And like all postmodernists, you dismiss an argument not by showing where it is right or wrong, but by making pejorative statements about it. The truth (or otherwise) of what i wrote is not affected by calling it complete and utter tosh The trouble with postmodernism is that it does not recognize truth as absolute, therefore argue from a position of truth, so cannot appeal to an external frame of reference to verify its conclusions.
The so-called problem of evil argument is only a problem for those who take an intellectual-only approach to their faith. Their faith is not in the person of God, only in arguments either for His existence or against His existence. As such those in the former camp are in danger of believing in a 'god' of their own creation (the modern equivalent of creating an idol and bowing down to it).
[Continues]
Wordy gobbledgook, which leaves entirely unexplained how an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving creator is consistent with a world of terrible, undeserved suffering. I have my own answer, but when, on another thread, I tried explaining it, reasonably enough, I thought, I got so much laboured sarcasm, dribs and drabs of philosophy-for-dummies, and complete lack of understanding from one other poster that I lost my temper, swore st him, and got banned for three months, so I'm not doing that again. How do you reconcile them, intellectually? I agree that a faith worth having is more than intellectual, but it isn't other than intellectual, so please avoid telling us all to just trust God.
