> And see? Now you've gone and made me re-read that thread, which in turn made me want to post something on the topic of theodicy -- God's righteousness, or the lack thereof. Not what you had in mind, but that's the craziness of this here Message Forum. :-)

You know what's funny, Iss? They always told us we were the same person (or, wait, did we tell them that?), but this just about seals it. I have had the urge to make almost exactly that post for quite some time, but had nowhere to put it. Now I've pretty much missed the boat, so I guess I'm stuck with having to tell you how great you are. :-}

> Theodicy is the hot topic for theologians in the post-modern era, because the "problem of evil" occupies so much of popular thinking about Christianity. If God is all that the Bible claims, the argument goes, then how can we reconcile God's goodness and omnipotence with the presence of so much evil in the world?

This question irks me a bit. I mean, not as an honest question, but when phrasedas a "proof against God." I've heard it far more often than I'd like.

To clarify (or, at the very least, restate) what you said, the fundamental problem with the theodical question is that it presumes a situation in which man can judge God - or, even more basically, a situation in which God can be defined by (and therefore restricted by) human terms and ideas. God is, as theologians are wont to say, "wholly other." Man does not and *cannot* understand God. Man cannot say that "event X makes God evil," because the human concept of "evil" simply does not apply to God.

I guess that's what I have to add slash rephrase. :-}

Dar "Hey Job; don't make it bad..." ien