From: (Anonymous)	Date: October 23rd, 2002 06:25 pm (UTC)		(Link)
I disagree

God created us for His pleasure. He gave us the capability to accept or reject Him. Those that reject Him are evil because they reject good, they reject their creator. He created this world expressly for us. In the beginning there was no evil, only good (Eden). He was benevolent because He had not yet punished us(Adamn, Eve) for our transgression. He decided that we should suffer, and so we must prove ourselves to Him that we deserve heaven. So he created us with the potential for evil (whatever you want to define evil as), and we have expressed that potential with zeal.

	From: vexen	Date: October 24th, 2002 12:33 am (UTC)		(Link)
	Re: I disagree

Natural Evil is not due to our choices in life
Earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, famines, disease, random accidents, the suffering of children and babies, the suffering of innocent people as the result of things that are beyond their control. These are natural evils, the suffering that results because of the nature of nature, the elements, the way the world works.

It is immediately obvious that natural evil is not punishment for poor judgement. The suffering of babies and the young cannot be the moral result of their actions or thoughts. Nor can the existence of genetic defects or disabilities be a moral punishment for crime or sin of the parents, as the suffering is caused in an innocent who it would be immoral to punish.

Your justification of evil by "free will" doesn't work, because there is a lot of evil that is not the result of free will.

From: (Anonymous)	Date: May 27th, 2004 06:57 am (UTC)		(Link)
Re: I disagree

you are so stereotype and you clearly do not understand your god.why is it that god is doubting himself by creating us to spread his word. if he truly loved us and he exists he would have kept us in eden and erased what they did and live on

From: (Anonymous)	Date: April 1st, 2003 05:25 pm (UTC)		(Link)
"Natural Evils"

Why tornadoes gurricanes, and earthquakes?
How can natural evil be explained?
In logical form:
1. Moral Evil is explained by free choice.
2. But some natural evil does not result from free choice.
3. Natural evil cannot be explaied by free choice of creatures.
4. Hence, God must be responsible for natural evil.
5. But natural evils cause innocent suffering and death.
6. Therefore God is responsible for innocent suffering and death.

We must question several premises of this argument. One response to premise 5, for example, is that in this fallen world no one is innocent. We sinned in Adam and as a consequence deserve death. Natural disaster is a direct result of the curse on creation becauase of the fall of humankind. It will nbot be removed until Christ returns.

Likewise, proposition 6 is mistaken, since it implies God is morally culpable for taking hte life of a creature. THis is a category mistake, since it wrongly assumes that, since it is wrong for a creature to take innocent life, it is also wrong for the Creator to do so. But God gave life and alone has the right to take it.

Premise 3 is definatly untrue. For theism can explain all natural evil by reference to free choice. In biblical language,t he free choice of Adam and Eve brought natural disaster on this world. in addition the free choice of evil angels accounts for the rest of human suffering. But even putting this possibility asside, which could in itself explain all natural evil, physical suffering can be explained in reference to human free choice.

1. Some suffering is brought on directly by our own free choice. The choice to abbuse my body can result in sickness.
2. Some suffering is brought on indirectly by free choice. The choice to be lazy can result in poverty.
3. Some physical evil to others can result from our free choice, as in the case of spouse or child abuse.
4. Others suffer indirectly becuase of our free choice. Alcoholism an lead to poverty of one's children.
5. Some physical evil may be a necessary byproduct of a good process. Rain, hot air, and cool air are all necessary for food and life, but a byproduct of these forces is a tornado.
6. Soem physical evil may be a necessary condition for attaining a greater moral good. God uses paint to get our attention. Many have come to God through suffering.
7. Some physical suffering may be a necessary condition of a greater moral good. Just as diamonds are formed under pressure, even so is character.
8. Some physical evil is necessary concomitant of a morally good physical world. For instance, it is good to have water to swim and boat in, but a necessary concomitant is that we can also drown in it. it is good to have sex for procreation and enjoyment, even though it makes rape possible. it is good to have food to eat, but this also makes dying of food poisoning possible.

Then why is a physical world necessary? Why didn't God just make spirits who could not hurt their body or die? He did, they're called angels. The problem is that, while no angel can die of food poisening. neither can they enjoy a prime rib. While no angel has ever drowned, neither has any angel ever gone for a swim or went water skiing. No angel has ever been raped, but neither has any angel ever enjoyed sex or the blessing of having children. in this kind of physical world, we simply must take the concomitant evil along with the good.

	From: vexen	Date: April 1st, 2003 10:56 pm (UTC)		(Link)
	Re: "Natural Evils"

Your defence against the existence of evil is called the free will theodicy, however, evil is not required for the existence of free will. We can have free will without there being suffering and evil.

Given that any set of choices constitutes free will when we choose between them, there is no logical reason why some choices have to result in suffering and others don't. If no choices result in suffering, we still have free will, but, there is no evil or suffering, and all people go to Heaven. That God does not wish to send all people to heaven, and also created evil, means that God itself is not morally good for it chooses to let innocent people suffer, including unborn babies and young children, etc.

To say that an unborn child is not innocent, or somehow deserved suffering, is plainly immoral. Punishment requires moral responsibility, so that it is immoral to punish something for something it has not yet done, and is also immoral to punish something for something it itself did not do. Punishing us because of the sin of Adam/Eve would be immoral, as would allowing a baby to suffer because it will probably sin later on in life.

So, in addition to God being immoral for creating evil at all, it is also immoral for its punishment, through suffering, of the young and the innocent.

If we say that God does not have to obey the same moral contraints as us, then we logically are saying that God is immoral. To redefine morality by gods standards would invalidate our ideas of morals, including our ideas of moral responsibility, but this would be a very terrible thing to have to do just in order for us to be able to call god "good".

Evil is not required for free will:
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/theodicy_evil.html