Tough questions about Evil

Originally posted by scottishinnz
But sin has been defined as "being away from God". How can God do that? Surely, everything he does is right by definition.

Well, I didn't know that was the definition, my fault. I would rather term sin as "anything that goes against God's law." Law is a little vague, but basically what I mean is whatever God says to do, whether right or loving or just etc...if we do something contrary to His guidelines then we committ a sin.

Not everything He does is right by definition. Yes, He does everything right, but only because He adheres to His own standard. Because He is the standard, an absolute and perfect standard, He can't violate His own nature by being anything less than that. It's not not He's "being away from Himself" or anything, but simply He won't sin because otherwise if He did, He wouldn't be God anymore.

Hey, I don't know if you're familar with the Bible at all. But there are times when Jesus is tempted in the flesh. The most used example is that of in the wilderness with the devil himself. It's not that Jesus can't sin, just as when He was on the cross, it's not that He couldn't call a host of angels to save Him, or even save Himeself. The same applies in both situations - It's the fact that He chose not to sin, and He chose not to be saved from pain, suffering, and death on the cross. God deals with us the same way. He allows us to chose. Just as Jesus had to follow certain orders, we need to follow certain orders. The difference is that Jesus and God never fail, but we do.

I hope that cleared it up, but if I can offer any more assistance, I would be glad to clarify or go more in depth.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
But sin has been defined as "being away from God". How can God do that? Surely, everything he does is right by definition.

Let me add one more thing. It's not that everything He does is right. The better way to say it would be that He does everything right. An absolute standard does not waver in any regards. If God was simply the highest standard, then sure anything He does, comparitvely speaking would still seem/be right, because others wouldn't do that something He did in a better way. But He is more than just the highest standard. He is the absolute standard I believe, which means He cannot wax or wane. He is the absolute standard because He chooses not to change, not to sin, etc.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I couldn't find the two fallacies you describe in this list of logical fallacies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

Can you clarify what the formal name of those two fallacies is so I can look them up?

Ok, I need to clarify myself. When I said fallacies I meant it in the broadest sense of the word, not the by-the-book definition referring necessarily to [logical] fallacies. Let me insert "2 mistakes you make" instead of "2 fallacies". There is no "formal" name per se, I just used the word fallacy = mistake, come to the wrong conclusion, etc.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I contend that God chooses not to lie.

Now you've taken a different position from the website you quoted. This implies that you agree that they stated the case rather poorly.

That's the danger of allowing websites to speak for you.

Originally posted by ngeisler88
Maybe I should rephrase what I'm saying to make it more clear. It's not that He can't sin period. He won't sin because He chooses not to. He possesses the ability, but in order for Him to remain the perfect God that He is, He is obliged not to sin.

This contradicts your earlier statement...

Originally posted by ngeisler88
Secondly, we are forgetting the fact that God is perfect (or at least that is what Christians belileve according to the Bible). He is omnipotent in the sense that He can do anything good He wants to. This therefore eliminates the possibility of Him committing a sin. This eliminates the possibility of Him contradicting His nature. This eliminates the possibility of Him being illogical. One fellow poster compared it to a triangle having 4 sides; if it did it would simply not be a triangle anymore. The same logic applies, if God did, He would simply not be God anymore, which is something He can't do.

...in which you claim that God can no more sin than a triangle can have 4 sides. Do you wish to withdraw this claim?

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Now you've taken a different position from the website you quoted. This implies that you agree that they stated the case rather poorly.

That's the danger of allowing websites to speak for you.

Point taken.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
This contradicts your earlier statement...

Originally posted by ngeisler88
[b]Secondly, we are forgetting the fact that God is perfect (or at least that is what Christians belileve according to the Bible). He is omnipotent in the sense that He can do anything good He wants to. This therefore eliminates the possibility of Him committing a si ...[text shortened]... that God can no more sin than a triangle can have 4 sides. Do you wish to withdraw this claim?

Well, you may think it contradicts, but it doesn't and here why. Because God is omnipotent in anything good He wants to, He chooses to eliminate the possibility of Him committing a sin. He can't sin because He won't and chooses not to. If He did sin, He wouldn't be God anymore, because He wouldn't be that perfect, absolute standard. That's why He's chosen not to sin. It's not contradictory, but it's something He almost forces Himself to do, which is not necessarily a problem, because, since He is all-good, it is not a problem for Him to not sin.

That explanation should hopefully suffice, as I will not withdraw my claim. It is somewhat of a paradoxal understanding, because obviously we can't understand and know everything to explain it. But I can believe what I believe beyond reasonable doubt, especially when compared it to other feeble explanations or refutations.

We have in the Bible a resume, so to speak, of God. The history is long. It is not a single snapshot. We see God's dealing with Arbraham, Isaac, Jacob and others over a long long period of time.

This gives us an idea of God's righteousness and His faithfulness to His word. We see a long history of His dealing with Israel and in fact other nations too. This record shows how centries effect God's promises and His will.

Finally, we have in the New Testament God incarnate as a man. Here is a chance to observe the level of righteousness of God as He was incarnated as the man Jesus Christ. Peter says no lie was found in His mouth. His enemies had to fabricate charges against Him. His presence convicted people of thier shortcomings, starting from the older ones down to the younger less experienced ones.

Pilate could find no fault in Him but cowardly let the mob condemn His innocence so he could look good to Ceasar.

Christ exposes politics. He exposes religion. He exposes culture. He exposes His closest disciples. We may compare ourselves to one another and consider ourselves better morally than someone else. Next to Jesus Christ we all come up short.

From Genesis to Revelation we have the resume of God. The record may not be exhaustive. But it is adaquate to prove that He is righteous and we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Christ was not only sinless. He was in addition glorious. You may count yourself as pretty good compared to someone else. But are you glorious? Do you have splendour? Do you radiate righteous living gloriously.

Jesus was not only right in this or that thing. He was in fact gloriously right.

To the problem of evil the solution firstly is that God can impute Christ Himself to be the sinner's righteousness. His acceptance before God is a Person. That Person is his qualification. That Person becomes His justification and only justification before perfection.

The problem of evil is solved in the divine scheme by having Christ imputed to the evil doer as her righteousness. The rightness of Christ becomes the righteness of the believer in Christ.

Originally posted by ngeisler88
Well, you may think it contradicts, but it doesn't and here why. Because God is omnipotent in anything good He wants to, He chooses to eliminate the possibility of Him committing a sin. He can't sin because He won't and chooses not to. If He did sin, He wouldn't be God anymore, because He wouldn't be that perfect, absolute standard. That's why He's chosen ...[text shortened]... able doubt, especially when compared it to other feeble explanations or refutations."

You are asserting both:

1) God can choose to sin. This means, in some hypothetical scenarios, there is the possibility of God committing a sin. The probability of God sinning once is greater than zero.

2) God can't sin; it's against his nature. This means there is no hypothetical scenario involving God sinning. The probability of God sinning once is zero.

This is clearly a contradiction.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I don't consider it a moral measuring stick!

So what do you use as your moral measuring stick?

As this discussion has been somewhat side-tracked, I would like to get it back on track with a few thoughts about evil:

I would contend that Evil is not something that has an existence all it's own; rather, it is a corruption of that which already exists. Evil is the absence or privation of something good. Rot, for example, can exist only as long as a tree exists. Rust on a car and a decaying carcass illustrate the same point. Evil exists as a corruption of something good; it is a privation and does not have essence by itself. “Evil is like a wound in an arm or moth-holes in a garment. It exists only in another but not in itself.” (Geisler)

Of course to say that evil is not a thing in itself is not the same as saying that evil is unreal. Evil may be an actual substance, but it involves an actual privation in good substances. Geisler notes, “It is not an actual entity but a real corruption of in an actual entity.” Rotting trees, rusting cars, tooth decay, brain cancer, etc are all examples of how evil is a corruption of something good.

It is one thing to understand what evil is. It is entirely another thing to understand how such evil can exist in a world created by God.

These are just a few thoughts to keep the discussion on track. 😉

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
You are asserting both:

1) God can choose to sin. This means, in some hypothetical scenarios, there is the possibility of God committing a sin. The probability of God sinning once is greater than zero.

2) God can't sin; it's against his nature. This means there is no hypothetical scenario involving God sinning. The probability of God sinning once is zero.

This is clearly a contradiction.

Against whom would God be sinning?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Against whom would God be sinning?

Ask ngeisler88. It's his argument.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
You are asserting both:

1) God can choose to sin. This means, in some hypothetical scenarios, there is the possibility of God committing a sin. The probability of God sinning once is greater than zero.

2) God can't sin; it's against his nature. This means there is no hypothetical scenario involving God sinning. The probability of God sinning once is zero.

This is clearly a contradiction.

My concept is one that I guess I am feeble in explaining. The only thing I can compare it to is the concept of irresistable grace (one would have to be knowledgable in Calvinism to understand). God chooses always to do the best, most right thing. He has two choices, but He always chooses the correct choice, making it seem as if that is the only choice because that is what He is obliged to do in order to still be God.

You quote me wrong on your second point. My words of clarification were that God can't sin because He won't sin. That absolves how He has the choice, but its still nevertheless not a choice in the dictionary-definition-sense because He never has and never will. It's slightly paradoxal. But it's also necessary to note that this is mostly speculation so far, by both of us. Any further discussion on this topic is something I will have to step down from the stand, because I have not researched enough to continue supporting my view. If you would like to put this conversation on hold, then we can start up again once I have ample time to bring more adequate evidence to the table.

I also want to stress that, if in my research I find evidence contrary to my beliefs or more reasoning you can offer to falsify my beliefs, I will of course conform my views in a way so I can fully believe my views beyond reasonable doubt...but as of now, I see no need. We will have to continue once I have further investigated the matter.