PhD: Twitter quote 9
Twitter version
Rebard (1996) states that the logical problem of evil exists as God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent. If God cannot end evil, he is not omnipotent, and if he can prevent evil and does not, he is not omnibenevolent or all loving.
Edited PhD version quote
Philosopher Theodore P. Rebard (1996) states that the logical problem of evil exists since God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, Rebard (1996: 1). He writes critics can view the logical problem as meaning that if God cannot end evil, he is not omnipotent, and if he can prevent evil and does not, he is not omnibenevolent or all loving. Rebard (1996: 1).
EPICURUS (341-270 B.C.)(1949) in Overcoming Evil from the German translation, Von der Ueberwindung der Furcht, Zurich, Von der Ueberwindung der Furcht.
Greek philosopher Epicurus was known to have made a similar statement. Epicurus (341-270 B.C.)(1949: 80).
Rebard concludes that God either does not exist or is misunderstood. Rebard (1996: 1).
REBARD, THEODORE P. (1996) ‘The Problem of Evil Revisited’, in Catholic.net, North Haven, Connecticut, Christian Philosophy, Catholic. net.
http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Faith/1112-96/philos1.html
From this article posted on
ReplyDeletehttps://www.facebook.com/drrnm/
Reply to The Jeff (Edited)
The scripture contains plain literal prose and other and for example, as Mounce states much of (paraphrased) Revelation and eschatological literature needs to be interpreted with levels of literalness. Our last sermon, from a guest pastor that promotes amillennialism deals with this subject, linked below. But, we agree none of the scripture is myth. It is tricky at points to interpret scripture in the right context. This can be seen in the millennial interpretation debates.
Remember, one can be untrue to the scripture by reading it too 'woodenly'. This can be error if the context is wrong. So error is possible with all types of readings if context is missed.
The context of same/similar words needs to be reviewed in each case. As you know, I am not a linguist, but I have been putting more time into this the last few years. I know from my Greek readings that the exact meanings of words can vary from verse to verse. So, there is defining a word each time in general terms and then finding its meaning each time. When degrees of literalness are offered such as many believe is the case with Genesis 1-3 and most certainly much of Revelation, this becomes tricky scholarship. But, we can agree that a non-scholarly plain reading should lead to belief not disbelief as mythology.
To be blunt, and you know I trust the scripture, there are also scribal variations in the NT between the generally newer majority text and the generally older minority text. I am forced to deal with these in honesty, but my faith is strengthened. These effect secondary doctrines not primary gospel. I have dealt with on Dr. RNM.