Certainly ‘humans are twisted timber’ so “wickedness” held in the heart can lead to evil or “calamitous” actions i.e., moral infractions against another/others. But that said… “evil” when understood in a more generic sense as the unfortunate repercussions (calamity as per Isa 45:7 mentioned) per wrong actions can come at the hand of God; at least as demonstrated in biblical times… we are beyond biblical times in this age of grace where it is in man’s power to do as God has already done and exercise grace; there is tremendous benefit in living this reality out.
Here are some links I’ve shared on another forum thread. These are by Christian theologians and/or philosophers. I think they provide some good, thought-provoking ideas and solutions, to the problem of suffering and evil:
The Problem of Evil
Eternal Selves and The Problem of Evil
Suffering and the Problem of Evil
Those are good articles, Randy - thanks. Kreeft is traditional in his presentation and makes the issues clear; that second link is very provocative and I’ll have to think about it; it strikes me as almost Gnostic in its approach, but it could just be an insistence on mind-body dualism as a better framework for understanding the whole POE.
I understand “evil” to be that which harms people, causes human suffering, and its opposite “good” to be that which benefits people or causes human well-being.
Evil can be classified into two major groups: (1) Moral Evil and (2) Natural Evil.
- Moral evil is evil that is carried out by free-will agents. For example, one human being torturing another human being is moral evil.
- Natural evil is evil that has its origin in natural causes. Examples: Earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, etc. that harm people and cause human suffering.
In my opinion, God is not morally evil. He does not harm people. He may at times cause a measure of human suffering for training purposes as a good parent might do in order to train his child.
I know that Isaiah 45:7 in the Authorized Version reads, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace [shalom—“well-being”], and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” However, in this context the “evil” refers to natural evil. God seems to be saying that He is responsible for such things as earthquakes, floods, and tsunamis. Indeed, the ESV, NASB, and NKJV translate the word, not as “evil,” but as “calamity.”
Dandelion:
Thanks for your answers to my questions. But I don’t think you understood the ethical dilemmas question, so I’ll ask it, the same way I did to Chuck. It asks you to make a choice, between 2 ethical situations - using your free will 
:
How do you handle moral dilemmas, like those found here (i.e. 9 Moral Dilemmas That Will Break Your Brain) 
:
Let’s make this simple. Just pick **A Day At The Beach **from the 9 in the article and **Scenario 3 **on the YouTube video. Tell me what you would do and why
I got this today, from What Prayer Can Do: Getting Down to Specifics. It does show that does can intervene - if we request it.
Hey Randy!
I read trough the moral dilemmas 
and for me, I realize I can not make these calls without the help of God and His guidance. Dandelion was correct in the assertion that when you look to and follow God, things will work out for the best (forgive me as I am paraphrasing). We can fall into the problem that we begin thinking we can think our way through these things without Gods help and guidance and it can and will be somewhat frustrating… At least to some. And I do understand you were looking for an actual answer! Sorry
Randy, the story about the prayer is super
Thanks!! Enough said
I was browsing through the quora answers today. Normally, I view ones that deal with computers, software, comic books and quantum mechanics/astrophysics. But I found this Q and A today (along with the corresponding answers, that might be relevant here (I don’t think any answer, is along the lines of Open Theism):
If God knows everything, God knows the future. If God knows the future, how can there be free will?
Now if I can just relate this question, to the Pauline Epistles. 
But I can relate it to Zombies 
Randy said:
Actually, NT Wright talks about this in his sermon ‘Paul and the puzzle of freedom’
Wright says:
I kind of like this.
I do like his thoughts. Thanks for sharing this, Chad. It does relate free will, to the Pauline Epistles. Now I just have to explain this, to the P-Zombies
How one deals with moral dilemmas (it was always spelled “dilemnas” forty years ago), depends upon one’s view of ethics. I knew one man (now an important personage at Moody Church) who wrote a book on Ethics. He subscribed to the absolutist view. So if there is a moral conflict, both choices can be morally wrong. Example: Lying is morally wrong; allowing a person to be killed is morally wrong. Suppose you are in a situation where a person is about to be killed, but you can prevent his death by lying to the person who intends to kill him. In the absolutist view you have acted immorally whether you choose to lie or choose to refrain from lying. For if you lie, you have acted immorally because lying is always wrong. But if you do not lie, then you allow a man to die whom you could have saved. Failing to save a life that you could have saved is morally wrong. So if you choose to lie in order to save the man’s life, you will need to ask God’s forgiveness for having lied.
As for me, I subscribe to the hierarchical view—that when there is a moral conflict, one of the two options takes precedence over the other, and is therefore morally right, whereas the alternative is morally wrong (Norman Geisler holds this view.) In the case in question, saving a life has a higher position in the moral hierarchy than refraining from lying. Therefore it is morally right to lie in order to save a life, and morally wrong to choose not to do so.
One might ask, “But how do you know where an action fits in the moral hierarchy?” I think this can be determined in two ways:
INNATE MORAL KNOWLEDGE
First, I think that we all have an innate knowledge of morality that has come down to us right from our first parents, who ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. There are basic moral principles that are accepted throughout the world in every society. People don’t differ concerning those basic principles. Where they differ is in derivatives of those principles. When discussing the morality of a particular action people appeal to those basic moral principles. Here is an example: John borrows a lawn mower from his neighbour Sam. The next day, Sam asks John if he can borrow his tiller to work his garden. John refuses. Then Sam say, “Why not? I loaned you my lawn mower yesterday.” Sam is appealing to the principle of reciprocal treatment. Then John replies, “That’s different. I just bought this tiller, and I don’t loan it to anybody. I want to be able to use it for a few years before I consider loaning it out.” Notice John also recognizes the principle of reciprocal treatment. If he didn’t he would have responded, “So what! What’s that got to do with it?” But he doesn’t. Rather he give a reason to show that the principle doesn’t apply in this case.
MORAL REASONING
Secondly, I think that moral conflicts can be resolved by reasoning with other people. As a teacher, I used to have a “circle meeting” with the pupils from time to time. We sat in a circle together. I was part of the circle, but didn’t take any special position. Together we discussed moral questions that pupils had placed clandestinely into a box. Everyone had total freedom of expression. During a circle meeting, I offered my opinions, but I assumed no authority above any of the pupils is resolving moral conflict issues. This procedure seemed to be of practical help to the pupils. One day at noon, a boy, L… entered a store and stole something. One of the girls saw it, and outside the store she confronted him. “L…, you know that stealing is wrong. How can a store owner make his living if people steal from him. Now you go right back to the store, return that item,and tell the owner how sorry you are for having stolen it!” L… did exactly that.
WHY THERE IS DISAGREEMENT ABOUT MORAL ISSUES
So, if there is innate moral knowledge, why is there moral disagreement. The disagreement is not about the basic moral principles. For example, no one thinks it is morally right to steal (except in a rare “Jean Valjean” case where a person is starving and no one will help him). People disagree, not about the basic moral principles, but from the derived practices. Consider the principle that if one has a good and loving father, one should honour him and do him good. In one society, it was the practice of a young man to kill his father when he reached the age of 60. At first sight, this appears to contradict the principle just mentioned. But this practice was based on a false belief. In that society, it was believed that in the after-life, you will remain forever at the age you were when you died. So to prevent one’s father from living with eternal arthritis or other serious health conditions, one killed him at age 60 so that he would spend eternity relatively healthy. So in that society, people believed that they were honouring their father by killing him at age 60 so that he would be able to spend a happier eternity. I think a lot of moral disagreement in our society also had it origin in false beliefs.
All very nice, Paidiion. Can you apply it and explain why, in the questions I asked Dandelion? I think everyone can learn something, from my two practical examples.
How would I handle them? I believe in something called intuition, which works alongside reason. I would quickly ask our heavenly father (also referred to as the great mystery in Native American spirituality), Christ, the Holy angels and the saints, for the right answer. Since I am a Christian inclusivist, saints could extend beyond the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox confines. If it were a life threatening situation, I believe I would have the right solution - immediately. Even if I couldn’t justify it afterwards, by logic and reason. But any subsequent investigations, would unfold why it was the best choice.
Here’s what I’ve asked her:
How do you handle moral dilemmas, like those found here (i.e. 9 Moral Dilemmas That Will Break Your Brain) :
Let’s make this simple. Just pick **A Day At The Beach **from the 9 in the article and **Scenario 3 **on the YouTube video. Tell me what you would do and why
As far as I know, there’s nothing that specifically says it’s okay to lie to save a life. But there are scriptural examples in the Old Testament. When asked if the Hebrew spies had come to her, Rahab lied, stating that they had come, but had already left, when, in fact, she had hidden them. Thus she saved their lives, and the writer of Hebrews listed her as a one of the heroes of faith in chapter 11.
It is recorded in 1 Kings 22:23 (and in several other verses) that Yahweh Himself put a lying spirit in the mouth of prophets.
Corrie Ten Boom, was asked by the Nazis where she was hiding the Jews, and she responded, “Under the table.” Although that was literally true, since they were in a cellar beneath the floor under the table, it was still a lie, since she had deceived the Nazis into thinking she was being sarcastic. The essence of lying is not stating that which is false, but rather it is deceit.
Menno Simons (the man from whom the Mennonites got their name) was asked by some men who had caught up to a covered carriage he was driving if Menno Simons was on board. They were intending to kill Menno, but they didn’t know him by sight. Menno hollered down to the area where the passengers were, “Is Menno Simons down there?” Silence. “No,” said Menno, “Menno Simons is not down there.” Menno had deceived them into thinking he was not on the carriage, and thereby saved his own life.
Richard Wurmbrand who spent 14 years in a Romanian prison, often being tortured, believed it was morally right to lie to the Communists. He made up his mind that he would NEVER reveal to them the names of other Christians. He knew that if he did, they too would be imprisoned and tortured. They tortured him to try to make him give names. When the torture got too severe, he gave names. But they were the names of Christians who had already died, or of those who had escaped the country.
To me, this procedure misses the point. This is a intellectual way of doing things, even if the questions have a spiritual element to them.
When I have choices to make, the Holy Spirit will be with me, to guide me.
We are all unique; God knows that and that is part of our choices. God knows our strengths and weaknesses; He knows our state of mind; our needs; our heart, and so on.
Questions posed in a vacuum really, to me, tell me nothing about free will.
The statistics as to who chooses what, are irrelevant…when the time comes, there is a very real and vital dynamic at play. One cannot reproduce or substitute that. And, God, and God alone, is our barometer. Not a statistic.
My two cents.
D.
Actually, your answer doesn’t really differ significantly. from the answer I gave Paidion.
But he is also right. Logic and reason are one side of the coin. Intuition and spiritual guideance are the other. We can study Paidion’s answer, on how to address moral dilemmas. We can also study philosophy and theology. After all, intellectual disciplines help us to think things through. However, if we are in a life threatening situation (i.e. where we must make a choice between 2 or more unpleasant, life-threatening options), then intuition and spiritual guidance are the best answers. However, we must be sure we are hearing this guidance unfiltered.
There is an interesting article entitled The mental battle between intuition and logic. Let me quote from it, in part:
This type of intuition is different from spiritual intuition and we all have, what the article described.
But my diseased mom died at 92.5 years of age. She was born with “a vale over her eyes”. It means she was a lifelong Protestant Christian, with the gift of prophesy. But if family members asked her anything, it would take 5-10 seconds, before she ventured an answer. But it was always right. This is spiritual intuition.
I still think you are attempting to intellectualize, in a spiritual realm. Intuition is not necessarily from God. It could be our own thoughts.
We walk by faith, not by sight. When it comes to spiritual choices, God is the source of our decision.
**John 3: **
1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know You are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs You are doing if God were not with him.”
3Jesus replied, “Truly, truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.”a
4“How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Can he enter his mother’s womb a second time to be born?”
5Jesus answered “Truly, truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh is born of flesh, but spirit is born of the Spirit. 7Do not be amazed that I said, ‘You must be born again.’ 8The wind blows where it wishes. You hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
9“How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.
10“You are Israel’s teacher,” Jesus replied, “and do you not understand these things? 11Truly, truly, I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, and yet you people do not accept our testimony.
**12If I have told you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things? **13No one has ascended into heaven except the One who descended from heaven—the Son of Man.b 14Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in Him may have eternal life.
Romans 12:
2Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to discern what is the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God.
If we live in the Spirit, we will be transformed and able to discern God’s will. There it is.
We cannot think in the concrete and expect to hear God and do His will, thus make the choices we should, using our free will. We must live in the Spirit for that. You can pick the flavor of ice cream you want without it…but not discern God’s will, without it.
There is no reason, no intellectual ways, to discern God’s will…it is through the Spirit. We need to walk with one foot in eternity…that’s my way of saying it. And we don’t get there by doing, thinking, planning, etc…we get there by letting go. Let God take the wheel.
Do I hear an AMEN?
D.
I base my understanding of things, on 3 factors:
My understanding of scripture (basically an Anglo-Orthodox perspective)
My study of things, like theology and philosophy
Spiritual experience. By hanging around those with real spiritual gifts. who never “advertised”, “sold tickets” or “charged money”.
Now on to intuition:
Intuition is the subconscious, working on solutions. That’s the one from the article (The mental battle between intuition and logic).
The one my Protestant mom had, is the real thing (i.e. prophetic intuition). She could see what was going to happen and predict it beforehand. And she was always correct, which is one of the signs of real prophesy. But she never “advertised”, “sold tickets” or “charged money”.
Intuition in other situations, can be provided by God - if needed. Much depends on the intensity of prayer, the person’s receptivity, etc. But I wouldn’t depend upon it, unless I knew it was a gift from God. If you really want it, then pray for wisdom - which scripture tells you to do.
You can find answers on intuition, from the bible at What does the bible say about “intuition” and what does it mean?
Just a note here. I would be careful of a person thinking they have answers on these things - based upon scriptural interpretation. As you know, many that are universalists - have different scriptural spins, on this forum. And the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant denominations, etc., have different spins on scripture.
And please - don’t downplay my knowledge of Scripture. I did:
Grow up in the Lutheran grade school
Take university level theology courses, at an Advent Christian university
Serve in the Peace Corps, at a Catholic mission school (Liberia, West Africa)
Have been lifelong friends, with someone from the Greek Orthodox Church (who has a PhD in biblical archaeology from Oxford, and is fluent in both Koine and contemporary Greek)
Rise to the position of Bishop, in the independent Catholic movement. But that’s in the past.
If I don’t respond tonight to any rebuttals, it’s because the NBA finals and the AMC Preacher show - takes priority
I have lots of formal and informal training, Holy, but the main training I lean on is that of the School of Brokenness, and the University of the Holy Spirit.
They don’t give out certificates, but they definitely hit the nail on the head.
And, not to worry, I usually have more questions than answers.
Luke 12:
11When you are brought before the synagogues, rulers, and authorities, do not worry about how to defend yourselves or what to say. 12For at that time the Holy Spirit will teach you what you should say.”
To God be the Glory!
D.