God and Evil

[AmericanCatholic]

If an infinitely powerful God is capable of creating evil, how does a fallible person know they are not being deceived in all things?

 

[MrPolo]

Are you saying God did create evil?

 

[AmericanCatholic]

Are you saying God did create evil?

It is a common assertion in these parts. I am inquiring what believers of God creating evil think on that topic.

 

[LST 1154]

Saying that God created evil is like saying General Motors manufactures thousands of new cars and trucks every day, and every day thousands of these GM cars and trucks are wrecked, so using your line of reasoning GM must sell wrecked cars and trucks? No, once GM releases their cars and trucks to the public it is the public that wrecks them not GM. God created everything in the world "and it was very good" then we "wrecked" creation and evil came from the wreck.

Ben

 

[Hismessenger]

Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.

I highlighted that part of the verse because if you look up another verse;

Eph 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual [hosts] of wickedness in the heavenly [places].

Col 2:15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

Now the question to ask yourself is, if God is against the principalities and powers, Who and or what are they. They were yet created by Him as attested to By Col. 1:16

hismessenger

 

[squint]

Saying that God created evil is like saying General Motors manufactures thousands of new cars and trucks every day, and every day thousands of these GM cars and trucks are wrecked, so using your line of reasoning GM must sell wrecked cars and trucks? No, once GM releases their cars and trucks to the public it is the public that wrecks them not GM. God created everything in the world "and it was very good" then we "wrecked" creation and evil came from the wreck.

Ben

That is a very poor analogy.

Whatever happens in all of creation should rightly be viewed with FIRST CAUSE in mind because without FIRST CAUSE absolutely NOTHING would be there to be 'evil'

There is no de-linking of God to His Creation. Whatever IS, even if it's BAD has to presumably serve His Purposes for same. IF God did not want 'evil' to exist, it wouldn't.

Genesis 2:9
And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

One might say that the knowledge of EVIL isn't EVIL, but unfortunately it is still EVIL...right there in the Garden, made by GOD and placed therein...even if the FULL NON-FRUIT was not yet sprouted.

Most of christianity is so utterly focused on blaming Adam they seem to forget what Jesus said about the DEVILS reactions to where THE WORD is sown:


Mark 4:15
And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

Matthew 13:19
When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

Luke 8:12
Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

The SERPENT was in the garden. There is about ZERO reason to believe that the SERPENT did not ENTER Adam the instant God spoke BLESSINGS upon THEM.

The progression of SIN is via THOUGHT, Word and eventually DEED.

We cannot perceive the SIN IN THOUGHT...however doing just a tad bit of forensic scriptural MATH we know for example from Paul that the LAW is for the LAWLESS.

IF we see the command to NOT EAT...as the LAW, which it surely IS, it is not hard to see that the LAWLESS ONE, satan, had already entered Adam.

Another result of that 'entry' is Adams 'feeling' of lonliness. We all sit around and think, "I just can't wait to bask in the Presence of God." Yet there sat ADAM with God in the Garden and was experiencing LONLINESS...SEPARATION....another SIGN that the SERPENT was already INSIDE....

Eve recounted the 'command' WRONGLY to the Serpent also, showing that she UNDERSTOOD NOT....

So we really have TWO STRIKES of obvious SIN prior to the EATING even happening. The LAW given to the LAWLESS and the UNDERSTANDING NOT...both provided because

EVIL had already ENTERED Adam.

This deal was cut and locked by God Himself...

And Paul says exactly that in Romans 11:32

God Himself BOUND ALL MEN TO DISOBEDIENCE.

HOW you say? Simply by PLANTING the WORD in them and the ARRIVAL immediately after BY SATAN....

enjoy!

squint

 

[ittarter]

If an infinitely powerful God is capable of creating evil, how does a fallible person know they are not being deceived in all things?

So basically, you're asking whether or not the existence of evil ruins the perfect trustworthiness of God?

If God is responsible for evil, then yes, it would seem to follow that God is not trustworthy.

Therefore, since God is CAPABLE of deceiving all humanity in all things, it is impossible to be certain of anything.

Yep, that makes sense.
1. Infinitely powerful God.
2. God responsible for evil.
3. God is capable of full deceit.
4. No one can be sure of any knowledge.

So what? What's your point?

 

[DArceri]

If an infinitely powerful God is capable of creating evil, how does a fallible person know they are not being deceived in all things?

God was fully aware that Satan would come to be, and thus He is ultimately the source of evil's existance. Think about it. God knew Satan's rebellion would happen since He knows all things, including the future. After the cosmic treason, God could have easily thrown Satan into the 'abyss' on day one and locked the Key to the door forever and ever. BUT HE DIDN'T!!!!! He allowed Satan to roam the earth and to tempt Adam and Eve. Thus God can be said to be the ultimate source of why evil exists. That being said, if God is the God of the bible, we know that God's ultimate purpose for man is to have an intimate relationship with Himself and for man to be the expression of Christ Himself to others, all to the Glory of God. Note that throughout the history of mankind, it is God who reaches down to man. RIGHT? Since God is an infinite being, it is God who needs to reach down to us, a finite creature, and make himself known. So to answer your question, it is God who makes Himself known to man. Not the other way around. If God does not reveal Himself, then man will be decieved in all things.


1 Jn 5:19-20
We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.


.

 

[squint]

So basically, you're asking whether or not the existence of evil ruins the perfect trustworthiness of God?

If God is responsible for evil, then yes, it would seem to follow that God is not trustworthy.

Therefore, since God is CAPABLE of deceiving all humanity in all things, it is impossible to be certain of anything.

Yep, that makes sense.
1. Infinitely powerful God.
2. God responsible for evil.
3. God is capable of full deceit.
4. No one can be sure of any knowledge.

So what? What's your point?

Ah, but you forget the better points:

God can create and use ANY thing for betterment.

IF evil were a pile of crap and God used that to spring forth a FLOWER (hope, faith, love) and threw away the crap when done, does this make GOD EVIL? No.

HOPE is formed by us being immersed in darkness/evil.

Divine Mercy will be 'experienced' and TANGIBLE to us from being bound to DISOBEDIENCE.

We are ALL experiencing a DIVINE TRAIT of love in LONG SUFFERING with these powers.

Does that make GOD the bad guy? No. Why should it? Those are GOOD RESULTS...and God CAN make GOOD come of EVIL and is therefore JUSTIFIED in both creating it and using it.

HE is the OVER RIDING factor in ALL THINGS.

IF Perfection is greater than the SUM OF ALL THINGS...then God can use ANY THING and it will all turn out JUST PERFECTLY FINE.

When Jesus was on the road to Emmaus with the two disciples, they were surprised that the stranger with them hadn't heard what happened with Jesus, even though it was JESUS they were talking to. Here was Jesus response to ALL of those things:

Luke 24:
18 And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days?
19 And he said unto them, What things?

Purposefully feigned ignorance....?

Or HOW DIVINE PROVIDENCE sees THINGS?

In any case it was a pretty funny response considering what 'things' happened to Him immediately prior.

WHAT THINGS? heh heh heh

enjoy!

squint

 

[ittarter]

Ah, but you forget the better points:

God can create and use ANY thing for betterment.

IF evil were a pile of crap and God used that to spring forth a FLOWER (hope, faith, love) and threw away the crap when done, does this make GOD EVIL? No.

Unfortunately evil cannot be "thrown away." Evil acts constitute part of our history and they are there to stay. The gross shortcoming of the theodicy of redemptive suffering -- that "shadows are needed to set off highlights" -- is that if God is really all-powerful, he is not forced to take these painful routes toward the creation of "perfectly good" experiences. And if God IS forced to use evil to create good, or is even inclined to do so, his omnipotence and omnibenevolence are rendered less than cosmic.

 

[squint]

Unfortunately evil cannot be "thrown away." Evil acts constitute part of our history and they are there to stay.

Maybe for now, but assuredly NOT beyond:

Isaiah 65:17

For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

The gross shortcoming of the theodicy of redemptive suffering -- that "shadows are needed to set off highlights" -- is that if God is really all-powerful, he is not forced to take these painful routes toward the creation of "perfectly good" experiences.

Says WHO? Suffering appears to have its Divine Place.

And if God IS forced to use evil to create good, or is even inclined to do so, his omnipotence and omnibenevolence are rendered less than cosmic.

Again, so says WHO? Superiority over ALL THINGS puts nothing out of HIS Overwhelming...

I might believe a God who can make good come of evil or make same serve Him would be pretty cool.

s

 

[ittarter]

Maybe for now, but assuredly NOT beyond:

Isaiah 65:17

For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Good response! But even if people don't remember an atrocity, I'm not convinced forgetfulness truly nullifies the horror. As a historical event it's locked into place and unalterable.

Perhaps you will permit me to rephrase. All monotheistic religions struggle to understand the current existence of a binary or dualistic system, namely "good and evil." This is a fundamental problem with formal monotheism, and in an important sense is a contradiction in terms. Why would God permit his polar opposite to be created? So that a world of already total and unanimous goodness might become... more good? But isn't that a contradiction?

Says WHO? Suffering appears to have its Divine Place.

Again, so says WHO? Superiority over ALL THINGS puts nothing out of HIS Overwhelming...

So God is NOT forced to use evil to create good. Then he chooses to create evil, in effect, to slice the world in two, in order to create good. But the best possible good already existed, didn't it?

Granted, the rationalizing side of theodicy has its limits -- I'd be the first to admit it -- but it helps us understand why systems of theology have taken certain avenues and been forced to take certain others. I'm not trying to disprove anything -- I merely wish to point out the issues that Christian thinkers wrestle with every day. You seem to be saying that it's an easy fix, that there is no real difficulty but only one illusory and fabricated, but in fact, the millions of people pulling their hair out every day suggest otherwise.

I might believe a God who can make good come of evil or make same serve Him would be pretty cool.

I believe that a God who comes and suffers with me IS pretty cool
I also think that's much truer to the gospel than speculations based on God's omnipotence and omnibenevolence.

 

[squint]

Good response! But even if people don't remember an atrocity, I'm not convinced forgetfulness truly nullifies the horror. As a historical event it's locked into place and unalterable.

Scripture tells us that suffering does serve many purposes. As Isaiah noted and even as Paul notes here, when we actually 'see' the future produce, this is how we will view these matters:

Romans 8:18

For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

Perhaps you will permit me to rephrase. All monotheistic religions struggle to understand the current existence of a binary or dualistic system, namely "good and evil." This is a fundamental problem with formal monotheism, and in an important sense is a contradiction in terms. Why would God permit his polar opposite to be created?

I sometimes use a very basic explanation, because I'm a big road cycle guy. Do you know that to handle a large motorcycle on the road when turning right, that you actually turn the wheel to the opposite direction?

There are many contradictory functions in the text, and many of them when first encountered don't seem to make any sense whatsoever, just like turning a big Harley to the right means turning left. But it's a solid fact.

When the flower is plucked from the turd and the flower set upon the table, the turd discarded is not even thought of any longer. When we look at the flower we could care less where it came from because of its' sheer beauty. Yet that flower was nourished by discarded crap.

So it is with evil.

This exact same 'parable' is given to us in the N.T. about 'dunging the roots' in order to either produce fruit, or if not, then get rid of the tree:

Luke 13:

7 Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?
8 And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: 9 And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.

This is in effect analogous to mankind and our immersion in EVIL. There are many corollaries in the O.T. i.e. taking root 'downward' and 'bearing fruit' upward.

So that a world of already total and unanimous goodness might become... more good? But isn't that a contradiction?

I could list a multitude of Divine Scriptural Purposes about Gods deployment and uses of EVIL.

So God is NOT forced to use evil to create good.

Well, I suspect that He could have made a flower pop up out of thin air, but that may not be nearly as much fun eh?

God LOVES 'judgment.' IF He has chosen to deploy LOVE into the midst of a very real resistance to 'test' same, what are we to say of it?

Making a flower pop up out of thin air is probably far less pleasurable for God than making something good come out of something bad.

He seems to get a kick out of that process.

Then he chooses to create evil, in effect, to slice the world in two, in order to create good. But the best possible good already existed, didn't it?

If the result of creation was merely to 'replicate' Himself, I mean really? Is there some point in that? No need to have multiple reflections of the SAME PERFECTION.

In the world of theology we have only ONE PERFECT undefinable ONE. None of us know in full what that is or consists of, and to tell you the truth, do we really want to find out the END of HIM? Is there a point in placing a fence somewhere on the outskirts of eternity so we can ride out to the end of it and say...OK,,,that's it. That's all there is?

No. Not to me anyway. I kind of enjoy the thought of the NEVER ENDING. It gives me some form of 'internal comfort' not having to ride out to the end of the fence and find nothing more. That would be like trapped in an eternal box...blah....that WOULD be hell.

The contemplation of eternity is a valuable commodity for the heart, and a valid deployment for the field of theology to examine.

In this context I could imagine that soooo many things could be tested and deployed along the lines of eternity that various scenarios that are well beyond my imaginations could be in store in the ages to come.

So, in the end, we have HIM and then EVERYTHING ELSE as a 'lesser comparison' that will never supplant the PRIMARY.

Granted, the rationalizing side of theodicy has its limits -- I'd be the first to admit it -- but it helps us understand why systems of theology have taken certain avenues and been forced to take certain others.

As you may tell, I have very little respect for 'old school' orthodoxy. They were developed primarily as social control systems. Very manipulative imho. And closed minded? uh, yeah. It's just a much more interesting field than those old school erection sets have provided for us. I could go on, but outside the topic matters herein. I will say that IF we are examining Gods Words we may have to give them as much respect as we do the term 'ETERNITY.' There is a LOT more there than we can presently see. So, I keep studying and keep reading. It's just a most fascinating document.

I'm not trying to disprove anything -- I merely wish to point out the issues that Christian thinkers wrestle with every day. You seem to be saying that it's an easy fix, that there is no real difficulty but only one illusory and fabricated, but in fact, the millions of people pulling their hair out every day suggest otherwise.

When people try to make certain cut and locked positions, such as GOD CANNOT CREATE EVIL or He IS evil, that is just nonsense. Petty logic can get by that one in an instant. Yet we have millions of orthodoxy who hold that position til their dying breath, and will continue to do so.

Let 'em wallow in their own constructs. They'll die off sooner or later out of the weight of their own refusal to apply critical thinking to what they do. History will show their demise out of ignorance.

I will say that they have provided us a terrible and divisive legacy on many fronts. But some are starting to see past all of that MANipulation and look to the fronts that ARE more valuable in the texts OVER control, and that is simply to love our neighbors as ourselves. To do that, some really false positions that are outright AGAINST others have to go away in order to 'get along' properly.

There are other avenues for 'proper scriptural judgments' available that are much kinder to our neighbors and MUCH more accurate to the text.

I believe that a God who comes and suffers with me IS pretty cool

He has had His share with me, that's fer sure.

I also think that's much truer to the gospel than speculations based on God's omnipotence and omnibenevolence.

We think alot alike.

Peace to ya! All that I can muster anyway.

squint

 

[ittarter]

Scripture tells us that suffering does serve many purposes. As Isaiah noted and even as Paul notes here, when we actually 'see' the future produce, this is how we will view these matters:

Romans 8:18

For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

I agree that the New Testament and Isaiah assume the theodicy of redemptive suffering. I'm just not convinced that it's philosophically "easy" to take that route. Good thing most Christians are not also philosophers! (And maybe they don't need to be.)

I sometimes use a very basic explanation, because I'm a big road cycle guy. Do you know that to handle a large motorcycle on the road when turning right, that you actually turn the wheel to the opposite direction?

There are many contradictory functions in the text, and many of them when first encountered don't seem to make any sense whatsoever, just like turning a big Harley to the right means turning left. But it's a solid fact.

Dude, I LOVE paradoxical truth. I guess I'm just playing devil's advocate, pointing out the "solid facts" that MAKE it paradoxical.

When the flower is plucked from the turd and the flower set upon the table, the turd discarded is not even thought of any longer. When we look at the flower we could care less where it came from because of its' sheer beauty. Yet that flower was nourished by discarded crap.

So it is with evil.

Too bad we have to say turd on CF and not [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth].

Well, I suspect that He could have made a flower pop up out of thin air, but that may not be nearly as much fun eh?

Try to comfort someone in pain that God could have done everything perfectly without making them suffer, but thought that this route might be more amusing

God LOVES 'judgment.' IF He has chosen to deploy LOVE into the midst of a very real resistance to 'test' same, what are we to say of it?

The same that Job said, I suppose. It would be a shame to think that we don't have to say it, just because he already did. I hope that wasn't the original intent!

If the result of creation was merely to 'replicate' Himself, I mean really? Is there some point in that? No need to have multiple reflections of the SAME PERFECTION.

You're right. That "Christ-likeness" thing that preachers rail on about was sounding pretty dubious already, but now that you mention it......

In this context I could imagine that soooo many things could be tested and deployed along the lines of eternity that various scenarios that are well beyond my imaginations could be in store in the ages to come.

But the question is, WHY could ANY of them require a world plagued by evil for the length and breadth of human history, if GOD is "omnipotent" and "omnibenevolent"????

As you may tell, I have very little respect for 'old school' orthodoxy. They were developed primarily as social control systems. Very manipulative imho. And closed minded? uh, yeah. It's just a much more interesting field than those old school erection sets have provided for us. I could go on, but outside the topic matters herein. I will say that IF we are examining Gods Words we may have to give them as much respect as we do the term 'ETERNITY.' There is a LOT more there than we can presently see. So, I keep studying and keep reading. It's just a most fascinating document.

To this effect, I like the Matrix's take on things. We fight to the death to escape one system of control, only to find ourselves smack dab in another one. A bit cynical, I suppose, but it seems to be accurate. I've started to assume that I'm ALWAYS been controlled and manipulated, even if I'm not aware of it.

When people try to make certain cut and locked positions, such as GOD CANNOT CREATE EVIL or He IS evil, that is just nonsense. Petty logic can get by that one in an instant. Yet we have millions of orthodoxy who hold that position til their dying breath, and will continue to do so.

I'm not trying to create a locked position. Nor do I believe that God is EVIL just because he created or is responsible for the creation of evil. However, I do think that it is a philosophical problem commonly called "theodicy" (literally, the justification of God) and it is EXACTLY what we are wrestling with right now. Even Paul realized it, otherwise he would not have needed to remind the Roman Christians that their present suffering was outweighed by the "pie in the sky" promise of fortune and glory.

We think alot alike.

You're probably a bit older and wiser than me, that's the main difference.

 

[squint]

Dude, I LOVE paradoxical truth. I guess I'm just playing devil's advocate, pointing out the "solid facts" that MAKE it paradoxical.

Call us contrarians then. Many have a very hard time with the concept as well as 'simultaneous' truth i.e. what can be true for one party (Gods Love) can be arousing and provoking to other parties (the devil et al.)

Too bad we have to say turd on CF and not [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth].

heh heh heh

Try to comfort someone in pain that God could have done everything perfectly without making them suffer, but thought that this route might be more amusing

I struggle with this concept still. Like 'why not just GET OVER IT!?' But then things like patience and perseverance come to play and really dig out some deep scars.

I have thought that great HOPE was fostered in Christ, as in I HOPE THEY STOP WHIPPING ME!

Quick and very painful or slow n agonizing...hmmm...so many selections.

But the question is, WHY could ANY of them require a world plagued by evil for the length and breadth of human history, if GOD is "omnipotent" and "omnibenevolent"????

Well, I've kinda set you up for what can be generally termed as the 'expansion principle' i.e. God is NEVER static but EVER LIVING, ever ecompassing, never finding that ultimate 'ending' i.e. can eternal life become eternally dead? That may be one thing not in the cards of The Eternal One. This general concept has provided me a great deal of idle time speculations i.e. God really is NO THING...so what is THAT anyway? Mystics even eastern thougt have termed this The Great Void, which when viewed in singularity void of any personal thought reflection of same becomes yet another trap upon essence of the no thing as both all things and no things are there.

And from there one engages in 'speculative theology' aka Theosopy. Quite a fascinating and personal voyage.

To this effect, I like the Matrix's take on things. We fight to the death to escape one system of control, only to find ourselves smack dab in another one. A bit cynical, I suppose, but it seems to be accurate. I've started to assume that I'm ALWAYS been controlled and manipulated, even if I'm not aware of it.

Ah! Another paradoxical TRUTH! heh heh heh. God really IS all there is yet He is 'no thing.' Amazing paradox there. Just amazing.

I'm not trying to create a locked position. Nor do I believe that God is EVIL just because he created or is responsible for the creation of evil.

I read a piece a great while back, I believe from a cut of Jacob Boehme, and many of his views on these matters I also have 'experienced' in 'thought/revelatory life.' His view was that darkness is a portion of God, as no thought is escapable from the OM's or in essence 'all thoughts' are available from Him and For Him. An interesting premise. In there Boehme (if I recall) postulated that God is using creation at least in part to play out and weigh all of those particular matters in various forms of judgments and siftings, to eventually exhaust the entirety of that portion of darkness, extracting all it will yield in the transposition of good, i.e. the turd and the flower principles run on to 'whenever' ending in the NonDescript Void.

If we looked at the history of the immensity of the 'thought lives' of mankind the potential mining field for judgments there available in Gods behalf of uses are quite overwhelming, most of same being extremely obscure, not 'visible' to the naked eye so to speak. Revelation describes this as the 'woman' (mankind) being helped by the earth (our bodies) swallowing up the Dragons flood (evil thoughts and deeds, mostly thoughts.)

However, I do think that it is a philosophical problem commonly called "theodicy" (literally, the justification of God) and it is EXACTLY what we are wrestling with right now. Even Paul realized it, otherwise he would not have needed to remind the Roman Christians that their present suffering was outweighed by the "pie in the sky" promise of fortune and glory.

Yeah, I kinda hate that 'I'll pay you thursday for a hamburger today' mentality/bait dangling. I do consider Paul put that thought out there specifically for present tense speculations in hope that there would be some 'spillover' effect into reality... Why trade off a temporal binding for an open range?

You're probably a bit older and wiser than me, that's the main difference.

Older 4 sure. A minutes worth of revelatory cohesion can make an elder sage of anyone.

enjoy!

squint

 

[Biker Angel]

KJV - Isa 45:7 - I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].

 

[Wildcat48]

I'm often skeptical whether the redemptive suffering argument is truly sufficient to account for the extraordinary and inbalanced suffering we see in the world.

As far as human evil is concerned, I believe that God, in His power, gave us free will. With that free will comes the responsibility to use it properly. But, for us to truly be able to love God, we needed the ability to choose between Godly action or the lack thereof (i.e. evil). Evil perpetuated by human actions is due to our warped/fallen nature (the propensity to not choose the right action). While I believe we're essentially oriented towards good, it is quite clear that we fail all the time.

Now, natural evil, such as the disasters in Haiti, offer a much stiffer challenge to Christian belief...

 

[depthdeception]

God did not bring evil into existence because, quite simply, "evil" has no ontological existence to speak of (e.g., does not belong to the category of that which is created). Evil is not a "thing" that can be quantified or objectified, as if it were a pile of rocks, a cluster of galaxies, or a double-quarter-pounder with cheese.

Evil is nothing more than the negation of the good. We understand the concept of evil only insofar as it is the diminution of that which is good--that which is divine.

But please understand: evil is not the opposite of the "good," as if this collection of objective realities are one manner of "thing" and this collection is another and can be understood as equal, albeit, contradictory realities. No, evil, has no such existence and can only be spoken of insofar as we speak of the diminution of that which is good. The moment we cease to speak of the good is the moment in which the linguistic value of "evil" fails to have any coherent meaning.

 

[depthdeception]

Now, natural evil, such as the disasters in Haiti, offer a much stiffer challenge to Christian belief...

This is precisely what I'm talking about in re: the contradictions we create, theologically, when imbuing "evil" with an ontological reality which it simply does not possess (forgive my language here, it's difficult to speak of that which doesn't exist without existence-oriented terminology...).

There is nothing intrinsically "evil" about the earthquake in Haiti or anywhere else. Tectonic shifts create stress within the earth, producing such tremors...this is simply what planets do. Nor is there anything intrinsically "evil" about the cessation of biological life, whether through natural or accidental means. Again, death is simply something that happens as a normal part of the life cycle of the universe.

We call these things evil, not because they actually are, but rather because a "good" has been diminished--the good being human relatedness to the divine. Severed from this relationship of support and existential care, we are prone to the emotional, psychological, and spiritual consequences of our rebellion. Through this lens of brokenness, then, we begin to parse the world around us, assigning labels to things that are, in themselves, quite morally neutral. However, our "naming" of evil flows out of the diminution of relationship with God that our rebellion has caused, and we take out the hopelessness of our lot on that which has done nothing whatsoever to receive such negative moral labels.

 

[ittarter]

God did not bring evil into existence because, quite simply, "evil" has no ontological existence to speak of (e.g., does not belong to the category of that which is created). Evil is not a "thing" that can be quantified or objectified, as if it were a pile of rocks, a cluster of galaxies, or a double-quarter-pounder with cheese.

Evil is nothing more than the negation of the good. We understand the concept of evil only insofar as it is the diminution of that which is good--that which is divine.

But please understand: evil is not the opposite of the "good," as if this collection of objective realities are one manner of "thing" and this collection is another and can be understood as equal, albeit, contradictory realities. No, evil, has no such existence and can only be spoken of insofar as we speak of the diminution of that which is good. The moment we cease to speak of the good is the moment in which the linguistic value of "evil" fails to have any coherent meaning.

I agree. However, a further question would be to ask, if evil has no objective or metaphysical existence, if this is then also necessarily true of good. Therefore, would it be right to say that good and evil are conceptual categories in our minds, and apart from the power of the human mind to split the universe into binary opposites, good and evil do not exist?

And if that is the case, do we not place ourselves above the ethical system(s) meant to rule us, becoming its master? And does not religion begin to unravel?

Forgive me, I am advancing in leaps and bounds, but I wanted to present the ultimate destination of my train of thought, and see if perhaps there was somewhere to stop along the way.