How do you reconcile the existence of evil with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God?

So retarded

I think Schopenhauer btfo, yeah?

>human definition of evil is same as God’s definition of evil
outed yourself

evil is like an overgrown tree blocking sunlight from its smaller contemporaries. its unavoidable

Based and easternpilled orthobro

Attached: JPEG_20181124_185124.jpg (695x594, 83K)

I mean maya itself is really just yet another sidestep of the question. "Evil? W-what evil bro? Lol"

Evil behaviour is a byproduct of Free will. Real love cannot exist without Free will. God wants us to love him therefore he gives us free will. Real love cannot be done under a threat of eternal damnation so hell isn't real. You just don't exist if you ain't with God.

I kind of like this but the only confusing thing is then why does Christ follow the Law and not sin and why does Paul emphasize the importance of resisting temptation and sinning?

It's time to stop making this argument. It isn't in the Bible and is honestly a disgrace on so many levels. It would be the best thing for Christianity since Paul if all Christians collectively started regarding the free will argument as heresy.

>Life is an aesthetic phenomenon and not a moral one.
How can you view real fucked up things aesthetically? (interracial marriage)

Which premise to you disagree with?

I really like this. Could you point me forward?
>inb4 the bibbl
What are key writings, authors, books of eastern orthodoxy?

Not him, but that's just Augustinian theodicy and not exclusive to Orthodoxy. See City of God.

Evil is the breaking of the divine supersymmetry. It is the abyss before there was light. It is the primal, active, virulent agent of change. For good to exist it is necessary that there be evil. Manichaeism is an insightful account of this eternal struggle.

Years ago, when I was in darkened wood, I saw the darkened sky gaping above me and the bare trees of late fall scraping against its edges. In the distance a dim light shone. And in that dim light, I realized, swirled the faint visage of God. For God in a world of darkness is a faint presence, God is emerging into being, out of the muck and mud of corruption, and announces itself as a challenge. For to be Good is contrary to nature, it's easier to be bad than good. Heaven is therefore represented as above us, in aspiration, while hell below us, in repose and defeat.

Both. Its retarded for so many reasons.
1. Implies that God is limited, which is retarded. Same problem with the free will argument.
2. Is actually incredibly pessimistic by mistake as it tries to be optimistic. Is this as good as it can be? Really? Jesus man that's no joke the most crushingly depressing viewpoint I've ever encountered. Even Schopenhauer's philosophy is more optimistic, at least there you can negate the will and "win" no matter how hollow the victory really is.
3. Is contradicted by the Bible itself as multiple times the belief that things COULD be better is pronounced.
4. Reveals that the person saying it doesn't even really believe in God truly and is perfectly willing to sacrifice God in order to justify existence, so desperate is his need to do so.
5. Probably the single greatest example of what Nietzsche talks about when he talks about how optimists are weak and that's why they are optimists.
Its anti-life, anti-God drivel

How do you reconcile being forced to eat vegetables with the existence of loving parents?

I'm Christian but this is a terrible analogy. Humans aren't all-powerful.

Vegetables are actually bad for you so uh, get rekt

He does what He wills.

It's just a story, written by people playing telephone for thousands of years, in varying languages with politicians listening in and shouting.

The fall.

1: Instead of saying "It implies X", you need to show that it implies X. As you didn't do that, I reject argument 1 as unfounded.
2: Point 2 and 5 contradict eachother. If the position is pessimistic(2), then the person holding it is strong(3). Not holding said opinion is optimistic, or atleast more optimistic then the most pessimist of views becuase the amount of pessimism can't be greater.
3: Demonstrate the truth of this by giving me some bible verses. Alternatively, christianity could be false.
4: I'd argue it's the opposite.
1: God is an all good, all powerful, all knowing mind upon which everything depends.
2: To say that one believe in god means that one believe in an entity described in 1.
3: God created the universe.
4(1,3): The universe is the best of all possible worlds.
For this conclusion not to follow from the concept of god, one has to deny any of the traits of god or to to deny that god created the universe, which naturally follow from the concept of god being eternal. The only way to avoid the conclusion of us living in the best of all possible worlds is to not believe in
god.

Attached: th.jpg (474x313, 15K)

To achieve theosis, a state of mind that can experience God directly(evil is just going away from God). If not in this life because not everyone can be a saint than in the aftherlife.

Because, now we live apparently outside of God, evil seems to exist. We are like a sun beam distinct from another seeking to reach the center where there is no void, no lack of being. God's likeness within us must be made effective, we must realize only God exist. Jesus Christ have shown the way and we must take it. But the start is from our fallen nature. Thus the necessity of moral and personal spiritual work.

>Fathers of the Church.
>XXth century orthodox saints like saint Paissios or saint Porphyros.
You will see the continuity.
I think the bible is hard to understand in it's core. Fathers of the Church are it's translators. saint Gregory of Nazianze or saint Gregory of Nyssa are good. But you will be the only one that knows what fits you, so choose in the giant Fathers of the Church production. I can't know what is adapted to you since I'm not a confessor.
If you like stories, "stories of a russian pilgrim" is really great, maybe it will be more easy for you but I don't know.
Read about hesychasm, deification, eastern monasticism, there are good resources on the internet for easy picking.

catholics never talk about theosis. And even if they did, their spiritual tradition is dead. They have nothing like hesychasm.

Of course saint augustine talks about that, he have read eastern fathers ( I forgot to say eastern fathers are the best, they are more spiritual). but that doesn't mean he have adequately understood it, or that cucktholicism have kept it.

There is also saint denys the areopagite that is really good, and saint clement of alexandry.

Evil is just our sense organs giving us bad fee fees. The universe just is.

Well you see the elohim are the demiurge to their chosen people’s epistemologies who betrayed the absolute maker (who made us) by only giving us flawed epistemological means and after sophia freed us from their slavery of Eden.... you see where I’m going with this

I'm not him. I'm not . Although it is true that Leibniz's resolvement of problem of evil is contradicted by the bible(it means that this was the opinion of theologians at the time. It's practically the same), and there is a reason why this is considered failure to answer this question.
ON 3 : I'm not theologian, but I can come with, something like John 14.
>6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you know me, you will know[d] my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”
>14 If in my name you ask me for anything, I will do it. 15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever.
I want you to keep in mind that there is something that looks really contradict.
ON 4 and 1 : Although you are right to say on 4, but you must know that Averroism has had a huge impact on Leibniz's argument. the most important case would be omnipotence paradox (when the reason is applied greatly).

orthodoxky.com/resources/books/
oca.org/orthodoxy/recommended-readings
Here are some lists of interesting books. Reading the church fathers is best but they are not an easy read , so picking a secondary sources recommend by the church is good too.

Augustine is an orthodox saint as well, we just don't accept his heretic views on the trinity.
But Catholics don't believe in the noose and direct experience of God so theosis is impossible for them.

>1: Instead of saying "It implies X", you need to show that it implies X. As you didn't do that, I reject argument 1 as unfounded.
I didn't show how it implied X because it is obvious, but sure. If this is truly the best world that God can create, and yet we can conceive of a better one, then God is incapable of creating the better world we can conceive of (simply saying that the world is perfect is a retard comeback, the Bible itself says this is not the case).
But then God would be limited by some outside force preventing Him of making this better world. Therefore you have made God incapable.
> Point 2 and 5 contradict eachother. If the position is pessimistic(2), then the person holding it is strong(3). Not holding said opinion is optimistic, or atleast more optimistic then the most pessimist of views becuase the amount of pessimism can't be greater.
No they don't lol, I thought you would try this. The belief fails to be actually optimistic, but the person making is is making it in an earnest, optimistic fashion. Therefore he still falls under Nietzsche's critique.
> Demonstrate the truth of this by giving me some bible verses. Alternatively, christianity could be false.
2 Peter 3:13
1 Timothy 2:3
The Lord's Prayer
As to Christianity being false, the origin of this argument (that you're making) is Christian. Why believe in this stupid shit if you're not even trying to justify the God of the Bible? Honestly confusing as hell to me.
>I'd argue it's the opposite.
Okay? Well then do so. You ask me to demonstrate my points and then drop this lol
>4(1,3): The universe is the best of all possible worlds.
This doesn't follow from 1 or 3, its a non-sequitur.
>The only way to avoid the conclusion of us living in the best of all possible worlds is to not believe in god
Multiple other alternatives have been listed in this thread. Care to try to contest them?

>making is is making
Nice

One letter typo, meant to read "making it is making it in an..."

A naturally evolving free will universe necessitates potential evil.
Without free will and potential evil you could not experience love, goodness, happiness, virtue; so the allowing of potential evil is the highest good.

So when the world is made perfect everyone's free will must then be taken away? Because as you said a good world is impossible if free will exists.

Potential evil means it will only actualize if a free will being chooses evil.
If all beings chose to do good by their own free will, then evil in the world would not exist.

But as you said, a free will universe necessitates evil because not all free willed beings will choose good in each moment.

Meant for

It's my fault.
Litteraly step 1 of Christianity.
All your arguments are ad hominem.

How do you reconcile this thread with literature? I hope through suicide.