For example, God put a tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden.
He knew that Adam and Eve would sin.
He knew that without the knowledge of good and evil, maximal love is not possible.
Does that seem like something a good God would do?
Explanation please? How is love impossible without the knowledge of Good and Evil? Was there no love between God and Man before the fall?
Especially in light of:
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.
(Jas 1:12–15).
Wondering…
KP
There is a theoretical possibility that creatures given free will would not use it to satisfy selfish desires. This possibility seems rather small. The evil in the world is the result of man’s and Satan’s selfishness. Love if defined as a combination of various emotions such as affection, attraction, desire, and expectation would occur regardless of our circumstances because we have this emotional nature. Love as defined biblically (1Cor 13:4-7) is essentially selflessness. This is a result of a choice.
Perhaps because in an evil world self-sacrificial love is more necessary, it might seem that evil is necessary. However, it is the absence of this love that causes evil.
Love is possible, but not maximal love. Jesus said that “greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” It’s interesting that the verbiage doesn’t refer to humans in particular.
Part of God’s program is to fully describe Himself (no guesswork) to His friends. He did that thru Jesus life and ministry, He did that in an ultimate sense on the cross, and scripture promises that we will know Him even better when we are face to face.
We can know nothing in the absence of a relevant definitional context. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was part of the contextual menu - an essential part of God’s magnificent plan of self-revelation.
@timf Wow good observations!
I might add more particularly a couple things. If Adam and Eve were selfish, it’s because God created them selfish. And He called them “very good”.
So human evil came into existence as a result of 2 things. Ignorance, and unbelief. Eve didn’t believe God. And she had no knowledge of evil.
And you very correctly (imho) pointed out - they CHOSE to not believe God. Having choice is very good, another essential for love to exist. But we can sure make some bad choices. Evil through and through. If Adam and Eve had believed, and loved (as you said), the existence of evil on the earth would have at least been forestalled I suppose. But we’ll never know.
When God created them, they were not selfish. Our fallen nature resulted from their choice to go their own way. We are now all born helpless, ignorant, and selfish. Thank God for parents that can help us improve on this initial condition.
Eve saw that the fruit was pleasing to look at, good for food, and good to make one wise. So she took it and ate it and gave some to her husband WHO WAS WITH HER, and he ate as well.
How is that not selfish?
You said - “Our fallen nature resulted from their choice to go their own way.” That sounds a lot like they made a selfish decision.
So it’s still my opinion that they were exactly what God created - selfish.
As far as “fallen nature”, have you read Romans 11:32 - “For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.”?
That was selfish and the point of departure from God. God did not make her selfish, but he did give her free will.
Yes God created them with free will, but free will doesn’t CAUSE any particular behavior.
What do you think about this statement:
“All human’s always do what they believe is in their own best interest, every time.”?
That would mean 100% selfishness, always.
I use the word “selfishness” for our natural state as it seems to sum up the description of the flesh in Galatians 5. This is in contrast to the selfless love of Christ. The bible seems to define love (1Cor 13:4-7) as selflessness.
As soon as we exercised our own path away from God, the flesh became our natural state.
@timf Now that’s an awesome point:
“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. **5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.6 **Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. **7 **It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.”
Would you agree that we are selfish, but can learn to love? Would you further agree that “love” that must be chosen is better than “love” that is natural, or built in?
I remember having a similar conversation with you last August, in three separate threads.
One: “Why did God create the universe” Why Did God Create this Universe?, in which you raise the concept of “cosmic context”, and introduce us to your “bubble beings.
Next: “Why do people sin? Why do people sin?, in which you introduce us to the man who looks at himself in the mirror after he showers (I’m still trying to get that image out of my head) and senses “cosmic unfairness”, and where you made the postulate “Human beings (and probably angels) choose what they want to believe. (also we discover your admiration for Ulysses Everett McGill)
Then: “Why is life so hard?” Why is life so hard?. Where we discussed the emotions expressed in the lamenting word “why”.
Now this thread “Is Evil in the world the price we pay for Love?” seems to follow some common themes as these previous discussions. Much digital ink has been spilled in discussing things that may be (probably are) too deep for mortal minds, and I don’t intend to rehash old themes. Is there an, as yet, central question you are getting at; a prime conundrum to which all your various questions are pointing? Have you lost a silver coin, and are invoking our help to “light a lamp, sweep the house, and search carefully until we find it? (Luke 15:8)
I would tug on the thread of your topic title a bit that suggests we “pay” for love by enduring malevolence, as if God had no other way to demonstrate His “maximal” love except through the unfortunate vehicle of evil. This statement needs some wordsmithing, I think. Even so, I think I get what you are rhetorically suggesting (I hope).
You say:
I understand you here; light is unknown except against the backdrop of darkness, good cannot exist except in the absence of un-good. So I guess you are suggesting that Perfect Love cannot be experienced unless it stands in contrast against a necessary evil. I hear you. In our temporal and mortal experience, I really get this concept, but in our Spiritual reality, I sure hope you are wrong. The “hope that is within me” sure expects to experience maximal love apart from any scintilla of evil, and that for the duration of eternity. Your postulate may prove accurate in the here and now, but surely there is existence that exceeds our present tragic situation; a reality that saves us from this mortal trap. So many scriptures come to mind here, too many to begin to list them without feeling like I left some of them out. I’m sure they come to your mind too. The milieu of “maximal love” is reserved for the resurrection, of which Jesus is the “firstfruit”. If He is the firstfruit, then it is implied others to follow. James revealed “Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures. (James 1:18)
I accept your idea that “We can know nothing in the absence of a relevant definitional context” here and now. However, I fully expect to know much more, in the atmosphere of holy perfection, in the resurrection, sitting next to you in paradise, sipping liquid manna, and resisting the urge to say “I told you so”.
Peace in Jesus, forever.
KP
P.S.edit
I just reread this and it sounds a little blunt. I’m sorry, I didn’t intend it to sound confrontational in any way. I appreciate you, and enjoy talking about the issues you raise. Sorry If I sound too curt.
KP
And that’s the purpose. I guess I think it’s more about knowing God in His full revelation of Himself -FOR ETERNITY!!! Praise His Holy Name!!
Jesus need only be sacrificed ONCE for all eternity. Now we know. Just as God looked at His creation, and saw that, behold, it was very good. We can look at our salvation and know, behold, there is no limit to God’s love. Our only responsibility is to look, and believe, and trust in His demonstration of maximal love, accomplished once and for all, forever.
So I’ve no doubt you’ll be able to say “I told you so” about something ha ha but I think we are on the same page about this.
PS - Oh my goodness you weren’t the slightest bit curt or offensive in any way. In fact, I crave and hope for lively, challenging, conversation. I count it as Godly scrutiny that sharpens our understanding. I love and value everyone’s input!
Don’t forget I spent 15 years arguing with atheists ha ha. Now they are mostly offensive, I will admit.
@Pater15, my friend
Same page? Probably. Knowing what I know about you it is almost a surety. But, to me, this last response of yours really seems to be speaking to a different subject than “Is Evil the price we pay for love”, a title which you have qualified to mean “Is Evil the price we pay for maximal love”. Maybe you are pulling several ideas (doctrines) together here in your own mind, and I am just not following the flow of logic. I can be dense sometimes.
I want to talk more about your original rhetorical titular query. The transactional nature of the question you posed as the title of this thread is not finding a home in my brain. Your idea suggests (and correct me if I’m wrong here) that God was unable to create a contextual environment to demonstrate His love to His newly created beings without having to accept the unfortunate counterpart of “evil”. That the introduction of evil into creation was an unavoidable “side-effect” of making a space to demonstrate and/or apply His love. That evil was not a design feature, but a consequence, a by-product, a coincident artifact, a unavoidable hurdle to be overcome. God, wanting to demonstrate His love toward His creatures, must accept the comingled counterpart to His love, it’s opposite, which you suggest is evil. He didn’t want it, but He’s stuck with it just-the-same. Is this where you are coming from?
I understand the concept of imposed opposites; i.e. there is really no-such-thing as “darkness”, only an absence of light, and there really is no “cold”, only the absence of heat. The incidence of light imposes the concept of its opposite via its absence which we call darkness; the incidence of heat imposes the concept of its absence which we have named coldness. “οὑτως ουδεμια πηγη ἁλυκον και γλυκυ ποιησαι ὑδωρ”, “no fountain can produce salt water and sweet” (Jas 3:12), I get that. But is this same imposed opposition true of Love? Are you suggesting that there really is no-such-thing as evil; that what we call evil is really only the absence of love? That if mankind experiences the love of God, he is really just experiencing the absence of evil, or visa-versa, if mankind is experiencing evil, he is really only experiencing the absence of God’s love?
The average human opposite to love is “hate” and is measured on an emotional spectrum; what the person feels on the spectrum from pure hatred to pure love. The philosopher’s opposite of love is “apathy” and is measured on a scale of degrees of concern; how invested in the object one is. The biblical opposite of love must be selfishness and is measured by the amount of intent to provide for the welfare of another, from 0 to “maximal”, as you say.
To me, “evil” stands on its own, is not affected by the presence of love, and plies its influence to oppose reality, truth, goodness, eternity, health, hope, faith, and godliness. Evil swims in the same sea as love, but only churns-up destruction and devastation in its wake. Evil is the currency of liars, destroyers, accusers, and those who occlude the light. I am unsure how you see it as a “payment” for the welfare of receiving love.
I’ll think more about this. Trying to understand your POV, Maybe I just have to wait for the biook.
In Jesus
KP
@Kpuff The only word I can think of - FABULOUS! One of the best posts I’ve ever read.
“I want to talk more about your original rhetorical titular query. The transactional nature of the question you posed as the title of this thread is not finding a home in my brain. Your idea suggests (and correct me if I’m wrong here) that God was unable to create a contextual environment to demonstrate His love to His newly created beings without having to accept the unfortunate counterpart of “evil”. That the introduction of evil into creation was an unavoidable “side-effect” of making a space to demonstrate and/or apply His love. That evil was not a design feature, but a consequence, a by-product, a coincident artifact, an unavoidable hurdle to be overcome. God, wanting to demonstrate His love toward His creatures, must accept the comingled counterpart to His love, it’s opposite, which you suggest is evil. He didn’t want it, but He’s stuck with it just-the-same. Is this where you are coming from?”
Yes. I call it “God’s Problem of Evil”. (GPoE)
Goes like this - “In any and every case that God decrees to create a rational, substantially free moral agent person, (in His likeness), the possibility of evil comes into existence at the same time.”
This is a logical entailment, that God must deal with in order to build His eternal family. In the same way that God cannot create an orange that is an apple, He cannot create a morally free person who cannot sin.
It’s the reason that this universe exists.
The end from the beginning - what is the greatest state of affairs that we could ever imagine? I’m not claiming to be perfectly correct, but here’s my belief.
“The greatest state of affairs imaginable would be to live forever, as a free person created in the image of God, in fully knowledgeable, fully loving, fully intimate relationship with God, and with other similar persons.”
Eternal heaven.
The question then is, given from all we know about God and His plan, and given the strictures imposed by the GPoE, how would God go about establishing this greatest state of affairs, this eternal heaven filled with the saints of God?
Most scholars/theologians (including Augustine, RC Sproul, William L Craig to give a cross section) would agree that “evil” is not a thing with ontological status. It doesn’t exist independently. But rather “Evil” is a privation of the good.
Evil is manifested through disbelief in, disobedience to, or rejection of, God in any form. That’s it.
THIS IS WHY “BELIEF” IS THE ONLY WAY TO HEAVEN.
On another thread I asked for opinions, if God had created 200 instead of 2, and only 1 out of 200 had sinned, would God still send Jesus to die for the one? I think so. It may be that some of His creatures could go their entire life without ever sinning. (I would argue that there would be some sort of deficiency in those.). In that case, they would not need His mercy.
Instead, God created human persons with certain fundamentals, and a physical context (our bodies). That puts us all in the same need of salvation.
He built into us that we always do what we believe is in our best interest. Unwavering selfishness (@Timf ). You might agree that it’s always in our best interest to follow God’s will. When we truly believe that, and do that, every time, we have been perfected. What gets in the way, and will get in the way as long as we live, and throws up an argument against our beliefs? Our own flesh. This mortal context that gives us an opportunity to demonstrate what sort of person we will choose to be, but fights against our spirit every step of the way. We lust, we sloth, we hate. We want ease, and plenty, and fame, and control. These are all counterfeits, privations of the good that God wants us to practice.
So now, back to the title - we might ask God, “why is there evil in my world”?
God created us with all the tools necessary to participate in agape. And fellowship with Him. FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD! For goodness sake. Jesus calls us sons and daughters, and friends! Made in His image!
So, that’s no small thing to entrust a creature with. Rationality, moral agency, emotional spectrum. All given by God at portions that make us into appropriate companions with Him and each other.
Sort of boggles the mind.
The thing that makes the love worth participating in is the very thing that gives us the opportunity to reject that love. Our free moral agency. Without it we are not worthy companions. Dogs make great companions, but you might agree that the friendship lacks in intellectual stimulation.
In a world of these high performance persons, some are going to choose to disbelieve. Evil in the world is the result. It may be that God can only fill heaven with the type of high quality persons that He has decreed by first putting them through life in a world that is suffused with every kind of evil.
That’s the required context. He defines Himself in it, and we define ourselves in it.
So yeah, it seems the price we pay (or the cost we endure, if you prefer) for the pinnacle agape love forever, is living in the temporary evil of a fallen world.
I think I understand what you are saying. Without a wrong to be forgiven, or the need to forgive, could forgiveness exist or be seen in its full glory? But rather than forgiveness, you are asking could love be greatly expressed if waywardness had not come to be.
And my answer is, the capacity to experience LOVE is far different from LOVE itself. LOVE is eternal. And where as other things may fade, LOVE will always be. God’s LOVE has always existed. For the fall did not begin God’s LOVE nor can the fall end God’s LOVE.
I think of LOVE as the glue that holds the molecules of everything together. Nothing could exist without it. LOVE both holds it all together and keeps it apart as something unique and seperate. LOVE allows a boundary to exist so that you can exist as more than just a thought in the Divine Mind of God. It allows for Free Will and Choice, for you to be your own person rather than a puppet. There is a type of love so strong that it devours all that it wants. But that is not God’s LOVE. That is hunger, want, need. God’s LOVE maintains existence, balances the elements, maintains order in a sea of chaos, keeps a healthy distance so the All Powerful Nature of God does not destroy us by a mere glance or a word spoken. God allows for filters, messengers, inbetweens to give us our glimpse safely so that we can know Him without ceasing to be.
Imagine how the sailors in myth were lured to their doom via the Sirens of thr Sea. Then imagine the temptation to walk into that LIGHT of God never to return, to completely cease to be. But where as the Sirens encouraged the sailors to listen to their song in order to feed, God moves to keep us safe because God does not feed off His children but provides a Way that we might be One without being lost.
I really want to talk with you a bit more about this subject. I realize you are far more of an expert on it than I, since I know you have devoted much personal sweat equity to the quest, digging into the some uncomfortable and uninhabitable crevices to treasure-out difficult answers. You have brought out some unusual artifacts that actually do look valuable, but I am still having a hard time seeing them all the same way you do. I admit I am your junior in this level of spiritual archeology.
First, let me make a brief tongue-in-cheek comment on something you said:
You only say that because you have had some good friends who have sufficiently stimulated your intellect better than your dog. That valued experience is not universal. Either you have had clever companions, or dimwitted dogs, but some have had neither.
You said:
You have suggested, that evil is really the absence of Good. This is explained like cold actually being a degree of the absence of heat, and darkness actually being a degree of absence of light. Therefore evil, the “absence of good” is an unavoidable consequence of creating a free moral agent, and so it then becomes the context in which any Good is able to be observed or felt. This is what you call “God’s POE” (problem of evil). You say:
But, what if God, endured it all (with much Godly patience),
on one hand, in order to show His wrath on the creatures of His wrath, creatures who were actually prepared for destruction,
and, on the other, in order to make His power known, likewise waited patiently to expose the riches of His glory on the creatures of His mercy, who He had also prepared beforehand for glory,
(even us whom He called, not only Jews, but also Gentiles)?
(loosely excerpted from Romans 9:22-24)
This scenario doesn’t sound too much like a POE at all, but sounds more like intelligently designed program.
Also, why would the POE cease once there is a new heaven and a new earth, or do you posit that it will not cease, since it is a necessary artifact of creation, and is innate in any environment of “rational, and substantially free moral agents”. If it is unavoidable in this temporal environment, why will it be avoidable in the next, or will it be?
I know I may be tossing several darts at the board at the same time, and if it seems so, I apologize. It is just that the flutes of these darts are so entwined, that I either throw them “en masse”, or I don’t throw them at all.
Your remedial student
KP
Calvinist much? Ha ha! Seems like you and I are close (and I don’t mean the slightest condescension).
And this is hardly remedial.
Seriously though, and soberly, some might say an “intelligently designed program” (the way you are describing it, and I know you didn’t include much context so you may have intended a different understanding), while others would say a “ruthless display of a monster God seeking to show off.” I say “would” because I’ve seen it happen many times. In this scenario, why would Jesus need to be crucified, since it doesn’t actually change anything?
“So that whosoever will believe should not perish” God said. So we have a part - that choice, although God knows the choice. Believe in Jesus. Surrender our will to His, or not.
You have some really good questions about what happens in heaven, which I will seek to address. But I think the more present question is this - why did God create this universe at all? Why didn’t He just create us in heaven and skip the evil, the pain, the suffering? Only create the “objects of His mercy”, and leave the others uncreated.
God is the foundation of all logic. It is logically true that any free person IS free to choose good or evil. Suppose God doesn’t want any new knuckleheads in heaven? 1/3 of the angels was plenty. The scripture clearly says that “God can’t deny Himself”, so it’s no surprise that God is constrained by His own logical, true, nature.
Looking forward to rich discussion!