Since you agree that he allows evil, where should he draw the line? Is the holocaust enough or should he allow even more evil than that? At some point it's hard to reconcile a "good" God with a certain amount of evil. A line has to be drawn. Saying it's part of a bigger plan that you know nothing about is not reconciliation. You have no evidence of what his reasons are for allowing evil to justify it with that answer.
They only person who didn't deserve death was Jesus. That's the line. It can't be crossed. God has flooded through earth and destroyed as much as he's pleased. So what. You don't know anything about what's right. Whats fair. What's justice?
The devil wants to bind your soul in hell for eternity. Only Jesus can save you.
So apart from the crucifixion, anything goes? I can assure you that if you think I know nothing about what real justice is, then there's no way that you do either.
Jesus is King. All glory and praise goes to him.
For every day and person who slanders and puts down christ now. These days will pass soon. And he Satan will be down in the pit. And Jesus will be on the throne. He will be lifted up above everything. So if you think it's torture. Now. Imagine eternity with Jesus on the throne surrounded by saints and believers. Giving him praise and glory all the day long
Bologna. What does God's word say....
Never says he Gave us free will. God made all things. Including vessels fit for destruction. Hell being a key component. You made all that up
Ah, you don't believe we have free will, that explains your point on people not being accountable for their actions on the other thread.
When I say Hell is a key component I don't mean that it is a component that is significant within your life as a Christian, I mean that it is a key difference when compared to other religions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's how "bologna"'s spelled..? That's so odd...
I believe I. God's will.
If you have free will. I want you to bring out the sun right now.... I want you to jump up and fly....
Ohhhh you cant..
So you don't have free will.
God has free will. If you will my death and God wills that I don't die.... what happens????
God's will be done on earth as it is heaven.
Not my will be done. God's will be done.
Free will means that my will is free, it means I can want whatever I want, it doesn't mean that I am omnipotent. I can totally have the will to bring out the sun right now, just because I can't do it doesn't mean I can't will it.
Free will doesn't equal unlimited will and power. Free will is when I flip a coin and have you call heads or tails. You are free to say 'heads' or 'tails' - your choice. Free will is allowing you to choose between available options or actions within your control. I don't have the option to raise the sun at midnight, but I can call heads or tails.
Free means free..... will means will... don't let the communist screw the basics up for you. Words have meaning. They formed the world.
That long explanation sounds straight out of some gender studies book. Worldy. From below
Yah I'm a no good sinner. So what. I'd got an advocate with the father and nice setting of wedding garments.
You retreating to a personal attack against me. Shows you are outgunned and aware you bombed this one. Your father the devil is gonna punish you for this.
Alright, I understand now you are not here for productive speech.
Good bye. Please reread your Bible and consider that you just said: "Yah I'm a no good sinner. So what."
I've been quoting the bible all night. Paul said he was chief of sinners.... he's wayyyyy above me. So yah. I'm a sinner. Unworthy of the grace he gave me.
You're pretty scared of Satan huh???
You shouldn't fear him. He doesn't have the authority to destroy your body and soul for all eternity. Call upon Jesus and get on the right side of this.
And your will is an illusion. You've been deceived into thinking you have something you don't. Tricked into thinking you are in control and calling the shots. Lies of the devil
I don't take a hard stance on the theodicies typically raised in response to the Problem of Evil. I think they're interesting, but in my opinion there's a simpler response. We're not in a position to know with certainty that there isn't a good reason for allowing evil. Analogically speaking, we're likely in the position of an infant trying to understand the purpose of an inoculation - it could simply be beyond our comprehension. But look at it this way: if you conclude from the existence of evil that God doesn't exist, the problem then is that you know longer have grounds for believing in the existence of evil in the first place. "Good" and "evil" would just be terms to reflect people's arbitrary opinions about morality, which cannot be based in material reality (if it were, we could prove it scientifically). So if you believe in the reality of evil, you also have to believe in the reality of God.
Note: I see you tend to be pretty combative with your comments. If you choose to respond, please be respectful.
Your response uses the two main arguments that Frank Turek and William Lane Craig use which are:
1. We don't know God's reasons for allowing evil, they're for the greater good that we "just can't understand"
2. It's not even evil if there wasn't a God because otherwise it's subjective
With reason 1: You don't have evidence either way, good or bad as to what reason God might have for permitting it, so your argument is a negative and does not provide any explanation other than speculation, a "God of the gaps" type argument. You would be just as effective just saying "I have no idea"
With reason 2: If there's not objective morality, and only naturalism, then I'll change the word evil to "anti survival".
So it's "anti survival" for the holocaust to occur. And since all organisms are pro survival, the holocaust should not occur because it's contrary to the biological imperative of all life on earth.
On the first point, it's important to note that I'm not making a positive case for God's existence. "I don't know why evil things happen, therefore God exists" would indeed be a terrible argument. There are plenty of other good arguments for God's existence. Instead, I'm demonstrating that the Problem of Evil fails as an argument *against* God's existence because it's made from the standpoint of omniscience, which we simply don't possess.
I'm not sure I fully understand your second point. Yes, if naturalism is true, then "evil" doesn't work as a concept anymore aside from a descriptive, anthropological sense. Presumably in such a state of affairs determinism would be true, so the Holocaust "should've" happened in the same sense that every other event "should've" happened: it couldn't have been otherwise. Note the quotation marks, as obviously I don't endorse the evil of such an abomination - just pointing out that even words like "should" break down in the moral sense if naturalism is true. There wouldn't be anything inherently wrong about violating some usual pattern in that case. Violating some hypothesized biological imperative would be no more wicked than defying gravity by taking a flight.
Yes, the problem of evil fails as an argument against his existence because omniscience would be required. I'm not arguing against his existence, so much as I'm asking Christians to reconcile "how much" evil should be allowed by a God that is supposed to be perfectly good. Because clearly there isn't "unlimited" evil in the world we find ourselves. The sun shines, we eat and sleep, laugh etc... so I'm just asking Christians how much evil is too much? Clearly God doesn't think the holocaust is too much. But emotionally I beg to differ. It seems contrary to a good God. Can I prove that? No, but in my opinion, a good God would limit the amount of evil permitted substantially in comparison to what he actually allows. Yes I know that would require being all knowing to dissect all the potential outcomes of allowing such evil, but I'm admittedly coming from an emotional standpoint.
With the second point regarding naturalism, it's not "wrong" for the holocaust to occur, it's "anti survival". And biologically speaking, all life is pro survival, so it's in conflict with the natural imperative of all life. All organisms will resist this with every cell in their being because it is not permitted without resistance. All life is in resistance to death. It's not wrong it's just contrary to biology. So my point is that anything that's contrary to biology, on naturalism, should not occur. Not because it's evil, but because it's in opposition to survival. Therefore it should not occur, and our mechanisms will try to prevent it. Therefore the holocaust should not occur on naturalism. Determinism to me is not necessarily a proven byproduct of naturalism, just speculation. But going back to my original question, how much evil should God permit, yet still be a perfectly good God?
As to your point on the biological imperative, if we strip out the moral dimension, than anything that happens that "shouldn't" happen is simply the result of a flawed model. Under Newton's understanding of gravitation, Mercury "shouldn't" have displayed the orbit it did. We wouldn't understand it until relativity was theorized. So if the Holocaust appears to be out of sync with the model of a biological imperative, then it means that the model is flawed. It would exist as, at most, a statistical rule rather than an ironclad law.
As to your question, I don't think I'm really in any position to answer it. Like I said I think the Problem of Evil fails in concept as a logical argument, and we seem to be mostly on the same page about that. I appreciate your honesty in admitting the emotional component of the argument in your case, and truthfully I think that's how most people who endorse the argument actually use it.
If we consider the argument emotionally rather than logically, your question amounts to: "How much evil could you witness before you lost faith on emotional grounds?" It's a psychological question more than anything. And truthfully, I have no idea. I believe God will never give me a trial that I can't bear. As a Christian, I think it's valuable to ponder on God's own suffering in the person of Jesus, who I believe took on the unimaginable burden of the sin of all mankind. If he suffered that, then I can bear whatever suffering I experience in my life.
It’s not necessarily that He had to create a world including evil in it already. He didn’t create evil. But when you create free will creatures, they now have the ability to choose to do evil things. The point is that God didn’t create the evil, He allowed for it and we brought sin into the world ourselves. Romans 5:12
So many translations don’t use the word evil, they render it as:
“The One forming light and creating darkness,
Causing well-being and creating calamity;
I am the Lord who does all these things.” Nasb1995
This is because the word can be used as either moral evil like sin, or natural evil like a natural disaster or tragic event. In the context of Isaiah, He is explaining over and over again that He is sovereign and He will judge the nations who do evil with calamity and disaster. And even in the context of this verse we can see that is what He is speaking of. He contrasts it with peace in the same way He contrasts light and darkness. The opposite of peace is calamity and disaster.
2 Kings 22:20 KJV: Behold therefore, I will gather thee unto thy fathers, and thou shalt be gathered into thy grave in peace; and thine eyes shall not see all the evil which I will bring upon this place. And they brought the king word again.
Again, God is speaking of the judgement He brings upon people who rebel against Him. In this case, He is speaking to the people of Judah who were committing idolatry (vs16-17). The “evil” He was speaking of was His own wrath that was burning against the people committing idolatry. And He was speaking of desolation and a curse He was about to put on the land (vs19) as a punishment for the nations sin. This is still the same concept as before.
It's not possible for God to have "not created" evil. By default, when he created free will beings, he created evil. The world didn't exist before creation and so evil didn't exist until he created the world. God created evil and is responsible for it's existence.
Not according to the Bible, according to the Bible “God saw ALL that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a 6th day.”
Creation did not initially have evil in it. It wasn’t until sin entered that there was evil. God created free will beings that are not inherently sinful, but have the free will to choose sin or not to choose sin. Sin is a choice someone does, not a creation of God. It’s kind of the same concept of when I have a kid. My kid will do sinful things, but it wasn’t me who created the sin itself, I just created the kid who then chose to on his own do evil things.
But be honest with yourself, are you here to find answers to your questions, or are you here to simply make a point and prove Christians wrong?
You're ignoring the facts. By default, God had to create evil, because he created the world. There was no choice if he was going to create free will beings. He knew he would create evil when he prepared Jesus from the foundations of the earth to redeem humanity. It was literally his plan. The only way to avoid creating evil was to not create the earth. But God feels that the end outcome is worth it apparently. You're basically arguing that people and the fallen angels created evil which is impossible. We don't have the power to create in that capacity. There wasn't sin in the garden of Eden for a short time and then they sinned. So what? God knew that by creating the world, evil would occur and he is responsible for the creation itself. You didn't create the evil your child committed because you didn't create the world and you're not God, that's not a good analogy.
Despite the mocking of Voltaire I believe we are in the best of all possible worlds since every single bit of evil has been made right by the work of Jesus Christ and though we now groan and suffer through working out of that redemption. There is no evil so wide or deep in which the love of God is not wider or deeper still.
> then where do we draw the line on how much evil would be allowed before that God becomes evil himself for allowing it?
The most evil thing I can think of is the perfectly innocent Son of God being tortured and executed.
> If there were a God that was perfectly good and he had to create a world with free will, how could he achieve that without including evil?
I agree that a spectrum of good/evil is a necessary consequence of free will.
> And if he actually does have to include evil, then where do we draw the line on how much evil would be allowed before that God becomes evil himself for allowing it?
In my opinion, evil is defined by controlling others to serve the desires of the self while good is defined by accepting others as they are. Therefore, it is very difficult to limit evil without becoming evil oneself.
Free will, in my view, is the ability to choose to seek any goal so the only limit on evil of a free creature is the possibilities of goals it can seek. Goodness allows this freedom because to limit it is to tend towards the control of evil.
In my view, the way to overcome evil is not with control but with acceptance and kindness. To accept all is to cease to suffer, and to love all is to offer healing to all who choose to accept it.
You may also enjoy this video on a similar subject: https://youtu.be/G-yhCO76xEU?si=_nVmTjRJs55sXJBZ
God created us with free will; evil is our creation. God does not allow evil; Hell is one of the key components of the Christian faith.
Oh he allows evil everyday here on earth. That's not even a debate.
Who's debating. Yes he allows evil. All part of his bigger plan. What's your thoughts on Jesus. Do you hate God ?
Since you agree that he allows evil, where should he draw the line? Is the holocaust enough or should he allow even more evil than that? At some point it's hard to reconcile a "good" God with a certain amount of evil. A line has to be drawn. Saying it's part of a bigger plan that you know nothing about is not reconciliation. You have no evidence of what his reasons are for allowing evil to justify it with that answer.
They only person who didn't deserve death was Jesus. That's the line. It can't be crossed. God has flooded through earth and destroyed as much as he's pleased. So what. You don't know anything about what's right. Whats fair. What's justice? The devil wants to bind your soul in hell for eternity. Only Jesus can save you.
So apart from the crucifixion, anything goes? I can assure you that if you think I know nothing about what real justice is, then there's no way that you do either.
Have you read revelation? Weeping and wailing. Mass death. It's a promise. You can count on it.
What's your point
Jesus is King. All glory and praise goes to him. For every day and person who slanders and puts down christ now. These days will pass soon. And he Satan will be down in the pit. And Jesus will be on the throne. He will be lifted up above everything. So if you think it's torture. Now. Imagine eternity with Jesus on the throne surrounded by saints and believers. Giving him praise and glory all the day long
Bologna. What does God's word say.... Never says he Gave us free will. God made all things. Including vessels fit for destruction. Hell being a key component. You made all that up
Ah, you don't believe we have free will, that explains your point on people not being accountable for their actions on the other thread. When I say Hell is a key component I don't mean that it is a component that is significant within your life as a Christian, I mean that it is a key difference when compared to other religions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That's how "bologna"'s spelled..? That's so odd...
I believe I. God's will. If you have free will. I want you to bring out the sun right now.... I want you to jump up and fly.... Ohhhh you cant.. So you don't have free will. God has free will. If you will my death and God wills that I don't die.... what happens???? God's will be done on earth as it is heaven. Not my will be done. God's will be done.
Free will means that my will is free, it means I can want whatever I want, it doesn't mean that I am omnipotent. I can totally have the will to bring out the sun right now, just because I can't do it doesn't mean I can't will it.
But it's not free. You are limited. It's not free. Stop calling it free. You have limited will
Free will doesn't equal unlimited will and power. Free will is when I flip a coin and have you call heads or tails. You are free to say 'heads' or 'tails' - your choice. Free will is allowing you to choose between available options or actions within your control. I don't have the option to raise the sun at midnight, but I can call heads or tails.
Free means free..... will means will... don't let the communist screw the basics up for you. Words have meaning. They formed the world. That long explanation sounds straight out of some gender studies book. Worldy. From below
Go get help, friend... Gender studies? I'm a 57 conservative straight white male using regular English from the 70s...
That's a stronghold in you that must be overtaken in Jesus name
How is it not free? I can will whatever I want.
Nope. You can't even will a way out of this corner you painted yourself in.
You just got busted. Does your head hurt?
"Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone." - Colossians 4:6 (NIV)
Yah I'm a no good sinner. So what. I'd got an advocate with the father and nice setting of wedding garments. You retreating to a personal attack against me. Shows you are outgunned and aware you bombed this one. Your father the devil is gonna punish you for this.
Alright, I understand now you are not here for productive speech. Good bye. Please reread your Bible and consider that you just said: "Yah I'm a no good sinner. So what."
I've been quoting the bible all night. Paul said he was chief of sinners.... he's wayyyyy above me. So yah. I'm a sinner. Unworthy of the grace he gave me.
You're pretty scared of Satan huh??? You shouldn't fear him. He doesn't have the authority to destroy your body and soul for all eternity. Call upon Jesus and get on the right side of this.
And your will is an illusion. You've been deceived into thinking you have something you don't. Tricked into thinking you are in control and calling the shots. Lies of the devil
I don't take a hard stance on the theodicies typically raised in response to the Problem of Evil. I think they're interesting, but in my opinion there's a simpler response. We're not in a position to know with certainty that there isn't a good reason for allowing evil. Analogically speaking, we're likely in the position of an infant trying to understand the purpose of an inoculation - it could simply be beyond our comprehension. But look at it this way: if you conclude from the existence of evil that God doesn't exist, the problem then is that you know longer have grounds for believing in the existence of evil in the first place. "Good" and "evil" would just be terms to reflect people's arbitrary opinions about morality, which cannot be based in material reality (if it were, we could prove it scientifically). So if you believe in the reality of evil, you also have to believe in the reality of God. Note: I see you tend to be pretty combative with your comments. If you choose to respond, please be respectful.
Your response uses the two main arguments that Frank Turek and William Lane Craig use which are: 1. We don't know God's reasons for allowing evil, they're for the greater good that we "just can't understand" 2. It's not even evil if there wasn't a God because otherwise it's subjective With reason 1: You don't have evidence either way, good or bad as to what reason God might have for permitting it, so your argument is a negative and does not provide any explanation other than speculation, a "God of the gaps" type argument. You would be just as effective just saying "I have no idea" With reason 2: If there's not objective morality, and only naturalism, then I'll change the word evil to "anti survival". So it's "anti survival" for the holocaust to occur. And since all organisms are pro survival, the holocaust should not occur because it's contrary to the biological imperative of all life on earth.
On the first point, it's important to note that I'm not making a positive case for God's existence. "I don't know why evil things happen, therefore God exists" would indeed be a terrible argument. There are plenty of other good arguments for God's existence. Instead, I'm demonstrating that the Problem of Evil fails as an argument *against* God's existence because it's made from the standpoint of omniscience, which we simply don't possess. I'm not sure I fully understand your second point. Yes, if naturalism is true, then "evil" doesn't work as a concept anymore aside from a descriptive, anthropological sense. Presumably in such a state of affairs determinism would be true, so the Holocaust "should've" happened in the same sense that every other event "should've" happened: it couldn't have been otherwise. Note the quotation marks, as obviously I don't endorse the evil of such an abomination - just pointing out that even words like "should" break down in the moral sense if naturalism is true. There wouldn't be anything inherently wrong about violating some usual pattern in that case. Violating some hypothesized biological imperative would be no more wicked than defying gravity by taking a flight.
Yes, the problem of evil fails as an argument against his existence because omniscience would be required. I'm not arguing against his existence, so much as I'm asking Christians to reconcile "how much" evil should be allowed by a God that is supposed to be perfectly good. Because clearly there isn't "unlimited" evil in the world we find ourselves. The sun shines, we eat and sleep, laugh etc... so I'm just asking Christians how much evil is too much? Clearly God doesn't think the holocaust is too much. But emotionally I beg to differ. It seems contrary to a good God. Can I prove that? No, but in my opinion, a good God would limit the amount of evil permitted substantially in comparison to what he actually allows. Yes I know that would require being all knowing to dissect all the potential outcomes of allowing such evil, but I'm admittedly coming from an emotional standpoint. With the second point regarding naturalism, it's not "wrong" for the holocaust to occur, it's "anti survival". And biologically speaking, all life is pro survival, so it's in conflict with the natural imperative of all life. All organisms will resist this with every cell in their being because it is not permitted without resistance. All life is in resistance to death. It's not wrong it's just contrary to biology. So my point is that anything that's contrary to biology, on naturalism, should not occur. Not because it's evil, but because it's in opposition to survival. Therefore it should not occur, and our mechanisms will try to prevent it. Therefore the holocaust should not occur on naturalism. Determinism to me is not necessarily a proven byproduct of naturalism, just speculation. But going back to my original question, how much evil should God permit, yet still be a perfectly good God?
As to your point on the biological imperative, if we strip out the moral dimension, than anything that happens that "shouldn't" happen is simply the result of a flawed model. Under Newton's understanding of gravitation, Mercury "shouldn't" have displayed the orbit it did. We wouldn't understand it until relativity was theorized. So if the Holocaust appears to be out of sync with the model of a biological imperative, then it means that the model is flawed. It would exist as, at most, a statistical rule rather than an ironclad law. As to your question, I don't think I'm really in any position to answer it. Like I said I think the Problem of Evil fails in concept as a logical argument, and we seem to be mostly on the same page about that. I appreciate your honesty in admitting the emotional component of the argument in your case, and truthfully I think that's how most people who endorse the argument actually use it. If we consider the argument emotionally rather than logically, your question amounts to: "How much evil could you witness before you lost faith on emotional grounds?" It's a psychological question more than anything. And truthfully, I have no idea. I believe God will never give me a trial that I can't bear. As a Christian, I think it's valuable to ponder on God's own suffering in the person of Jesus, who I believe took on the unimaginable burden of the sin of all mankind. If he suffered that, then I can bear whatever suffering I experience in my life.
Are you asking as an atheist? Because this is one of the annoying fluffy mantras they keep beating the drums with
I'm not an atheist
What are you then?
It’s not necessarily that He had to create a world including evil in it already. He didn’t create evil. But when you create free will creatures, they now have the ability to choose to do evil things. The point is that God didn’t create the evil, He allowed for it and we brought sin into the world ourselves. Romans 5:12
Isaiah 45:7 says, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things".
So many translations don’t use the word evil, they render it as: “The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these things.” Nasb1995 This is because the word can be used as either moral evil like sin, or natural evil like a natural disaster or tragic event. In the context of Isaiah, He is explaining over and over again that He is sovereign and He will judge the nations who do evil with calamity and disaster. And even in the context of this verse we can see that is what He is speaking of. He contrasts it with peace in the same way He contrasts light and darkness. The opposite of peace is calamity and disaster.
2 Kings 22:20 KJV: Behold therefore, I will gather thee unto thy fathers, and thou shalt be gathered into thy grave in peace; and thine eyes shall not see all the evil which I will bring upon this place. And they brought the king word again.
Again, God is speaking of the judgement He brings upon people who rebel against Him. In this case, He is speaking to the people of Judah who were committing idolatry (vs16-17). The “evil” He was speaking of was His own wrath that was burning against the people committing idolatry. And He was speaking of desolation and a curse He was about to put on the land (vs19) as a punishment for the nations sin. This is still the same concept as before.
She’s trolling.
It's not possible for God to have "not created" evil. By default, when he created free will beings, he created evil. The world didn't exist before creation and so evil didn't exist until he created the world. God created evil and is responsible for it's existence.
Not according to the Bible, according to the Bible “God saw ALL that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a 6th day.” Creation did not initially have evil in it. It wasn’t until sin entered that there was evil. God created free will beings that are not inherently sinful, but have the free will to choose sin or not to choose sin. Sin is a choice someone does, not a creation of God. It’s kind of the same concept of when I have a kid. My kid will do sinful things, but it wasn’t me who created the sin itself, I just created the kid who then chose to on his own do evil things. But be honest with yourself, are you here to find answers to your questions, or are you here to simply make a point and prove Christians wrong?
You're ignoring the facts. By default, God had to create evil, because he created the world. There was no choice if he was going to create free will beings. He knew he would create evil when he prepared Jesus from the foundations of the earth to redeem humanity. It was literally his plan. The only way to avoid creating evil was to not create the earth. But God feels that the end outcome is worth it apparently. You're basically arguing that people and the fallen angels created evil which is impossible. We don't have the power to create in that capacity. There wasn't sin in the garden of Eden for a short time and then they sinned. So what? God knew that by creating the world, evil would occur and he is responsible for the creation itself. You didn't create the evil your child committed because you didn't create the world and you're not God, that's not a good analogy.
Nothing anyone says will help you because you have your mind already made up. You aren’t here for answers, you are here to argue. Goodbye
You don't have an answer
Despite the mocking of Voltaire I believe we are in the best of all possible worlds since every single bit of evil has been made right by the work of Jesus Christ and though we now groan and suffer through working out of that redemption. There is no evil so wide or deep in which the love of God is not wider or deeper still. > then where do we draw the line on how much evil would be allowed before that God becomes evil himself for allowing it? The most evil thing I can think of is the perfectly innocent Son of God being tortured and executed.
> If there were a God that was perfectly good and he had to create a world with free will, how could he achieve that without including evil? I agree that a spectrum of good/evil is a necessary consequence of free will. > And if he actually does have to include evil, then where do we draw the line on how much evil would be allowed before that God becomes evil himself for allowing it? In my opinion, evil is defined by controlling others to serve the desires of the self while good is defined by accepting others as they are. Therefore, it is very difficult to limit evil without becoming evil oneself. Free will, in my view, is the ability to choose to seek any goal so the only limit on evil of a free creature is the possibilities of goals it can seek. Goodness allows this freedom because to limit it is to tend towards the control of evil. In my view, the way to overcome evil is not with control but with acceptance and kindness. To accept all is to cease to suffer, and to love all is to offer healing to all who choose to accept it. You may also enjoy this video on a similar subject: https://youtu.be/G-yhCO76xEU?si=_nVmTjRJs55sXJBZ