Hello again, friends. Once again I must call out for calm, and rationalism before we go any further. In a recent discussion on, lo and behold, a Game Grumps video, I ended up being asked many juicy questions by interesting, civil and intelligent people. Who knew that Castlevania could be so conducive to intellectual stimulation of this kind?
While I started by merely pointing out that Arin and Dan’s views of hell were misconceptions (I’ll cover that in detail in another post, I think), I ended up being told that “The God of the Bible is not a God of love (Because of the evil and suffering present in the world)”.
Quite good indeed! Why wouldn’t an all-powerful God create a universe in which free-will exists, yet there is no evil? Why does God allow there to be suffering in the world when, with his power, he could dispose of it?
So here we go! Investigation START!
I would firstly point out that because we can’t see a reason why such evil and suffering exists, that does not mean that it does not exist. No, no, don’t start typing yet, I’m not copping out! I’m setting up! Honest! Holster your weapons!
Still, the existence of evil and suffering does not logically disprove the existence of God. Many I have discussed with have acknowledged this, but the point they raise is that if such a God exists, they can’t see a reason why he should allow such evil to occur and therefore would not choose to follow him. However, if such a God does exist, how could it be that we, his creations, could logically comprehend all of his reasoning, given what we are? If his power and intelligence are, as necessary to this argument, far beyond ours, why should we be able to understand all his actions and put them on a human level?
Right, wishy-washy bit out the way. Let’s get on.
I’ve quite often told that good can come from evil and suffering. People who have been through painful events in their lives can come out of it stronger, or be led down a path towards something good. While sometimes true, this is quite a weak point, since many people do not find such good things after an event, and nobody would feel glad of the evil happening, no matter what came from it. However, something to keep in mind when considering this issue.
Something very juicy indeed has just been said to me – that morals such as those that exist do not require God. However, I’d like to make a counter-assertion that they do and that they point towards his existence!
I believe I mentioned in my last post that many people these days follow the doctrine of “Moral relativism” – that every human being has their own personal morality and there is no overarching right and wrong. Secularism necessitates this, since current evolutionary theory has dismissed societal survival through such a morality in favour the passing down of one’s personal genetic code. Many of these existing moral standards don’t make sense given the current evolutionary model. (Evolution and Christianity is another post and another cup of Earl Grey)
A question I believe I posed to all moral relativists in the last post is this – “Do you believe that someone is doing something that is right by their personal morals, that they nevertheless should not be doing?” If the answer is yes, then we have a problem. I’d also question the concept of human rights – why do we feel this special entitlement to our freedoms and so forth? Both of these things point to the existence of an overarching morality, an inexplicable sense of right and wrong. I’d also point out that male ducks raping other ducks is considered to be “Natural” – what then makes humanity different to the duck? The real question is this – Where is the genuine sense of moral obligation in a secular world?
Okay, so all of this doesn’t quite get God “Off the hook”, as it were. Here, still assuming that we are talking about an existent Christian God, I’d like to bring in Jesus to point out that God was, very much, on the hook. The Christian God is the only deity to be “Immanuel” – God with us, in that he took on human form and in that form he experienced all the suffering and pain that any other human would. One may suggest that he did not, yet the Gospel accounts paint a picture of Christ before and during his death as a man in a state of emotional shock and distress. Before one questions the accuracy of a Biblical account, I might point out that if such an account was falsified, why would literary detail (Which was not used at the time save for describing real events) be used and secondly, why would they describe a man who they would want people to worship in such a state? Still, that’s another blog post again.
So, God came and suffered with us – but that he is with us in suffering still does not excuse the existence of the suffering, right? But it does prove this – if there is suffering, it cannot be because he doesn’t love us.
So what WOULD possibly excuse all of this evil and suffering? Only a complete undoing of all that has been done, right? Not compensation for, not consolation for, but complete renewal of our lives to us and the complete annihilation of all every evil act, every pain, every horror that ever came to pass.
Jesus said “When the renewal of all things comes, the son of man will sit on his throne in glory.” That’s quite a powerful statement, the renewal of all things. The Revelation to John speaks of “A new Heaven and a new Earth” – all things made anew, completely perfect. A restoration to you of the life you wanted.
So, this being the case, that the evil and suffering will, after this brief span of time relatively short when compared to eternity, be annihilated entirely, what purpose did its existence serve? In this situation, evil and suffering would only serve to make its ultimate defeat and the glory of the new world even greater. Herman Melville said in “Moby Dick” that (Forgive me, for I cannot find the exact quote), that Ishmael could not enjoy the comfort of his warm bed without that one contrast between the warm and the cold, that being the tip of his nose. Having suffered as we have, will not humanity’s salvation and restoration feel all the better?
I imagine that people will call me out for assuming that God exists and so forth, but I’d refer you to the case title I’ve put up there – what we are discussing is whether the God of the Bible could possibly be a good God and a God of love given the state that the world is in. To summarise, I would argue that the assertion “The God of the Bible cannot be a God of love” is incorrect.
If you do have any additions to make to this, given the scope of the discussion, feel free to comment below, I’ll listen with interest and respond. Oh, oh, but let’s make this fun!
All comments MUST be preceded with the words “OBJECTION!”, “HOLD IT!” and possible followed with “TAKE THAT!”
I may also accept “GOTCHA!” and “NOT SO FAST!” if you’re lucky.
Until then, the defence rests!
Magic and Guesswork 
Recent Comments