Theodicy
 

Well this is one of the classic religious subjects of study, its more or less a question about the morality of god. The classic question, of this classic subject is a presented in the form of a paradox:

if
A) God is good
B) God is all powerful
and
C) Evil is real and exists

why does god let evil continue to exists? An unspoken assumption is that good is diametrically opposed to evil.

Personally the way I have dealt with it is to reject assumption A. I actually rejected it before I stumbled across this particular problem, when I read the book of job.

Giblfiz, there has already been quite a bit of discussion of this paradox on Philosophy. I'll let someone more adept with the search engine and HTML than I link the other threads
To summarise the arguments, though:
All three premises are true. But when we bit into the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, we took the choice not to let God interfere in our affairs, and even though He does not like it, we chose to be subject to the evil influences on our lives all those years ago, and now we're paying for it. We chose free choice, and our free choice has led to what we percieve to be evil.

But don't worry. Wait'll the rapture, and you'll get your world free from evil...if you ask for forgiveness, that is.

As an atheist, I reject assumptions A & B on the basis that something that does not exist cannot fulfill either A or B.

But, let's say God does exist. Perhaps God figured out that keeping evil around has its benefits. For example, maybe evil strengthens society.

Oberon, wouldn't you also have to reject C, if we're speaking in absolute terms?

if you're an atheist, you assume a and b to do reducto ad absurdum. just a hint. i've done this arguement from both sides....

this often works. if the person defending God's justice isn't aware of this arguement, they will often claim some very interesting outs: "the mystery of God's will" and "good comes out of suffering." I don't quite agree.

i've said it before, but i'm too lazy to search, but the basic is as noted above, we do have the ability act for good or for ill. I don't like to say we are free to do evil, since i believe sin contains its own captivity, but we certainily have the ability to do so. Perhaps while some great hurts shock us(the holocaust is frequently used), we forget that the little hurts WE inflict everyday in some cosmic sense are no less...and we seem allow our faults in a world that is still "just."

God does not override every choice for evil, small or large. but God does not cease to send messengers, prophets and the Spirit in to the world to heal it from the wrong we have done. this question is worthy, but i think it places great limits on God-that God must act to clean up every mess we make before we make it...and i don't think thats the kind of relationship God seeks with us, or that we need for our salvation.

I dunno, i think it may all just come down to: without darkness how can we recognize the light? Without evil how can we recognize goodness?

obiex, i would expressly try to avoid such statements. i believe that there is hope that there may be such a world or existance where there is no more suffering, sin, or brokenness, and that all we would know is good. its IMO, dangerous to have a theology that says evil must exist for good to answer it.

None of those make sense. There is no god, no satan. We cannot blame our evil on something that exists no more than the fart i did last week.

It's already been stated, but I'll say it again:

God can still be 'good' and allow his creations to choose 'not good' or 'evil'.

If I remember correctly, the Russian Orthodox do not believe Satan exists. Correct me if I'm wrong...but that is more reasonable than the Catholic boogyman idea.

I understand the Christian idea of evil as a test of faith. People will stray from "the path" of their own accord and create their own evil. It is a choice we make, a choice God lets us make, according to how I understand the Christian faith.

Besides, life without evil wouldn't be very interesting.

I reject C. Good and evil are highly subjective. One person's good is another's flaming death. Darkness and light are just synonyms for whatever fucked you or saved you, respectively.
I reject A as it was written. The god that christians speak of seems mostly content to let the chips fall where they may. I consider this neutral.
Being that humans are very divided on the subject, God's idea of good and bad is probably a lot different than yours. Some "good" christians think that god hates homosexuals. I can't imagine why god would care who you sex-up, but it is still an example of "evil" being in the eye of the beholder.
If there is a higher power, what makes you think you could even comprehend it's goals and motivations? God is all seeing and all powerful, and sometimes all I can think is shit like, "Man, I'm hungry." Some people on the TFP can't even comprehend Hal's goals and motivations. If there is a god and that god has good intentions, there's no way you could know what those are.

I never bit into any fruit of good and evil, so he's punishing me for what my ancestors did. Doesn't that make him a racist? Oh yeah, Israel, Ishmael, chosen people, blah, blah, blah. That's why the Israelis are allowed to treat the Palestinians like the Nazi's did the Jews and it's all the Palestinians' fault.

Nice guy, God

I'm guessing you have bitten that fruit. its a metaphorical fruit, and everybody does...

secondly, there are always social consequences to sin, and the decendants do suffer the wrongs of those who came bfore them, and you don't need theology to tell you that.

that makes no connection to racial politics, you bring that up quite out of the blue. meh...