If God is loving, good and omnipotent, why is there so much evil, pain and suffering?

[Itinerant Lurker]

You're confusing the contemporary view of hell with what hell actually is. Jesus tells us that while we wait for judgement day, we are tormented day and night by the fact that we made the wrong decisions while in this life time. In the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, the rich man is tormented by fire (symbolic of God's coming judgement, facing you with the reality of your decisions while on earth) of which is soothed by a mere drop of "the water". What kind of fire is put out by a single drop of water? This isn't a physical fire we're talking about. No, this torment is embarrassment and self-loathing hatred that is what is talked about when we say "wailing, and gnashing of teeth".

I'm not confusing anything, the New Testament vividly describes hell as a "fiery furnace" (Matt 13:50), a place in which the "fire is never quenched" (Mark 9:48), as well as a place in which people will be "tormented with fire and brimstone" (Rev 14:10). That you seek to mitigate this obviously reprehensible concept is marginally admirable - but you can only do so by taking some extreme and unwarranted liberties with the text.

He just doesn't want to destroy His beautiful creation: You! He loves you that much, that He was willing to come to us in the flesh, through Jesus, and warn us of our choices without the help of God in our lives to guide us.

I don't see why he needs to destroy me for not finding any compelling reason to think he exists. Nor do I see why it's my fault that he chose to reveal himself in such utterly unconvincing ways.




Lurker

[Itinerant Lurker]

The ability to genuinely love is not possible without the ability to not love. It’s that simple. You will not be able to come up with another way.

I already did, and it was absurdly easy to do. Kids don't need to get cancer in order for us to experience love.

From experiencing them and from reading about them in Scripture.

You've experienced demonic forces causing hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes? This is the kind of things that people believed before they understood what tornadoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes actually were. We used to think the same thing about eclipses, thunder, the constellations, disease, and mental disorders.

Who built death and disease into the universe?

If Christianity is true then god did.

How would you create a world without the potential for disease when disease is the result of using your free will for bad rather than good?

Well, being a generally nice guy, I probably wouldn't make millions of innocent children suffer and die simply because some people chose to use their free will for bad. Would you allow your child to suffer and die so that someone else could enjoy the full scope of consequences for their actions? I would think anyone who did so would be universally viewed as insane.

In any event, whatever degree the potential of love, the opposite must have equal potential.

Why? That sounds all well and good. . .but I don't think you're basing it on anything other than your need to account for suffering.

You don’t know Scripture as thoroughly as you think you do.

Haven't you read my tagline? I'm a veritable poverty of error.




Lurker

[Itinerant Lurker]

No, it’s not. You assume it’s within God’s power to prevent it. God cannot prevent the sin man commits and the suffering it causes if He wants to have a reciprocal loving relationship with man.

Um. . .why on earth not? I do this every day as a parent. That's like saying that I can only have a reciprocal loving relationship with my son if I don't prevent him from picking up rattlesnakes. Obviously, I can prevent his suffering and still have a genuine, loving relationship with him - in fact, to not prevent such suffering would be immoral on my part.

Can you think of a better way for a God of love to create creatures who can experience genuine love without also allowing the chance for those creatures to sin and rebel against that love?

Yes - as I've said before this is incredibly easy - create a world in which children don't get cancer. Ta-da.




Lurker

[Ceegen]

I'm not confusing anything, the New Testament vividly describes hell as a "fiery furnace" (Matt 13:50), a place in which the "fire is never quenched" (Mark 9:48), as well as a place in which people will be "tormented with fire and brimstone" (Rev 14:10). That you seek to mitigate this obviously reprehensible concept is marginally admirable - but you can only do so by taking some extreme and unwarranted liberties with the text.

No, it is exactly what "wailing and gnashing of teeth" is. There is no disease or physical pain while in a spiritual body. You don't see things in a spiritual sense, and therefore you can't see the spiritual message of the bible. Hell is a place of spiritual torment, and therefore the fire and brimstone is not a literal "fire and brimstone" that causes [i]physical pain[i].

John 3 covers the topic of "spiritual things" very clearly for us. "Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?" - Even the religious Jews of the time, who spent most of their lives studying God's word, didn't "get it" because they were only seeing things in a literal or legalistic sense. The first part of John 3 is the topic of being "born again". Jesus reveals to us the things "which have been kept hidden from the foundations of the earth," which is to say, the spiritual meanings behind the actual events contained in the bible that have been hidden to us because of our sin. They're not "hidden" because God hid them from us, but because we're not infinite and can't possibly understand the reasons for every thing that God does, especially not if we're trying to figure it out without God's help in understand His purpose for those things.

"If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?"

You keep saying that hell is a literal place of suffering and torment, when in reality the parable of the rich man and Lazarus clearly indicates that it is no such place. The rich man cried out for help to Abraham for help from being tormented by the flame, yet Abraham and the rich man are within eye sight of each other. How then is Abraham not tormented by the flame, yet they are within the same area? No, the contemporary view of hell was born in the dark ages to scare people into believing, thereby giving the apostate church system more control over their fellow human being: It is a lie.

"And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence."

This "great gulf fixed" is a wound, a grievous wound, a spiritual wound by knowingly rejecting God and in so doing, rejecting righteousness and life.

"And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

That line is about prophecy, of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Many people believe that Jesus was a myth, or just a mere good man, and yet we have no dried bones to point to and say, "This is Jesus." We deny the resurrection as sinful humans, and our reward is hell for not heeding God's warnings: You reap what you sow. We're told these things so that we, as believers, have no excuses or shame on judgement day.

I don't see why he needs to destroy me for not finding any compelling reason to think he exists. Nor do I see why it's my fault that he chose to reveal himself in such utterly unconvincing ways.

If you had two children, and the one kills the other, how do you punish that child?

The bible is a book of spiritual truth, and if you deny God and cause others to deny God in your arguments against God, you are spiritually killing people who side with you based on your argument. What do you think God is going to do? Let you get away with it? There are no neutral parties in this, but this is not a battle of flesh and blood. This is a battle against powers and principalities, and spiritual wickedness in high places: A battle for your mind.

So, why do you not believe God exists, exactly? Think about all the things you've learned and talked about, argued for and against. Does it disprove God? Nothing you say or do disproves God, but what you say and do causes others to sin by saying "There is no God." That's why, if you continue blindly in sin by denying God, you are just as guilty as Satan. Sin leads to death, spiritual death.

While you wait for judgement day, you will be tormented by your words and deeds which caused you to deny God, then knowing that He is real. There are still the angels which in the days of Noah were killed in the flood, "reserved in chains of darkness" until that judgement day. No one is spiritually dead, yet, but you might as well be considered spiritually dead until you are "born again" of the spirit and see things spiritually.

I don't worry about "hell", I don't need to. But it seems to bother you. Why?

[Ceegen]

If Christianity is true then god did.

Satan loves to blame God for the evil that we do because of Satan's lies, and being ignorant of the truth we are much too happy to consent to this view.

Darkness is just an absence of light, and evil an absence of God. God doesn't cause you to turn away from Him, Satan and your own musings do. That isn't God's fault, He gave you free will and you choose your path.

[Itinerant Lurker]

No, it is exactly what "wailing and gnashing of teeth" is. There is no disease or physical pain while in a spiritual body. You don't see things in a spiritual sense, and therefore you can't see the spiritual message of the bible. Hell is a place of spiritual torment, and therefore the fire and brimstone is not a literal "fire and brimstone" that causes [i]physical pain[i].

The accounts we have of Christ certainly don't seem to think so. I'm sorry, there's really no way around this - I couldn't honestly get around it as a Christian, and I don't see how you can either. The text is just there, clearly describing hell as a place of immense, and eternal, suffering.

We deny the resurrection as sinful humans, and our reward is hell for not heeding God's warnings: You reap what you sow. We're told these things so that we, as believers, have no excuses or shame on judgement day.

I deny the resurrection because there's no evidence for it other than extremely questionable second-hand accounts written decades after the purported event. How is that sinful?

If you had two children, and the one kills the other, how do you punish that child?

I have no idea. Why?

I don't worry about "hell", I don't need to. But it seems to bother you. Why?

Mostly because I think it's a ghastly concept.




Lurker

[Itinerant Lurker]

Satan loves to blame God for the evil that we do because of Satan's lies, and being ignorant of the truth we are much too happy to consent to this view.

So. . .Satan altered the fundamental physics of the universe? Of life itself? That's quite a bit more creative power you seem to be granting the devil than general Christian doctrines I'm aware of are typically willing to give. Are you sure you completely understand just how built-in to the universe death is?

Darkness is just an absence of light, and evil an absence of God. God doesn't cause you to turn away from Him, Satan and your own musings do. That isn't God's fault, He gave you free will and you choose your path.

It isn't god's fault that he didn't bother to leave behind any actual evidence pointing towards him? That seems like a bit of an oversight. It's not his fault that he decided to reveal himself in such a poorly understood way so as to create a religion with all the characteristics of all the other man-made religions scattered across the world? Why on earth not?

In such a view we are born sick and commanded to make ourselves well. Not only that, but if we choose the wrong medicine, having no way to tell which is the antidote to our affliction, we are punished with eternal suffering. What father would treat his children so cruelly?




Lurker

[LookingUp]

The accounts we have of Christ certainly don't seem to think so. I'm sorry, there's really no way around this - I couldn't honestly get around it as a Christian, and I don't see how you can either. The text is just there, clearly describing hell as a place of immense, and eternal, suffering.

I question the traditional view of hell that asserts the damned will suffer eternally in this lake of fire. The two strongest passages used to support eternal suffering are the following:

“If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name” (Revelation 14:9-11).

“And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (Revelation 20:10).

I don’t automatically assume that “day and night forever and ever” must be taken literally. Isaiah uses the same kind of imagery to describe the fate of Edom.

“Its streams will be turned into pitch, and its loose earth into brimstone, and its land will become a burning pitch. It will not be quenched night or day; its smoke will go up forever. From generation to generation it will be desolate; none will pass through it forever and ever” (Isaiah 34:9-10).

The fire of Edom’s judgment did not literally burn “night and day” without end, and the smoke of Edom’s judgment did not literally “go up forever.” If we know the phrase in Isaiah isn’t literal, why should we be inclined to interpret a nearly identical expression in Revelation literally?

When Scripture speaks of eternal punishment (Matt. 25:46), eternal judgment (Heb. 6:2), and eternal destruction (2 Thess. 1:9), I think of it in the same way I think of eternal redemption. Our redemption is “eternal” in the sense that once we are redeemed, it is forever. We don’t go through an eternal process of redemption. Punishment, judgment, destruction of the wicked is eternal. They are destroyed forever (Psalm 92:7), but not forever being destroyed. It is says eternal punishment; not eternal punishing. “Like smoke, the wicked will vanish away” (Psalm 37:20). I don’t want to make this too long, so I’ll just say that the wicked are threatened with annihilation and total destruction throughout the Old Testament (Deut. 29:20, 23; Isa 1:28, 30-31; 5:24; Ps. 1:4-6; 34:16; 37:2, 9-10, 38; 58:7-8; 69:28; Prov. 10:25; 12:7; 24:20; Dan. 2:35; Nahum 1:10; Mal. 4:1). The New Testament, too, threatens the wicked with annihilation and total destruction (Matt. 3:10-12; 7:19; 10:28; 13:40; John 15:6; Phil. 3:18-19; Heb. 6:8; James 4:12; 2 Peter 2:3; 3:7; Jude 7).

Besides the biblical support for the view that the wicked will be totally destroyed and perish from the earth forever, could you imagine the glorious new creation utterly filled with holiness and goodness and “in which righteousness alone dwells” and in some far off dark corner of the kingdom sits a compartment of billions of sinners roasting in the lake of fire? And if these guys are aware and conscious as the traditional view teaches, won’t they be in there sinning by cursing God? Or will their eternal suffering and torment lead them to praise and worship God? Certainly not. I view God’s redemption as total. That’s what I see in Matthew 13:41, “they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend.” And what? Stick them in a closet? God’s utterly perfect and flawless kingdom will have one little nasty room in it? This addresses God’s righteousness, but what about God’s love? Does God do anything that is not constructive? Does even a parent, who is less than ideal as God certainly is, punish or inflict pain for any other purpose than that of correcting and for the child’s long-term favor? What’s remedial about the lake of fire?

Yet some will still look at those two passages that seem to support eternal suffering and remain firm in their belief that God will do what He says He will do—cast the wicked into the lake of fire where they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. Period.

But there’s not just the biblical support for annihilation and complete destruction in Old and New Testaments, and there’s not just the idea that a compartment full of billions of roasting sinners does not harmonize with an utterly righteous kingdom or a God who is perfectly constructive in his punishing. There’s also the question of God’s mercy.

What does Scripture teach about God’s mercy? Is there evidence that God’s mercy triumphs over His wrath? Looking at the prophets we see that God continually tells Israel in no uncertain terms He’s going to punish them severely. But time and time again, He relents. Time and time again he delays the punishment or scales back its severity or both. Was God lying when He said He’d do those terrible things? No. He meant every word. But His mercy compelled Him to stop short. So, even if the symbolic language John used to describe the fate of the wicked is actually literal (which I question), God’s mercy has been shown to be more powerful and compelling than His wrath. And annihilation would be a merciful act. This idea of annihilation harmonizes with the teaching that God’s anger endures for a moment but His love endures forever and His mercy is everlasting (Ps. 30:5, 100:5; 103:9; 106:1; 107:1; 118:29; 136:10-26; Micah 7:18; Ps. 100:5; 138:8; Isa. 54:8).

“LORD, I have heard the report about You and I fear. O LORD, revive Your work in the midst of the years, in the midst of the years make it known; in wrath remember mercy” (Hab. 3:2).

[LookingUp]

I already did, and it was absurdly easy to do. Kids don't need to get cancer in order for us to experience love.

So, it’s a perfect world if cancer doesn’t exist, but every other bad thing can exist? Or are you saying every single bad thing must not exist for you to believe God exists? The only way for every bad thing to disappear is to wipe out mankind. The fact that bad things exist doesn’t disprove the existence of God; it proves the existence of free will creatures.

You've experienced demonic forces causing hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes?...

No, I’ve experience demonic forces. And Scripture teaches that these forces can have an impact on nature.

If Christianity is true then god did.

You said death and disease are built into the universe. Assuming Christianity is not true, who built them into the universe?

Well, being a generally nice guy, I probably wouldn't make millions of innocent children suffer and die simply because some people chose to use their free will for bad…

None of these children are “dead”; they are alive now with Jesus, and their bodies will be resurrected to reunite with their spirit and they will live forevermore in the kingdom of God.

Would you allow your child to suffer and die so that someone else could enjoy the full scope of consequences for their actions? I would think anyone who did so would be universally viewed as insane.

It’s insane if that’s the end of the story, but it’s far from the end.

Why? That sounds all well and good. . .but I don't think you're basing it on anything other than your need to account for suffering.

No, I’m basing it off logic.

Um. . .why on earth not? I do this every day as a parent. That's like saying that I can only have a reciprocal loving relationship with my son if I don't prevent him from picking up rattlesnakes. Obviously, I can prevent his suffering and still have a genuine, loving relationship with him - in fact, to not prevent such suffering would be immoral on my part.

If you prevented your son from ever making any sinful, unloving or wicked choice, you wouldn’t have a son who could genuinely love you. In order to genuinely love, the ability to not love must exist.

[Itinerant Lurker]

So, it’s a perfect world if cancer doesn’t exist, but every other bad thing can exist?

No, it's a better world if kids don't get cancer. I would think this would be rather obvious.

You said death and disease are built into the universe. Assuming Christianity is not true, who built them into the universe?

No one.

None of these children are “dead”; they are alive now with Jesus, and their bodies will be resurrected to reunite with their spirit and they will live forevermore in the kingdom of God.

Ah, so their suffering is justified because it is finite? That doesn't seem to make much sense either. Is a parent justified in abusing their child for a week if they provide better life for them for the following year? I hardly think so.

'

It’s insane if that’s the end of the story, but it’s far from the end.

Whoa. . .really? So you would allow your child to suffer and die in order for a psychopath to enjoy the full consequences of his actions because you believe that "that's not the end of the story"? That sounds pretty insane to me.

No, I’m basing it off logic.

How is that logical?

If you prevented your son from ever making any sinful, unloving or wicked choice, you wouldn’t have a son who could genuinely love you. In order to genuinely love, the ability to not love must exist.

I wasn't talking about preventing my son from ever making a sinful, unloving, or wicked choice; I was talking about preventing my son from a huge amount of suffering and quite possibly death from a stupid choice. Moreover, I would obviously want to prevent my son from enduring such suffering and death because of the stupid choices of others - so I would obviously yell at other people who were picking up rattlesnakes and throwing them around to knock it off.




Lurker

[LookingUp]

No, it's a better world if kids don't get cancer. I would think this would be rather obvious.

So, if cancer didn’t exist, you’d believe in God? How much "better" does the world have to be before you'd believe in God?

No one.

You say death and disease are built into the universe, but no one built them into the universe. If something is “built” don’t you need a “builder”?

Ah, so their suffering is justified because it is finite? That doesn't seem to make much sense either. Is a parent justified in abusing their child for a week if they provide better life for them for the following year? I hardly think so.

God isn’t abusing anyone. God doesn’t cause sin and the resulting suffering. And I’m certain if we asked the children in heaven right now if it was worth it, they’d say, “Yes!”. I know children suffering right now who want to live what’s left of their lives for God and who would tell you it’s worth it, and they’re not even in heaven yet!

Whoa. . .really? So you would allow your child to suffer and die in order for a psychopath to enjoy the full consequences of his actions because you believe that "that's not the end of the story"? That sounds pretty insane to me.

How about letting your child decide that for himself? Because that’s what it really comes down to. You admit you’re not willing—in other words, as God’s creature, you would have rather not been created at all than to experience such suffering. I’m saying that as God’s creature, I would rather be created and suffer to be a part of God’s kingdom. I’m the “child” and I say it’s worth it.

How is that logical?

First of all, restricting some evil doesn’t solve the problem of evil. Restricting all evil eliminates free will and we’ve got a population of robots without the ability to genuinely love. You’ve decided that whatever evil it was that resulted in the specific disease of cancer should have been restricted. I believe the design of the universe is optimal for the restriction of most evil, while still allowing free will.

I wasn't talking about preventing my son from ever making a sinful, unloving, or wicked choice; I was talking about preventing my son from a huge amount of suffering and quite possibly death from a stupid choice...

And I think that’s exactly what God has done. God has restricted the most evil He could (which means the most suffering He could) while still allowing free will. And this world is the result.

[Ceegen]

The accounts we have of Christ certainly don't seem to think so. I'm sorry, there's really no way around this - I couldn't honestly get around it as a Christian, and I don't see how you can either. The text is just there, clearly describing hell as a place of immense, and eternal, suffering.

It's eternal, because death is final. Using physical death as a metaphor for what is a "shadow of things to come". You know that phrase, along with many others, are direct quotes from the bible? That's got nothing to do with the topic, just thought I'd share that.

But the fact remains that because you don't see things in a spiritual sense, you don't understand exactly what is going on in the bible when they're talking about hell and punishment and death. Let me enlighten you, and please take this seriously: Sin leads to death, but sin is based on righteous judgement, which means we are judged not only on what we've done and said, but our intent as relating to those words and actions. Sin, being merely an absence of God, has punishment attached to it that isn't necessarily a punishment from God, but rather a set rule as if it were a law of physics. God laid down this perfect moral standard by which we are judged.

The sum of this is, that sin and the inevitable death associated with sin is the absence of God in your life; much like if the sun were removed from the sky, life on earth would vanish in an instant without the warm radiance it provides. But "turning away" from God is a choice, and is your choice to make. You can believe Satan, or the God who warned you of the lies of Satan which leads your mortal soul to die.

Haven't you ever wondered why psychiatrists and scientists can't point to a single spot in the brain, and say, "Ah-hah, there's where our cognitive consciousness is"? Because we don't think with our brains, we have a soul which is attached to it and uses it like a computer. Life is spiritual in nature. It defies logic and reason, living where it shouldn't be possible.

You see, I can prove that the brain is not entirely in control of your body, but rather a soul residing within that fleshy husk which will eventually die and rot. In brain surgery, a patient is often times awake during the procedure. When the brain is directly manipulated to perform a function, it is not directly associated with intent. When a brain surgeon accidentally made a person's arm twitch, the patient quickly replied "I felt my arm move, but I didn't want it to move."

It is your choice to turn away from God and die. God created us with free will so we can genuinely express our love, because without free will love would not exist. God doesn't want us to die, but it's still our choice.

I deny the resurrection because there's no evidence for it other than extremely questionable second-hand accounts written decades after the purported event. How is that sinful?

Actually a few scholars have proven that (at the very least), Matthew was written in the "Eyewitness Period". The sample they used was a collection of a burnt papyrus scrips, usually referred to as the "Jesus Papyrus" (Papyrus 64), which have the writings of Matthew as being verified.

Funny though how their comparison of hand-writing, used by the FBI and other agencies around the world, AND along with technical data from newer equipment being used to also verify the texts... Isn't good enough for secular skeptics?

Not to mention that the writings of Ezekiel were way before the events God told him to write about ever happened, have been proven to be from the same time period that Ezekiel lived in. Ezekiel wrote about the impending fall of Tyre, and how it would be thrown into the ocean, which really did happen as recorded in the bible as prophecy AND secular historical records after-the-fact, and ya know, all the physical evidence in the Mediterranean Sea.

Also, thanks to the "Dead Sea Scrolls", it's been conclusively proven that the writings of Isaiah have remained unchanged, except for grammar changes to reflect the change in language usage, for at least ~1,100 years. Much like the original KJV to a more "readable" KJV that we have today. Same "meat and potatoes" message, revised to reflect modern language.

I mean, there's proof out there, if you're willing to look for it. I know not every claim that is made is true, and I for one reject relics like the "Shroud of Turin" and other such nonsense. These people who want proof so badly, that they're willing to lie and present false evidence, don't do much good to God's message. That isn't mine or anyone elses' fault though, just more evidence of free will.

I have no idea. Why?

Instead of playing dumb, you could just say "I don't want to answer the question". But honestly, if you had actually read what I wrote, that was more of a rhetorical question...

Mostly because I think it's a ghastly concept.

It shouldn't bother you if you don't think it even exists. I just find it odd that you take the time and effort to post on a Christian message board your emphatic denial of God, and yet take none of the blame for it? If you really didn't care, you wouldn't be here.

[Ceegen]

So. . .Satan altered the fundamental physics of the universe? Of life itself? That's quite a bit more creative power you seem to be granting the devil than general Christian doctrines I'm aware of are typically willing to give. Are you sure you completely understand just how built-in to the universe death is?

You misunderstand the metaphors, but Satan is a real entity, an enemy. He is your enemy just as much as mine. He doesn't care about you, and lies to get people to turn away from God, just to hurt God. Satan knows what is right and wrong, and chooses to do wrong, leading many to their spiritual deaths.

It isn't god's fault that he didn't bother to leave behind any actual evidence pointing towards him? That seems like a bit of an oversight. It's not his fault that he decided to reveal himself in such a poorly understood way so as to create a religion with all the characteristics of all the other man-made religions scattered across the world? Why on earth not?

If Christianity has all the characteristics of all other man-made religions, why is it the only one that isn't based on salvation through good deeds, but merely by belief in Jesus as being our direct mediator to God which assures our salvation?

In Islam, there is no assurances of salvation. Not one verse in the Koran says "you are ASSURED salvation if you...", you only have a chance at getting into heaven if you do good deeds. But Jesus says "I am the way, the truth, and the life" and "he who believes in me shall have life everlasting."

Buddha has the laws of Karma, and reincarnation. Hinduism has reincarnation and nirvana. Shinto-Shogunism says you may or may not make it to the hall of warriors. Norse legend is much the same with Valhalla. In Egyptian paganism, your heart is weighed on a balance, measuring your good deeds against your bad deeds.

They're not alike, not in the least.

In such a view we are born sick and commanded to make ourselves well. Not only that, but if we choose the wrong medicine, having no way to tell which is the antidote to our affliction, we are punished with eternal suffering. What father would treat his children so cruelly?

If God came in the flesh, and told you how not to die and stay on the correct path, would you believe Him?

[chisel]

The problem of evil, while being a popular argument suffers from serious weaknesses and thus doesn't really pose much of a threat to theism in general and Christianity in particular. Its main force comes from its emotional appeal, which makes it more of rhetorical point than a valid defeater for theism.

The moral argument may take two forms, one being a deductive argument against a benevolent, onmiscient, omnipotent God and the other an inductive argument.

The Deductive problem of evil:
1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

This argument suffers from a hidden assumption regarding premise 4. For the conclusion to follow from the premises premise 4 should actually read, "If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil immediately"

Why should one believe this, however? God may have a morally sufficient reason for tolerating the existence of evil in the world for a finite amount of time. The mere possibility of such a morally sufficient reason means that premise 4 is a false premise, which means the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.
So, unless it can be proven that no such morally sufficient reason could possibly exist, the argument fails.

The Inductive problem of evil:
This argument states that there is simply too much evil in the world to justify belief in an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God.

The problem with this argument is that it makes assumptions about the world that simply cannot be known.
Firstly it assumes that there is a threshold for the amount of evil that has been exceeded. What exactly is this threshold and who determines it?

Secondly, the statement "too much" stands in a relationship to some purpose. One has to ask, "too much for what?"
In order to know this, the arguer implies that they have knowledge of the purpose of God, and that there is too much evil in the world for this purpose.

I agree that if God's purpose was merely to create a comfortable, happy environment for His human pets then perhaps the amount of suffering in the world wouldn't make much sense. If God's purpose on the other hand is to demonstrate his justice and mercy, then how could one say that there is too much evil? This world may possibly be the world in which all God's attributes (love, mercy, justice, holiness, patience) can best be demonstrated.

The emotional appeal
As I mentioned, the problem of evil has a certain emotional appeal. Proponents of this argument often refer to the suffering of children for rhetorical effect, yet one is compelled to ask what does the atheist/agnostic say to a suffering child who asks about their suffering? What hope can be offered? According to a naturalistic worldview the only valid response is "you're just unlucky".

As atheist Richard Dawkins states: "...In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."

From a Christian point of view, however, our sufferings in this world are infinitely small compared to an eternity in Heaven which can be attained freely through the blood of Christ. It is also true that God's intention for mankind was paradise, not a fallen world, where disease and evil abounds. It is also true that God will restore the world and exercise His justice on evil.
It must also be said that in the West especially it is Christians who, not only to offer the real hope of transcending this world and its suffering, but also work actively to comfort the sick and dying, support the needy and elderly etc.

The Moral Argument for the existence of God
Not only do the deductive and inductive arguments against God fail, but the very existence of evil makes a strong case for the existence of a transcendent moral law giver.

If evil exists then there is a transcendent moral law
If a transcendent moral law exists then this points to a moral law Giver

The argument goes:
1. If God does not exist then objective moral values and duties do not exist
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist
3. Therefore God exists

In summary, not only does theism and particular Christianity make the most sense of the existence of evil, but it is also Christianity that offers mankind hope and comfort during and beyond the suffering.

[Dani H]

I don't believe that hell has much to do with anyone roasting on a small or large flame. I do believe hell has everything to do with a person getting to enjoy their own company without God and other people for whatever amount of time/eternity.

Great way to get people to understand how truly awesome they're actually not and the difference God and those other people they hated and wished to be without, have actually made in their lives all along.

Just saying. People are not nearly as good as they tell themselves in their own heads they are. Blessed are those who realize sooner rather than later, they are poor in spirit, and turn to the only One who is truly good: God.

If you find the thought of having to spend eternity with God and with billions of other people appalling, then there is really only one place for you, and you will be accommodated.

Us that free will while you still can. Pretty soon you will no longer have that privilege.