The Evangelical Universalist Forum

The problem of evil and its existence

Featured Writers James Goetz
#21

Steve,

How do the forces of nature and animals sin? I don’t see the problem if the forces of nature and animals don’t sin. They are not moral creatures. Nature doesn’t sin and therefore there is no natural evil.

As for reasons. Nature provided for humanity’s quality of life and civilization through millions of years of death and decay. Multiple generations of plant and animal death enriched earth with vast biodeposits, e.g., top soil, coal, oil, gas, limestone, marble, and concentrated metal ores. Nature produced the resources we need to fulfill the Great Commission, to spread the good news worldwide. As for present reasons. We will have to wait until the future to see how the present death, suffering, and decay benefits us. We can see some of the past reasons, so, I have confidence that we will see in the future some of the reasons for our present state when it is revealed.

#22

Steve, Cole

I think we’re all basically in agreement here. ‘Natural evil’ is something of a misnomer. Defining something as ‘evil’ gives it a moral dimension. And animals and plants and weather patterns and earthquakes have no moral dimension - hence they should never really be described as ‘evil’. The so-called problem of evil ought only to be discussed in moral terms; suffering and pain are not issues of ‘evil’ - although they are nevertheless central to any theodicy.

As I said earlier, and Cole has amplified, death is intrinsic to the fabric of the created universe. Death is not ‘evil’. On the contrary, it is part of the world God pronounced as being good. Somehow, somewhere along the line, we have lost this knowledge, and become afraid of death. And as Dick has pointed out on a number of occasions, it is this fear of death that Christ came to rescue us from (among other things) - not death itself.

It’s kind of obvious isn’t it? Jesus has died and been resurrected, but we still die. And we were always meant to!

J

#23

Hi Johnny and Cole,

I agree that ‘natural evil’ is a bit of a misnomer, but I haven’t seen a better term and ,of course, it is the standard terminology in the philosophic literature. I agree with what you say about death, (though I’m probably in the minority on this site.) Of course there are other examples of natural evil closer to home that we need to explain or at least accept—things like babies being born with Down syndrome, incurable cancer in a young person, and inherited psychological disorders are some that come to mind. Would the “Elephant Man” (Joseph Merrick) have a legitimate grievance against a ‘good’ God? I think so. Yes, I do accept that a good God must have a reason for allowing these things, but the question “why?” is a legitimate one and worth exploring.

I am always apprehensive when a ‘theodicy’ thread comes up because it can be very painful and emotional as the horrific examples of ‘evil’ are presented. Usually you’ll see a “what about this?–or this?” as one disturbing (and usually historical) example after another is presented. My purpose in saying this is to ask those who might be very upset by that to consider carefully whether they want to continue to follow this thread. Discussion of these things can be painful…

#24

My first thought is that evil is an intentional thing; that ‘tragedy’ or 'disaster; ‘loss’ would be the words for non-intentional, amoral happenings and acts.
It sounds a little odd to call an earthquake ‘evil’, as compared to an atrocity committed by a human person.

“Natural Disaster” sounds about right.

Perhaps ‘evil’ enters the discussion when someone posits that God is in control, and either directs or lets intentional harm be done; then of course we are thrown into TPE.

But that’s me being nit-picky over words. The question is: is everything ‘bad’ that happens God’s fault, indirectly or directly? Is there such a thing as a ‘natural disaster’ or even ‘an accident’?

The closest thing to a theodicy that works in the balcony and on the street (from another thread), for me , is still GMacD’s Diary of an Old Soul. He sees a high purpose and a loving purpose in everything, without being a "la di da it’s all good’ type of preacher. You can read it free online and see what I mean.

I admire the struggle to come to terms with this. it’s a tough nut to crack.

#25

Steve,

I think the answer here about the question of God’s goodness is the suffering and resurrection of Christ. This shows that He is loving. This assures us of God’s love for us all in our sufferings. For He suffered and died for all and will therefore save all from suffering. The universe exists to display the greatness of the glory of the love of God. This is the final aim and explanation of suffering. Christ came to suffer with and for the world. The suffering and death and resurrection of Christ is the great manifestation of the glory of the love of God. To put it another way: evil and suffering exist so that Christ can display the greatness of the glory of God’s love by entering into suffering Himself to overcome all evil and suffering. Far from disproving the existence of a Designer, the existence of evil and suffering points to one. We find our answer in Christ.

#26
  1. There may not be “millions of years”. There may be only thousands, in spite of modern evolutionary theories.
  2. “These things” may not have existed when Adam and Eve dwelled in the garden. Nature may have fallen along with mankind.
#27

I think in fact that nature did ‘fall’ - become subject to corruption - when man did. Perhaps that is the import of these verses from Romans 8.

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.

#28

Hi Cole, I agree that Christ’s death and resurrection “Is the great manifestation of the glory of the love of God”. However, allowing pain, evil, and suffering in order to come on to the scene in human form , suffer and die, in order to redeem suffering originally allowed by God the Father at least seems self-serving and ‘evil’ itself. This explanation is inadequate and we need to look for other reasons for why God allowed what I am referring to as ‘natural evil’.

#29

Steve,

How does this show that God is evil? God does do it mostly for His own glory but He also does it for the joy of humanity. This isn’t evil for God. For, God is the most glorious, perfect and righteous being in existence. If God wasn’t uppermost in His own affections He would commit idolatry and sin. The essence of righteousness is to place supreme value on that which is supremely valuable. This is what God does. He glorifies Himself for the joy of all people. It’s vanity for us to put ourselves at the center. But we aren’t the infinitely perfect God. God alone is God. Be most satisfied in God because God is most satisfied in God. God places God at the center therefore I place God at the center. God loves Himself above all else, therefore, I love God above all else. Since God is infinitely glorious and perfect in righteousness He must love Himself above all else. Not to do so would be a sin.

#30
#31

God’s goodness isn’t merely a human goodness. No, He is set apart and morally pure. (Holy)

#32

So, you’re saying it’s okay to ascribe to God that which we call evil in man. If we intentionally kill someone, it’s called “first degree murder” and in some provinces or states, we would receive the death penalty. But if God kills someone, it is holy and just. Right?

In other words, it is not possible for God to do anything evil. For no matter what He does, it is intrinsically good, only because it is God who does it. Is that your position?

My position is that God doesn’t do anything evil, not even “by human standards”. Actually, good and evil are not defined by any standards; they are objective characteristics. I believe evil and good are as distinct as black and white. Evil is evil, no matter who does it, and good is good no matter who does it.

#33

Paidion,

Let’s look at the worst evil ever committed in History. There is no greater sin than to hate and kill the Son of God. This was the worse evil humankind has ever done. Yet the Bible tells us that it was done by God’s hand and plan. What Satan and evil humans meant for evil God meant for good. For through Christ’s obedience and death the Father and Son would bring about the everlasting joy and righteousness of the world. God has justifiable reasons.

#34

RHM, I really enjoyed the first two Bruce Wauchope videos even though I totally over-did it on the downloads. :slight_smile: :frowning:

It’s so odd seeing someone teach these concepts as though he expects to offend people – and the first time I’ve heard anyone pretty much nail my own beliefs. Except for the last questions on the second video – where the questioner (rightly imo) sees ‘where this is headed’ and more or less badgers him into saying that he’s not a universalist. HUH? Yeah okay – whatever. :unamused: It seems to me the questioner saw the implications more clearly than Wauchope did.

I’m staying up until midnight so I can download the last one without a penalty for using too much bandwidth. :laughing:

#35

I think he was being diplomatic and using universalist as more of what is commonly taught as universalism aka pluralistic wishy washy new age garbage. Though I could be wrong. I’m pretty sure he is a universal reconcilliationist though. :slight_smile: either way I’m glad you liked them. He has some great viewpoints.

#36

Cole

I’m sorry mate, but your assertion that God allows suffering and evil so that he can show his loving glory in Christ is nonsense - and offensive nonsense at that. That’s the crypto-Calvinist in you speaking, Cole :smiley: . You really need to throw off the fetters of that wicked doctrine and think - really think - about what you’re saying here.

You can do it. You have a very ‘high’ conception of, and regard for, God’s holiness and purity. That’s good. All you need to do is adopt a similarly high conception of, and regard for God’s nature, his essence as love.The Bible clearly states “God is love”. It also defines love for us: among other things, love “is not self-seeking”.

Your conception of God is that everything he does is done to manifest his own glory. Well, while it may be true that God’s actions do manifest his own glory, they are not done with that as their aim - it is a by-product, if you like. Rather, everything God does is done to manifest his love. All his actions and attitudes must be seen in the light of this overarching, defining attribute.

The proof of this is Jesus. Again, the Bible tells us that Jesus is the exact representation of God. What Jesus is like, God is like. What Jesus does, God does. And Jesus never does anything ‘for his own glory’. In fact, he does the exact opposite. Jesus is humble. Jesus is a servant. Jesus gives out love. He doesn’t go around demanding love for himself - “this command I give you, love one another as I have loved you”.

All the best

Johnny

#37

An appetizing answer there Johnny, well put.

(Would you like a ginger snap with that? Just a thin wafer? :laughing: )

#38

“No. ---- off, I’m full.”

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

#39

It was the same sin, the sin of spiritual pride which was the downfall of our first parents in the Garden of Eden urged on by the tempter and eternal enemy of man.

I mentioned this in another thread but for Eve she already had the sins of the world built into her before she made a move. The sin of lust of the eyes,
lust of the flesh and pride of life were demonstrated by Eve before she made a move and according to Jesus it’s what is in our hearts that are sinful.

Additionally where and how did Satan manage to get in the garden? Either God sent him or allowed him to enter with full knowledge that Satan would try to influence Eve.
Why was the test tree right in the middle of the garden, could God have located it in a far away corner? Could God have made it unattractive?

So when God said everything he made was “good” it may not mean what we assume, it may mean good for His purposes. It appears to me we were meant to learn evil, presumably so that we may learn to overcome it.

#40

Hi all,
Just catching up on this thread. One thing I think that’s worth pointing out is that a discussion of “The Problem of Evil” on a forum like this is not the same as a discussion of the POE between a Christian apologist and an atheist. On this forum, for the most part, the existence of a “good” God is assumed. We are the “balcony people” (as Dave puts it) seeking a greater understanding of the way God works and the way the world is. I, for one, feel utterly confident in God’s love and omnipotence. I’m curious about “why”,however, and as there are many agnostics and atheists who do question the existence of an all-loving, all-powerful God. Coming up with some tentative plausible responses to the POE can be beneficial “out on the road”.

Now, as you know, I am not one who feels the “evil” we see in nature can be linked to ‘the fall’ as described in Genesis. I don’t see that explanation as being either moral or plausible. That being said, if the traditional 'fall" explanation works for you, then fantastic. :slight_smile: However, I don’t think the traditional view holds much promise as an apologetic argument for natural evil in the 21st century. I would be interested in hearing how those who hold to the traditional ‘fall’ reconcile the idea of nature being corrupted by this from an ethical/moral standpoint.

I think there is much to admire in GMac’s theodicy, much of which would fall into the ‘soul-making’ category of theodicies. I don’t think his theodicy is completely comprehensive, however, and he recognizes that there remains a lot of “mystery” behind what we see God allowing. George MacDonald was certainly no stranger to death with four of his eleven children dying from tuberculosis (which he called “the family attendant”) as well as several of his grandchildren.

Just some thoughts…

Steve