Hello.
I'll get straight to the point.
Grew up Christian. Recent crisis of faith.
Want to learn about this. Didn't know who else to ask.
Is there a logical reason for God to allow evil?
I know, the million dollar question.
But I really want to try and find an answer that makes sense.
If God is omnipotent, why didn't He just make everything he wanted without suffering being a part of it?
Does anyone, Atheist or religious, have an answer?
Note: I want to have a discussion. So I might play devil's advocate. I'm not inherently agreeing or disagreeing unless otherwise stated.

>>17834544 (OP)
God's away on business

>>17834577
Oh. Okay.

>>17834544 (OP)
The Bible has a lot to say about this. Here's one passage I think of:

"And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.
And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him."
- John 9:1-3

I'm reminded of how all things have a purpose, both proximate and ultimate. There's what we intend, but beyond that, what God intends. I recall what Paul said about how God called us, "not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began". I think also about what it says in Romans 9. Or what the elders in heaven said to God in the book of Revelation, 4th chapter. "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."

I think about the biblical statement, "The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." (Proverbs 16:4). Or what Joseph said: "But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good". (Genesis 50:20). God said that His ways are higher than our ways in Isaiah 55. And as Jesus said in Matthew 15:13, "Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up." Any of these Scriptures could suffice for this point. I also think on the resurrection.

"Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."
- John 5:28-29

It seems like the Bible is telling us that God ultimately created all things for reasons that lead back to Himself. That is, all things are ultimately created to be given into the possession of the only begotten Son.

>>17834544 (OP) Read the Tao. Tao is just another name for God.
https://taoism.net/tao-te-ching-online-translation/

>>17834544 (OP)
Nothing could ever really progress if everything felt fine.
I think you may have come from a tradition where people were insisting that anything could be fixed with prayer and belief. Those are nice but are only requests and there are always higher orders above your wishes.

>>17834544 (OP)
The sum of good and evil is better than if all there was was “good”
As value is relative.
The point of existence is pathos. Pathos derives from conflict and solving it.
For example: when someone gets cancer, you can either bitch about it or help the person.
Helping other people is the point more than physical life itself. Pathos.
If no one was ever in need, you could never truly help someone. If nothing bad ever happened, you could never triumph over it.
I think modern humans are psychically weak and constantly experience the “Buddha effect” in which they grow up in abject luxury/comfort (lack of pathos), that when they experience true pathos for the first time they shirk back in horror rather than rise to the occasion. Luxury is evil and suffering is good.
That, or you can kill yourself, I guess. Those two options (acceptance of pathos or immediate suicide) are the only really logical options in this human life.

Nope. No logical reason for this reality to be evil. Completely incompatible with a benevolent god.

Abrahamic religions exist to trick you into worshiping a false evil material creator

>>17835260
Cool. When are you killing yourself? Or is the material world not as bad as you make it out to be?

>>17835255
According to the bible. Most people will go to hell than heaven.

There is no greater good. The deranged Jewish god created this reality knowing the end result is torture for sentient beings

>>17835263
>most people will go to hell
Boo hoo?
How does this invalidate my point?

>>17835262
Divine sparks have the mission to wake others up before they go

You seem mad hylic

>>17835267
Why did God let the demiurge create this world? You just end up back at the same point lol.

>>17835264
There is no helping

How do you help someone with terminal cancer

How do you help a kid starving to death halfway across the world

How do you help a civilian about to be torn in half from a drone strike

How do you help a poor girl locked up in her stepdads rape dungeon


Your just spouting irrational damage control. This world is a prison planet designed to extract energy from human torture

>>17834544 (OP)
>Is there a logical reason for God to allow evil?
Yes. Many, in fact. But none will satisfy your crisis of faith until you discover the root of this question.

If you want to talk about it logically, then you should analyze the approach and premise you have when asking. From your human POV your task really is just to maximize good and minimize evil. So when you look at evil in the world, you naturally go "someone should've minimized this long ago" and this human approach then gets pinned on God.
But God doesn't operate with our limitations. Where we face an option to only minimize evil, God has the option to take terrible, atrocious evil and turn it into good the same way he turned water into wine. And the best example of this is the good news - the best thing in the world has happened, the loving God was born among us to live with us, laugh with us, heal us and teach us. And then we tortured him and killed him. It is the single worst thing that could have ever happened. But God didn't have to rewind time and re-do it, he by his power turned it from the worst thing in history into the best thing in history and turned his own murder into our own salvation. The most dramatic 180 degree turn imaginable.

So if you're asking why there is evil, you can get half a dozen responses - so that free choice is truly free, so that everyone gets time to repent, so that metaphysics work in a particular way, etc. But these don't address the existential charge of the question, they just address the technical aspect of it. The existential charge is only addressed by the fact that even if everything was evil all the time, God would ultimately still turn it into a Good so divine that the evil would not only be diluted, but vanish completely.

>>17835273
Deranged gaslighting

Okay but why did God allow the evil demiurge to create this evil world?
I don’t see how the Gnostic God isn’t also subject to the problem of evil.
In fact, the Gnostic God would have far more explaining to do as to why he would let an entire prison planet condemn the vast majority of the human race.
At least the “Abrahamic” God can just say
>it’s not evil because I say it isn’t
But Gnostics claim the demiurge’s plan goes ENTIRELY against “God God”

>>17835270
I don't believe in god.

>>17835275
By this logic all trees are bad and the mystery shifts to "why are there good fruits at all". The picrel ends in a paradox much worse than the one it's trying to solve.

>>17835289
It's your bible

Don't ask me why it keeps falling it's internal logic

>>17835287
You believe in “divine sparks” and “hylics”
What are you on about?

>>17834544 (OP)
>Grew up Christian. Recent crisis of faith.
>Is there a logical reason for God to allow evil?
>If God is omnipotent, why didn't He just make everything he wanted without suffering being a part of it?
Notice how the questions are unrelated to the premise.
Christianity itself has little to do with Deism. There's an underlying assumption many or most Christians are operating under, intentionally or unintentionally, that lack of faith in Christianity and Deism are mutually exclusive. They disingenuously present lack of belief in the Bible as atheism in order to shift the debate into atheism vs theism rather than one about the validity of the Bible itself.

The Bible does not espouse the notion of an omnipotent, all-knowing creator. It presents Yahweh as something other than a universal God, a powerful magic being with limitations. The way Christians often assume omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience, one would think the fragments of Xenophanes somehow made their way into the Old Testament, but obviously this is not the case. So one is left with the suspicion that ideas made popular by Ancient Greek philosophers are more core to Christian beliefs than any fairy tales about Moses or Jesus.

>>17835294
It doesn't. The logic just doesn't seem to lend itself to comicsans memes lol. But to each their own.

OP here. Went to sleep. I'm awake now and I appreciate all the replies.
>>17834599
That's the conclusion I came to. It sounds like God created all things, even evil, because He wanted to.
Unless I'm misunderstanding.
>>17834696
Thanks.
>>17835255
I wonder why couldn't God just make the sum the same but have it be all good.
If He's omnipotent, why couldn't he make it everything He wanted without a dichotomy?
>>17835273
That's a nice thought. I really like the poeticism of it. You write very well.
But I'm still confused as to why evil exists, even if we as humans only perceive it more cynically than God.
Again, why couldn't good just exist without evil?
The only answer seems to be: God wanted it to exist.
If good would always exist anyways, why not cut out the middle man?

>>17835598
Thanks!
>Again, why couldn't good just exist without evil?
>If good would always exist anyways, why not cut out the middle man?
God would then exist alone. Or if you stretch the definitions of good to include human beings, they would become automatons, required to always perform the one thing that is best in a given scenario - essentially unalive puppets hardwired to do God's bidding. It seems paradoxical but the best possible universe must include the option of evil. Why this option became a reality? Well, that's on us.
Since I've seen these discussions before, let me anticipate the next question:
>Yes but why didn't he create a universe one where evil theoretically can exist but practically doesn't?
He did create that. And we ruined it.
>But he must have foreseen it, couldn't he have done something about it?
A world where evil can theoretically exist but then those theoretical alleys are blocked is a world where evil cannot theoretically exist anymore.

>>17835640
But the reward in heaven is to essentially become that puppet. A world without evil.
Why couldn't He just make it so that He wasn't alone without evil?
It's a paradox, but make it so that the effects of evil he prefers exist with solely good.
Omnipotence means the ability to do anything. Unless paradoxes are more powerful.

>>17835640
A world with no evil still contains options to exercise free will in what good thing to do for the day. If there was no evil we could make decisions on what type of exercise to do for the day, which friends to talk with, where to take a walk, etc.

>>17834544 (OP)
why does God have to be omnipotent and where in the bible does it explicitly state that he is?
suppose he isn't, problem solved- no mental gymnastics required
and you can still have God possessing the supreme powers of creation, unlitimed knowledge and the ultimate judge of mankind
i just never get why any of that requires him to be able to know the future or dictate absolutely everything
what would be the point of anything then? what is free will then? whats the point of creation if you can't "let it run"? what does it mean to be "made in His image" if I can't tell the future or read peoples thoughts?
heresy it may be, but it gives me comfort to imagine God with some limits, how else would he truly understand us?

>>17835690
You don't become a puppet in heaven or by becoming a saint. You choose it yourself.
>Why couldn't He just make it so that He wasn't alone without evil?
Depending on the definition of good he could've - by making automatons.
>Omnipotence means the ability to do anything. Unless paradoxes are more powerful.
I actually agree with this, I think omnipotence means doing the impossible. But that doesn't mean that the question "Why didn't God make this circle square?" is intelligible or provides any insight. It's an irrational expression of perhaps-rational dissastisfaction.

>>17835698
>free will in what good thing to do for the day
Out of those some will be better and some will be worse. If God blocked all evil starting tomorrow morning and your worst offense could be not smiling back at someone on a street, people could still make the evil argument as in "why does God allow people to not smile back on a street". This slicing off of bad options works ad infinitum until you arrive at having one single option, hence no choice at all.

>>17835255
The sum of good and evil is worse than if all there was was “evil”
As value is relative.
The point of existence is pathos (in the Greek sense of "suffering"). Pathos derives from apparently soluble conflict and not being able to solve it.
For example: when someone gets cancer, you can either lament their irresistible agonizing death, or serve as their oncologist to distend their time just laying in sickbed in agony, delirious from chemotherapy.
Being unable to help other people is the point more than physical life itself.
If cancer was never fatal, you could you could never fail to help them. If there was only triumph over all, nothing bad could ever happen.

>>17835725
>You choose it yourself
I mean, yeah. But this seems a bit pedantic. He still makes you a robot. I'd choose to be a robot right now to get rid of suffering, as I'm sure most would.
Which again, why not cut out the middle man?
>by making automatons
I guess I'm saying why not make it so that it can be achieved without us being automatons.
It's all mysterious, I know. But still.
>irrational expression of rational dissatisfaction
Irrational for us. Kind of like Carl Sagan's Flatland. Who's to say such a thing isn't rational for God, especially an omnipotent one?

>>17835640
Is god an automaton?

He has free will and can only do good. Why not do that for the rest of creation

This argument is shit

>>17835748
>He still makes you a robot.
I don't see that he does.
>I'd choose to be a robot right now to get rid of suffering, as I'm sure most would.
It would no longer be you.

For the rest I'm going to just break it up a little, because we're fluently oscillating between a few completely different questions:
>1) Why not cut out the middle man?
Because that means cutting us out - either completely or cutting out our freedom, aka "us" in the practical sense.
>2) Why not create a different logic where we could eat our cake and have it too?
This is going to get very technical now, but since you wanted to move on from the existential aspect to the technical one, let's just run through it: "Why is logic not different" is not something you can coherently ask at all. "Why?" requires a "Because..." and "Because..." operates with established logic. To answer a "Why?" about not only our current logic but about its comparison to an entirely different logic would require you to step outside both of them, into some trans-logical space where you can compare two frameworks like we compare one programming language to another. But we don't have this space. We don't know how to compare two sets of logic applied to an entire universe. That's why I'm saying that your question is an irrational expression of a rational concern. "Why is there evil?" can be answered. "Why is this universe's logic not different?" cannot currently even theoretically be answered.

To summarize it:
> You should worry about minimizing evil and preventing it to exist, but God doesn't have to worry about that >>17835273
> If evil didn't exist neither would your self or my self in any real sense >>17835640
> Wondering about alternative universes where completely fundamental rules apply differently is mostly outside the current limits of the human mind

>>17835753
No, God is entirely free.


He can do anything he wants.


He just chooses to do good.

>>17835782
Ok then just do that for everything

He's omnipotent so he has no excuse

>>17835783
Do what?


Choices for everyone else?
Meaning NOT making everything entirely ...

...


...free?

>>17835784
You just said god has free choice yet can only do good

Why can't everything have that same nature

>>17835791
I explicitly said he can do anything he wants. And that out of those options he chooses to do good.

We could have had the very same thing. We just ruined it.

>>17835795
Nope

God created us this way

>>17835779
>"us" in the practical sense
But God is God. Why do "we" only exist alongside evil?
Why can't "we" exist without it?
Why can't freedom exist without it?
>it cannot be answered
That's what I ultimately come to as well.
We don't know because we're limited.
That, to me, seems like a logical but poor excuse.
God is good because He just is. Anything fundamental can't be explained because our understanding was made to be flawed. The hypocrisies are meant to be embraced.
God isn't like us. He made us to be us. The limited understanding He gave us prevents us from understanding Him or ourselves.
But you like yourself, so you're better off believing.
What I'm sensing is that there is no answer because the concept is made to be unanswerable.

>>17834544 (OP)
I think the traditional answer is that it's better for God to allow evil and then destroy/be victorious over it than for there to have been no evil at all

>>17835804
My bad, I forgot the reddit spacing Anon doesn't believe in personal responsibility.
That will be all.

>>17834544 (OP)
There's no god, jesus didn't exist, the bible is forged and religion is cope.

>>17835806
So it's just a bit of self-aggrandizing fun?
It's better for Him and His image, but not for the billions condemned to an eternity of torture because of an inclination He allowed, even possibly created.
Why not make the exact same feeling He'd get from defeating evil but not actually have evil?
I know the only answer is
>We can't rationalize that
But at that point it doesn't make any sense.

>>17835805
>Why can't "we" exist without it?
We can. We just chose not to. I am talking about the fall, we're on the same page, right?
>Why can't freedom exist without it?
Because freedom implies non-coersion and being coerced into goodness is logically non-freedom.

>That, to me, seems like a logical but poor excuse.
It's not an excuse. Nobody needs to be excused from anything except humans from committing evil.
I'm not sure what hypocricies you're finding or why being limited is such a gut punch ... we are hairless primates. Our cognition is barely good enought to assess items in time and space. Nobody promised us that we will be able to answer questions about fundamental logic of our universe in our 20s and 30s.

I don't know that the concept is unanswerable. I just that our comprehension has limits somewhere and luckily "why is there evil" is within those limits. "why is logic the way it is" happens to be outside.

>>17834544 (OP)
It’s very simple. Two reasons:
1. He doesnt want his subjects to be mindless automatons, ergo he gave them a will of their own which allows them to choose evil.
2. Until Gog and Magog hes separating the wheat that will live with him forever with the chaff that will go to the burn pit. He gives Satan reign to collect up the trash until that time.
Now, I’m sure this won’t be good enough for you. Appeals to the problem of evil are middleschool level attempts to justify your love of sin.

>>17835820
>we chose not to
But He gave us that desire. He made choice only work with evil.
Why?
If I set the stage, don't want robots, don't want sin, want choice, and then make beings that can only choose by wanting sin but having to refuse it in order to be robots, why did I do that?
I feel the answer to why there is evil is intertwined with logic.
We know why there is evil using our logic.
But God's is outside ours.
Is that the trust? Trusting that God had a reason even though it doesn't make sense?
>>17835829
No need to be rude. I'm just here having a discussion.

>>17835842
>But He gave us that desire.
>beings that can only choose by wanting sin
He gave us good desires. It's us who degrade desire for love to mere lust, desire for power to sadism, desire for communion to desire for attention etc. Our wants are not inherently evil at all.
>He made choice only work with evil. Why?
This is a separate question and currently irrational.
>Is that the trust? Trusting that God had a reason even though it doesn't make sense?
Like I brought up earlier, you're a hairless monkey with cognition barely powerful enough to understand that the Earth is round. If the fundamental problem you're trying to solve isn't the existence of evil, but the fact that you don't have enough knowledge to judge God's decisions, then I am afraid you will never solve this issue in any domain - not for why evil exists, not for why mammals exist, not why we have two nostrils, not why E major sounds happier than F major... in every single one of those you will gradually get to "but could it have been different" and if not "why could it not have been different" ad infinitum.
The problem of evil in this case is just a placeholder for the problem of idolizing our own rational faculties.

>>17835860
>He gave us good desires
So we created a desire that God didn't? Suddenly we just wanted evil and that surprised God?
I'm saying that the desire had to come from God. Either indirectly as a process or directly as a integral component.
If it is a shadow of choice, then the answer is: We can't know because it is irrational to us.
If it is because evil elicits a challenge or emotion that pleases God, then the answer is: We don't know why He didn't make it without evil because our understanding is irrational.
The fundamental problem for me is why God needed evil to exist.
Our need for evil to exist is only explainable through our predicament.
I know I'm limited. That's why I'm seeking advice. I don't think human intellect is all that great.
I just don't see why God wouldn't give us an explanation that fits within our limited framework.
It may not be cruel in all actuality. But from our perspective, it is cruel. And the only answer is to go against our senses.

>>17835868
We didn't create desires, we degraded them, cherry-picked them and messed them up. For example people don't really have a desire to rape anyone. You have a desire to intimacy, desire to power and if you amplify and select those two desires over the desire for other people's sovereignty, then you have successfully perverted good desires into creating a poor outcome. This is our doing, not God's.
>shadow of choice
Not sure what that means, but choice if choice if there are options. Suggestions to change or compare current logical laws with non-existent ones aren't feasible at the moment.

>The fundamental problem for me is why God needed evil to exist.
He didn't. He wanted to grant us freedom, for which the OPTION of commiting evil has to exist under current logical laws. That it really ended up existing is our own fault.

>I just don't see why God wouldn't give us an explanation that fits within our limited framework.
I think he did, in Genesis. World was great, then we messed it up. That's as much as you can load into a general human mind. If you want to venture outside of that, you're met with the last chapters of Job where God cautions you not to arrogantly ask questions about things you have absolutely no way of understanding.

>>17835881
>shadow of choice
As in, not an actual thing but rather the absence of something else.
Which still raises the question of why God allows it.
Why He allowed us to degrade ourselves.
Why choice is reliant on that.
Which is apparently unanswerable at our level.
>under current logical laws
I guess you're saying that it is how it is because it is. We can't comprehend why, and we can't comprehend otherwise.
It's our fault because of how the universe was made, and for there to be an explanation that makes sense, it has to exist elsewhere.
>Job and Genesis
Okay. I get that's it then. It just is.

>>17835731
If only there was help you could provide that was nonphysical. oh well.

>>17835598
The conclusion we get from the Bible is that God created all things for a purpose, and God's attributes include goodness, mercy and justice. Any rebellion against God can be utilized to accomplish things according to God's will, because the Lord's purpose is greater than any created being's purpose can be. In fact in Psalm 9, it says the Lord is known by the judgement he executes: the wicked is snared in the work of his own hands.

So even though evil, wickedness and rebellion against God exists, the presence of rebellion can still be used to accomplish the purpose of glorifying God. As fallible created beings, it is not in our interest to rebel against God. But even if someone is allowed to rebel, it can still be utilized in a way that, in the end, glorifies God.

Destruction, pain, suffering, depravity and degeneration of form are all evidence of departure from God's will by fallible creatures. These things are objectively bad because they contrast with the beauty and perfection of the Lord and what He can create and do. God's creation was perfect in the beginning. Evil entered only because rebellion occurred. He allowed His creation to have their own will, which made it possible for them to choose something outside of God's will, and we see what happened.

Now I see OP asking why that was necessary. Ultimately God knows the full answer. I think it makes sense for a number of reasons. Firstly, no one will be forced to become God's servants who worship Him for eternity. Since choosing anything outside of God's will results in evil, that's why it exists in this world. However, the Bible also reveals that, in the world to come, that evil will be separated from God's kingdom. There will be a great wall separating the City of God from outer darkness, and everyone who is locked out of that city will have no excuse left, because the Judgement will show it was their own decision to reject God. At that point, they won't be able to affect us any more.

>>17835886
>Which still raises the question of why God allows it. He allowed us to degrade ourselves.
Not to be toxic but didn't I just answer that?
>Why choice is reliant on that
Because that's the definition of the word choice.
>It's our fault because of how the universe was made
It's our fault that chose wrong.

Your question was answered but you still sound dissatisfied, and I think that it's because you're (inadvertendly, we hope o_0) playing a game of moving goalposts that can never be finished no matter what topic you start at.
>> Why is there evil?
> Because we chose to make it happen.
>> Ah... [shift] but why was it an option?
> Because freedom requires options.
>> Ah... [shift] but why do we need freedom?
> Because that's what logically makes us - us.
>> Ah...[shift] but why does logic work this way...?

This could work just as well with music.
>> Why does E major sound happer than F major?
> Because the relative differences in frequencies are more harmonic in E major.
>> Ah... [shift] but why does harmony matter?
> Because our aesthetic sense prefers coherence.
>> Ah... [shift] but why does it prefer that?
> Because coherence implies consistency and consistency implies survival.
>> Ah... [shift] but why does consistency imply survival?
> Because survival is a question of consistency of processes.
>> Ah... [shift] but why can life not be inconsistent?
> Because that's what we mean when we say life.
>> Oh so "just because"? Smh these concepts are made to be nonsensical...

I would say these discussions degenerate really quickly into just a general brainstorming and curiosity. If you set out your goals at the start, you will see that they were met.

>>17835914
Just going to cut to the chase and put it this way
God allows for evil because he thinks it's funny to let people be evil and then punish them for it. No, you didn't have to do evil. God didn't make you evil either. It's your choice what you do with the gift of consciousness.
If it's funny/pleasing to God it's ontologically good.
Or else, like I've said previously, you could kill yourself if you truly think this world isn't worth living in.

>>17835923
>God allows for evil because he thinks it's funny to let people be evil and then punish them for it.
That's not what the Bible says though.

"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."
(1 Timothy 2:3-4)

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
(2 Peter 3:9)

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
(John 3:16)

"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
(Romans 5:8)

>>17835923
Worth living in? Are you replying to the correct post?

>>17835929
Yes. This is also true.
There is no refutation to my argument here.

>>17835932
Sort of. I'm just replying to the thread as a whole and adding comments. I'm not refuting the post I'm responding to.

>>17835937
Okay well it seems you weren't really interested in knowing why there exists evil per se, you were interested in judging God and since you were shown why this rationally cannot be done, you decided to leap to God being sadistic as a matter of personal impression. Is that correct or am I misunderstanding where you ended up?

>>17835910
OP here.
I get the idea of letting us choose, just adding evil to the mix seems strange.
I'm sure everyone would choose to believe if they knew He was real to avoid eternal torture.
Just making a world in which God still gets the choice but doesn't knowingly make beings that have the capacity to suffer, suffer for eternity seems better.
At least to us.
But yes, our understanding of good is tainted.
>>17835914
That's our definition of choice.
I don't see it as moving goalposts. I see it as your answer raising another question.
You answer my question, I ask another.
That's why I made it clear I was looking for a discussion.
Not just a stop and go.

>>17835949
>I'm sure everyone would choose to believe if they knew He was real to avoid eternal torture.
everyone's time in hell is different from one another's. everyone gets punished in proportion to their sins. so, a serial killer is burning hotter than a petty thief.
having known many hundreds/thousands of people in my life, I have to say that people enjoy being evil and wasting their gift of consciousness by acting like an animal.

>>17835949
Sure, our understanding will naturally use our definitions.
>You answer my question, I ask another.
And that's fine as long as you understand that this can never produce a different ultimate outcome than "that's how logic works". Yet you seemed very disappointed.

>>17835950
I'm sure they do.
Evil was made to be enjoyable.
In our point of view, made by us.
But outside of our point of view, it was made by someone else for reasons unknown that apparently amount to good anyway.
But we're punished for choosing what amounts to good anyway.
Of course, again, our understanding of good is flawed.
So perhaps eternal punishment is good. For God. Not for us.

>>17835954
I kind of am. Honestly.
I spent my teenage years saying it made sense. And it does.
But not in the way we truly understand sense.
More of a technicality.
Technicalities disappoint me despite their technical validity.

>>17835959
>we truly understand sense
I should say, we want to truly understand sense.
It's hard to accept limitation.
But yeah. It's poetic, which is nice in a romantic kind of way.
Trust that the being which has appeared to make all evil has an explanation for it that exists outside of you.
Believe in that which you perceive as subjugating you.
A nice message of humility is there if one chooses to view it that way.

>>17835959
What would be an example of us "truly understanding" something? I'm still not clear on how this could disappoint you when every single topic would meet the same limit anyway....

>>17835964
The same way we understand gravity.
Something which doesn't require faith.
And if it does require faith, offer and understanding behind that faith that makes it the more logical option.
A reason for allowing evil that makes sense outside our world while still functioning in the confines of it.
Again, omnipotence should be able to allow this.
But that's not how it played out.

>>17835945
I’m not judging God.
What are you talking about?
I’m saying that people accusing God of making some horrible existence for us may as well kill themselves or else they’re hypocrites that actually enjoy existence.
Suffering is either a net good or you’re a hypocrite for enjoying an existence that includes suffering.

>>17835967
And by “suffering is a net good”
I mean the catharsis of solving suffering for yourself and others.

>>17835966
But we don't know why gravity is the way it is.
We know it is a field, we how to predict its vectors, we know it was here since the start but our understanding ends at calling it a "fundamental" force and we don't know a single "why" beyond that. (Notwithstanding unproven verification theories).
I can ask you why God didn't decide to replace gravity with a slightly different force and you will be forced to give me the exact same "that's how current logic works" answer that you implied is NOT true understanding.

>>17835967
Well I mean... that he finds punishment or evil "funny" makes him a sadist. That would be an extremely clear judgement unless I misunderstood something?

corr >>17835982
*** unification theories, not verification theories

>>17835982
Is sadism strictly evil or are you applying emotionalism to the discussion?
the only argument I can hazard people would make are horrified gasps
>I can’t BELIEVE you would say that
Rather than making any logical argument.

Obviously, sadism in the sense of being pleased by punishing the innocent does not characterize God

>>17835993
>>>> allows for evil because he thinks it's funny to let people be evil and then punish them for it
This is sadism and evil, yes. What leads you to believing fun is part of the equation?

>>17835996
Is there something wrong with this?
No one is forced to waste the existence they’re given, and especially not to waste his fellow man.

>>17836007
>>this is evil
>Is there something wrong with this?
Yes. It is evil.

What leads you to believing fun is part of the equation?

>>17835982
But gravity isn't given as the answer to why we're expected to fly.
Let's say that God intended for us to fly.
A perfect world according to Him only involves flying.
Then we end up only being able to fly in planes. According to unproven history, we chose gravity.
But why was gravity even an option?
We don't know. We live in a world with gravity.
To explain why it was even an option is impossible.
In our perspective, everything will eventually become flying. But we need gravity to accentuate flying.
We need to be grounded for flying to be a concept.
But then why didn't God make us fly?
Who knows?
Just believe it happened for a reason.

>>17836013
What?

>>17836011
>Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
>The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
>Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
>He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision.

>I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;

>>17836026
>>He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision.
He is laughing at their ideas.
>>I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;
This is Wisdom talking.

And even if it wasn't, human attributes are metaphorical. God is not actually jealous - it's just a way in which old Hebrews could understand that he demands loyalty.

>>17836015
It's an analogy. Not anything literal.
The same concepts and answers put into an analogous scenario.

>>17836033
The Wisdom of God has different, “evil” opinions that God doesn’t share?

>>17834544 (OP)
>Is there a logical reason for God to allow evil?
Yes.

>>17836036
It looks like nonsense, honestly. The analogy is in the very fact that both questions (Why is there evil and Why is there gravity) have the same non-answer: because that's how logic works. Yet you consider one to be true understanding and the other not.

>>17836038
The Wisdom is free to mock. As am I. But you proposed God is having fun punishing people. Why? Because sinners get mocked?

>>17834544 (OP)
christcuckery is a psyops for the goyim to be good goyim

The biblical answer: The book of Job directly addresses this question. The answer it gives is, essentially, it's not your place to question forces beyond your comprehension.

The secular answer: religious mythologies are imperfect and serve a function beyond being a literal or scientific explanation of life. They have to be taken as they are, flaws included, if you want to get any use out of them.

Both of these explanations are true in different ways. Ultimately, the answer doesn't matter as long as you have a guiding principle in life that keeps you on the right side of fate.

>>17836068
That's how our logic works.
But there isn't an answer as to why that's how it works.
That's what I want.
>>17836082
I guess that's it.

>>17835299
You should at least take the time to read the bible before giving an opinion on Christian doctrine

All this confused bluster is entirely transparent to anyone who has actually read Isaiah for example, just stop posting

>>17836053
>evil is good actually
this is just to say there's no such thing as evil

>>17836169
Cope
https://biblehub.com/lsv/genesis/3.htm
>8And they hear the sound of YHWH God walking up and down in the garden at the breeze of the day, and the man and his wife hide themselves from the face of YHWH God in the midst of the trees of the garden. 9And YHWH God calls to the man and says to him, “Where [are] you?”
He's not omnipresent. He has to walk to places.
He's not omniscient. He has to ask questions.

He's on the same level as a comic book super hero/villain.

It comes down to free will. The other option no one is considering is that there are three destinations not two for human souls as the christian religion teaches. YHWH created evil for the purpose of free will.

You know...I really feel like sucking some veiny, throbbing cocks..

>>17836264
God has a sense of humor and it pleases him to test humans.

Bump.

>>17834544 (OP)
Whatever nigga. Everyone has a "recent crisis of faith." Eithet believe in the Jew or don't, but if you do, how about just make the world a better place objectively?

>>17835272
Ecclesiastes 9:2-4
>"Everyone will die someday. Death comes to godly and sinful people alike. It comes to good and bad people alike. It comes to “clean” and “unclean” people alike. Those who offer sacrifices and those who don’t offer them also die."

>"A good person dies,
and so does a sinner.
Those who make promises die.
So do those who are afraid to make them.

Here’s what is so bad about everything that happens on this earth. Death catches up with all of us. Also, the hearts of people are full of evil. They live in foolish pleasure. After that, they join those who have already died. Anyone who is still living has hope. Even a live dog is better off than a dead lion!"
some words for thought for u anon

>>17835842
Can you admit that you chose not to believe in God because you love sin and don't want to feel bad about it? Yes/No.

Hi OP. I will not be able to reply further as I rarely get to visit 4chan, but I really wanted to respond. You seem to be genuinely seeking the truth and are even willing to challenge it. You must be desperate for the answer if you are asking here. I have been there. Every person considers this problem eventually, and the conclusion they come to has eternal consequences. So it is worth considering.

My entire post is likely to sound offensive, shallow, pretentious, unsatisfying, and way too long. Therefore, let me start with a caution that is also part of the answer.

It is very difficult to give a satisfying answer to the problem of evil. That is because regardless of what answer someone can give you, you as a human being are still forced to suffer. The mere existence of pain seems to negate even the deepest of answers to this question.

As some people have already said, this is one of the main points of the book of Job. Job wanted the reason why he was suffering, and every answer his friends gave just made him more irritated and despondent. And isn't that true in our experience? Doesn't every attempt to answer this question seem to miss the point entirely, at least from our point of view? Doesn't every answer to this question seem absurd?

As further proof of this, don't I already sound pedantic and condescending to you? Don't I already sound as if I have never experienced real hardship in my entire life? If you have even made it this far, you're just waiting for me to get to the point; and yet something in you is hoping my answer will satisfy, and not inevitably disappoint you.

It's easy to postulate about this question when you're happy and comfortable, but in the face of tragedy, it seems that every answer to this question evaporates, and you are left with nothing. [1/6.]

That is not to say there is no answer to this question. I am not a nihilist or an absurdist. I truly believe there is an answer to this question; an answer that is both satisfying and true. But there's no guarantee that the answer to this question will satisfy you at all, or that it won't offend you.

So the question then becomes, how serious are you about knowing the answer, OP? And are you willing to accept the answer, no matter how unsatisfying or absurd that answer appears to be?

Suppose someone were to give the objective answer to the problem of evil right now. Would you be willing to accept it? [2/6.]

I won't leave you hanging anymore. My answer to this question is twofold, and it is what I consider the Christian position.

The first answer is this: God is the only one who can truly answer this problem for you. I don't mean this as an evasion. I actually mean that humanity is utterly bereft of answers. In the eyes of God, humanity has failed to answer this question. And seeing as we caused the problem in the first place, doesn't that make sense?

If you really want to know, you must depart from every human authority. As I have said, no human answer satisfies, even this one, and that is on purpose. The sciences and reason can only go so far; human sympathy can only go so far. This is not to say that the sciences, reason, and human sympathy don't have their place. But they fall short of answering the question.

God has so orchestrated your existence that only He can answer this question, and no one else.

Again, look to the book of Job. Job and his friends argue about the problem of evil for several pages, and as time goes on, Job gives up on his friends. Job gives up on himself. Job gives up on humanity. Job's only hope is that Yahweh literally come down from Heaven, and personally explain to Job what is happening. This is no hyperbole; this is literally what Job expects to happen. [3/6.]

OP, you must realize, that until you reach such a point of desperation, that you cast yourself entirely on God for the answer, with full expectation that He will appear to you, you will not receive an answer to this question. You must pray that God Himself will show you the answer in a revelation, and keep praying, and keep asking, until He does.

Christians say all of the time that "God is not afraid of your hard questions", and that "He can take it.” That may seem trite, but it is beautifully and terrifyingly true. Job asked for God to come down and answer Him; and He did. You can ask the same exact thing. In fact, God fully expects you to do this, and He does not want anything less.

It is really that simple.

This is the first answer to the problem of evil. To put it simply, cut out the middle man, and just ask God for yourself.

Of course, most people do not like what Yahweh told Job, when He finally did appear. People read it as a giant “cope” on God’s part, as though God were saying, “Job, you couldn’t possibly understand, and you were wrong to ask in the first place. By the way, I’m God, so I can do whatever I want.”

To read God’s answer this way is to miss the point entirely. To read God’s answer in this way is to miss the unspeakable love which God showed Job in this moment.

God’s answer to Job’s suffering, and to the entire problem of evil, was God. That is the entire point. God gives Job a panoramic view of Himself, and Job is so overwhelmed by the glory of God that the problem of evil ceases to exist. Job sees the utter immensity of God, the utter beauty of God, the utter Godness of God, and suddenly the problem of evil evaporates, like shadows at the sight of the sun.

It’s not just that God orchestrates evil for good, although that is entirely true. It is that God Himself is the answer to the problem of evil. [4/6.]

This brings me to my second answer. Notice, the first answer I gave is where most Christians will end this question. Indeed, this alone would be sufficient to answer the problem of evil. But the second answer is too glorious to leave out.

The second answer is this: Jesus Christ is God’s answer to the world about the problem of evil. If you are looking for an answer to this problem, God has actually provided you with one, and it is in the actual person of Jesus Christ. Quite literally, God brought Jesus into the world, among many other reasons, to be the living answer to this question.

Many things about suffering and evil will not make sense to us in this earthly plane of existence. God knows this, and that is a big reason why Jesus chose to be crucified. If you understand nothing else about the problem of evil, and simply contemplate that God Incarnate experienced pain, and suffered, and died, you have a sufficient answer. [5/6.]

But if you insist on knowing why God chose, out of an infinite number of timelines, to choose one full of pain and suffering, and I don't blame you….this is where things get difficult. Different thelogians have different answers to this question, but this is how most will answer the question.

Question: Why does evil exist?
Answer: So that God could have a reason to crucify Jesus.
Question: That’s it? That’s the only reason evil exists? To crucify Jesus?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Why was this necessary?
Answer: So God could bring glory to His Son.
Question: But there are an infinite number of ways God could have brought glory to Jesus. Why did God choose to glorify Jesus, in such a manner that untold pain is brought upon His creatures?
Answer: Because any other way of glorifying Jesus wouldn’t have been as costly and as glorious.
Question: So, then, God has such a love for Jesus, that He is willing to create an entire universe of pain and suffering, just so that Jesus can demonstrate the great love of God for Himself?
Answer: Yes.
Question: So, then, does God care for any of His creatures at all?
Answer: Insofar as they bring glory to His Son.
Question: So, then, does God not love us for any other reason?
Answer: You ask wrongly. God indeed loves us so much, that He created us to be loved, by Him, and to share in His glory, by indeed bringing glory to the Son.
Question: Even if “bringing glory to Jesus” means that untold misery is brought upon the world, and Jesus Christ Himself?
Answer: Yes. [6/6.]

>>17835260
>No logical reason for this reality to be evil.
You Epicureans don't even realize that you're basically saying reality should be a fat glass window pane over the entire universe that never ever fades or crack. That's what a universe without suffering/evil looks like.

Law and Chaos are necessary forces, read the Tao.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Df7fObNOeo.

>>17836719
I do believe in God.
What kind of question is this?

>>17836823
OP here.
Thank you. Very much.

>>17836933
>What kind of question is this?
A yes or no one. Try again.

>bro hasn’t achieved gnosis

>>17836967
Enjoy Hell.

>>17836972
I’m there now

>>17836976
No, you are not. Hell is hotter. Tick tock.

>>17836979
tiktok is hell

>>17836962
I believe in God.
There's your answer.

>>17836836
>a fat glass window pane over the entire universe that never ever fades or crack
horrifying

>>17834544 (OP)
>Is there a logical reason for God to allow evil?
Which faith?

For Latter Day Saints (aka Mormons) I'd say, not being an expert, that "evil" and the encounter of it seem to be a necessary component for spiritual growth and refinement - compared to a hypothetical paradise world of no conflict or "unnecessary" problems. Life as it is is not necessarily the "best of all worlds," but it is possibly the best plan in the very long term for induced growth and a forge for the soul. Controversially, God the Heavenly Father himself went through this process of "life," perfecting himself by encountering and rejecting evil.

One must also remember death is not the end. The fully physical mortal period of earth is merely the best time for radical choice (choosing out of personal agency to follow God's laws and path) and challenge. In the afterlife you will have a period where you will have significantly less conflict or misery (outside of being separated from God) and, if you haven't already, mostly just being prodded to accept Christ's and his saving of mortal sins - somehow (I don't think were very clear what this limbo heaven is like). And during the Golden Age of Jesus's Second Coming there will be a long period of resurrection, but again much less challenge than the 75 average years you get in your first life.

I don't think this is perfect but it answers a lot.

Crazy personal doctrine: I'd say also that it might be that too much assuredness and knowledge of God's plan, for those not of profound faith, ruins the refinement - and the significance of choosing God's law and goodness. Imagine you KNEW, like you knew the sun will rise, that whatever horrible suffering you have will be a spot in a millennia long existence of "repayment" in joy and tranquility. Not even millennia, a literal eternity. Would you really care about breaking your leg or losing a love in the same way? And at that point, what is purpose of the challenge or choice?

>>17837223
OP here. I was raised Baptist. I don't know what I am just besides a non-Catholic, non-Mormon, non-Islamic Christian.
I remember reading that the heaven and hell that exist now are sort of meant to act like an eventual replacement.
Are they really places that allow change of heart before the second coming?
I don't think I've ever heard them described as a purgatorial plain that still offers salvation.

>>17837266
>Are they really places that allow change of heart before the second coming?
According to the book of revelation, by the time of the second coming there will only remain on earth those who refuse to believe no matter what.

I recomend you should watch Redeemed Zoomer on YouTube, he explains the beliefs of each protestant denomination.
https://www.youtube.com/@redeemedzoomer6053/videos

Also, if you're willing to listen to the Catholic case, this channel answers a lot of topics.
https://www.youtube.com/@christdefender/videos

>>17834544 (OP)
if christianity is true the answer is either gnosticism (god allows evil because hes an imperfect/ignorant demiurge) or calvinism (god allows evil, we shouldnt question his nature, even if hes evil hes still an omnipotent creator that can erase us from existence so just submit to him)

>>17837374
>>17835285
god (monad) isnt really a person with a mind or thoughts
he just creates existence then leaves it alone, the aeon that actually created the demiurge (sophia) does try to stop his evil, by sending jesus and such, but she is not omnipotent

>>17836818
>You must pray that God Himself will show you the answer in a revelation, and keep praying, and keep asking, until He does.
See the following:

"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
(2 Peter 1:19-21)

According to Scripture, God has revealed Himself to us. The book of Revelation says, "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand." This is how God can be found, it is His divine revelation. As Christ said in the Gospel, "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." This is a reference to the book of Deuteronomy. The Bible is the Lord's word for us, it is God's word. According to the same Lord (John 12:48), it is our duty to accept His words. That is the single standard that all men will be judged by.

Paul in Romans 10:17 said "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." That is absolute truth. God told Isaiah to write His prophecies in a book, so that it could be for the time to come forever and ever. He also told Isaiah that His word would never cease. Jesus Himself also said that His words would never pass away (Matthew 24:35).

In 1 Peter 1:23, Peter writes, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." A man can be born again by hearing this word. This is the word has been preached unto us by the Gospel (1 Peter 1:25). In the book of Acts we read that many did so. They "gladly received" the word, and all that did so were baptized as believers.

>>17837411
Amen.

>>17837295
militant thomist now and forever

>>17834544 (OP)
>Is there a logical reason for God to allow evil?
God created evil. It's literally in the bible nigga. Isaiah 45:7 is not even remotely ambiguous.

>>17834544 (OP)
>retarded questions
the demiurge is a retarded creator, that's why. become a soldier of christ and ascend, escape the demiurge and become one with christ.

>>17837554
>Isaiah 45:7
You're thinking of natural evil, not moral evil. See definition.