Why does God permit evil????

Interpretation requires something to interpret, some source. If we take as our source the various teachings attributed to that fella Jesus, taking his teachings on Heaven to suggest "a metaphysical paradise where good people go after death" is like interpreting the "Red Wheelbarrow" as Communist propaganda. It is an incorrect interpretation.

So what is the conclusion? Do we describe this god first before we ask if he is benevolent or do we accept the recognised idea of god ,described by scriptures. Any one who dares admit there is a god, to be described, needs to answer these questions or his description fails and so does his god. A full description, not the illusive god we so often see displayed. No excuses , like its beyond our comprehension.

The conclusion of what? Part of the traditional description of God is that God is benevolent. But I am missing your point.

I am asking if we are debating the traditional description and if not, how is he, it, described.

I can't speak for others. God is usually described as all-good. But, if , as some say, "good" as applied to God does not mean what it means when it is ordinarily applied, then, of course, I am bewildered as to what the traditional description means. It is silly to praise God for His goodness, if we do not know what we are talking about.

I simply have to point out a couple of things.

First of all, God created man and gave him Free Will, as well as a promise that this would not be interfered with. So you want to ask why God lets man do bad things, it is because he promised us the ability to make our own choices.

Now you would like to talk about floods and disasters of the natural type. Did man not create these? As we increase our energy output, we melt the ice caps which causes changes in temperature in the ocean which affect the natural currents which changes wind flow which causes more storms and effects techtonic plate motion. So we ARE creating these actually.

Now you ask about evil. Why does God allow evil. Would you understand the gift of happiness if happiness was all you knew?

If happiness was all you knew then happiness would be normal. Nothing special, just another day. because bad things happen, we can see how good the good things are. It is a balance required to keep our interest in life.

God cannot be described as it is in any text. We know this because it is a concept far beyond anything we have a relative frame of reference for. Still, we try, just as we try with so many other things.

I simply have to ask... If you think God should just make the world a better place, what are you doing with your gifts to help accomplish this same goal? God put the power into your hands. Miracles DO happen but they are the result of benevolence in Man, not the interference of God.

Relating God to the permission of evil is like relating a pomeranian to the fall of the twin towers. Unrelated.

Why did God stand back and do nothing during the holocuast?

Why does God permit natural catastrophes like the tsunami that killed 250 thousand people recently?

Why does God create an entity like a virus that does nothing but kill its host?

Etc Etc[/b]

Because God doesn't exist.

So god is benevolent, is that correct? Its mans fault, all the evil in the world ? Nothing to do with god, at all? Nothing to do with him , he created us imperfect . Floods are the responsibility of man ? so they never happened before man?

I must say that this is a conclusion to a question, no one can answer. He may exist and be malevolent, he may exist and be not known to us. The question posed is god benevolent?

I must say that this is a conclusion to a question, no one can answer. He may exist and be malevolent, he may exist and be not known to us. The question posed is god benevolent?

I reject the notion that we cannot know that something does not exist. That is a very impractical view of knowledge. I reject the claim for the existence of any and all supernatural agents. The idea of god, as it pertains to reality, is no different from the idea of unicorns, and I reject the notion of the existence of both. The state of reality can be explained without any supernatural agents or intervention. When, and if, the existence of supernatural agency is proven, I will thereby drop my naturalist atheism. Until then, I accept as knowledge that the notion of the existence of supernatural agency is a result of the human imagination, and that supernatural agents do not exist.

As for god being malevolent or benevolent, I'll leave that up to those who entertain the idea.

I reject the notion that we cannot know that something does not exist. That is a very impractical view of knowledge. I reject the claim for the existence of any and all supernatural agents. The idea of god, as it pertains to reality, is no different from the idea of unicorns, and I reject the notion of the existence of both. The state of reality can be explained without any supernatural agents or intervention. When, and if, the existence of supernatural agency is proven, I will thereby drop my naturalist atheism. Until then, I accept as knowledge that the notion of the existence of supernatural agency is a result of the human imagination, and that supernatural agents do not exist.

As for god being malevolent or benevolent, I'll leave that up to those who entertain the idea.

But, if as some have said on this thread, the term, "benevolent" applied to God means something very different from the term as applied to anyone else, that question is unanswerable. In fact, in that case, is makes no sense.

Some of the issue is that God is supposed to be infinitely good. And some say that we cannot understand infinite goodness. But John Stuart Mill made an interesting remark about this. Mill said that if a string is infinitely long, it surely must be at least one inch long. It cannot be infinitely longs unless it is one inch long. So, Mill said, if God is infinitely good, then God must be at least as good as you and I are. He could not be infinitely good unless he were as good as a person is.

I can only judge by human values and the values that the faithful propose. If the god they propose is different to the god of scriptures, then they must confess their differences and admit scriptures are in error. This distortion of scriptures to accommodate a certain debate is forever misrepresenting the truth of Religion. Pick and mix to your hearts desire.

To quote Karen Armstrong:

"Surely everyone knows what God is: the Supreme Being, a divine Personality, who created the world and everything in it. [Some readers] looked perplexed if you point out that it is inaccurate to call God the Supreme Being because God is not a being at all, and that we don't really understand what we mean when we say that he is "good", "wise", or "intelligent". People of faith admit in theory that God is utterly transcendent, but they seem sometimes to assume that they know exactly who "he" is and what he thinks, loves, and expects. We tend to tame and domesticate God's "otherness."

Descriptions of God cannot be accurate in the way I can accurately describe my wall color red. Descriptions of God can, at best unless they are idolatrous, only point to the ineffable reality of God.

Let me give you another quote from British critic George Steiner: "It is decisively the fact that language does have frontiers that gives proof of a transcendent presence in the fabric of our world. It is just because we can go no further, because speech so marvelously fails us, that we experience the certitude of a divine meaning surpassing and enfolding ours." He goes on to say that "what lies beyond man's word is eloquent of God."

Ever wonder why Zen Buddhism uses koans like "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"? Steiner gives you the answer.

I reject the notion that we cannot know that something does not exist. That is a very impractical view of knowledge. I reject the claim for the existence of any and all supernatural agents. The idea of god, as it pertains to reality, is no different from the idea of unicorns, and I reject the notion of the existence of both. The state of reality can be explained without any supernatural agents or intervention. When, and if, the existence of supernatural agency is proven, I will thereby drop my naturalist atheism. Until then, I accept as knowledge that the notion of the existence of supernatural agency is a result of the human imagination, and that supernatural agents do not exist.

As for god being malevolent or benevolent, I'll leave that up to those who entertain the idea.

Not necessarily. However, disasters like this occur as natures way of keeping balance. Man has tried to dominate and control nature through science etc., rather than work with nature and/or God in balance and harmony.

The one thing I see demonstrated over time and in all of natural science is BALANCE. Humankind has brought imbalance to the equation and nature will not have it. Nature and the balanced nature of God, (I'm using the God term loosely here) is something most humans are unaware of. Instead, they think of God as a deity in the sky that allows evil and doesn't prevent disasters. When humankind comes to the realization of our own responsibility in this universe instead of blaming a mythical deity such as God or Satan, we will then begin to change how we see the world and realize just how responsible we actually are for what happens in the world.

instead of discovering for ourselves that in the stillness of nothingness, of empty space, of balance, of love, therein lies the God that just is or the inexplicable laws of nature, duality and energy.

So you know everything that is to be known ?how fortunate for you. Im not debating the existance of a god but the description certain believers would have us believe.

I didn't say that I know everything, Xris. I'm saying that I believe that we can know that somethings don't exist, and I believe that supernatural agency is one of those things.