God Does Things According To His Will, Pleasure and Plan

An important statement of the problem of evil was formulated by the Scottish philosopher David Hume when he asked “Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?”[1]

Since well before Hume's time, the problem has been the basis of a positive argument for atheism: If God exists, then he is omnipotent and perfectly good; a perfectly good being would eliminate evil as far as it could; there is no limit to what an omnipotent being can do; therefore, if God exists, there would be no evil in the world; there is evil in the world; therefore, God does not exist. In this argument and in the problem of evil itself, evil is understood to encompass both moral evil (caused by free human actions) and natural evil (caused by natural phenomena such as disease, earthquakes, and floods).[2]

In logic, the atheist's argument is true; logically there would be no evil in the world if God exist. Theist may have hundreds reasons to support why God allow evil in the world. They may be right in their own senses. But logically it is impossible for God and evil to exist together. But we do believe and know God exist. Therefore it is necessary to assume that God is not exactly what we think of what He is. And I am going to point out two simple reasons why:

The search for ideals:
Every human has an innate nature of longing and quest for perfection and everybody has the notion of perfect. The greatest dilemma in the history of mankind which includes everyone is the search for ideals.  This notion of ideals in turn turns out to be frustrating one for many post-modern thinkers and scholars. Since the time of yore, utopian concepts such as the Republic and Marx’s concept socialist communism had seems to be an ideal concept but could not be materialized into reality.  Is there any perfect human being today? Is there any perfect Christian, Hindu or Buddhist? The answer is clear, none. A pacifist belief on an ideal concept – the belief that war and violence are always wrong; but it will be hard for anyone to find an ideal pacifist in the world today. If one look at the personal life of a pacifist you may find lot of contradicting elements. Having the belief itself excludes other people, and this can be term as a form of violence.

This innate nature in every human being brings in the concept that there is a state of absolute perfect or perfect being. This reasoning is not wrong but when human reason on God and its attributes, they naturally assumed and exclaims that God is this and that. Many of these assumptions are wrong. We cannot just rely and be content with someone’s personal experience and view on God of a particular time and situation. And this is also the case in the biblical record of God and about His attributes. Therefore, we must ask, “Is it God’s direct declaration or exaltation and exclamation of biblical writers?” such as in the Psalms by David. Is God really what we think of Him today? Are we missing any? Or have we added much of our own views springing from the innate ideas of perfect which is in every human? We need to dig deeper on this theologically.

Absolute Justice and Equity:
One may try to defend that God as someone who looks with everyone with absolute equity and with no partiality. Or that He is not violent. Can anyone buy that after studying God’s dealings and judgments with mankind throughout history recorded in the Bible?

There is a problem to state God as someone who looks with everyone with absolute equity and with no partiality and to say He is not violent. If we study the Old Testament, it is surely not. The Israelites are special chosen people of God, God himself declared them as “My People.” See the exclusive declaration there. Upon reading the story, we know that despite God’s faithful presence and deliverances from many situations, they rebel against God; they even began to worship other gods. Still then God was gracious to them. Now let’s ask this question, why God gave the land of Canaan to the Israelites? Some had tried to defend this by saying that the Canaanites were too evil and are needed to be destroyed. But this is not the case. Long ago, God promised Abraham the possession of the Canaan land. Why should God make a covenant with only one people and left the rest? We cannot call that absolute equity, can we? There is some preference, and Israelites enjoys a special status than the rest of mankind.

One may find different views and examples to support their own stand but the real necessity is to know whether God is really what we think of. Many Christian think of Jesus as a kind generous man who willingly suffered at the hand of many men. This nice “Lamb of God” concept is not totally wrong but not all right either. From the perspective of the Pharisees of His time, he was a hostile man, a proud man, a socio-religious rebel. This view cannot be ignored because that was one of the root reason leading to His crucifixion. Same as this, Christians are missing the dot here when it come to some attribute of God.

We cannot ignore or justify the violent act of God theoretically alongside with other idealistic belief and worldviews. Such as destroying the world in Noah’s time, Sodom Gomorrah in Abraham’s time, the 10 plaques in Egypt in Moses’ time and the conquest of Canaanites in Joshua’s time. For God Himself said, “I form the light, and create darkness: I makes peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things” (Isaiah 45:7). I am not telling that evil necessarily comes out of Him. But He did allow or use evil people as a tool to bring judgments on others. However, we cannot describe God as evil for the violent act simply that He is the creator. We are created out of nothing for His pleasure and glory. He can do anything for His pleasure and glory. And this act does not make Him something which He is eternally not.

Again, it is stated in the Bible that God is a jealous God, when someone gives to another something that rightly belongs to Him (Exodus 20:4-5) which is in regards to people worshipping idols. This type of jealousy is not wrong. Perhaps a practical example will help us understand the difference. If a man sees another man flirting with his wife, he is right to be jealous, for only he has the right to flirt with his wife. If God is a jealous God, then the consequences in the judgment will not be the same. There can be no absolute equity between believers and non-believers. Suppose, if this is wrong, then all human beings must be saved from damnation. Therefore to think of God as the God who looks with everyone with absolute (or ideal) equity will be false.

Conclusions:
The logical problem of evil has been a topic of debate for centuries.  And the problem of evil is the greatest obstacle to belief in the existence of God. I wouldn’t think of God’s attributes logically as I have only limited knowledge on the being of God. But rather understand God of the person He is from His dealings with mankind. Logically there can be no evil in good. One may have hundreds reasons to support why God acted violently with partiality or allow evil in the world. But logically it is impossible for God to do that. Therefore it is necessary to assume that God is not exactly what we think of what He is.

Christians for ages has believed and has been defending the attributes of God when we really don’t have definite answers on the being of God. Some are human assumptions based on some personal experience of a particular person in a particular time and situation, some of which may be plausible beyond reasonable doubt but some are not.

Looking into the Jewish history and the salvation story manifested in Jesus Christ, we can safely conclude that God is a Creator Monarch who does things deem fit according to his will and plan. And one who laid a salvafic plan for mankind on the cross and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Here, the burden of the logical arguments on the problem of evil is lifted at least from the theistic position.

---

References:
1. David Hume, Dialogue Concerning Natural Religion: 1979.
2. Patrick Sheryl, evil, problem of evil. Encyclopaedia Britannica  Ultimate Reference Suite (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2012). (CD-ROM).