To be honest, I heard so many straw men in that video that I don’t even know where to begin, lol. 
By the way, I’m certainly not a young-earth creationist or anything of the sort (though I think you already gathered that). I fully accept the age of the universe and evolution—I’ve simply developed my own view on why things are the way they are, that’s all.
That angry Dave and even many Christians today have a poor understanding of God theologically. This thread provides some answers:
Alrighty. I actually opened up another topic regarding his videos because I thought that this video was just a one-off on his channel. However, it seems as though he has been pumping out content like this and has made many others concerning claims.
Thank you for the reference!
You seem like a man who appreciates science, but you also seem to see some evil in creation. As a young man who wants to look at the world with wonder and awe, I find it a bit upsetting to find that some laws of physics are controlled by demonic forces. How would you recommend I reconcile my love of science and the Universe with this theory?
A note to everyone else: what are your thoughts on this?
To me, ascribing that much power to demonic forces borders on worship – we ascribe power to Yahweh, not to demons!
I figure that this world is the “waiting room” to the best of all possible worlds; it is not perfect, but it points towards that which is perfect and is working to get us there – part of all things working together for good to those He has called.
I feel like we are both right and wrong in this. On one hand, it does seem a bit too much to attribute this much power over the planets and other laws to demonic forces; if we consider such a thing, then we leave the survivability of our species in the hands of beings that wish us dead (if they can control the weather, volcanoes, and earthquakes, then they can also drive the rains, atmospheric gas composition, and magnetic field). However, that is not all to say that evil isn’t present in the world. The Bible says that demons are here. Death does exist, the Universe does seem to have a time when it will die, and entropy is always increasing. These seem like things that God wouldn’t have included in an original creation (as the story of Creations points toward). In my view, this argument seems to be along the lines of the “what ratio of pre-determination versus free will” argument that Christians also debate: the Bible points both ways but it will become clearer on the other side.
I may be mislead (or just stupid), but why do you think such an image of God is too human? Why would it be equivalent to worshiping a golden cow? Should I have said Jesus instead?
In the same way, we reconcile our love for humankind and for our brothers with the reality that humanity is fallen and that the ruler of this world and of the kingdoms of this world is the Devil as stated in the Bible.
The threads that become “problem of evil” oriented are INHERENTLY
the problem.
Discussing the problem of evil is a common approach by
non–theists to derail discussions on religiion, then the discussion
becomes further intensely energized by responding Creationists
who insist that there must be a literal Adam and Eve
for evil to be explained and rationalized.
This is why there is a concern when our boards explode (inevitably)
on the problem of evil…. with rancor becoming the product, rather than
calm and engaging conversation about Christian embrace of Evolution.
G.Brooks
Oh. Sorry, I had not idea. Again, I’m new here so I’m still figuring out how these discussions are meant to function.
No need to apologize. You asked a completely legitimate question. The “problem of evil” comes up naturally whenever we’re talking about suffering, natural disasters, extinction events, etc. It’s not derailment — it’s overlap.
You’re engaging thoughtfully, which is what matters. But whatever else you do, don’t touch “the third rail”.
I do need to ask: several people have proposed that Jesus suffering as a means to reconcile why God allows suffering is too human. What is your take on this? How do you reconcile this problem?
What does this even mean? A person allows 10 people to be tortured to death when they could have simply blinked their eyes and stopped it. But they now allow their son or (themself) to be tortured so it’s okay?
That is just nonsense.
We look to the Cross to see that God loves us and it should give us hope that God has us and this should help to alleviate the emotive or evidential problem of evil.
It’s best to stop watching atheist videos on the internet and dialogue with some credentialed Christian authors.
Vinnie
Before we jump to whether Jesus’ suffering is “too human,” it might help to slow down and ask what the New Testament actually means by reconciliation.
When Paul uses that language (e.g., 2 Cor 5; Rom 5; Col 1), who is being reconciled? Is it God to humanity? Humanity to God? Both? Or something broader — creation itself?
And what exactly is the estrangement being healed — legal guilt, relational rupture, cosmic disorder, something else?
I’ve found that once we clarify that, the role of Christ’s suffering looks different depending on which model of reconciliation we’re assuming.
When the New Testament says we’re reconciled, what was broken? A rule? A debt? Or a relationship?
Depending on that answer, Jesus’ suffering might not be an explanation of suffering — it might be God stepping into the human condition to repair what was fractured.
That is nonsense but so is somehow conflating the Dorothy Sayers quote you posted with some kind of metaphysical argument or apologetic for penal substitutionary atonement.
Noting that God loved creation and humanity enough to unite himself with it and become a part of it, experiencing everything humans experience as embodied creatures in an imperfect world where harm and death are inevitable for everyone, is just making an observation about the length God goes to have a loving relationship with his adopted children. It’s intended to appeal to human experience, imagination, and emotional IQ, not reason and logic. And frankly reason and logic are what get you to really dark places if they are all you depend on to wrestle with difficult theological issues like this one. We have multiple capacities for accessing truth.
Okay, fair assessment.
Okay. I might have to think about this question a bit.
I never equated it to penal substation. If you take things like “He had the honesty and courage to take his own medicine” as some sort of logical answer to evil you are mistaken. And if you take that and “he has kept his own rules” literally you turn God into a moral agent or just another being amongst many. As I said, the Sayers quote is relatable, beautiful and poetic but many proponents of theistic personalism tend to take these sorts of things a bit too literally.
I’d say God the Son experienced these things strictly and exclusively through His human nature, not His Divine Nature. Jesus assumed a human nature (or rather a human nature was united to the Divine is the most correct) while fully retaining His divine nature. God the Son in His human nature experiences pain, loss, loneliness, suffers. The Divine nature is perfect. We don’t complete or add anything to God. He is not held hostage by human behavior. I’d put imagining God as sitting in heaven, eagerly pining for human approval on par with imagining a Mesopotamian deity as famished during the flood because sacrifices stopped.
Vinnie
I think this is a very fair analysis. I agree that while the human incarnation of God surely means he understands the pain, he isn’t at all holding himself back to it.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.