Kierkegaard has a lot to say about the testing of Abraham. I confess I try to avoid reading Kierkegaard if at all possible, though.
I fail to see how it helps a human either.
Monavis
To my mind, a Christian believer should have no difficulty resolving the “problem of evil,” defined as bad things happening to good people: Just posit that God allows humans free will. That is meaningless if we do not have freedom of action, including the freedom to do evil to others. It is also meaningless if God is watching us all the time and protecting us from natural disasters, like a smothering parent. (This resolution is not, of course, available to Calvinists.)
But it is much harder to get around the many Scriptural passages where God does evil. It was not man or Satan who created Hell.
Well, it’s not quite that simple. Even some prominent Christian philosophers like Peter van Inwagen admit they can’t understand how free will exists; van Inwagen just takes it on faith that it must, even though it makes no sense to him. And your ‘smothering parent’ analogy doesn’t explain why God allows there to be natural evils in the first place. You don’t have to be a smothering parent to think that releasing smallpox among your children is a shitty thing to do.
How is preparing a place for the devil and his angels after righteous judgement evil?
Because it is a punishment no being is capable of deserving.
Remember the Bible was not written by God, but by those who believed they knew God’s will and/or His mind.
True. But, if you’re a Christian or Jew, what else have you got to go by? Natural theology stands or falls on its own, without reference to Scripture – but it is concerned only with God’s existence and can tell us nothing of his mind, will or nature.
Is a smallpox virus any less God’s creature than you or I? Has it any less right to live and thrive?
It has no rights at all. Rights are, in general, reserved for sentient creatures.
Let’s put it this way: do you really think that humans performed an evil action by eradicating smallpox? Do you think it is immoral to give someone an antibiotic, thereby killing the bacteria (“God’s creatures”) which are threatening the person’s life? I am afraid that in your attempt to show it is ‘easy’ to justify the existence of evil, you are in danger of being led into absurdities.
Look at it this way, then: A deer, if capable of thought, might curse God for making wolves. A sentient wolf might thank God for providing deer. By what criterion is either point of view to be preferred to the other?
No. The question is whether God did evil by creating it – or, we might say, by providing conditions for a process of biological evolution from which organisms deadly to other organisms might, indeed inevitably would, emerge. But that all comes under the heading of free will, doesn’t it?
Why do you say this and why do you think Satan and his angels will suffer as we would in such a place?
Including Jesus who used the word of God as written by man:
from:
You underestimate the power of the Word.
I’m not sure about Jews, but Christians are given spiritual gifts as described in the NT.
I’m making a moral judgment, without which this discussion is meaningless. I say it’s evil of God to inflict eternal suffering on anyone, mortal or angel, for any reason. As to whether Satan would suffer there, Revelation strongly suggests he wouldn’t like it. But even if he does, he wouldn’t be alone there, would he?
In Revelation the Greek is that Satan will suffer for ‘ages of ages’, which may or may not be forever.
This brings it to the choice that Satan has made, he would rather rule in Hell then serve under God. It is normally assumes that Satan knows the timeline, and where his actions will lead him. And I’d add that he is happy torumenting people.
Including the ability to have insights into God’s mind and will independent of, even contradictory to, Scripture?
Independent of - yes
contradictory to - no (this is used as a test of a false prophet)
Interpretation of - yes
How come the mere existence of free will, if it does exist, results in evil?
But the question is, Why did God choose a method (evolution) of forming life that inevitably results in certain natural evils, such as disease and predation? And besides, evolution doesn’t explain other natural evils such as earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, etc. Hume’s dilemma is a problematic today as ever: If God could have created a world without natural evils, but chose not to, then He is not perfect. If God was unable to create a world free of natural evil, then He is impotent.
And I don’t see how free will enters into this. If God freely chose to create natural evil, there has to be some reason why he did this. The fact that this was his free choice doesn’t explain why he chose to do this; nor does it justify his choice.
You might defend it as an esthetic choice. Is God not an artist?