God, Mankind, Failure, and Sin

Continuing the previous discussion... 

The argument tendered in response to the previous blog argued as follows.  Since God is "all knowing" or "omniscient" He knew Adam and Eve would disobey and thus He  creates them knowing ahead of time exactly what its they would do. Therefore, God is either directly or indirectly responsible for the existence of evil.  That must mean that God is evil.  To compound the issue He then punished the very ones He knew would sin.  (Adapted from a recent facebook posting in response to the previous blog.)

Following that notion forward, one might conclude then that God is responsible for all of the evil in today's world.  Thus mankind individually and corporately should be divested of all responsibility for his evil actions.  The idea being that because God is the responsible for the inception of evil, thus He is responsible for the outgrowth of that evil in the intervening years between then and now. 

While those ideas seem to follow logically, they only do so when founded upon certain assumptions.  Of course, assumptions by their very nature and existence require examination.  So let us consider some questions (most certainly there are more).

First question:  How can one be certain that God has foreknowledge?  Some schools of thought hold that God has chosen to limit His foreknowledge.  If such were so then the matter of His culpability would seem to be invalid. 

Second question:  How can one be certain that the entrance of sin into Garden was the time at which sin entering the whole world?  There is among some theologians the belief that the Garden was a utopian paradise created in the midst of a world that was already in the ravages of evil and corruption.  If such were so then the matter of God's responsibility may lay elsewhere.

Third question:  How can one be certain that God did not have a much more encompassing plan?  Such a plan that would be in effect either way, knowing that man would obey or would not obey.  If such is so it would be well beyond what man can rationally understand.  The most commonly cited example is that there is no evidence that Job ever understood what was going on in the Heavenlies. 

The outcome is the same no matter how these things are viewed.  The world contains corruption, evil, and wickedness.  In the midst of that darkness, a light shines and that is the light of truth and that truth is the standard that allows for one to label evil and wickedness, and corruption for what they are.  If there had not been the positive there would be no way by which to know negatives.  Therefore, any fundamental disagreement with what is herein must treat the question:  Where did truth originate?

The question that overshadows these and other beliefs is that of the benevolence of God. Is God a good God?  If God is viewed as evil, from where did the standard originate that allow one to make that assertion.  Either way one answers the question, the accompanying question is this.  Just who is it that one allows to define good?

It seems that if we allow man to define "good" then the outcome is a very self-oriented, short sighted, and immediate notion of what comprises "good."  If conversely, we allow God to define "good" then something, which appears to be evil on the human plain can in reality be divinely, eternally, and purely "good."

What might one take away from the discussion?  First, God is under no obligation to explain Himself to man.  In other words, what happened in the Garden of Eden and how God intervened is as explained but only in so far as man needs to know.  To take it beyond the text or even what the text allows is to court danger.  What is there is there, nothing more and nothing less.

Second, God does protect man from that which would defeat him.  This is offered in the form of another question.  What if any such explanation that God would give would be more than man could bear?  What is required is trust, truth in the goodness of God.  A goodness as provided above.

 

Third, God allows mysteries such as this in order for man to develop faith.  However, it must be said that such faith is a decision one makes, a volitional decision to trust in God despite such circumstances as may present themselves along the pathway of life.

Another Answer to Questions Christians Cannot Answer

"If God is so perfect, then why did he create something so imperfect allowing pain, suffering and daily atrocities?" (from the article "50 Questions That Christians Cannot Answer." available at http://www.bukisa.com/articles/107211_top-50-questions-christians-cant-answer).  The site continues, "Don't get me wrong, they will have an answer for them. You will find, however, that their answers have no basis in verifiable fact or evidence whatsoever, and will be largely based in their blind faith. Their faith has mad (sic) them whole."

As noted in the previous blog to assume that some Christian some place on this earth or who lived in some time period could not legitimately answer these questions is a quantum assumption which though postulated is impossible to defend.  Maybe these questions cannot be answered to the satisfaction of the questioner but that in no way validates the questions presented nor invalidates such answers as are provided. As well, just as many of the questions are not validated with facts, one should not expect the answers will be either.  It is an unfair stipulation that even the questioner cannot abide.

As to the current question the prudent observer of life knows that evil exists in the forms listed and others beside.  For the honest seeker of truth, this and other questions are deserving of a thought out answer.  Most certainly there are questions that cannot be answered due to their illogical nature.  

Look first at the question being ask.  Of course it is an "if-then" question which taken at face value seeks to impugn the character of God.  In effect it is saying that God is responsible for evil in its various forms.  Therefore God is evil and not to be trusted if He even exists at all.

There are some other questions one might consider.  Is God really the origin of evil or is it found in man?  Is it a consequence of culture or as a natural bent of man?  Are there exceptions to this evil?  Is evil ever in its final form or is it ever dynamic?

There are answers if one is willing to enlarge his frame of reference!  The challenges in asking the question are the limiting factors one embraces.  Following are several question to be asked of the one proposing the initial idea.   

First, is it legitimate to postulate that because evil exists there can be no God?  This seems to assume a correlation between God's existence and evil's existence.  How can that link be legitimately established?

Similarly, is it legitimate to suggest that because evil exists there exists a malevolent even vengeful God?  Again this seems to assume a correlation between God's existence and that of evil.  How can that link be legitimately established?

Can one accept the assumption of a malevolent God and thus be able to postulate the opposite question?  "If God is so imperfect, then why did he create something so perfect allowing good in all of it multivariate forms?" There are a multitude of difficulties with such a thought, not the least of which is that in order for there to be imperfect, there 

must be an antecedent perfect (more in a moment).

 

Second, is it legitimate to say that what God originally created has not changed, either devolving or evolving?  In order for the initial question to have legitimacy, there can be no change from the original creation.  How can such be legitimately established.  So then if one allows for some form of change then the merits of the question fall apart.

Now for a rebuttal question.  If the original questioner is correct and such is as he has proposed, from where comes a sense of "good?"  From where does the standard that labels something or someone as "good" originate.  As noted, for there to be "evil" there must be an initial "good."  Since that is so, from where did that initial notion of "good" originate? 

The Bible explains that in fact the original creation was good.  It remained so for some period of time until man given the freedom to choose, then make the fateful choice to disobey.  In doing so he opened the door to evil. 

As well, because there is a right and it involves God then consider this.  If one can accept that God is good and that He involves Himself in the affairs of man, then, one must at least give the possibility that the wrong can in fact turn out to be a "right," an "evil" turned to a "good," and a "curse" turned to a "blessing," etc.  This is but one of the advantages of an open system of thought that allows for God's intervention in the affairs of mankind individually and corporately.

So why did He not intervene in the disobedience of the original man and woman?  He did, just not in a way that the skeptic chooses to label as proper and good.  You see, God does all things "well and good" but, He is the one who defines "good!"  For man to do so would result in a shortsighted and selfish good.

Once again the supposed nail in the "God" coffin is fragile at best and crumbles under the scrutiny of a few simple questions.