The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site immediately. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2013 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul.
General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here


Comment: false dichotomy
false dichotomy
"Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent."
two other options:
1. If there is a greater good for allowing evil, then God is not malevolent. The possibility of evil is a necessary consequence of freedom. And yet, the value of that freedom outweighs the cost of the possible consequences, at least that's what I hear with regard to the liberty message I see on this site.
2. The bible teaches that there is no good person, that there is none who seeks God, and that we are all sinners, etc. (see Romans 3). If we all deserve Hell because of our rebellion against God, then any evil that happens to us which is less severe than the Hell we deserve is actually a moment of mercy in which we do not get the full punishment due. If we deserve worse than the evil we experience in this temporary life, then how could God be considered malevolent for showing mercy to those who deserve more evil than they get?