Law's "Evil God Challenge" and the Problem of Limited Vision

Bernard Law's concept of the identification of God as essentially evil has been limping from the first day.  Plagued by the ontological basis of God being good as a logical consequence of a functional designed universe, the difficulties in the moral argument as being divinely founded over against a core of moral initiatives that lack positive authority apart from natural consequences, Law's premises lack substance.  Suspicious of having the capability to understand God well enough to establish His ways as evil, it is equally possible to fail to appreciate His activities to the point of determining their motives.  To this I offer the following analogy.  Read and ponder.

THE ANALOGY OF THE "EVIL" BANK

You have been led to conclude that the financial entity called "the bank" is evil because of the following facts:  It has 1) foreclosed on your home, 2) led to legal proceedings that caused the repossession of your car, and 3) refused to lend you money for your plans and projects.  You rail on the deficiencies of the bank to all your friends and colleagues.  They sympathize with you, and this heartens you in the knowledge that their disapproval of the bank's actions against you has become their shared viewpoint.  But some of your friends have made inquiries on the motivations of the bank, and have discovered that 1) you have refused to make the necessary payments, 2) have made actions that have worked against the reclamation of property purchased through bank money, and 3) have shown a tendency to be reckless with funds and funding procedures.  In short, there is a basis for the bank to conclude that dealing with you would not be in their best interests.  However, you have personally blocked these reasons from your mind and have warmed yourself with the notion that such banking transactions were founded on a core concept that all bank activity is essentially "evil."  In short, it is coming to a grip on the idea of personal responsibility with bank officials that is lacking, and the declaration of "evil" is a rationale that satisfies you, in spite of the factors that you feel must be dismissed from the equation.

Such a declaration of evil is based on anecdotal evidence, a refusal to contemplate the full array of information that would settle the true nature of banking and its way with men and society.  A quick estimation of banking as "evil" is adequate because you deem it adequate, and further review of the topic would lead to uncomfortable premises that would soon unravel your position.  All factors are not weighed, only the ones you hold.  God is far beyond the complexities of economics, and gathering all indicators of His nature would be a perplexing task, much in the same line of comtemplating the universe.  Science, for all its achievements, is no closer to that level of understanding.

In line with this disertation on the "Evil God Challenge," I offer this selection from Paul Washer and his defense against the so-called "evil god" supposition.  Watch and ponder.