The Origin of Evil

[yashua1970]

As I've readily and repeatedly admitted, God causes those kinds of "evil" (although not every instance). But when you say that God is "the creator of evil," people will usually misinterpret you as saying that God desires immorality and moral corruption and acts against the greater good of mankind. The problem of semantic overlap is highly relevant here, because not only does Heb. 'ra often denote ethical evil (in addition to calamitous evil, often arrayed together in a way that is difficult for modern minds to process because we have so strongly separated them), but moreover, "evil" these days typically means moral corruption. Therefore when you say "God is the author of evil" but merely mean that he is "the minister of bad, disagreeable, malignant,giving pain, unhappiness, misery,distress, injury," you are misleading your audience.

I understand that you wish to avoid the difficulty of creating a power independent of God and opposing him. If that is your philosophical position, I have no problem with it. However, as far as the biblical texts are concerned, this is a minority view at best. The Bible repeatedly and consistently states that God does NOT do evil; he is NOT unjust; he is NOT malicious; and so forth. Various acts of God in the Bible which are considered by modern folks as being vindictive, power-hungry, selfish, egotistical, whatever, are simply not interpreted as such by the texts themselves. God was NOT doing evil when he wiped out the Canaanites, and so on.

I've never read the Koran, but I'm pretty sure that any acts of God mentioned in the Koran are likewise viewed by the Koran as being good, regardless of how a foreign ethical system might view those acts. Mainstream Islam and Christianity (as well as Judaism) would all be horrified by your claim that God acts in favor of moral corruption, and would (I'm sure) say that such attributions rob God of his glory.

Yes, the movement from being slaves to sin to being slaves to Christ. Clearly Paul envisions a power separate from and opposite to the divine power of Christ and God. Again, you unwittingly prove my case.

Unfortunately what you added on is precisely what is missing from the text. It specifically says, "his good pleasure," which presumably excludes any possibility of his working in us any evil or corrupt pleasure. A fourth time, you unwittingly prove my case.

Did I mention you have consistently failed to respond to the texts I cite as evidence of the Bible's opposition to your views?

It was not possible for Adam and Eve NOT TO SIN -- they were created for the express purpose of being molded into the "image of God," and so of course, they had to eat of the forbidden tree of the knowledge of good and evil or they would have NEVER reached this first spiritual step in becoming LIKE GOD (in His IMAGE), a step of paramount DIVINE REQUISITE:

"And the LORD God said, Behold [consider, to perceive, to know, to understand], the man is BECOME AS ONE OF US [Hebrew for ‘God’ is elohiym which is the plural of elowahh, hence ‘us’], TO KNOW GOOD AND EVIL..." (Gen. 3:22).
​

Knowing "good and evil" is one of the most essential requisites in being formed in the image of God. To truly "know" both good and evil they HAD to partake of its source, which was the "TREE of the knowledge of good and evil," which then DEMANDED that they SIN in order to obtain this "knowledge." NO OTHER TREE IN THE GARDEN POSSESSED THIS NEEDED KNOWLEDGE!
And so it was GOD, and none other than GOD, Who intended from the beginning that Satan and man SIN! That does not make God a sinner, for a sin is a "mistake," a "missing of the mark," a "falling short of the glory of God," and God has NEVER MADE A MISTAKE OR FALLEN SHORT OF TOTAL PERFECTION! God knew what He was doing and how things would turn out BEFORE He created ANYTHING! "Declaring the end from the beginning..." (Isa. 46:10). Satan and man are "accountable" for their sins, because they sinned willingly from their heart, but God takes "responsibility" for their sins, and therefore had already provided them a Saviour BEFORE the foundation of the world:



Please, despite the fact that this is an emotional issue for you, try your best to be polite.

Or better yet, was Jesus' death an act of God? Yes and no. Christian belief is full of fun paradoxes, and until you start to embrace both sides of the coin, you are missing out on a full 50% of Christian theology.

Again, I have no problem with your philosophy, but you are consistently running aground when you attempt to find support for it in the biblical texts. To view God as the first cause, and accordingly responsible for all events whether good or bad, is simply not espoused in any part of the Bible. Some texts get close (Isaiah, Paul) but others are completely opposed (Genesis, Matthew, Revelation).

Essentially your error is that you are going on and on about one side of the debate, but fail to even acknowledge (much less address) the issues raised by the other side.

Just to shorten the issue, I believe that your position is based on the fault that man has free will, which the Bible does not teach in any shape, form or fashion. I do not ascribe to any theological position of which the current institute of religion adheres to. I do adhere to what the bible actually teaches, which is something that the different denominations around the world pick, and choose what they like. There is no flip side to the coin. God is the first cause in "ALL" things. Did the Jews "want", "Desire" to crucify Jesus in, and of themselves? No All was of God. Can Gods purpose be thwarted?

Did I mention you have consistently failed to respond to the texts I cite as evidence of the Bible's opposition to your views?

Re-post them again then and I will respond to them, although I do not remember any texts you cite. Gotta go to work.

 

[ittarter]

Re-post them again then and I will respond to them, although I do not remember any texts you cite. Gotta go to work.

The difference between this dialogue and and live, impromptu conversation is that everything either of us says is recorded and preserved. Go find them yourself

Just to shorten the issue, I believe that your position is based on the fault that man has free will, an opposition which the Bible does not teach in any shape, form or fashion. I do not ascribe to any theological position of which the current institute of religion adheres to. I do adhere to what the bible actually teaches, which is something that the different denominations around the world pick, and choose what they like. There is no flip side to the coin. God is the first cause in "ALL" things. Did the Jews "want", "Desire" to crucify Jesus in, and of themselves? No All was of God. Can Gods purpose be thwarted?

Just to shorten the issue, I believe that your position is based on a sharp opposition to free will, which the Bible does not teach in any shape, form or fashion. Determinism, whether in its natural Greek or modern philosophical setting, is foreign to biblical thought, especially Hebrew thought, which finds no necessary conflict between human action and divine action.

So, to answer your question, YES, God's will can be thwarted. It is implicitly stated as early as Gen. 3, and explicitly as early as Gen. 6:

Genesis 6:6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.

The only reason someone would not read this as an example of God's intentions being thwarted, was if he or she had a preexisting theological commitment to the contrary.

The reason for this preexisting theological commitment, I would guess, is your underlying philosophical supposition, namely, that sacred scripture cannot be multivocalic, truth is never paradoxical, and so forth. This hinders your ability to read scripture in a way that respects the unique theological vision of each book. For example, Isaiah and Paul teach that God's will cannot be thwarted, but Genesis and Samuel teach that it can be thwarted. Instead, you would read "canonically" and force all the texts' teachings to "agree" with each other. This is your religious right, although due to my academic training I am unable at this time to follow in the same path.

Additionally, as I have said before, you are philosophically committed to the belief that God is the first cause, and furthermore the cause of all things. The latter view especially is foreign to biblical thought, and I have been at pains to demonstrate that to you. However, since you have failed at each opportunity to respond to my specific arguments, I don't see any need in further explaining the issues to you.

Unless you wish to discuss any of those arguments preserved in my previous posts, it is at this stage that we will part ways, at least out of respect to the OP. Thank you for your time, friend.

 

[yashua1970]

The difference between this dialogue and and live, impromptu conversation is that everything either of us says is recorded and preserved. Go find them yourself

Just to shorten the issue, I believe that your position is based on a sharp opposition to free will, which the Bible does not teach in any shape, form or fashion. Determinism, whether in its natural Greek or modern philosophical setting, is foreign to biblical thought, especially Hebrew thought, which finds no necessary conflict between human action and divine action.

So, to answer your question, YES, God's will can be thwarted. It is implicitly stated as early as Gen. 3, and explicitly as early as Gen. 6:

Genesis 6:6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.

The only reason someone would not read this as an example of God's intentions being thwarted, was if he or she had a preexisting theological commitment to the contrary.

The reason for this preexisting theological commitment, I would guess, is your underlying philosophical supposition, namely, that sacred scripture cannot be multivocalic, truth is never paradoxical, and so forth. This hinders your ability to read scripture in a way that respects the unique theological vision of each book. For example, Isaiah and Paul teach that God's will cannot be thwarted, but Genesis and Samuel teach that it can be thwarted. Instead, you would read "canonically" and force all the texts' teachings to "agree" with each other. This is your religious right, although due to my academic training I am unable at this time to follow in the same path.

Additionally, as I have said before, you are philosophically committed to the belief that God is the first cause, and furthermore the cause of all things. The latter view especially is foreign to biblical thought, and I have been at pains to demonstrate that to you. However, since you have failed at each opportunity to respond to my specific arguments, I don't see any need in further explaining the issues to you.

Unless you wish to discuss any of those arguments preserved in my previous posts, it is at this stage that we will part ways, at least out of respect to the OP. Thank you for your time, friend.

The difference between this dialogue and and live, impromptu conversation is that everything either of us says is recorded and preserved. Go find them yourself

The reason I asked is because there is nothing from you that is presented as any argument.
Sorry, but I do not see anything from you in that light.
You kept saying that the OP's real question was "why do forces against God exist?"
I'll state it "again" Any force that exist that is against God, exists because God created them for his "good pleasure"

So, to answer your question, YES, God's will can be thwarted. It is implicitly stated as early as Gen. 3, and explicitly as early as Gen. 6:

Pro 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

1Sa 15:35 And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.
​

Why is this apparent contradiction all right here in the same chapter? This is typical of The Bible. It is as it is for two reasons. It tells those who are given eyes to see that God truly is sovereign over all things good and evil:

Pro 16:1 The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, [is] from the LORD.

The second reason we have an apparent contradiction in 1Sa 15 is to serve as a stumbling block for all who are not chosen to see "the mysteries of the kingdom of God." God has not, at this time, set His hand to save all men. He is instead, actually hiding the Truth of His word from the masses who come to Him and who profess to know Him. Any one who still thinks that they have a will that is free from the influence of the Great Cause of all things, is a victim of God's strong delusion, which has been cast over all nations on earth at this particular time:

2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

Eze 14:9 And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.

Rom 11:8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day.
​

But it is all temporary, for the purpose of choosing a few faithful at this time, through whom God will bring all the rest of mankind to himself in their own order:

Psa 139:16 Thine eyes did see mine unformed substance; And in thy book they were all written, Even the days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was none of them.

And yes it is true "Because of your academic training you are unable at this time to follow in the same path."

And that is fine, many are not yet ready for true meat.

As to the OP, He has already thanked me for answering his question.

Thank you for your time, friend.

 

[ittarter]

The reason I asked is because there is nothing from you that is presented as any argument.

Just scan for Bible book names, then. It can't be that much of a strain

By the way, you AGAIN failed to respond to my biblical citations, in this case Gen. 6. You ignored it and instead decided to investigate Proverbs 16 and 1 Sam. 15. Again, you unwittingly supported one of my contentions in the previous post, namely, that within the Bible BOTH the idea that God controls evil activity AND the responsibility of man (or other powers distinct from God) for evil activity.

You kept saying that the OP's real question was "why do forces against God exist?"

I don't believe I ever said anything even close to that. Perhaps I got this thread confused with the other one in hamartiology we both posted on recently. We are talking about the origins of evil here, yes?

I'll state it "again" Any force that exist that is against God, exists because God created them for his "good pleasure"

You don't have to restate your position. You just have to prove that the Bible everywhere agrees with you. Since I have already recognized that certain texts teach this theology, citing texts that do so does not in any way minimize my criticism of your own position, namely, that it does not take into account the OTHER side of the issue as it is represented in our sacred literature.

Pro 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

1Sa 15:35 And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.
​

Why is this apparent contradiction all right here in the same chapter?

These aren't in the same chapter. They aren't even in the same book, or written by the same person, or in the same century. So why try to harmonize the two? Why not admit that Proverbs 16 teaches one thing (which, by the way, is merely proverbial wisdom, and not intended to provide an statement of absolute truth), while 1 Sam. has a different view on the matter?

1 Sam. certainly does not take one side or the other, but in fact uses the spiritual dethronement of King Saul as a classic event that poses the question, Is God in control or did God make a mistake? 15:29 is the key text in your favor (which you strangely omitted from your argument!). Samuel says,

And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret.

Clearly the two are in tension with each other. However, since the second is spoken by a character (even a prophet!) and the first is simply recorded by the narrator, interpretation would normally grant precedence to the first, NOT the second. Every character, even a prophet, is only granted "limited knowledge," while the biblical narrator typically assumes the position of omniscience, and certainly does so here. Unless you can come up with a complex literary argument in favor of reversing the regular priorities in this pericope, I'm afraid that, yet again, you have unwittingly made my argument for me.

This is typical of The Bible. It is as it is for two reasons. It tells those who are given eyes to see that God truly is sovereign over all things good and evil:

Pro 16:1 The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, [is] from the LORD.

Again, this constitutes ONE view of the MANY that may be extrapolated from the great mass that is our sacred literature.

The second reason we have an apparent contradiction in 1Sa 15 is to serve as a stumbling block for all who are not chosen to see "the mysteries of the kingdom of God." God has not, at this time, set His hand to save all men. He is instead, actually hiding the Truth of His word from the masses who come to Him and who profess to know Him. Any one who still thinks that they have a will that is free from the influence of the Great Cause of all things, is a victim of God's strong delusion, which has been cast over all nations on earth at this particular time:

2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

Eze 14:9 And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.

Rom 11:8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day.
​

But it is all temporary, for the purpose of choosing a few faithful at this time, through whom God will bring all the rest of mankind to himself in their own order:

Psa 139:16 Thine eyes did see mine unformed substance; And in thy book they were all written, Even the days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was none of them.

And yes it is true "Because of your academic training you are unable at this time to follow in the same path."

And that is fine, many are not yet ready for true meat.

This spiritual elitism does nothing to strengthen your case. You are merely tossing out random "esoterism" verses to deny my right to argue intellectually and logically. If you cannot demonstrate from the Bible that, according to the Bible, evil does not exist in its own right, or counter my many arguments and citations to the contrary, you should not enter in debate at all, but rather merely consider yourself a prophetic voice which does not have to deal with the rigors of literary interpretation and theological exposition. Instead you have chosen to mislead me into believing that you were debating.

If I could make one recommendation -- In the future, do not debate about issues that for you are not debatable. I know that for you it is not debatable because, in the end, you were forced to play the "I am spiritually enlightened and you are not" card, which apparently trumps all logic and even common sense. I don't care whether for you it is debatable or not debatable -- that is your religious right -- but it is irresponsible to argue about something when you're not able to change your mind about it. Rather, debate about those issues which are light enough for you that you can discuss them candidly and critically. Please think about it.

This are my final thoughts on the matter. Feel free to post your reply and take the last word, if you are so inclined.

 

[yashua1970]

Just scan for Bible book names, then. It can't be that much of a strain

By the way, you AGAIN failed to respond to my biblical citations, in this case Gen. 6. You ignored it and instead decided to investigate Proverbs 16 and 1 Sam. 15. Again, you unwittingly supported one of my contentions in the previous post, namely, that within the Bible BOTH the idea that God controls evil activity AND the responsibility of man (or other powers distinct from God) for evil activity.

I don't believe I ever said anything even close to that. Perhaps I got this thread confused with the other one in hamartiology we both posted on recently. We are talking about the origins of evil here, yes?
You don't have to restate your position. You just have to prove that the Bible everywhere agrees with you. Since I have already recognized that certain texts teach this theology, citing texts that do so does not in any way minimize my criticism of your own position, namely, that it does not take into account the OTHER side of the issue as it is represented in our sacred literature.

These aren't in the same chapter. They aren't even in the same book, or written by the same person, or in the same century. So why try to harmonize the two? Why not admit that Proverbs 16 teaches one thing (which, by the way, is merely proverbial wisdom, and not intended to provide an statement of absolute truth), while 1 Sam. has a different view on the matter?

1 Sam. certainly does not take one side or the other, but in fact uses the spiritual dethronement of King Saul as a classic event that poses the question, Is God in control or did God make a mistake? 15:29 is the key text in your favor (which you strangely omitted from your argument!). Samuel says,

And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret.

Clearly the two are in tension with each other. However, since the second is spoken by a character (even a prophet!) and the first is simply recorded by the narrator, interpretation would normally grant precedence to the first, NOT the second. Every character, even a prophet, is only granted "limited knowledge," while the biblical narrator typically assumes the position of omniscience, and certainly does so here. Unless you can come up with a complex literary argument in favor of reversing the regular priorities in this pericope, I'm afraid that, yet again, you have unwittingly made my argument for me.

Again, this constitutes ONE view of the MANY that may be extrapolated from the great mass that is our sacred literature.

This spiritual elitism does nothing to strengthen your case. You are merely tossing out random "esoterism" verses to deny my right to argue intellectually and logically. If you cannot demonstrate from the Bible that, according to the Bible, evil does not exist in its own right, or counter my many arguments and citations to the contrary, you should not enter in debate at all, but rather merely consider yourself a prophetic voice which does not have to deal with the rigors of literary interpretation and theological exposition. Instead you have chosen to mislead me into believing that you were debating.

If I could make one recommendation -- In the future, do not debate about issues that for you are not debatable. I know that for you it is not debatable because, in the end, you were forced to play the "I am spiritually enlightened and you are not" card, which apparently trumps all logic and even common sense. I don't care whether for you it is debatable or not debatable -- that is your religious right -- but it is irresponsible to argue about something when you're not able to change your mind about it. Rather, debate about those issues which are light enough for you that you can discuss them candidly and critically. Please think about it.

This are my final thoughts on the matter. Feel free to post your reply and take the last word, if you are so inclined.

You ignored it and instead decided to investigate Proverbs 16 and 1 Sam. 15.

No I didn't site it, because I used the other verses for an example of the one you cited.

I don't believe I ever said anything even close to that.

Yes you did, but I don't think it really matters.

You don't have to restate your position. You just have to prove that the Bible everywhere agrees with you. Since I have already recognized that certain texts teach this theology, citing texts that do so does not in any way minimize my criticism of your own position, namely, that it does not take into account the OTHER side of the issue as it is represented in our sacred literature.

You are absolutely correct, and If I believed in free will that would be a better position to hold to.
If you can see that there is no free will then it is quite easy to see the bible unfold very easy.

So why try to harmonize the two? Why not admit that Proverbs 16 teaches one thing (which, by the way, is merely proverbial wisdom, and not intended to provide an statement of absolute truth), while 1 Sam. has a different view on the matter?

If your going to take that position, why not just say that 1 Sam isn't intended to provide any absolute truth as well?
I myself do not believe that the beginning of Genesis is "absolute truth," but is allegorical in it's statement. I do not believe that most of the bible is "Absolute Truth," but what it teaches is plain to see. Do I like it? No, not all of it
Where I am coming from is a position that the entire Church teaches but rarely believes at all.
Here are just some examples of what the Church teaches.

• Do they believe the fire in I Cor.3:15 burns mans’ works, but not the man himself? Yes.
  
  But do they teach that this same fire in Rev.20:15 also burns works, not the man? No.
• Do they believe that God is the Creator of ALL? Yes.
  
  But do they teach that God created EVIL as He says in (Isa. 45:7)? No.
• Do they believe that God is absolutely and totally sovereign (Eph. 1:11)? Yes.
  
  But do they teach that God exercises sovereignty over man’s supposed "free" will? No.
• Do they believe that Jesus Christ IS the Saviour of the whole world (I Jn 4:14)? Yes.
  
  But do they teach that Jesus Christ will SAVE the whole world? No.
• Do they believe that presently Christ only has immortality (I Tim. 6:16)? Yes.
  
  But do they teach the truth therefore that men’s souls are mortal and not immortal? No.
• Do they believe that the original manuscripts of God’s Word were inerrant? Yes.
  
  But do they teach us that the King James translation, which they say is "inerrant" has gone through THOUSANDS of error corrections since 1611? No.
• Do they believe that the soul that sins shall DIE (Ezek. 18:4)? Yes.
  
  But do they teach that souls of deceased sinners are actually DEAD? No.
• Do they believe there are many cults today that need exposing? Yes.
  
  But do they teach that Christendom, by its OWN definitions, is also a cult? No.
• Do they believe that Sodom is "suffering the vengeance of eternal [aeonian] fire? Yes.
  
  But do they teach that Sodom will be restored to their former estate (Ezek. 16:55)? No.
• Do they believe in a future resurrection of dead people back to life (John 5:29)? Yes.
  
  But do they teach that a resurrection is imperative for dead people to live again? No.
• Do they believe the first half of I Cor. 15:22 that "For as in Adam ALL die?" Yes.
  
  But do they teach the last half, "even so in Christ shall ALL be made alive?" No.
• etc,etc,etc.
  

I'm afraid that, yet again, you have unwittingly made my argument for me.

I haven't made any argument for you, you yourself have made your theology fit within your "current" theological beliefs.

Again, this constitutes ONE view of the MANY

So the many wins out, but the few never quite make it?
That's almost like saying "since everyone believes "this" way I guess I should do the same as everyone else?
That's following the leader.

This spiritual elitism does nothing to strengthen your case. You are merely tossing out random "esoterism" verses to deny my right to argue intellectually and logically.

I apologize If I came off that way towards you, I am by far not ready for meat myself, but a little bit of Pork never hurt anyone.
I'm not denying you any right. The Bible is by far Intellectual and Logical. Is "Rising from the Dead" Logical? No it isn't. It's really a struggle to actually intellectually and logically argue the bible period.

If you cannot demonstrate from the Bible that, according to the Bible, evil does not exist in its own right

I think maybe that's the problem because truly evil does not exist in it's "own" right, but for us it's a word used to describe things that are unjust, or so we think. When God uses Evil for his purpose it is always used for the good of something.

Instead you have chosen to mislead me into believing that you were debating

I am sorry, but I was never trying to "debate" the issue. I have beliefs that are contrary to yours. I try to present proofs that support what I believe, just as you do likewise. I do not particularly like what I believe the bible actually teaches, but until someone can prove to me that what I believe is in error, then I will continue to believe that God is the ultimate source of "ALL" things good and evil.

but it is irresponsible to argue about something when you're not able to change your mind about it. Rather, debate about those issues which are light enough for you that you can discuss them candidly and critically. Please think about it.

That's true, but I would love to change my mind about the way I believe, but I have not as of yet been persuaded by anything else.

 

[ittarter]

Thanks for your honest and healthy response. I feel like a bit of the air of our debate has been cleared. See you around!

 

[yashua1970]

Thanks for your honest and healthy response. I feel like a bit of the air of our debate has been cleared. See you around!

That's great. I find that debating an issue is really quite boring because in the end it is futile. Ever debated an Atheist? It's to no end. See ya

 

[ittarter]

That's great. I find that debating an issue is really quite boring because in the end it is futile. Ever debated an Atheist? It's to no end. See ya

Huh. I have found many debates quite instructive, either for myself or for the other party or parties, or all of the above. Why on earth would you engage in debate if you have had such consistently terrible experiences? If that were the case for me, I think I would just quit the whole endeavor.

 

[yashua1970]

Huh. I have found many debates quite instructive, either for myself or for the other party or parties, or all of the above. Why on earth would you engage in debate if you have had such consistently terrible experiences? If that were the case for me, I think I would just quit the whole endeavor.

I just feel that it's futile in a sense. Yes they can be quite instructive, but I kinda feel that in the end it's just a retelling of things already stated by others. That's just me though.

 

[ittarter]

Certainly in our recent debate I doubt that anything entirely "new" was said, as far as "the collective conscience of the human race." However, I was able to verbalize some thoughts for the first time, and hear some responses I'd never heard before. I learned something. And who knows what other third-party readers learn because of threads they read? That is an extra bonus that is nice to remember sometimes, too.

 

[yashua1970]

Certainly in our recent debate I doubt that anything entirely "new" was said, as far as "the collective conscience of the human race." However, I was able to verbalize some thoughts for the first time, and hear some responses I'd never heard before. I learned something. And who knows what other third-party readers learn because of threads they read? That is an extra bonus that is nice to remember sometimes, too.

Quite true, quite true. This is off track, but I was just reminded.
I myself am learning things that go beyond what we have "been taught" by religion, as to say "Conventional Religion." Times have changed as well as our understanding of our "self" and "Ego." I see alot of this talked about in the bible (especially Romans), but rarely hear others speak about as such. Anthony DeMello spoke about it as well as others, but I wished more time would be spent on the subject of "Self (Spirit)" and "Ego (Flesh)." I think alot of people could understand many things in the bible If these concepts were introduced.

 

[AmericanCatholic]

The fundamental contradiction remains in the claim that an all-powerful, perfectly good God created evil. Either God is not all-powerful, not perfect, or not good. Furthermore, if an all-powerful, perfectly good God is capable of evil (which is an absurdity), all Christians must accept the possibility that God is in fact deceiving them, and that the truth of the matter will forever be hidden. Lastly, these same people who believe that God created evil must accept also that God is a hypocrite, because as an all-powerful being he has the capacity to destroy evil, but instead of eliminating evil for which he is originally responsible, he punishes man, who he created in his own image in the first place. The only possibility that allows for the 'God-created-evil' theory is that 'good' is defined as what God alone decides (or does), and therefore 'good' is an arbitrary feature of God rather than absolute moral authority.

 

[ittarter]

The fundamental contradiction remains in the claim that an all-powerful, perfectly good God created evil. Either God is not all-powerful, not perfect, or not good. Furthermore, if an all-powerful, perfectly good God is capable of evil (which is an absurdity), all Christians must accept the possibility that God is in fact deceiving them, and that the truth of the matter will forever be hidden. Lastly, these same people who believe that God created evil must accept also that God is a hypocrite, because as an all-powerful being he has the capacity to destroy evil, but instead of eliminating evil for which he is originally responsible, he punishes man, who he created in his own image in the first place.

I'd suggest that all these contradictions and absurdities are equally true when confronted with the mere existence of evil (alongside an omnibenevolent and omnipotent deity).

The only possibility that allows for the 'God-created-evil' theory is that 'good' is defined as what God alone decides (or does), and therefore 'good' is an arbitrary feature of God rather than absolute moral authority.

I don't understand exactly what you mean here. If God acts consistently with respect to his moral character, and God's moral character is absolute (i.e. it must be purely good or evil), then both are true: good is defined as what God alone decides or does (or any moral act that is consistent with those decisions and acts) AND good is an absolute moral authority (since God is sovereign over humankind and the universe).

Furthermore, even granting your original stance, if good is defined as what God does, then by definition God cannot create evil. His acts may be perceived wrongly as evil in nature, but fundamentally they are good.

 

[AmericanCatholic]

I'd suggest that all these contradictions and absurdities are equally true when confronted with the mere existence of evil (alongside an omnibenevolent and omnipotent deity).

I don't understand exactly what you mean here. If God acts consistently with respect to his moral character, and God's moral character is absolute (i.e. it must be purely good or evil), then both are true: good is defined as what God alone decides or does (or any moral act that is consistent with those decisions and acts) AND good is an absolute moral authority (since God is sovereign over humankind and the universe).

Furthermore, even granting your original stance, if good is defined as what God does, then by definition God cannot create evil. His acts may be perceived wrongly as evil in nature, but fundamentally they are good.

There is a difference between a perfectly good and an omni-benevolent being, which is why I insist that God is the former but not the latter. When accepting God as a perfectly good, all-powerful being, evil must necessarily not exist as a thing of a itself, but as the lack of a thing, in this case, goodness. This simultaneously allows for God as the creator of the universe and everything within it and the 'appearance' of evil in opposition to, but ultimately weaker than, God and his goodness. God is all powerful not because he created evil (which he cannot do because of his perfection, and would not do because of his goodness), but because he is capable of subordinating evil to his will and giving it purpose.

Granting that if good is defined arbitrarily by God's decisions or actions (which I must emphasize that I reject as a premise) you identify correctly the dilemma that if God also practices evil, it is only evil by perception and not by nature. That subjects goodness to his arbitrary will and makes God no different, or better than, man.

 

[ittarter]

There is a difference between a perfectly good and an omni-benevolent being, which is why I insist that God is the former but not the latter. When accepting God as a perfectly good, all-powerful being, evil must necessarily not exist as a thing of a itself, but as the lack of a thing, in this case, goodness. This simultaneously allows for God as the creator of the universe and everything within it and the 'appearance' of evil in opposition to, but ultimately weaker than, God and his goodness. God is all powerful not because he created evil (which he cannot do because of his perfection, and would not do because of his goodness), but because he is capable of subordinating evil to his will and giving it purpose.

You're absolutely right. I misread "perfectly good" in your previous post as presuming omnibenevolence. Do you believe that goodness does not necessarily include love, then?

Granting that if good is defined arbitrarily by God's decisions or actions (which I must emphasize that I reject as a premise) you identify correctly the dilemma that if God also practices evil, it is only evil by perception and not by nature. That subjects goodness to his arbitrary will and makes God no different, or better than, man.

Whoops! I misread you again. You were speaking of the assumptions of those claiming that God creates evil, not your own.

However, in a truly monotheistic world, wherein we speak of God BEING good (rather than simply complying with an ethical order outside or over him), is it not right and meet to define goodness as desires, decisions and actions that correspond to God's will -- and by extension, ALL of God's own desires/decisions/actions?

 

[AmericanCatholic]

You're absolutely right. I misread "perfectly good" in your previous post as presuming omnibenevolence. Do you believe that goodness does not necessarily include love, then?

Whoops! I misread you again. You were speaking of the assumptions of those claiming that God creates evil, not your own.

However, in a truly monotheistic world, wherein we speak of God BEING good (rather than simply complying with an ethical order outside or over him), is it not right and meet to define goodness as desires, decisions and actions that correspond to God's will -- and by extension, ALL of God's own desires/decisions/actions?

Goodness not only must include love, but love is the highest stage of goodness. This would appear to lead us to the conclusion, however, that an all powerful, perfectly good God cannot allow for evil to exist out of his own moral authority or because of moral compellence. Nonetheless, as I stated in my previous post, it is my assertion that what makes God all powerful is not the capacity to destroy evil, but his absolute ability to transform evil with his purpose. Because evil is essentially a non-thing, the absence of goodness and without purpose or form, God does and can 'destroy' evil by making it purposeful. Turning enemies into friends, so-to-speak.

 

[ittarter]

Goodness not only must include love, but love is the highest stage of goodness. This would appear to lead us to the conclusion, however, that an all powerful, perfectly good God cannot allow for evil to exist out of his own moral authority or because of moral compellence. Nonetheless, as I stated in my previous post, it is my assertion that what makes God all powerful is not the capacity to destroy evil, but his absolute ability to transform evil with his purpose. Because evil is essentially a non-thing, the absence of goodness and without purpose or form, God does and can 'destroy' evil by making it purposeful. Turning enemies into friends, so-to-speak.

Hmm, I dunno. First, a small observation -- your definition of evil as the absence of goodness is not, I think, Christian in origin, and thus requires substantiation.

More importantly, though, is the issue of redemptive suffering or other ways in which "out of evil, good comes." Surely if God were omnipotent he would be able to determine a course of action wherein he could achieve the highest degree of good for the greatest number of people without resorting to a path that requires suicide, abuce, genocide, mass manipulation and exploitation, general ignorance and deception, wars, hatred, bitterness, malice, disease, prostitution and pornography, and Tele-Tubbies.

In short, in light of the nature of the world we live in, it is difficult to posit a God who is both omnipotent and "good" according to your definition.

 

[bling]

Hmm, I dunno. First, a small observation -- your definition of evil as the absence of goodness is not, I think, Christian in origin, and thus requires substantiation.

More importantly, though, is the issue of redemptive suffering or other ways in which "out of evil, good comes." Surely if God were omnipotent he would be able to determine a course of action wherein he could achieve the highest degree of good for the greatest number of people without resorting to a path that requires suicide, abuce, genocide, mass manipulation and exploitation, general ignorance and deception, wars, hatred, bitterness, malice, disease, prostitution and pornography, and Tele-Tubbies.

In short, in light of the nature of the world we live in, it is difficult to posit a God who is both omnipotent and "good" according to your definition.

Could we not say as a result of sin, man is burdened, seeks relieve, is willing to trust in a loving creator for help, is willing to humbly accept forgiveness, and thus Love (…he that is forgiven much loves much…).
Tragedies, satan running around, Christ going to the cross, hell and sin all seem to help a willing individual to obtain and grow Godly type Love.

 

[ittarter]

Could we not say as a result of sin, man is burdened, seeks relieve, is willing to trust in a loving creator for help, is willing to humbly accept forgiveness, and thus Love (…he that is forgiven much loves much…).

Sure -- now that we're no longer making absolute claims about God's benevolence/goodness and power, the conflict resolves of its own accord.

Tragedies, satan running around, Christ going to the cross, hell and sin all seem to help a willing individual to obtain and grow Godly type Love.

At first glance it would appear that some do and some don't.

"Willing"? What makes an individual willing, anyway? Tragedies? Satan running around? The crucifixion?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Hello, I have a large question pertaining to the origin of evil.

I reduced your post to what I think is your real question: the "genesis" of evil.The rebellion of the one known as Lucifer was so damaging to God and to His Kingdom that He responded by conceiving and imputing what He termed "evil" to the act. Over millions of years attitudes and actions were added to the concept and exercised by the demons. This body of knowledge was delivered to our human parents in the form of the 'forbidden fruit'. It is God's plan that evil exist in the world until the "restitution of all things", the restoration of the Kingdom, is complete. Hope this helps.owg