How did satan do it?

[Hands Open]

...

No. For Christian theology of all stripes, God has never been attributed with creating evil. God created a world in which it possible that his creation could choose to do evil deeds, to think evil thoughts, or to speak evil, but until the moment when we commit evil, evil exists only as a potentiality.


In the way that you are meaning, false. God only created a world in which evil would be possible. There is no compulsion in our choices, or even in our choice to believe. To do good, or not are both possiblities for us. To believe in God, or not, too are both possiblities for us.

We have yet to reach the idea of how free will would effect anything. But I may address this later, even though it has no bearing on whether or not God created evil. This would be a good answer to "What are we supposed to do about it". The answer being, "don't be evil". But this is for another time.

 

[Reformationist]

Yes, please.

Thank you.

All are welcome in this question as it effects us all.

I agree.

Okay, let's see. I guess that it is imperative that we first seek to define what evil is before we can even attempt to determine whether it is a created thing and, then, who created it.

To do so we must recognize an objective standard by which we can judge a thing's vice or virtue.

Any ideas on how a non-believer (you) and a believer (me) can come to such an agreement?

Or do you suggest that I approach this as if I were discussing this with another Christian?

Thanks,
God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Therefore we still end with a god who created evil.

I know that christian doctrine doesn't support this and it's that very contradiction that I wish to address.

Though the presence of evil may appear to present a conundrum for Christians it really depends on who is discussing the issue.

I take it from your post that you believe that if God had created evil that it would reflect on His character in such a way as to indicate that He, Himself, were evil. Is that your position?

God bless

 

[SolomonVII]

These are the answers I was expecting. First let me thank you for being brief.
Second, in order for anything to be potentially, it must first be.
In other words, things that are impossible cannot happen, potentially or actually.

This is not really true. there is a potential for many things in this world, such as I suppose, pink unicorns, trolls, or jackelopes.
There is a potential for a world-destroying nuclear holocaust, or the dawning of an age of peace and love as well. Such things and events exist as ideas, or possibilities, but not as actualities. Their level of reality has not reached the level of actual being.

Therefore we still end with a god who created evil.

This is the basic gnostic position as well, yes.
As far as philosophies go, given the uncertainty of any premise, such a position is not illogical, but in terms of sustaining and invigorating societies, it is of little practical value.

I know that christian doctrine doesn't support this and it's that very contradiction that I wish to address.

It is only a contradiction when we begin with the premise that anything that is possible, is also actual.


Ultimately, I suppose, God is responsible for the behavior of his creation, as much as we would be for the behavior of our unborn great-great grandchildren. Without a doubt, my decision to bring children will create the existence of some evil.
However, in a practical sense it is as absurd to blame God for our own bad behavior, as it would be for my great-grandchildren to blame me, long since passed, for their own.

BUT, there is the potential that my decision to have children will also be the cause of much good, and they will bear good fruits.

Therein lies the hope that is at the core of Christianity. And therein lies the goodness of God who created us with the possiblity of being good-or not.

 

[Reformationist]

In other words, things that are impossible cannot happen, potentially or actually. This is not really true. there is a potential for many things in this world, such as I suppose, pink unicorns, trolls, or jackelopes.
There is a potential for a world-destroying nuclear holocaust, or the dawning of an age of peace and love as well. Such things and events exist as ideas, or possibilities, but not as actualities. Their level of reality has not reached the level of actual being.

Umm...I don't wish to turn this into a silly debate over such a non-essential issue but I did want to comment on this briefly. If we look at this from a strictly logical pespective I would have to say, with all due respect, impossibility precludes potentiality.

Impossible - incapable of being or of occurring

Potential - existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality

These two words are clearly at direct odds with each other. If something could possibly happen or exist then, by virtue of the possibility, it isn't impossible. Likewise, if something is impossible then, by virtue of its lack of possibility, it isn't a potentiality.

Anyway, I have no clue what this was in referrence to so I do not wish to sidetrack your discussion. I just wanted to offer a different perspective on this point.

God bless

 

[Hands Open]

So, I'm just gunna go through and answer everything said in order as it seems simplest to me to do so.

Okay, let's see. I guess that it is imperative that we first seek to define what evil is before we can even attempt to determine whether it is a created thing and, then, who created it.

This is a wonderful beginning. I agree that these are also the only two choices that we can entertain as possibilities. My standing on both is that if it were created then nobody but god could do it. If it's not created then it must have always been. This last one presents a very large problem as well.

To do so we must recognize an objective standard by which we can judge a thing's vice or virtue.

In my opinion, anything bad is that which decreases the overall happiness of humanity. As examples, I would use: Poverty, racism, oppression, intolerance, murder, and so on. So basically, " Things which cause suffering."
Although if you have a better definition I'm willing to entertain it. Just beware of wording the definition in a way that would seem to allow god to have created evil yet not be capable evil himself. For we must then be forced to say that God indeed didcreate evil, even if the terms are ok. In such a case you may find the majority of christianity in disagremant with you. Although I am not here to disagree with you if you do not agree with main line christianity.


Any ideas on how a non-believer (you) and a believer (me) can come to such an agreement?

This presents an interesting problem. I guess we'll just have to see what you think of my idea and I'll see what I think of yours and we'll have to go from there.

Or do you suggest that I approach this as if I were discussing this with another Christian?

If you and I agreeing come to an impass, which it may. Then we may have to resort to this.

Though the presence of evil may appear to present a conundrum for Christians it really depends on who is discussing the issue.

I must admit this is true. One's idea of evil may be "anything that makes me mad", which this persons friend may agree with. Likewise if the idea that evil is not that which is "harmful, disagreable, morally bad; wicked" then one also cannot have a debate as there simply would not be agreement on the terms.

I take it from your post that you believe that if God had created evil that it would reflect on His character in such a way as to indicate that He, Himself, were evil. Is that your position?

I do not believe this is completely true. If this world has both good and evil, and god created everything, as is my understanding of christianity, then he must be good by definiton as well. My standing is that in order to have a world with both good and evil then the creator of that world must be capable of both in order to have created it. Therefore he cannot be only good. The statement "God IS good" in it's strictest sense ( and I'm speaking strictly nearly always in regards to this issue) must therefore be false.

If this is true the very foundation for this particular idea of deity is false.

 

[Hands Open]

It is only a contradiction when we begin with the premise that anything that is possible, is also actual.

This if course is not the premise with which we are dealing. We are taking the words as they are used in their most literal forms.

Ultimately, I suppose, God is responsible for the behavior of his creation, as much as we would be for the behavior of our unborn great-great grandchildren. Without a doubt, my decision to bring children will create the existence of some evil.
However, in a practical sense it is as absurd to blame God for our own bad behavior, as it would be for my great-grandchildren to blame me, long since passed, for their own.

BUT, there is the potential that my decision to have children will also be the cause of much good, and they will bear good fruits.

Therein lies the hope that is at the core of Christianity. And therein lies the goodness of God who created us with the possiblity of being good-or not.

All this would indeed be true for us and the rest of humanity. The only problem is the "all knowing" status given to God. For when he began this world he must have by definiton knew the consequences of his actions. If he did not have this fore-knowledge then I could not hold him accountable for what he could not foresee. Seeing as he does (in this belief) then he is to be held resposonsible.

 

[SolomonVII]

Umm...I don't wish to turn this into a silly debate over such a non-essential issue but I did want to comment on this briefly. If we look at this from a strictly logical pespective I would have to say, with all due respect, impossibility precludes potentiality.

Impossible - incapable of being or of occurring

Potential - existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality

These two words are clearly at direct odds with each other. If something could possibly happen or exist then, by virtue of the possibility, it isn't impossible. Likewise, if something is impossible then, by virtue of its lack of possibility, it isn't a potentiality.

Anyway, I have no clue what this was in referrence to so I do not wish to sidetrack your discussion. I just wanted to offer a different perspective on this point.

God bless

Impossible things have not potential, correct.
But before sin, evil existed only as a potential outcome, and therefore God never actually created evil.

 

[Reformationist]

This is a wonderful beginning. I agree that these are also the only two choices that we can entertain as possibilities. My standing on both is that if it were created then nobody but god could do it. If it's not created then it must have always been. This last one presents a very large problem as well.

I agree with your assessment, however, I don't think it is as simple as acknowledging evil as a "created thing," at least not in a theological sense. Let me explain. Evil is relative. If that is true then it must be relative to something else. From a Christian perspective, despite what some may say, evil is more than simply "the absence of good." Evil must be defined as anything that runs contrary to that which we accept as good. So, what does a Christian recognize as good?

Romans 7:16
If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good.

So, in a general sense, it is God's Law that defines for us what is good and conversely, what is evil. Therefore, Christians can rightly conclude that anything that is contrary to the Law of God is evil. So, where do we go from there? Well, first we must acknowledge that without the Law there can be no accountability for sin since one purpose of the Law is to make unlawful that which had previously not been defined as unlawful:

Romans 5:13
For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

So, now we know that sin existed before the Law was given but the consequence was not imputed because man was not accountable to keep that which had not been given. So, how does the Bible say that we can know what is evil in the sight of the Lord?

Romans 3:20
Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

The Law gives us knowledge of both what is sinful and of our sinful inability to keep the requirements of the Law in our flesh.

So, the systematic conclusion for a Christian is that God, in giving the Law, has defined, and in a sense created, that which is evil.

There are, of course, other ways to view this. God created Lucifer fully knowing that he would become the epitome of evil. God created man fully knowing that man would transgress His commandments and fall into a pit of depravity in which "every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." God has a purpose in all things and, because He is sovereign, that purpose will stand and be realized. We must ensure that we do not judge the holiness of God by our perception of the events and people we encounter. As I stated, for a Christian, all things are good, though all things may not be beneficial.

In my opinion, anything bad is that which decreases the overall happiness of humanity. As examples, I would use: Poverty, racism, oppression, intolerance, murder, and so on. So basically, " Things which cause suffering." Although if you have a better definition I'm willing to entertain it.

I would have to disagree with this assessment. First off, it assumes a universal agreement on what decreases the happiness of humanity. We cannot speak of humanity collectively without addressing it individually. What makes you happy may not make me happy, and vice versa. Additionally, suffering, though difficult to endure, is not necessarily bad. This is not just shown in the church. All of the things you list are difficult crosses to bear for anyone, though their benefits can far outweigh their drawbacks. Many people learn many wonderful things through their struggles. In fact, it is the triumph of the human spirit in the face of seemingly overwhelming odds from which emerge the heros of our race. How can we not look at the victors that emerge from the trials of poverty, racism, oppression, intolerance and death of a loved one without being lifted up in our spirit and encouraged to persevere in our own personal struggles? It is great people of faith and perseverance that inspire us, not those who live lives of luxary. Think about this from a larger perspective. Did the first African American students to integrate into the intolerant schools of times past stuggle? Most assuredly. In fact, I'm sure that some were subjected to the most heinous of crimes. Are the struggles they endured "bad?" They were certainly difficult and cause anyone with an ounce of compassion to cringe at the thought of what they must have faced. But were they bad? I would have to say, unequivocally, no. The courage of those who chose to face such trials is one of the primary reasons that the human race has made great strides towards the abolition of such terrible views and true equality. Likewise, the women who faced persecution in their efforts to exercise their right to have a voice in voting surely encountered difficulties, many times from their own families. Was what they experienced bad? Again, clearly not. I'm sure they did not enjoy the assaults they experienced but, because of their efforts, and those who supported them, women now have a voice equal in value and authority to that of their male counterparts. "Bad" cannot be defined as simply "difficult." It must be weighed on the basis of what it produces. This is the very outlook that we, as Christians, must learn to embrace. We will all encounter trials and tribulations, whether we be Christians or not. The defining difference is how we will deal with those trials. How can we count it all joy if we don't recognize that God is sanctifying us through these very ordeals? It is the goal of our faith that makes the race possible for us.

This presents an interesting problem. I guess we'll just have to see what you think of my idea and I'll see what I think of yours and we'll have to go from there.

How are we doing so far?

I do not believe this is completely true. If this world has both good and evil, and god created everything, as is my understanding of christianity, then he must be good by definiton as well. My standing is that in order to have a world with both good and evil then the creator of that world must be capable of both in order to have created it. Therefore he cannot be only good. The statement "God IS good" in it's strictest sense ( and I'm speaking strictly nearly always in regards to this issue) must therefore be false.

It is a common misconception, even in the Christian community, that evil exists apart from the divine ordination of God. That is simply untrue. God is wholly good. The assumption that the Creator is subject to judgment based on what we, as finite creations, deem good and evil is nothing more than pride. There is a story that deals with this issue that may help explain the way we view things:

A man is out in his field one day when he spots a beautiful stallion. The stallion allows him to approach and even harness him and lead him back to the village. When the townspeople see the farmer with the beautiful horse they exclaim, "Blessed be our God! What a great blessing He has given you." The man cannot bring himself to use this magnificent beast as a field horse so he lets his son take him out riding. While he is out the horse is spooked and throws the son, who breaks his leg in the fall. When the townspeople find out they are quick to proclaim, "Oh no! That horse is not a blessing! It is a curse! You must have angered God for Him to bring you such a beast!" Well, shortly thereafter the town is informed that the kingdom in which it resides is called to war and all able bodied males of an age must volunteer. Of course, because of his broken leg, the farmers son is excluded. The townspeople, realizing the farmers fortune, joyfully proclaims "Oh what a blessing!! Your son shall not be lost to you because of the horse the Lord saw fit to give you as a gift. This is truly from God." (Notice a trend yet? ) Then, shortly thereafter, the stallion runs away and the people are quick to say (of course), "What terrible luck you have. This must be God punishing you for something." Then, a few days later, the stallion returns to the farmer at the head of a herd of beautiful horses. The farmer has just become one of the richest men in the entire region. Of course, the people, once again, claim that he is truly blessed by God.

Anyway, the point of the story is that because we are finite we are limited to judging events on what we perceive. It is only when we trust in the promise of the Lord that all events, even those with which we struggle, are to our benefit.

God bless

 

[SolomonVII]

This if course is not the premise with which we are dealing. We are taking the words as they are used in their most literal forms

.
I understand you to be saying that God created everything, and therefore God created evil. I am stating that a distinction must be made between creating the potential for evil to occur, and actually creating evil.
We are created as moral creatures. It is we who are to be responsible for what we say and what we do.

All this would indeed be true for us and the rest of humanity. The only problem is the "all knowing" status given to God. For when he began this world he must have by definiton knew the consequences of his actions. If he did not have this fore-knowledge then I could not hold him accountable for what he could not foresee. Seeing as he does (in this belief) then he is to be held resposonsible

Apparently then, to God at least, with full knowledge of the beginning and the end, creating a world in which evil would reign for a time, was nevertheless deemed ,by Him, as a worthwhile venture.

Limited as we are in out knowledge and experience, we are not in a position to judge until we drink from the cup of eternity ourselves.

But, the experience of the one that has experienced both the worldy torment of the crucifix, and the bliss of eternity, tells us that, yes, His Father is responsible, and in spite of the grueling trial of the race, the prize at the end will make it all worthwhile.

 

[Reformationist]

But before sin, evil existed only as a potential outcome, and therefore God never actually created evil.

"Potential outcome" is not a proper theological term when addressing the all encompassing knowledge of God, unless one is an open theist. For the finite mind the "potential" for sin to enter may have been a mere possibility. However, God's knowledge of every event is not contingent.

I take great personal comfort in the axiom "God knows every contingency but nothing contingently." There is no such thing as a "potential outcome" when speaking of God's knowledge because potentiality deals with the possibility of something coming to pass based on unknown contingencies which, for God, do not exist.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Apparently then, to God at least, with full knowledge of the beginning and the end, creating a world in which evil would reign for a time, was nevertheless deemed ,by Him, as a worthwhile venture.

Limited as we are in out knowledge and experience, we are not in a position to judge until we drink from the cup of eternity ourselves.

But, the experience of the one that has experienced both the worldy torment of the crucifix, and the bliss of eternity, tells us that, yes, His Father is responsible, and in spite of the grueling trial of the race, the prize at the end will make it all worthwhile.

Just wanted to say that this was a very eloquent way of expressing faith in the providence of God. Thank you.

God bless

 

[SolomonVII]

"Potential outcome" is not a proper theological term when addressing the all encompassing knowledge of God, unless one is an open theist. For the finite mind the "potential" for sin to enter may have been a mere possibility. However, God's knowledge of every event is not contingent.

I take great personal comfort in the axiom "God knows every contingency but nothing contingently." There is no such thing as a "potential outcome" when speaking of God's knowledge because potentiality deals with the possibility of something coming to pass based on unknown contingencies which, for God, do not exist.

God bless

There is a fine distinction to be made between the soverignty of a 'tri-omni' concept of God, and a humankind that can nevertheless make its own moral choices. Many find the ideas contradictory, but personally I do not.
Yes, God knows all that is, was, and shall be. God is sovereign, and so in that sense, does holds ultimate responsibility.
And yet on the 'micro-level', we are all personally responsible and free to make our own choices. It is we that hold moral responsibility.

We have therefore been created of such a nature that the free will which is the necessary requisite for morality is in fact possible.

In the likeness of God, moreso than the beasts who can not do other than follow their own nature, we are capable of moral intent. Our ability to choose makes God no less worthy of worship. Indeed, in our potential for goodness, we share in His nature.

 

[Reformationist]

There is a fine distinction to be made between the soverignty of a 'tri-omni' concept of God, and a humankind that can nevertheless make its own moral choices. Many find the ideas contradictory, but personally I do not.

Neither do I.

Yes, God knows all that is, was, and shall be. God is sovereign, and so in that sense, does holds ultimate responsibility.

I agree. He is first causal in all things because all things live and move and have their being in Him. We must recognize that whatever He doesn't bring to pass by His active intercession comes to pass by His sovereign providence in passivity.

And yet on the 'micro-level', we are all personally responsible and free to make our own choices. It is we that hold moral responsibility.

Again, I agree. We are culpable for our actions because we are volitional agents, regardless of whether these things come to pass according to the eternal and immutable will of the Creator.

We have therefore been created of such a nature that the free will which is the necessary requisite for morality is in fact possible.

Not only a possibility but a reality. That being said, I will only elaborate by submitting that the freeness of our will is in direct proportion to the bondage of our flesh.

In the likeness of God, moreso than the beasts who can not do other than follow their own nature, we are capable of moral intent. Our ability to choose makes God no less worthy of worship. Indeed, in our potential for goodness, we share in His nature.

I agree, so long as we restrict such an admission to those whom the Lord has given His Spirit. Those who do not receive His Spirit have no potential for goodness, at least not in the eternal sense, because nothing they desire stems from a desire to serve God. Therefore, they sin and only sin. This does not negate the clear truth that all people, regardless of their salvitic disposition, retain some measure of the image in which they were created and, as such, are capable of works of civic righteousness.

Again, you did a very nice job of presenting your position.

God bless

 

[downtown1337]

Quite the debate you guys are having.

 

[Hands Open]

.
I would have to disagree with this assessment. First off, it assumes a universal agreement on what decreases the happiness of humanity. We cannot speak of humanity collectively without addressing it individually. What makes you happy may not make me happy, and vice versa. Additionally, suffering, though difficult to endure, is not necessarily bad. This is not just shown in the church. All of the things you list are difficult crosses to bear for anyone, though their benefits can far outweigh their drawbacks. Many people learn many wonderful things through their struggles. In fact, it is the triumph of the human spirit in the face of seemingly overwhelming odds from which emerge the heros of our race. How can we not look at the victors that emerge from the trials of poverty, racism, oppression, intolerance and death of a loved one without being lifted up in our spirit and encouraged to persevere in our own personal struggles? It is great people of faith and perseverance that inspire us, not those who live lives of luxary. Think about this from a larger perspective. Did the first African American students to integrate into the intolerant schools of times past stuggle? Most assuredly. In fact, I'm sure that some were subjected to the most heinous of crimes. Are the struggles they endured "bad?" They were certainly difficult and cause anyone with an ounce of compassion to cringe at the thought of what they must have faced. But were they bad? I would have to say, unequivocally, no. The courage of those who chose to face such trials is one of the primary reasons that the human race has made great strides towards the abolition of such terrible views and true equality. Likewise, the women who faced persecution in their efforts to exercise their right to have a voice in voting surely encountered difficulties, many times from their own families. Was what they experienced bad? Again, clearly not. I'm sure they did not enjoy the assaults they experienced but, because of their efforts, and those who supported them, women now have a voice equal in value and authority to that of their male counterparts. "Bad" cannot be defined as simply "difficult." It must be weighed on the basis of what it produces. This is the very outlook that we, as Christians, must learn to embrace. We will all encounter trials and tribulations, whether we be Christians or not. The defining difference is how we will deal with those trials. How can we count it all joy if we don't recognize that God is sanctifying us through these very ordeals? It is the goal of our faith that makes the race possible for us.

This seems to me to be mere rationalization. I do not use "mere" in any way to slight your comment but it is a common rationalization all the same. What you describe is the very human way in which we make "lemonaide out of lemons." But in this very cliche is my point. Lemons are what we are given. It could also be said we make the best of what would otherwise be evil. This is human nature because, as humans, we must make do with what were given.

But if we look outside the situation were given and ask the question, "could this have been avoided? Could this life be lived without suffering and still be a life worth living?" I think the answer would always be "yes". I'm sure that anyone who suffered from rasicm would have perfered not to. It is they're call today to end racism. Rasicm is in no way good. Simply because we fight to overcome it and sometimes win in that fight doesn't make what we're fighting any better.

I guess to simplify this whole idea is to ask another question. Is Rasicm evil? I would say that it indeed is. Once again I find that God, for whatever purpose, created evil.

It is a common misconception, even in the Christian community, that evil exists apart from the divine ordination of God. That is simply untrue. God is wholly good. The assumption that the Creator is subject to judgment based on what we, as finite creations, deem good and evil is nothing more than pride. There is a story that deals with this issue that may help explain the way we view things:

A man is out in his field one day when he spots a beautiful stallion. The stallion allows him to approach and even harness him and lead him back to the village. When the townspeople see the farmer with the beautiful horse they exclaim, "Blessed be our God! What a great blessing He has given you." The man cannot bring himself to use this magnificent beast as a field horse so he lets his son take him out riding. While he is out the horse is spooked and throws the son, who breaks his leg in the fall. When the townspeople find out they are quick to proclaim, "Oh no! That horse is not a blessing! It is a curse! You must have angered God for Him to bring you such a beast!" Well, shortly thereafter the town is informed that the kingdom in which it resides is called to war and all able bodied males of an age must volunteer. Of course, because of his broken leg, the farmers son is excluded. The townspeople, realizing the farmers fortune, joyfully proclaims "Oh what a blessing!! Your son shall not be lost to you because of the horse the Lord saw fit to give you as a gift. This is truly from God." (Notice a trend yet? ) Then, shortly thereafter, the stallion runs away and the people are quick to say (of course), "What terrible luck you have. This must be God punishing you for something." Then, a few days later, the stallion returns to the farmer at the head of a herd of beautiful horses. The farmer has just become one of the richest men in the entire region. Of course, the people, once again, claim that he is truly blessed by God.

Anyway, the point of the story is that because we are finite we are limited to judging events on what we perceive. It is only when we trust in the promise of the Lord that all events, even those with which we struggle, are to our benefit.

God bless

As an agnostic I cannot say that people arn't subjective, but only regarding things that can be subjective. "If you murder you break the law", leaves no room to speculate about where the guilt stands according to that law. Also the god that is often referenced in this story, rules a world where sin and evil are black and white. It is a dangerous idea to say that you cannot question a God who puts forth tennants on how we should live simply because he is reputed to beyond our reasoning. This idea could be used to justify any number of attrocitys and it has throughout history. My murdering a man is no longer bad because it may have been part of god's plan. What you describe is a blind belief that because the god of such and such book said it, bad things will all turn out good in the end. But I'm sure that the first little black girls to attend an all white school would have perfered you to learn your lesson about rasicm some other way, and I think an omnipotent god could have come up with a way. But all this still doesn't solve our problem. God may have set his laws as to what sin was, but that doesn't mean that he didn't make it.

"Bad' cannot be defined as simply 'difficult.' It must be weighed on the basis of what it produces."

This sounds frighteningly familiar to "The ends justify the means." Nor do I think that an omnipotent god needs to be subjective. He knows if it's evil or good from the get go. Setting laws up, regardless of when you begin to be accountable for them, is still evidence that God made evil.
I cannot believe that a wholly good god could do that and remain wholly good. It defys the very simple definition.

 

[Hands Open]

.
I understand you to be saying that God created everything, and therefore God created evil. I am stating that a distinction must be made between creating the potential for evil to occur, and actually creating evil.
We are created as moral creatures. It is we who are to be responsible for what we say and what we do.

The idea remains. Unicorns are no a potential possibility. Just as something that is red and green all over is not a possibility. in order for me to be able to do something that thing must be able to be done. This is simple enough. We must then take the next step to saying that if god created everything then he created the "potential everythings" as well. Any way you slice it, it still come down to him.

Apparently then, to God at least, with full knowledge of the beginning and the end, creating a world in which evil would reign for a time, was nevertheless deemed ,by Him, as a worthwhile venture.

You do realize that even though you may have rationalized it for yourself, you are admiting that God created evil. Or even if you wish to contest that, you still claim to worship a wholly good God who allows evil. Why in this context is of no consequesce. A god that loves you and can do no wrong should not be able to do this. It is this very contradiction that I wished to point out from the start.

Limited as we are in out knowledge and experience, we are not in a position to judge until we drink from the cup of eternity ourselves.

This quote has always scared me. I'm sure the answer most will have is that I have no understanding of faith, but that has nothing to do with my fear. There are many things in the bible that lead men to commit attrocitys like the inquisition, the crusades, and the salem witch trials. Claiming that you have found absolute truth in the one true god is a heady statement. But if just accept it at face value and don't check it to see if is indeed correct than you have commited a grave error. One that has lead, and still leads to needless deaths the world over. You must judge him to what you know as right.

 

[Hands Open]

There is a fine distinction to be made between the soverignty of a 'tri-omni' concept of God, and a humankind that can nevertheless make its own moral choices. Many find the ideas contradictory, but personally I do not.

Like your friend, I do not disagree with that idea.

Yes, God knows all that is, was, and shall be. God is sovereign, and so in that sense, does holds ultimate responsibility.

Bingo

And yet on the 'micro-level', we are all personally responsible and free to make our own choices. It is we that hold moral responsibility.

What we choose does not keep god from being responsable. And here is where we find the issue of choice. Lets say that being able to choose bad things doesn't matter right now. In order to choose well we must first have knowledge. God withheld knowledge of himself that all would believe and knew that many he created would want proof before buying into such an idea. But he decided instead that he would only give them faith. He also knew that many would perish and burn in hell for all eternity before he even began making this world, because of his choice to hide himself from proof. So leaving us with no more proof of his godliness than of the Muslims god or the Buddists, many have and will continue to go to hell.

All he had to do was give us the knowledge, which was easliy within his power, to save millions from perishing in hell.

This to me has even worse consequences than my opening question.

We have therefore been created of such a nature that the free will which is the necessary requisite for morality is in fact possible.

Free will or not, your god is not off his hook.

In the likeness of God, moreso than the beasts who can not do other than follow their own nature, we are capable of moral intent. Our ability to choose makes God no less worthy of worship. Indeed, in our potential for goodness, we share in His nature.

All that we lack is the knowledge.

 

[Reformationist]

This seems to me to be mere rationalization. I do not use "mere" in any way to slight your comment but it is a common rationalization all the same. What you describe is the very human way in which we make "lemonaide out of lemons." But in this very cliche is my point. Lemons are what we are given. It could also be said we make the best of what would otherwise be evil. This is human nature because, as humans, we must make do with what were given.

But that is just the point. The defining difference between those who look at the trial of getting "lemons" is whether or not their faith is in the purpose and promise of the Giver of those lemons. Only when we recognize that we were given lemons for a purpose do the associated trials become bearable. You see, from a Christian perspective, the gifts, or lackthereof, we are given serve a purpose. They have meaning. They have value. We are being prepared for the heavens and the true and abiding presence of God. All of life's struggles, at least for a Christian, work toward conforming us to the image of Christ. The Apostle Paul proclaims that he has comfort in plenty and in want? Why do you think that is? All of the non-Christians I know and many of the Christians have no such feeling of peace. We constantly struggle with the anxiety that results from faithlessly dealing with life's trials. This is truly unnecessary. Even the times when our lack of faith is quite visible serve to sanctify us because when we are shown the weakness of our flesh we cleave all the stronger to the One who can deliver us and, in fact, we are delivered.

But if we look outside the situation were given and ask the question, "could this have been avoided? Could this life be lived without suffering and still be a life worth living?" I think the answer would always be "yes".

That is where the Christian and the non-Christian must part ways. You see, for Christians the value of this life isn't primarily to be found in looking to ourselves and our own glory. It is found in the recognition that all things bring glory to God in their own preappointed ways. Could God have chosen to bring glory to Himself in a different way? I can say yes, at least on a philosophical level. However, knowing the perfection of God even in as limited a way as I do, I am firmly convinced that this is the way in which God will be most glorified.

I'm sure that anyone who suffered from rasicm would have perfered not to.

I'm sure you are right.

It is they're call today to end racism. Rasicm is in no way good. Simply because we fight to overcome it and sometimes win in that fight doesn't make what we're fighting any better.

I disagree. While I acknowledge that racism is a crime against those created in the image of God and, thus, steals glory due to Him alone, any such crime brings the body of Christ into further conformity. How can we learn the value of forgiveness if we never experience the lack of it? How can we ever recognize our own proclivity to sin if we are never exposed to the sins of others? How can we ever learn to bear the Cross of Christ if we encounter no struggles? The bottom line is, we cannot.

I guess to simplify this whole idea is to ask another question. Is Rasicm evil? I would say that it indeed is.

I would agree.

Once again I find that God, for whatever purpose, created evil.

You recognize racism as evil because, for whatever purpose, the Lord has blessed you with the ability to recognize the dignity of those created in His image. However, ask a neo-nazi if racism is evil and they would probably tell you that it was God's means of weeding out undesirable elements from society. Of course we know that to be untrue but to use that as a basis for saying that racism serves no good purpose is to speak out of hand. God surely did create those who are racists. He did not, however, make them be racist. All sin, of which racism is surely one, is the product of the Fall. Our natures have been corrupted and perverted and seek only to usurp the authority of God. We not only fail to do as He commands, which is to love our neighbor as we love ourselves, but we do everything that He prohibits. Does this serve the power and purpose of God? Most assuredly. Do we always understand how? Of course not.

As an agnostic I cannot say that people arn't subjective, but only regarding things that can be subjective. "If you murder you break the law", leaves no room to speculate about where the guilt stands according to that law.

I agree. However, the lack of speculation is due to the recognition of the authority of the law that prohibits such actions. Christians just recognize an additional, and higher, authority than the law of man.

Also the god that is often referenced in this story, rules a world where sin and evil are black and white.

That's because God is not hampered by a limited knowledge of events or power to bring them to pass in accordance with His divine perrogative. In Him there is no shade of turning. He is the same yesterday, today and forever.

It is a dangerous idea to say that you cannot question a God who puts forth tennants on how we should live simply because he is reputed to beyond our reasoning.

I'm not aware of any such mandate. There is, however, a prohibition against questioning God's authority to establish the tenents of the Law.

This idea could be used to justify any number of attrocitys and it has throughout history. My murdering a man is no longer bad because it may have been part of god's plan.

The deceptive and rebellious perversion of God's commandments do not reflect on the holiness of God but, rather, on the depravity of man. You seem to want to judge the holiness of God by the works of His fallen creation.

What you describe is a blind belief that because the god of such and such book said it, bad things will all turn out good in the end.

On the contrary, it was not until He opened my eyes to the truth of His Word that I could see. Blindness is a trait of the non-believer who lives as if he is not eternally accountable to anyone.

But I'm sure that the first little black girls to attend an all white school would have perfered you to learn your lesson about rasicm some other way, and I think an omnipotent god could have come up with a way.

I am not racist though, if I'm honest with myself, I am sure that my pride causes me to look down upon others from time to time. Either way, "could have" is not a question with God unless we are discussing if God could do something contrary to His nature, which, of course, He cannot. Yes, God could have brought the integration of public schools about in such a way that no one suffered. However, as bad as the racism was, I seriously doubt that so many would now be so adamantly opposed to allowing history to repeat itself had it not been etched into our minds by the manner in which He did bring it to pass.

But all this still doesn't solve our problem. God may have set his laws as to what sin was, but that doesn't mean that he didn't make it.

Which is why I have not said that God did not create evil.

This sounds frighteningly familiar to "The ends justify the means."

If we were speaking of humanity I can see why that would be frightening to you. We are, however, speaking of the providential government of God and, as such, there is nothing frightening about it. The means which God uses are never unjust. In fact, there is never a situation where man gets what he deserves because man always deserves eternal condemnation and reaffirms that he deserves such judgment every time he sins. God, in His mercy, restrains His wrath against the iniquity of man for the sake of His beloved. There are many that say that God is unfair. I would have to agree, though I would qualify that by stating that were God fair, we would all perish in the fires of everlasting condemnation. The condescension of God in rescuing His chosen from the ends they so richly deserve is a sign of His grace, not any unrighteousness.

Nor do I think that an omnipotent god needs to be subjective. He knows if it's evil or good from the get go. Setting laws up, regardless of when you begin to be accountable for them, is still evidence that God made evil.

Okay Hands Open.

I cannot believe that a wholly good god could do that and remain wholly good. It defys the very simple definition.

The reason you struggle with such an idea is that you have an incorrect understanding of a number of things, namely, man's earned guilty status before God and man's willing rebellion against his Creator. Additionally, you seem to operate under the false assumption that God is indebted to His creation and that He is, in some way, obligated to favor them. The truth is, we can only understand the great love with which He loved us when we understand the great gulf brought about by the cosmic treason we so willingly commit against Him.

God bless

 

[Hands Open]

I see we have reached an impass. I believe that in order for evil to exist, in order for man to fall, it must be within his capability to do so. The only one who could have made man in such a way in this faith is this faiths god. I continue to assert that a god with all these traits should have come up with something better. "God works in mysterious ways." , "I must trust and have faith." is the answers I'm given. I cannot serve nor believe in a god who uses pain to teach. You may say he uses it because that is part of our world. But I say that is only because he made it that way. I cannot believe in a god who could let this happen. No god who loved his children so much and could remove pain, teach in only positve ways, save everyone that he created, would make us a world where that is virtually impossible. Nor can I let pass those attrocitys that are done in his name or the name of any god. I see a god who could have prevented all this. And didn't. I think in my very denial to believe I have proved my point. God knew he would create me and then give me no evidence I would believe.

In the end Reformationist, I would like to believe you to be one of a small number of christians I have met in my journeys who I do not think capable of perverting what in lots of way is a religion that has many good ideas in it. Many ideas that I happen to agree with.

I actually have no qualms leaving this discussion at an impass with you as I see no danger in doing so. My only concern and warning is, while spreading your faith to others, do not be careless. Do not let them leave with the idea that they are somehow better than others, or backed in whatever they think.
Instead of saying "God is on our side", let them leave with "Strive to be on the side of God." Maybe then I'll see less holy wars......

What I also believe is that we have many differences in what an omnipotent god should do. I don't think at this time that we'll be able to reconcile them.
Where you say that it is the pride of man, I say that it is the duty. We seem to split on philosophical terms.

For the present though I am going to let this be. There is nothing I haven't already said that is pertinent to the idea. Besides, I have much that I'm neglecting in order to spend the time in this forum and I can no longer put it on the back burner.



For the rest who would disagree with me. Remember that I am not here to reply. So while you may post a reply that you think to be brilliant, it may be easily answered. So better not to reply to my posts at all. There are others though, I am sure, who would be very willing to pick up this debate.

Best of luck to you all.