abge, that's a question I would ask as well, so unfortunately I can't provide an answer to you - I think we'll have to wait until some of the orthodox Christians come back to the thread tomorrow.

@Putin Your Gibbonite views on the causes of the demise of the Roman empire are simplistic, and wrong.

@ JEccles

"do some research first, God didn't give us the devil, the devil is a fallen angel that tried to take power from God because he wanted more than what he was getting, God didn't create him to be that way"

God is all knowing and all powerful. When God created the angels He knew full well the effect of all the consequences, including the fall of the one who became the devil. God could have easily created angels that would not have fallen, or taken actions to prevent the fall. He did not. In short, God gave us the Devil.

This is one of the weakest religious threads ever...

1. Putin, you do realize that communist is an ideology, to a certain extent based on faith rather than anything real, no one has actually seen it and we have to wait centuries, suffering class revolutions, to hopefully get there. Not to mention all communist states were the closest thing to the RCC, in terms of how government is organized :). You're making religious folk look good...

2. Religious folk.... do you realize that if your parents were of different religion you would have believed and supported something totally different?

People don't really pick their faith, do they, it's usually 'inherited'. You can defend that blond hair is the real thing with just as much credibility.

Biggest God is Best God.
sorry, couldn't resist ;)

If God is benevolent, then why does he allow evil to exist?

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is God able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is God both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is God neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

I smell copy/paste arguments in this here thread.

"Is God able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent."

This a false statement. Being able but unwilling to eliminate something "evil" does not make one malevolent. His unwillingness comes from wanting us to grow as a people, not just individuals. Society must learn to face evil head-on and defeat it, both collectively and individually, in order to become all that we can be of our own free will. Evil exists because God wishes us to have free will. If he were to eliminate all evil in the world so that we never had to make decisions or face trials and temptattions, then we wouldn't have free will.

So, Fasces, your logic faileth. Or... Epic Fail!

"Evil exists because God wishes us to have free will."

Says who?

Says the Bible, I believe, or the Christian faith in general...

@manganese
*"Evil exists because God wishes us to have free will."

Says who?*

Can you postulate moral good without reference to the evil alternative?

@kingdroid: Can't find it in the bible, so let's say "Christian faith in general". What I wonder is how they came by this information.

@Ful: Yes.
But even if I couldn't, the question was regarding free will.
Or rather, how somebody would know that "Evil exists because God wishes us to have free will".

@manganese. Thank you for your answer. I think we need to get a couple of things straight before we go any further, perhaps as a basis for constructive discussion:

1) Do you believe in morally good acts?

2) Do you believe in morally evil acts?

@ Ivo, to reinforce your point, mindlessly inherited, although there are quite a few exceptions, my dad being one of them, the trend I'm seeing at least in my community is that secularization sees gradations of increase with each new generation, as traditional values are supplanted with the tv/interweb culture, which is far more immediate/powerful than God which is to some an abstract concept (at least to most teens I know). Draugnar's argument for why God allows evil to persist (and evil is relative as has been alluded to already), is perhaps one of the better one's I have heard, and makes some interesting sense...

@manganese.....Just to be clear and open my answers are Yes and Yes.

@Ful: red herring. I was wondering about free will.

@Ful: The question was regarding free will.

Draugnar said: "Being able but unwilling to eliminate something "evil" does not make one malevolent. His unwillingness comes from wanting us to grow as a people, not just individuals. Society must learn to face evil head-on and defeat it, both collectively and individually, in order to become all that we can be of our own free will. "

So... God let's defenseless innocent children be tortured, raped, killed, starved to death, etc. because it's for the greater good of human kind as a people? I would understand letting those with the power to decide good vs. evil to not be saved from themselves, but the argument that innocents should die in the millions at the hands of others over thousands of years because God feels it is best for us as a people is an abhorrant idea to me (not to mention that it's not exactly worked out that well as a long-term strategy). Just as a lie of omission is still a lie, standing by while evil occurs - able to stop it, but still not - is also evil. With ability comes responsibility. If anything, God is teaching by example that standing by and letting innocent people suffer and die is a wise and wonderful thing it if serves some "higher" good. This sort of moral view - of weighing evils as means to ends - is usually seen, supposedly, by the church as a corrupt and evil view. Are evil acts dependent on who does them? (i.e. if God did it, it is apparently good by definition - overruling any other definition of evil... that reminds me of the defense that Pres. Nixon gave to his breaking the law - ""When the President does it, that means it is not illegal.")

Or actually, what I am most interested in is how somebody would know something like that.

"1. Putin, you do realize that communist is an ideology, to a certain extent based on faith rather than anything real, no one has actually seen it and we have to wait centuries, suffering class revolutions, to hopefully get there"

Ivo, you're as predictable as you are pathetic. I can't think of a single thread where you actually contributed anything of value. Krellin has more insightful points than you. Oh well, I guess we got the obligatory "you're a commie" post out of the way. Moving on.

Oh - and as to God teaching by example... the Catholic church (with their reassignment and cover-up and defense of pedophile priests... or how about their collusion with the Nazis - to protect the church) appears to have learned this lesson well... letting a little evil happen to children is sad and all, but it is a greater good to defend and protect the church. Society's needs outweigh the needs of the individual. Kind of got a Communistic ring to it, actually.

"Your Gibbonite views on the causes of the demise of the Roman empire are simplistic, and wrong."

Gibbon's six volume history of the Roman Empire is simplistic? Ok, then please correct me.

@Manganese: red herring. I was wondering about free will.

and here is my answer -
1) Do you believe in morally good acts?

2) Do you believe in morally evil acts?

Just to be clear and open my answers are Yes and Yes.

Now if your

@Ful: that is not an answer.

......either of your answers are different to mine, then you don't believe in free will and we have nothing further to say to one another on this particular subject.

If they are the same then we might productively look at where this phenomimum (i.e. free will) comes from. I just wanted to fully understand your position before going any further.

@Putin: I didn't say his was. Yours is. Anyway, Gibbon's model does not explain why the Eastern empire stood for another thousand years.

@Ful: Strawman.

". Being able but unwilling to eliminate something "evil" does not make one malevolent. His unwillingness comes from wanting us to grow as a people, not just individuals."

Don't worry all, brutality is all part of 'God's plan'. There's no evidence that anything is being learned in 99% of the cases of pointless suffering. It's just pointless. Because there is no god and there is only culturally defined 'good' and 'evil'.

Innocents (i.e. children) suffer because God grants free will. If he restricted the free will to only allow evil against certain people or restricts how evil people can be, then it is no longer free will. Free will means *free* will, not "guided to be sort of free as long as we don't offend his sensibilities" will.