Arguments for God: The Problem of Evil

The church that I attend, Grace Church of DuPage, is going through a series on the book of Job.  We’ve been at it for several weeks, and we’ll be at it for a few more (it’s a rather short series–7 or 8 weeks–so we’re covering large portions each week).  This last week, the pastor took on the problem of evil, which is a large philosophical issue that many in the Church have dealt with in the last thousand years.

JOPLIN TORNADO - Residents of Joplin, Mo, walk west on 26th Street near Maiden Lane after a tornado hit the southwest Missouri city on Sunday evening, May 22, 2011. The tornado tore a path a mile wide and four miles long destroying homes and businesses.(AP/Mike Gullett)

The Problem
The problem of evil/suffering/pain can be most simply described in a question: “How can God be all-knowing, all-powerful, and loving, and still allow such unspeakable evil and suffering in the world?”  The famous philosopher David Hume asked the question this way in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion: “”Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?”  We look at the world around us, and see horrible evil:

  • Slavery
  • Forced prostitution
  • Poverty
  • Hunger
  • Murder
  • Rape

How can God allow these things to continue, and still expect us to keep believing that he’s good?

The Christian Foundation
There are other blogs that deal with this question from different perspectives, but since Brevis is a blog that deals with things from a Christian perspective, I’ll deal with it that way.

Some background from Job: In the book of Job, we see a righteous person (Job) who goes through an unspeakable tragedy; he was a rich man, and he lost his 10 children, his 7,000 sheep, his 3,000 camels, his 500 oxen, his 500 female donkeys, and very many servants.  The first chapter tells us that he was “blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil.”  Yet he suffered great harm.  Why do bad things happen to good people?

The first part of the foundation of this question is this: the person who asks this question is asking for wisdom.  They want to know the answer (unless they’re the eternal critic, whose only aim is to question, and not to learn the answer).  The Bible deals with wisdom.  In the Psalms, it says, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” (Psalm 111:10).

Therefore, if the answer to the problem of evil excludes God, then we have not arrived at wisdom, because the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.  This is the first part to the solution of the problem of evil.

The Solution
How can an all-powerful God be loving and at the same time there be evil in the world?  We should not be shocked that there is evil and suffering in a world that has rebelled against God.  The evil and suffering in this world just shows us how far we can fall into sin.  It underscores the fact that people are sinners.  It underscores the fact that, of our own doing, we cannot come into a right relationship with God.

The answer to the problem of evil is found in Christ.  Christ is the answer.  God is so powerful and so loving that he made a way for evil sinners to come into a right relationship with himself.  His love and power are on display in the way that he walks with you through trials (as evidenced in Job).

This solution may not be acceptable to everyone; there are those who don’t believe that the answer is God.  But it is the answer, nonetheless.

My bottom line: If you are struggling with pain in your life, then run to God.  Take a page out of David’s Psalm 62:

For God alone, O my soul, wait in silence, for my hope is from him.
He only is my rock and my salvation, my fortress; I shall not be shaken.
On God rests my salvation and my glory; my mighty rock, my refuge is God.
Trust in him at all times, O people; pour out your heart before him; God is a refuge for us.

Questions: Have you been suffering recently?  Have you been in pain?  Do you wonder why God allows evil in this world?  You can leave a comment by clicking here.


(if you are having trouble viewing this video in your RSS reader or email, click here to view it)

  • Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth

    Per Lamberth’s argument from autonomy, our level of consciousness bestows upon us liberty such that no God has any rights over us, in  line with Morgan’s Canon and the UN Declaration of the Rights of Man. No rational being would need to have tested Job! Rational beings don’t have such a low self-esteem that they need any adulation in such a evil manner nor do they want constant adulation anyway! Ti’s an ignoratio elenchi- red herring- to prattle that his children would go to Heaven or that he’d get more! Per Fr. Meslier’s the problem of Heaven, which eviscerates all defences and theodicies, any God would face that one-way street of putting us in the first place into a safer place! Google the problem of Heaven and skeptic griggsy.
    Misanthropic,pathological people  just made up such stories!
     
     Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, Dean Baker and- Mark  Zandi are empirical,evidential economists whilst right wing ones love pseudo-economists and rank with pseudo-scientists, lovers of woo!
       Thanks for the columns.

  • Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth

    Google the problem  of evil.

    • http://bobewoldt.com Robert Ewoldt

      I have. Thanks.

  • angelofmercy

    You never even answered your own question as to how can God be all-knowing, all-powerful, and loving, and still allow such unspeakable evil and suffering in the world.  The simple answer: he can’t.

    Running to god while suffering from pain is like returning to the arms of the abusive man who beat the shit out of you so he can bandage the wounds he caused. What is there to prevent god/abusive partner from abusing you further? Isn’t this a set-up for the ultimate failure?

    Luckily for us humans, god is an imaginary concept. Can you imagine what life would be like if the god of the bible were real? I am glad he doesn’t exist. But even if he did exist, I would still choose not to worship him.

    As described in the bible, god is jealous and compassionate, vindictive and forgiving, murderous and life-sustaining, exclusive and welcoming. He is a sicko that very closely resembles an overly possessive, chronically obsessive,  borderline schizophrenic. I feel truly sorry for anyone who would give their devotion to such an asshole.

    There are people all over the world who believe that when they talk out loud to themselves in an empty room that they are praying to a force who is listening to them, but no one is there… just the person praying. If only people would get off their knees and lend a helping held to their neighbor showing compassion, we could finally rid humanity of the need for fairy tales and superheroes.

    The story of Job is a pathetic mythical tale of a poor man who was treated like shit by an uncaring, unapologetic, and cruel being. As the story goes, god made a wager with Satan that Job would remain faithful to god even in hard times. Poor Job lost his whole family, his health, his wealth, everything just so god could have bragging rights to Job’s righteousness. The god of the bible is such a jerk that when people are decent men like Job, god takes the credit, but when they mess up and make mistakes like Adam, god blames the created. It’s disgusting!

    The bible was so obviously written by a bunch of barbaric, misogynistic, prehistoric men. God is just a reflection of them, not the other way around.

    So, Bob, please keep your advice to yourself. When someone is hurting and there is nothing you can do to help them, just listen to what they have to say without speaking. Let them know that you are there for them. Be a friend. Whatever you do, don’t brush hurting people away toward your god because he apparently isn’t listening.

    • http://bobewoldt.com Robert Ewoldt

      I’m sorry you feel this way. I’m sorry that God isn’t what you want him to
      be. But just because God isn’t what you want him to be doesn’t mean that he
      doesn’t exist.

      You said, “god is jealous and compassionate, vindictive and forgiving,
      murderous and life-sustaining, exclusive and welcoming.” It seems like
      you’re juxtaposing these concepts to each other. God is both jealous and
      compassionate; both exclusive and welcoming; but these are not contrary (or
      schizophrenic, as you call it) characteristics. However, God is neither
      vindictive nor murderous, and I would welcome you to prove that he is.

      It seems to me that, instead of coming to a complete view of God, you have
      investigated enough to confirm your bias that he’s a horrible God. You read
      a few verses that a non-Christian cites as evidence that God is bad, and in
      your mind say, “See! I knew it! God is horrible. He must have been
      created by by a bunch of barbaric, misogynistic, pre-historic men.”

      • angelofmercy

        I appreciate your response and the fact that you appear to be a compassionate and intelligent person capable of reason and deep-thought. Also, I agree with you as you wrote “just because god isn’t what you want him to be doesn’t mean that he doesn’t exist.” Due to nature of a negative, it is absolutely, positively impossible for me to prove that anything doesn’t exist. Think about it. Can you prove to me that unicorns don’t exist? Go ahead and try. It is completely safe for me to make the assumption that god does not exist because, after giving years of my life in vain following the teachings of Christianity, I have arrived at that conclusion.

        Yes, juxtaposing the various biblical concepts of god’s personality attributes is exactly what I did as a demonstration of my opinion regarding the nature of his supposed character. As for god being vindictive and murderous, I cannot prove that he is because, again, I do not believe that he even exists. Yet, as he is depicted in the bible he is both vindictive and murderous. Does the bible not say that he is a jealous god? Did he not murder his entire creation, save a few chosen ones, as told in the story of Noah and the Ark? Does he not require sacrificial blood offerings to atone for the sins of his creation, ultimately ending in suicide?

        I have only arrived at the bias that he is a horrible god through my own experience of being one of his former followers. I have read, not only a few verses, but the entire bible several times over. I often find myself more knowledgeable of the bible than most practicing  Christians. You see, at one point in my life, I was completely and utterly devoted to the concept of a loving, all-powerful, all-knowing deity who I believed was at the head of my life. While I never considered myself religious, I thought I had a meaningful relationship with Jesus Christ himself. I thought that I was an evil, wicked, and sinful creature who had been redeemed by the blood of Christ. I used to pray constantly, ever seeking the face of god. I sought after god with my whole being and put all of myself into what I had hoped would be the ultimate glory of being united with Christ in eternity.

        I didn’t leave Christianity by choice. I begged god to save me, to love me, to hold me dear to his heart. Losing my faith was the most painful experience of my life, but I am glad it happened to me.  The mental captivity of Christianity is worse than the prospect of death. I no longer live my life groveling at the feet of a malevolent god.

      • atheistnurse

        I was once considered a “hard-core christian” who loved the imaginary god with all my heart, mind, soul, and strength.  I read the bible through front-to-back every year.  My entire life revolved around honoring god in all my family did and said.  I homeschooled my children and taught creationism.  I taught sunday school, won others to the lard, tended the sick and dying in our congregation, cleaned homes, took meals, and loved to read god’s word.  I was completely brainwashed in the cult of xtianity.

        Circumstances happened to open my eyes to the fact that god is imaginary.  I spent years talking to myself.  When I really needed god, there was nada, zilch, zip, nothing!!!  I am convinced beyound a doubt that there is NO GOD!!!   So don’t presume that atheists have no knowledge of xtianity and the bible. 

    • Anonymous

      “But even if [biblegod] did exist, I would still choose not to worship him.”

      Not according to some. At least one Xian I know has suggested that if a nonbeliever were to see evidence that biblegod does in fact exist, for instance, if he appeared to the nonbeliever, but yet, that person doesn’t agree to worship him, then by proxy, the person denies that biblegod exists. lol! Can you imagine?

  • Nude0007

    The problem here is that you are acting as if acts of evil are separate from god when all throughout the bible (old and new testament) god tells his followers to do incredibly immoral things including murder and rape.  This is not unexpected though, since he did the very same things by his own hand!  Even if you don’t count the flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gammorrah (there had to be pregnant women i=n these groups, as well as totally innocent children), god directs his followers to stone people without confirmation, without trial, without forgiveness or mercy.  As for the rape, do you really think Mary had a choice?  The bible gives us ample reason to reject this god as either untrue and unreal or the worst possible god you could ever want.  Certainly not a moral, good god.

    PS: The Christian church was not fully established with a definite cannonical doctrine till after the council of Aramathea, some 300 years after christ supposedly lived.  and Judaism did not exist since the dawn of time either.  Its origin can be traced back to about 4000 or so years bc.  thats why people who follow archaeology understand that if the religion was created from many different tribal myths at that time, it could not have existed before that, so any claim that it has been around since the dawn of time is obviously fallacious.  By comparison, East Indians have documents that go back 8-10 thousand years, so they have a provable claim that their religion is older.  Yet another reason to not believe christianity.

    • http://bobewoldt.com Robert Ewoldt

      While the “fully established” cannonical Scriptures of the Christian church
      may or may not have existed before or after a certain time is immaterial.
      The fact that GOD has existed for all of time, and is the same God today as
      he was at the beginning of time is chronicled in the Bible. If God exists,
      and has existed from the beginning of time, then your argument breaks down,
      because God could then have inspired the Christian scriptures, as they
      claim.

      Where or how do you arrive at your basis of moral goodness? You’re judging
      God as a morally evil entity, yet you have no objective basis for your own
      moral statements.

      • Pious_Ted

        <<>>

        This is incomprehensible.  You believe the Bible is the Word of God and it serves as His revelation to mankind, yet you seem to believe the date of availability of the Bible to mankind is immaterial.  That is hard to comprehend.

        <<>>

        Fact?  You are stating this is true because the Bible claims it is true.  You are holding the Bible up as an authoritative source because it was supposedly inspired by God, and then you reference the Bible as evidence that God exists.  Circular reasoning.      

        • http://bobewoldt.com Robert Ewoldt

          Good points, Ted. For my argument to work, one has to accept two premises:
          (1) God exists, and (2) The Bible is true/accurate. These are things I’m
          going to be looking at in my new series.

          • Anonymous

            The fact that GOD has existed for all of time, and is the same God today as he was at the beginning of time is chronicled in the Bible. ~ R. Ewoldt

            “For my argument to work, one has to accept two premises: (1) God exists, and (2) The Bible is true/accurate.” ~ R. Ewoldt

            So, in order for a non-Christian to believe Christianity it fact, all he or she need do is accept that Christianity is true. Fair enough…..::facepalm::

          • http://bobewoldt.com Robert Ewoldt

            That’s not a distortion of those statements in ANY way whatsoever. I’m glad
            to see that you engage a person’s arguments, instead of merely setting up
            straw men!!

          • Anonymous

            I didn’t say it was a “distortion”, now did I?(rhetorical) 

            You see, this is precisely why it’s a struggle to find common ground(aside from the obvious, different worldviews). It is my job to write as clearly as possible. It is not my job to make you a good reader. I have engaged your “argument”. You juxtaposed statements that create a circle. Your first statement is self-confirming..i.e…a “fact”…..chronicled in the bible. You then attempt to reconfirm the already-circular argument with a second statement, saying that one must accept Christianity as true before the first statement will “work”.

          • http://bobewoldt.com Robert Ewoldt

            I was saying it was a distortion of what I said (I’m sorry, my sarcasm was
            lost on you). Good grief!

            One of the statements that you juxtaposed was a comment that I put on an
            argument that I had made FROM the Bible about the problem of evil, which
            would presuppose that one believes the Bible to be accurate. One could not
            believe my argument about the problem of evil UNLESS you believed that God
            exists, and that the Bible is accurate.

            The other statement was a reference to the scope of the Bible, which was
            unrelated to the first statement.

            Yet you used them to say that I was issuing contradictory statements. This
            is the very essence of a straw man argument. You were setting up two
            statements to make me look like I was being illogical and circular, which I
            wasn’t.

            If you were to actually engage my arguments, you would not try to juxatose
            two statements that were unrelated to one another, and you wouldn’t lean on
            fallacious logic (straw man arguments). ::facepalm::

            On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Disqus <

          • Anonymous

            “I was saying it was a distortion of what I said (I’m sorry, my sarcasm was lost on you).” ~ R. Ewoldt

            I’m the first guy to admit that “sarcasm” is useful tool if someone isn’t grasping your argument. On the other hand,  “sarcasm”, alone, does not a good argument, make. A crash course on logical fallacies might be helpful, too.  Start with, petitio principii, or circular reasoning. 

            You charge: “[…]you used them to say that I was issuing contradictory statements.”

            Again, you are simply wrong, and you are misrepresenting my criticism of said statements. I never, not once, said either one or both of the statements in question were “contradictory”. What I said was that the following statement was “self-confirming”, AKA circular……

            **”The fact that GOD has existed for all of time, and is the same God today as he was at the beginning of time is chronicled in the Bible.” ~ R. Ewoldt[bold added] 

            In response to that statement,  Pious Ted observes…

            Fact?  You are stating this is true because the Bible claims it is true.  You are holding the Bible up as an authoritative source because it was supposedly inspired by God, and then you reference the Bible as evidence that God exists.  Circular reasoning.

            To which, even you respond:  “Good points, Ted.”

            To be thorough, when you say “Good points, Ted”, we can take that to mean that you are in agreement that your first statement is circular. Yes, or no?

            To Pious Ted, you continue….”For my argument[this** statement, above] to work, one has to accept two premises:  (1) God exists, and (2) The Bible is true/accurate. These are things I’m going to be looking at in my new series.”

            And I reiterate—you are, a) the one who has tied one statement to the other, and b) the one telling the reader that in order for the first (circular) statement to “work”, one “has to accept” that “Christianity” is true…i.e…that “God exists”, and that, “The Bible is true/accurate”.

            Again, your errors are all right there for you and your readership to see.

          • http://bobewoldt.com Robert Ewoldt

            First, I have to apologize, boom.  I thought I had said those things independently from one another.  I read and respond to the comments in my email, so I don’t often see the entire string at once.  I went back and looked at the entire string of comments, and you’re partially right in your criticisms.  I can see how you would be confused as to my argument.

            Second, I have to say that Pious_Ted put words into my mouth when he said that my argument was “You are holding the Bible up as an authoritative source because it was supposedly inspired by God, and then you reference the Bible as evidence that God exists.”  This was not my argument, and I should have challenged him on this point.

            The argument that’s presented IN THIS POST is based upon the premises that (1) God exists, and (2) the Bible is authoritative.  The post does not try to prove these points.  Also, I’m NOT using the Bible to argue these two things.  Therefore, I did not use circular reasoning, because I wasn’t arguing for those two premises; I was only using those premises as a starting point for the argument in this post.

            In fact, if you had read carefully my original comment back to Pious_Ted, you would have read the following (emphasis added): “(1) God exists, and (2) The Bible is true/accurate. These are things I’m going to be looking at in my new series.

            So, if in fact I were using circular reasoning, I would just take those two things for granted, and never ever defend them.  But, I am not.  I said outright that I’m going to deal with those two issues.  I said, “Good points, Ted,” to affirm him in his comment, and to concede that the argument that he was presenting was accurate… if I held the Bible up as an authoritative source because it was inspired by God, and then referenced the Bible as evidence of God’s existence, then THAT would be circular reasoning.

            However, that’s NOT what I was doing in this post.

            If you go further back in the string of comments, you will see that I was taking issue with Nude00007’s argument.  Their argument was basically, “Because the Bible isn’t as old as other documents, that’s another reason not to believe Christianity.”  My points to Nude00007 was threefold (and may not have been as clear as I had hoped, and probably would have been clearer had I spent more time on them):

            1. How long a belief has been in existence does not speak to the TRUTH of that belief.  For example, people believed that the earth was flat before they believed that the earth was round.  This does not prove that the earlier belief was correct.2. The scope of the Bible encompasses all of history.  The fact that this was not written down until later does not prove or disprove the authority of the Bible (that’s why I said that Nude00007’s point was irrelevant).  If the only history we could trust was that which was captured in real time, then we could only trust video, I guess.3. If God did in fact inspire the Scriptures, as it claims, then he could have inspired the Scripture at any point in time, and it would have been accurate.

            Here are things that I will concede to you at this point that pertain to this comment string:
            1. I have not proven that God exists.2. I have not proven that the Bible is authoritative.

            Lastly, I take issue with you putting these words in my mouth: “in order for a non-Christian to believe Christianity is fact, all he or she need do is accept that Christianity is true.”  You take the phrase, “For my argument to work,” and assume that I’m talking about the argument for faith, rather than the argument that I’m presenting in the post.  That’s being disingenuous.

          • Anonymous

            “First, I have to apologize, boom.  I thought I had said those things independently from one another.  I read and respond to the comments in my email, so I don’t often see the entire string at once.  I went back and looked at the entire string of comments, and you’re partially right in your criticisms.  I can see how you would be confused as to my argument.”

            Apology accepted, and given your latest post, IMO, the whole thing has become even more convoluted, and thus, even easier to confuse. You say….. 

            “I said outright that I’m going to deal with those two issues.  I said, ‘Good points, Ted’, to affirm him in his comment, and to concede that the argument that he was presenting was accurate… if I held the Bible up as an authoritative source because it was inspired by God, and then referenced the Bible as evidence of God’s existence, then THAT would be circular reasoning.”

            One simple word was what Ted took issue with. That word was,  “fact”, as seen here….

            The fact that GOD has existed for all of time, and is the same God today as he was at the beginning of time is chronicled in the Bible.” ~ R. Ewoldt

            If you misspoke, then fine, admit it and move on. As it stands, the above statement, whether in context to some other statement, or not, *is* begging the question, and yes, that is a form of circular reasoning. I understand that you have conceded that you did in fact link the second statement to the first.  If I have understood that correctly, then it should be no wonder to you (or anyone reading) why the juxtaposed statements might raise an eyebrow. Again, the second statement – regardless of whether you intend to “deal with” its premise at a later time – is at best, redundant.  In any case, I’m willing to just drop the second statement, since it isn’t even needed to show that the first statement is/was circular. 

            If you are not careful with wording, and from what I can see, you aren’t –  or at least, you could use a bit of  improvement – you will likely waste massive amounts of time just trying to get your interlocutor to understand your position. Food for thought.

          • Pious_Ted

            <<>>

            Agreed.

          • Pious_Ted

            boomSLANG,

            This is a post by Bob yesterday on another thread called:  “Working for a Bigger Purpose”

            <<>>

            Does this really sound like someone who came to the exchristian.net website with an open mind in the earnest desire to learn from us?  I have a feeling that Bob’s visiting our site and reading books by non-Christians is akin to a Boy Scout trying to earn a special merit badge.  I really don’t think Bob is open to the possibility that his faith may be completely misguided.

          • http://bobewoldt.com Robert Ewoldt

            So, unless I’m trashing my faith and others’ while I study, I don’t have an open mind?

          • Anonymous

            “So, unless I’m trashing my faith and others’ while I study, I don’t have an open mind?”

            This argument presents a false dichotomy(fallacy). It’s not as if the only two options are, 1) evangelizing one’s belief, and 2) trashing one’s belief.  I’ll let Ted clarify what he meant, but for the time being, if your search leads you to change your mind, it isn’t going to happen overnight. It will likely be very gradual.

            That said, if you reach the point where you honestly have doubts, I really don’t think you’d continue to evangelize. Thus, it’s reasonable to conclude that you don’t currently have any doubt, whatsoever, in which case, it’s harder to believe that you’d have a good reason for a year-long “Cross Examination” of your “faith”, and the like.

          • Anonymous

            “There is so much value in teaching young children about Christ… thanks for doing this with all your heart!”

            BTW, aside from passing the Christian meme to innocent children to ensure Christianity’s spread, what exactly is the “value”? It is demonstrably false that we get any objective standard of ethics or morals from  “God”, so?….. is it just to save them from “hell”? Is that it?

          • Anonymous

            “There is so much value in teaching young children about Christ… thanks for doing this with all your heart!”

            BTW, aside from passing the Christian meme to innocent children to ensure Christianity’s spread, what exactly is the “value”? It is demonstrably false that we get any objective standard of ethics or morals from  “God”, so?….. is it just to save them from “hell”? Is that it?

          • Pious_Ted

            <<>>

            I never stated any such thing.  I am saying that based upon MY observations of you so far, you don’t appear to ME to be open minded to our viewpoints.  You came to exchristian.net claiming an interest in our viewpoints, and then you published an article that cherry picked comments from some participants and presented our forum in a thoroughly negative light.  Gee, what a surprise from a Christian apologist…  Claiming you are now going to read a set of books with different viewpoints may (or may not) indicate some genuine curiosity on your part.  Keep in mind that many of us considered (and believed) many of your current points of view for decades.  We then considered alternative viewpoints and we modified our beliefs.  Perhaps you are taking the initial steps on the long journey many of us have taken.  Some say a journey of 1,000 miles begins with the first step.  We shall see. 

          • Pious_Ted

            <<>>

            Pious Ted most certainly DID NOT put words in your mouth.  Pious Ted took issue with the word, “fact”, that you used in your sentence.

            Get your facts straight and don’t accuse me of such tactics.

          • Anonymous

            Speaking of getting his facts straight, I missed this part of Robert’s most recent response to me:

            “Lastly, I take issue with you putting these words in my mouth: ‘in order for a non-Christian to believe Christianity is fact, all he or she need do is accept that Christianity is true.’  You take the phrase, ‘For my argument to work,’ and assume that I’m talking about the argument for faith, rather than the argument that I’m presenting in the post.  That’s being disingenuous.”

            No, I was NOT being “disingenuous” or putting words in your mouth. I was doing what any normal person would do:  I was taking the language at its face-value, which, to recap, it was one self-confirming statement that you had written and then later linked a second statement to it by trying to clarify an issue that Ted had with the former. The sequence of events is very simple and is plain for anyone to see. You stated something as “fact”(your word) and suggested it was confirmed as such by saying it was “chronicled in the bible”. In a post directly underneath that, one that said, “in reply to Pious Ted”, you responded with this….

            “Good points, Ted. For my argument to work, one has to accept two premises: (1) God exists, and (2) The Bible is true/accurate. These are things I’m going to be looking at in my new series.”

            ~ R. Ewoldt

            And I reiterate—the “Good points” part highly suggests that you are in agreement. If you weren’t entirely in agreement, then it is not my fault that you didn’t convey that at the time. It’s your own fault.

            When you continue with, “For my argument to work, […]”, that highly suggests that you’re talking about the very thing that was at issue. If you were referencing some other “argument”, then, again, that is not my fault—it is your own fault for NOT being clear and specific. No one is putting words in your mouth. You are just a careless writer.

          • atheistnurse

            Using the bible to prove god’s existence is like using Marvel Comics to prove the existence of superheroes.  You gotta have other sources.

      • atheistnurse

        I am so sick of xtians claiming to corner the market with their “moral goodness.”  I do have an objective basis for morality. 

        I don’t want to die, I don’t want my children to die, therefore I can assume that others do not want this either.  DUH! 

         I don’t want to be a slave or have my children be slaves so I can assume others feel the same way.  DUH! 

        By the way, all the “horrible evils” you yourself describe are acts that your loving god ordered, condoned, or actually committed according to the bible.  So by your own definition, your biblegod is horribly evil. 

        Where is your objective basis for that?  You and your biblegod sound rather arbitrary to me.

        • http://bobewoldt.com Robert Ewoldt

          Atheistnurse, thanks for your comments. I don’t want you to think I’m
          ignoring you; I’m planning a post on the morality of biblegod, but I’m going
          to read some of the books I mentioned in my post today, first.

  • atheistnurse

    Bob,

    You, yourself, wrote:

    “We look at the world around us, and see horrible evil:
    SlaveryForced prostitutionPovertyHungerMurderRape”

    Yet, you refuse to recognize that these “horrible evils” are condoned and ordered by your god.  And you never even attempt to address this fact.  Your avoidance of this issue speaks volumes.  It is impossible to explain why a perfect, loving, just, righteous, merciful god would order and condone “horrible evil.”  Your only answer to the “problem of evil” is that it is due to a sinful world.  Well, gee, according to your biblegod myth, god MADE this sinful world, he created satan, he orchestrated the magic tree, talking snake, and two gullible people with no experience dealing with deceit or evil.  Then he decided he didn’t like it so he drowned everyone — including babies, children, and pregnant women — like unwanted kittens.  You’d think an all-knowing god would’ve seen that coming, huh?  So when governments decide that slavery is inherently wrong (horribly evil is how you put it) then these governments are more moral than biblegod.  Not once in the bible does god suggest that slavery is wrong.  On the contrary, biblegod condones beating slaves within an inch of their lives, selling children, selling young girls to men who will sexually abuse them, separating families, mutilating slaves, etc.God also orders the his people to murder infants.  Which shouldn’t surprise anyone since biblegod kills millions of children on his own throughout the bible.You have never attempted to explain why this is ok.  You have no logical argument as to why a “loving” god would order and condone these “horrible evils.”When is it ok to kill children and infants?  Please just answer this one question. I posted this on My Experience in an Atheist Community but no one dared to answer it.Also, if a perfect god wrote the bible and he is more moral than the laws of America today, then would you rather follow god’s laws or America’s laws?  If you say “god’s” then you are saying that you should kill all homosexuals, people who practice the occult, people who work on the sabbath, disobedient children, people of other religions, adulterers and a host of others.  Also we can buy and sell other people and order a rape victim to marry her rapist with no divorce allowed.  America doesn’t allow any of those atrocities, but god thought they were all good laws because he ORDERED them.  The creator of the universe thought they were just and fair.  HA!If we based morality and laws on the bible, we would live in a wicked society full of violence, murder, and injustice. 

  • Anonymous

    “You see what I mean?” ~ Ravi Zacharias

    No, I don’t see what you mean. Your apologetics insult my intelligence, Mr. Zacharias. When nonbelievers examine the believer’s doctrine – in this case, where “evil” is concerned – they do so under the *pretense* that “God” exists. That granted, you don’t at ALL deal with why “God” allows “evil” to subsist. And positing that there is a “get-out-of-jail-free” card that is redeemable for certain people, likewise, doesn’t explain why “God” allows “evil”, or at the very best, tolerates it. And talk about making assumptions?…. you assume that we are so “sinful”, stupid, and wreched that we need to be taught how to “differentiate between good and evil”. Do me a favor—-speak for yourself, sir.

     Per usual, the Xian’s apologetics fail to convince anyone but the already-convinced.

  • Pingback: What’s Wrong With Christianity? | Brevis from Bob Ewoldt()

  • Pingback: Cross Examination: The Will to Believe | Brevis from Bob Ewoldt()

  • Pingback: God can’t be both omnipotent and omniscient | Brevis from Bob Ewoldt()