From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: EVIL
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date: 13 Oct 92 00:12:58 GMT

darist@bluemoon.rn.com (david stroop) writes:
>Here is an analogy.  You will no doubt find a way to use it or 
>change it to prove a different point.  But the point *I* wish to 
>illustrate is: God doesn't have to *do* everything He *can* do, 
>at least right now. 
> 
>------->I have a library book which I have the *power* to return.
>------->I *know* it can be returned and how to return it.
> 
>------->Yet, I have not returned it.
> 
>From the above, it can not be concluded that I must (if I exist) 
>have returned it or must return it now.  Neither can it be 
>concluded from the fact that the book is still checked out that I 
>do not exist or that I don't have the power or knowledge to 
>return it. 
> 
>So, neither can it be concluded, from the fact that God has not 
>yet dealt with some evil, that He does not exist or that He is 
>weak. 

So what you are saying is that God is apathetic or lazy. That is he doesn't
give enough of a stuff about wars, torture, injustice etc to do anything
about it. If so God is either neutral when it comes to human beings or an
enemy of the human race.

> 
>Other points which are usually made on this topic are:
> 
><Why doesn't God force everyone to Do Good.  -or-
><Why didn't God make us so that we couldn't do evil.  -or-
><God's knowledge of the evil results of creation makes Him evil.
> 
>God could have done things differently.  However, He *chose* to do 
>just what He has done.  That does not make Him evil (except to 
>people who *want* to see Him as evil).  The manufacturer is not
>responsible for the many crimes committed with the cars he makes
>even though he can know this will certainly happen. 
> 
>If anything, what He has done shows how powerful He is.  He can 
>create a being which has the ability to choose between good and 
>evil.  I submit that it is a lesser thing to create beings that 
>have no choice.  If God chose to show his power by doing what He 
>did, I, for one, would not have tried to prevent that or call it 
>evil.  (Rom 9:22.) 
>

But we do not have full choice. I do not have the option to breathe water,
or fly (mechanically unaided) or go to the moon. Therefore our choices are
limited by his creation, he allows us to see options we can never take
limiting our choices blatently. Therefore why not limit our choices just
that tensy-wensy bit more so we cannot choose to do that which will condemn
us to eternal torment. God must be a supreme sadist if he created us knowing
that 90 odd percent of us will fry in Hell for the rest of eternity. That's
analogist to me breeding Koala Bears so that if they blink within ten
seconds of their birth I will get my next door neighbour to..to..to (Oh shit
I haven't got a morbid enough imagination to think of a torture worthy of
the Hell invented by Christians). Anyway to breed these animals knowing that
90% of them will ,through ignorance, suffer torture for the rest of their
lives is sadistic in the extreme. In fact God, if you accept the Christian
tale, seems to try to poke the eyes of the baby Koalas to make them blink so
he can send them off to the nextdoor neighbour. No if there is a God, it
ain't the Christian one.
> 
>The quick answer to your Question is, "Yeah?  So?"  While I 
>understand your point of view, I just don't agree with it.  Can 
>you see my point of view?  (Surprise me.  Say yes.) 
> 
>DARIST
> 
>"God is not slack as some count slackness, but is patient." 
>(Otherwise we all would have long ago been "zapped.")