• Yes we do

    Non-Christians almost always raise the question: If God is good and God is great (all-powerful) then how can there be evil in the world? Since there is evil, there must be no God. Or if there is a God, he must not be good or he must not be all-powerful.

    I think we need to deal with a couple of issues:

    Is this a good argument against the existence of God?

    How do the other world views deal with the problem of evil?

    What is the answer to the problem?

    B. The Logical Answer

    For many years, the problem of evil was seen as a way to show that Christianity was logically inconsistent. If Christianity could be seen to be logically contradictory, then it had to be false. The atheist is using the same approach that we’ve been using as we discuss the answers the various world views have to our world views questions.

    There is no logical fallacy in that statement of the problem of evil…
    ◦ · God is good.
    ◦ · God is all-powerful.
    ◦ · God created the world.
    ◦ · The world contains evil.

    Where is the contradiction? What they really mean is this:
    ◦ · God is good.
    ◦ · God is all-powerful.
    ◦ · God created the world.
    ◦ · The world shouldn’t contain evil.
    ◦ · The world contains evil.

    There is only an assumption on our part that there shouldn’t be any evil in the world. People assume that God must want to eliminate all evil. One would have to be omniscient (i.E. God) to know that there was actually evil that occurred that had no ultimate good purpose.

    Christianity doesn’t teach that there shouldn’t be evil. So there really is no logical problem. All we can really conclude from the argument is that God must have had a good reason for allowing evil and suffering.

    C. Pantheism says:

    If everything is God and God is everything, then you can’t have opposites like good and evil. Therefore evil is an illusion.

    So, when pantheists try to use the “problem of evil” argument against Christians, they are being inconsistent with their world view.

    D. Naturalism says:

    Since a naturalist doesn’t believe that there is anything that transcends the natural world. They really can’t believe in an objective “Good.” And therefore in a naturalist’s world view there really is no “good and evil.” Evil is relative and just a matter of subjective preference.

    The naturalist/atheist is also being inconsistent when he uses the problem of evil as an argument against the existence of God. But few, if any, recognize that they are disqualified from asking the question.

    This is a very important point. We’ve talked about how one’s world view must be logical, practical, etc. At every turn in the discussion we need to be able to recognize and point out where they are bailing out of their system and appealing to the Christian system to make their arguments.

  • This all depends on what your definition of moral is.

    I firmly believe that the Bible is filled with all authority pertaining to morality and that we should all follow it. Most people say you don't need a book or God to teach morality, but this is just false. Without one God in charge to make the rules, humans would make the rules. Needless to say, humans aren't the best people at confirming right and wrong. If we had our way rape, murder, and stealing would have been acceptable from the beginning. Who will you trust with right and wrong. Holy God or corrupt men?

  • We do not need Christianity to be moral.

    There are plenty of people whom don't believe in God, yet they lead good and honest lives. If you don't believe in God, you don't believe in heaven or hell, so they don't care what they do in life. I know many people who are Christians and they break laws, lie, cheat, steal and commit adultery and then go to "confession."

  • No, absolutely not.

    No, I do not think that we need Christianity to be moral. I consider myself to be a moral person and I am not affiliated with any religion. I think that a person can be any type of religion (or no religion at all) and this does not necessarily determine whether or not they are moral.

  • No, we don't

    No, I would have to disagree that Christianity is the only source of morality. We can look to other religions to be "moral," or we can adhere to our own ethics and values to be whatever we consider as "moral." Being moral is a little bit of a subjective and abstract thing. We do not need Christianity to be moral.

  • No we do not need Christianity to be moral

    People have been moral long before Christianity came along. The Greeks, Romans and many other pre-christian civilizations and peoples were far more morally superior than even some of us today for example the Romans and especially the Greeks were very open and accepting of homosexuality. By saying we need Christianity to be moral it is pretty much the same as saying that we can't be moral by being a Muslim or a Buddhist or a Hindu, which is nonsense in fact Christianity sometimes causes people to be immoral by saying that its not right to kill another human being except (there are far too many buts and contradictions in the bible) when its in the name of god. It's just a thought, but whens the last time anyone heard of a war being fought by Buddhists in the name of Buddha? The Bible and therefore Christianity also says it's wrong to work on a Sunday, eat lobster and allow women to speak in the house of god. I'm sorry but it's absurd to suggest that we need Christianity in order to be moral. We are far better off thinking for ourselves, using common sense and logic to be moral rather than listening to 50 year old virgins preaching and telling us what to do and when to do it, or reading an old unreliable book that we know very little about and surprisingly very little about the people who wrote and compiled it. So to conclude we can be good without Christianity (and god).

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.