Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: God and suffering Message-ID: <2028@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Wed, 30-Oct-85 15:04:06 EST Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.2028 Posted: Wed Oct 30 15:04:06 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 3-Nov-85 07:22:47 EST References: <134@sdcc7.UUCP> <803@cybvax0.UUCP> Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 68 In article <803@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >> Part 1 - Where does evil come from. While Genesis uses the word death, the >> Bible speaks of death (and I feel consequently evil) resulting from man's >> original choice to disobey God. Not to make this sound like beginning >> Sunday school, but that is traditional Christian doctrine. >Right. And traditional Christian doctrine is blatantly stupid on that point >as it takes two to tango. Well, I simply don't understand what "it takes two to tango" is supposed to mean, and anyway, this is an erroneous statement of "traditional" christian doctrine (and I'll repeat for the n-teenth time that there has been a plurality of doctrines since about AD 200). First of all, it can be argued that evil was supplied as choice to Eve and thus to Adam by the serpent. If evil predates man in this fashion we then have the unanswerable question of why the LORD did not destroy this evil-- unanswerable because one must understand the universe from the Godly viewpoint to answer it (and as for THAT, Mike, I'll be seeing you in net.religion later). However, assuming that the serpent was NOT evil (a position more in line with Judaic tradition) the it is Adam and Eve themselves who create evil, not the LORD. To claim that the LORD's response to this is simply punitive is, again, to presume to understand the universe from the LORD's throne. The LORD's anger might well be due to the changes he makes to the world in response to this change in man-- and again, the reasons for these particular changes is lost in the mind of the LORD. >> As hard as it is to understand, I feel that both God and man are >> responsible for evil. Man's part we've already looked at, but just to >> add one point, not only does the Bible say that Adam sinned, but Paul, >> in Romans, says that as Adam sinned, so do all men. To me this >> means that I'm not suffering unjustly for something Adam did, I'm a joint >> instigator and cause of the problem. >That's nonsense according to many doctrines of original sin. And if not >according to those doctrines, we then are irresistably tempted to sin by >our environment in a way we cannot control, and then punished for it. >That's as stupidly unjust as I can imagine. Well, that is again a misstatement of any of the doctrines. The doctrines generally have in common the theme that we have created human nature so that we inevitably choose to sin. The fact that temptations enter into this is irrelevant, as it is in shoplifting. >> In John 1:3 it says, "And >> without Him (Christ) was not anything made that was made an all things were >> made by Him." God throughout Isaiah continually claims to be the sole >> creator of everything, so to some extent, God is the creator of evil. Evil is not a thing. Evil is an action that men do. >Even granting all those absurd premises, there's no reason why the other >side should be so noxious, omnipresent, and unavoidable. For example, >bad people could continue to live forever, and good people could die and >go to heaven (good riddance. :-) And roses could come in blue, and cows could have six legs. The universe has to be one particular way, after all. Sounds to me like Mike is claiming to know what 42 is the answer to. Mike's reply to a long passage: >Mystic bullshit. My response: another erudite limpet heard from. Charley Wingate