He hasn't questioned his faith in doubt. He has no doubt that doubt is to be embraced.

Why create the freedom to choose evil? It is not a trivial argument, if you apply personal qualities to God. By personal criteria, a being that can prevent evil but doesn't bears responsibility for that evil.

The only way to make sense of it is to acknowledge that God, or whatever causal force is responsible for the universe, is impersonal, that is, cannot be judged by personal criteria of good and evil. Good and evil as we know it are human concerns, there is no logical reason to believe that they are universal concerns. There are emotional reasons to believe this, though.

Robert:

Because then you couldn't choose good, or God, either. The only reason you believe that anything is evil in the first place is because of God. If you were truly a naturalist/materialist or whatever you pretend to be there could be no good or evil.

Mr. Duquette;

As Mr. Judd points out, it's the choice that's important, not the evil. My years of mentoring have taught me the same thing - you'll never get internal improvement if you don't allow stupid choices. It's really counter-productive to give the apprentice the correct answer at all times.

Moreover, if Chistianity is correct, evil's no big deal. So people suffer for a few years (less than one hundred). What's that compared to the billions (if not trillions) of years they'll exist in the future? The meerest of birth pangs. A Christian might well think of this life as just a training exercise.

His faith rejects origianl sin, and assumes man in inherently good and God-like from birth, and is only turned evil by circumstances of his environment, usually Western society. In other words, his faith is, in fact, socialism, not Christianity, loathe though he may be to have the courage to admit it.

Maybe his questioning it is a good thing.

Robert: Iago doesn't believe in Shakespeare.

Robert:

That would be an interesting question if we imagine a bunch of Israelite patriarchs sitting around the fire after everyone else has gone to bed and one of them says: "Hey, I had a dream last night and we're supposed to develop this thing called good and evil." Good and evil aren't intellectal constructs or utilitarian tools. They scream out from every pore of our being from birth, even if we can't agree on them or pin them down precisely. You could also point out that life itself is a human concern and there is no reason to imagine God cares that much, but your'e still left with the problem that almost everyone will do just about anything to keep it, no matter how brutish.

I would really be more interested in learning the good Dr. William's position on fox hinting.

I thought the Jews picked up the concept of good and evil from the Zoroastrians when they were all exiled in Mesopotamia. Thankfully they decided to pass on the idea of sky burial.

OJ, why is God necessary to acknowledge either good or evil? As Peter points out, they scream out from our pores. We embody good and evil, it is within our very makeup.

Peter, why is it a problem to realize that almost everyone will do just about anything to keep it, no matter how brutish? How does God resolve this problem?

David, why should Iago believe? He has no reason to know he is a character in a play, he wasn't written that way. But suppose he was written to believe that he was the creation of a man named Christopher Marlowe, or that he was created by a roomful of monkeys. Would it be true?

Suppose we were "written" to believe in God by an evolutionary process that made such a belief beneficial to survival. Would that make it true?

Robert:

Because you're applying an objective standard.

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].

Amo 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done [it]?

Lam 3:38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?

Williams runs a denomination whose raison d'être was to saction divorces. Combine that with the habit of liberal theologans to modify their beliefs to match the trends of the day and we're not dealing with a rock-solid foundation to begin with here.

Robert:

Not sure exactly what you mean. Every naturalist explanation of our attachment to life I've ever seen relies on either biological determinism or nebulous utilitarian arguments. They may satisfy for explaining the behaviour of others, but they are woefully inadequate for the subjective analysis we apply to ourselves. Put another way, I can easily explain why you don't commit suicide, but the argument won't work if I try to use it as a complete explanation of why I don't, because it makes me into the rational automotan I know I'm not. Same with notions of good and evil.

I'm just waiting for the AoC to start spinning his head and puking pea soup...

For a denomination that will venerate tribal dancing (at the National Cathedral), John Crosslan (The Jesus Movement), and John Wesley Spong, the events in Beslan should cause a loss of faith - faith in man's goodness, that is.

Jim:

You forgot to mention the efforts to find common ground with the Wiccans.