Gillette’s Ad Reveals Our Cultural Confusion About Man’s 2 States

What is a man? Over the last 2 weeks, I’ve been challenged to think more about this. It wasn’t a challenge because the concept of masculinity was previously unknown but because such a clear idea was being undermined. Recently, Gillette released a type of ad that I’ve been seeing more and more of. Rather than featuring a product, the ads center around who the company is rather than what they do. As a men’s razor company, the ad was addressed to all males but it clearly expressed a narrative that Gillette wanted to identify with and would cause controversy — toxic masculinity. Within 2 minutes I was treated to ‘manly’ behaviors from cat calls and mansplaining (someone still has to explain what this is to me) to kids wrestling and dads barbecuing. The message was that this isn’t ‘the best men can get.’ Instead, Gillette called on men to hold one another accountable to behaviors that have long been justified as ‘boys being boys.’ This was obviously a good ad right?

While some applauded Gillette and saw it as an encouragement towards male accountability, many more could do little but roll their eyes. ‘There goes another attempt to demonize men.’ As for me, I had 2 initial impressions of the ad. I didn’t have any idea what the ad had to do with their actual product nor did I feel the urge to buy more of it. So it simply seemed a bad ad from a marketing standpoint. But I’m not a marketer nor a critic so writing about this aspect of the ad wasn’t going to help anyone. My second reaction is what I wanted to write about and it was directed towards a deeper problem — the message of the ad. I was concerned because it reflected the confusion around sex and identity that has engulfed so much of the society I live and breathe in. In life there are certain things that you just have to live and let live. Toothpaste squeezed from the top rather than the bottom? You just have to grin and bear it. But the confusion around sex isn’t one of them. Being confused about sex doesn’t just hurt women but the men Gillette claims to help. Not knowing how to relate one’s self as a man or a woman means not knowing how to relate to each other. It means people without differences, unity without diversity and existence without meaning. Categories are how we understand being and male and female have always been a part of it. As a Christian, being unable to understand my design means being unable to relate my self not just to others but to God. So gender confusion hurts people because it doesn’t just affect lifestyles but existence and meaning itself.

The 2 Natures

In the book of Genesis, the first two human beings are created by God in his image. As his image, their responsibility would be of mediating between God and being, ordering the chaos of creation into the paradisical garden of Eden. But the first two human beings disobeyed God by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The reward of having their eyes opened is for themselves a curse. One of the curses for Eve the first female, is ‘your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.’ One result of that curse was the splitting of humanity into 2 natures – good and evil. So while Adam the first male was designed to order creation, the goodness of that order would now be twisted and perverted. The loving order and stability of Adam would now become the iron fisted ruling of a tyrant and it has continued in this way. In me there exists the wise king. Yet behind him lays the dark tyrant. They both look similar and at times it can be hard to tell who’s who. The courage, strength and aggression of our fighting men have often been the turning tide of wars. Yet these very same traits have caused the rape, pillaging and destruction of whole cities.

It seems to me that men are capable of heroic displays of virtue but are at the same time, history’s most destructive force. But I don’t think such a design was accidental. I have often looked up at the night sky to observe the beauty of the stars. But it was only when the sky was darkest that their light shone the brightest. Augustine himself recognized this when he observed that God would often use prosperity to remind us of his goodness and great calamities to remind us of our need. What we needed was something stable and unchanging. It was a reminder that what we needed was God himself. What men need therefore is true masculinity and the very God who restores them to it. I do not think the present threat in our society is excessive masculinity but rather a lack of it. When men protect those under their care the world is a safer place. When men create meaning rather meaninglessness the world is a truer place. And when men live as men the world is a more beautiful place.

With further reflection, I’ve become more sympathetic towards Gillette’s attempt to address this social problem. Let me be clear – I don’t endorse it. But I think it was their way of saying that there were wrong behaviors that males had justified as being intrinsic to who they were. This was badly expressed through the phrase ‘boys will be boys’. When I think about the encouragement to ‘suck it up’ as though stoicism saved anyone, I can see Gillette’s point. But harmful behaviors that are usually expressed by males does not mean that males usually express these behaviors. And I think this is what confused people and caused the controversy. Sexual harassment is no more a product of masculinity than lying is to femininity. Unless Gillette and those under the sway of toxic masculinity understand man’s two natures, they will only be able to address it by eradicating maleness itself. When you realize that men die on the job more than females, that they are the most frequent victims of homicide and that they account for 97% of war casualties, that’s not a great idea.

When Good Ends and Evil Begins

What makes evil, evil? Is it evil to hate a person in my mind? Or if I pretend to love them while secretly hating them? What if I openly hate them? What if I pretend to love them and then hate them by working against them without their knowledge? What if I murder them? You might say, ‘that’s enough. Of course you shouldn’t murder them!’ So abstractly labeling the latter as evil is easy. But if you’re required to retrace your steps backwards then it’s not so clear when good ends and evil begins. I think the default is to pass over every stage until the last one. In the age of the trite and trivial, it’s easy to pass over the early behaviors because they have less obvious consequences.

In truth, they’re all evil though varying in degrees. That seems overblown until you realize these behaviors or thoughts aren’t isolated incidences but states of being lived in the presence of an infinite person. Like my mother used to say, ‘it’s your attitude.’ When we pass over these small ‘bad’ actions without recognizing its evil, it’s akin to severing our vessels from our heart. These little behaviors are symptoms of our inner condition and who we are. Imagine the physician who points out to the patient that he has peripheral vascular disease. The patient retorts, ‘nice try doctor but these aren’t my vessels.’ Yet the madness of severing our behaviors from our self is seen everywhere. The malady becomes terminal when blinded by our spiritual sickness we can no longer recognize the good and evil we attempt to define. The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is not to know good and evil. No, the food poisoning sets in before that.

In The Sickness Unto Death, Kierkegaard described the severity of sin (the Christian conception of evil) as terrible precisely because it occurred before God –

”…there was much truth in the idea, even though it has occasionally been misused, that what made sin so terrible was its being before God. From this people proved the eternity of hell’s punishment and then later became cleverer and said: ‘sin is sin; it is none the worse for being against or before God.’ Strange! Even lawyers talk of aggravated crimes; even lawyers distinguish between crimes committed against public officials and private citizens, prescribe different punishments for patricide and ordinary murder.

Wronging God infinitely heightens the severity of sin because God is not someone external, who exists outside ourselves like a police constable. Instead, he is a constant relation relating to our self. And the magnitude of our crime is judged based on the self’s standard and the person its been committed against. And it has always been this way. What would one think if a child murdered his father? Would such a child have committed the same crime by murdering his dog?

Kierkegaard wrote that the self has a conception of God yet does not do what God wants and is disobedient. Thus God is never sinned against occasionally but always as long as one was in such a state. Now the higher the consciousness of one’s self, the more intensely the awareness of the self’s standard of measurement – God. The more conception of self, the more God and the more conception of God, the more self.

Calvin, the Swiss theologian recognized the link between the knowledge of one’s self and of God:

“For, in the first place, no man can survey himself without forthwith turning his thoughts towards the God in whom he lives and moves; because it is perfectly obvious, that the endowments which we possess cannot possibly be from ourselves; nay, that our very being is nothing else than subsistence in God alone. In the second place, those blessings which unceasingly distil to us from heaven, are like streams conducting us to the fountain. Here, again, the infinitude of good which resides in God becomes more apparent from our poverty”

The state of evil therefore lies in the will. And its severity lies in its relating of the self to its foundation, God. Evil is evil because it says “this is good for me!” and defies God for good is not ‘for you’ but rather ‘for God’. He is the person of infinite goodness. After all, Nietzsche remarked that good and evil were simply expressions of the will to power. A person who sins is a daughter who slaps her father whilst sitting on his lap. “I would rather sit on my own lap than yours, thank you very much!” Her crime lay in slapping not an inconsequential person but her father who gave her life and of using the elevation of his lap to do the very deed. Little girl, don’t you realize that you can’t slap your father without sitting on his lap?

Complement this article with:

  1. The Sickness Unto Death, Soren Kierkegaard.
  2. Beyond Good and Evil, Friedrich Nietzsche
  3. Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin.

The Tyranny of Freedom

In the beginning, God existed absolutely free. He was free to do as he desired, and constrained only by his own character. He made Adam and Eve male and female, giving them their very own radical freedom to live as his image. This meant that they too were constrained only by his character – goodness. They had the freedom to choose where and what they did except for one thing – to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Attempting to eat from such a tree however meant attempting to transcend God’s own character and know good and evil for themselves. They would use their very own freedom to determine good and evil outside of God, wrecking reality in the process. Sadly, the story has continued till today.

Today, we feel free to decide what makes us happy whether that’s the choice of our career or spouse. Yet these choices often makes us just as miserable, with a common outcome of anxiety over our decisions, discontentment with our current situation and a sense of meaninglessness. Our freedom to choose what makes us happy often seems more like slavery to whatever our current impulses are. Freedom is slavery and slavery is freedom.

Yet the key reason why is because freedom was not given in order to determine what makes us happy. Instead, true freedom is choosing what will ultimately make us happy. But how can we know what makes truly makes happy without it being revealed to us? Humans were made free, in order that we might use our freedom to transcend ourselves and live for another. But we were never made free to transcend God himself and live as though we were him. God’s freedom is to determine what is, while the freedom of man is simply to choose. The hope of the Christian is that in the dimly lit cave of humanity, God shone the light of his Son and entered it himself to lead us out, by pointing us back to where we belong – in the freedom of living for him. And he is continuing to do so today.

Being A Good Person Cannot Make Up For The Wrong We Do: Why I love that God needed to become a man

The weird habit all humans have

We just can’t help ourselves. Like impulsive children, we just can’t help feeling bad whenever we do something wrong. And we can’t stop trying to make up for it. And if we find that we can’t? Well despair sets in like quick cement, our guilty conscience eating away at us like termites underneath timbers. We have a deeply personal knowledge of wrongs, more than just an intellectual assent. When we see wrongs committed against us or others, our hearts cry out for reparation. That’s part of what makes us human. And the reason why it’s a part of being human is because God created humans to be his image, including his justice.

Our weird habit is evidence of a damaged product

Just as every object was created with a purpose, as humans, we were made in the image of God, designed to honor God by obeying and enjoying him forever. But our conscience assures us we have fallen way short of that. We are prone to do what’s wrong, especially when we’re told we can’t do something. The very thought of being prohibited from something itches away at us. Our moral compasses are broken and we’re scrambling around like ants trying to fix it. So when we act selfishly, if we recognize it, we’ll apologize and promise to do better next time, hoping that’ll resolve our guilt. Unfortunately our consciences don’t seem to work that way. Like a bank account, each wrong committed is a withdrawal on our balance, gradually accumulating more and more debt in our account as we age. It is no wonder that old men are some of the most regretful people in the world.

Being good is overrated

But God is a person of infinite beauty and value. Therefore obeying and enjoying him is the highest good. That means every transgression is a cosmic crime of eternal and infinite proportion. It is like choosing to eat your own feces over lobster. If God says not to eat something, we ought not to eat it even at the cost of all the universe and multiple universes more. The penalty for such a crime then is something greater than the whole amount of our obligations. The penalty requires a payment of infinite value because it has been committed against an infinite being. How then can being good absolve our guilt when it is merely being what we were made to be? It seems that the history of ethics has vastly overrated its credit value.

The solution: a bail out by God

Religions are implicitly aware of this, which is why the story of the world’s religions is one in which the debt is attempted to be remedied since they all know the accounts will have to be settled one day. The problem is that with the exception of Christianity, religions rituals, superstitions and self-help practices have worked only to temporarily suppress our guilt. Let’s not kid ourselves. Our selfishness is an enormous crime and if not for God’s restraints, would be hell on earth. No, the only thing that would make reparation for a life lived in defiance of its infinitely valuable giver, is an eternal and infinitely more valuable life than any human being could offer.

If our hope is in ourselves, our will to power, or our ability to create our own meaning with our choices, then we are of all people the most to be pitied. Living the good life by ourselves is the feeble attempt of a toddler to beat his dad in basketball. The dam of our disappointments and guilt will eventually break its banks and crush us with the weight of its condemnation when we realize we cannot live the life we so desperately want to. The end of living for one’s self is despair not freedom. And the end of despair is death, not life.

Only God can give himself something that is more valuable than the whole universe. And there is nothing that is more valuable than all existence but himself. But it is man who owes the debt. So God the author of life, entered life himself as a character – the man Jesus, so that he might pay man’s debt with his own life. It was life that had existed from eternity. And it was life that was infinitely more valuable than anything else. It was a life through whom, to whom and for whom, all things were made. Only the life and death of Jesus could remedy our guilt because only as a human could he represent us, and only as God could his life be of infinite worth. And because he was of infinite worth, his payment is sufficient for every person who desires to have their guilt washed, their conscience cleansed and their life restored – as his eternal image. This is why I love that God had to become man.

Why Hell Must Exist

You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. Matt 5:21-23

When was the last time you thought about hell? If you’re like me it’s probably been awhile. That’s not a surprise because sometime around the latter half of the 20th century, hell dropped out of our culture’s vocabulary. I’m not sure how it happened or exactly when, but I do remember hell being a common phrase as a kid and then it suddenly just vanished. It wasn’t that it was there one day and then gone the next; it was as if adults had ever heard of such a concept. Instead of a common belief around which morality and life was oriented, it became a dirty word associated with fringe groups. Like those Westboro Baptist guys. It wasn’t a teaching you or your church wanted to be known for. Sure people nowadays may believe in a hell, but this concept is vague and it isn’t quite sure who makes it or who doesn’t. What is certain is that you don’t and no one you’re related to don’t. Not to mention most people. Really, the only people who would deserve hell would probably be Hitler…and that’s about it.

The Christian View of Hell

This places modern Christians in an awkward position since they have always believed in a literal heaven and hell from the time of the apostles. More than that, Christians believe that anyone who doesn’t repent and turn to a man named Jesus will go to hell, separated from any good relationship with God and in the full presence of his wrath. In tolerant times like ours, the Christian belief of heaven and hell is like jumping into a frozen pool, a shock to our system of values. This makes it almost incomprehensible and because of that it’s easy for such views to be socially rejected because of its perceived ‘unfairness’.

Can God really condemn people for a lack of belief? What about the ‘good atheist’? What about Gandhi? More importantly what about the everyday people we know and love like grandma who isn’t a Christian but is one of the most kind hearted people you’ll ever meet? If it’s an outrage when a good man gets the same sentence as a wicked one, how much more when God does so with humans. But if you pause to reflect on the nature of justice, you realize that for a perfect God to be just, hell must necessarily exist. More than that, hell must include people just like you and me.

Evil Isn’t Out There, It’s In Here

While technology like social media has readily opened up the world to us in the 21st century, being more connected to other human beings also means being more open to seeing the injustice and evil that exists in this world. When we see a news report of a school shooting, or a woman who had acid thrown on her face for leaving Islam, or that Syria has attacked its own citizens with chlorine gas, our heart cries out for justice.

But if we want the world to be a better place, wanting injustice to be remedied is only the first step. The second one is to realize that all of the evil we see in others is the same that’s present in ourselves. The scariest thing about the Holocaust, were that its soldiers, its prison guards, and its secret services were just everyday German citizens. They weren’t born monsters, they were human and this was demonstrated in the shock of one Jewish man who attended his perpetrator’s trial. As he looked into his eyes, he saw his humanity and he realized that the two were the same.

We are each capable of infinite evil. Like cancerous cells, they lie dormant within us, awaiting their opportunity to entice our souls. So if we want God to eliminate evil and rectify injustice, we must accept that a perfect God cannot tolerate the least bit of evil in the universe. He must deal with all of it and not just some out there in others. And that includes even the judgment of people like you and me who probably may not ever commit a major crime in our lives, but nonetheless harbor the very same dark desires that when fed, lead to widespread suffering.

Why Only Those Who Believe In Jesus Escape Hell

The Christian doesn’t believe that people go to hell because of their lack of belief in Jesus anymore than we believe that lifelines cause the death of people who drown. No, people drown because they asphyxiate underwater but the lifeline was the only thing that could’ve saved them. So too with Jesus. In any court case, justice demands payment. But in the courts of God, the cost of a crime against an eternally perfect being is more than any man can bear. Unless a perfect substitute exists to bear the guilt of the evil that lies within us, all we’re left with is despair – despair that despite our best efforts to scrub off the evil around us, we can never touch the evil within us and despair because we ultimately know that it will never measure up under the eyes of God. But this is the beauty of Jesus:

“But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.” Is. 53:5

Is the Existence of God and Evil Logically Contradictory?

Epicurus ponders a question as old as time itself.

Evil Shows That There Is No God: God and Evil Reconciled

The Traditional Argument

J.L. Mackie was an Australian philosopher of the 20th Century, who most famously wrote of the logical contradiction between the existence of God and evil, which has now become one of the de facto arguments against Christianity and theism in general. In my own time in university, I’ve heard many a student say, “how can a loving, all powerful, all knowing God possibly allow so much evil to exist?” Another variation is for the student to replace the word “evil” with “suffering”. Though I’ve edited this article, much of it is based on an essay, which I wrote during my time in a Presbyterian seminary so forgive any language that may be hard to understand. Not all of the arguments here are mine, but footnotes have been deleted due to formatting issues. If you would like to have a look at them, please contact me for the full pdf. This article was written to address the so-called logical contradiction of evil and God, not the necessarily existential or emotional aspect of one’s struggle with this belief, which would necessitate a whole other article by itself. Without further ado, Mackie in Evil shows that there is no God argues that traditional theistic beliefs are ultimately irrational.

The question is a philosophical rather than existential struggle to belief by trying to find a logical contradiction in the existence of God and evil. Mackie attempts this by means of a valid deductive argument with true premises for God’s non-existence. If valid, the statement “God and evil exists” is contradictory and hence false. Mackie’s argument is this:

1. God is omnipotent

2. God is wholly good

3. Evil exists

4. Good is opposed to evil by eliminating it as far as it can

5. There is no limit to what omnipotent beings can do

6. A good omnipotent being eliminates all evil

7. Evil exists, therefore a good omnipotent God does not

In Mackie’s view, traditional theism affirms the existence of God and evil, and therefore what is contradictory. To make a contradictory, false statement “true”, theism must deny the logicality of its affirmation. Mackie demonstrates that the only alternative solution is to deny at least one of the premises or modify it while undermining theism’s core position. Four examples of solutions that implicitly deny these premises are that good cannot exist without evil, evil is a necessary means to good, the universe is better with some evil than without, and evil is due to free will. Either way, belief in God is irrational. If rational, then either God or evil cannot exist.

Mackie’s Philosophical Contribution by this Argument

In retrospect, Mackie’s deduction is logically valid. If the premises are true, he concludes a significant philosophical question that has been debated for millenniums. After all, thousands of years before, the Greek philosopher Epicurus once said the exact same, “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?” Moreover, it is proof that the traditional theistic God does not exist. If we assert he does despite this proof, then our theistic belief is irrational and ultimately cannot be known to be true or false. Theism appears to be in a bind and this argument will be examined later on.

Does Free Will Necessitate that Evil Exist?

Mackie also gives a sound refutation of evil as necessary for free will and undermines the concept of libertarian freedom. First, he questions why freedom is a “good” and more valuable than any other good that it necessitates co-existence with evil. If a wrong act is done freely, does it then become good? Secondly, it is evident that humans sometimes choose good over evil freely, whether it is due to circumstance or desire. If men can freely choose good sometimes, why can God not make us choose good every time? Therefore, free will is reduced to randomness so that God cannot be held responsible for the “sometimes wrong”.

Ganssle’s libertarian argument that it is possible for evil to exist so that free will can have the possibility of actualizing different realities subtly undermines an omnipotent God. If God is not sovereign over everything including the intrinsic world, then he is not sovereign at all. This is exacerbated when understanding that Christian theism constitutes an omniscient God because foreseeing an event that may lead to evil, Mackie’s premises necessitates that God omnipotently act to prevent it in his foreknowledge.

Lastly, in order to know if we have free will, we must be able to know that it is in our power to choose otherwise. Yet we cannot know all that affects our desires both internally and externally so that we can do so freely. We would have to know every cause, factor and relationship of the world and ourselves to determine if our next decision was free. Moreover, would we really know if other alternative realities would actualize depending on our choice? They remain a speculative possibility and possibilities are merely a synonym for uncertainty. To know if we have free will, we would have to be omniscient. We are clearly not, and so must resort to a better definition of free will in this traditional libertarian defense of theism.

A Christian Response to Mackie

Since evil self-evidentially exists, Mackie’s argument on appearance draws logical proof for God’s non-existence and furthermore the irrationality of objecting belief. On closer examination, I hope to show that Mackie’s argument is intrinsically flawed from its definitions and premises while his conclusion itself assumes and proves the Christian God’s existence. Consequently, the belief that God and evil cannot co-exist is not just irrational but false, and the belief that God and evil does is not merely rational but true.

I will start with the premises. Premise 3) is true but unjustified from an atheistic position. First, Mackie does not provide a definition of his most important problem, which he uses to conclude his argument. What is evil? What evil does he have in mind that cannot co-exist with God? The fact that he has not defined it but is assumed in what he says it is, reveals that it is a subjective “evil” he is asserting when saying “it” cannot exist with God. This is merely reduced to a personal preference that God’s existence is incompatible with. He has yet to justify its universality or nature, and he cannot, because to justify it one must be omniscient (to know all that is good and evil) and omnipotent (to be able to determine good from evil universally instead of being subject to it), which no human is. Yet Mackie assumes that evil exists. He does so by saying that a theist cannot deny it but the burden of proof lies on him to show it does as an atheist. Christian theism explains evil as an ethical rebellion with its beginning in the world as a result of the Fall. Raising the question of evil assumes that God exists because a universal, objective standard must be used which can only be determined by an omnipotent and omniscient being, else subjectivism ensues.

Moreover, new exhibitions of what humans universally know as evil is continually found each day in newspapers. The definition of evil is always changing and debated by philosophers. We are unable to question God’s compatibility with evil by its mere presence because we do not know evil exhaustively and so cannot define it. Without defining evil, we are unable even to know good and evil properly. The answer lies only in a Christian theistic idea of evil that is defined by God. When Mackie concludes that God and evil cannot exist he can only do so if he affirms that they do. Such a statement becomes rationally irrational.

In the conclusion, Mackie is right when saying that God cannot exist with evil as a deductive result from his premises, because this god is the god of his subjective ideal based on his premises and not the God of Christianity. In fact, the Christian theistic belief is assumed in order for him to prove that his conceptual god does not. How? There are two main premises that Christian theism disagrees with here, without undermining its core “theistic” position: 4) and 5).

First, 4) can be changed to – a good being eliminates evil as far as it can unless it has good reasons for not doing so. However, I am merely pointing out that Mackie’s deduction is false from Christian theistic premises and not saying this directlyproves God’s existence. Rather it helps to affirm it. This is because the debate would be shifted to what constituted “good reasons” depending on whether it was aligned with Mackie’s standard of evil (which is subjective) or my standard. A parent may sometimes allow a child to suffer evil for his own good, but we are precisely like the child. We cannot see it as a good. The distinction is not up to us. Secondly, Christian theism can modify 5) to be – there are no logical limits to what an omnipotent being can do. It is impossible for God to perform impossibility. Mackie actually assumes this Christian presupposition underlying his idea of omnipotence because if there were no illogical limits to what an omnipotent God could do, then it is no contradiction for God to coexist with evil because he could allow contradictions to occur. It is his burden to prove that God cannot do what is illogical and he cannot without assuming the Christian view of a logical God.

The Underlying Issue of Such a Question

The logical question is actually revealed to be one of psychological resistance because God’s choice to allow evil must be approved by our idea of what a “good, omnipotent being” must do or be for him to exist; which is by having no evil. Either God is subject to our moral judgment or else our logic. Therefore, we have changed the premises while seemingly undermining theistic belief. The problem is that it is not Christian theism. Rather it is Mackie’s conception of God.

Ultimately, the question of whether God and evil can coexist is not ours to ask. Why is it that a good being eliminates evil as far as it can or that it does unless it has good reasons for doing so? What allows us this definition to what a good being can or cannot do to be good besides our self? We cannot determine whether God and evil can coexist unless we first understand what a good being does. Christian theism answers this. God is good. It is his nature. Hence all that he does is good regardless of whether we call it evil. He is not a good being because he is subservient to some higher law. Rather, the law was created for his creation so if God were to “steal”, he would not be doing wrong because all that is created is his. God defines good and evil, by being the natural embodiment of good so that no matter what he does is determinatively good. There is no law higher than himself. There is no claim for God’s responsibility either because there is no superior being to which he can be held accountable; he transcends both.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Mackie must assume Christian theism to deny his wrong and illogical concept of God by the use of his unjustified definitions. Ultimately, such a belief against God and evil’s co-existence becomes irrational and false. Without God to define omnipotence, good, and evil, we have no foundation but our subjective selves to deny his existence. We cannot use our notions of reason or morality to prove or deny God’s existence because we are unable to interpret morality rightly by our standards or justify reason’s validity. We must use him to justify them. God and evil does exist, and exists rationally. However this relationship does not depend on our rationality because it is flawed, but rather our very nature and question presupposes that he does. Therefore, in order to know how and know clearly, we need direct revelation from God himself because in him, we live, move, and have our being.

Agree? Disagree? Let me know what you think down in the comments!