You can't have your cake and eat it: Problem of Evil and Hell

The Logical Problem of Evil: 

(1) An all-powerful God could prevent evil from existing in the world
(2) An all-good God would want to prevent evil from existing in the world 
(3) Evil exists in the world. 
Therefore, an all-powerful and all-good God cannot exist. 

Adherence to the Problem of Evil admits in premise (2), that evil is wrong and should be destroyed from the world. 

It is repulsive to many that God would send anyone to Hell. By attempting to use the Logical Problem of Evil it is admitted that an all-powerful and all-good God would want to destroy evil from the world. 

Allow me state an additional argument reusing premise (2). Lets call this An Argument for Hell:

(2) An all-good God would want to prevent evil from existing in the world 
(4) There are people in the world who are evil. 
Therefore, God would remove them from the world. 

How would he remove them? Something called: Hell. A complete separation from God. 

If someone attempts to use the Logical Problem of Evil AND they think it is true that there are evil people in the world, then an all-powerful and all-good God would remove these evil people. 

I am convinced by Alvin Plantinga's  Free Will Defense that the Problem of Evil is not a logical problem. But assuming one hasn't decided whether the Logical Problem of Evil is true, they might see that the premises of the Logical Problem of Evil lead to a doctrine of Hell, not the opposite. 

In conclusion, this post isn't that relevant because anyone who holds to the Logical Problem of Evil, doesn't care whether God would send people to Hell because they have already decided that an all-loving and all-powerful God could not exist to send people to Hell. Still it could be an interesting discussion for some (maybe). 

Nice Hobby

The Gospel: Good News or Bad News?

The gospel confronts us with the hopelessness of our sinful condition. But we don't like what we see of ourselves in the gospel, so we shrink back from it. We live in a land of self-improvement. Certainly there are steps we cantake to make ourselves better. So we modify what the gospel says about us.
We are not evil, we think, and certainly not spiritually dead. Havent' you heard of the power of positive thinking? I can become a better me and experience my best life now. That's why God is there - to make that happen. My life is not going right, but god loves me and has a plan to fix my life. I simply need to follow certain steps, think certain thinks, and check off certain boxes, and then I am good.
Both our diagnosis of the situation and our conclusion regarding the solution fit nicely in a culture that exalts self-sufficiency, self-esteem, and self-confidence. We already have a fairly high view of our morality, so when we add a superstitious prayer, a subsequent dose of church attendance, and obedience to some of the Bible, we feel pretty sure that we will be all right in the end. 
Note the contrast, however, when you diagnose the problem biblically. The modern-day gospel says, "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life. Therefore, follow these steps, and you can be saved." Meanwhile, the biblical gospel says, "You are an enemy to God, dead in your sin, and in your present state of rebellion, you are not even able to see that you need life, much less to cause yourself to come to life. Therefore, you are radically dependent on God to do something in your life that you could never do."
The former sells books and draws crowds. The latter saves souls. Which is more important?  -David Platt Radical

Shroud of Turin

Reposting an article I read from another blog about the latest research on the Shroud of Turin.

Does Theology really matter? (Part 2)

What kind of Theology really matters?  

   ¹⁴ What good is it, my brothers and sisters,^e if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? ¹⁵If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, ¹⁶and one of you says to them, "Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill," and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? ¹⁷So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
¹⁸ But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. ¹⁹You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder. ²⁰Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren? ²¹Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? ²²You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. ²³Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness," and he was called the friend of God. ²⁴You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. -James 2:14-24

James says that "even the demons" by worldly standards have very good theology. Contrary to what many people might assume - demons are monotheists! They quite possibly have a clearer idea of certain concepts like the Trinity or wrath than we might have. Does that produce godliness in them? Does that save them? By all means, NO! So we have to think deeper about how theology matters to get to the bottom of this. Does it matter for salvation? How?

James says it has little value if it is not coupled by "works". Believing the right truths are only of value if those truths permeate every area of your life - a life lived coherently to the truth believed.

Does Theology really matter?

An article I ready last week reminded me of the reason that theology matters in so many areas of life. Specifically, the article was titled, Why the Arabic World Turned away from Science.The article concluded that the reason the Arabic World turned away from Scientific development was that a certain form of Islamic theology became dominant that opposed secular scholarship for theological reasons.

To understand this anti-rationalist movement, we once again turn our gaze back to the time of the Abbasid caliph al-Mamun. Al-Mamun picked up the pro-science torch lit by the second caliph, al-Mansur, and ran with it. He responded to a crisis of legitimacy by attempting to undermine traditionalist religious scholars while actively sponsoring a doctrine called Mu’tazilism that was deeply influenced by Greek rationalism, particularly Aristotelianism. To this end, he imposed an inquisition, under which those who refused to profess their allegiance to Mu’tazilism were punished by flogging, imprisonment, or beheading. But the caliphs who followed al-Mamun upheld the doctrine with less fervor, and within a few decades, adherence to it became a punishable offense. The backlash against Mu’tazilism was tremendously successful: by 885, a half century after al-Mamun’s death, it even became a crime to copy books of philosophy. The beginning of the de-Hellenization of Arabic high culture was underway. By the twelfth or thirteenth century, the influence of Mu’tazilism was nearly completely marginalized.

In its place arose the anti-rationalist Ash’ari school whose increasing dominance is linked to the decline of Arabic science. With the rise of the Ash’arites, the ethos in the Islamic world was increasingly opposed to original scholarship and any scientific inquiry that did not directly aid in religious regulation of private and public life. While the Mu’tazilites had contended that the Koran was created and so God’s purpose for man must be interpreted through reason, the Ash’arites believed the Koran to be coeval with God — and therefore unchallengeable. At the heart of Ash’ari metaphysics is the idea of occasionalism, a doctrine that denies natural causality. Put simply, it suggests natural necessity cannot exist because God’s will is completely free. Ash’arites believed that God is the only cause, so that the world is a series of discrete physical events each willed by God.

As Maimonides described it in The Guide for the Perplexed, this view sees natural things that appear to be permanent as merely following habit. Heat follows fire and hunger follows lack of food as a matter of habit, not necessity, “just as the king generally rides on horseback through the streets of the city, and is never found departing from this habit; but reason does not find it impossible that he should walk on foot through the place.” According to the occasionalist view, tomorrow coldness might follow fire, and satiety might follow lack of food. God wills every single atomic event and God’s will is not bound up with reason. This amounts to a denial of the coherence and comprehensibility of the natural world. In his controversial 2006 University of Regensburg address, Pope Benedict XVI described this idea by quoting the philosopher Ibn Hazm (died 1064) as saying, “Were it God’s will, we would even have to practice idolatry.” It is not difficult to see how this doctrine could lead to dogma and eventually to the end of free inquiry in science and philosophy.

The greatest and most influential voice of the Ash’arites was the medieval theologian Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (also known as Algazel; died 1111). In his book The Incoherence of the Philosophers, al-Ghazali vigorously attacked philosophy and philosophers — both the Greek philosophers themselves and their followers in the Muslim world (such as al-Farabi and Avicenna). Al-Ghazali was worried that when people become favorably influenced by philosophical arguments, they will also come to trust the philosophers on matters of religion, thus making Muslims less pious. Reason, because it teaches us to discover, question, and innovate, was the enemy; al-Ghazali argued that in assuming necessity in nature, philosophy was incompatible with Islamic teaching, which recognizes that nature is entirely subject to God’s will: “Nothing in nature,” he wrote, “can act spontaneously and apart from God.” While al-Ghazali did defend logic, he did so only to the extent that it could be used to ask theological questions and wielded as a tool to undermine philosophy. Sunnis embraced al-Ghazali as the winner of the debate with the Hellenistic rationalists, and opposition to philosophy gradually ossified, even to the extent that independent inquiry became a tainted enterprise, sometimes to the point of criminality. It is an exaggeration to say, as Steven Weinberg claimed in the Times of London, that after al-Ghazali “there was no more science worth mentioning in Islamic countries”; in some places, especially Central Asia, Arabic work in science continued for some time, and philosophy was still studied somewhat under Shi’ite rule. (In the Sunni world, philosophy turned into mysticism.) But the fact is, Arab contributions to science became increasingly sporadic as the anti-rationalism sank in.

The Ash’ari view has endured to this day. Its most extreme form can be seen in some sects of Islamists. For example, Mohammed Yusuf, the late leader of a group called the Nigerian Taliban, explained why “Western education is a sin” by explaining its view on rain: “We believe it is a creation of God rather than an evaporation caused by the sun that condenses and becomes rain.” The Ash’ari view is also evident when Islamic leaders attribute natural disasters to God’s vengeance, as they did when they said that the 2010 eruption of Iceland’s Eyjafjallajökull volcano was the result of God’s anger at immodestly dressed women in Europe. Such inferences sound crazy to Western ears, but given their frequency in the Muslim world, they must sound at least a little less crazy to Muslims. As Robert R. Reilly argues in The Closing of the Muslim Mind (2010), “the fatal disconnect between the creator and the mind of his creature is the source of Sunni Islam’s most profound woes.”

This is an example of how theology has affected science in Islamic societies, but theology/philosophy has just as profound an affect on all areas of life for Christians. The apostle Paul was keenly aware of this and is the reason why he structured his epistles (letters) to the different churches in the New Testament in the form of Theology followed by Application. The theology he discusses in the first portion of this letters goes hand in hand with the specific instructions that he gives for living godly lives in the second portion of this letters. Even Paul's Epistle to the Romans, follows this model, though many might assume that the book is simply a presentation of higher theology. The theology section is very large but it is to support his call for unity between Gentile and Jewish Christians.

FRONTLINE Documentary on Jesus

Here is a new for-TV documentary that NBC Frontline has just come out with called From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians. The second portion will air in a week or so. I haven't yet watched the whole thing but I am interested to see it - most definitely don't agree with everything from reading the synopsis.