of this _thing_ we have been made separate, apart, distinct by other hands, to other purpose...that we might really know this thing we talk about...mercy. As found only in Jesus Christ.

In short...we are (perhaps) poorly speaking of "good and evil"...for we may find ourselves reproved as those...who "do not even see good...when it comes". And so bellies of great fish swallow, we are submerged and taken into unbeknownst depths, anger, provocations, abound...exasperations and frustrations...till the uttermost farthing is paid in this: Salvation is of the Lord.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Israel said:


> I will try to answer two things at once...though one was not addressed for answer regarding my post on this thread and what I believe I have come to discern as _a_ (if not the root of _the_) problem of good and evil.
> 
> But since I see (to me at any rate) the two inextricably bound, I will answer in regards to comments made about Jonah, in which I was asked to "please be concise".
> 
> We can, at least for this moment, disregard the matter (though a very _obvious matter_) of Jonah's misconceptions regarding his ability to somehow thwart, or oppose by his own means, the will of God.
> 
> Could we consider the fundamental thing, or at least what Jonah considered fundamental in "moving him"? Is it not this?
> 
> “Ah, Lord, was not this what I said when I was still in my country? Therefore I fled previously to Tarshish; for I know that You are a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who relents from doing harm.  Therefore now, O Lord, please take my life from me, for it is better for me to die than to live!”
> 
> Is it not that Jonah had come to the place of preferring death than seeing the mercy of God extended to those whom he knew as enemy? But really...what of this?
> 
> If we cut through all of it, Jonah's experience of anger, his being completely oblivious to what was taking place with the gourd and the worm...do we not find, that even though Jonah "used" the words mercy, lovingkindness, etc...he himself really had no understanding at all, of the things he spoke? Oh, he thought he did, and even his saying of "I knew you'd forgive 'em"...even more or less gives the impression he knew a bit about God's working...when it came to the specific matter of mercy, it's meaning, its true significance (as he would find out...when finally provoked deeply enough...and confronted)...he showed he really knew not a thing about that which he thought he understood. Or ar least understood "well enough" in which to judge good and evil.
> 
> There are so many assumptions I can testify to, so many misread connections and inferences from a thing grace, and grace alone allows me to speak of...and that is mercy...that were I too (as I trust presumption would surely warrant) to be "called on the carpet" for manifest demonstration of truth in it, a thing I claim to see in some measure, know in some measure...even be (if one can receive it)...preach in some measure...I have little doubt that in the blazing light...I'd be presumptuous to think I'd fare better than Jonah...fare better than John falling "as one dead".
> Mercy...it's so beyond all I can fathom...and it is, in one way the ultimate manifestation of it that men are "allowed" to be, much less (or much more depending your view) that a man...in being...is even "let" to speak. But I can see this only for myself. If I have been made to see anything, at all.
> 
> Do we not find this reiterated in the debtor who pled for mercy? "have patience with me" he cried. He "thought" he knew of what he asked, of what he spoke. But what does his practice reveal? He knows nothing of the very thing he was...even..."allowed" to ask for. To some, this may seem a matter of just playing with words.
> For me, it is not.
> 
> The son who "thought" he knew his Father, stayed and worked for his father while his prodigal brother had to learn what he had to learn (and showed he actually knew his Father a bit better than the stay at home.) It is only upon the return of the prodigal, and by the return of the prodigal, and the Father's subsequent actions...that a thing "there"...needing to be exposed by such a provocation of what seemed all "unseemly"...could finally come to light. What darkness of understanding in the "good" son. But only brought to light...by the very "thing" his brother had been made...to be...a prodigal.
> 
> "you have not even given me a goat to celebrate with my friends!"
> 
> Is that a true statement? I mean...what if we looked at their history...might we not find that statement...on the face...true? The Father didn't say "Oh, don't you remember that time I did..."
> 
> 
> But the Father says something this "good" son had to hear, was never in the necessary place to hear (due to his assumptions)...and in the saying of it puts the "lie" to the _fact_ the "good" son had previously spoken.
> "All that I have is yours"...in short...you wouldn't have ever even had to ask...this is, and has always been...at your disposal.
> 
> 
> How far is that "_truth_"...from the _fact_ the "good" son uttered?
> 
> (Do you ever think the "good" son came to a place where he said "Oh! Thanks be to God my brother was made to be such as he was, and in his coming home angered me to the point of total frustration so that I could finally get to hear my father say a thing I never even suspected...but is now too wonderful for me to grasp!")
> 
> God does indeed know the only way of getting us "face to face".
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...I have seen a man who will pound a pulpit for hours about mercy and grace...and still live like a pauper in the quid pro quo of things, who can sing with the voice of an angel "His Eye is on the Sparrow", and still demand a "something" from another as righteous demand this "other" show himself fit for God's Kingdom. In practice showing he has never known the God who feeds freely...what neither sows, nor reaps...offers absolutely nothing in labors, yet cannot fall to the ground apart from the Father's knowing. "And of how much more value"...Jesus tells us.
> 
> It really is either ALL of gift, or really of none. Our sorest labors, our most grievous piercings...are toward provoking that thing out of hiding where it sits as King in all presumption and assumptions...and calculates always a plan to repay...always presenting the most seeming noble of motive (yet of such so transparency and diabolical miasma made plain to the Spirit) that it is always about "trying" to escape mercy...for that _thing_ finds mercy...the greatest offense of all. That thing lays most grievous burdens, will of compulsion travel over sea and land to make disciples..."like itself"...trumpeting...itself. It will kill rather than have "its good" spoken ill of. It knows not, nor can it "leap for joy" when rebuffed.
> 
> _It _cannot receive the faith of the Son of God. Gift _is always_ all of torment to it. Mercy.
> 
> Of this _thing_ we have been made separate, apart, distinct by other hands, to other purpose...that we might really know this thing we talk about...mercy. As found only in Jesus Christ.
> 
> In short...we are (perhaps) poorly speaking of "good and evil"...for we may find ourselves reproved as those...who "do not even see good...when it comes". And so bellies of great fish swallow, we are submerged and taken into unbeknownst depths, anger, provocations, abound...exasperations and frustrations...till the uttermost farthing is paid in this: Salvation is of the Lord.





Errr.......uhhhhhh.........Thanks.


----------



## gemcgrew

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yeah.  I would want to distance myself from it too.
> My hunch is you did a quick Google search.  Clicked on the first thing that popped up.  did at best a cursory glance at the first paragraph, then posted the link as the end all-be all refutation to my challenge.  It's not.   Like I said, if you want to discuss anything in ANY of the links I will be glad to, but I'm all but convinced you're incapable of that, otherwise you would have done so by now.


Here is a post from 2012. Your hunch is refuted(see chapter 15).


gemcgrew said:


> "The Author of Sin" by Vincent Cheung. It is available in pdf as well.
> 
> http://www.vincentcheung.com/books/authorsin.pdf


----------



## SemperFiDawg

gemcgrew said:


> Here is a post from 2012. Your hunch is refuted(see chapter 15).



It's not the hunch you should be concerned with, but the conclusion.

Just by chance, anything.....maybe....in chapter 15, you feel is pertinent as it's verbatim the same link you posted earlier. 

Let me help you out a little.  

Pg 64-65



> As we consider the biblical answer to the problem of evil, let us first repeat the unbeliever's
> argument:
> 1. The Christian God is all-powerful and all-loving.
> 65
> 2. If he is all-powerful, then he is able to end all evil.
> 3. If he is all-loving, then he wants to end all evil.
> 4. But evil still exists.
> 5. Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.51
> 
> The argument encounters an insuperable obstacle by the time we reach premise 3, since the
> non-Christian cannot find a definition of love that upholds this premise without destroying
> the argument. By what definition of love can we assert that an all-loving God would want
> to destroy evil? Or, by what definition of love can we assert that an all-loving God would
> have already destroyed evil?



Would you agree or disagree with the author regarding premise 3?

(Come on Gem.  I'm really bending over backward for you here.)  I'll even cede to you that perhaps you don't feel (as the author does) that everyone who doesn't believe on this as you do is an unbeliever.


----------



## gemcgrew

SemperFiDawg said:


> It's not the hunch you should be concerned with, but the conclusion.


It's not the hunch I am concerned with, it's the slander.


----------



## Oak-flat Hunter

Religion and languages are a lot a like.They both fit the social structure of adhering and keeping people together.It's a social tool too sway people who would not otherwise be persuaded. By believing in things not seen and really no way too prove it.


----------



## Israel

Oak-flat Hunter said:


> Religion and languages are a lot a like.They both fit the social structure of adhering and keeping people together.It's a social tool too sway people who would not otherwise be persuaded. By believing in things not seen and really no way too prove it.



Man, of himself, easily divides that way...what can be "proven" (or so he thinks), and what cannot.

Of himself he cannot see that "other man" who is content to let another...prove Himself.

And all men are called into the patience of that experiment.
This is what proves a man...a man.
He who "tries" to prove God...finds it is he himself...being tried...and proved, and that by fire.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

gemcgrew said:


> It's not the hunch I am concerned with, it's the slander.



It's apparent you are not willing to discuss this topic.  Let's just let it die.


----------



## gemcgrew

SemperFiDawg said:


> Would you agree or disagree with the author regarding premise 3?


I agree with the author regarding premise 3. My agreement is not based upon the limited text of your quote. 



SemperFiDawg said:


> (Come on Gem.  I'm really bending over backward for you here.)  I'll even cede to you that perhaps you don't feel (as the author does) that everyone who doesn't believe on this as you do is an unbeliever.


Don't just assert it, show it.


----------

