In noting this, I'm honestly not baiting anyone. In fact, there are so many
other things I like about the Baha'i faith, I'd really like to join. The
"problem of evil" and the "nature of religious contradiction" are significant
ones for me though. In some ways, I've dedicated my life to understanding them.
The Baha'i faith answers the question on the nature of religious contradiction
via religious evolution. I absolutely agree. Mormonism answers the problem of
evil. This is why I call myself a Ba'Mormon. <grin>
>> [God] could prevent all pain and suffering, but he chooses not to.
>
>There are numerous scripture passages that state 1) that God uses tests
>and difficulties to sift His followers (see _The Book of Certitude_ for this)
>and that God's tests are--in fact--a blessing (this is in _The Hidden Words_).
I'm aware of this, but again, why would any omniscient or omnipotent being
need to perform "tests?" Why would he create imperfect beings who might fail?
One possibility is that God values freedom above all else. But this raises a
few questions of its own. For example:
What is freedom ....
or
Could God have created perfectly free, yet perfectly good beings?
[WARNING: Theology and Philosophy in process--Just take this as food for
thought. I'm still developing it and I'm open to critiques.]
Often people argue that evil exists, despite an omnipotent God, because of his
overwhelming respect for freedom. This leads me to ask, "What is freedom?"
I personally support the following definition:
"Freedom is the absence of external restraints."
In other words, if one is faced with a choice between two paths and nobody is
forcing one down either path, then one is free.... at least in this specific
choice.
But what about "internal restraints?" There are a myriad of influences upon
us that help determine our choices. Are these not internal restraints? In a
sense, yes. However, my gut feeling (as ye not fully explored
philosophically) is that these influences, to help determine our choices,
must be internalized to an extent that they become a part of our natures.
Thus, "We are restrained by our natures, to make certain choices." But we
ALWAYS have a nature. A thing's nature is determined by its properties and
"a thing without properties" is an absurdity.
Even without influences, our choices would be determined by our natures.
The fact that our natures can change is irrelevant to the issue of freedom.
Where am I going with this? In two directions:
1) If God were omnipotent but wanted to preserve freedom, he *could* create
perfectly free beings who ALWAYS freely choose the right. Now, I know some of
you want to react to this by saying, "That is a contradiction!" I respond
with this question, "Does freedom NECESSARILY imply imperfection?" No. We
are commanded to freely choose to be perfect. We expect to achieve this
someday. When we reach that point, will we still be free beings? Yes, there
will be no EXTERNAL constraints. So, IF God were truly omnipotent, why doesn't
he just "blink" us to this state we are looking forward to? ---a state of
total freedom AND total perfection.
2) Independence from ALL restraints, both internal and external is
impossible. We all have natures. However, these natures are subject to
alteration, but not by "blinking" them. God can't do it that way. Thus, he
creates an Earth, organizes frail bodies prone to suffering to create a total
environment to stimulate those influences which will transform our natures so
that they will freely make those choices which are in harmony with the laws of
the universe. Further, he performs "tests," as scriptures indicate which
would be meaningless for an omniscient or omnipotent being.
Just some thoughts...
Arden