The argument is that if God is all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing, then the existence of evil is inexplicable, for such a God could create a world without evil—he has the power and the knowledge to do so—and he would create it, for his love would require that he do so. According to the argument, therefore, the existence of God is incompatible with the existence of evil. For many, the suppressed conclusion is that it is irrational to believe in God if one recognizes the existence of evil, as most people do.

By pointing at the non-integratibility of evil, the problem of theodicy shows us that evil is, indeed, a horror. But the problem can reveal that horror only if no solution to it is finally satisfactory. As I said in my criticism of Leibniz, any solution to the problem of evil, any integration of it into a rational theology, amounts to an argument that there is, in fact, no real evil and that stoicism rather than horror ought to be our response to suffering. It follows that if a theodicy solves the problem of evil, then it justifies Satan. Only if the problem of theodicy is genuinely a problem—only if all solutions ultimately fail—can we continue to know that evil is genuinely evil.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!

It is really a nice theory. The only defect I think it has is probably common to all philosophical theories. It's wrong. You may suspect me of proposing another theory in its place; but I hope not, because I'm sure it's wrong too if it is a theory.

It is astonishing what havoc is wrought in psychology by admitting at the outset apparently innocent suppositions that nevertheless contain a flaw.

The singular nature of Christianity … is easily evidenced by Christ’s astounding pronouncement: ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life’ (John 14:6). Notice that Christ does not say that he knows the truth, or that he carries with him the propositions of truth, or that he exemplifies these propositions. Christ says that he is the truth. Jesus Christ is the Word or ‘Truth made flesh.’ Needless to say, this concrete, embodied truth is a radical departure from Hellenistic and thus Western traditions of a propositional truth.

It is true that you can reason about doctrinal matters, but you do not get religion into your life until it becomes a matter of personal experience–until you feel something in your soul, until there has been a change made in your heart, until you become a new creature of the Holy Ghost…

The truth of Mormonism does not rest on reason. We do not draw our authority, our identity, or our mission from any set of propositions or from any interpretation of doctrine. We do not draw upon theology at all as justification for our truth claims. The truth of Mormonism rests on the occurrence of certain events.

How extraordinarily stupid it is to defend Christianity, how little knowledge of humanity it betrays, how it connives if only unconsciously with offence by making Christianity out to be some miserable object that in the end must be rescued by a defence. It is therefore certain and true that the person who first thought of defending Christianity is de facto a Judas No. 2; he too betrays with a kiss, except his treason is that of stupidity. To defend something is always to discredit it.

National and world catastrophe in the last fifty years has so shaken our confidence in man, so undercut the foundations of assurance, that today nihilism is popular and it is as if writers have chosen up sides to see who can declare the most sophisticated despair.