The Logical Problem of Evil (Defeated)

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe evil has to do with intent, I do not judge all things bad because we do not
like them.
Kelly

That’s fine, and doubtless reflects modern conventional understanding. It is just not the biblical use of the word “evil”, nor past philosophical usage (which has distinguished between “natural” and “moral” evil).

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
"Goodness" is a vague term. My conscience is most comfortable defining it in terms of suffering. Less suffering = more good. This seems to be most consistent with the vague idea of "goodness" we all share.

I do not see any value in "free will" whatsoever. I would far rather be a happy automaton then a being who is miserable but "free willed".

Really? You would give up free will for happiness.
The value I see in free will is that it allows us to make choices which can bring us closer to 'God'.
I couldn't imagine life without free will. It just wouldn't be human ,(would it?)

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Really? You would give up free will for happiness.

I think I would.

The value I see in free will is that it allows us to make choices which can bring us closer to 'God'.
And why would you want to do that? Would it make you happy? Why would you reject the option to have someone make the same choices for you and still get closer to 'God'?

I couldn't imagine life without free will. It just wouldn't be human ,(would it?)
And that is the problem. We can't imagine what it would be like and so cannot really judge whether it would be better or worse than our current predicament. However, if we know that the alternative includes happiness guaranteed, then why not?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think I would.

[b]The value I see in free will is that it allows us to make choices which can bring us closer to 'God'.
And why would you want to do that? Would it make you happy? Why would you reject the option to have someone make the same choices for you and still get closer to 'God'?

I couldn't imagine life without free will. It just w ...[text shortened]... nt. However, if we know that the alternative includes happiness guaranteed, then why not?

As I understand it getting closer to 'God' is not becoming happier, because your ego is getting sqeezed out of the picture. This is one grand process that goes beyond just you and me. Hence the need for true wisdom, guidance, and humour.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I keep saying we, because we are who we are part of the human race.

Yet the race cannot be guilty of a crime. Nor did God curse the world because of anything the race did or anything I did, so stop using 'we' unless you mean it. If you mean it, then please correct your claims where you say it was due to Adam, Even and their sons. Contradicting yourself doesn't make for clarity.

Even Jesus told others that only one was good and that was God, we tend to
twist things to suit us, we want what we want, and we judge others for things
that we do while excusing ourselves. So yes, I'm saying because you are
part of the human race it is in your nature to sin.
Then we cannot be held entirely responsible for our sins as we do not have a choice in the matter.

Originally posted by vistesd
That’s fine, and doubtless reflects modern conventional understanding. It is just not the biblical use of the word “evil”, nor past philosophical usage (which has distinguished between “natural” and “moral” evil).

Show me what you how you think that is true.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think I would.

[b]The value I see in free will is that it allows us to make choices which can bring us closer to 'God'.
And why would you want to do that? Would it make you happy? Why would you reject the option to have someone make the same choices for you and still get closer to 'God'?

I couldn't imagine life without free will. It just w nt. However, if we know that the alternative includes happiness guaranteed, then why not?

[/b]People give up freewill for happiness all the time now days we call the addicts,
you support that type of behavior, where the temporarily happiness the addictions
gives rules over all else?
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet the race cannot be guilty of a crime. Nor did God curse the world because of anything the race did or anything I did, so stop using 'we' unless you mean it. If you mean it, then please correct your claims where you say it was due to Adam, Even and their sons. Contradicting yourself doesn't make for clarity.

[b]Even Jesus told others that only one w e cannot be held entirely responsible for our sins as we do not have a choice in the matter.

[/b]You have choices, you will just tend to make the wrong ones, and will justify
those bad ones you make with excuses. Our nature was twisted early on and
we all have followed that path they choose, our justification also comes by one
too.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet the race cannot be guilty of a crime. Nor did God curse the world because of anything the race did or anything I did, so stop using 'we' unless you mean it. If you mean it, then please correct your claims where you say it was due to Adam, Even and their sons. Contradicting yourself doesn't make for clarity.

[b]Even Jesus told others that only one w e cannot be held entirely responsible for our sins as we do not have a choice in the matter.

[/b]Where they are responsible they are being held accountable, because they do have choices in the matter.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
People give up freewill for happiness all the time now days we call the addicts,
you support that type of behavior, where the temporarily happiness the addictions
gives rules over all else?
Kelly[/b]

I wouldn't equate addiction with happiness, that's rather silly.

Originally posted by KellyJay
People give up freewill for happiness all the time now days we call the addicts,
you support that type of behavior, where the temporarily happiness the addictions
gives rules over all else?
Kelly

No, I don't. But only because it is not genuine happiness. In fact, most addicts do not seem to be happy for a large percentage of the time. My happiness includes what I wish for others and the side effects of addiction usually includes harm to others. Even if that wasn't so, drug addiction is bad for the health and so even if it gave intense happiness, the happiness would be short lived (as would I).

Originally posted by KellyJay
Where they are responsible they are being held accountable, because they do have choices in the matter.
Kelly

But do you agree that if we are incapable of avoiding sin we cannot be held responsible for all our sins?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Show me what you how you think that is true.
Kelly

First of all, the Hebrew word translated as “evil” is ra, as in the tree of good and bad (tov and ra). These Hebrew words cover the whole range of good and bad (as in mazel tov: “good luck!” ). According to one biblical Hebrew lexicon I have, it can mean pain, injury, misery, or distress, as well as indicating a relatively inferior state (such as land or fruit; e.g., Numbers 13:19). One Jewish commentary that I have (as one example) says that the phrase tov v ra is intended to refer to the whole range of potential knowledge (rather like we might say, “the good, the bad and the ugly” ); this is also the view of my Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible.

The same for the Greek word poneros (translating ra), whose basic meaning is painful, toilsome or grievous; it can also mean useless (Liddel-Scott-Jones Lexicon, among others). They can refer also to moral badness (wickedness), but their usages are not restricted to that.

According to John Ayto’s Dictionary of Word Origins, evil “in the Old and Middle English period it simply meant ‘bad’; it is only in modern English that its connotations of ‘extreme moral wickedness’ came to the fore.” One can read in English literature (though I don’t have a reference handy) such phrases as “an evil-smelling place”.

[NOTE: The KJV, I think, was written in what is considered to be “early modern” (rather than “middle” or “modern” English); but it’s use of the word “evil” to translate ra in contexts where ra does not have a moral reference indicates that it was still not used strictly in the modern sense of moral wickedness. Otherwise, it would represent a simple translation error; and I see no reason to think that it is.]

An example of intentionality, but where most Jews and Christians would not assign bad morality, is Isaiah 45:7—“I make peace and create evil” (KJV: other translations render ra in this passage as calamity or disaster.

Of course “evil” also refers to moral wickedness in the biblical texts. Often it does, often it doesn’t; just as it can refer to intentional acts, or not.

From the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy discussion of “the problem of evil” (under its entry on Philosophy of Religion): “Two kinds of evil can be distinguished. Moral evil inheres in the wicked actions of moral agents… Natural evils are bad consequences that apparently derive entirely from the operations of impersonal natural forces, e.g. the human and animal suffering produced by natural catastrophes such as earthquakes and epidemics. Both kinds of evil raise the question of what reasons an omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good being could have for permitting or allowing their existence.”

I have no objection to the prior language of moral and natural evil being replaced by the “problem of evil”, on the one hand, and the “problem of suffering”, on the other. But, as I noted, the necessity of this new language (if it is necessary) derives from modern conventional tendencies to restrict the word “evil” to moral/intentional evil only. As language evolves, one just needs to be careful not to project contemporary understandings, willy-nilly, back onto older writings (the same is true for translation). To do so can result in inadvertently changing the original meanings (and range of meanings)—and with that, changing original theological and philosophical understandings (and range of understandings).

The above are only a few references; I got into this pretty thoroughly back when I was immersed in my Jewish studies. The fact is that those words translated from the Hebrew and the Greek in the Bible as “evil” did not refer strictly to moral/intentional badness. Nor, apparently, did the English word “evil” in the KJV—and other, more modern, English translations that have followed the older, broader usage (as has philosophy).

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I wouldn't equate addiction with happiness, that's rather silly.

We disagree than, because happiness for some is getting their fix whatever that
means with each person.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
We disagree than, because happiness for some is getting their fix whatever that
means with each person.
Kelly

Well then those people do give up their free will for happiness (as they see it). I don't because I don't consider it happiness.