A "bad" God and the argument from "inequality"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jamil_joseph02
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jamil_joseph02

Guest
Hi. I’ve encountered an atheist on Facebook who is questioning the goodness of God when there are those people who are living their lives miserably, suffering poverty, hunger, crime etc while others are experiencing the joys everything the world could offer such as being able to feed themselves, having a good house, going to malls, and every other joy a person could experience. He asks why God is allowing “inequality of people” to happen. He says that if God really has a plan for each of us, then He would be “sick” for allowing some people to experience misery.

I know there have been prior threads about this (I’ll also do some search) but i still wanted to ask personally. Thanks.
 
Well first off, God gave us free will. This misery at one point or more was initiated by acts of the will. The people who run the governments of some third world countries choose not to care for the poor. Crime is commited by people who have chosen to do wrong. There are so many people born into these situations that have already been created through acts of the will; and its hard to get out of it because of more people’s choices.

I think in the end there’s misery in the world because God gave us the freedom to choose, and our actions affect others often through no fault of their own.

xxStella
 
I’m copying and pasting from my Facebook page, so it may not fit directly. I am answering a question that is closely related to the one you have now:
The Question
|
v

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?”

The Answer
|
v

The post falls apart upon reaching the second premise. I reject the conclusion that Him being able but unwilling to stop evil makes Him malevolent. There are a couple fatal flaws in this argument. First off, one cannot account for objective good an evil on an atheistic worldview. Everything your friend calls evil is merely his subjective opinion and is therefore, irrelevant. Also, when talking about evil humans have done, it comes down to free-will. We have a choice between good and evil. Also, this assumes that God’s ultimate desire as a benevolent God is human comfort. This is false and assumes to know the mind of God. A far more likely answer is that God wants us to draw closer to Him to attain salvation. Suffering can often be used for this. For one, I personally find it much easier to remember to turn to God in times of trouble. Sometimes people phase God out until they need something. Furthermore, suffering and evil allows us to help others. Without suffering and evil, there would no good since there would be nothing to correct.
 
always687 said:
Well first off, God gave us free will. This misery at one point or more was initiated by acts of the will. The people who run the governments of some third world countries choose not to care for the poor. Crime is commited by people who have chosen to do wrong. There are so many people born into these situations that have already been created through acts of the will; and its hard to get out of it because of more people’s choices.

I think in the end there’s misery in the world because God gave us the freedom to choose, and our actions affect others often through no fault of their own.

xxStella
Click to expand...
I agree. The question begs…so if he doesn’t believe that there is a God, then what is he doing for inequality to diminish in our world?
 
ccmnxc said:
I’m copying and pasting from my Facebook page, so it may not fit directly. I am answering a question that is closely related to the one you have now:
The Question
|
v

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?”

The Answer
|
v

The post falls apart upon reaching the second premise. I reject the conclusion that Him being able but unwilling to stop evil makes Him malevolent. There are a couple fatal flaws in this argument. First off, one cannot account for objective good an evil on an atheistic worldview. Everything your friend calls evil is merely his subjective opinion and is therefore, irrelevant. Also, when talking about evil humans have done, it comes down to free-will. We have a choice between good and evil. Also, this assumes that God’s ultimate desire as a benevolent God is human comfort. This is false and assumes to know the mind of God. A far more likely answer is that God wants us to draw closer to Him to attain salvation. Suffering can often be used for this. For one, I personally find it much easier to remember to turn to God in times of trouble. Sometimes people phase God out until they need something. Furthermore, suffering and evil allows us to help others. Without suffering and evil, there would no good since there would be nothing to correct.
Click to expand...
With One Man if everytime they come across a situation where a Child is being tortured raped and possibly murdered by another Man who is doing this evil act. The First Man will Prevent the other man by stopping him by taking his free-will away in doing this act.
Does this make some men better then God because God will do this by taking the free-will away from the rapist murderer by preventing it ?
 
I believe God gave us a perfect world. He also gave us free will and the laws by which to live our lives. What purpose would we have if everything was predetermined by God? God does not make children starve or give us victims of war and hatred. It is for us to show mercy and justice. He gave us those abilities. It must sadden him that we still allow suffering to go on.
 
shaky said:
With One Man if everytime they come across a situation where a Child is being tortured raped and possibly murdered by another Man who is doing this evil act. The First Man will Prevent the other man by stopping him by taking his free-will away in doing this act.
Does this make some men better then God because God will do this by taking the free-will away from the rapist murderer by preventing it ?
Click to expand...
Not really sure what this is asking. The difference between a man and God in relation to free-will is that God gives us a nature that includes free-will, the ability to make moral decisions. Another person making you stop is simply a consequence of exercising one’s free-will. They would have free-will, but not the power to completely exercise it if a man stopped another man. However, we would neither have free-will nor the power to exercise it if God denied man free-will. I hope that makes sense.
 
This world is not the last word. Therefore, to measure God’s justice by temporal suffering, which Catholics believe have a redemptive quality toward the eternal order, is to not grasp what Christians teach of God. We do not necessarily know what value, what currency suffering bears in the afterlife, however, we believe on the testimony of history and revelation that God came incarnate and led the way, suffering deicide at the hands of His own creatures. So by this example, we believe and trust that God is able to make value of temporal suffering which is but a blink when viewed against eternity.
 
ccmnxc said:
Not really sure what this is asking. The difference between a man and God in relation to free-will is that God gives us a nature that includes free-will, the ability to make moral decisions. Another person making you stop is simply a consequence of exercising one’s free-will. They would have free-will, but not the power to completely exercise it if a man stopped another man. However, we would neither have free-will nor the power to exercise it if God denied man free-will. I hope that makes sense.
Click to expand...
When we get to heaven. Will we still have the free-will ability to be able to Sin ?

When Christ walked the earth as Man. For him to sin would be denying himself as God. Christ CAN NOT deny himself. 2 Tim 2:13.
Christ was a slave to obediance to his father and was ‘‘not free’’ to Sin.

Christ took the free-will away from the money changers in the temple by getting angry and stopped them.

How does a Atheist Child Rapist and Murderer able to exercise his will to stop that sin when he is a slave to sin. A ‘‘slave’’ to sin is ‘‘not free’’ to exercise his will to act righteous. John 8:34. The only way he can exercise his will to act righteous is to become a ‘‘slave’’ to obediance to God that leads to rigthteouness. Rom 6:16. Then he is ‘‘not free’’ to Sin like Christ.
Peter was a slave/servent to Christ because he Obtained Faith. 2 Peter 1:1. A atheist has not obtained faith and is ‘‘not free’’ to act righteous.
 
When we get to heaven. Will we still have the free-will ability to be able to Sin ?
Click to expand...
I’m not an expert on this, but what I’m thinking is that while we would still have free-will, we would be infused with Christ’s perfect nature, meaning we would not ever want to sin.
When Christ walked the earth as Man. For him to sin would be denying himself as God. Christ CAN NOT deny himself. 2 Tim 2:13.
Click to expand...
I’m curious. Since Christ had both a divine and human nature, what do you mean by stating He would deny Himself as God and is this Scripturally supported?
Christ was a slave to obediance to his father and was ‘‘not free’’ to Sin.
Click to expand...
Christ and the Father share a perfect love with each other. They will to submit to each other through love. This is why having three persons in the Godhead does not entail contradiction. They would all will for the same thing.
Christ took the free-will away from the money changers in the temple by getting angry and stopped them.
Click to expand...
Again, I’d simply disagree here. They were able to make a moral decision regarding being in the Temple. A consequence was the Jesus used His authority to drive them out. A consequence. I’m thinking our definition of free-will might be different.
How does a Atheist Child Rapist and Murderer able to exercise his will to stop that sin when he is a slave to sin. A ‘‘slave’’ to sin is ‘‘not free’’ to exercise his will to act righteous. John 8:34. The only way he can exercise his will to act righteous is to become a ‘‘slave’’ to obediance to God that leads to rigthteouness. Rom 6:16. Then he is ‘‘not free’’ to Sin like Christ.
Peter was a slave/servent to Christ because he Obtained Faith. 2 Peter 1:1. A atheist has not obtained faith and is ‘‘not free’’ to act righteous.
Click to expand...
I’m thinking the reference as slaves to sin in more metaphorical. People who sin fall into the habit of sinning again. It is not like they lack the power or ability to choose otherwise. It obviously becomes much harder, but we never lose our free-will. That is why people can turn their lives around after living lives of sin. They will, through God’s Grace, to sin no longer.
 
Archbishop Sheen “Life of Christ”

"By saying that He had to suffer, Christ glorified His Father. Admire holiness as much as you please, but what is one to think of a God Who would look down on this spectacle of Innocence going to the gallows and not pull out the nails and put a scepter there? Or a God Who would not send an angel to snatch a crown of thorns and place a garland there? Shall God be a party to saying that the noblest life that ever walked this earth is impotent before the evil deeds of men? What is humanity to think of human nature, if the white flower of a blameless life is trampled under the hobnail boots of Roman executioners, and then destined to decay liked crushed flowers? Would it not send forth a greater stench because of its primal sweetness and make us hate not only the God Who had no care for truth and love, but even our fellow men for being party to His death? If this is the end of goodness, then why be good at all? If this what happens to justice, then let anarchy reign!

But if our Lord took the worst the world had to offer, and then by the power of God rose above it; if He, the unarmed, could make war with no other weapon than goodness and pardon, so that the slain had the gain, and they who killed Him lost the day, then who should ever be without hope? Who shall ever despair in any momentary defeat by evil? Who shall fail to trust when he sees walking in the darkness the Risen One with glorious scars on hands and feet and side? The law He gave was clear; life is a struggle; unless there is a cross in our lives, there will never be an empty tomb; unless there is the crown of thorns, there will never be the halo of light; unless there is a Good Friday, there will never be an Easter Sunday. When He said: “I have conquered the world,” He did not mean His followers would be immune from woes, pain, sorrow, and crucifixion. He gave no peace which promised a banishment from strife; for God hates peace in those who are destined fro war. If the Heavenly Father did not spare His Son, He, the Heavenly Son, would not spare His disciples. What the Resurrection offered was not immunity from evil in the physical world, but immunity from sin in the soul."

Thank you Bishop Sheen
 
ccmnxc said:
I’m not an expert on this, but what I’m thinking is that while we would still have free-will, we would be infused with Christ’s perfect nature, meaning we would not ever want to sin.
Click to expand...
Christ did say we will become like the Angels in heaven. Some Angels in heaven had free-will yet some fell by want to chose to sin and Got cast out of heaven. Yet others remained faithful by not wanting ever to choose sin. Are you saying some was Infused with Christ’s Perfect nature while others not ?
Are Catholics Now Infused with Christ’s Perfect Nature ?

I’m curious. Since Christ had both a divine and human nature, what do you mean by stating He would deny Himself as God and is this Scripturally supported?.

Jesus is God through his divinity. God was manifest in the Flesh. Scripture shows this. If Jesus would have sinned in his humanity he would have sinned in his divinity. You can’t separate the 2 natures divine-human in the One Person Jesus Christ. That is Nestorius heresy

Christ and the Father share a perfect love with each other. They will to submit to each other through love. This is why having three persons in the Godhead does not entail contradiction. They would all will for the same thing.

Yes but when he came to earth and became Man while also still being divine. He came to serve as a servant. a servant is a slave. Christ was a slave/servant to Righteousness and laboured in Love.

Again, I’d simply disagree here. They were able to make a moral decision regarding being in the Temple. A consequence was the Jesus used His authority to drive them out. A consequence. I’m thinking our definition of free-will might be different.

Yes but they was making a immoral decision by what they was doing in the temple. Besides the had to attend by not breaking the sabbath or get killed. Its not if they were spoilt for Choice.

I’m thinking the reference as slaves to sin in more metaphorical. People who sin fall into the habit of sinning again. It is not like they lack the power or ability to choose otherwise. It obviously becomes much harder, but we never lose our free-will. That is why people can turn their lives around after living lives of sin. They will, through God’s Grace, to sin no longer.

‘‘Its not like they Lack the power and ability to do otherwise’’ How can you say that when some people have no will power ?
The ungodly are without strength Romans 5:6. Unless God by Grace Persuades a Person to believe though inborn faith in Christ and Grants them repentance with the holy spirit as a gift. They are Powerless.
 
MarcoPolo said:
p.s. if he believes God is “bad,” then why is he atheist? Why doesn’t he instead espouse “bad God” theology?
Click to expand...
I think he’s giving his “criticism” on the concept of having a just God in a world of “unequal” people, rather than admitting there is God, but only a “bad” one
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top