"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
then whence cometh evil.
Is he neither able nor willing?
then why call him God?"
-Epicurus
This, to me, succinctly summarizes one of the most critical logical questions that Christianity must face. As Primo Levi once said, "Monsters exist, but they are too few in number to be truly dangerous. More dangerous are...the functionaries ready to believe and act without asking questions." So with this in mind, will we retain our image of God as a God of love, over our need for the comfort of a being that controls and keeps all things in his hands? I have many many thoughts on this and have read the work of several Theologians who deal with this, but I would rather spend most of my time hearing what you all have to say and I will intersperse my own thoughts within your comments as we discuss, but if you are curious about my position on this, I have come to the conclusion that if God is able to intervene in situations regardless of people's actions, I cannot believe that God is good. There is no way I can find a reason for a good God to let a rape happen, or the holocaust, or natural disasters, or mental illness, or hell (which I don't really believe in, but that's another post). I must sacrifice the omnipotent for the loving. That is my conclusion so far. What is yours?
