Log in

No account? Create an account
Vexen Crabtree 2015


Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal

Sociology, Theology, Anti-Religion and Exploration: Forcing Humanity Forwards

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Vexen Crabtree 2015

The problem of evil Introduction

"The Problem of Evil, in Monotheistic Religions" by Vexen Crabtree

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.

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.

Re: I disagree (Anonymous) Expand
Re: I disagree (Anonymous) Expand
Re: I disagree (Anonymous) Expand
Re: I disagree (Anonymous) Expand

"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.

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:

Re: "Natural Evils" (Anonymous) Expand
Re: "Natural Evils" (Anonymous) Expand
Re: "Natural Evils" (Anonymous) Expand
Re: "Natural Evils" (Anonymous) Expand
Re: "Natural Evils" (Anonymous) Expand
Re: "Natural Evils" (Anonymous) Expand
Re: "Natural Evils" (Anonymous) Expand
Re: "Natural Evils" (Anonymous) Expand
Re: "Natural Evils" (Anonymous) Expand
Re: "Natural Evils" (Anonymous) Expand
Re: "Natural Evils" (Anonymous) Expand
Re: "Natural Evils" (Anonymous) Expand

Moral/Normal Actions

To further the Moral Action-Normal Action argument, could you give me your defenitions of a moral action and a normal action?

(I would have added this to the previous post, but the posts are getting too small!)

Re: Moral/Normal Actions

A "moral" action is one concerned with either the creation of negation of suffering. It can be complex, so that you can chose to aid one person, but it may harm another (in fact, nearly all moral choices involve this type of confusion). You can chose to buy from one store because it supports animal welfare, but at the expense of buying from another that abuses cheap labor in a developing country. These are "moral choices", and they exist because suffering exists, and are merely a subset of the various choices we make in life.

"normal" actions include actions such as automatic medulla movement, actions that are physical, or actions where they see no moral element to the choice, actions where, in terms of suffering, it doesn't matter what they choose.

For example... what channel should I watch on TV for the next hour? What game should I play on my PC? What chocolate bar should I buy? What CD should I listen to? Etc.

Re: Moral/Normal Actions (Anonymous) Expand
Re: Moral/Normal Actions (Anonymous) Expand
As far as reincarnation is concerned it is possible, that God gives life to all, unborn babies then get a chance to live. But, reincarnation as far as having lived a full(or at least being old enough to reason and link for yourself)life is possible but unlikely. Limbo is an absurd idea. Children which have never experienced or done an evil, have never lived, go through a "purgatory for kids". I believe that God would not require this, he would either just bring them to heaven (which is kinda unfair to us but what are you gonna do?) or as stated earlier, give them another chance.

A particular thing you just said... about the unborn who die, is that God would give them another chance, or bring them to heaven.

If it is the former, then we are talking about reincarnation, and hey, I'm happy with that, it solves the problem. Anyone who doesn't have the correct genetic make-up, nurture and life to enable them to believe in God gets reincarnated, and therefore no-one goes to Hell. This is surely a more moral scheme than people going to hell due to unfortunate circumstances of nature or nurture.

If the latter, however, is true, it means that beings can go to Heaven without experiencing life, which means life itself is pointless, and God should immediately put /everyone/ in Heaven, hence ending all suffering. That God doesn't do this means that either unborn children don't go to heaven, or, God is a sadist.

It sounds like between these options, you are most likely to believe in a cycle of reincarnation until a life is lived that facilitates entrance to Heaven. This is what, of course, the Hindus and Buddhists believe, and there are many people who testify that they have had previous lives, too, it is one of our most ancient beliefs.

If babies go to Heaven, what is the point of life's suffering?:

I do believe that God is outside time, and that is a valid point, and I agree he does not have free will physically either, unless he can do all his actions at once but then they are already decided and that creates a whole new set of problems that isn’t very important.

Stating that God is outside of time is a true statement. But once again we're using man made logic and non dual rational thought, and this idea although true is incomplete.
By saying God is outside of time, it implies She is not inside of time and of course it dismisses the fact that He IS time. We can't avoid using our own images and thought to ponder about the I AM That I AM, but on each and every occasion when we do, we limit Him.
First God cannot be outside of anything. Can God view time in it's entirety? Sure, the past present, and future all at one time. Is God affected by time? No, God is not affected by time. But God is affected by us and we are affected by time. God can be, and is "inside of time" and "outside of time", at the "same time."

Your premise, I suppose is that if God knows ALL, and He knows beforehand whether you are going to heaven or hell, then if you are going to hell, he knew that, didn't stop it and is ultimately responsible for your demise. He is therefore immoral.

It's probably not a good idea to try to be more moral than God. We do not know how God will judge us, but we can be certain that She will be merciful, just and fair. To say that God is immoral because He will not ensure our holiness is premature. We have no idea what the consummation of time will bring. Perhaps all will be saved. The inevitable question arises, Hitler too. It's not impossible, but rest assured the penance will fit the crime. It never fails to amaze me when atheists claim that because their is suffering and pain God is immoral. They put the entire blame on God. What they fail to see, is that God has already put the blame on Himself, atoned for our sake, and offers us eternal life. For most, it's not enough. They want evil wiped out. If atheists won't accept that God took the burden of our evil from them, I feel certain that they wouldn't accept any gift as coming from God. Most of the time, atheists views aren't based on fact, but on fashion. God isn't cool.

As far as universalism is concerned, those who are mentally disabled are probably given a second chance, a chance at not be disabled that they may think for themselves. For those who believe in other religions, or no religion at all, they have made a conscience choice to believe what they do. If they never hear about it or are never shown otherwise, it is evil that does so. Evil is not fair.
It is possible, that heaven is permenant, and hell is not, since sin caused us to lose our immortality (yes this is from the bible bear with me) if we are evil in hell, we cannot live there forever, unless God chooses to give us eternal life with punishment. It is possible, after hell, those who are there may be able to "try again" or be removed from existance.

1) Disabled people.


Everyone is disabled to some extent or other. For example, our IQ has important genetic factors. We all are natuarally inclined to different levels of intelligence, gullobility, emotionalizing, etc. Many who are not religious might actually be religious if they had a very slightly different genetic makeup. This is beyond their control.
This page looks at this genetic predisposal to religious beliefs:

By the age of, say, 20, I had neither made a concsious decision to accept or reject any particular religion. I had heard about God and some religious beliefs, but had came across no arguments for their truth. If I died, would you consider me having made a conscious choice to believe what I did at that age? No - in philosophical terms, I was an implicit atheist. Ie, a person who was atheist (and secular) because I had not heard of or entertained the idea of god.

Since then I've become an explicit atheist; one who has examined the possibilities of God existing and concluding that it is impossible.

If I had a different upbringing, I may well be a theist, never seeing to question the existance of God. However, that's not the way it turned out.

All of our beliefs are results of our inherent intelligent and upbringing... if there is a God, it would be true that anyone who doesn't believe in it must have some mental disability of some kind... therefore, by your argument, people will be given second chances until such a time that they live a life that results in them believing in God.

For example: 22% of the world are Muslims... they hold particular beliefs about God, but not exactly the same as Christian ones. Are these people judged by their beliefs, or their actions?

If it is by their beliefs, then we know that their beliefs are very clearly almost completely controlled by socio-demographic factors and are out of their own control. Would God ever judge someone on their beliefs?

It is illogical that God only wants to save those who believe in it, as if God is good, God will save people whether they have been brought up to believe in it or not.

I am an idiot

Bah! Please ignore the three posts after your last. After reading them over again, I noticed so many spelling errors and such I think I have gone retarted...

I have read up on this idea and have found Normal Geisler's view on this. It is as follows:

[Just as all were made sinners by one man (Adam) so too all are made righteous by one man(Christ). Rom.5:19 Since the text is cleat that all are made righteous by Christ's death, it remains to ask in what sense were all saved by Christ's death.]

Since universalism is clearly excluded by other Scriptures, this can not mean that they were all actually made righteous. Further, it does not appear to refer to declaring us righteous in the sense of justification since that requires faith. It can mean, however, that original sin brought about by Adam(two imperfect beings cannot birth a perfect being, which is what God wills). If so, then no human being is hell-bound because of Adam's sin. They must commit sins of their own to go there. in this ase, since infants have not committed personal sins, they could all be saved even though they are not yet old enough to believe.

Geisler continues on by commenting on how this turns toward universalism but is not because the distinction needs to be made between a child and an adult. He contends that anywhere between the ages of four and twelve is when a child can discern between right and wrong depending on the situations. This can also apply to mentally disabled. If they cannot discern between right and wrong, they are saved because they cannot be held accountable for their actions.
By way of Scripture, the idea of Limbo has no support. There are a few verses that can be twisted to support this idea but there is still no evidence to back it up enough to believe it.

Geisler goes on to say:
it is worth noting that the view that allow for the possible salvation of all infants are not only compatible with God's justice and love, but they also help solve the problem of heathen salvation. Since God is just and since one cannot be saved without the Gospel and since many heathen lands have not had the Gospel, it is reasonable to infer that God's elect will be taken from every tribe, kindred, and tongue could have been taken from the infants who die. Since it is estimated that in heathen countries one-half of the babies born die before the age of accountability, then it follows that there will be innumerable heathen in heaven who never heard the Gospel-- possibly all the infants who died before they could even understand the Gospel.

Re: I am an idiot

Now we need to determine if the Bible is true...first I will look over your “Refuting Christianity” page(and show how some of what you have is just common misconception) and then go over some of the staggering evidence of the Bible.

Missing the point.

Christianity is a faith religion - it requires you to accept that you are a sinner because so far you have rejected God and followed your own selfish desires; it requires that you put your trust in Jesus Christ as the one who took on himself God's punishment for our sins by his death; as a result you will want to please God and obey his commands.

The basic premise for your arguments are that mankind has the answers, or will work them out, and God does not exist so he can't provide any answers. Therefore Christian positions on good & evil, morals, heaven & hell, suffering, etc, etc are viewed from the wrong starting point.

The issue is quite straightforward at this level, accepting some fascinating arguments have taken place. God created the universe, including mankind, to display his Glory. Being the omniscient and omnipotent creator that he is he determined that in order to display the depth of his character he would create man with the potential to reject him and then, knowing man would reject him would display his holiness and glory through his love and justice in particular through his plan of salvation.

As his creatures we can not expect to fully understand these things, although he tells us much in his word, but we are assured that we will see his glory and understand when, as his children, we arrive in heaven.

Again, this requires faith. No amount of argument will convince anyone ...regardless of the intellectual gymnastics undertaken. God gives us his solution; why should we look for another? "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved".

I know this goes against human nature - to confess your sins and believe in God. But there is no surprise here for the Christian because God tells us this is the case and this brings us back to what sin is - the rejection of God.

So, would God be just to ignore and not punish those who have rejected him and broken his moral code - I think not, even they reveal his glory by comparing with those believe and will ultimately worship him in heaven.

Whilst Christians should use their intellect and understand what they believe, in as much as Christian doctrines are intellectually challenging, the true Christian must always start from a position of faith - to accept and believe in the 'impossible' that God should send his son Jesus Christ, who died to take my punishment for my sin and then rose again on the third day, demonstrating his victory over death and evil.

(not sure if I'll be able to regularly view this conversation, but will try to watch out for any response)
[from an old colleague of yours, vexen]

Re: Missing the point.

Christianity is a faith religion...it requires that you put your trust in Jesus Christ as the one who took on himself God's punishment for our sins by his death; as a result you will want to please God and obey his commands.
-christianity is a faith religion, but they also believe jesus is god, as part of the trinity...so god took on his own punishment? eh. but we still suffer from our sins today, and in truth, we are the only ones who can save ourselves (whether you believe you get to heaven by faith and good works or faith alone)

God created the universe, including mankind, to display his Glory. Being the omniscient and omnipotent creator that he is he determined that in order to display the depth of his character he would create man with the potential to reject him and then, knowing man would reject him would display his holiness and glory through his love and justice in particular through his plan of salvation.
--if god really is all powerful and all knowing, y would he let an innocent baby burn in a house fire? is that really necessary? does that showboat his glory? then of course there's the contradiction of god knowing our "destiny" and us having free will...if god knows that say, a dude named robert muller, will grow up and kill 25 people, assuming god is all good like most christians do, why would he allow such a thing to happen? on top of that, god would also know whether or not we will go to hell or heaven...if he knows we are going to hell, why would he create us? i mean, we have free will (supposedly), but he knows we're just gonna be damned to eternal suffering, what's up with that god?...i'm confused by how u ended that: by rejecting god, i'm showing his glory, holiness, love, and justice? (i don't really reject a god, just the classical idea) and god only gave us free will to display his depth? i don't see his depth when i think about having free will,that means my eternal damnation is just so god can be self-assured of his depth

As his creatures we can not expect to fully understand these things, although he tells us much in his word, but we are assured that we will see his glory and understand when, as his children, we arrive in heaven.
---ok, so what makes heaven different from earth? besides the fact that there r saints, angels, and no evil up there, i see no difference...although we will "see god" in heaven, he is also in everything he created. we see god everyday, every moment...we were created in his image and likeness, i see no reason y we cannot understand matters of god. (by the way, if we really can't understand such things, why would god expect us to fully embrace him? it is all based on faith, and in most cases, the only reason y u have faith in christianity is because u were born into a christian family and raised that way, u did what u were told, and believed what u were told. i don't question that u didn't question, but think of this: idle hands are the devil (since most of the time, when we're not working, we're thinking of something else) doesn't that make idle minds god? this applies to the statement after that too

yep, you're damn right your argument's based on faith, and i won't convince you otherwise, so i'll just stop
but one question on justice: if it is never right to take a human life because they committed a crime (the judicial system and laws r based on christian morality, i don't think we can debate otherwise), how is eternal torture...justice?

Re: Missing the point. (Anonymous) Expand

God is Evil

We are the ants in his "ant farm"; I used to make red and black ants fight to the death... sounds kinda similar huh? Perhpas I should have put little turbans on the darkies.

Burned em with a magnifying glass; must be what it looks like inside of a 747 when its going down with 275 people on board.

God is the ultimate bloodsport fan, and he is a total dick, and if I get close enough I am gunna put my foot so far up his holy hole hes gunna taste the dog shit I steped in.

Well all this would be true if he existed, but since he doesn't I guess I am just ranting.

disagree... I don't believe in organized religion. The mere existence of good and evil, black and white, man and women, exact opposites, the yin and yang proves that God does existence. The "thought" that one can not exist with out the other suggests that God can only create such a "realm".

Your logic is flawed. We have opposites because we are not perfect. Only God is perfect he has no opposite. Evil and Good does not exist in God's realm. Only in our realm.

Most Evil Can be Accounted for

The problem of evil... First, the concept of God that I embrace is not one that can have personalized attributes. Hence, God cannot be vengeful, be Evil, or be Good when dealing with us mere mortals-which we are not by the way. It ain't like that but for whatever reason we like to think of God as some dude up high imposing his own Will upon us. It is all bullshit, as is the established traditions that support and worship such a demanding diety. Religion is roughly based upon the highest possible human ideals, however they have been manipulated and watered down to the point of no longer bringing us closer to God- the whole point of religion. If you really want to be spiritual in your life, emulate the lives of the enlightened: Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad.
Now to clarify and expand... Okay, there are natural disasters, but now I want to explain the pain and suffering that we perpetuate as human beings. The root of all the evil we account for is SELFISHNESS. If we weren't always looking out for number 1, we would all get along much better, just think about it. Greed, envy, hate, and all the other ugly words and motivations don't exist without being selfish and self indulgent. The enlightened are SELFLESS. Because in their search for God they found a truth: We are all One.
Global community survival and happiness cannot be found in some having and keeping and some needing and dying, both lose. We are here in support of each other in the search for God, thats it. We have all sorts of distractions to indulge our senses, while we try to forget that we are empty inside and alone in an overpopulated world. We drink, overeat, smoke, get high, get laid, and spiral down to our own bottom. Our selfishness conceals our purpose and we kill ourselves in support of looking out for number 1.
At the bottom of our lives at the point of giving up, we can gain clarity. We cause our own pain through our free will, and God allows it, because he is the only one that can pick us back up, and he loves to do so. If you haven't been down like some have it is hard to understand; if you aren't looking for a way out, you probably won't find one.
Now to natural disasters... I don't understand the argument. Since all is not already perfect, there is no God? All is perfect, we are in a place that facilitates our own inner growth and understanding OR we choose to deny it and perpetuate our own suffering until we do get it. But don't worry, I know it sounds like a lot to get done in one lifetime, becoming completely selfless and loving- that is why we get as long as we need ie reincarnation. We truly get to choose between balance in heaven by being good or staying here with selfishness ruling.
Kind of like heaven and hell, but you can't get to either of them by going to church A or church B.
The earth is our classroom and when we truly understand and live by the truth that all is ONE, we move on, a higher plane, closer to God.
If it helps your understanding... I am God. So are you, God is ALL. Many parts to ONE whole. The higher our own consciosness, the closer to universal consciosness or God's consciousness. So if you don't think we are all seperate, or more importantly don't act like it by being selfish, you grow and increase your understanding and perspective. Jesus had universal consciousness, he was selfless in his thoughts actions and teachings. That is why he was considered to be God incarnate, he was, but he also said he was a man just like us and to us are available the same gifts that He now enjoys, just be good.
No I am not a Christian, I do not agree with any organized religion, they only have bits of truth and overall confuse and contain the masses. I do believe Jesus was an enlightened man, but he is not alone, though there have been too few. So be really good or be really bad, we all get to the same place, some just get there faster. And who's to say God is not causing the the natural disasters to give some a quick redo. I certainly can't say who is innocent or not, but God can.
Food for thought?

Re: Most Evil Can be Accounted for

Your beliefs, deism, are some of the most sensible that there can be about God. There are far fewer conflicts and contradictions once you get away from the habit of anthropomorphizing god to have human characteristics.

However, is there really a need for such a god to exist?
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/assumptions.html lists many of the errors that you DO NOT commit, well done!

The world most certainly contains evil and suffering. The amoral can prosper, the innocent suffer and injustice prevails. There is also natural evil, hurricanes, tornados, animals eating other animals and many more.
In fact, it is a wonder that there is any "good' at all. And that is the point. There is good. There is love and generosity. The premise that there is "No God because there is evil and suffering" is only half the story. A case can be made for "If there is good in the world, why isn't there a God."
If evil is prevalent and the norm, what gives us the feeling that evil should not exist? Where do we get the idea that something's wrong? In such a world it would seem to me the expectation justice and goodness is the irrational point of view.

Well meaning atheists are certainly not wrong when they put forth the problem of evil as evidence of their belief, but it's an incomplete. There is the problem of goodnes as well.

Well as for me I dont beleave in The christian religion and its idea of god but personally evil exists because goodness exists I beleave That If Goodness did not have its opposite we would not understand good and for somthing to understand pleasure to its fullest extent we would have to experianced pain To Its extent. if there was only goodness it will have been taken for granted and will probably have gotten overlooked. its like If we Lived In a world where Light didn't exist Then Because We Are So used 2 the darkness we Wouldn't realise it was dark and that darkness would be a medium rather than at one side of a scale.
as for me its what i beleave to an extent :P.

Re: good and evil

[New reply made, due to URLs changing, content is the same as the original reply:]

Good and evil are human constructions, that only suit Human needs, they are not cosmic absolutes, but anthrocentric assumptions and instincts. Forming theology around such species-specific philosophies is silly and random.

On "good" and "evil" as opposites:

The "we need to experience evil" argument doesn't make much sense either:

Free Will in Heaven...your words...

You have "chosen" to deny evil. You have chosen to deny God. You have chosen to deny a lot here, BUT! the basis for your argument fails in that you use examples of that which you do not believe to support your stance. You discuss the heaven and use it to support one of your stances. So, tell me, does that mean you DO believe in Heaven? One uses facts to sustain an argument. You just sustained the one SUPPORTING Christianity!

Thank you. You really are a believer!

Think about it!

Re: Free Will in Heaven...your words...

It shows inconsistency and nonsense within a belief system if I use one part to contradict another.

That one part contradicts another does not mean that I believe in either part.

If you disagree with the arguments, say something constructive. If you disagree with me or my methods in general, then tough shit.

Be careful Lucifer

Lets not forget that Lucifer is a real angel that has made a choice to rebel from the one true God of creation. God created man, both male and female, and blessed them and said "be fruitful and multiply and fill the face of the earth". Then, he took Adam from which He created and put him in the lush garden of Eden. Adam & Eve were the first humans that were to be in Gods presence. So that God could reveal his nature to humans and to let us develop, thus giving us choices and free will. If they ate of the fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil then a change would have happened, which happened. It was a test, it was put in the garden for a reason. Of course there were other humans in other parts of the world, thats why when Cain murdered Abel he was cast away from his family and went to a far off land and breeded with the people of that region of the world. Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden and they had many children which over time of migration they mated with other humans that existed in other lands, they did not have incest relationships with each other. This website claims that if evil exists then there must be no god because a good god would not have it. Well I think you are not looking at the whole picture, dont forget who the father of lies is, the accuser of mankind, the serpent, the god of this world, the prince of darkness...Lucifer. And guess what, angels have free will also, imagine that! Only a loving God would create life that had a free will so not to force anything upon the living. God does not want puppets in the universe, He wants people to follow His ways by loving Him with all your heart, soul, and mind. To follow His Law. (10 commandments)Also to appreciate the created universe and everything in it, and realize how balanced and perfect things had to be in order for life to be sustained on this planet. The earth was a gift from God to mankind in the beginning, but man handed it over to satan when he (Adam)sinned. There was once heaven on earth, but the more evil we choose to do the farther we push God away. Thus we have the current situation that we have today. Understand that mankind is full of flaws and the universe holds so much more knowledge that we cant even comprehend. So to rush to a conclusion by thinking you have all the answers is merely the workings of an ignorant human being. Open your mind and your heart.