A theodicy is not ad hoc

The reason is that the theodicy argument as proposed by atheists and ad hoc theorists is not true. Theodicy is asking why God may permit evil, the existence of evil itself is not an argument against God.

1. The existence of evil is an argument for theism based on the moral argument. If we concede that evil is in fact real (not just unpleasant) then theism is true.
2. This argues not solely for theism, but good theism, ie. a good God. This is because evil does not exist of itself, it is parasitic; evil is a perversion of good.
3. Therefore the existence of evil raises the question of why would a good God allow evil. The existence of evil does not raise the question of God's existence; rather his existence is proven by the existence of evil.

Love of money

Paul's first letter to Timothy gives us an example of Scripture which some people under-read and some over-read; though both represent a misreading of the text due, in part, to not paying enough attention. Paul writes,

For the love of money is a root of all evils. (1 Timothy 6)

It is not uncommon to hear that money is the root of all evil. While having money is associated with temptations that are less common for the poor, the misquote places the source of the evil in the an amoral object, or rather the possessor of the object. It implies that having money is reflective of an evil heart.

When read right, that the love of money is a source of evils, we avoid this error. By seeing that covetousness is the problem we see that the desire to obtain money causes a great many evils, and it can be a temptation to all men, not just the wealthy.

Somewhat less common is the idea that every specific evil in the world has as its root, the love of money. Some modern translations translate this the passage as,

the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil

While a true statement and in line with what I am arguing, it is not warranted in a literal translation.

We can see that not every evil has its source in the love of money. Consider the sin of Adam and Eve. This passage should be read proverbially. The context concerns false teachers, the necessity of contentment, and those who long to be rich.

Those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all evils.

Paul's phrase does not require one to think that every evil ever seen is motivated by money, it merely is a proverbial type statement directed at people who want to be rich: showing them that this desire will lead them into many evils.

Paying close attention to both what exactly the passage does say (love of money) and the genre and context (people longing to be rich) helps the reader understand what Paul is saying here. Covetousness, especially coveting money, will lead men into all manner of wickedness.

A market for abortions

I would question the veracity of this article but she is acknowledging her own despicable activities. Not only did she make her living through the death of innocents, to maximise her profits she encouraged people create life solely to destroy it.

“We had a goal of 3-5 abortions from every girl between the ages of 13 and 18, because we all work on a straight commission inside the abortion industry,” she said. With every customer, Everett became a little richer.

But in order to reach her financial goal, Everett said she first had to create a “market for abortions.”

And maximising pregnancy means encouraging promiscuity from a young age.

“My goal was to get them sexually active on a low dose birth control pill that we knew they would get pregnant on.”

Not only is her occupation predicated on sin, its intent was to cause people to sin; something Jesus condemns with strong words,

Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. (Mat 18:6)

Fortunately she responded to God's intervention in her life.

My life changed when I came to know the love and saving grace of Jesus Christ in 1983.

Horrendous destruction had been done, but we worship a God of immense grace.

Does evil cause us to question God's existence?

This is a common claim in the secular West though I am not certain it is true globally or historically. Besides the fact that evil is evidence for theism which I will not deal with here, evil need not lead us to question God's existence, or even his goodness. Rather it may lead to us pleading ignorance of the ways of God. And for many it draws them closer to God as they seek comfort in the mist of suffering.

How may a Christian deny that evil challenges theism? Genesis clearly tells us that God made the world perfect. The world we now live in is broken and evil just reminds us of this fact. The ongoing presence of evil does not raise the question of God's existence over and over again, rather it raises the brokenness of the world over and over again. It shows us day after day the the world really is broken, thus really needs fixing. The more grievous the evil the more convinced we are of the world's brokenness and how utterly broken it truly is. This realisation can bring much comfort. The man who knows God has promised to fix the world can be secure in God's promises because he knows how desperately the world needs fixing. It drives him to God to plead for him to restore the world.

Difficulties may also expose our weaknesses. We do not just ask that God fix our environment, we ask him to fix us. It not just the world that needs perfecting, it is our souls. This could lead to depth of despair when we realise that we are as broken as the world; though it need not. Despair would be an appropriate response given the darkness of our fallen souls were it not for God's promises. The problem is not the despair (though this is a problem), the problem is us. But the promise is that we need not despair as God need not condemn us as our souls deserve, nor do our souls need to remain blackened. His grace is offered so that the offence is removed, and so that we can be remade. If we believe God's promise then the presence of evil need not lead us to question God's goodness but rather question our own goodness; and the question of God's existence may not even arise as a potential question in the presence of suffering. Further, when we see our lack of goodness then the goodness of God is more readily seen. I do not necessarily write the ideas of men who have not known evil, this is the experience of many who have suffered greatly for the kingdom.

Right belief does not make suffering any more pleasant, but right belief matters in how we respond to suffering. To those who falsely believe that the presence of evil logically questions theism, the experience of suffering may lead to such claims; but to the man who has trained his mind in the truth, such suffering, while just as unpleasant, can lead to different questions. To question God's existence in the face of evil is not more authentic. Others may question his goodness, and still others their own goodness. Suffering is the path to the kingdom (Act 14:22), so trusting God in the face of hardship and training ourselves to think rightly about God may make a difference in the Valley of the Shadow of Death.

A bent in our hearts

It has been said that the Fall of Man is the one doctrine of Christianity which is evidently true. It is certainly important and foundational to Christian theology. Yet I think it is misused by some believers to imply that all actions are intrinsically evil.

Jeremiah tells us the heart is deceitful

The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately sick;
who can understand it? (Jeremiah 17:9)

And Jesus called his interlocutors evil (Luk 11:13). Yet I have seen this used to argue that people do not seek the best for others, or look for the best in others.

I once said to an unbelieving friend that I think people are intrinsically evil, yet I look for the best in them; and that she thought people were intrinsically good, yet looks for the worse in them. She affirmed this assessment. This illustrates an important distinction that is often missed.

This distinction may be described as the difference between ontic-evil and praxic-evil. The Fall established a bent in our hearts. We desire wrong things, our motives are mixed, we reason incorrectly at times, we rationalise, we justify ourselves. The essence of being is broken and evil dwells there. Ontic-evil.

Yet we are also made in God's image. This image remains—though marred. So while we struggle against base desires not everything we do is intrinsically evil. Men do righteous acts. Moreover, some men are called righteous by their constant choice to do good.

Even the passages in Jeremiah and Luke establish this. Jeremiah says,

“Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord,
whose trust is the Lord.
He is like a tree planted by water,
that sends out its roots by the stream,
and does not fear when heat comes,
for its leaves remain green,
and is not anxious in the year of drought,
for it does not cease to bear fruit.”
The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately sick;
who can understand it?
“I the Lord search the heart
and test the mind [lit. arm],
to give every man according to his ways,
according to the fruit of his deeds.” (Jeremiah 17:7-10)

Despite having an evil heart a man can trust the Lord. God tests our mind to see if we act rightly; literally "arm" which may suggest God looks at what we do. Jesus specifically says that evil men can do good actions, indicating how much more will a good God do good things.

What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent; or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” (Luke 11:11-13)

It is false to claim that all our actions are evil because we are intrinsically evil. We can wish for the best for others, we can act selflessly at times; and to assume that our friend or spouse wishes the best for us is not a denial of the fallen state of man.

Some may argue that we are saved by faith not works thus our acts are not truly righteous. And what are we to make of Isaiah's declaration?

We are all like one who is unclean,
all our righteous acts are like a menstrual rag. (Isaiah 64:6)

Taking Isaiah first, it is likely he is talking to the unrighteous, or those who are doing unrighteous things. Even this man's "righteous" acts are not righteous. Compare God's disposition to the righteous man earlier in this passage,

You meet him who joyfully works righteousness,
those who remember you in your ways. (Isaiah 64:5)

As to salvation by faith, this is true. Belief is righteousness

Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness. (Romans 4:3)

A man who trusts God is indeed righteous. We have faith in God and God saves us. We still do works of righteousness, the issue is not that we don't work, it is that we don't earn (Eph 2:10; Tit 3:5). Remembering the distinction between ontic-evil and praxic-evil, we do good works but our nature remains fallen. As such, no amount of good works (praxic-good) are able to remove the sinful nature (ontic-evil). The core of our being needs to be made righteous.

People, believers and unbelievers alike, do all manner of righteous and unrighteous acts. It is false to claim that humans never do right things, even when viewed from God's perspective. But we are all sinful at the centre of of being, we all need a saviour.

Escape from a North Korean prison camp

Probably the saddest story I have read in the last year.

His first memory is an execution. He walked with his mother to a wheat field, where guards had rounded up several thousand prisoners. The boy crawled between legs to the front row, where he saw guards tying a man to a wooden pole.

Shin In Geun was four years old, too young to understand the speech that came before that killing. At dozens of executions in years to come, he would listen to a guard telling the crowd that the prisoner about to die had been offered "redemption" through hard labour, but had rejected the generosity of the North Korean government.

Guards stuffed pebbles into the prisoner's mouth, covered his head with a hood and shot him.

In Camp 14, a prison for the political enemies of North Korea, assemblies of more than two inmates were forbidden, except for executions. Everyone had to attend them.

The South Korean government estimates there are about 154,000 prisoners in North Korea's labour camps, while the US state department puts the number as high as 200,000. The biggest is 31 miles long and 25 miles wide, an area larger than the city of Los Angeles. Numbers 15 and 18 have re-education zones where detainees receive remedial instruction in the teachings of Kim Jong-il and Kim Il-sung, and are sometimes released. The remaining camps are "complete control districts" where "irredeemables" are worked to death.

Shin's camp, number 14, is a complete control district. Established around 1959 near Kaechon County in South Pyongan Province, it holds an estimated 15,000 prisoners. About 30 miles long and 15 miles wide, it has farms, mines and factories threaded through steep mountain valleys.

Shin and his mother lived in the best prisoner accommodation the camp had to offer. They had their own room, where they slept on a concrete floor, and they shared a kitchen with four other families. Electricity ran for two hours a day. There were no beds, chairs or tables. No running water.

If Shin's mother met her daily work quota, she could bring home food. At 4am, she would prepare breakfast and lunch for her son and for herself. Every meal was the same: corn porridge, pickled cabbage and cabbage soup. Shin was always hungry and he would eat his lunch as soon as his mother left for work. He also ate her lunch. When she came back from the fields at midday and found nothing to eat, she would beat him with a shovel.

Her name was Jang Hye Gyung. She never talked to him about her past, her family, or why she was in the camp, and he never asked. His existence as her son had been arranged by the guards. They chose her and the man who became Shin's father as prizes for each other in a "reward" marriage.

Read more

Determinism and the existence of sin

Arminians frequently argue that (exhaustive) determinism implies that God is the author of sin. The argument being that if God causes every event including the actions of sinful men the God is behind such actions and is culpable. Although the reasoning that the instigator of an action is responsible for such action is sound, note David murdering Uriah the Hittite; that God is the author of sin is less immediately apparent.

Moral restrictions that apply to man do not automatically apply to God. God is allowed to remove the life of men at his discretion, for man to do so is considered murder. Therefore one could argue that causing other men to sin would be sinful for man, but not for God. In fact one could argue that it is impossible for God to sin because by definition God actions are not sinful.

I agree with the proposition that everything God does is good. Not that it is good because God does it, but because it is in the nature of God to be righteous and everything he does is consistent with this nature. But I wish to approach this problem from a different perspective.

Let us accepting that God cannot sin (for whatever reason). The issue with determinism is that it makes God the cause and source of every action including those actions we term sin. But determinism also makes the intermediate agents non-culpable. Man can hardly be responsible, let alone guilty for that which he does at the exhaustive, non-resistible control of another. A gun is hardly to blame for the actions of the soldier. I don't see how this is changes if the gun is given consciousness.

This leaves us with God being the author of all activity, man the author of none.

But the Bible states that there is such a thing as sin. It frequently warns us to reject sinful actions. That sin is real is not in doubt for those who agree with Scripture. But if God cannot sin, and determinism means that man is not culpable then we cannot resolve the dilemma.

1. The Bible says that sin exists.
2. God cannot sin
3. Therefore men must sin
4. The Bible teaches determinism
5. But determinism implies that man is not culpable for sin

These cannot all be true. The question is which statement should we reject? Arminians would argue #4, as they do not think this is the case. Calvinists would argue #5 but this is logically and biblically untenable.

If we grant that God can and is permitted to do some things that man cannot and is not, this does not resolve the problem. Even accepting the Calvinist claim that God can cause evil and not sin still leaves the determinism problem unresolved.

If God sends evil spirits does he cause evil?

In response to my post, "Does God ordain evil" Michael asks if I care to comment on 3 passages. Presumably he thinks these contradict my proposal.

Firstly I would say that there are some passages of Scripture that may appear to favour 1 view over another. If this is the case then much consideration should be given to that view. However Scripture is a unified whole, and an alternative interpretation of a passage that is both valid and more in line with other Scripture is to be preferred.

The passages Michael mentions are:

And God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the leaders of Shechem, and the leaders of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech, (Judges 9)

Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and a harmful spirit from the LORD tormented him. And Saul's servants said to him, "Behold now, a harmful spirit from God is tormenting you. Let our lord now command your servants who are before you to seek out a man who is skillful in playing the lyre, and when the harmful spirit from God is upon you, he will play it, and you will be well." (1 Samuel 16)

And Micaiah said, "Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left; and the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?' And one said one thing, and another said another. Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, 'I will entice him.' And the LORD said to him, 'By what means?' And he said, 'I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' And he said, 'You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.' Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has declared disaster for you." (1 Kings 22)

Michael could have also suggested this verse,

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45 KJV)

There are at least 3 issues that are relevant here.

The first is that God is able to use wicked men (or wicked beings) for his own purposes. Abimelech and the leaders of Shechem were both deceptive. They had made wicked choices. That God allows or even sends an evil spirit to them is not saying that God willed the spirit reject him in the earlier celestial rebellion. There is no indication that demons are able to be redeemed but that does not prevent God from using them in his dealings with men. Similar could be said for the situations involving Saul and Zedekiah (whom Micaiah rebuked).

The second issue is that Scripture attributes to God things that he allows (presumably when they accord with his desires) even if the instigator is other than God. Because God has the power to do or prevent anything he is rightly seen as sovereign. This means that we can appeal to God in our situation. We can ask God why we are in some situation even if God did not cause the situation. This is because God has the power to prevent it. This does not necessarily make our appeal valid, but we can make this appeal. Satan oppressed Job, but could only do so with God's permission, and Job's response to his wife was,

"Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?" (Job 2)

Likewise when David held a census of Israel. 1 Chronicles attributes this to Satan but 2 Samuel mentions that God intended on judging Israel for their sin. Satan has intentions for evil against the nation of Israel just as he had against Job. In this situation it suited the purposes God otherwise had—judgment on Israel—and thus God allowed Satan to act out Satan's intentions.

Thus far the assumption is that the evil spirit in these passages was an unclean spirit, ie. demon. This is the case with Satan and a case could be made for the evil and lying spirits in the 3 passages Michael quoted. This, however, is not a given, which leads us to the third issue: what does "evil" mean?

In the Judges passage "evil" is the word ra' (07451), as is the word "harmful" in the Samuel passage. Lying is sheqer (08267) in the Kings passage. "Evil" in Isaiah and Job above is also the word ra'.

The problem with the word "evil" is that as an English word it has moral connotations. "Evil" means a negative event though we also associate "evil" with causation by a wicked agent. Compare the word "bad" in English which means a negative event but may not necessarily imply anything about the cause. Here are the definitions of ra' when used as an adjective:

1) bad, evil
1a) bad, disagreeable, malignant
1b) bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)
1c) evil, displeasing
1d) bad (of its kind - land, water, etc)
1e) bad (of value)
1f) worse than, worst (comparison)
1g) sad, unhappy
1h) evil (hurtful)
1i) bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)
1j) bad, evil, wicked (ethically)
1j1) in general, of persons, of thoughts
1j2) deeds, actions

So the question is what ra' both means and implies in Hebrew. It can mean wickedness (1j above). Does it usually imply immoral causation? How much of its meaning is contextual compared to intrinsic? Note, for example, that the translation of Isaiah I quoted was the King James Version. Modern versions, including the literal New American Standard, use the term "disaster". The modern versions give the word a negative meaning without the associated implication of a wicked agent.

I don't know Hebrew to judge the appropriateness of this translation and I am reliant on translators. We do know that it is largely context that determines meaning. It is also likely that the Hebrews (at least during some stages in history) were okay with figurative and hyperbolic language; more so it seems than modern Westerners. Compare Rachel was loved but Leah hated, ie. less loved compared to Rachel (Genesis 29).

This could mean that the phrase "evil spirit" was not giving us information on whether we are dealing with the angelic or demonic. Rather the descriptor "evil" concerns the mission of the spirit: one causes confusion or harm. The New English Translation opts for this translation in the Judges passage:

God sent a spirit to stir up hostility between Abimelech and the leaders of Shechem. He made the leaders of Shechem disloyal to Abimelech. (Judges 9)

Is it possible that the phrase "lying spirit" is a similar example? A spirit that deceives those who have rejected the truth; compare 2 Thessalonians 2.

The divorce gene

The Grand Theory of Evolution is clearly wrong as seen by comparing it to scientific findings that haven't been sieved thru an evolutionary filter prior to interpretation. But further evidence of its falsity and its implicit attack of Christianity can be seen by assessing its fruit. A recent example of evil disguised as science via evolutionary theorising can be seen in Helen Fisher's work.

But in country after country, and decade after decade, divorces tended to peak (the divorce mode) during and around the fourth year of marriage. There were variations, of course. Americans tended to divorce between the second and third year of marriage, for example. Interestingly, this corresponds with the normal duration of intense, early stage, romantic love — often about 18 months to 3 years. Indeed, in a 2007 Harris poll, 47% of American respondents said they would depart an unhappy marriage when the romance wore off, unless they had conceived a child.

Nevertheless, there was no denying it: Among these hundreds of millions of people from vastly different cultures, three patterns kept emerging. Divorces regularly peaked during and around the fourth year after wedding. Divorces peaked among couples in their late twenties. And the more children a couple had, the less likely they were to divorce: some 39% of worldwide divorces occurred among couples with no dependent children; 26% occurred among those with one child; 19% occurred among couples with two children; and 7% of divorces occurred among couples with three young.

She starts with some basic data gathering, all very reasonable. I do note that there are variations and there is no indication that data has been assessed over a long time period, say 2000–3000 years.

Then suddenly I got that "ah-ha" moment: Women in hunting and gathering societies breastfeed around the clock, eat a low-fat diet and get a lot of exercise — habits that tend to inhibit ovulation. As a result, they regularly space their children about four years apart. Thus, the modern duration of many marriages—about four years—conforms to the traditional period of human birth spacing, four years.

Perhaps human parental bonds originally evolved to last only long enough to raise a single child through infancy, about four years, unless a second infant was conceived.

Aside from mere assertion, lack of any rigour, or any actual scientific explanation—i.e. another evolutionary just-so story—this is justifying sin. Apparently we don't divorce because we are fallen, sin-choosing creatures. No, we evolved this way. It is in our genetic make-up. Our desire to divorce has no moral implications, it is the expected response to our physiology.

By age five, a youngster could be reared by mother and a host of relatives. Equally important, both parents could choose a new partner and bear more varied young.

And thus a conceived child-rearing methodology will be promoted as a valid alternative to the father and mother ideal.

My new theory fit nicely with data on other species.

Despite the fact that we are distinct from the animals which do not bear the imago dei.

Scientifically, evolution is a fraud. There is enough reason to reject it based on its falsity alone. But I think many Christians fail to realise how much of an attack on Christianity evolution is, and how intrinsically evil is this extremely prevalent lie.