Why is there so much unjust suffering in this world despite God?

It may be tangential, but good communication isn't metaphysics. It was just something I thought you might consider.

You're talking about a very philosophical "perfection", an all-that-I-can-imagine type of construct. I might once again ask whether perfection is diminished by being limited to some kind of definition. The logical answer would be 'no'.

You only give half the argument - "less" implies comparison. "Less perfect" than what. Than something you can imagine? Are you so certain that you imagine perfection perfectly? Or compared to God, where being limited to physical bodies for instance could be called a limitation that makes us "less" than God, but does it diminish us as human beings? Only if your assessment of perfection assumes the perspective of a Creator - which you aren't.

If you are at all creative, you might understand that perfection never requires something to be an ideal of ideals, just exactly what you like. Which brings me to your next question...

That is certainly a viable definition for perfection, but it's a philosophical one - by subjecting the concept to logical limitations, you create a "logical" perfection. But is it useful? Does it even apply? By defining something we give it boundaries - what it's not. Keep that in mind, because neither the Mini Cooper or the Jaguar are perfect cars, although in the mind of their designers there might conceivably be a perfect Mini and a Perfect Jaguar, which they could surely build if they were omnipotent. But the perfect car only exists as an extension of all the attributes that makes a car - it is neither Mini nor Jaguar. In fact, if you gave it a name or any distinguishing identity at all, it would probably be disqualified from such a standard of perfection. It would be "limited" to a shape, a design, a desire; it would be "less than" almost anything metaphysical - on a philosophical or metaphysical scale.

I did not say perfection rests with "utility alone". It rests in the will and desire of the creator, the definer and assessor of what perfection is. The Jaguar S-type might be a superior sports car, but an inferior family car, less economic and perhaps even less reliable. But if you were interested in say, performance, you might measure perfection on a scale that puts the Mini below the Jaguar. If you were only interested in a Mini Cooper, you might find the Mini Cooper, well, perfect. The interesting part of this analogy is that an "ideal car of all cars" is irrelevant - doesn't actually exist, so it falls outside any considerations of perfection.

Not if there's a perfect, truly free human being involved. Power does not have to be exercised to be perfect - in fact, knowing when and how to use it lies much farther up along the scale than unbridled enforcement.

Add the element of time to an object, and assessing it's perfection would take its whole existence into account, not just a specific moment. And that's just a "horizontal" progression; it might include other abstract elements as well - growth, action, circumstance... the totality of being.

Measuring wealth or performance, for instance. If there were such a thing as being perfectly wealthy, or perfectly successful, would God necessarily consider such a person perfect? Or a less abstract example: if we measured someone's perfection by physical appearance (perhaps even with mathematical precision), would that count towards anything?

Even if you extend all attributes to their logical maximum you would have to deal with measurement: would the philosophically perfect human being also be the perfect killer, the perfect liar, and the perfect thief? Remember, if you say he has the potential, but a perfect will to control himself, you suppose an independent moral compass. And if he were physically compelled to follow it, wouldn't that make him less perfect than a hypothetical counterpart who wasn't?

[quote"Power made perfect in weakness" refers back to God's power best effecting the hopeless. The most dramatic results would be found in someone wretched.[/quote]
Yet that contradicts the notion that the maximum logical extension of power will be found on the "powerful" end of the scale, rather than the "weak" end. That was your argument on the topics of size and power before (see your second quoted paragraph above) - that anything that's somehow "less" diminishes perfection. My point here is that perfection may be found in a combination of God's power and human limitation, not necessarily just in direct, completely symmetrical equivalence.

And in his wisdom He did not so desire. What of it? Perfection does not require that we attain divinity by own power, but that we cooperate with divinity in order to be perfected by His power. The only "flaw" is then a broken relationship.

We may appreciate and extend what we know about goodness as far as we are able - and we should - but unless we became perfect first, we would only extend our knowledge imperfectly, becoming less accurate the further we move from our narrow perspective. We might have enough information for immediate application, but for a final "objective" judgement on divine goodness, we would need to know all the variables to the end of time - and that's beyond our abilities. Of course, if you know who God is the question will be rhetorical (Gen. 18:25).

You're still adding words to suit your interpretation. "Knowledge of good and evil" refers to first-hand knowledge, knowledge of something; "Knowledge of what is good and evil" is meta-knowledge, knowledge about something - which they had.

Compare the knowledge that there is a bomb in a certain briefcase (knowledge about the briefcase), with knowledge of the bomb in the briefcase (how it works, how big it is, etc.)

I don't know. Does it matter, if He doesn't exercise that freedom?

Unless you claim they did not have knowledge of any kind before eating from the tree, I don't see why this matters. They learnt the dangerous and forbidden details, but it doesn't change what they already knew about the whole. They just thought it might (which is what the Devil suggested).

If He is omniscient that's no problem. As He knows good because it's an expression of his nature, and evil because it's all that is opposed to His nature. And I have already said that being made in God's image did not make us God. Man was like God in every way God intended him to be, but that likeness did not include all of God's knowledge - especially not about evil.

They were ashamed of their deeds. Their new self-awareness and guilt made them strangers to God, and aware of how exposed they actually were without Him. Now that they could see the evil alternatives to the good that God created, they could also fear them. You don't need to read between the lines for what nakedness implies, Adam was afraid because I was naked (Gen. 3:10), not ashamed because of it.

Before they had knowledge of good and evil, they literally had nothing to be afraid of.

It would be easy if you had a) knowledge of evil, and b) a broken relationship with your creator and protector. The threat of evil would be foremost in your mind - especially one you realized it didn't have to enter through the gates of paradise, but simply through your desires and actions.

Original, as in "first".

The knowledge they had wasn't defined as either good or evil, the relevant distinction was what God (who is good) wanted and what He prohibited (which would logically be "bad"). The story presupposes their ability to tell the difference, and it tells us how the content of that difference changed - from what God wanted to what man wanted, and from true or false to good or evil.

What about God and the angels ("the king is like an angel of God in discerning good and evil", Sam. 14:17); or the Father and the Son? (we are already introduced to the "Spirit of God" in Gen. 1:2). "26 Then God said, 'Let us make human beings in our image' ... 27 So God created human beings in his own image."

Be sure to finish the sentence: ... like God, knowing good and evil (3:5). If the words had no meaning to them, why make such a point of enticing them with it?

It is a logical impossibility for A to be both A and not A, in terms of identity. I was sure you knew that.

Remember I mentioned the property of time? The World to Come is exactly that: in the future. With that in mind, consider Heb. 11:40: "God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect", and the answer to man's fallen state: "... put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness" (Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24).

You mean, inhibited us artificially. You can't have your cake and eat it; you can't decide whether God should have made us more free (like Him) or less free (unable to choose against Him).

As a Protestant, I completely agree. The Hebrew scriptures also make it clear that final judgement would not come until the Messiah heralded judgement (JewishEncyclopedia: Final Judgement). See also its article on The Heavenly Messiah.

Convenient how the text would reveal something to you that it takes pains to avoid.

Evilness is not a property that was "given", it is derived, dependent on good. By creating good, logically its antithesis - not good - became available automatically. When we start talking about judgement and eternal separation, I'm sure we'll hear you complain just as loudly about God's intervention as you are now complaining about his apparent non-intervention.

Whether God intervenes in some final and non-negotiable fashion or not isn't actually the problem, it's that you can't find a time when it would be convenient. If freedom is not contrary to goodness, you have no excuse for relying so much on God's intervention, since it shouldn't be necessary. You lack nothing you need to do good and avoid evil (2 Peter 1:3-5).

This contradicts what you said earlier: "The most dramatic results would be found in someone wretched." Weakness does not diminish omnipotence if it illustrated it more clearly. And what people call weakness might be exactly what God considers strength ("God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.") As Genesis illustrates, evil was a mark against mankind precisely because it lacked nothing. It was only God's benevolence that allowed time to pass before the consequences became final, leaving open the option of perfection.

You obviously weren't thinking when you wrote that. It's complete nonsense. What is negotiation, compromise, mercy, rehabilitation or forgiveness other than tolerating something in order to redeem, overcome or repair it? It would only be "forever" if no change was intended or expected.

But you can't accept that He did create us good and free (Jer. 2:21), so you're only fooling yourself if you continue blame God for the abuse of that nature. What you're really asking for is an incorruptible nature, which supposes that God should not be interested in our attaining perfection, just in our having it - exactly the attitude that got Adam and Eve into the trouble they were in. You desire something that could never be attained by desiring or demanding it, and now you're throwing a tantrum about it.

We would be, if we did not cede that control to every desire that came along in stead of God (Gal. 5:16-17).

Then you make no distinction between what is temporary (i.e. time-bound) and what is eternal. If you mean that something that had happened will always have happened, of course: that's reality. But we access the action or event through a record - a memory - across time. Sometimes that record comes in a physical form, like a scar. Perhaps this is where you underestimate God's omnipotence and benevolence for a change. You always seem to expect from Him what He hasn't done, and resent it, but you are conspicuously silent when it comes to what He promises He will do:

Revelation 21:3-5
And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Look! God's dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 'He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" Then he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true."​

Your imagination fails at the strangest places. Why must God see a life serially, with the last thing that happens being somehow the decisive one? We may speculate about it, but in the end it comes down to whether you believe in a just God or an evil one. Like Abraham said, "Will not the judge of the earth do right?" Maybe his sin isn't nearly as fatal as rejecting his victims' hope for justice.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

PS. In my research I came across this series of Jewish expositions of the Genesis account. It addresses most of what you talk about, so if you only read this, you could almost ignore my whole post (if you haven't already - I wouldn't blame you). It gives a very clear Hebrew perspective on the Fall, as well as a good indication of how complex and layered the story actually is:

Jewish Literacy - Exploring the Bible

1. Adam, Eve and the Elephant in the Room - Part 1
   (The catch-22 of having moral knowledge in the garden; "knowing good and evil")
2. The Dark Side of Paradise - Part 3
   (The serpent's temptation - to be as God)
3. The Naked Truth - Part 4
   (The relationship between Adam's nakedness and the serpent's cunning)
4. A World of Broccoli and Pizza - Part 7
   Knowledge and the nature of good and evil. (What is real knowledge made of?)

​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Jenyar:

A definition that includes anything but unlimited perfection would be not a true perfection. But the rest would be fine, yes.

Yes, I am actually. Because we aren't "imagining" as in "concocting", but discussiong what is necessary. Note that perfection is the logical extension of an attribute. Logic can be spoken about certainly.

One can be imperfect without God. One needn't speak of God's existence in
order to discuss an imperfection of spatial presence.

That is not a true perfection. That is utility.

You are correct. The perfection of cars is not likely, because it is not an attribute that admits of a perfection.

That's absurd. A creator cannot define what is logical. A creator is -restricted- by what is logical.

God is truly perfect, truly free, and truly good. Moreover, no matter how "free" a human being is, God has omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience.

Power does have to be exercised when it disproves a perfection to not use it.

A perfect thing must be perfect always, or it is not perfect. Therefore time makes no matter outside of its status as eternally perfect.

In those attributes, yes.

If the mathematics was objective, yes.

If these things are not deficiencies: Yes. If they are: No. Thievery implies inferiority, for instance.

God is logically compelled to do many things. So is everything. God cannot make a square-circle - neither can we. God cannot both be and not be - so cannot we.

It would be illogical and vacuous to speak of something that violates such logic, so the being would not be less perfect.

Let's assume for the sake of analogy that omnipotence is like being really strong. Is it not a more dramatic expression of strength to pull a superman and throw a baseball to the sun, than to even push a big boulder?

Humanity need not be perfect, only perfect in so much as regards morality (which automatically attacks a perfection of God).

Then God is not omnibenevolent. Simple as that?

Then God does not care about goodness and, in fact, is the author of all evil. He is in fact the true Satan.

Not if we had perfect moral sense.

Here's a telling way to disprove you:

In the Hebrew Bible's Book of Genesis, chapters 2 and 3, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Hebrew: עֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע) (and occasionally translated as the Tree of Conscience) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_knowledge_of_good_and_evil

They most certainly did not know what good and evil was. They had no conscience. They knew God did not want them to do something, but could not evaluate that morally.

Another example besides nudity: In Jewish tradition it is said that Adam copulated with every animal on the Earth before asking God for a mate.

Yes, most certainly. Being goodness perfected and choosing to be good are two different things.

Of the moral sort, I am most definitely claiming such.

He'd then be omniscient of the fact that he was the author of it, by creating all things. Also, he is said to grieve over man's evil - this is not indicative of omniscience in that regard.

Yet his nature is all things - he is omnipresent. A distinction in God would be impossible for him to understnad. How can something be distinct from infinity? Even you and I are part of infinity.

And yet you just said that man had moral sense before he ate of the tree.

Naked and ashamed does not imply a shame over their deeds. God even gives them nice clothing. You don't get fearful and then make clothes.

Which is only after the fall.

Unless God is omnibenevolent, what God wills is not what goodness is, anymore that God can say "the grass is purple" (although he could make it such).

Hardly a reference to Christian divinity in a pagan-derived text and in a heathen God's attributes. The earlier one goes back into the Bible, the more obvious it is that God is not the God of philosphers in the Bible, but a very pety Semitic one.

But this is completely outside the point of discussion.

Elohim does not translate as "God and his angels". It translates to as "gods".

Beguiling them with something they could not even know about? You claim man knew no evil beforehand.

I do indeed.

All which coudl have been done at the start.

Is God inhibited artificially by his perfection?

Indeed, the messiah - a figure completely distinct from Jesus the Christ.

But you're a Protestant? So -that's- the problem!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(Kidding, of course.)

You should look up the origin of the names of God. They display who he is very well.

Here's a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_(god)

Only in the sense that the possible creates the impossible, yet the impossible has no-existence. That is, assuming God is omnibenevolent.

Technically it is impossible to be eternally separated from God. God is omnipresent. One cannot be anywhere but the centre of an omnipresent thing.

Moreover, this action does not destroy evil - it places it elsewhere. It still exists and is against his omnibenevolence.

Accept the incapacity to do evil - like God. Also, according to St. Paul, we are incapable of goodness:

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ) (Romans 5:12-17)

For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? (Romans 7:15-24).

I had meant weakness in God's omnipotence. That is to say, if God is omnipotent and cannot do something which an omnipotent being could do.

Goodness cannot allow evil.

God can only will goodness. Nothing but perfect goodness is goodness. Toleration of evil for a moment allows it to exist in contradiction to God's omnibenevolence.

Um, of course not, as we aren't good?

God did not attain perfection, did he?

What you are asking for is a God that wants us to wear winter jackets in the summer - to do something absurd that needn't be done. This is not a God that values omnibenevolence.

-Then we aren't perfectly good-. God cannot "give into his bodily desires". Therefore, we do not mimic perfect goodness.

God setting things right in the future does not change what is happening today.

I cannot remember the verse, but somewhere in the Old Testament - I think in judges - God discusses the wickedness of saying that it is wrong to punish a good man that has fallen, and talks about how one evil blots out all goodness.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Jenyar:

I'll take a gander at these sources. Thank you.

 

The questions is that if God loves us, and He can protect us, then He would have to. It seems he is either omnipotent and uncaring, or benevolent and powerless to help. He can't be both omnipotent and benevolent. It's one of those Biblical "contradictions", right? Wrong.

Suppose that you have an 8 year old son. Would you love him? Of course you would. Would you do everything in your power to protect him? Of course. Would you let him skateboard? You probably would, just telling him to be careful.

As this child's mother/father you would give him some basic, good advice and then let him go off and make his own mistakes, even if it meant him falling and scraping hs knee. He'd learn to be more careful.

So, even though you had the power to interfere and prevent your child's pain, you would choose to show your love by letting him learn his own lessons.

Pain is part of growing up. It's how we learn. There's your answer.