Does the Issue of Universal Sovereignty make sense to you as an explanation for evil?

by gubberningbody 233 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  simon17

  I concluded that God did, in fact, care, but only about himself and his agenda. Anyone and everyone else was expendable. He was interested only in his private war with the Devil and using whatever was necessary to fight him.

  Except thats where it doesn't work on another level. If god truly was only worried about his personal situation and his agenda, he supposedly could have effortlessly wiped out the devil and all else who opposed him. In fact, any letting the devil hang around all these millenia is only complicating what he could have done in seconds. So you're left with these two alternatives if you accept hte biblical account so far: either God somehow is using this whole crazy experiment to help out humans/other creatures OOOOR God is just blatantly messing with people cruelly.

  After my awakening, it became clear that God had intervened to make sure man couldn't rule himself, which negated the entire concept. He disrupted man's language at Babel because he was concerned, maybe even afraid, of what humanity could accomplish as a united entity. But the issue of sovereignty by its very nature demands that he not interfere in any way.

  This is exactly right. The entire concept of the legit 'test' is a major farce.
• 

  sd-7

  Touche, simon17. But maybe an all-powerful being might've enjoyed a little game of chess with the crafty Devil, humans aside. I mean, if we're made in his image, there's a lot to be said about when someone poses a unique challenge to your position. Why kill him immediately, when you can humiliate him, take everything from him, and THEN kill him? It's just so much more satisfying to do when someone gets under your skin that much.

  I guess that's crazy, though...just sayin'.

  --sd-7
• 

  erbie

  No, it's complete and utter bollocks.

  You cannot get sense from nonsense.
• 

  PSacramento

  I h ave no vested interest in how this discussion is going but I would like to point out that IF personal revelation is NOT a valid form of evidence for God's existence, then neither is the "If Gid existed He would/should let Us know".

  Why? because God revealing himself personally IS personal revelation and as such, NOT a valid form of evidence.
• 

  bohm

  not at all. It is important to keep in mind the problem is not just to explain why there is evil. That is trivial!

  I could easily claim my hamster was a tourist from saturn, then provide explanations for all the observations which appear to contradict the claim (he is just dressed like a hamster! perhaps saturnian tourists love to run around a hamster wheel!).

  No, the explanation itself need to be plausible and justifiable, and referring to god being tied on hands and arms to let small children be tortured to proove a point about how awsome he is to some (hypothetical!) group is just a non-starter, and get more and more stupid the more you try to spell it out.
• 

  bohm

  PSAC: Sorry, but your argument is completely invalid, and rest entirely on the word "personal" being able to take two, different meanings.

  • "Personal revelation" can be valid evidence DEPENDING ON what is being revealed.
  • God can obviously provide evidence which is valid and not personal.

  your argument is only valid against a person who dismiss all types of personal revelation as bad evidence, and demand god reveal himself in that way

  obviously i have never met such a person, and i doubt you have as well.
• 

  PSacramento

  PSAC: Sorry, but your argument is completely invalid, and rest entirely on the word "personal" being able to take two, different meanings.

  They way it is most commonaly used here, which leads to people accusing others of mental delusions, which they themselves would be acuused of also if they admited a "personal" revelation from God.

  "Personal revelation" can be valid evidence DEPENDING ON what is being revealed.

  • How so?

  God can obviously provide evidence which is valid and not personal.

  • Not personal means not personal right?

  your argument is only valid against a person who dismiss all types of personal revelation as bad evidence, and demand god reveal himself in that way

  obviously i have never met such a person, and i doubt you have as well.

  So, what you are saying is that God revealing Himself to me, personally, is NOT acceptable evidence for someone else, yes?
• 

  erbie

  Seriously, God would not allow so much suffering just to prove his point.

  Only a very childish and diranged mind would punish billions of people just to settle a dispute.

  How can anyone reason differently?
• 

  erbie

  Sorry, should be 'deranged'.
• 

  bohm

  me: "Personal revelation" can be valid evidence DEPENDING ON what is being revealed.

  psac: "How so?"

  God could reveal himself to me and tell me the lottery numbers a couple of days in a row. or any other thing which could make us rule out the obvious explanation: a delusion.

  Not personal means not personal right?

  it is a tautology...

  So, what you are saying is that God revealing Himself to me, personally, is NOT acceptable evidence for someone else, yes?

  that depend on what is being revealed. but the problem i brought up was with this statement:

  I would like to point out that IF personal revelation is NOT a valid form of evidence for God's existence, then neither is the "If Gid existed He would/should let Us know".

  which is false, because god can reveal himself in other ways than personal revelation.