Comments on: Another problem of evil examined

By: consideratheism

consideratheism — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 16:36:29 +0000

By that reasoning, Royce. You must not only agree with short-term and long-term abortion, but you must also agree that the mother and father of a child have the right to kill the child at any point in their lives in any way they choose.

By: Ryft

Ryft — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 06:53:54 +0000

Excellent point, Royce. Spot on.

By: Royce

Royce — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 05:56:00 +0000

Hi all.

Just wanted to piggy-back off that last comment, in anticipation of the most common follow-up question I get when using Ryft’s argument: “Wouldn’t causing disaster or calamity be considered an evil act?” One of the big factors in classifying sin is not just the act itself but also who it is committing the act. For instance, if I remove my CD collection from my house and hock the whole lot—no sin. If another person removes my CD collection from my house and hocks the whole lot—theft. The CDs are my property and therefore the dispossession of them is my prerogative.

As God is the Creator of everything—people included—his prerogative as Creator enables him to do many things that would be considered sin if they were done by pretty much anyone else.

By: Ryft

Ryft — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 04:35:11 +0000

No, because the word "towb" (good) is not expressing a moral quality. In their Commentary on Genesis 1, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown described its sense in this way: "Every object was in its right place, every vegetable process going on in season, every animal in its structure and instincts suited to its mode of life and its use in the economy of the world. He saw everything that He had made answering the plan which His eternal wisdom had conceived."

By: Ryft

Ryft — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 03:56:28 +0000

Yeah, I wouldn’t get too excited about the comment that Bethrick left on your article. It was so full of holes it was almost embarrassing to read. Bethrick is very often an object lesson on how not to argue. In other words, perhaps you might want to think twice about writing a blog post on the points he raised. His reference to Isaiah 45:7 that you latched onto here is a brilliant example. Let me ignore him (as I tend to do) and speak to you directly. You at least still have an open mind.

Your argument, and my rebuttal thereof, was concerned with moral evil. This is what we were talking about when I said “evil is not a thing to be created” and that “moral order is grounded in the nature of God and expressed prescriptively in his commands,” etc. But does this passage pull the rug out from under my argument? No, because it is not talking about moral evil. This becomes obvious the moment we realize that contrasts are being made here. There is the contrast of light versus darkness on the one hand, so what is the contrast of peace or national well-being (shalom)? Disaster or calamity, which is why practically all other translations use such words—including the NKJV (New King James Version). This passage is emphasizing the jurisdiction of God’s sovereign rule; as the opposite of light is darkness, so the opposite of peace is calamity, and God alone is Lord over it all (the context begins in verse 5).

And this is observed throughout Scripture. “When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the other.” (Ecclesiastes 7:14); “When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it?” (Amos 3:6); “Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?” (Lamentations 3:38); “You are talking like a foolish woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?” (Job 2:10); and so forth.

So my rebuttal still stands, as Isaiah 45:7 was not talking about moral evil.

By: consideratheism

consideratheism — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 22:10:27 +0000

I would like to thank you for linking to my blog.

As someone else stated in a comment on my blog, Isaiah 45:7 states it very plainly: “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” Your entire argument falls apart if you follow this bible passage, but you certainly can't pick and choose what you follow(which many are guilty of[not necessarily you]).

By: taco

taco — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:40:29 +0000

An interesting application note one might share, if it is valid, of your argument would be to note that when God created, He declared it "good." That would be a prescriptive definition in relation to His will as well. Good didn't exist "in itself" but rather is God's moral valuation of what He created.

Would you consider this a sound application to clarify the the side of "what is good?"