# Reading > Religious Texts >  If god is everything, doesn't that make him evil as well as good?

## Shadowsarin

This is a bit of weird one I think. This came to me when I was reading a Philip K. Dick short story about something similer. This is purly hypothetical and I mean no offence.

*If god is in everything and everyone, does that not make him as much an evil malevolent as a divine benevolent?*

It just seems to me that evil is as much a thing as good; and something claimed to be _everything_ must surely be both? 

Thoughts on this random thought?

----------


## Nightshade

well duh!

Doesnt every one think that?? Well not evil but then God not exactly good either. God is God. Not Good or evil as we understand it, its soooo much more complicated. My 6 year old sister asked me somthing similar this morning what is this the day of religious questions? :Wink: 

Anyway my point is as Muslim that is pretty much what I belive for us god has 99 names and some of them are a bit contradictry until you put it in this context like The Giver, The Taker, The Merciful, The Strict, The Forgiving, The Unforgiving, The aparnt, The hidden, The first The Last , just to mention a few that are translateable, I can off the top of my ead only think of a handful that dont have oposites, The Iternal, The One, The all-Knowing, and a few like that.


 :Biggrin:

----------


## ennison

Blake had similar thoughts and used them in his poetry. I guess we all have entertained such ideas if only for fleeting moments. But as God is entirely good (in a way that we cannot comprehend) then there can be no spot or flaw there and the casting out of the rebel angels could I guess be seen as a an act of a God unwilling to countenance anything other than 'The Good' in His presence. Christ however has experienced Hell so God is present there as in Heaven and that would take a much more articulate theologian than I am to explain at all.

----------


## Whifflingpin

And, another alternative, you could think that God is totally and only good, but that there is also a an evil God. Within this universe, the two are irreconcilable and eternally at war.

----------


## mtpspur

I believe it has much to do with the concept that the Lord Christ took on flesh (that He could serve as a mediator between God and Man) but was not touched with our infirmities (sickness/sins/ etc) that His death on the cross and resurrection from the grave would serve as a acceptable sacrifice for sin and maintain holiness. Freely admit the concrpt of evil is a great and deep mystery that may (or not) be explained after judgement day.

Rich (Dick only when I venture back to New York from year to year)

----------


## mir

Hmm. I was reading The Source a couple days ago, which i have come to beleive is one of the best books ever written, and thinking about this. Basically i guess it's just what you beleive. If God is simply a force, a cause, then he can be neither good nor evil but simply there, which i think is like Judaism. If he is personified, like Christianity does, depicting him and even giving him a benevolent "son", then he is like a human - with the capacity for either good or evil but wholly of neither.

----------


## RobinHood3000

Who said "There's no Devil, there's just God when he drinks"?  :Confused:

----------


## Countess

>If god is in everything and everyone, does that not make him as much an evil malevolent as a divine benevolent?

This is an age old question - if God is just everything then you're a Buddhist and God is both good and evil (but then neither exists in this system, only choices, which are good or bad).

If God is more than everything - for from him and through him and to him are all things - then you're probably a Jew or Christian. The general mindset here is that "good" is defined by God himself; thus, God is good/everything He does is good, for God works all things to His own good/His glory.

It's a very difficult concept to grasp, but evil is necessary for the existence of "good", just as darkness is the concept by which we measure light.

Read the book of Romans for further questions. I'm tired and depressed and can't really shape ideas anymore...

----------


## otis trench

I saw Lucifer in starlight standing elegant and grim;
A slim, conceited bastard in his uniform and boots.
And I watched him get excited as he waved his arms and boasted,
The worlds a prize to seize for those who have the will.
And would I be inclined to run for office?
I thought it over quietly,	
Politely turned him down
And wondered, was he beaten as a child?
The biggest bullies were once victims themselves.
A lot of little Hitlers have grown up beneath the lash.
His is no temptation; I had loving parents.
And I cannot help but pity his disease.

I observed the young seductress flash her long silken legs;
The skin above her stockings so invitingly smooth.
And she broke the breathy silence as she arched her back and whispered,
Women dress to be undressed, or so they say in France.
And would I like to stay and do the honors?
I thought it over quietly,
Glanced down to check my watch
And asked her, Is your mother waiting up?
If all I cared about was pleasing myself,
The weight of my desires would be more than I could bear.
And this sweet temptation, shes some fathers daughter,
As I cannot help but be my Fathers son.

Emotion should be molded by reason
Into something thats designed to do some good.
No need to fashion a hammer
If the only thing to pound is someones heart.
And all youve got to do is take one more step,
One more step,
One more step.
All youve got to do is take one more step
And one more after that.

Ive been on this train forever, or at least thats how it seems.
Ive traced the buckled strap iron from the highlands to the sea.
And I chuckle in agreement when the club car porter mumbles,
Its amateurs who brag about how much they dare to drink.
And would I care to have another double?
I thought it over quietly,
Sat back to light a smoke
And offered, Its a tough profession, friend.
Inherent weakness or just simple fatigue,
A stumbles still a stumble; makes no difference how you fall.
But I'll fight temptation till the thirst turns brutal,
Then I cannot help but reach for my reward.

----------


## Miss Darcy

"...There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so."

From Shakespeare's _Hamlet_

----------


## Laindessiel

Nice quote, Miss Darcy.

----------


## ennison

There are some things clearly good or bad whether we can 'think' them so or not. Why would we run away from something dangerous if not?

----------


## Nightshade

> "...There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so."
> 
> From Shakespeare's _Hamlet_


Well thats a good way of putting it  :Nod:  



> There are some things clearly good or bad whether we can 'think' them so or not. Why would we run away from something dangerous if not?


Yes but dangerous isnt nesserially evil, and in a way 'evil' isnt nessiserly mortaly dangerous

----------


## ennison

Well I agree but I can't think about it till my body lets me. On balance my body tells me being eaten by a tiger is NOT A GOOD THING and my mind doesn't have to come into the equation at all - until I stop running that is.

----------


## fisherofmen

Darkness doesn't exist in and of itself. It is merely the absence of light. 

What if... evil doesn't exist in and of itself... rather it is merely the absence of good?

moreover... if God is ALL good... then you can rewrite that as

evil doesn't exist in and of itself... rather it is merely the absence of God

----------


## cuppajoe_9

I thought that God was omnipresent?

----------


## Countess

>I thought that God was omnipresent?


He is, and He is in Hell now - his wrath.

----------


## fisherofmen

> I thought that God was omnipresent?



sure, why not? But couldn't there be different levels of "presence"?

I imagine he would be more "present" in his heavenly throne than in the banana im eating... 

Hell is a topic I don't know much about, I've only found "weeping and gnashing of teeth" referring to it in the scriptures, got more to study though I'm sure  :Smile:

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> sure, why not? But couldn't there be different levels of "presence"?


Short answer: no. I am either in my house, or I am somewhere else. When your teachers called the roll in school, you were either present or absent. Either God is present where there is evil, or he is not. There isn't a middle ground.

----------


## fisherofmen

> Short answer: no. I am either in my house, or I am somewhere else. When your teachers called the roll in school, you were either present or absent. Either God is present where there is evil, or he is not. There isn't a middle ground.


not for us  :Smile: 
but in assuming God is omnipresent, something none of us will ever achieve, aren't you saying that God is beyond us in abilities, or power?
If we lower God to human standards, then yes, the scenario you presented is accurate. But if God lives on human standards, he's not really God, is he?

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> but in assuming God is omnipresent, something none of us will ever achieve, aren't you saying that God is beyond us in abilities, or power?


It has nothing to do with God's abilities or power, it is simply a question of definition of terms. One cannot be present and absent at the same time, whether one is a deity or no (discounting Shr&#246;dinger's Cat type paradoxes, which are not strictly relevant to my point). God is either present everywhere, including where evil takes place, or he is not.

----------


## fisherofmen

> It has nothing to do with God's abilities or power, it is simply a question of definition of terms. One cannot be present and absent at the same time, whether one is a deity or no (discounting Shrödinger's Cat type paradoxes, which are not strictly relevant to my point). God is either present everywhere, including where evil takes place, or he is not.


I think it has everything to do with God's characteristics. Not sure if you saw what I added to my previous post before you posted (sorry about that) but its when we try to "humanize" God that misunderstanding like this pops up. I don't see a need for God to conform to our understanding

----------


## cuppajoe_9

I apologise if I am repeating myself, but it is not a question of diminishing God to human standards at all, it is simple definition of terms. If God is omnipresent, then he is present everywhere, because that's what omnipresent means. If he is present everywhere, he is absent nowhere, again because that is what the phrase means. If he is absent nowhere, then evil cannot be the absence of God, because in that case God does not have an absence. The situation is absurd as postulating that God is both invisible and pink.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"It has nothing to do with God's abilities or power, it is simply a question of definition of terms. ... God is either present everywhere, including where evil takes place, or he is not."

Evil is a term that requires definition as well.

I certainly don't accept the analogy that evil is the mere absence of good in the way that dark is the absence of light.

Evil is something that actively conflicts with good. Unlike dark, that merely prevails when the light goes out, evil would actually try to put the light out.

For the purpose of argument, I think there is no point in trying to justify "all the omnis" in relation to God. They may be useful description, or they may be wishful thinking, but they are not worth defending in arguments.

Evil and God cannot occupy the same space, assuming that God occupies space, say spiritual rather than physical space. If this means He is not omnipresent, so what?

Evil exists in spite of God. Does this mean He is not omnipotent? Maybe; again, so what?

Is it God's will that we should oppose evil wherever we meet it? I believe so - That belief is important to me, because it affects the way I try to live my life, whereas the question of God's omnipresence is quite meaningless to me.

Will God's goodness ultimately triumph over evil? I hope so, and I think that each human has a part to play in that victory. Of course, the good God may not be omnipotent, and evil may prevail in the universe, but nevertheless, we should live as if we can distinguish between good and evil, and that we should choose to do the good.

----------


## fisherofmen

> I apologise if I am repeating myself, but it is not a question of diminishing God to human standards at all, it is simple definition of terms. If God is omnipresent, then he is present everywhere, because that's what omnipresent means. If he is present everywhere, he is absent nowhere, again because that is what the phrase means. If he is absent nowhere, then evil cannot be the absence of God, because in that case God does not have an absence. The situation is absurd as postulating that God is both invisible and pink.


 :Smile: 
and I hope I don't sound like I'm repeating myself either...
its not just a definition of terms. It's beyond that, you are arguing about the very characteristics of God. Omnipresent... ok so he's present everywhere. In our human experience, we have only experienced the absolute in this manner... you are either present somewhere, or you are not. My point is merely just that God doesn't have to follow our standards here, or even the way we defined words like "presence". I see no reason why we must deal in absolutes, where he is either present somewhere or not.

----------


## fisherofmen

> I certainly don't accept the analogy that evil is the mere absence of good in the way that dark is the absence of light.s


I'm not saying I do either  :Biggrin: 
It was something I read a while back, perhaps CS Lewis? Maybe something else, I thought it was an idea worth pondering

----------


## otis trench

> >If god is in everything and everyone, does that not make him as much an evil malevolent as a divine benevolent?
> 
> This is an age old question - if God is just everything then you're a Buddhist and God is both good and evil (but then neither exists in this system, only choices, which are good or bad).
> 
> If God is more than everything - for from him and through him and to him are all things - then you're probably a Jew or Christian. The general mindset here is that "good" is defined by God himself; thus, God is good/everything He does is good, for God works all things to His own good/His glory.
> 
> It's a very difficult concept to grasp, but evil is necessary for the existence of "good", just as darkness is the concept by which we measure light.
> 
> Read the book of Romans for further questions. I'm tired and depressed and can't really shape ideas anymore...


All the Way Home

Theres a guy in a church wearing three pairs of socks
Kneeling by the window stealing coins from the box
Theres a guy on TV wearing three diamond rings
Stealing from the faithful while a gospel group sings
You can label a man, but I swear
It just goes to show you
Dont care how far you fall
Someones always a step below you

So lets sing through the starving time
Sing the chorus to a nursery rhyme
Lets sing till the church bells chime
All the way, all the way home

Theres a hush running deep through the wintertime woods
Gotta cup your ear to hear the oughts and the shoulds
Theres a nail through a board and its covered in snow
Lying on the trail between the stop and the go
Its the same song and dance, for I swear
Theres a strong connection
You can follow the signs
And be led in the wrong direction

But lets sing not of our distress
As we wander through the wilderness
Lets sing more and grumble less
All the way, all the way home

----------


## Nightshade

The more I think of this.... well anyway I dont belive Go is absent, but then again evil is pretty much only possible to those who have _will_ isnt it?

Free will being given only to tne humans and the Jinn or I think they reffered to as the fallen Angels by christianity only we consider them acompletly differant species.

----------


## Redzeppelin

Two points:

1) In terms of cuppajoe and fisherofmen's discussion about "presence": "presence" is a word that has a specific meaning dealing with a location in both space and time (at least in my caveman knowledge of physics). When we say "God is _present_," what exactly do we mean? I think "present" means one thing if you inhabit 3-4 dimension, but what if you're a being not confined by such a limited number of dimensions? What implications does that hold for God and His "omnipresence"? I believe half of our struggle with understanding God deals with the limits of language - trying to explain/define God with human language is - to me - like trying to explain quantum mechanics in a Dr. Suess-style narrative. Good luck. When you say "God is either present everywhere, including where evil takes place, or he is not" you are using language that places God in some sort of space/time relationship with evil that is postulated on human terms (3-4 dimensions). You may accuse me of "copping out" with this explanation, but fisher's right: God is unimpressive to us largely because we define him in terms of humanity - so rather than the Divine Creator of the Universe, He's just some magnified version of the nicest person we know.

2) In terms of the evil question - the Bible tells us God is good. It doesn't qualify that terminology to suggest that He is anything but that. Evil exists because disobedience had to exist; disobedience had to be an option so that true love could exist; love can only exist in the presence of two valid choices. The possibility of evil was a consequence of God's choice to give us freewill so that we could freely choose Him - not out of fear, but love. God did not create the consequence - He created the choice that could lead to that consequence. If I tell my child that driving recklessly on the freeway could get him killed and then give him the keys to the car, I did not create the consequence just by giving him the freedom. The consequence already existed. 

Evil is that which is _inconsistent with God's character_. It is not created by Him - but the capacities He endowed us with created the evil - because we had to have the freedom to reject Him and choose that which is not Him (evil). It's kind of like blaming computers for viruses: computers and their developers did not create viruses - hackers came along and did that.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"[Evil] is not created by Him - but the capacities He endowed us with created the evil - because we had to have the freedom to reject Him and choose that which is not Him (evil)."

The problem I have with this is that it is totally anthropocentric in its definition of evil.

The pain suffered by the antelope as it is torn apart by lions is, to me, an example of evil. This evil is not down to any choice by the antelope, or any sin of the first-born antelope, and would be present even if no humans existed. 

Evil is a feature of the universe, pre-dating humanity. Humanity's choices are to support it, ignore it or fight it.

It is probably only the origin of evil that we differ on. In practice, the choice you describe is the same a the one I describe, and I think that human responsibility is mainly to oppose the evil engendered by humans - after all, there is not much that humans can do to reduce the pain of the antelope.

But, the free-will-to-love-God-or-not argument still puts on God the responsibility for evil - it implies in Him a need to be loved, with its evil alternative - otherwise there would be no need for creating free-will beings at all. Even if we avoid implying that God has needs, and say that creation is just a consequence of God's overflowing love, it remains an absurdity that God's love would be the direct or indirect cause of evil that was not previously present.

OK-arguing on the fly her, i'll go away and think.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> The pain suffered by the antelope as it is torn apart by lions is, to me, an example of evil. This evil is not down to any choice by the antelope, or any sin of the first-born antelope, and would be present even if no humans existed.


The death of the antelope is a consequence of evil - that other creatures must eat each other is a consequence of evil - a distortion of the animal's nature because of sin. Sin is not like poison that contaminates you; it's worse - like a vicious virus that "rewrites" the original "source code" of every aspect of God's creation (kind of like what nuclear radiation does to living things). The consequences of sin are not confined to the original "violator" - it is so virulent that it taints _everything_ on earth. Since evil was passed on to humanity (via Lucifer - the first sinner), it follows that we inherited it, not created it.





> Evil is a feature of the universe, pre-dating humanity.


Then where are you assigning its origin to? And if so, then why would the "fall" of humanity be a big deal if it's a "pre-existing condition"?




> after all, there is not much that humans can do to reduce the pain of the antelope.


Not without making the lions suffer some form of "pain" that someone else might call "evil."




> But, the free-will-to-love-God-or-not argument still puts on God the responsibility for evil - it implies in Him a need to be loved, with its evil alternative - otherwise there would be no need for creating free-will beings at all. Even if we avoid implying that God has needs, and say that creation is just a consequence of God's overflowing love, it remains an absurdity that God's love would be the direct or indirect cause of evil that was not previously present.


Nothing I said implies that God _needs_ our love. He doesn't. God is not a narcissist who creates beings so that He can be told He is loved. God is self-sufficient. But He is also a creative being - and any great artist will tell you that the creative urge is a powerful drive. It makes sense that God equally desires to create for the joy of creating. He wants us to love Him because He loved us first.

Am I the "indirect cause" of my son's death if I give him car keys and he decides to drive recklessly on the freeway? God desired that His creations possessed freewill so that they could experience love - not just toward God, but towards each other as well. Love requires the freedom to not love; you cannot love in the absence of a choice to love. Yes - there was a risk. God apparently felt the risk worth taking.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"The death of the antelope is a consequence of evil - that other creatures must eat each other is a consequence of evil - a distortion of the animal's nature because of sin."
Aside from my main argument - I did not say that I thought the death of the antelope was evidence of evil, only its pain. I am quite comfortable, for instance, with the idea that life simply transfers itself from grass to antelope to lion to maggots etc etc. Physical immortality of individuals is not necessary or even desirable, and that one individual survives by eating another seems to me an excellent economy. That does not, however justify pain.

****

"The consequences of sin are not confined to the original "violator" - it is so virulent that it taints everything on earth."
I don't think my definition of sin is the same as yours. Evil is present prior to sin. Sin is choosing evil rather than good, and increases the amount/power of evil. Sin does not taint everything on earth, because, even without sin, everything on earth is already tainted by evil.

*****

Red: "Since evil was passed on to humanity (via Lucifer - the first sinner), it follows that we inherited it, not created it."

Whiff: "Evil is a feature of the universe, pre-dating humanity. "

Red: "Then where are you assigning its origin to? "

I think you have answered your own question. You say "evil was passed on to humanity," I will not argue with that. Nor will I argue with the idea that evil was passed on by a being in total opposition to God the creator. I would simply extend your argument by saying that evil taints all creation, not just humanity.

****

"then why would the "fall" of humanity be a big deal if it's a "pre-existing condition"?"
As I am not a Christian, I do not think that the fall of humanity, in your terms, is a big deal. It is, of course, a big deal that humans often choose evil rather than good, so siding themselves wrongly in the conflict of good and evil. 

****

Whiff:"after all, there is not much that humans can do to reduce the pain of the antelope." 
Red:"Not without making the lions suffer some form of "pain" that someone else might call "evil.""

I would call the pain of the lion evil. Pain for any creature is evidence of evil, and lions do not deserve pain any more than antelopes.

****

"you cannot love in the absence of a choice to love"
Repeating that sentiment still does not justify or explain the pain of the antelope.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Aside from my main argument - I did not say that I thought the death of the antelope was evidence of evil, only its pain.


Correct. Though I'm not sure the existence of pain falls into a cause-effect relationship with evil. Pain is also a consequence of living within an enviromnent subject to certain physical laws - gravity works.




> I don't think my definition of sin is the same as yours. Evil is present prior to sin. Sin is choosing evil rather than good, and increases the amount/power of evil. Sin does not taint everything on earth, because, even without sin, everything on earth is already tainted by evil..


What did the "tainting" then? Lucifer's sin was the origin of sin in the universe. Unable to directly attack God, Lucifer chose to do what tyrants through earthly histroy have done: I can't hurt you, so I'll hurt what you love most. Thus the story of the Garden of Eden w/ Adam and Eve. Evil did not exist on earth prior to Eve's decision. The earth - according to _Genesis_ - was "good." All of creation was imbued with the touch of its Creator. Once Eve chose sin, and Adam (in rebellion) followed suit - Satan then had "legal right" to this world because Adam and Eve - the original inheritors of the earth - had abdicated their position and Satan became "prince" of this world. At that point, all of creation came under Satan's influence - including human nature, animal nature, etc.





> I would simply extend your argument by saying that evil taints all creation, not just humanity.


I agree, fully.




> As I am not a Christian, I do not think that the fall of humanity, in your terms, is a big deal. It is, of course, a big deal that humans often choose evil rather than good, so siding themselves wrongly in the conflict of good and evil.


Well, logically so - there is no need for a non-Christian to take the "fall" seriously - but it is a big deal because "original sin" contaminates all human beings - hence the necessity of Christ's sacrifice: God knew that sin was so dangerous that only His substitutionary sacrifice could save us from its grasp.





> "you cannot love in the absence of a choice to love"
> Repeating that sentiment still does not justify or explain the pain of the antelope.


Nothing "justifies" the presence of evil - but the presence of evil (and of physical laws) does explain the presence of pain. As well, pain is an inevitable consequence of the reality of choice. We cannot choose both choices at once, so either one you choose causes some sort of "pain." Pain exists as a consequence of abused freewill. Freewill necessitates the freedom to hate as well as love - otherwise it's not "free." Pain exists because freewill exists - not inevitably, but as one of two possible choices.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"but the presence of evil...does explain the presence of pain."
That was my starting point in this discussion.

And I leave the discussion where I came into it. 

Pain existed before humans. Its origin, and hence the origin of evil, are not dependent on anything that humans have done. 

I do not believe that evil is a necessary consequence of creation.

I do believe that evil arises from some power that is directly opposed to and independent of the Creator.

Humans have the choice to support evil or to oppose it. I believe they were created to oppose it, but they have the choice.

----------


## Pendragon

Does it occur to anyone that God exists on a level _beyond_ what we term *good and evil*? All that Genesis states is that man was forbidden to taste of the tree of the _Knowledge_ of Good and Evil. When man fell, he knew that evil could exist as well as good, something he was unaware of before. And who was behind the whole thing? The Serpent. Satan. Make man aware of evil, for he knows only good, and he will run to the evil and forsake the good. My two-cents worth. God bless.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I do not believe that evil is a necessary consequence of creation.
> 
> I do believe that evil arises from some power that is directly opposed to and independent of the Creator.
> 
> Humans have the choice to support evil or to oppose it. I believe they were created to oppose it, but they have the choice.



1. Neither do I - evil is the _potential [not enevitable] consequence_ of endowing beings with freewill - because the only way to legitimately choose "good" is to have the choice to choose "evil" as well - hence the necessity of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil: without it, Adam and Eve had no alternative to choosing God.

2. I agree - evil originated in the Pride of Lucifer, who wanted equal rank with God. He is the origin of evil in the universe, and the "infecting agent" responsible for it's successful contamination of human nature, then the rest of creation as well.

3. I think if we were created to oppose evil, it would be easier for us to do. I think we were created to exist _without_ it - but once it showed up, we suffered terribly, because we had no built-in element to resist it; kind of like the effect the first drink has on someone who has never drank before - it packs a wallop. 

In fact, if we were designed to oppose evil, I don't see how Christ's sacrificial death would ever have been necessary, since we'd be predisposed to resist/oppose evil.

----------


## Guzmán

From Bertrand Russell's "Why I am not a Christian":

"Kant, as I say, invented a new moral argument for the existence of God, and that in varying forms was extremely popular during the nineteenth century. It has all sorts of forms. One form is to say there would be no right or wrong unless God existed. I am not for the moment concerned with whether there is a difference between right and wrong, or whether there is not: that is another question. The point I am concerned with is that, if
you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are in this situation: Is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to God's fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do,
that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God's fiat, because God's fiats are good and not bad independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their
essence logically anterior to God. You could, of course, if you liked, say that there was a superior deity who gave orders to the God that made this world, or could take up the line that some of the gnostics took up -- a line which I often thought was a very plausible one
-- that as a matter of fact this world that we know was made by the devil at a moment when God was not looking. There is a good deal to be said for that, and I am not concerned to refute it."

Im not surte if I have quoted this already in another thread or not, if i have, sorry.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> From Bertrand Russell's "Why I am not a Christian":
> 
> "Kant, as I say, invented a new moral argument for the existence of God, and that in varying forms was extremely popular during the nineteenth century. It has all sorts of forms. One form is to say there would be no right or wrong unless God existed. I am not for the moment concerned with whether there is a difference between right and wrong, or whether there is not: that is another question. The point I am concerned with is that, if
> you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are in this situation: Is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to God's fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do,
> that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God's fiat, because God's fiats are good and not bad independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their
> essence logically anterior to God. You could, of course, if you liked, say that there was a superior deity who gave orders to the God that made this world, or could take up the line that some of the gnostics took up -- a line which I often thought was a very plausible one -- that as a matter of fact this world that we know was made by the devil at a moment when God was not looking. There is a good deal to be said for that, and I am not concerned to refute it."


Russell's a bright man, no doubt; but his argument contains some problems. I believe that - if someone wishes to discuss characteristics of God, then s/he should consult the Bible so that the characteristics that the "examiner" wishes to comment upon are actually those God _has_. 

-First, nothing is "anterior" to God: He has _always_ existed. 
-Second, there is no greater being than God. 
-Third, "right" and "wrong" are not by God's decree ("fiat"); God's definitions of right and wrong are based on His _character_ - not his whims. All that is in harmony with God is good: that which is contradictory to His character is evil. 
-Finally, the devil cannot "create" - he can only _imitate_. Angelic beings were not given creative ability (at least one co-equal with God); since the devil is a fallen angel, it follows that he has no such ability. And, if he did, even the little bit of "light" this world has in terms of human kindness, love, compassion and pity, would be nonexistent in a world created by the devil.

Like I said, Russell's smart - but it doesn't sound like he read the Bible - and any comment about who God is that ignores the Bible's statements is simply groundless speculation.

----------


## Orionsbelt

I think the word that is being kicked around here is "transcendent". I think it is safe to say that we live in the world of opposites... Hot/cold, high/low, good/bad.... If you chose you could say that god is beyond the field of opposites as it is a result of our way of understanding. Many of these opposites do not exist beyond our own personal boundaries. Where I work the ladies are usually always "cold" while the guys are fine. Not to say that the complaint is invalid, just different experiences. So I think we live in a kind of sustained environment where we are free to make of it what we will. 

As an aside it seems that life feeds on life. With the possible exception of plants and maybe some other simple forms. The hunter and and the hunted then seem bound together forever. Each perpetuating life uniquely.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I think the word that is being kicked around here is "transcendent". I think it is safe to say that we live in the world of opposites... Hot/cold, high/low, good/bad.... If you chose you could say that god is beyond the field of opposites as it is a result of our way of understanding. Many of these opposites do not exist beyond our own personal boundaries. Where I work the ladies are usually always "cold" while the guys are fine. Not to say that the complaint is invalid, just different experiences. So I think we live in a kind of sustained environment where we are free to make of it what we will.


I'm not sure I agree that God is "beyond opposites" because that makes "good" and "bad" subject to His whims. I don't believe that is so; instead, as I may have said here or elsewhere, God defines "good" _by His very existence_: He didn't _decide_ what "good" should be - "good" is the term He applies to that which is representative of _His character_ - "bad" for that which is _contrary_ to His character. God doesn't transcend these opposites - He is the _defintion_ of one of the two opposites.

We are free to interpret/perceive the environment differently, but those things are consequences of our own unique way of experiencing reality - which does not necessarily mean that reality is fully subjective; it means that a certain portion of our perception of the world is uniquely personal. But that argument cannot logically be pursued to its (absurd) conclusion. Some "opposites" do exist only via our perception - but that cannot be said of all.

----------


## Lector

This is a most interesting discussion that I feel I am coming into rather late; but nevertheless I could not resist due to the fact that this is a topic on which I have thought a fair amount and that I find most intriguing. Many ideas and great points have been stated and what I am going to say, I think, could well explain much of it: The original question “If god is everything, doesn't that make him evil as well as good?” is an interesting one but it is one that assumes that God is everything which I believe to be false. However this question does bring up an interesting point that I believe is where the discussion has touched on quite frequently, that is: God has created both good and evil because both are contained in His creation, since I believe that He is the only one who was involved in creating this universe we see around us and I also believe that He made no mistakes in His creation I must then come to the conclusion that God did intentionally make evil. However, since I believe God made evil but is not himself evil I must continue. It has already been stated that God is a creator, that is one aspect of who He is and that is why He has created, but that is not the only attribute of God that came into play in His creation, God is also just and forgiving (as well as a slew of other things that I am not getting into at this moment), but a just and forgiving God can show neither justice nor forgiveness in a world without evil; without sin (notice I did not say a perfect world). God, in His wisdom, created the perfect world, where beings can be free and where He can be, essentially, himself. Touching on the idea of God giving us freedom, it is different than me giving my son the car, telling him to be careful and then not being responsible if He dies in a wreck because God made man He knew everything about him, including the fact that he would turn away, this is information I did not have about my son. God knew when He created man that Man would decide to sin, but rather than this being a “bad” thing, God has worked it for the best; this is a very difficult concept to grasp, that is, the idea that evil and sin are not necessarily bad, but I will try to explain myself: try to think of it in two perspectives, on the one hand you have a loving God who cares desperately for His creation, so when I sin and when people are murdered, and when babies are abandoned and left to die, and when antelopes (or anything else for that matter) feel pain, those individual little things do not please God, He does not find joy in our pain, but this is the little picture. God also sees all this pain and suffering from the big picture and from this perspective God sees that all of this pain that we experience has made possible joys that would have otherwise not been so, and ultimately it will make our joy in the end something that is magnified by all the pain we experience now. It is a matter of God, seeing more than we see and knowing that good will come from it, after all without sin what would Christ, the savior, have to save us from?

----------


## muhsin

Welll, am a bit late here as I for a quiet long time desisted visiting Religion text forum. But the thread is very topical. I like it.

Though, I haven't so far gone through every single reply- preceded. But I still captured where most of those made them headed. Hence, I feel writing my piece is _maybe_ gonna be right and on the right time.

My believe, I strongly believe, is known to all in this site. Thereupon, my perspective is ganna be from it; We Muslims do believe that not God (though you used 'g' not 'G'. Probably you mean sth. different. Ours name is written with capital G.) is everywhere but His knowledge. So, He isn't eveil and nothing can ever make Him so. Hoping this is aggreable.

Lots here need to be said. But I hope these few words xpress sth. Short & Precise.

----------


## Orionsbelt

> his is a very difficult concept to grasp, that is, the idea that evil and sin are not necessarily bad


On the contrary, it is a very old idea. It was either Socrates or Aristotle (I can't remember) that held a similar belief. I think Good and Bad are very subjective and situation dependant notions. In this world one does not exist without the other. Ultimately God is not affected by either. I picture it as like being in a can of marbles. We are free to bounce off of one another in whatever way events dictate. The goal I speculate is to develop compassion. In that sense it is a free choice ... even ideally being unable to choose .. Anything that is not in the best interest of others. If you throw out the bad or the adverse you have no heroes, no virtue, no striving, no discipline, and no personal growth. You just exist. Like a plant. Bummer!

----------


## Redzeppelin

> God has created both good and evil because both are contained in His creation, since I believe that He is the only one who was involved in creating this universe we see around us and I also believe that He made no mistakes in His creation I must then come to the conclusion that God did intentionally make evil.


Welcome to the forums, Lector. You write with a nice, rational flow. But, I must disagree with your statement. Unless the Bible confirms your statement, it is a risky one to make. The description given of God does not in any way suggest that He created evil. God's creative activity (the true creative activity of which all human creation is a mere shadow) is a reflection of His character. To intentionally create evil goes against the descriptions given of Himself as "good" and "just" and "loving." 




> God, in His wisdom, created the perfect world, where beings can be free and where He can be, essentially, himself. Touching on the idea of God giving us freedom, it is different than me giving my son the car, telling him to be careful and then not being responsible if He dies in a wreck because God made man He knew everything about him, including the fact that he would turn away, this is information I did not have about my son. God knew when He created man that Man would decide to sin, but rather than this being a bad thing, God has worked it for the best; ?


This illustrates one of the problems with the idea that God "knows" the future. Although that is a different conversation for another thread, I will say this: portraying God as one who purposefully created evil so that He could make it into good strikes me as strange: a God of love creates untold human suffering so that He can "make good" out of it? It almost sounds like a person who orchestrates a car crash so that he can rescue the victims and be declared a "hero." I'm not sure I buy that. This position is what atheists often attack about Christianity/God, saying that if that's who God is, well who'd want to serve any Being who subjected humanity (knowingly and willfully) to sin, pain, and suffereing just so He could (occasionally, because God does not always counteract the suffering in this world) reactively "fix" things?




> this is a very difficult concept to grasp, that is, the idea that evil and sin are not necessarily bad, but I will try to explain myself: try to think of it in two perspectives, on the one hand you have a loving God who cares desperately for His creation, so when I sin and when people are murdered, and when babies are abandoned and left to die, and when antelopes (or anything else for that matter) feel pain, those individual little things do not please God, He does not find joy in our pain, but this is the little picture. God also sees all this pain and suffering from the big picture and from this perspective God sees that all of this pain that we experience has made possible joys that would have otherwise not been so, and ultimately it will make our joy in the end something that is magnified by all the pain we experience now. It is a matter of God, seeing more than we see and knowing that good will come from it, after all without sin what would Christ, the savior, have to save us from?


Some of what you said is biblically accurate - the sufferings on this earth, we are told, will pale next to the rewards in heaven. That is true. But the idea that sin and evil are "not necessarily bad" is contradictory to the Bible. That God can work around our sin, or use it to further His purposes does not mean evil and sin are "good" - it just implies that God is pretty good at working with the pathetic materials we leave Him to work with. Finally, your final sentence puts the cart before the horse: you make it sound as if Christ had to die, so evil needed to be created. Christ's death was necessary _because_ evil came into existence - and it came into existence through the creation, but not through the _intention_ of God. Evil was the potential consequence of endowing creatures with Freewill. God wanted His creatures to freely love, and in order to do that, they - including the angels - needed to have the freewill to chose otherwise.

----------


## Lector

Red, I appreciate your disagreements, they have given me cause for greater thought and some research and, though I am not prepared at this point to answer all of your disagreements, I am, at this point, prepared to give you a Biblical basis for my statement that God created evil for His own purposes. Although I understand that this argument of mine is still far from being perfectly concrete it is as follows: Romans 9:17 "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: 'I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.'" The Pharaoh being spoken of here is the one who so adamantly oppressed and enslaved Israel and then refused to let them go. It would seem, from this verse that God purposefully made Pharaoh for, specifically, that very thing. Furthermore the Bible says in Romans 9:22-23 "What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory" I believe that these verses say what I wanted to better than I could have, that this evil (specifically here, Pharaoh’s, but generally as well) was always a part of God’s master plan. and that he, in fact, caused it Romans 9:18b says that "he [God] hardens whom he wants to harden."

I hope this was coherant as I am running off of almost no sleep, but in the near future I plan to also address some of your other problems with my statements if I am able.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Romans 9:17 "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: 'I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.'" The Pharaoh being spoken of here is the one who so adamantly oppressed and enslaved Israel and then refused to let them go. It would seem, from this verse that God purposefully made Pharaoh for, specifically, that very thing.


Thank you Lector - I appreciate your welll-crafted responses. When I read Romans 9:17 I understand it as "raised" meaning "brought pharoh into power" as opposed to "created." I agree that God may choose to use an evil person for a good cause, but I don't think He _made_ pharoh evil on purpose. I think the verse simply tells us that God allowed pharoh to come into power for the express purpose of bringing glory to Himself.




> Furthermore the Bible says in Romans 9:22-23 "What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrathprepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory" I believe that these verses say what I wanted to better than I could have, that this evil (specifically here, Pharaohs, but generally as well) was always a part of Gods master plan. and that he, in fact, caused it Romans 9:18b says that "he [God] hardens whom he wants to harden."
> 
> I hope this was coherant as I am running off of almost no sleep, but in the near future I plan to also address some of your other problems with my statements if I am able.


My response here is identical. The ability to use sin to His purpose is different than purposefully creating it. I think creating evil was unnecessary because God - in His wisdom - knew that one of the potential outcomes that logically must come with freewill is rebellion - and rebellion from God equals evil.

I look forward to reading your further points.

----------


## benplanet

Amazing thread! I love getting into these deep discussions. 
Redzeppelin hit the spot when he said " God - in His wisdom - knew that one of the potential outcomes that logically must come with freewill is rebellion - and rebellion from God equals evil. " 
I will attempt to participate, but don't expect anything great - I have much research and asking to do  :Smile: 

As established before on this thread, God is on a different spectrum level - however, we have to resort to our anthropocentric way of explaining things.... Anyhow, god did not create evil but evil is a result of free choice, hence Iblis/Satan choosing to abandon his creator and be the exact opposite of him and try to amass a following (by infecting god's loved ones using "free choice" as his weapon)

Ok I have to stop here... writing about this has brought up some good questions to my mind, just now. Don't hesitate to share your take on this... 
but if there was only good and no "evil" in heaven, how did Satan get the idea of disobeying god? Arrogance is not good and thus, evil - Angels were given free choice, but what good does that do if there is only good? Or is there?

Another one: take the crusades as an example: was it an evil act? 
is defending yourself by in turn using violence evil?
It is called "jihad" by Muslims but it applies to our everyday lives. We sacrifice a lot for our children sake and so on ... but what if we are protecting ourselves from evil by in turn being evil? kind of like fighting fire with fire.. you get my flow?
Would somebody please explain/develop on this train of thought... ( i hope i did not deviate too much )

----------


## Lector

Red, at this point I must say that I think our disagreement comes from a fundamental variation in beliefs; that is I believe that God has a knowledge of the future and also had that knowledge when He created. You seem to believe otherwise and although I am certain we both have our reasons for our particular point of view I have yet to read yours (this I would appreciate) and I have yet to formally address my own in such a way that I could adequately and rationally convey it to you. I believe that we will be unable to move on until we have addressed this point, I look forward to your reply and I will begin developing my own.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Red, at this point I must say that I think our disagreement comes from a fundamental variation in beliefs; that is I believe that God has a knowledge of the future and also had that knowledge when He created. You seem to believe otherwise and although I am certain we both have our reasons for our particular point of view I have yet to read yours (this I would appreciate) and I have yet to formally address my own in such a way that I could adequately and rationally convey it to you. I believe that we will be unable to move on until we have addressed this point, I look forward to your reply and I will begin developing my own.


You are correct. The "foreknowledge of God" is at the center of this discussion. The problem is that I'm no theologian, and will probably fail to give any really coherent explanation as to my vision of God. But I will try.

I am not totally certain how to reconcile God's omniscience with freewill. I have been reading books by a theologian by the name of Richard Rice - a proponent of what he calls "Open theism" - and his books (_The Opennes of God_ and _God's Foreknowledge and Man's Freewill_) have convinced me that God gave all creatures the freedom to choose - and that freedom can only exist in the presence of two legitimate choices. Rice contends that God knows all that exists - but that he does not know what does not yet exist (for example - our decisions - until we make them, they do not "exist"). In that way, He does not "know" our decisions as in "knowing the future" because the future doesn't exist in any real way for God. At this point, I'll have to refer you to Rice's books because I cannot summarize them properly. So I'll argue from a different direction.

Our understanding of what it means for God to be "all-knowing" may involve a conception of "knowing" and "time" that may be limited because of our limited human understanding of God, His knowledge, and His relationship to Time. I cannot ravel those things out; so, my other choice is to look at how the Bible describes God and proceed from there. Nothing in the Bible - in my reading - indicates that God purposefully created evil. I think God knew - with probably great accuracy - that evil was highly probably in any situation that involved freewill; but I cannot believe that He created it purposefully, because creative ability (at least in human terms) is an expression of the artist. I do not believe that God - in any way - contains evil inside of Him. As such, I do not believe that God can create evil - evil is whatever is opposite to God's character. To say God intentionally created evil makes Him sound like some scientist conducting experiments on lab rats. To intentionally create evil - why? For what purpose? God can use evil to His purposes, but that's because He's pretty darn smart - but being able to use evil is different than intentionally bringing it into existence.

In my own opinion, this is where faith shows up. Evil exists: God created beings who had freewill - and rebellion to God (evil) was the opposite choice from obedience. I believe that - when Lucifer gave into his pride - that the universe witnessed the beginning of a new creation - one God knew might come to pass, but did not intend to do so.

----------


## Lector

Thank you for that, you have given me much to think about…
Though I do wonder where you and Rice have gotten your information (I am not doubting its existence I would simply like to know). 
Now to my response: As we have agreed upon whether or not God created evil has very strong correlation to whether or not God knows (or planned out) the future. I mean to show that God did plan the future and in this plan He uses evil to accomplish His will. In Isaiah 37 Israel is about to attacked by king Sennacherib of Assyria and his mighty army that had been decimating all whom they fell against. As Sennacherib is coming, Hezekiah, king of Israel, offers up a prayer to God to ask for help, in God’s reply He says this to Sennacherib: 
24 By your messengers 
you have heaped insults on the Lord. 
And you have said, 
'With my many chariots 
I have ascended the heights of the mountains, 
the utmost heights of Lebanon. 
I have cut down its tallest cedars, 
the choicest of its pines. 
 I have reached its remotest heights, 
the finest of its forests. 
25 I have dug wells in foreign lands [c] 
and drunk the water there. 
With the soles of my feet 
I have dried up all the streams of Egypt.' 
26 "Have you not heard? 
Long ago I ordained it. 
In days of old I planned it; 
now I have brought it to pass, 
that you have turned fortified cities 
into piles of stone. 
God is the one who planned that Sennacherib would slaughter people; He ordained that the Assyrians should destroy all these other nations in their conquest. I believe that this language is quite clear that God was not simply reacting to the evil in the world and turning it to His good, but rather that He planned it from the beginning for His good.
Now these nations that Sennacherib destroyed were wicked nations whom God used the Assyrians to punish; I reiterate, God used the Assyrians to punish these other nations; it was part of His plan. However; Assyria is still held accountable for the evil which they did even though their evil was being used by God Isaiah 10:5-12
5Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger
And the staff in whose hands is indignation, 
6I send it against a godless nation
And commission it against the people of My fury
To capture booty and to seize plunder,
And to trample them down like mud in the streets. 
7Yet it does not so intend,
Nor does it plan so in its heart,
But rather it is its purpose to destroy
And to cut off many nations. 
8For it says, "Are not my princes all kings? 
9"Is not Calno like Carchemish,
Or Hamath like Arpad,
Or Samaria like? 
10"As my hand has reached to the kingdoms of the idols,
Whose graven images were greater than those of Jerusalem and Samaria, 
11Shall I not do to Jerusalem and her images
Just as I have done to Samaria and her idols?" 
12So it will be that when the Lord has completed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, He will say, "I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness."
So in this instance God, as part of His plan, not as a reaction to the evil in the world, used the evil nation of Assyria to fulfill His plan from the beginning.
Another interesting thing I would like to point out is prophesy; if God does not know the future how is prophesy possible, especially extremely accurate prophesies. For example I am actually going to use a prophesy that has yet to come true (I hope this isn’t a problem for you but I do believe the Bible to be infallible). This prophesy is about the second coming of Christ. Mathew 24:36 “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” In this passage we see that God does specifically know what is going to happen and when in regards to the second coming of Christ.
I am sure that there is more verses I could quote if I took the time to study them all but I think that these should be sufficient to at least make my point understood: that is that God did, in the beginning, know the future to the point where He knew that His creation would do evil, in fact He planned for that very thing, and since He knew at the beginning that in His creation there would be evil I don’t see how it can be argued that evil did not come from Him. If not Him then who? And if He being the all knowing, future seeing God is not responsible for it then who is?
At this point I would like to conclude that I look forward to reading over and pondering your reply but I do not think that another reply on my part will be necessary; I have said, I believe, all that is in me to say on this point though I do intend to further consider it with all that you have said kept in mind and I hope that you can do the same. I appreciate all that you have given me to wrestle with and do hope that we are both better people for it.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> God is the one who planned that Sennacherib would slaughter people; He ordained that the Assyrians should destroy all these other nations in their conquest. I believe that this language is quite clear that God was not simply reacting to the evil in the world and turning it to His good, but rather that He planned it from the beginning for His good.
> Now these nations that Sennacherib destroyed were wicked nations whom God used the Assyrians to punish; I reiterate, God used the Assyrians to punish these other nations; it was part of His plan. However; Assyria is still held accountable for the evil which they did even though their evil was being used by God Isaiah 10:5-12
> So in this instance God, as part of His plan, not as a reaction to the evil in the world, used the evil nation of Assyria to fulfill His plan from the beginning.


Well put forth. But, ordaining that Assyria should perform some task does not necessarily imply that God _implanted_ the evil desires of Sennacharib or the Assyrians. I believe that God will _use_ evil people to accomplish His purposes - but He doesn't _make_ them evil - He uses those whom He knows to already be evil because He knows the human heart to its last atom. Rather than create evil, I believe God uses what He has at hand. 




> Another interesting thing I would like to point out is prophesy; if God does not know the future how is prophesy possible, especially extremely accurate prophesies. For example I am actually going to use a prophesy that has yet to come true (I hope this isnt a problem for you but I do believe the Bible to be infallible). This prophesy is about the second coming of Christ. Mathew 24:36 No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. In this passage we see that God does specifically know what is going to happen and when in regards to the second coming of Christ.
> I am sure that there is more verses I could quote if I took the time to study them all but I think that these should be sufficient to at least make my point understood: that is that God did, in the beginning, know the future to the point where He knew that His creation would do evil, in fact He planned for that very thing, and since He knew at the beginning that in His creation there would be evil I dont see how it can be argued that evil did not come from Him. If not Him then who? And if He being the all knowing, future seeing God is not responsible for it then who is?


Ultimately, I think our difficulty may partially lie in how we define our terms. A rhetorical question: do you think, if God wrote out a dictionary, that His idea of "bad" and "good" would be the same? I'm not speaking in terms of morality so much as I am in terms of how we define certain things. We think the loss of a job, a marriage, or a human life is a terrible tragedy - but does God define the same way? If I lose my job, wife, or someone close to me - but my soul is saved, were those events really tragic or "evil"?

Furthermore, I think prophecy is different that individual choice. Prophecy is the laying out of God's plan for the future. God's plans will be acted out - there is no frustrating God: His objectives _will_ be achieved, because He has millions of options in terms of acting out His will, even the options of using "evil" people and the consequences of their evil actions - so therefore He can tell what will happen because prophecy is the exectution of His Will. Our decisions, though, are not a part of His plan until we make them - but He can use our decisions to further His plan.

----------


## Jetxa

To address the idea of good we must take a look at the idea of sin.

I believe sin (evil) does not exist. It exists only in the mind of man. My so-called God is good and only good and is capable of nothing else. 

IMO the first three chapters of Genesis do not tell of one creation but two. In the first chapter and into the second, God creates the world. In this first creation everything is finished and pronounced good. (Gen. 2.1-2) Nothing can be added to this creation and nothing taken away. Then, beginning with the fourth verse of the second chapter, another God creates a different kind of world altogether. This God creates the world all over again with different results. These two accounts cannot be reconciled. The first creator is an orderly God who creates an orderly world of light and peace that is very good. Also this God creates by his word and does not labor and has no need of rest as does the second creator. There is no death in the first creation for this God gives all the green plants for food. (Gen. 1.30) This world is one of serenity and order and there is no opportunity given for any disorder to enter in as this world was created in the image of its creator. This perfect world is the world the prophets of Israel believed would be established on the day of the Lord. Problem was, this world did already exist and was dependent upon the knowledge of the Lord that Jesus taught. As to the word good that I use, I mean this not in the sense of good as the opposite of evil, but as the finished creation of a perfect God. *Perhaps perfection then instead of good?* 

In the second creation an imperfect God creates an imperfect world. This deity is exactly like the world he creates. The history of the Bible is the history of this obvious God. When Jesus said, He was a murderer from the first, and he has nothing to do with the truth, for there is no truth in him. He was speaking of the God by whom the coming of death into the world is explained in the book of Genesis. He is the deity who first made Adam capable of evil, and then condemned him to death for the quality he himself had made. He is the author of death, the destroyer, and torturer of his own creation. He is, again, as Jesus said, a murderer from the first. The God to whom Jesus gave honor was not a murderer, and the sons of this Father were not subject to the bondage of Adam. 

God is light; there is no darkness in him at all. I John. This is the message that Jesus remained faithful to throughout his ministry. Jesus maintained the existence of a perfect God, a God of light only.

The second creator although the OT has no control over his unruly creation. He can punish sin but cannot prevent it. This God can control his creations body but not its mind. This God threatens his creation with punishment. To have introduced the serpent and sin into the first creation story would have rendered God imperfect. Given such an existence as man sees his world with pain and death, the kind of God who would make such a world fits perfectly with the second creation of imperfect people from an imperfect God. I am not saying God is imperfect but the common conception of Him. Death exists in the world, from our lack of understanding, so a creation story must fit the bill. And this I found extremely interesting: In the second creation Adam was made from the earth. He was made from pre-existing material. So the manner of his making speaks his coming death. 

Backing up a bit, in the book of Job, Job discovers that he cannot fathom the miracle of nature let alone understand God. No questions are answered here. The search for God and what is the truth of God begins. Job serves as an emblem of the passion of the search, a great hunger and thirst. Job did believe however that God was the author of good as well as evil. King David believed this also believing God took his son's life. The prophet Elijah did not believe this and in his belief, life was restored to the widow's son. (I'm sure you know the story.) The prophets of Israel did not want the God of Adam and Eve, they wanted the Truth of God. This is the belief I follow also. Knowledge of God is what sets us free and gives us the 'life' that Jesus tried to teach. Jesus IMO did not die for man's sin, but for man's lack of understanding of the truth of God.

The story of Adam and Eve tells exactly what it was designed for, to give an origin to and explain not only death, but guilt, fear, lust and pain. The seeds of which are found not in the Fall of Man but in his creation in the second creation story, the foundation of Judaism and Christianity. The Bibles reverence makes it hard for one to recognize the fundamental differences in these two creations. Scholars believe Genesis, like many other books of the OT, are a conglomeration of many documents and not the work of a single man. It is believed that after careful consideration both accounts of Genesis were left in the Bible for the reader to his own interpretation. *The editor(s) could not give up the dream of a perfect world and a perfect God and so in hope left in the account of the perfect creation.*

IMO we once we had the instincts of animals, hence the Garden of Eden. Our self-awareness evolved and with it awe and contemplation of the world around us. I imagine it was only natural to "sing" the praises of said world. When the world changed and man was forced to "toil for his daily bread", he experienced the arts in a whole new way. "Sin" is simply a metaphor for self-awareness in the second widely accepted creation story. 

I see the Garden of Eden as a reference to when man first became aware of 'self'. When he changed from an animal living on instinct into a human pondering and wondering about the world around him and himself. 

"Sin is the mother of wisdom. The expulsion of Adam & Eve from the Garden of Eden was their expulsion from bondage, the bondage of a sweet but meaningless dream, the bondage of non-thought. . . . Freedom is the very breath of existence. Without the "sin" of freedom, there would be no philosophers, no art, no science, no cities, no marketplaces, no gaiety , no joyfulness, no naughtiness, no explorations, no music, no excitements, no sudden songs in the morning, no laughter at midnight, no spicy dishes, no wine, and, of course, no wars and no books. Perhaps sin in its deepest meanings is truth." *Bright Flows the River*, Taylor Caldwell

So the first creation story is the Garden of Eden and the second creation story is the story of man's self-awareness. So perhaps they are simply one story after all. Of course this differs from the Christian view, but I'm not a Christian. And so it goes . . .

Getting back to Jesus . . . (I am trying to keep this brief, really!) Jesus refused to honor or acknowledge the God of Adam under whose bondage the world lived. He preached a perfect God as the author of all life. Jesus died not to show a risen life after death but a continuous never-ending life. IMO the sin he died for was lack of understanding of and seeking the God of Truth and Perfection. Jesus refused to admit that Joseph was his father or that Mary was his mother. I live because of the Father. John 6.57 This principle of existence is the same that was perceived by Moses when he claimed Gods name to be I AM. Life as Jesus taught meant union with the father. Through this union of the mind/understanding was Jesus able to do his miracles which were not miracles as such, but that which showed example of Gods perfect creation. Jesus was Gods only son as he was the only man ever to understand and live in true relationship to God.

To be born again simply means a mental rebirth or repentance (a change of mind). For whatever the Father does, the son also does. John 5.19 Jesus tells us that we can have Gods perfect world. I tell you, whoever believes in me will do such things as I do, and things greater yet. John 14.12 Gods perfect world was proven through giving a cripple legs to walk again, restoring the sight to the blind and the raising of the dead. There are only three descriptions of God in the Bible and they all are from the writings of John. God is Spirit. God is Light. God is Love. (John 4.24, I John 1.5, I John 4.16) Pure and simple perfection.

The" Word" of God has been translated by some to mean "communication." I like that. To be in true communication with God and to understand Him would be a wonderful thing to achieve and I believe is attainable as Jesus attained such. He was our example and said we can have knowledge of God too! That's my life's goal. The difference here is what that knowledge is.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> To address the idea of good we must take a look at the idea of sin.
> 
> I believe sin (evil) does not exist. It exists only in the mind of man. My so-called God is good and only good and is capable of nothing else.


Evil doesn't exist? How can you live in this world and say such a thing? As well, human action is generated in the mind before it becomes actual behavior. If evil exists in the mind, doesn't it (can't it) become real once it is externalized into action? We do agree on one thing: God is Good and only Good.

As far as the rest of your lenghty (but well-articulated) post:

I've heard this stuff before - it's either Gnostic or Manichean (sp?) in nature. Very sophisticated, but where's the basis of this interpretation? Why is this theory appealing? How do you square it with the Bible besides suggesting that the Bible is the biggest fraud in history?

Giving humanity freewill does not make God the creator of evil - anymore than the manufacture of ice cream makes obese people. In between God and evil is the human choice to rebel - just like in between ice cream and obesity is the human choice to consume too much and exercise too little. Evil exists as the potential (but unwanted and undesired) consequence of giving human beings freewill. There can be no love without the free choice to reject - and since the rejection of God is evil (because all that is not of God is evil) then it follows that evil came into existence. But God did not intend for evil to exist. He wanted creatures capable of love, of freely chosen devotion. He felt this was worth the risk.

Jesus died to free us from the consequences of sin. Because sin is so powerful, and because sinful beings cannot coexist with God, Christ's sacrifice paid the penalty for all humanity's sins. This idea of of "self-awareness" and Christ's death being due to a lack of understanding is pure New Age philosophy. The Bible clearly states what Christ's mission was and who God is. Once you invalidate the only record of God's character as false, all you have left is theoretical speculation.

----------


## Jetxa

> Once you invalidate the only record of God's character as false, all you have left is theoretical speculation.


Well I guess then that I am theoretically speculating. *smile*

I follow a Pagan philosophy with a bit of Christian Science (not Scientology!) overtones when it comes to the Bible. To help you understand me a little better, I add this from a fundamentalist Christian poster on a Pagan site where we were having somewhat of the same discussion.

“I was actually trying to see if anyone at all would pick up on the recurring theme that goes around and around here at ****, which is that very few people claim to believe they know "Deity" as Truth by whatever name, claim to follow that "Deity" exclusively, and provide evidence in their own lives that they have found objective (not subjective) Truth. Further, I've found it is often seen as a sign of "spiritual maturity" or some such, that one disclaims knowledge of one's hard won knowledge of "Deity" as the objective Truth, because Truth apparently is supposed to be relative to every individual's viewpoint.”

The poster is correct in that what she states is a very Pagan viewpoint. And in that light I offer the following I used in another discussion. 

Paganism is learning from and living in harmony with nature, all the bloodshed and violence included with all the “love.” Paganism is an inner consciousness that sees the real world/nature in all its glory.

As much as I want to stay away from comparing other religions to Paganism, it is virtually impossible as there is a need to show what Paganism is NOT in order to show was Paganism IS. In that light, it is impossible for me to believe that any “person” was chosen to bring God’s message to man in the “words of man” as the universe made by God is itself God’s language and much more precise and eloquent than man could ever be.

Paganism is about man’s relationship to god, with “god” and “nature” as having the same connotation. Nature is god in action. Man learns from nature what works and what doesn’t work by trial and error. He learns a “sense” of good and evil from the repercussions of his actions. Every man is an “individual” and must prove his own “honor”. In as such he holds honor sacred and not “life”. Not weeding out the unhonorable and/or weaklings is against nature’s purpose and became the downfall of the Pagan way of life due to the influence of Christianity. 

Religions such as Judaism and Christianity are about a man/man relationship in which nature and the very essence of god are rendered meaningless. God is a figurehead used to exercise and force morals and values on the community. These religions destroy the individual for the sake of the family and community by requiring servitude and self-sacrifice. This a metropolitan view and not a natural nature-based view.

The original Pagan was a man of freedom from inhibition. He had a robust love of life expressed in his everyday life, eating, drinking, fighting, loving, singing, dancing, and perceiving his god. This spirit is born of his interaction with nature. During the mostly “forced” influx of religion, A dark shadow was cast by a belief that men are born heirs to “the sin of Adam” and has done much to destroy man’s love of life. 

The original and only true Pagans were whole beings of individual perception and volition. They were men and woman in true sense of the word. They knew themselves and perceived each other as god-entities. The whole of the world was good to them and that good filled their very souls to overflowing. Their joy leaped and sang in every aspect of their lives. It was a song of harmony and love in a world they knew to be imperfect. The objective of a self-destructing religion was unacceptable to those who postulated the joy of living as good. 

Religion is a man culture and breeds its own kind. We have co-existence of the strong and the weak, adult criminals and juvenile delinquents, welfare for those who cannot feed themselves, and medical aid keeping those alive that nature would have discreetly weeded out. We have “states” so large and powerful that they lay claim to all the world’s land making it impossible for a man to detach from said state and be “free” rendering him a slave and keeping him within “boundaries” both physical and mental by teaching the “good” of community and the “evil” of selfishness/individualism. Spirit was bred out of man in favor of the letter of the law, and honesty was replaced by legality. 

When the Ten Commandments where imposed on Pagans, the first three dealt with the concept of God as supreme and replaced all other gods, hence a decision needed to be made as to for or against and the deciding factor was sometimes life or death at the end of a sword. The fourth commandment of resting on the Sabbath gave a welcomed holiday of celebration. Honoring the father and mother (whether they were worthy of honor or not) instead of finding honor within oneself was designed to preserve the family unit. Not stealing and not coveting were meaningless as Pagans measured a man by heroism and not by possessions. But not killing was foreign to the Pagan way of life and was seen as utterly ridiculous. Not to kill would upset the weeding out of undesirable and unworthy and unhonorable men. Not killing meant the world be populated with the undesirable and the weak, defeating nature’s law. But as the Christian’s of the time were involved in “killing for the glory of God”, killing was still possible. 

“The whole of the world, the whole of the creation that we perceive objectively, is good; and the good that is within ourselves fills our beings to overflowing. Our joy leaps and sings. This good is presently existing, not something to be achieved. It is a song perceived during the singing by the being that knows harmony with it. It not ‘good’ conceived as ‘fitness,’ a concept that can undermine joy, but of being by the claim that both we and the world are ‘imperfect.’” *

* The Pagan Bible, Melvin Gorham

----------


## Redzeppelin

> In that light, it is impossible for me to believe that any person was chosen to bring Gods message to man in the words of man as the universe made by God is itself Gods language and much more precise and eloquent than man could ever be.


I think it makes perfect sense that God chooses to "speak" through humanity - we were created in "His image." 




> Paganism is about mans relationship to god, with god and nature as having the same connotation. Nature is god in action.


I disagree. The _creator_ and the _created_ cannot have equal status; by very nature of His status as creator, God takes pre-eminence over nature. To conflate the two together makes nature into God and God into nature - an inappropriate exaltation of the former and an equally inappropriate degradation of the latter.




> Man learns from nature what works and what doesnt work by trial and error.


This sounds like "natural law" and that I agree with.





> He learns a sense of good and evil from the repercussions of his actions.


I disagree again. Nature can enforce the consequences of certain choices, but not of others. Nature will show me the error of antagonizing a mother bear, but not of stealing a man's wallet. As well, sometimes nature can be manipulated and transcended - but God cannot.




> God is a figurehead used to exercise and force morals and values on the community. These religions destroy the individual for the sake of the family and community by requiring servitude and self-sacrifice. This a metropolitan view and not a natural nature-based view.


God "enforces" nothing: He gives us the moral law so that we may live in harmony with each other. We are free to choose disobedience - but there are consequences. 

You are correct about the emphasis on family and community over individual: the greatest enemy humanity has is our love of ourself _over_ others. That "love" is what leads to selfish, destructive behaviors. Servitude and self-sacrifice are what make life meaningful - and Christ set that very example Himself - God does not ask us for what is wrong or harmful to us.




> The original Pagan was a man of freedom from inhibition. He had a robust love of life expressed in his everyday life, eating, drinking, fighting, loving, singing, dancing, and perceiving his god. This spirit is born of his interaction with nature. During the mostly forced influx of religion, A dark shadow was cast by a belief that men are born heirs to the sin of Adam and has done much to destroy mans love of life. 
> 
> The original and only true Pagans were whole beings of individual perception and volition. They were men and woman in true sense of the word. They knew themselves and perceived each other as god-entities. The whole of the world was good to them and that good filled their very souls to overflowing. Their joy leaped and sang in every aspect of their lives. It was a song of harmony and love in a world they knew to be imperfect. The objective of a self-destructing religion was unacceptable to those who postulated the joy of living as good.


Maybe, maybe not. This is a pretty idealized description. I won't deny that the church has not made serious errors in its history and choices, but the church is NOT God. It is a fallible human institution with the ostensible goal of spreading the Good News and tending to the needs of people. That it has made errors denies it relevancy only as much as your errors deny your relevancy or my errors deny my relevancey.

Even Freud knew that total freedom from inhibitions was not necessarily a positive force in society. Human nature does terrible things when uninhibited - check out your local alcoholic or drug addict in the throes of his choosen intoxicant.





> When the Ten Commandments where imposed on Pagans, the first three dealt with the concept of God as supreme and replaced all other gods, hence a decision needed to be made as to for or against and the deciding factor was sometimes life or death at the end of a sword. The fourth commandment of resting on the Sabbath gave a welcomed holiday of celebration. Honoring the father and mother (whether they were worthy of honor or not) instead of finding honor within oneself was designed to preserve the family unit. Not stealing and not coveting were meaningless as Pagans measured a man by heroism and not by possessions. But not killing was foreign to the Pagan way of life and was seen as utterly ridiculous. Not to kill would upset the weeding out of undesirable and unworthy and unhonorable men. Not killing meant the world be populated with the undesirable and the weak, defeating natures law. But as the Christians of the time were involved in killing for the glory of God, killing was still possible.


The original language said "murder" rather than kill. That's why the Bible is valuable: God made it clear that there is a time to kill. As far as the Pagan way of life - I'm not convinced people would be any happier ignoring the commandments. Human beings are hardwired to bond to each other during sex; I have a hard time believing that infidelity and adultery does anything to strengthen community (and as much as Paganism wishes to exalt the individual, history has shown that community was the individual's method of survival - in many ancient cultures [Anglo-Saxons for instance] banishment from one's community was a punishment worse than death). As well, theft is destructive always - most people do not welcome it at all. As well, the context of the Bible does not indicate that parents are to be honored no matter who or what they are. If they are acting out of accordance with the principles put forth by God, then they ought not be honored.

----------


## Triskele

> Who said "There's no Devil, there's just God when he drinks"?


i don't know, but there is a good robin williams skit where he references that and says that the platypus is the result of a stoned god

----------


## Jetxa

> The _creator_ and the _created_ cannot have equal status; by very nature of His status as creator, God takes pre-eminence over nature. To conflate the two together makes nature into God and God into nature - an inappropriate exaltation of the former and an equally inappropriate degradation of the latter.


I'm only going to reply on one issue here as I think we are overlapping a bit with our postings in other threads.

I believe I am a God-entity or God-manifest in the flesh as all nature is, but it is through the human race that God is more able to articulate itself. All nature speaks God as all nature is God. God is the Spirt of Life and the Author of Life and also that which animates life. God continues itself through the procreation of life and continually redefines itself through the evolution of life. Man is not the end result but a step along the way to so much more in the expression of God itself.

You aren't going to change my heart and mind as well as I am in no way going to influence you. So I am giving it a rest. I has been enjoyable. Thanks!

----------


## Jetxa

> The original language said "murder" rather than kill. That's why the Bible is valuable: God made it clear that there is a time to kill. As far as the Pagan way of life - I'm not convinced people would be any happier ignoring the commandments. Human beings are hardwired to bond to each other during sex; I have a hard time believing that infidelity and adultery does anything to strengthen community (and as much as Paganism wishes to exalt the individual, history has shown that community was the individual's method of survival - in many ancient cultures [Anglo-Saxons for instance] banishment from one's community was a punishment worse than death). As well, theft is destructive always - most people do not welcome it at all.


Well, as I am prone to not being able to keep my mouth shut about anything . . . 

When did I say Pagans believe it is okay to commit adultery and theft? I was trying to keep my post as short as possible and assumed that when I stated that Pagans believed in "honor" that those two commandments were covered. Geez, Louise!

A man can be an individual and hold to his own honor and thought and still be a productive part of society and community. Unless of course you see community as a mob mentality.

And as to there being a "time to kill", please quote New Testament* scripture as I honestly am not familiar with this idea, except in Ecclesiastes 3.3, but it does not explain when this "time" is to be. You know, I have to have something to tell the cops when they come. 

I'm not trying to be snotty, but I really don't think you gave much thought to your anwser above.

And to get back to using the "good book" as a way to of correcting other Christians, didn't Christ say we are to "live in love"? I thought that covered all the bases. ??

*It bugs me a bit when Christians use the Old Testament to prove a point when they seem to reject the God of the Jews and HIS word.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> When did I say Pagans believe it is okay to commit adultery and theft?


You didn't. Your answer implicitly placed paganism in direct contrast with the 10 commandments. Your post seemed to be concerned with showing the irrelevancy of the decalogue to pagan culture, so I wrongly assumed a complete dismissal.




> And as to there being a "time to kill", please quote New Testament* scripture as I honestly am not familiar with this idea, except in Ecclesiastes 3.3, but it does not explain when this "time" is to be. You know, I have to have something to tell the cops when they come.


Eccl 3:3 is where the idea is from - the OT is not invalidated by the NT. Although the covenant has been updated (from the Law to Grace) that doesn't necessarily mean that the entire OT is now irrelevant. The NT did not say that life was to be spared in all instances. We are to view the OT through the lense of the NT - but that lense doesn't make the OT completely wrong or irrelevant. I do not think God expects me to humbly pray on my knees whilst my family is raped, tortured and killed - not if I have the strength and ability to fight. We are to resist evil - even if that means taking the life of someone who intends to perpetrate harm upon myself, my family, my community.




> I'm not trying to be snotty, but I really don't think you gave much thought to your anwser above.


How would _you_ know how much thought I put into this answer?




> And to get back to using the "good book" as a way to of correcting other Christians, didn't Christ say we are to "live in love"? I thought that covered all the bases. ??


Only if one is clear on what "love" actually means (and it doesn't mean "I experience only that which is pleasurable or preferred"). 

"Love thy neighbor" does not mean let him do whatever silly, irresponsible or evil thing he desires. "Love" sometimes means gentle but firm confrontation. Do I love my kids if I let them do wrong? No. I correct them and teach them that sometimes love involves saying or doing things that may "hurt" the individual, but ultimately, will help the individual develop a better character.




> *It bugs me a bit when Christians use the Old Testament to prove a point when they seem to reject the God of the Jews and HIS word.


This statement assumes that _this_ Christian writer is one of _those_ Christian thinkers. Your comment only works if I'm one of "them" - I'm not. The OT is valid - the God of the OT is just as valid as the God of the NT - in fact, many misunderstandings of God that I see in these forums is due to an unbalanced idea of Who God Is - the OT and NT together provide that balance.

----------


## Demian

Re: Interview with the Vampire; scriptura al dente:
"Since you comprehend what you call goodness, does not this make you good." And again, taken a few steps further, what are good and evil but matters of perspective? Is the rod an evil to the parent that wields it, or is it a life saver for the child that receives it? Or if you prefer--which is the greater evil--to impose your will upon others, or to leave them to their own devices? Spiritus Silos Solipus... :Angel:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Re: Interview with the Vampire; scriptura al dente:
> "Since you comprehend what you call goodness, does not this make you good." And again, taken a few steps further, what are good and evil but matters of perspective? Is the rod an evil to the parent that wields it, or is it a life saver for the child that receives it? Or if you prefer--which is the greater evil--to impose your will upon others, or to leave them to their own devices? Spiritus Silos Solipus...


Our perspectives may _influence_ our _interpretations_ of events, but that doesn't mean that reality is _nothing but_ perception. That is a dangerous line of philosophy to follow.

----------


## Demian

"Doubt is not a pleasant place to dwell...but certainty is absurd"
--Goethe :Frown:

----------


## weepingforloman

God is not everything. That is not a feature of western/Semitic (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) religions, but of a pseudo-religion called pantheism. Pantheism holds that God is everything, and, therefore, that all things point toward the character of God. The Semitic faiths (and others, like Dualism and Manicheanism) believe in what is called dualism (lower case) in which good and evil are opposed. Dualism has the idea that there are two gods, one good and one evil, and they are both eternal and coexist forever. There are many reasons this doesn't always hold up, but that's not important. The point is, the most influential current religions (last time I checked, there were at least more nominal Christians than any other creed) maintain that evil originates from humanity and (some say so, not the intelligentsia of the Catholic Church, or as far as I can tell, most Jews and a few Muslims) from the diabolical. Good question, but addressed to the wrong people: the pantheists might say yes.

----------


## weepingforloman

> Hmm. I was reading The Source a couple days ago, which i have come to beleive is one of the best books ever written, and thinking about this. Basically i guess it's just what you beleive. If God is simply a force, a cause, then he can be neither good nor evil but simply there, which i think is like Judaism. If he is personified, like Christianity does, depicting him and even giving him a benevolent "son", then he is like a human - with the capacity for either good or evil but wholly of neither.


We Christians do not believe that God is human-like to that extent, only that He has will, He acts, He has a definite character, and that He creates: all of these things are like humanity. You're forgetting one of the key points of Christianity: humanity is fallen.

----------


## libernaut

"The bird fights its way out of the egg. The egg is the world. Whoever wants to be born must destroy a world. The bird flies to God. That God's name is Abraxas" - Hermann Hesse, Demian

----------


## Bookworm4Him

This may already have been contributed, I didnt read all the posts, but I'll go ahead and post. We have concepts of good and evil, and try to fit God within them. That there is good, and God does good, so He fits w/in those boundaries, whereas really, God is God, but God IS good. Not as an adj. describing Him, but as a noun, just as God is love. So what God is, is the def. of good. When we decide what is good, we compare it to God, and see if it is part of his being, if not, then it is evil. Murder is not of God, therefore, it is evil. Hope that helps!  :Smile:

----------


## kiobe

> Darkness doesn't exist in and of itself. It is merely the absence of light. 
> 
> What if... evil doesn't exist in and of itself... rather it is merely the absence of good?
> 
> moreover... if God is ALL good... then you can rewrite that as
> 
> evil doesn't exist in and of itself... rather it is merely the absence of God


well done. :Thumbs Up:

----------


## bouquin

My mother is a devote Baptist. She does not approve of my 33-yr-old brother's girlfriend who is a single mom. As a consequence, the relationship between my mother and my brother has lately become strained. My mother is convinced that it is the devil that's trying to wreck the warm relationship that used to exist between her and my brother. Is this sound Christian reasoning, I mean about putting the blame on the devil? 






> This may already have been contributed, I didnt read all the posts, but I'll go ahead and post. We have concepts of good and evil, and try to fit God within them. That there is good, and God does good, so He fits w/in those boundaries, whereas really, God is God, but God IS good. Not as an adj. describing Him, but as a noun, just as God is love. So what God is, is the def. of good. When we decide what is good, we compare it to God, and see if it is part of his being, if not, then it is evil. Murder is not of God, therefore, it is evil. Hope that helps!

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> My mother is a devote Baptist. She does not approve of my 33-yr-old brother's girlfriend who is a single mom. As a consequence, the relationship between my mother and my brother has lately become strained. My mother is convinced that it is the devil that's trying to wreck the warm relationship that used to exist between her and my brother. Is this sound Christian reasoning, I mean about putting the blame on the devil?


Of course it is sound Christian reasoning according to what I've read by some of the Christian apologists here; but it is assuredly not humane reasoning.

----------


## motherhubbard

> My mother is a devote Baptist. She does not approve of my 33-yr-old brother's girlfriend who is a single mom. As a consequence, the relationship between my mother and my brother has lately become strained. My mother is convinced that it is the devil that's trying to wreck the warm relationship that used to exist between her and my brother. Is this sound Christian reasoning, I mean about putting the blame on the devil?


It is human to blame others. It is sound christian reasoning to be forgiving and understand that no sin is greater than another, no one is without sin and Christ died for all, even single mothers -

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> It is human to blame others. It is sound christian reasoning to be forgiving and understand that no sin is greater than another, no one is without sin and Christ died for all, even single mothers -


It's sad, I think, when we use "human" to mean fallible, inferior or limited. Yes, it is "human" to blame rather than to understand; and it is also human - not specifically Christian - to try to understand others and via understanding, to forgive them if we can. 

It is also "human," I think - in that sense of helpless and less than perfect - to long for an infallible guide, an all-knowing, all powerful parent, and to become convinced of the one we have 'found.'

----------


## motherhubbard

> It's sad, I think, when we use "human" to mean fallible, inferior or limited. Yes, it is "human" to blame rather than to understand; and it is also human - not specifically Christian - to try to understand others and via understanding, to forgive them if we can. 
> 
> It is also "human," I think - in that sense of helpless and less than perfect - to long for an infallible guide, an all-knowing, all powerful parent, and to become convinced of the one we have 'found.'


It may surprise you but I think that was very well said and I completely agree.

In spite of this my faith does not falter. I just check harder and ask more questions and demand more evidence. It may also surprise you that even though I call myself a Christian, I do not take for granted that my understanding is absolute.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> It may surprise you but I think that was very well said and I completely agree.
> 
> In spite of this my faith does not falter. I just check harder and ask more questions and demand more evidence. It may also surprise you that even though I call myself a Christian, I do not take for granted that my understanding is absolute.


It _does_ surprise me somewhat inasmuch as I previously thought you were nifty and now I think you are even niftier than that.

----------


## bouquin

> It is human to blame others. It is sound christian reasoning to be forgiving and understand that no sin is greater than another, no one is without sin and Christ died for all, even single mothers -





My question is not about forgiving. My mother feels righteously justified in her disapproval of my brother's girlfriend; she has no compunction about _that_. My question is on whether she is right in blaming the devil for the strained relationship that now exists between her and my brother. That is what is apparently being taught her at her Baptist church. Is that teaching sound? Is it Bible-based?

----------


## Granny5

I've been in a Baptist church. My husband grew up in a Baptist church. I've known no one to blame the devil for single parents. Usually they blame the girl. Of course, in the Southern states of the USA, it's always the girls fault. We should know better. Even though I was divorced, I was still considered a single mother who should have known better. If she is going to blame the devil for anything, she should blame it for making her so closed minded and causing a riff in the family.
As far as I know, forgiveness is what is taught in every Christian church. Christ forgave and we are to try our best to live as Christ did.

----------


## motherhubbard

> My question is not about forgiving. My mother feels righteously justified in her disapproval of my brother's girlfriend; she has no compunction about _that_. My question is on whether she is right in blaming the devil for the strained relationship that now exists between her and my brother. That is what is apparently being taught her at her Baptist church. Is that teaching sound? Is it Bible-based?


i'm sending you a PM. I don't want the thread to get locked because of me

----------


## firefangled

> It's sad, I think, when we use "human" to mean fallible, inferior or limited. Yes, it is "human" to blame rather than to understand; and it is also human - not specifically Christian - to try to understand others and via understanding, to forgive them if we can. 
> 
> It is also "human," I think - in that sense of helpless and less than perfect - to long for an infallible guide, an all-knowing, all powerful parent, and to become convinced of the one we have 'found.'





> It may surprise you but I think that was very well said and I completely agree.
> 
> In spite of this my faith does not falter. I just check harder and ask more questions and demand more evidence. It may also surprise you that even though I call myself a Christian, I do not take for granted that my understanding is absolute.



I can't believe I am doing this because I always put my foot in my mouth when discussing religion, but briefly (I can't possibly mean that) here goes:

I have come to think of God as the creative force of the universe and all its exponential growth from the very beginning. That is all God is to me, an eternal flow of light and energy that gives and gives. God to me is not capable of anything else, just a source of creation.

Human beings are the mortal senses of this creative force. We are evolving (it doesn't matter whether we were created as we are or as some less evolved version) we are, nevertheless, evolving or we would not have come to understand as much about ourselves as we have to date. We didn't have that capacity in the Eden myth.

We are the recipients of this eternally eminating goodness from creation. We can choose to receive it by our beliefs and actions ( I do not mean religious beliefs necessarily) or we can dodge it whenever we act in discordance with our fellow humans and beast and anything for which we have stewardship. To the extent that we act in discord, we create evil in the world. There is no devil, there is no judgement of this, ever. There is no hell (other than the one we make for our own eternal consciousness). We are not born outside a state of grace (that is absurd and reeks of a male dominated obsolete social structure). We are born pure and fully in the flow of this universal goodness, which is why "becoming as little children" has been and will always be the secret to staying in a state of grace. 

If you want to read a great book on evil, read Ernest Becker's _The Structure of Evil_ and Jane Robert's _The Nature of Personal Reality_. Please do not respond with a diatribe on your prejudices about the latter author. It will not have an effect on me. I have always looked at the bulk of what we have written as humans as God's word also, every sentence. We can see what is there and freely educate and decide. That is why it is so utterly ignorant to ban books of any kind, good or bad. The good teacher will show us both and then, through discussion let us choose.

I am not naive when I say that human beings are intrinsically good and have always been. We know that what is pure can be polluted and corrupted, we see it often these days, but it has at its roots a choice or successive choices by a once pure entity. That is what is sad. We forgive for that and we forgive others to lift the burden from ourselves (in the end the only one we can control). If everyone forgives, there is no burden anywhere.

Hmmm. No teeth marks on my shoe. Did I _ _ ss many people off?

----------


## motherhubbard

> Did I _ _ ss many people off?


Not me. While I still believe in the God of the Bible as he is described in the Bible, I understand what you are saying. I think that your attitude about forgiveness and other things that are lovely in the world are important and necessary. You spoke beautifully.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> I can't believe I am doing this because I always put my foot in my mouth when discussing religion, but briefly (I can't possibly mean that) here goes:


You must have been in a state of blessedness when you wrote what followed the above, something like what that Czech dude called "the incredible lightness of being..."

I hope everyone gets to read it.

----------


## Granny5

Firefangled,
This is just beautiful. If only everyone had you insight and way with word.
Thank you so much!

----------


## weepingforloman

Ah, the modern Life-Force philosophy. So grand, so poetic, so comfortable... 

And yet I disagree. If God is a merely creative force, what right does He/it have to be called a god? How, if this force is (as it must be) mindless, purposeless, impersonal, can it be called a god? God must be personal. God is personal.

----------


## Bookworm4Him

> Ah, the modern Life-Force philosophy. So grand, so poetic, so comfortable... 
> 
> And yet I disagree. If God is a merely creative force, what right does He/it have to be called a god? How, if this force is (as it must be) mindless, purposeless, impersonal, can it be called a god? God must be personal. God is personal.


I have to agree with you. To add, if you dont mind, that always reminds me of Star Wars. There's good, there's bad, and you manipulate the force to do what you want. If God was the "force" who's to know if He's good or bad, or what those two are. (Am I making any sense at all? I dont feel like I am...  :Smile:  ) I'm trying to say that if God cant show or tell us what is right and wrong, then how could we know? We know what is right or wrong, so He must be personal...I hope that made sense...

----------


## RichardHresko

Weepingfor loman writes:
"If God is a merely creative force, what right does He/it have to be called a god? How, if this force is (as it must be) mindless, purposeless, impersonal, can it be called a god? God must be personal. God is personal."

I agree with reservations. If by "God" we understand someone or something deserving of worship then clearly nothing devoid of a mind (and hence awareness and intelligence) could qualify, since what would be the point of worship? So the conclusion that God must be personal seems to be a reasonable one. My reservation is that the movement from what God must be to be God to the statement that there is such a being is unwarranted. For example, to say that for life to exist on Titan it must be able to tolerate an environment containing methane snow does not actually prove that any such organism exists, either on Titan or elsewhere.

----------


## Pendragon

Kinda says it all, doesn't it?

God bless

Pen

----------


## earthboar

> This is a bit of weird one I think. This came to me when I was reading a Philip K. Dick short story about something similer. This is purly hypothetical and I mean no offence.
> 
> *If god is in everything and everyone, does that not make him as much an evil malevolent as a divine benevolent?*
> 
> It just seems to me that evil is as much a thing as good; and something claimed to be _everything_ must surely be both? 
> 
> Thoughts on this random thought?


I want to take a shot at addressing the original post, thank you.

By the way, firefangled's "emanations of goodness" is an extremely useful philosophy, thanks. It's encouraging to see daring minds boldly shape the future of god consciousness in new and positive directions, because where the mind goes, we go.

Philip K. Dick, Carl Jung, William Blake and many writers throughout history tend to explain the problem of good and evil with a demiurgic solution. That is, the created world is the doing of a lesser god.

I came across an essay by St. Augustine (345-430) called "The City of God," in which the writer explains how humankind was prideful even before the fall, the eating of the apple, otherwise Adam and Eve would not have been charmed by the serpent.

"For the fact that the woman sinned on the serpent's persuasion, and the man at the woman's offer," wrote Augustine.

In his essay, Augustine claims that nature is not intrinsically prideful or evil. As seems to be endemic to his time, St. Augustine separates man from nature and seems to believe that humankind are necessarily wicked.

"...yet their pride seeks to refer its wickedness to another--the woman's pride to the serpent, the man's to the woman," wrote Augustine, and I can see the tendency to shift blame continued into his own time, as well. For all this blaming of each other, could it be that we can't pinpoint blame precisely because it is God who is to blame for the malady of his own creation?

Consider the often stated, but hardly satisfactory remedy that "God gave man free will." Well? So what? If _homo sapiens_ were faultlessly created, and given free will, don't you think he would tend to employ unselfish judgment in his decision making? Given that there is an equal likelihood that a man or woman, with a free will, would decide to take the course of action that would reflect the command of God as there is to make the decision to disobey the command, what other explanation can exist but that God's manufacture was flawed? That must also mean that the Creator is flawed, as he is unable to make a perfect creation in his own image.

What I'm trying to illuminate is the latter church's (Third and Fourth Century Roman) blindness or ignorance of who they are really talking about when they talk about the Old Testament YHVH. Augustine failed to trace the breadcrumbs back far enough in his explanation of the root of universal discordance.

Did Mastemah, the prince of heaven (Dead Sea Scrolls "Jubilees", 4Q225, fragment 2) have a hand in the creation of the human? Of course, in demiurgic literature, significantly so in the Apocryphon of John, that was exactly the case.

It isn't enough to say failure began with Adam, by way of Eve, or to indict the Serpent or Devil. The intrinsic failure to abide by God's will must indicate that humans were predisposed to failure, and that given two choices, Adam and Eve would make the bad one. And, since Adam and Eve did not make themselves, there is only one more step behind them in the chain of custody to consider. To me, that leaves two options, and I prefer the second of these:

1) That there is one God who is imperfect, and with the potential for evil. I would not say indifferent, however, because were that so this god would not be so inclined to punish his own creation for behaving according to the nature he built into them to begin with. In that respect, it seems to me that flooding and plowing those who transgress his will shows bad parenting skills. Likewise does jealousy of other gods reveal a disconcerting insecurity with one who is supposed to be supreme and infallible.

2) The world and the visible universe is the making of a god, but not _the_ God. There is Lord, King of the Universe, and there is God in Heaven. The former toys with his creation, like a boy in a sandbox playing with toy soldiers, while the latter is aloof and above it all, perhaps s

----------


## Whifflingpin

Earthboar: "To me, that leaves two options, and I prefer the second of these:

1) That there is one God who is imperfect, and with the potential for evil. I would not say indifferent, however, because were that so this god would not be so inclined to punish his own creation for behaving according to the nature he built into them to begin with. In that respect, it seems to me that flooding and plowing those who transgress his will shows bad parenting skills. Likewise does jealousy of other gods reveal a disconcerting insecurity with one who is supposed to be supreme and infallible.

2) The world and the visible universe is the making of a god, but not the God. There is Lord, King of the Universe, and there is God in Heaven. The former toys with his creation, like a boy in a sandbox playing with toy soldiers, while the latter is aloof and above it all, perhaps"

In your second option, the God in Heaven seems to be unnecessary and irrelevant - effectively reducing your second option to being the same as your first.

But, I would have thought there are many feasible options, from no-god-at-all to many-gods.
Many-gods should not be discounted too easily, after all, the universe has all the signs of having been designed by a committee.

----------


## earthboar

> Earthboar: "To me, that leaves two options, and I prefer the second of these:
> 
> 1) That there is one God who is imperfect, and with the potential for evil. I would not say indifferent, however, because were that so this god would not be so inclined to punish his own creation for behaving according to the nature he built into them to begin with. In that respect, it seems to me that flooding and plowing those who transgress his will shows bad parenting skills. Likewise does jealousy of other gods reveal a disconcerting insecurity with one who is supposed to be supreme and infallible.
> 
> 2) The world and the visible universe is the making of a god, but not the God. There is Lord, King of the Universe, and there is God in Heaven. The former toys with his creation, like a boy in a sandbox playing with toy soldiers, while the latter is aloof and above it all, perhaps"
> 
> In your second option, the God in Heaven seems to be unnecessary and irrelevant - effectively reducing your second option to being the same as your first.
> 
> But, I would have thought there are many feasible options, from no-god-at-all to many-gods.
> Many-gods should not be discounted too easily, after all, the universe has all the signs of having been designed by a committee.


Thanks again *Whifflingpin*, I was admittedly narrow in my conclusions. I struggled for a few minutes while writing that to include religious views outside of the Judaic tradition (which includes Christianity), but decided that would be too broad for my particular contribution to the topic, and better left for others to answer according to their own abilities. The original subject, though, only says "God" and doesn't name any particular god(s) or (non)religious tradition, so you are certainly in the right to flesh out other available options.

I would like to comment on your point about my "second option," however, and that is if the goal of spirit is to transcend the material universe and return to Heaven, the source of our spirit, then in my second option, it is the God in Heaven that is the ultimate objective, and the Lord of the World that is the temporal tyrant of the soul. In other words, he's like your boss at work, you have to put up with him for now, but ultimately you're working toward retirement.

----------


## jon1jt

> This is a bit of weird one I think. This came to me when I was reading a Philip K. Dick short story about something similer. This is purly hypothetical and I mean no offence.
> 
> *If god is in everything and everyone, does that not make him as much an evil malevolent as a divine benevolent?*
> 
> It just seems to me that evil is as much a thing as good; and something claimed to be _everything_ must surely be both? 
> 
> Thoughts on this random thought?



i think that's right shadow, you make a good point. you can't have it every way---she can't be inside, outside, and outside time and space, all at the same time. that seems to be a blithe presumption, unless somebody will kindly explain that one to me.  :Smile:  

my understanding is that there are gods and they dwell in human form on the earth. jack london was such a god. 

the problem was borne out of neglecting to make the proper distinction between values and morality. you can have values without morality. moral facts are fantasies, and only when we eradicate "thou shalt" in favor of the "I will," we will be stuck in this living fantasy of evil malevolents and divine benevolents. or something like that.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"I would like to comment on your point about my "second option," however, and that is if the goal of spirit is to transcend the material universe and return to Heaven, the source of our spirit, then in my second option, it is the God in Heaven that is the ultimate objective, and the Lord of the World that is the temporal tyrant of the soul."

Fair enough, but then you have, I think postulated two creators - assuming that the God of Heaven created our spiritual nature, and is therefore less aloof than you suggested at first.

If the Lord of This World created us spiritual, then you seem to be saying that we are intended to rise above our creator - not impossible, as, by analogy, many children do, in fact, surpass their parents - a challenging concept, nonetheless.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"jack london was such a god."

Interesting choice - a good writer, but couldn't build a boat - wherein is/was he divine?

----------


## Bookworm4Him

> That is, the created world is the doing of a lesser god.


What is a lesser god? If there isn't a greater, how can there be a lesser?




> I came across an essay by St. Augustine (345-430) called "The City of God," in which the writer explains how humankind was prideful even before the fall, the eating of the apple, otherwise Adam and Eve would not have been charmed by the serpent.
> 
> "For the fact that the woman sinned on the serpent's persuasion, and the man at the woman's offer," wrote Augustine.
> 
> In his essay, Augustine claims that nature is not intrinsically prideful or evil. As seems to be endemic to his time, St. Augustine separates man from nature and seems to believe that humankind are necessarily wicked.
> 
> "...yet their pride seeks to refer its wickedness to another--the woman's pride to the serpent, the man's to the woman," wrote Augustine, and I can see the tendency to shift blame continued into his own time, as well. For all this blaming of each other, could it be that we can't pinpoint blame precisely because it is God who is to blame for the malady of his own creation?


Perhaps man wasn't prideful in the wicked sort of pride, but simply ambitious?? They wanted to be like their Creator, in the same way that a child wants to be just like his parents.




> Consider the often stated, but hardly satisfactory remedy that "God gave man free will." Well? So what? If _homo sapiens_ were faultlessly created, and given free will, don't you think he would tend to employ unselfish judgment in his decision making? Given that there is an equal likelihood that a man or woman, with a free will, would decide to take the course of action that would reflect the command of God as there is to make the decision to disobey the command, what other explanation can exist but that God's manufacture was flawed? That must also mean that the Creator is flawed, as he is unable to make a perfect creation in his own image.


Does this mean if a parent lets his child choose btw. a good and a bad choice without FORCING him to do the good, and the child chooses wrong, the parent is at fault??? That's preposterous!

----------


## jon1jt

> "jack london was such a god."
> 
> Interesting choice - a good writer, but couldn't build a boat - wherein is/was he divine?


read London's Martin Eden. of course, his other stuff also has the power of revelation in it. the divinity is in his prose, Whiff. biblical prose pales in comparison. it's as if his words run on water, kindly asking jesus to move out of the way.

----------


## weepingforloman

> read London's Martin Eden. of course, his other stuff also has the power of revelation in it. the divinity is in his prose, Whiff. biblical prose pales in comparison. it's as if his words run on water, kindly asking jesus to move out of the way.


The fact that, though he waxed poetic on the virtues of the wild, he was a fat, lazy slob doesn't bother you? He was a hypocrite.

Besides which, the Bible is not meant to be read as prose for the modern reader. It is translated at least once, most of it twice, and written thousands of years ago. The latest of it came before English existed as a language. And if you use prose as a basis for divinity, wouldn't you be better served by worshiping Shakespeare?

----------


## Smooth Operator

Just because God is in everything doesnt mean that he controls everything. Everyone has some good in them, but everyone also controls their life and God cannot stop them, only show them the way.

----------


## joshka

Some people are saying that God could be both evil and good. But I have to say I think this is simply impossible. Although I may be wrong, I believe that God simply uses "evil" to test people in ways.

----------


## NikolaiI

Well, according to Hollywood, God can't interfere with free will. Hahahahahahahaha. 
Um, so he can't change a person's mind, but he can kill them as he pleases? But isn't it true he hardened Herod's heart a few times? So I would say he can influence free will, if you go by the bible.

Wait, smooth operator, what do you mean he cannot stop them? He can kill you, can he not? That I would consider stopping them; a flood I would consider stopping them.

So, okay, this has all been about JWHA, or the LORD, but in Hinduism, wars and stuff is all just in the gnashing of Krishna's teeth or something, so God is beyond good and evil. Or as Nietzsche says, whatever is love is beyond good and evil, so if God is Love, he is beyond good and evil.

----------


## earthboar

> Some people are saying that God could be both evil and good. But I have to say I think this is simply impossible. Although I may be wrong, I believe that God simply uses "evil" to test people in ways.


Carl Jung has something to say on this subject in his "Answer to Job." A couple of things stand out in Jung's book. One was that God was modified during his punishment of Job (which wasn't really a punishment, in the sense that Job did anything to transgress God. It was more like God was torturing Job). In the end, God seemed remorseful that he inflicted so much needless pain. A clue that God, having emotional ambivalence, is not perfect.

The other thing Jung pointed out was that God did not make the decision by himself, but the adversary, literally "Satan" influenced God's decision to inflict torture upon Job. Note that at this time, Satan was not living in the underworld as a fallen angel, but was God's confidante and adviser. Apparently, God listened to Satan back then. Why would a perfect God need or heed the advise of his angels? Good question.

----------


## NikolaiI

Or what is the similarity between chaos and evil? 

I agree that some things that are dangerous are not evil, and only bad from our point of view. If we were hit by a gamma ray burst (is that right-?) we would all die very, very quickly, but I wouldn't consider that evil, just chaotic.

Oh, that was a reply to the first page, lol. Sorry about that.

----------


## weepingforloman

> Just because God is in everything doesnt mean that he controls everything. Everyone has some good in them, but everyone also controls their life and God cannot stop them, only show them the way.


Who says God is everything? This is not the general Western view of God, but a pantheistic Eastern view. You would have to address your problems to an impersonal "force" a la the (I think Daoist?) concept of the Yin/Yang.



> Carl Jung has something to say on this subject in his "Answer to Job." A couple of things stand out in Jung's book. One was that God was modified during his punishment of Job (which wasn't really a punishment, in the sense that Job did anything to transgress God. It was more like God was torturing Job). In the end, God seemed remorseful that he inflicted so much needless pain. A clue that God, having emotional ambivalence, is not perfect.
> 
> The other thing Jung pointed out was that God did not make the decision by himself, but the adversary, literally "Satan" influenced God's decision to inflict torture upon Job. Note that at this time, Satan was not living in the underworld as a fallen angel, but was God's confidante and adviser. Apparently, God listened to Satan back then. Why would a perfect God need or heed the advise of his angels? Good question.


Satan was not God's "confidante" at this point. He was already fallen in Genesis (the serpent). But he presents himself before God because God is still sovereign, and he cannot defy God's will (I separate permissive will from active will in this instance... causing pain is not something God desires, but something He permits). And God did not "torture" Job. Satan was the one who struck him with disease. And God allowed this, in part to take Satan's bait, but in part to ensure that Job would not rest upon his blessings. God alone is man's joy, not wealth or family, as Job had. We take pleasure from these things, but they are from God nonetheless. If we had nothing, we would still be happy if we knew Him.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Carl Jung has something to say on this subject in his "Answer to Job." A couple of things stand out in Jung's book. One was that God was modified during his punishment of Job (which wasn't really a punishment, in the sense that Job did anything to transgress God. It was more like God was torturing Job). In the end, God seemed remorseful that he inflicted so much needless pain. A clue that God, having emotional ambivalence, is not perfect.
> 
> The other thing Jung pointed out was that God did not make the decision by himself, but the adversary, literally "Satan" influenced God's decision to inflict torture upon Job. Note that at this time, Satan was not living in the underworld as a fallen angel, but was God's confidante and adviser. Apparently, God listened to Satan back then. Why would a perfect God need or heed the advise of his angels? Good question.


Jung was a very intelligent man - but his analysis of Job (despite some fascinating comments and insights) treats Job as a literary text rather than a single episode within the cohesive narrative of the Bible.

1) God did not "punish" Job - He allowed Job to be put under trial by Satan - and this is something that all believers understand is a reality of living in a fallen world. Any one of us could have such an experience - and the NT appropriately warns us thusly. 

We tend to be very ignorant of the "game rules" that God and Satan are operating under and make vast assumptions about why God does what He chooses to do. When you understand the rules of a game, what the players do tends to make more sense.

2) I do not think God is remorseful about His decision, but rather that such an ugly episode had to occur at all. The cosmic battle taking place is essentially Satan's attack on the character of God (see Genesis 3 for Satan's revelation of this charge); as such, Satan will use human beings to attack the character of God. Satan did so in ch. 1 of Job by suggesting that Job did not "love" God but merely served Him for mercenary reasons (i.e. the blessings Job enjoyed). God, who knew Job's heart, allowed Job to prove that God is who He says He is. I rather see God as annoyed at the other individuals who came to "comfort" Job and ended up condemning him instead.

3) Satan did not "influence" God; He questioned God's character and God let the evidence (Job's faithfulness) speak for itself. Which is more convincing in a court trial? The defense's _claim_ or the _evidence_? God could have said "No - Job loves me - you just don't know him like I do." And if God had done that, wouldn't we now be attacking His concealment of the truth by not allowing Job to prove Satan wrong?

4) Where do you get the idea that Satan was still an "advisor" to God? No "advisor" to God would attack His character as Satan attempted to do. God did not need Satan's "advice" - He responded to a false charge by presenting evidence.

I liked _Answer to Job_ as analysis, but I wouldn't accept Jung's questions as good Biblical theology.

----------


## jon1jt

> The fact that, though he waxed poetic on the virtues of the wild, he was a fat, lazy slob doesn't bother you? He was a hypocrite.
> 
> Besides which, the Bible is not meant to be read as prose for the modern reader. It is translated at least once, most of it twice, and written thousands of years ago. The latest of it came before English existed as a language. And if you use prose as a basis for divinity, wouldn't you be better served by worshiping Shakespeare?


in my humble opinion, prose is a better basis for divinity than the current one. i make a supplication to many great writers. Jack London is seated upon his throne, Kerouac seated at the right hand, Bukowski at the left. Shakespeare serves them the wine.  :Biggrin: 

it's true that Jack London was overweight, but lazy slob he was not. a voluminous writer is never lazy. what did Jesus ever write? and jesus could have used a shave and hair cut you know.

----------


## earthboar

> Satan was not God's "confidante" at this point. He was already fallen in Genesis (the serpent). But he presents himself before God because God is still sovereign, and he cannot defy God's will (I separate permissive will from active will in this instance... causing pain is not something God desires, but something He permits). And God did not "torture" Job. Satan was the one who struck him with disease. And God allowed this, in part to take Satan's bait, but in part to ensure that Job would not rest upon his blessings. God alone is man's joy, not wealth or family, as Job had. We take pleasure from these things, but they are from God nonetheless. If we had nothing, we would still be happy if we knew Him.


Can you give proof for your first and third sentences? Because I don't agree with it. While it would appear that God cursed the serpent, causing it to crawl on its belly:

*Genesis 3:14,* The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life.

the conflict is that God also listened to Satan, and was complicit in allowing Satan to torture Job:

*Job 1: 6* One day the angels [a] came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan [b] also came with them. 7 The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?"
Satan answered the LORD, "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it."

*8* Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil."

*9* "Does Job fear God for nothing?" Satan replied. *10* "Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. *11* But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face."

Satan is roaming the earth, but so are humans, and so are all creatures. Why do you equate that with "fallen"? If Satan was fallen, then he must also have been "risen" to appear before God. Also, note how God talks to Satan. It's not exactly the conversation one would expect between the condemner and the condemned.

Also, compare with *Zechariah 3:*

*1* And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of Jehovah, and Satan standing at his right hand to be his adversary.

*2* And Jehovah said unto Satan, Jehovah rebuke thee, O Satan; yea, Jehovah that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?

In any case, there he is, standing near Jehovah, not in hell.

*To Redzeppelin:*



> Jung was a very intelligent man - but his analysis of Job (despite some fascinating comments and insights) treats Job as a literary text rather than a single episode within the cohesive narrative of the Bible.


My contention is that there is no such thing as a cohesive bible. An anthologized collection of books that eventually came to be called "The Bible" is something that developed in later centuries. I grant that when you read the bible, you might interpret a cohesive continuity. When I read the bible, it appears as distinct and disparate books that sometimes make references to earlier books, sometimes not.

I will refer to a statement in an article posted by Washington State University,

"The Bible is not so much a book as a library of books, a collection of writings which evolved over many centuries and did not become completely fixed in its classic form until the first century CE."
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/worl...rew_bible.html

Before the modern, bound codex-form of the Bible, each Bible story were separate scrolls, distinct and individual. This was the case with Job, as it was with Genesis, Exodus, and Daniel, etc., and many others that remained uncanonized. This is where a study of the Dead Sea Scrolls is most helpful to get a context of what Jewish people were reading--not one book, where each story was simply a coherent and sequentially arranged chapter. They were separate scrolls. The Bible, in other words, is an anthology, a collection of books, not a long continuous narrative. Therefore, in my opinion Jung did not unfairly treat the Book of Job.




> 1) God did not "punish" Job - He allowed Job to be put under trial by Satan - and this is something that all believers understand is a reality of living in a fallen world. Any one of us could have such an experience - and the NT appropriately warns us thusly.


I take issue with that "all believers" part. Specious, statistical. Which believers constitute "all believers"? Only a certain kind of believer? Not sure how you can support such a judgment call. For instance, I might be a believer who does not believe suffering as a universal reality, much less that the intelligence that created me would not raise a hand against extreme cruelty, and much, much less that my creator literally made a deal with the devil.

I will concede that God gave Satan a liberal amount of authority to traumatize, torture or cause Job anguish. That we resort to euphemisms, saying it wasn't really punishment, it was a trial, doesn't quite do it for me, sorry. Job was inflicted with punishment while on trial? This is what makes Job such a great case study of God's emotional ambiguity. In the end, I think Jung gave YHVH a generous benefit of the doubt. Still, Jung was unequivocal in saying that Job's punishments (oops!) resulted in a change in temperament in God. Why? Because the creator was incapable of empathy with his creation. I am reminded of a little boy who tortures an animal, but later feels remorse and vows never to do it again. God learned!

----------


## earthboar

> What is a lesser god? If there isn't a greater, how can there be a lesser?


Who said there isn't a greater God? Not I. If I said "lesser god," then I implied there must be a greater god.




> Perhaps man wasn't prideful in the wicked sort of pride, but simply ambitious?? They wanted to be like their Creator, in the same way that a child wants to be just like his parents.


Why would man be ambitious before he had eaten the apple, if he was the product of a perfect creator? Why would people want to be more than what they were, and succumb to temptation, if they were perfectly formed? Defect. Or...perhaps the serpent was really on our side, and that god who ejected us from the garden is hiding something from us, something we were meant to have...




> Does this mean if a parent lets his child choose btw. a good and a bad choice without FORCING him to do the good, and the child chooses wrong, the parent is at fault??? That's preposterous!


Only preposterous if there was something flawed in the supposedly perfect creator's creation. If there was a flaw (and, the eating of the apple proves there was), then it reflects on the one who created the flawed creature. Again, if we had been perfect from the outset, the outcome of all choices would always be the _good_ choice.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> My contention is that there is no such thing as a cohesive bible. An anthologized collection of books that eventually came to be called "The Bible" is something that developed in later centuries. I grant that when you read the bible, you might interpret a cohesive continuity. When I read the bible, it appears as distinct and disparate books that sometimes make references to earlier books, sometimes not.


That contention is based upon the idea that the books were simply inspired and written by men; Christianity believes that the Bible is the inspired word of God (and that He is the true "author" and as such, quite capable of weaving together a cohesive narrative across centuries). The cohesiveness is not simply "created" via interpretation - it is consistent in its themes, its portrayal of God and His character throughout. Its cohesiveness can be demonstrated - not merely inferred.




> I will refer to a statement in an article posted by Washington State University,
> 
> "The Bible is not so much a book as a library of books, a collection of writings which evolved over many centuries and did not become completely fixed in its classic form until the first century CE."
> http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/worl...rew_bible.html


So? This statement means that the Bible has no internal cohesion? It simply states a fact about the physical entity we call "the Bible" but it says nothing of how its narratives work together.




> Before the modern, bound codex-form of the Bible, each Bible story were separate scrolls, distinct and individual. This was the case with Job, as it was with Genesis, Exodus, and Daniel, etc., and many others that remained uncanonized. This is where a study of the Dead Sea Scrolls is most helpful to get a context of what Jewish people were reading--not one book, where each story was simply a coherent and sequentially arranged chapter. They were separate scrolls. The Bible, in other words, is an anthology, a collection of books, not a long continuous narrative. Therefore, in my opinion Jung did not unfairly treat the Book of Job.


I do not use the word "narrative" to indicate that the Bible is one long work; I use "narrative" in terms of the overall story it creates about God. The Bible is composed of books that focus on the lives of various individuals and their experiences or beliefs, but each story is really about God, and as such, creates a cohesive picture of God.




> I take issue with that "all believers" part. Specious, statistical. Which believers constitute "all believers"? Only a certain kind of believer? Not sure how you can support such a judgment call. For instance, I might be a believer who does not believe suffering as a universal reality, much less that the intelligence that created me would not raise a hand against extreme cruelty, and much, much less that my creator literally made a deal with the devil.


I use the term "all believers" to mean those who read the Bible and understand its assertion. In a number of places in the Bible, New and Old Testament, it is made clear that being a believer in God does not protect one from trials - those put upon us by Satan for our detriment or those allowed by God to refine our character. As such, those who read the Bible and profess to believe in God should be aware that following God requires things of us, not all of which will be pleasant. The point has been made that if the Son of God Himself was not spared the difficulties of this life, then why should we expect any easier path? You can believe whatever you like, but if your beliefs contradict what the Bible says, then you've created your own version of God to follow and might as well not believe in God at all because Gods we create are merely inflated versions of ourselves.

There was no "deal with the devil." God's character is on trial; Satan challenged God and God let his faithful servant demonstrate his mettle. You're not required to like what happened. Ugly things happen in war - and the cosmic battle we are in makes all other wars pale by comparison.




> I will concede that God gave Satan a liberal amount of authority to traumatize, torture or cause Job anguish. That we resort to euphemisms, saying it wasn't really punishment, it was a trial, doesn't quite do it for me, sorry. Job was inflicted with punishment while on trial? This is what makes Job such a great case study of God's emotional ambiguity. In the end, I think Jung gave YHVH a generous benefit of the doubt. Still, Jung was unequivocal in saying that Job's punishments (oops!) resulted in a change in temperament in God. Why? Because the creator was incapable of empathy with his creation. I am reminded of a little boy who tortures an animal, but later feels remorse and vows never to do it again. God learned!


"Punishment" is your euphemism for what happened to Job; don't make it sound like I'm the one mincing words. To prove that God "punishes" Job, you'd need some textual support to suggest that God allows Satan to torture Job because he's done something wrong. You cannot find such proof. Job was not on trial; God was.

Jung's conclusions about God are incorrect. Although Job was guiltless of sin and showed his remarkable faith, he did make the mistake of putting himself at a certain "equal" level with God by demanding to have his case heard. Once God showed up and reminded Job who He was, Job realized his mistake. When one stands before the creator of the universe, personal "rights" kind of shrivel in comparison.

----------


## earthboar

> That contention is based upon the idea that the books were simply inspired and written by men; Christianity believes that the Bible is the inspired word of God (and that He is the true "author" and as such, quite capable of weaving together a cohesive narrative across centuries).


Supposing God revealed himself through the prophets, it does not follow that the bible is a cohesive and continuous book.




> The cohesiveness is not simply "created" via interpretation - it is consistent in its themes, its portrayal of God and His character throughout. Its cohesiveness can be demonstrated - not merely inferred.


The themes are not always consistent, except that all were written according to Jewish cultural norms of their time. Esther is very different from the books of Moses; Job is very different from Esther. What each share is they are talking about Jewish problems of their time, whether that is in Egypt, Canaan or Persia (Shushana). The portrayal of God across he Old Testament is wildly, recklessly variant. That is one of my struggles, and one reason I am so fascinated by the irreconcilable mood swings of a "jealous god" and one that would punish his own creation with mortal reprobation.





> So? This statement means that the Bible has no internal cohesion? It simply states a fact about the physical entity we call "the Bible" but it says nothing of how its narratives work together.


The physical form of the Bible is more of a design by committee. If you are not aware, it takes different forms in different places. Syriac, Greek Orthodox, Alexandrian. In terms of the New Testament, the Valentinians and Sethians, Mandeans, Manicheans and Cathars each included slightly different selections. What you call "the Bible" undoubtedly differs from what I call "the Bible". Yes, I call it a man-made anthology, I'll leave it at that, since I have not solicited a request to be converted to a particular theological point of view, thank you.




> I do not use the word "narrative" to indicate that the Bible is one long work; I use "narrative" in terms of the overall story it creates about God. The Bible is composed of books that focus on the lives of various individuals and their experiences or beliefs, but each story is really about God, and as such, creates a cohesive picture of God.


OK, and I do understand where you're coming from, and respect it as truthful within you. If you take any of the several Bible versions and read it, from beginning to end, I'm sure some unified message will appear. But, whether each story is about God seems to me a predisposition that that is what you are expecting the book to be about. In other words, if you are raised or taught beforehand, "this book is about God," that is what you are going to get out of it.




> I use the term "all believers" to mean those who read the Bible and understand its assertion.


Me too! What a coincidence. However, I might point out that our beliefs seem to vary dramatically. Could it be that two people reading the Bible draw vastly different conclusions, meaning, and lessons? Yes. You and I can read the same Bible, and draw different conclusions. Therefore, theological "Truth" is not an absolute.




> In a number of places in the Bible, New and Old Testament, it is made clear that being a believer in God does not protect one from trials - those put upon us by Satan for our detriment or those allowed by God to refine our character.


It would be helpful if, from now on, instead of using language like, "The Bible makes it clear," you would quote or refer to specific passages, so we can read for ourselves just how clear or unclear the Bible makes certain assertions. Otherwise, I have no reason to take one individual's assertions on the blind faith that their interpretation is unimpeachable.




> As such, those who read the Bible and profess to believe in God should be aware that following God requires things of us, not all of which will be pleasant. The point has been made that if the Son of God Himself was not spared the difficulties of this life, then why should we expect any easier path? You can believe whatever you like, but if your beliefs contradict what the Bible says, then you've created your own version of God to follow and might as well not believe in God at all because Gods we create are merely inflated versions of ourselves.


 1) "As such, those who read the Bible and profess to believe in God" Well friend, I read the bible, I believe in God, yet our conclusions about the meaning of the scriptures and the identity of God are quite different. Therefore, I suggest you might be making a judgment, rather than an observation.
2) "should be aware that" That's telling people how to think, not suggesting that this is what you think. You are projecting a personal point of view onto everyone who reads the Bible.
3) "You can believe whatever you like, but if your beliefs contradict what the Bible says, then you've created your own version of God to follow and might as well not believe in God at all because Gods we create are merely inflated versions of ourselves." It's not up to you whether my beliefs and my interpretation are incompatible with God. More likely, my beliefs and my interpretation of scripture is at odds with your personal belief, and that you have associated your personal belief system with absolute truth, for whatever reason. I see no reason why this line of reasoning doesn't work equally well with you, that you have created your own God based on your prejudices of Biblical interpretation. In fact, that is exactly how I am reading you.

Do I, likewise, admit that I have created a God in my own mind? I readily admit it. The difference between us, perhaps, is how much we are willing to admit that God is an imaginative construct. Sacred imagination.




> There was no "deal with the devil." God's character is on trial; Satan challenged God and God let his faithful servant demonstrate his mettle. You're not required to like what happened. Ugly things happen in war - and the cosmic battle we are in makes all other wars pale by comparison.


Why war, if God is supremely perfect? If there was conflict in heaven, then there was conflict in perfection, and therefore no perfection. Why would God not protect his creation from Satan's meddling? Was God insecure in his supremacy? That is what I read in Job.






> Jung's conclusions about God are incorrect. Although Job was guiltless of sin and showed his remarkable faith, he did make the mistake of putting himself at a certain "equal" level with God by demanding to have his case heard. Once God showed up and reminded Job who He was, Job realized his mistake. When one stands before the creator of the universe, personal "rights" kind of shrivel in comparison.


Ok, I won't challenge that.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Supposing God revealed himself through the prophets, it does not follow that the bible is a cohesive and continuous book.


I do not follow how this statement presents a cause-effect that contradicts my position.




> The themes are not always consistent, except that all were written according to Jewish cultural norms of their time. Esther is very different from the books of Moses; Job is very different from Esther. What each share is they are talking about Jewish problems of their time, whether that is in Egypt, Canaan or Persia (Shushana). The portrayal of God across he Old Testament is wildly, recklessly variant. That is one of my struggles, and one reason I am so fascinated by the irreconcilable mood swings of a "jealous god" and one that would punish his own creation with mortal reprobation.


Is it possible that your vision of who God is doesn't allow for the expansive nature of the revelation of His character? In other words, is it possible that the picture of God given strikes you as "wildly...variant" because your idea of God is more narrow than the Bible portrays it? If I decided that all of the universe should be defined by what I can see out my window at night, have I not diminished the universe by the very nature of my limited idea as to what it is? We were created in "God's image" - and I believe that the vast range of human emotion is a reflection of God's emotive character. 

The varying themes of the different books combine to create a "master theme" which is the revelation of God's character. That is the Bible's entire job - to show us who God is.





> The physical form of the Bible is more of a design by committee. If you are not aware, it takes different forms in different places. Syriac, Greek Orthodox, Alexandrian. In terms of the New Testament, the Valentinians and Sethians, Mandeans, Manicheans and Cathars each included slightly different selections. What you call "the Bible" undoubtedly differs from what I call "the Bible". Yes, I call it a man-made anthology, I'll leave it at that, since I have not solicited a request to be converted to a particular theological point of view, thank you.


I do not recall doing anything even remotely resembling proseltyzing.

The idea that the Bible is a "man-made anthology" presupposes the idea that God had no say whatsoever as to which of His writings were made available to the public in the form of a "fixed" cannonical structure. I find that difficult to accept; a being capable of calling reality into existence with His very words ought to be quite capable of making sure that His written revelation of Himself could be assembled without having serious violence done to the integrity of the narrative He wished us to have.




> OK, and I do understand where you're coming from, and respect it as truthful within you. If you take any of the several Bible versions and read it, from beginning to end, I'm sure some unified message will appear. But, whether each story is about God seems to me a predisposition that that is what you are expecting the book to be about. In other words, if you are raised or taught beforehand, "this book is about God," that is what you are going to get out of it.


Can you point out how _any_ book in the Bible is not about God or the character of God?




> Me too! What a coincidence. However, I might point out that our beliefs seem to vary dramatically. Could it be that two people reading the Bible draw vastly different conclusions, meaning, and lessons? Yes. You and I can read the same Bible, and draw different conclusions. Therefore, theological "Truth" is not an absolute.


Perhaps, but the validity of one's interpretation depends upon its correspondence with the cohesive structure of the Bible and its alignment with the character of God. Any interpretation that fails to satisfy those two criteria is suspect in terms of its validity.




> It would be helpful if, from now on, instead of using language like, "The Bible makes it clear," you would quote or refer to specific passages, so we can read for ourselves just how clear or unclear the Bible makes certain assertions. Otherwise, I have no reason to take one individual's assertions on the blind faith that their interpretation is unimpeachable.


As you wish:

"Consider it complete joy, my brothers, when you become involved in all sorts of trials, well aware that the testing of your faith brings about steadfastness."
James 1:2-3

"For as we experience richly the sufferings of Christ, so we enjoy through Christ an abundance of consolation."
2 Corinthians 1:5

"I regard everything as loss in comparison with the supreme value of knowing Christ...for his sake I have incurred loss of all things and consider them rubbish in order to gain Christ...that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, in order that I might arrive at the resurrection from the dead."
Phillipians 3:8-11

"Be joyful that you are sharing to some degree the sufferings of Christ, in order that at the revealing of his glory you may be full of joy...if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed but praise God because you bear that name...For this reason let those who are suffering according to the will of God, entrust their souls to God, the faithful Creator, while they do what is right."
1 Peter 4:13-19

I'll find more if you like.





> Well friend, I read the bible, I believe in God, yet our conclusions about the meaning of the scriptures and the identity of God are quite different. Therefore, I suggest you might be making a judgment, rather than an observation.


And you are not putting forth your own judgments on the matter?




> That's telling people how to think, not suggesting that this is what you think. You are projecting a personal point of view onto everyone who reads the Bible.


Telling people what they should be "aware" of does not tell them what to _think_; it expresses the idea that there is some essential information that they should understand, be cognizant of; if I tell you that you should be _aware_ of your surroundings when you walk through the bad side of town, I've not told you to think in any particular way.





> It's not up to you whether my beliefs and my interpretation are incompatible with God. More likely, my beliefs and my interpretation of scripture is at odds with your personal belief, and that you have associated your personal belief system with absolute truth, for whatever reason. I see no reason why this line of reasoning doesn't work equally well with you, that you have created your own God based on your prejudices of Biblical interpretation. In fact, that is exactly how I am reading you.


I did not suggest anything about your personal beliefs beyond asserting a principle about how we assess the validity of our "picture" of God. If God is real and the Bible is His revelation, then it makes sense to me that any vision of God we possess ought to be consistent with the revelation of His character that the Bible provides. If one wishes to profess that one is a mathematics professor, I would assume that there is some standard that the individual is consistent with in order to claim such an identity.

I never said your vision was wrong - I simply pointed out the standard by which the validity of one's idea about who God is should be measured.




> Do I, likewise, admit that I have created a God in my own mind? I readily admit it. The difference between us, perhaps, is how much we are willing to admit that God is an imaginative construct. Sacred imagination.


That's where the Bible is essential; it allows us to see the inconsistencies of our vision of God; the Holy Spirit's job is to convict us if our picture of God is incorrect.




> Why war, if God is supremely perfect? If there was conflict in heaven, then there was conflict in perfection, and therefore no perfection. Why would God not protect his creation from Satan's meddling? Was God insecure in his supremacy? That is what I read in Job.


War exists because free will exits; in giving His creatures free will (angels included) God took the supreme risk of allowing the universe to become disrupted; apparently, He felt the risk justifiable because love cannot exist with free will.

Satan's charge is that God is a tyrant who compels service through punishment or bribes it through blessing; as such, if God said "You're not touching Job," then Satan could turn to the "jury" (the other created worlds) and say "See? God knows that Job's service would be exposed for what it is if He actually allowed His creature to experience discomfort and suffering; in fact, the creature would totally reject God without the bribery of blessings God gives - so, therefore, God isn't really loving, because "love" is not measured by mercenary exchange." God's character was on trial - still is - and God chose to let Job's faith speak for itself, which resulted in a resounding defeat for Satan because Job proved that he loved God.

Remember - only God can "read" hearts; angels and other created beings can only judge by what they see. As such, there was no other way for God to transparently prove that His character is good because just saying "I know Job's heart" won't work once God's character has been questioned. If God just quashed the challenge, well, we'd call Him a tyrant, wouldn't we?

God had to let the evidence speak for itself.




> Ok, I won't challenge that.


Thank you.

----------


## earthboar

> 3) Satan did not "influence" God; He questioned God's character and God let the evidence (Job's faithfulness) speak for itself. Which is more convincing in a court trial? The defense's claim or the evidence? God could have said "No - Job loves me - you just don't know him like I do." And if God had done that, wouldn't we now be attacking His concealment of the truth by not allowing Job to prove Satan wrong?


If God were omniscient, why would he have to prove anything to Satan, or to himself? This sounds like the doubt of an uncertain god. And, wasn't the evidence ad hoc? God didn't provide evidence, he tested Job. Calling that evidence after the fact is, I hate to use the cliche, _post hoc ergo propter hoc_ explanation. Might not Job have done something entirely different? Given free will, and all that.




> Remember - only God can "read" hearts; angels and other created beings can only judge by what they see. As such, there was no other way for God to transparently prove that His character is good because just saying "I know Job's heart" won't work once God's character has been questioned. If God just quashed the challenge, well, we'd call Him a tyrant, wouldn't we?


Remember??? You are stating a personal opinion as if it were a fact. That's like saying, "Remember, Marconi invented the radio." He didn't.

I've already called into question God's omniscience, in having to test Job to satisfy Satan and himself.

If God just quashed the challenge, I might call him omniscient and self-assured. How would he be a tyrant by refusing to subject Job to torture for the amusement of Satan?

Diversion time: Here's something interesting I found in *1 Enoch*, the E. Isaac translation from Vol. 1 of James H. Charlesworth's "The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha":

*40: 7-8* "And the fourth voice I heard expelling the demons and forbidding them from coming to the Lord of the Spirits in order to accuse those who dwell upon the earth."

Here Enoch, a grandson of Noah who was led on a tour of Heaven was referring to the fourth Archangel, Phanuel (sometimes called Uriel or Ariel?).




> Jung was a very intelligent man - but his analysis of Job (despite some fascinating comments and insights) treats Job as a literary text rather than a single episode within the cohesive narrative of the Bible.
> 
> 1) God did not "punish" Job - He allowed Job to be put under trial by Satan - and this is something that all believers understand is a reality of living in a fallen world. Any one of us could have such an experience - and the NT appropriately warns us thusly. 
> 
> We tend to be very ignorant of the "game rules" that God and Satan are operating under and make vast assumptions about why God does what He chooses to do. When you understand the rules of a game, what the players do tends to make more sense.
> 
> 2) I do not think God is remorseful about His decision, but rather that such an ugly episode had to occur at all. The cosmic battle taking place is essentially Satan's attack on the character of God (see Genesis 3 for Satan's revelation of this charge); as such, Satan will use human beings to attack the character of God. Satan did so in ch. 1 of Job by suggesting that Job did not "love" God but merely served Him for mercenary reasons (i.e. the blessings Job enjoyed). God, who knew Job's heart, allowed Job to prove that God is who He says He is. I rather see God as annoyed at the other individuals who came to "comfort" Job and ended up condemning him instead.
> 
> 3) Satan did not "influence" God; He questioned God's character and God let the evidence (Job's faithfulness) speak for itself. Which is more convincing in a court trial? The defense's _claim_ or the _evidence_? God could have said "No - Job loves me - you just don't know him like I do." And if God had done that, wouldn't we now be attacking His concealment of the truth by not allowing Job to prove Satan wrong?
> ...

----------


## Redzeppelin

> If God were omniscient, why would he have to prove anything to Satan, or to himself? This sounds like the doubt of an uncertain god.


The evidence was more for the other beings in the universe than for God or even Satan; as stated below, only God (who is omniscient) can read the contents of the human heart - both the Psalms and the NT letters of Paul make many references to this reality; as such, a just God would not hesitate to show the universe that He is telling the truth by allowing the evidence to speak for itself. I doubt God would have brought Job up if He was not certain (from His complete and intimate knowledge of Job's heart) that Job would succeed in his task.





> And, wasn't the evidence ad hoc? God didn't provide evidence, he tested Job. Calling that evidence after the fact is, I hate to use the cliche, _post hoc ergo propter hoc_ explanation. Might not Job have done something entirely different? Given free will, and all that.


God provided evidence because He knew Job well enough to know that Job would vindicate both himself and God in the process. I don't know if you're a parent, but as a parent I can predict with a fairly high percentage of accuracy how my kids will respond to certain things; if I - an ordinary human - can do such things, with my limited knowlege, what is God capable of, who knows all about us even down to the molecular level?




> Remember??? You are stating a personal opinion as if it were a fact. That's like saying, "Remember, Marconi invented the radio." He didn't.


The Bible makes it clear that God knows the contents of the human heart. In Romans 8, Paul refers to God as "the Father who knows all hearts."




> I've already called into question God's omniscience, in having to test Job to satisfy Satan and himself.


You've called nothing into question because nothing in the book of Job indicates that God was uncertain of the outcome. He offered Job because He KNEW Job's heart.




> If God just quashed the challenge, I might call him omniscient and self-assured. How would he be a tyrant by refusing to subject Job to torture for the amusement of Satan?


You advocate a process that you would never agree to here on earth. An authority declines to provide evidence and simply says "I know the truth and that's it"? That kind of response would be highly suspect in any court on earth. If God did that, how would the rest of the universe know the truth - since it is God's *character*  (and Job's primarily) that Satan has attacked? 

I don't think Satan was "amused" by this - at least for long. Satan's true target is God; as Milton imagined (accurately, I think) Satan's impotent rage against God was turned towards the object of His love: humanity. Like the torturer who leaves the prisoner alone but threatens to harm his innocent wife and children instead until the prisoner "talks," Satan turned his rage against God upon us, in order to hurt God via the pain inflicted upon those God loves. While Satan may have enjoyed Job's suffering, his loss at the "heavenly court" hurt far worse in terms of his "case" against Job and against God. Torturing humanity is a means to an end - not an end unto itself for Satan. He cares little for what we experience - only what our experience does to our Creator.

You would not trust a God who concealed evidence behind His authority - especially since no other creature can verify what God knows.

----------


## mike thomas

such ideas tempt me into philosophy. 

the old stock reply is simple - we are all born with free will.

this is a cop out answer.

god is said to be omnipotent - knows all - past present future - cannot err...

therefore god knows the outcome of all things even before the 'creation'.

there was a time when there was nothing but god (and angels, and of course, Jesus, according to the stock reply).

then, after an infinity (for god is infinite, and has always been god) god
hits on a great idea: an earth and a heaven! and living sentinent beings who, although made to behave, will nonetheless misbehave, and will have to be drowned like rats, except for a select few, and those who remain will re-populate the face of the earth, and they too will misbehave ...... so god, athough knowing all this stuff even before the creation, sends His only son, Jesus, to be tortured and killed, even that is pre-ordained. All that, and more, on account of a man and woman who had not one drop learning, and who fell into bad company - with a walking talking serpent.

All over the fruit of one special tree, and the attainment of knowledge.

Up to that point Adam and Eve could not see, and probably used each other to stumble around the garden.

the first pair then understood good and evil and became one of the gods, but before they could take the tree that gives eternal life, god kicked them out of the garden, thus we now are stained with sin.

It is obvious from Genesis that the gods or god (there is confusion even in the first part of the bible, therefore was god/s confused?) would have been powerless to reverse the process, had they got a grip on the tree of life.


all is, while I am.

----------


## RichardHresko

Mike Thomas writes:
"the old stock reply is simple - we are all born with free will.

this is a cop out answer.

god is said to be omnipotent - knows all - past present future - cannot err..."

The mentioning of free will is not a "cop out" answer in that it does point out that while God is the creator of all that exists, it is not true that he is the creator of evil, which, as I pointed out earlier, does not have an existence of its own.

I think you have confused "omnipotence" and "omniscience" and meant the latter. God is, according to the Judeo-Christian conception, not only the creator, but also has the attribute of knowing all things. This knowledge is due to his intimate knowledge of his creation. Omniscience does not in itself remove the possibility of free will, any more than a couple getting a perfect score on "The Newlywed Game" meant that either the husband was Svengali, or the wife Jezebel.

----------


## mike thomas

hi RichardHresko

point taken re omni whatever. The main thing is this: God is all. Knows all even before anything exists, therefore God knows the outcome no matter how free will might affect things. Its a foregone conclusion. 

You really believe that the Creator which knows that: what is about to be created (Satan, people or anything) is going to be evil, or do some evil thing, that no responsibillity falls on the creator?

I make an experimental flying machine, it falls on your house. You blame me, not the machine, right?

God, being God, knows what is about to happen (lets say the mass torture of millions) and allows it to happen, how can that be attributed to the influences of Satan? Isn't that a cop out?

You and I reason. We know that all things which we call 'evil' are the direct result of members of that unique animal which calls itself 'mankind'.

best wishes

----------


## RichardHresko

Mike Thomas writes:
"You really believe that the Creator which knows that: what is about to be created (Satan, people or anything) is going to be evil, or do some evil thing, that no responsibillity falls on the creator?"

Since the act is chosen by a creature with free will, the creature (namely a human) is responsible for the act. God did not choose the act of the creature, he merely foresaw it. He is therefore not the author of the act and therefore did not commit evil if the act itself was evil.

Mike Thomas writes:
"I make an experimental flying machine, it falls on your house. You blame me, not the machine, right?"

The analogy fails because the flying machine lacks free will.

Let's consider a case that would be stronger for your position:
Let us say that Egbert knows that Dymphna intends to murder Chauncey. Let's say that he even knows when, where, and how Dymphna intends to do this, and that Dymphna will in fact carry out her plan. Most of us, myself included, would agree that Egbert would be morally obligated to intervene, and would be culpable, to some extent, if he did not do so.

Is God in a different position than Egbert? To say "no" would be to argue that God is basically just a very powerful being, but in essence no different than ourselves. 

If we accept that God is the creator of the universe (creator who engages in _creatio ex nihilo_ and not a mere shaper of what is already there) and that he created without having a necessity to do so, and that he himself was not created, then it follows that he has no _obligation_ towards that creation. This is different than Egbert's position, who is a member of a society and has obligations to it, even if not personal duties to Chauncey.

Mike Thomas writes:
"You and I reason. We know that all things which we call 'evil' are the direct result of members of that unique animal which calls itself 'mankind'."

Agreed, since man has free will. Whether or not there is a personal substance we call 'Satan' does not affect the fundamental fact that we ourselves are responsible for all 'moral evil' in the world.

----------


## weepingforloman

God is not responsible for the actions of humanity (or devils, for that matter) just as a government is not responsible for the actions of individual criminals.

----------


## Unbeliever

> This is a bit of weird one I think. This came to me when I was reading a Philip K. Dick short story about something similer. This is purly hypothetical and I mean no offence.
> 
> *If god is in everything and everyone, does that not make him as much an evil malevolent as a divine benevolent?*
> 
> It just seems to me that evil is as much a thing as good; and something claimed to be _everything_ must surely be both? 
> 
> Thoughts on this random thought?


I was reading just recently, in *Doubt: A History*, that this was a main reason that the religious leaders have always been against pantheism, because they didn't want to have to admit that God is evil as well as good.

----------


## RichardHresko

Unbeliever writes:
"I was reading just recently, in Doubt: A History, that this was a main reason that the religious leaders have always been against pantheism, because they didn't want to have to admit that God is evil as well as good."

I'm not sure which religious leaders are referred to here, but in the Western tradition one should look at Augustine first, since pretty much everything is derived from him. 

A major concern of Augustine's in rejecting pantheism is that he considered it important to maintain a distinction between creator and created, as well as between spiritual and material. Both of these concerns were inspired by his rejection of Manicheanism, and to an extent also by his need to rework the neo-Platonist thoughts he incorporated into his world view. His discussion of the soul's relation to God is given, for example at Soliloquies 1.2.7. 

More to the point of God's not doing evil is discussed in City of God XII.7. In essence, the argument goes that evil is not something that exists but a privation. Thus, to use a well-worn example, 'blindness' does not have a substantial existence but rather describes a state in which there is a lack of vision where one would expect vision (rocks can not be blind). 

If you would give some examples of where religious leaders knew that God did evil but would not 'admit' to this knowledge we can examine and evaluate those specific claims.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I was reading just recently... that this was a main reason that the religious leaders have always been against pantheism, because they didn't want to have to admit that God is evil as well as good.


Nobody wants to "admit" anything that they know is a _flat-out lie_. Religious leaders are "against" pantheism because it's _wrong_ - that's why.

----------


## mike thomas

> God is not responsible for the actions of humanity (or devils, for that matter) just as a government is not responsible for the actions of individual criminals.


the goverment doesn't create all that is. 

the goverment governs with the consent (most often) of the plebians. The plebs 
pay the goverment to look after them...

god on the other hand, creates innocent, uneducated beings, puts them, like children in a candy store, in a garden full of temptation. In that garden god puts a walking talking serpent who's only purpose is to corrupt the innocent.

and here are we, blamed because go was an irresponsible parent.

regards

----------


## Pendragon

> god on the other hand, creates innocent, uneducated beings, puts them, like children in a candy store, in a garden full of temptation. In that garden god puts a walking talking serpent who's only purpose is to corrupt the innocent.
> 
> and here are we, blamed because god was an irresponsible parent.


I hope you will not be offended by my highlights. I'm just glad someone woke up and realized that the Serpent in the garden wasn't what we call a "serpent". Didn't anybody ever catch that in the punishments delt out it was: Genesis 3: [14] And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

Why would he be made to go upon his belly if he were already there?

But Mike, I don't know if you have kids, I have three. You can raise them as best you can, but you cannot control them when temptation strikes. Will they remember what you said, or listen to other voices? God told them "No!" The Serpent moved one word. Instead of saying "Yeah, God hath said..." he said "Yeah, _hath_ God said..." Turning a statement into a question and creating doubt. Eve stuck to her truth. So The Serpent now _adds_ a word. God said, "Ye shall surely die." The Serpent said "Ye shall _not_ surely die, for..." Adding more doubt. Anyone whose been through peer-presure knows where I'm going. See!

God bless

Pen

----------


## mosimo

Additionaly one must also realize God did not want robots but children who loved Him and did His will through free choice. Therefore he gave them a choice and even placed satan there so that they would have a definite choice of either they could follow God or satan. See if God had only placed the tree Adam and Eve would not have had the desire to eat because they had not yet been contaminated therefore God had to place satan as a contrast to Himself and to instill the idea.

----------


## NikolaiI

God is not everywhere, in fact he is a relatively small hermit crab on the beach. A very intelligent one, who dreamed us up one night.

----------


## RichardHresko

> the goverment doesn't create all that is. 
> 
> the goverment governs with the consent (most often) of the plebians. The plebs 
> pay the goverment to look after them...
> 
> god on the other hand, creates innocent, uneducated beings, puts them, like children in a candy store, in a garden full of temptation. In that garden god puts a walking talking serpent who's only purpose is to corrupt the innocent.
> 
> and here are we, blamed because go was an irresponsible parent.
> 
> regards


God gave humans free will. To suggest that he should not have dones so is to say that we should not have been created to be as we are. But we, as is all of creation, are good. So saying we should not have been created as we are is tantamount to saying we are not good, which is a contradiction.

To argue that free will can be used incorrectly and that we therefore should not have it could be applied to other things as well. We can abuse our vision, touch, sexuality, eating, etc. How much should we cut off?

That we are ignorant one can not dispute. That we choose to remain ignorant is no one's responsibility but our own. 

A good place to look that deal directly with these questions is Augustine's _de libero arbitrio_ ("On Free Will (Choice)") Book III.xix.53.

----------


## amanda_isabel

God is everything, but what makes him divine is the balance between it all.  :Smile:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> God is everything, but what makes him divine is the balance between it all.


By "everything" are you including evil? The "balance" concept is very Oriental, but that includes the "dark side." Are you suggesting something similar here?

----------


## RichardHresko

> By "everything" are you including evil? The "balance" concept is very Oriental, but that includes the "dark side." Are you suggesting something similar here?


While I can not speak for amanda_isabel, one argument can be that she means everything that has substantial existence, which would exclude evil from the mix.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> While I can not speak for amanda_isabel, one argument can be that she means everything that has substantial existence, which would exclude evil from the mix.


Evil is that which is contrary to God's character: He cannot "contain" evil within Himself - evil is a new creation that (by the very requirements of freewill and love) must _potentially_ exist.

----------


## RichardHresko

> Evil is that which is contrary to God's character: He cannot "contain" evil within Himself - evil is a new creation that (by the very requirements of freewill and love) must _potentially_ exist.


On the issue of the creation of evil the Church Fathers and Aristotle would disagree. Evil cannot be a true creation since only God can create _ex nihilo_. Evil does not, according to this view, have substantial existence and therefore does not require a 'creator.' You are correct in saying that evil is contrary to God's character. In fact we can go further and say that because of God's essence being Being itself, he cannot contain evil, which is a form of non-being. Evil has no potentiality to exist since it cannot have existence of itself, only in something else. A crude example: a hole in a shirt is a real hole but it does not exist in itself, only in terms of the shirt.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> On the issue of the creation of evil the Church Fathers and Aristotle would disagree. Evil cannot be a true creation since only God can create _ex nihilo_. Evil does not, according to this view, have substantial existence and therefore does not require a 'creator.' You are correct in saying that evil is contrary to God's character. In fact we can go further and say that because of God's essence being Being itself, he cannot contain evil, which is a form of non-being. Evil has no potentiality to exist since it cannot have existence of itself, only in something else. A crude example: a hole in a shirt is a real hole but it does not exist in itself, only in terms of the shirt.


Well said.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"Evil has no potentiality to exist since it cannot have existence of itself, only in something else. A crude example: a hole in a shirt is a real hole but it does not exist in itself, only in terms of the shirt."

Exactly the same could be said of goodness, so it is only a matter of faith or opinion that one can be said to be more real than the other, or that one might be described as a presence and the other as an absence.

Common experience, regardless of the opinions of some Church Fathers, is that evil, like good, is an active driving force, not a mere negative. Shaw(?) commented "for evil to triumph it is sufficient for good men to do nothing." This has the ring of truth, and implies that evil is independent and active.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> "Evil has no potentiality to exist since it cannot have existence of itself, only in something else. A crude example: a hole in a shirt is a real hole but it does not exist in itself, only in terms of the shirt."
> 
> Exactly the same could be said of goodness, so it is only a matter of faith or opinion that one can be said to be more real than the other, or that one might be described as a presence and the other as an absence.
> 
> Common experience, regardless of the opinions of some Church Fathers, is that evil, like good, is an active driving force, not a mere negative. Shaw(?) commented "for evil to triumph it is sufficient for good men to do nothing." This has the ring of truth, and implies that evil is independent and active.


I disagree. C.S. Lewis lays out very nicely in Book II of _Mere Christianity_ the problem with viewing _good_ and _evil_ and rival equals. In short form: bad cannot be bad in the way that good can be good. Most things we call "bad" in this world are not bad people pursuing badness for the sake of eing bad (though it is possible to pursue goodness for the sake of being good) - people who do bad things in this world are generally pursuing some good in a wrong way, for the wrong reason or to an unreasonable extreme. Bad is generally a perversion or degradation of good - not vice versa. Evil is parasite.

Next point: there is nothing positive about evil itself - just because evil can motivate good men to do something good, does not make evil a positive force.

The quotation is by Edmund Burke.

----------


## Tournesol

Hi! I might be able to offer a different stance, the Islamic perspective as to what the good-evil thing is, and what the purpose of evil is in this world. 

So, according to Islam, both Adam and Eve were tempted by Satan [not a snake] in the Garden of Eden. As a punishment, God sent them to the earth, for a time. This time spent on earth is a trial period. God is testing us, humans, to see who is worthy of re-entering Paradise, and those who aren't worthy [who follow Satan] would enter the Hellfire. 

So, while God CREATED satan, and the actions of satan, which are what we call evil, it is a means to an end, a test: it is a test of worthiness and of faith. 
God just wants to know who will be faithful in Him, and who will pray to Him, and believe in Him, and turn away from evil and satan. Those people will be granted paradise. People who follow satan, will go to the hellfire. 

I hope this offers an alternative perspective.

----------


## RichardHresko

> "Evil has no potentiality to exist since it cannot have existence of itself, only in something else. A crude example: a hole in a shirt is a real hole but it does not exist in itself, only in terms of the shirt."
> 
> Exactly the same could be said of goodness, so it is only a matter of faith or opinion that one can be said to be more real than the other, or that one might be described as a presence and the other as an absence.
> 
> Common experience, regardless of the opinions of some Church Fathers, is that evil, like good, is an active driving force, not a mere negative. Shaw(?) commented "for evil to triumph it is sufficient for good men to do nothing." This has the ring of truth, and implies that evil is independent and active.


I don't see how one could in all seriousness maintain that the same could be said of goodness. Are we to believe that every empty space is merely a hole awaiting a shirt?

Common experience also tells us the world is flat, that the sun rises instead of the earth revolving, and that there is such a thing as centrifugal force (there isn't). That some perceive evil as an active driving force is not an argument that evil is such a thing.

----------


## RichardHresko

> Hi! I might be able to offer a different stance, the Islamic perspective as to what the good-evil thing is, and what the purpose of evil is in this world. 
> 
> So, according to Islam, both Adam and Eve were tempted by Satan [not a snake] in the Garden of Eden. As a punishment, God sent them to the earth, for a time. This time spent on earth is a trial period. God is testing us, humans, to see who is worthy of re-entering Paradise, and those who aren't worthy [who follow Satan] would enter the Hellfire. 
> 
> So, while God CREATED satan, and the actions of satan, which are what we call evil, it is a means to an end, a test: it is a test of worthiness and of faith. 
> God just wants to know who will be faithful in Him, and who will pray to Him, and believe in Him, and turn away from evil and satan. Those people will be granted paradise. People who follow satan, will go to the hellfire. 
> 
> I hope this offers an alternative perspective.


Thank you!
Does Islam have a position on God's omniscience? Your post implies that it does not. I am curious also as to the degree Avicenna and Averroes are considered mainstream in Islam now.
Thanks again!

----------


## Tournesol

> God gave humans free will. To suggest that he should not have dones so is to say that we should not have been created to be as we are. But we, as is all of creation, are good. So saying we should not have been created as we are is tantamount to saying we are not good, which is a contradiction.
> 
> To argue that free will can be used incorrectly and that we therefore should not have it could be applied to other things as well. We can abuse our vision, touch, sexuality, eating, etc. How much should we cut off?
> 
> That we are ignorant one can not dispute. That we choose to remain ignorant is no one's responsibility but our own. 
> 
> A good place to look that deal directly with these questions is Augustine's _de libero arbitrio_ ("On Free Will (Choice)") Book III.xix.53.


I find your views to be quite interesting. 
I agree with what you say.
In Islam, the belief is that humans have free will. Here is a quote from a book called 'Towards Understanding Islam' by S.A.A. Mawdudi:

" ‘Islam’ is an Arabic word and connotes submission, surrender, and obedience As a religion, Islam stands for complete submission and obedience to Allah [God] and that is why it is called ‘ISLAM’. 
Everyone can see that the universe we live in is an orderly universe. There is law and order among all the units that comprise this universe. 
EVEN in the human world the laws of nature are quite manifest. Man's birth, growth, and life are all regulated by a set of biological laws. He derives sustenance from nature in accordance with an unalterable law.

Man is so constituted that there are two aspects of his life: two distinct spheres of his activity. One is the sphere in which he finds himself totally regulated by the Divine Law. He cannot budge an inch or move a step away from it. Nor can he evade it in any way or from. In fact, like other creatures, he is completely caught in the grip of the law of nature and is bound to follow it. 

But there is another sphere of his activity as well. 
He has been endowed with reason and intellect. 
He has the power to think and form judgments, to choose and reject, and to adopt and spurn. He is free to adopt whatever course of life chooses. He can embrace any faith, adopt any way of life and formulate his living according to whatever ideologies he likes. He may prepare his own code of conduct or accept one formulated by others. He has been bestowed with free will and can chalk out his own course of behavior. 
In this latter aspect, he, unlike the other creatures, has been given freedom of thought, choice, and action.

Both these aspects distinctly co-exist in man’s life.

In the first he, like all other creatures, is a born Muslim, invariably obeys the injunctions of God, and is bound to remain so. 
As far as the second aspect is concerned, he is free to become or not to become a Muslim. 
Here he has been given the freedom of choice-and it is the way a person exercises this freedom, which divides mankind into two groups: believers and non-believers. 

An individual who chooses to acknowledge his Creator, accepts Him as his real Master, honestly and scrupulously submits to His laws and injunctions and follows the code He has revealed unto man for his individual and social life, thereby becomes a perfect Muslim. 
He has, so to say, achieved completeness in his Islam by consciously deciding to obey God in the domain in which he was endowed with freedom and choice. 

Now his entire life has become one of submission to God and there is no conflict in his personality. He is a perfect Muslim and his Islam is complete-for this submission of his entire self to the will of Allah is Islam and nothing but Islam. 

He has now consciously submitted to Him whom he had already been unconsciously obeying. 
He has now willingly offered obedience to the Master whom he already owed obedience unintentionally. "

Follow the link for the complete book: it's excellent reading!

msite.com/books/tui/tui.html

----------


## Whifflingpin

RH: "Evil has no potentiality to exist since it cannot have existence of itself, only in something else. A crude example: a hole in a shirt is a real hole but it does not exist in itself, only in terms of the shirt."

Whiff: "Exactly the same could be said of goodness, so it is only a matter of faith or opinion that one can be said to be more real than the other, or that one might be described as a presence and the other as an absence."


RH: "I don't see how one could in all seriousness maintain that the same could be said of goodness. Are we to believe that every empty space is merely a hole awaiting a shirt?"

Ha ha - only Douglas Adams would know the answer to that one.
But there is still no particular reason (outside of some reilgious faith) to suppose that goodness has an existence any more or less independent than that of evil. Neither can function in itself - or maybe both can. 


Whiff: "Common experience, regardless of the opinions of some Church Fathers, is that evil, like good, is an active driving force, not a mere negative. Shaw(?) commented "for evil to triumph it is sufficient for good men to do nothing." This has the ring of truth, and implies that evil is independent and active. "

HR: "Common experience also tells us the world is flat, that the sun rises instead of the earth revolving, and that there is such a thing as centrifugal force (there isn't). That some perceive evil as an active driving force is not an argument that evil is such a thing."

Of course it is an argument - not a proof, but at least basis for a working hypothesis. To deny the active power of evil is like denying the roundness of the earth having watched a ship go over the horizon. The evidence of evil is simply not accounted for by regarding evil as an absence or a void.

----------


## RichardHresko

> I find your views to be quite interesting. 
> I agree with what you say.
> In Islam, the belief is that humans have free will. Here is a quote from a book called 'Towards Understanding Islam' by S.A.A. Mawdudi:
> 
> " Islam is an Arabic word and connotes submission, surrender, and obedience As a religion, Islam stands for complete submission and obedience to Allah [God] and that is why it is called ISLAM. 
> Everyone can see that the universe we live in is an orderly universe. There is law and order among all the units that comprise this universe. 
> EVEN in the human world the laws of nature are quite manifest. Man's birth, growth, and life are all regulated by a set of biological laws. He derives sustenance from nature in accordance with an unalterable law.
> 
> Man is so constituted that there are two aspects of his life: two distinct spheres of his activity. One is the sphere in which he finds himself totally regulated by the Divine Law. He cannot budge an inch or move a step away from it. Nor can he evade it in any way or from. In fact, like other creatures, he is completely caught in the grip of the law of nature and is bound to follow it. 
> ...


This is an area in which I see virtually complete agreement between Islam and Christianity. Augustine, in developing his doctrine of free will, argues that true free will is to choose to follow the will of God. The reasoning goes as follows (somewhat simplified, but considering Augustine wrote over 5 million words I hope to be forgiven):
1. we have free will (I won't go into his proof of that, which is contained in _de libero arbitrio_
2. We exercise our free will to get what we desire.
3. we desire happiness.
4. True happiness is obtainable only from that which is eternally good and true and beautiful.
5. True happiness is therefore obtainable only by turning (technical term 'convertio' = converting ) to God.
6. Thus when we exercise our will in any other direction it is not truly our free will but an error in will. Just as tripping is not a voluntary motion.

True freedom, according to Augustine, is when we freely submit to God.
I look forward to reading the book you referenced. Thanks!

----------


## RichardHresko

> RH: "Evil has no potentiality to exist since it cannot have existence of itself, only in something else. A crude example: a hole in a shirt is a real hole but it does not exist in itself, only in terms of the shirt."
> 
> Whiff: "Exactly the same could be said of goodness, so it is only a matter of faith or opinion that one can be said to be more real than the other, or that one might be described as a presence and the other as an absence."
> 
> 
> RH: "I don't see how one could in all seriousness maintain that the same could be said of goodness. Are we to believe that every empty space is merely a hole awaiting a shirt?"
> 
> Ha ha - only Douglas Adams would know the answer to that one.
> But there is still no particular reason (outside of some reilgious faith) to suppose that goodness has an existence any more or less independent than that of evil. Neither can function in itself - or maybe both can. 
> ...


The neo-Platonists, among others, argued on philosophical grounds that goodness has substantial existence while evil is a privation, and therefore lacks substantial existence.

I disagree that, "The evidence of evil is simply not accounted for by regarding evil as an absence or a void." Consider the following: why does a man commit evil? It can be argued on perfectly sound philosophical grounds that he does so either because of ignorance (traditional Platonist) and therefore there is a lack of knowledge, or that the person possesses a will that is corrupted (more neo-Platonist), which is also a lack of a properly function will. To deny substantial existence to evil is not to say that there is no evil, only that evil is not a thing.

One argument for the positive existence of goodness and non-substantive nature of evil:
1. Existence is good. (This could be a separate argument, but consider that to argue the contrary is to maintain that the entire universe is evil.)
2. When something is corrupted it becomes less good, and is less of what it was.
3. If something becomes entirely corrupted it becomes not good at all, but also non-existent.

----------


## byquist

God, as infinite and incontestable good, precludes evil; God is not in a competition with an alternate power. We may feel this a lot, occasionally, almost never, or never.

The human mind only grasps and credits God's absoluteness and totality in occasional moments (thus, "through a glass darkly"); but, some people can extend it into an ongoing and repeated basis (thus, "now I know even as also I am known").

----------


## Whifflingpin

HR: "When something is corrupted it becomes less good, and is less of what it was."

For something to become corrupted, there must be a corruptor.

----------


## RRuiz

> This is a bit of weird one I think. This came to me when I was reading a Philip K. Dick short story about something similer. This is purly hypothetical and I mean no offence.
> 
> *If god is in everything and everyone, does that not make him as much an evil malevolent as a divine benevolent?*
> 
> It just seems to me that evil is as much a thing as good; and something claimed to be _everything_ must surely be both? 
> 
> Thoughts on this random thought?


egh.. i don't really know but in a way it woudl seem liek he can be both but mostly good.

----------


## RichardHresko

> HR: "When something is corrupted it becomes less good, and is less of what it was."
> 
> For something to become corrupted, there must be a corruptor.


When speaking of moral corruption, the agent is free will that has been perverted. Here I am using 'perverted' in the technical sense, in that the will is directed away from that which will make the person happy. One need not posit an embodiment of evil as the agent of evil.

----------


## Thinkerr

I agree with fisher of men. The way I see it God is perfect and only good. Bad things happen because disobey the laws of God or it is a test. Its like if you give your kid only good stuff and everything he wants, he won't turn out very well. Hard times train our minds and souls to become better. The soldier that comes home from war, will always resist a nobody-important-got-hurt attitude because he saw people die in front of him. Nobody is unimportant to him. God allows the devil to hurt us to help us grow stronger and become more like Him. He wants us to know both good and evil so we can chooses the good.

----------


## the silent x

i will agree with most of that thinkerr, i believe that many bad things happen just because it happened, not because God was trying to test us, that makes God look like a school teacher who is uncertain as to whether we have learned a lesson. he is not uncertain, he is certain we are what we are because he is omniscient and can see everything about you no matter how you try to hide it. he may twist a few things in life to help us achieve a goal in his name, but not much more than that.

----------


## RichardHresko

> i will agree with most of that thinkerr, i believe that many bad things happen just because it happened, not because God was trying to test us, that makes God look like a school teacher who is uncertain as to whether we have learned a lesson. he is not uncertain, he is certain we are what we are because he is omniscient and can see everything about you no matter how you try to hide it. he may twist a few things in life to help us achieve a goal in his name, but not much more than that.


Given what you say is true, doesn't that imply that bad things don't just happen, but that he allows them to happen? And therefore, wouldn't it be also true that there would therefore have to be some purpose in everything that happens? This does not undermine your argument, but rather gives it some additional possibilities.

----------


## Thinkerr

Silent X- most of the bad things in the world happen not because God isn't sure we have learned our lesson, but because we our now stronger and can endure different, harder lessons to teach us different more valuable things.

----------


## RichardHresko

> Silent X- most of the bad things in the world happen not because God isn't sure we have learned our lesson, but because we our now stronger and can endure different, harder lessons to teach us different more valuable things.


There seem to be two types of bad things -- natural bad things like earthquakes, and moral bad things like murder. The former can be argued to be only bad from a rather narrow perspective, and good from a broader point of view. For example, one may feel that a shark is bad because it occasionally eats people, but really the shark is good because it exists.

Moral evil is the result of free will that is turmed from its true freedom and selects a good that is inferior. For example, a person who steals is valuing money or some item more than the better good of honesty.

In this scheme of things moral evil is not chosen by god but is rather the consequence of our own actions and will.

----------


## Thinkerr

I would argue that the natural bad things God commands are "trials". They are bad in that they usually kill or hurt people, but the people who come out of these disasters are better than before a "trial". The moral bad things God does not dirrectly order, but rather allows to happen, like a child learning not to put it's hand on the stove by being burnt.

----------


## RichardHresko

> I would argue that the natural bad things God commands are "trials". They are bad in that they usually kill or hurt people, but the people who come out of these disasters are better than before a "trial". The moral bad things God does not dirrectly order, but rather allows to happen, like a child learning not to put it's hand on the stove by being burnt.


It has been argued that there are no natural bad things, since all things are made by God, and God is, by definition, good. Thus things can only appear to be bad.

I am more inclined to agree with your stance on moral evil. Especially since you imply that the evil brings misery on itself.

----------


## sonofaslan

Allow me to quote Lewis...

"If evil has the same kind of reality as good, the same autonomy and completeness, our allegiance to god becomes the arbitrarily chosen loyalty of a partisan. A sound theory of value demands something different. It demands that good should be original and evil a mere perversion; that good should be the tree and evil the ivy; that good should be able to see all round evil (as when sane men understand lunacy) while evil cannot retaliate in kind; that good should be able to exist on its own while evil requires the good on which it is parasitic in order to continue its parasitic existence."

This is the Christian perspective.

----------


## kari

I just wanted to add my two cents on the topic...even though it may not be much different than what has already been mentioned. I agree with a lot of what has been said, but wanted to add the idea of free agency into it. For what has been last discussed in this thread, I think it is important to remember free agency when it comes to bad things happening to us that come directly or indirectly from other people. We have the free agency to choose right from wrong, just as everyone else does...and if you flip on the news, it is obviously there are a lot of people choosing the wrong. I agree that God allows it to happen, simply because He can't take away one persons right to choose, and not anothers (in the sense that it would defeat the purpose of being here). As for natural disaster type of things, I do think God tests us in a way. But moreso to make us better people. I think His intention is to help us learn something that we need to know, but that could also go with the trials inflicted on us by others. I have before found myself going through a rough patch, when I had already experienced something similar, not long prior. I eventually realize there was more to learn than what I got out of the first experience. And plus, how can we truly value, appreciate, and choose the good things if we don't know how the bad feels?

----------


## RichardHresko

> I just wanted to add my two cents on the topic...even though it may not be much different than what has already been mentioned. I agree with a lot of what has been said, but wanted to add the idea of free agency into it. For what has been last discussed in this thread, I think it is important to remember free agency when it comes to bad things happening to us that come directly or indirectly from other people. We have the free agency to choose right from wrong, just as everyone else does...and if you flip on the news, it is obviously there are a lot of people choosing the wrong. I agree that God allows it to happen, simply because He can't take away one persons right to choose, and not anothers (in the sense that it would defeat the purpose of being here). As for natural disaster type of things, I do think God tests us in a way. But moreso to make us better people. I think His intention is to help us learn something that we need to know, but that could also go with the trials inflicted on us by others. I have before found myself going through a rough patch, when I had already experienced something similar, not long prior. I eventually realize there was more to learn than what I got out of the first experience. And plus, how can we truly value, appreciate, and choose the good things if we don't know how the bad feels?


I agree with you over all, though I am not so sure that we need the bad to appreciate the good. But that is a minor point.

In the Christian tradition the ability that God bestows on people to become better is referred to as 'grace.'

----------


## Rockin462

4. True happiness is obtainable only from that which is eternally good and true and beautiful.
5. True happiness is therefore obtainable only by turning (technical term 'convertio' = converting ) to God.

This is true if you believe what you've read or been told. But what if you don't?
Is there really forces pulling people one direction or another? Good and evil, God and Satan, only exist because you think them to. 
Religions were created as Laws for Society. 
God was created as an answer for what we had no answer for. 
Man has manipulated the laws and their God to get what they desire. 
Mostly, I believe, the majority of people can not fathom non existance after death. To them if they do not continue to live, they lose faith in life. Thus they must believe in the continuation of life after death.
The good and the evil is in what we do. Heaven and hell is found in how we live our lives. 
Yes we all desire happiness. We all have our own perception of what happiness is and how it can be achieved. Happiness can be found in everything, it's how it is perceived by the individual, be it considered by others as good or evil.
We are born greedy. Capable of all things, but unable to acheive them until we grow. As we grow we see what we do, hear what we do, our senses and our perceptions shape us. Once we have grown physically, we are able to decide as our experiences teach us or don't. We have the ability to change, as we desire. Some never learn, most do.

----------


## RichardHresko

> 4. True happiness is obtainable only from that which is eternally good and true and beautiful.
> 5. True happiness is therefore obtainable only by turning (technical term 'convertio' = converting ) to God.
> 
> This is true if you believe what you've read or been told. But what if you don't?
> Is there really forces pulling people one direction or another? Good and evil, God and Satan, only exist because you think them to. 
> Religions were created as Laws for Society. 
> God was created as an answer for what we had no answer for. 
> Man has manipulated the laws and their God to get what they desire. 
> Mostly, I believe, the majority of people can not fathom non existance after death. To them if they do not continue to live, they lose faith in life. Thus they must believe in the continuation of life after death.
> ...


Let's consider whether statements 4 and 5 quoted above can be understood as true without any claim to authority. 

Statement 4 reads: "4. True happiness is obtainable only from that which is eternally good and true and beautiful."

Note that the discussion is limited to "true" happiness, not happiness in general. What distinguishes true happiness from other kinds of happiness? Other kinds of happiness are always connected (ultimately) with pain -- even the best ends. Your loved one dies, you grow sick, and so on. Dennis Leary makes this point in his comedy performance "No Cure for Cancer." To have a true happiness would be to have a happiness that does NOT end. Thus the conclusion follows.

One can conclude, as Leary does, that there is no such possibility for us. In which case statement 4 is still true, but we would conclude that it is unobtainable.

Let's consider statement 5 now: "True happiness is therefore obtainable only by turning (technical term 'convertio' = converting ) to God."
Given that statement 4 is logically consistent, we can identify true happiness with attempting to be joined with that which is good, true, beautiful and unchanging. A being that has being as its essence is, philosophically speaking, the only one that matches that description. Such a being is labelled 'God'. This statement does NOT have built into it any particular religious 'God', but merely designates that being which has those attributes. 

Once again, if one concludes that there is no God (which is an entirely different consideration) the consequence would be that true happiness, as defined above, is unobtainable. The internal validity of the logic is, however, left intact.

The truth values of the statements are independent of the individual's beliefs.

In considering the remainder of the post I am reminded of the line, I believe by Voltaire, "If God did not exist we would have to invent him. That, coupled with the line (I forget the source) "God was created in our own image and likeness," seem to match the sentiment.

----------


## Kiba

Well (my own opinnion for this theme) God is not really ultimate goodness couse , if you watched the movies readed bible or something like that you can se how manny people God really killed...right? So is killing bad? God did it why cant we? 
i mean i beleve in God and Christ and Holy spirit , and i pray and go to Church and cant wait to die to see what will hapen to me ( my soul ) , but i just wanted to see your comments on this . 
Dont take me wrong i dont judge anyone and anything i just posted this Fact.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"To have a true happiness would be to have a happiness that does NOT end. "
That is an arbitrary and unnecessary definition. Maybe transitoriness is an essential element of happiness.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Well (my own opinnion for this theme) God is not really ultimate goodness couse , if you watched the movies readed bible or something like that you can se how manny people God really killed...right? So is killing bad? God did it why cant we? 
> i mean i beleve in God and Christ and Holy spirit , and i pray and go to Church and cant wait to die to see what will hapen to me ( my soul ) , but i just wanted to see your comments on this . 
> Dont take me wrong i dont judge anyone and anything i just posted this Fact.



God did it so why can't I? That's like a 6-year old saying "Dad drives a car, shoots a gun, uses a credit card and is married - can't I do the same?" God - as creator of all - has more prerogatives than we (His creations) do. As well, we make a big deal out of the deaths that God commissioned, as if God's values _must_ be ours or something is wrong with Him. Has it ever occurred to people that perhaps God's value of life may not exactly coincide with ours because He is less concerned with our life on this earth than He is with our life in the Hereafter?

----------


## RichardHresko

> "To have a true happiness would be to have a happiness that does NOT end. "
> That is an arbitrary and unnecessary definition. Maybe transitoriness is an essential element of happiness.


The definition is not arbitrary for the following reason. If the happiness is true, it is not mixed with anything else. If something makes us happy and we know we will be spearated from it at some point, then there will be a mixture of feeling, since we would feel some sadness or regret at the loss.

It is not clear how you would build transitoriness into a definition of what the essence of happiness is. 

If you wish to argue that there is nothing that can provide true happiness as given above, that is possible. But then you would not be arguing that the definition is arbitrary.

It is not clear what is "unnecessary" about the definition. Is it that we all agree about happiness (your answer suggest not), or that it includes unnecessary terms? The latter point has been addressed.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"If the happiness is true, it is not mixed with anything else."

Maybe happiness is an alloy, and cannot otherwise be "true happiness" I think, for instance, of that satisfaction of a long marriage, where the weathered storms, and the certainty of future challenges, deepen the shared content.


"It is not clear how you would build transitoriness into a definition of what the essence of happiness is."
I had in mind my first taste of wild strawberries, an instant experience of startling joy, not to be prolonged or repeated or forgotten.

I don't know, but I am deeply suspicious of the deadness of your certainties.

----------


## RichardHresko

> "If the happiness is true, it is not mixed with anything else."
> 
> Maybe happiness is an alloy, and cannot otherwise be "true happiness" I think, for instance, of that satisfaction of a long marriage, where the weathered storms, and the certainty of future challenges, deepen the shared content.
> 
> 
> "It is not clear how you would build transitoriness into a definition of what the essence of happiness is."
> I had in mind my first taste of wild strawberries, an instant experience of startling joy, not to be prolonged or repeated or forgotten.
> 
> I don't know, but I am deeply suspicious of the deadness of your certainties.


Notice that when you bring in the example of a long marriage you naturally shifted from "happiness" to "satisfaction" which may be a different thing. Also, I think that the happiness in weathering a storm such as say, the death of a child, is not unalloyed for obvious reasons. 

In considering the case of wild strawberries, while there is no doubt that that is a happy event, the problem here is that the event is very limited. In a sense it suffers from the opposite problem of the marriage example.

Perhaps it is the adjective "true" here that's the problem. We could also refer to the type of happiness referred to in the definition as "complete" or "ultimate" or "perfect" without doing violence to the terminology.

I am not sure about the "deadness of [my] certainties." Notice that all I have done is strung together some definitions that are logically consistent. I have nowhere stated, let alone proved, either that true happiness exists, or that God exists, or that even if God exists that there would exist a means by which we could in a meaningful way make God the center of our happiness. All I have done is shown that if we accept certain premises and definitions (based on what is presumed to be reasonable conditions) that certain consequences follow. Nothing more.

----------


## hellsapoppin

_If god is in everything and everyone, does that not make him as much an evil malevolent as a divine benevolent?_


In Isaiah 45:7 God expressly states that he is the exclusive creator of ALL evil.

In many cultures the root for the word ''god'' is the same as that for the number two. This is because humanity has long recognized that god has a dual nature. So, yes, he is both good and evil.

----------


## RichardHresko

> _If god is in everything and everyone, does that not make him as much an evil malevolent as a divine benevolent?_
> 
> 
> In Isaiah 45:7 God expressly states that he is the exclusive creator of ALL evil.
> 
> In many cultures the root for the word ''god'' is the same as that for the number two. This is because humanity has long recognized that god has a dual nature. So, yes, he is both good and evil.


The version you refer to is the KJV. The NIV uses the word "disaster" instead of evil. Here we need to refer back to the Hebrew text. the Hebrew word here, "rah" can mean "calamity" and "disaster" and "to break" as well as "evil." 

In addition, in the context of the verses we are looking at God as the author of things in the natural world. Thus he is the author of everything, including what are referred to as "natural evils" such as earthquakes. This does not apply to moral evil.

----------


## weepingforloman

Exactly right. If you wish to get technical, of course God is the creator of evil- in that, He created everything, and some beings, through exercise of will (I will not say free will for reasons I have stated before), do evil. But God Himself does not do anything that is morally wrong.

----------


## hellsapoppin

``This does not apply to moral evil.``

That is incorrect.

Go to www.blueletterbible.org for a complete translation and explanation for every verse, word, or concept in the Bible. 

See http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/l...51&Version=kjv

for the definition of ''evil'' as shown in Isaiah 45:7. It clearly shows that god creates ALL evil or '' ra' '' {word H7451} and defines/illustrates it as such:


bad, evil

a) bad, disagreeable, malignant

b) bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)

c) evil, displeasing

d) bad (of its kind - land, water, etc)

e) bad (of value)

f) worse than, worst (comparison)

g) sad, unhappy

h) evil (hurtful)

i) bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)

j) bad, evil, wicked (ethically)

1) in general, of persons, of thoughts

2) deeds, actions



Therefore, contrary to your belief, god does create ALL evil including moral evil. I fully realize this is not taught in churches. However, it is clearly taught in the Bible.

----------


## RichardHresko

> ``This does not apply to moral evil.``
> 
> That is incorrect.
> 
> Go to www.blueletterbible.org for a complete translation and explanation for every verse, word, or concept in the Bible. 
> 
> See http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/l...51&Version=kjv
> 
> for the definition of ''evil'' as shown in Isaiah 45:7. It clearly shows that god creates ALL evil or '' ra' '' {word H7451} and defines/illustrates it as such:
> ...


Of all the definitions listed only "j" is moral evil. The "all" in the verse does not refer to all types of evil, including moral, but all natural evil.

A second difficulty in interpreting the verse as God creating moral evil is that such evil does not have substantial existence, but is rather a deficit in goodness.

A third difficulty is that the proposed interpretation is in conflict with the rest of the Bible.

----------


## hellsapoppin

``` but all natural evil ```

And what is that source?

The Bible tells us that which is of flesh is flesh, that which is of spirit is spirit. This means that something can only come from its source. Therefore, evil can only come from evil.

And as you know from reading Isaiah 45:7, there is only ONE source for that evil.

----------


## RichardHresko

> ``` but all natural evil ```
> 
> And what is that source?
> 
> The Bible tells us that which is of flesh is flesh, that which is of spirit is spirit. This means that something can only come from its source. Therefore, evil can only come from evil.
> 
> And as you know from reading Isaiah 45:7, there is only ONE source for that evil.


Look at Isaiah 45:5-12. Clearly God is referring to natural events, and even within verse 7 he talks of creating light and darkness. 

Once again, the same three difficulties apply. Picking a verse out of context does not work as a rule.

Evil, according to the Bible, entered because of the sin of Adam and Eve, of their own free will. Not by the act of God.

----------


## weepingforloman

Perhaps some theological thought is necessary here. I feel that, due to the nature of the problem and my experience with certain theological viewpoints, I can produce a solution; however, I claim no real authority, and of course I expect disagreement.
According to Calvin (and this verse seems particularly Calvinist, no?), all instances of goodness are instances of grace. When a man does a good thing, it is because God causes him to do so. It therefore follows that, when a man (or devil) does a BAD thing, it is due to the absence of grace. Therefore, when evil occurs it is, in a sense, due to God's action, or rather, inaction. I hope I haven't just written a tangled mess of non-logic, I'm home sick today and might not be thinking clearly.

----------


## RichardHresko

> Perhaps some theological thought is necessary here. I feel that, due to the nature of the problem and my experience with certain theological viewpoints, I can produce a solution; however, I claim no real authority, and of course I expect disagreement.
> According to Calvin (and this verse seems particularly Calvinist, no?), all instances of goodness are instances of grace. When a man does a good thing, it is because God causes him to do so. It therefore follows that, when a man (or devil) does a BAD thing, it is due to the absence of grace. Therefore, when evil occurs it is, in a sense, due to God's action, or rather, inaction. I hope I haven't just written a tangled mess of non-logic, I'm home sick today and might not be thinking clearly.


I think that you are on the right track. However there seems to be a missing piece here: free will. Grace is bestowed by God to help man exercise his free will correctly (and thereby be truly free). However, the ultimate choice of doing good or evil is made by that free will, and not by God. 

The second part of your post leads us to a very dark area for both Calvin and Augustine: predestination. The reasoning runs like this: Grace is a gift from God in his mercy, we don't deserve it. God chooses to bestow grace on only some people. Those who recive it have the power to have faith, do good things, etc. and be saved. This _implies_ that God has predestined some to be damned. This remains implied in Augustine (as far as I know) and is explicit in Calvinism.

----------


## Thinkerr

On the issue of predestination. This is not a case of God condemning some people to be damned; it is a case of God knowing some people will be damned. There is a difference. People have free will in that they must choose between being saved or ignoring God and going to hell. No person cannot be saved. Everyone has a chance at salvation from hell. God only knows whether or not they will accept his grace. He does not remove the ability to escape his wrath, he knows some will not use that ability.

----------


## Wintermute

Hi Thinkerr,

*"God only knows whether or not they will accept his grace. He does not remove the ability to escape his wrath, he knows some will not use that ability."*

Does that really make sense to you? Are there in fact folks that have escaped his/her/its wrath? Is there a person that God knows is going to hell the day he or she is born, that doesn't actually go to hell? If this is the case, then he/she/it doesn't know everything. By saying "some will not use that ability", you are implying that some will, no? Curious how this doesn't bother folks of faith. I makes no sense at all to me.

----------


## RichardHresko

> On the issue of predestination. This is not a case of God condemning some people to be damned; it is a case of God knowing some people will be damned. There is a difference. People have free will in that they must choose between being saved or ignoring God and going to hell. No person cannot be saved. Everyone has a chance at salvation from hell. God only knows whether or not they will accept his grace. He does not remove the ability to escape his wrath, he knows some will not use that ability.


I think the problem here is whether or not people have the CHOICE of being saved. That is not necessarily the case. While people have free will, they may not have the ABILITY to exercise that free will to gain salvation.

The issue of predestination is separable from God's omniscience. Predestination has to do with whether or not God does in fact withhold his grace from any individual. If he does, then that person will lack the ability to use his will to have faith and to choose a path leading to salvation.

----------


## hellsapoppin

``Clearly God is referring to natural events, and even within verse 7 he talks of creating light and darkness. ```

You need to look at the definition of the words used and you will find them in the link I provided. Nothing you have said shows any reference that would refute what appears in my link.

``people have free will``


Abortion victims do not have free will.

----------


## mazHur

I am flabbergasted to see that some friends are trying to justify evil by splitting up into categories! That sounds funny as Evil is Evil by whatever name you call it. And , it's simple to get at the meaning of ''all'',,,,,,,,All is All, absolute, full, total, complete,etc
if Evil and good could be divided into categories, i am afraid the proponents of hierarchy of evil would then insist on dividing God into more than a Unity!

----------


## hellsapoppin

The Bible tells us that god is ''omnipresent'' and ''omniscient'' . This means he is always present everywhere at every time. Moreover, it means he knows everything at all times under all circumstances. Therefore, he was present at the Fall in the Garden of Eden and he knew fully well that it would happen. 

To say he is not responsible for evil is actually an attempt to limit his powers. But, since Christian adherents are not taught this essential truth, they assume as their teachers say, that god is not and cannot possibly be responsible for the Fall or for the existence of evil. Thus, they are inadvertently limiting their own god and this is what's actually blasphemous.

Don't know that this answers your question but I hope it gets you to consider what I have written.

----------


## mazHur

good question. 
God is all ,,,He is the Lord of good and evil but evil is not done by him: it's the will the devil or men possess which does it.

----------


## weepingforloman

> I think that you are on the right track. However there seems to be a missing piece here: free will. Grace is bestowed by God to help man exercise his free will correctly (and thereby be truly free). However, the ultimate choice of doing good or evil is made by that free will, and not by God. 
> 
> The second part of your post leads us to a very dark area for both Calvin and Augustine: predestination. The reasoning runs like this: Grace is a gift from God in his mercy, we don't deserve it. God chooses to bestow grace on only some people. Those who recive it have the power to have faith, do good things, etc. and be saved. This _implies_ that God has predestined some to be damned. This remains implied in Augustine (as far as I know) and is explicit in Calvinism.


I am aware, in fact, that is my point. God is sovereign: all things that happen happen because He allows them to. Ultimately, if you want to disparage predestination, you have to consider this question: did I do anything to earn salvation for myself? If you say that you chose to accept Christ of your own volition, then you have to ask, why? Is it because you are better than those who refuse to? I think the answer must emphatically be "no." If you deny God's predestination, you deny that He alone saves. If you deny Him His predestination, you deny Him the right to exercise both His mercy (in His special grace, by which He saves) or His justice (by choosing not to save some and issue just punishment).



> On the issue of predestination. This is not a case of God condemning some people to be damned; it is a case of God knowing some people will be damned. There is a difference. People have free will in that they must choose between being saved or ignoring God and going to hell. No person cannot be saved. Everyone has a chance at salvation from hell. God only knows whether or not they will accept his grace. He does not remove the ability to escape his wrath, he knows some will not use that ability.


This is incorrect, at least if we would stay with Calvin. Others have suggested it, but he (in his _Institutes of the Christian Religion_) repeatedly denies it. 

Yes, everyone does have a chance at salvation, but none would take it outside of God's good pleasure.

----------


## hellsapoppin

People on this forum have again succumbed to the mistaken ''Christian'' notion that predestination does not exist or is not divinely ordained. Obviously, it is because they have not read the Bible which clearly states that predestination is a fact --- one that CANNOT be overturned by human agency.

Romans 8:29, 30 reports:

_For whom he did foreknow, he did also predestinate to be conformed to the image of his son ... moreover, whom he did call he also glorified._

See also Ephesian 1:5 which reads:

_Having predestined us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him_.


As before, the problem is that Christians do not read nor understand what is in the Bible. Instead, they allow others to read and preach erroneous ''christian'' doctrine to them.

----------


## mazHur

Hmmm,,,,,,

I think fate or predestination is also a manifestation of God. If we are not governed by fate then why do things go wrong even when done properly or not even done? Why do we have to forget when the so-called strange or mysterious things happen to us ?

----------


## Whifflingpin

"the problem is that Christians do not read nor understand what is in the Bible. "

1 Corinthians 15 v22 et seq.
"For as in Adam all died, so in Christ shall all be made alive"

Not all at once, the following verses say, but finally there will be no death, so all will be alive.

If there is predestination, therefore, it is that all are predestined to be saved.

----------


## mazHur

it appears to be rather paradoxical. Why Jesus had to die on the cross if all were augured to live after his demise, and why gradually? I think we ought not to take these words literally but metaphorically 
Why Jesus be blamed to carry sins of others on his shoulders? Atleast, I wouldn't like to be that selfish

----------


## sandris

Well thats a good question, but a lot simpler than it seems. God is good ! we all know that and evil is the absence of God. God isn't evil!!!

----------


## weepingforloman

> "the problem is that Christians do not read nor understand what is in the Bible. "
> 
> 1 Corinthians 15 v22 et seq.
> "For as in Adam all died, so in Christ shall all be made alive"
> 
> Not all at once, the following verses say, but finally there will be no death, so all will be alive.
> 
> If there is predestination, therefore, it is that all are predestined to be saved.


Whiff- the "all" does not refer to all mankind. Paul sometimes uses it to refer only to the community of believers- it is clear that his shift is from the universal "all" to the we-who-are-in-Christ "all." If it was the truly universal "all," then what are we to make of Christ's repeated statements that there WILL be those who reject Him and enter into damnation?




> it appears to be rather paradoxical. Why Jesus had to die on the cross if all were augured to live after his demise, and why gradually? I think we ought not to take these words literally but metaphorically 
> Why Jesus be blamed to carry sins of others on his shoulders? Atleast, I wouldn't like to be that selfish


Christ is not _blamed_ for our sins, but in His death He _atoned_ for our sins. If we imagine our sins to be a debt, then Christ is a friend who pays it for us.

----------


## mazHur

I don't think there is anyone in the world who rejects Jesus; the only difference is in his attribution to God. If God is one then How could he be confounded in Trinity?? And, why should Jesus pay our 'debts''?

----------


## Whifflingpin

Originally Posted by Whifflingpin 
""the problem is that Christians do not read nor understand what is in the Bible. "

1 Corinthians 15 v22 et seq.
"For as in Adam all died, so in Christ shall all be made alive"

Not all at once, the following verses say, but finally there will be no death, so all will be alive.

If there is predestination, therefore, it is that all are predestined to be saved." 

Originally Posted by Weepingforloman "Whiff- the "all" does not refer to all mankind. Paul sometimes uses it to refer only to the community of believers- it is clear that his shift is from the universal "all" to the we-who-are-in-Christ "all." If it was the truly universal "all," then what are we to make of Christ's repeated statements that there WILL be those who reject Him and enter into damnation?"

The shift that you claim is not clear at all, in fact it can only be arrived at by a severe distortion of sense and meaning. It is also in contradiction to the following verses. Paul deliberately describes a three stage order of resurrection - first Christ, second "they that are Christ's at his coming" (possibly the same as you mean by "we-who-are-in-Christ") and finally everyone else, because death will be destroyed.

Damnation is not precluded, in this passage, but it is declared not to be permanent.

----------


## mazHur

By your logic, good and bad become one and the bad have the blanket to do whatever they liked ! Amazing !

----------


## hellsapoppin

> 1 Corinthians 15 v22 et seq.
> "For as in Adam all died, so in Christ shall all be made alive"
> 
> If there is predestination, therefore, it is that all are predestined to be saved.



See again, ''Having predestined us in him *before the foundation* of the world''.

Thus, even before the world was created, god already knew that the Fall would take place in the Garden of Eden and who would eventually be saved. Therefore, he was the actual creater of evil and has predetermined who will be saved.

----------


## Whifflingpin

mazHur: "By your logic, good and bad become one and the bad have the blanket to do whatever they liked ! Amazing !"

By our standards, saints may be very good, and sinners may be very evil. Compared, however, with the goodness of God or the evil of Satan, the difference between a very good human and a very bad one is not great - certainly not so great as to grant eternal bliss to one and eternal pain to another.

And, of course, you have not read what I said - "Damnation is not precluded, in this passage, but it is declared not to be permanent." So, the bad may be punished, but not for ever. 





__________________

----------


## mazHur

Damnation for committing a crime on earth could be life imprisonment or hanging till death then we have no reason to expect lesser punishment in heaven for those who have committed murder,rape or suicide attacks etc 
If we opiate our thoughts with the idea that there will be no retribution for our deeds in heaven then the need for good and bad would lose its very meaning !

----------


## Whifflingpin

"If we opiate our thoughts with the idea that there will be no retribution for our deeds in heaven then the need for good and bad would lose its very meaning !"

You may think that - I think it means something to do good for love of God rather than for fear of punishment. The Christian message, at the back of all its stories, mythology and dogma, is that God has love enough to overcome all our failings and wickedness. 

Whatever the truth, at the end of time, it will be God, the merciful, the compassionate, who decides what happpens to all of us.

----------


## mazHur

so, you mean to say ALL of it is guesswork ?

God is a mixture of all things --- love and retribution included. God doesn't have one side only so selfishly and undeservedly sought for by the human beings and blamed on God or Jesus !

----------


## Whifflingpin

"so, you mean to say ALL of it is guesswork ?"

I'm not sure how you get this from what I have written. I think it is all a question of believing what seems to make sense to us. Your sense of justice leads you to believe that humans can commit evil that is unforgivable through all eternity. My sense of proportion does not allow me to believe that. It was, perhaps, unfair of me to point out that only God knows the answer, but yes, it is worth remembering that we are, at worst, only guessing. 


"God is a mixture of all things --- love and retribution included."
Well, maybe, but have you noticed that most people who say that also believe that they will receive the love and others will get the retribution? OK that's unfair too - so I think I've said as much as I can in this bit of discussion.

Ushta te

----------


## mazHur

here you can find contradictions in the teachings of Bible,,,,,, the editors of Bible have made it all confusing!

try this link: http://www.answers.com/topic/an-eye-for-an-eye

Excerpt from the link:
eye for an eye, an

Punishment in which the offender suffers what the victim has suffered, exact retribution, as in Joe believed in an eye for an eye; stealing his client would have to be avenged. This idiom is a quotation from the Bible, which has "Life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth" (Deuteronomy 19:21); the idea is contradicted in the New Testament (see turn the other cheek).

----------


## Whifflingpin

So - you have the choice, vengeance or forgiveness - but you'd have that choice with or without the Bible.

Which of the two does your religion's book favour?

----------


## mazHur

> So - you have the choice, vengeance or forgiveness - but you'd have that choice with or without the Bible.
> 
> Which of the two does your religion's book favour?


my religion?? Okay, let me tell you : my religion says ''forgive if you can as first preference ; if you cannot then take only that much revenge which commensurates with the hurt, but no more !"" this is what the Quran says.

As I said earlier, I am not a religious man and not an expert either on Bible , the Quran or the Geeta. However, God has given commonsense to evaluate most of the things
here is a link for more info on 'forgiveness''etc
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/358

----------


## hellsapoppin

Bottom line is that, contrary to Christian teaching, the biblical god has duality meaning that he is both good and evil.

----------


## crazefest456

> Bottom line is that, contrary to Christian teaching, the biblical god has duality meaning that he is both good and evil.


uh...how?

----------


## mazHur

GOD IS not EVIL. 

Only in the Zoroastrian religion do we have god splitted into two: Ishwar---good god and Ehrman---god of evil. But, then, how many followers of that religion do you have in the world? Almost the same concept exists in the creed of magis.
Hinduism and Islam allocate good and bad characterstics or traits to God or Allah. For example , they say if god is kind and compassionate he's also at the same time avenging and destroyer. If you try to interpret these traits you will note that these relate to acts of god rather than god himself.

----------


## crazefest456

the so-called bad charachteristics associated with Allah are not truly "bad".
"The destroyer": Al-Mumit actually means one who brings death, meaning everyone's going to die one day. And death is necessary for us to move on to the after life, right?

----------


## hellsapoppin

``uh...how?``

See above.

----------


## mazHur

Oh, you catch my tongue. I gave just one example. Allah has 99 attributes. Check them out.

Allah says ''all that happens to you is from Me.'' How then then you explain that good and bad doesnt come from Allah?? Also, Allah says ""wa to zilla mantasha wato izzo mantasha"" (Quran) that is disgrace and honor is brought by ME'' ,,,,,,,,doesnt it mean all that happens is the outcome of various attributes of Allah or God??

----------


## crazefest456

disgrace and honor to people who deserve it, one of the 99 is "the Just"...
I still don't believe the 99 show any "bad"...I don't know..

----------


## hellsapoppin

According to the Koran 91:8, Allah creates all evil as well.

----------


## crazefest456

yes, it means he creates evil to give man and jinn the CHOICE.
it doesn't mean He himself is evil...

----------


## mazHur

Okay if He's not evil then where did evil come from?
How come Iblees have the guts to know before Allah created Adam that Adam would spread unrest in the world??

Poppin, how do you explain your point in ref to Quran 
here is the verse quoted by you

http://www.thetruecall.com/home/Quran_Chapter_91:8.htm

poppin , you have given a patently wrong reference,
the site says
Transliteration Faalhamaha fujooraha wataqwaha
Abdullah Yusuf Ali And its enlightenment as to its wrong and its right;-
Mufti Taqi Usmani then inspired it with its (instincts of) evil and piety,
Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall And inspired it (with conscience of) what is wrong for it and (what is) right for it.
Sahih International And inspired it [with discernment of] its wickedness and its righteousness,
French et lui a alors inspiré son immoralité, de même que sa piété!
Japanese 邪悪と信心に就いて，それ（魂）に示唆した御方において（誓う）。
Russian и внушил ей порочность и богобоязненность!
Portugese E lhe imprimiu o discernimento entre o que é certo e o que é errado,
German und ihr den Sinn für ihre Sündhaftigkeit und für ihre Gottesfurcht eingegeben hat!




> disgrace and honor to people who deserve it, one of the 99 is "the Just"...
> I still don't believe the 99 show any "bad"...I don't know..


check out for the 99 attributes of Allah at this link:::

http://www.jannah.org/articles/names.html

----------


## crazefest456

> Okay if He's not evil then where did evil come from?
> How come Iblees have the guts to know before Allah created Adam that Adam would spread unrest in the world??


1. Why does God need to embody whatever he creates? Is it necessary if he creates the clouds he needs to be a cloud (I don't believe in the idea of omnipresence, it degrades God).

2. Everyone knew, the Angels and the Jinns, about man's ability to choose between right and wrong, and how they have the ability to spread chaos. I must remind you that Iblees only became bad after he refused to acknowledge Adam as God's creation, which was after God created Adam. Can you explain how everyone's knowledge about man's capability explains why God is also evil?




> Poppin, how do you explain your point in ref to Quran 
> here is the verse quoted by you
> 
> http://www.thetruecall.com/home/Quran_Chapter_91:8.htm
> 
> poppin , you have given a patently wrong reference,
> the site says
> Transliteration Faalhamaha fujooraha wataqwaha
> Abdullah Yusuf Ali And its enlightenment as to its wrong and its right;-
> ...


umm.. I think poppin did give a right reference, it was just a poor translation...it means the same thing essentially.

check out for the 99 attributes of Allah at this link:::

http://www.jannah.org/articles/names.html[/QUOTE]

okay, I did. The ones that you would assume that imply the God is "evil" might be these:
"1. Al-Malik

* The King, The Sovereign Lord, The One with the complete Dominion, the One Whose Dominion is clear from imperfection. 
2. Al-Jabbaar

* The Compeller, The One that nothing happens in His Dominion except that which He willed. 
3. Al-Qahhaar

* The Subduer, The Dominant, The One who has the perfect Power and is not unable over anything. 
4. Al-Qaabid

* The Constricter, The Retainer, The Withholder, The One who constricts the sustenance by His wisdomand expands and widens it with His Generosity and Mercy. 
5. Al-Khaafid

* The Abaser, The One who lowers whoever He willed by His Destruction and raises whoever He willed by His Endowment. 
6. Al-Muthil

* The Dishonorer, The Humiliator, He gives esteem to whoever He willed, hence there is no one to degrade Him; And He degrades whoever He willed, hence there is no one to give Him esteem. 
7. Al-Mateen

* The Firm One, The One with extreme Power which is un-interrupted and He does not get tired. 
8. Al-Mumeet

* The Creator of Death, The Destroyer, The One who renders the living dead. 
9. Al-Mu'akh-khir

* The Delayer, the Retarder, The One who puts things in their right places. He makes ahead what He wills and delays what He wills. 
10. Al-Muntaqim

* The Avenger, The One who victoriously prevails over His enemies and punishes them for their sins. It may mean the One who destroys them. "

I still feel that all these don't constitute evil. His divine understanding of our human nature, what we need right now and what we need later on, his perfect justice is all GOOD. I wish you'd point out which one's make him evil...

in the end, God knows.

----------


## Etienne

A common answer to the problem of evil is saint Augustine answer which is that evil is the absence of God. This has been a popular explanation and important figures of early Christian philosophy/theology like saint Augustine and Boethius have used this. I'm not so sure about what modern theology has to say about this, and while different theories have been put forward by Christian thinkers (I don't have much idea what have been the official positions of Churches, as a text might have been condemned at the time it was written but later it was made an official text and the writer made a saint, see Thomas Aquinas and many others) but one of the popular explanations was that God is the "premier moteur" (I tried to look for a translation of this term didn't find, it means basically "first cause"). The image of God as a watchmaker comes from this theory basically.

So God "programmed" everything to work correctly and free will sometimes stop working, and this causes evil. So to take again the image of the watch, God created it to work perfectly, but then some of the parts inside have free will, and can decide to stop working. "Not working" is not something, it's the lack of something. So God is everything that is, and evil is what is not.

But again the religious discourse in philosophy (this mean everything concerning logical method in religion) is not constant, and the early discourses are pretty clear cut, but as logic became more well-known and philosophers worked on religion, they found problems and flaws, but as they were almost all religious themselves (I'm not just referring to Christianity but Islam and Hebraism, which in religious philosophy is very much intertwined anyways), and when they were not (or if they were unorthodox) they had to act as if. So in the end to each problem, a solution HAD to be found if someone was to put forth the problem. So theology has become something that does not mean anything (in the Wittgensteinian sense of the term).

So the doctrines are made to look rigid, but since they don't really mean anything, one can find an interpretation to answer almost anything. And ultimately there is always the: God ways are mysterious. So applying a thoroughly logical method with a skeptical approach to religion is like trying to dig in a cloud.

----------


## mazHur

> check out for the 99 attributes of Allah at this link:::
> 
> http://www.jannah.org/articles/names.html


okay, I did. The ones that you would assume that imply the God is "evil" might be these:
"1. Al-Malik

* The King, The Sovereign Lord, The One with the complete Dominion, the One Whose Dominion is clear from imperfection. 
2. Al-Jabbaar

* The Compeller, The One that nothing happens in His Dominion except that which He willed. 
3. Al-Qahhaar

* The Subduer, The Dominant, The One who has the perfect Power and is not unable over anything. 
4. Al-Qaabid

* The Constricter, The Retainer, The Withholder, The One who constricts the sustenance by His wisdomand expands and widens it with His Generosity and Mercy. 
5. Al-Khaafid

* The Abaser, The One who lowers whoever He willed by His Destruction and raises whoever He willed by His Endowment. 
6. Al-Muthil

* The Dishonorer, The Humiliator, He gives esteem to whoever He willed, hence there is no one to degrade Him; And He degrades whoever He willed, hence there is no one to give Him esteem. 
7. Al-Mateen

* The Firm One, The One with extreme Power which is un-interrupted and He does not get tired. 
8. Al-Mumeet

* The Creator of Death, The Destroyer, The One who renders the living dead. 
9. Al-Mu'akh-khir

* The Delayer, the Retarder, The One who puts things in their right places. He makes ahead what He wills and delays what He wills. 
10. Al-Muntaqim

* The Avenger, The One who victoriously prevails over His enemies and punishes them for their sins. It may mean the One who destroys them. "

I still feel that all these don't constitute evil. His divine understanding of our human nature, what we need right now and what we need later on, his perfect justice is all GOOD. I wish you'd point out which one's make him evil...

in the end, God knows.[/QUOTE]


is it Muslim to deny omnipotence of Allah? Is he not Hazir-o-Nazir??

I didn't say Allah is evil,,,,Poppin has wrongly interpreted it. What i mean is that Allah created Man in his own image and gave him the Will to choose. It's the deeds of Men which go to his making evil, not Allah. But, It is perplexing when Allah says nothing not even a leaf can stir without his leave! Doesn't this indicate the existence of Fate (LOH)??
wama illaina illal balag! :Smile:

----------


## crazefest456

> is it Muslim to deny omnipotence of Allah? Is he not Hazir-o-Nazir??
> 
> I didn't say Allah is evil,,,,Poppin has wrongly interpreted it. What i mean is that Allah created Man in his own image and gave him the Will to choose. It's the deeds of Men which go to his making evil, not Allah. But, It is perplexing when Allah says nothing not even a leaf can stir without his leave! Doesn't this indicate the existence of Fate (LOH)??
> wama illaina illal balag!


I was talking about omnipresence, not omnipotence....The belief that god is everything makes polytheism justifiable. 

oops, sorry, I guess I got confused by who said what. Don't worry about the leaf thing. The belief that god allows us to make a choice is an ability he grants us. It doesn't mean that God closes his eyes while we commit vice, he accounts for every thing that we do cognitively...Don't worry at all about God, he's going to give everyone their respective "reward".

----------


## browneyedbailey

> This is a bit of weird one I think. This came to me when I was reading a Philip K. Dick short story about something similer. This is purly hypothetical and I mean no offence.
> 
> *If god is in everything and everyone, does that not make him as much an evil malevolent as a divine benevolent?*
> 
> It just seems to me that evil is as much a thing as good; and something claimed to be _everything_ must surely be both? 
> 
> Thoughts on this random thought?



god is not evil.

----------


## Thinkerr

First of all God does not claim to be everything. Second it depends on your religion as to how you view God. There might be multiple gods in your religion, with some being bad and some good, or there might only be one supreme all-powerful God.

----------


## weepingforloman

mazHur: the examples you have chosen fail to totally portray Allah (to switch back to the general term, "God") as evil. They seem to focus around the idea that God causes bad things to happen to some people. If people were perfect and could not profit by suffering, then that would probably make Him evil. But the fact is that humans are imperfect and can be improved by trials. Therefore, trials sent by God are actually gifts, and expressions of His love and goodness.

----------


## mazHur

In Islam, Allah is supposed to have two sides .For example, they say ''There is No God but God'', ''God is merciful as well as Abaser and Humiliator "", what does all this mean? Doesn't it show that even if we believe there is One God or Allah He has positive as well as negative characteristics? Does he not reward men for their deed here and in the hereafter? God may not be bad but he does seem to possess control over both good and evil?

----------


## weepingforloman

God DOES control both good and evil. However, He does not create what could really be called "evil." "Misfortune" would be a better word. He causes things which may be painful to people. God is, however, not a being who could actually commit evil actions. He may allow them to happen, and He will not (and does not) stop the actions of men, but He does not do evil things.

----------


## mazHur

As a believer in God, I agree God doesn't do evil. But, it perplexes me to see that Evil is getting stronger day by day.Why doesn't God take steps to control it?

Moreover, if God is, as you say, not a Being then what is he??

----------


## Etienne

> As a believer in God, I agree God doesn't do evil. But, it perplexes me to see that Evil is getting stronger day by day.


Define evil...

----------


## mazHur

> Define evil...


Evil is anything not good or forbidden by God.

Fore more on this off topic issue better refer to Hammurabi's code, the Bible , the Geeta or the Quran!
Or just check out at free Wikipedia ! :Biggrin:   :Wink:

----------


## weepingforloman

> As a believer in God, I agree God doesn't do evil. But, it perplexes me to see that Evil is getting stronger day by day.Why doesn't God take steps to control it?
> 
> Moreover, if God is, as you say, not a Being then what is he??


First off, I did not mean God was not a being. I meant He was not a being who does evil. He is a being, He does not do evil.

God does not "control" evil because He allows us to experience beforehand what comes of sin: a foretaste of hell, if you will. He allows us to experience evil because it can open our eyes to Him.

----------


## mazHur

So, in other words you believe in fate? Predestination? 

If God had to run the show with predestination then let us forget about Good and Evil. Some one had rightly remarked: God made this world and then forgot it ! Amazing !

Why do you forget that God created man in his image. If you wont be spared for your actions in this world by man how could you say God will not account for your good or bad deeds??

If evil is a test from God then why innocent people die in natural calamities ??
Instead of opening their eyes, their eyes get closed forever ! Amazing!

----------


## weepingforloman

There are no innocent people, "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

Yes, I believe in predestination. But it is not as simple as you put it: whenever there is a good thing done by a man, it is because God has worked in him. God has caused him to be good. Whenever a man does an evil action, it comes out of his own heart. We are evil on our own, but sometimes God makes us good. And this was not what God wanted when He created the world: the way things are now is a result of sin. It is because of sin that we are born evil, that our "mouths are like open graves" that our "feet are swift to shed blood." We do our evil on our own, but God uses us to do His good.

----------


## mazHur

In a plane crash all die but one. We say it was a miracle which saved the survivor. How do you explain that? Why did 99 percent of the passengers die??

----------


## Etienne

> Evil is anything not good or forbidden by God.
> 
> Fore more on this off topic issue better refer to Hammurabi's code, the Bible , the Geeta or the Quran!
> Or just check out at free Wikipedia !


I'd like to see your statistics for claiming there's more evil however. Unless you base yourself on abortion, homosexuality and such. What you need to know is that it's only more known phenomenons, religion has never "fixed" these issues it has only made people hide it from public eye.

And no, I don't think one can learn what is "evil" from wikipedia, as you can see evil has many facets and one's evil is another's good or freedom. So I was asking you what was evil for you, because claiming there's more evil now is simply the eternal over-idealization of the past.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Define evil...


Evil is that which is contrary to the character of God. The entire basis for Christian morality is the character of God: what is in harmony with His character is good; that which is not, is evil.

----------


## Ravenwing

I would like to know where you got the idea that GOD is everything? I'm not being critical, just would like to know YOUR souce. God is too broad to discuss in terms of good/evil. One's own definition of God, I would hope, couldn't be questioned and answered by adjectives. To me God just IS.

----------


## mazHur

Evil is anything bad ..not acceptable as a religious, ethical, moral or social norm. Evil is another name for disobedience to the commands of god. Disrespecting our parents and elders is also evil. Now without first comprehending the difference between good and evil, as you seem to appear, I am sure it would not be worthwhile discussing further on this subject.

It is a general idea that God is good and their is no escape from this concept dinned into our brains but the questions is then where did evil come from and why is it let scot free by God??

I alreadysaid you could find types of evil in the religious texts of all religions and His punishment for those as well

----------


## Alexei

> Evil is anything bad ..not acceptable as a religious, ethical, moral or social norm. Evil is another name for disobedience to the commands of god. Disrespecting our parents and elders is also evil. Now without first comprehending the difference between good and evil, as you seem to appear, I am sure it would not be worthwhile discussing further on this subject.
>  
> It is a general idea that God is good and their is no escape from this concept dinned into our brains but the questions is then where did evil come from and why is it let scot free by God??


I do not fully agree with your definition for evil, but I am not going to discuss it here (after all this isn't the topic we are supposed to discuss), but I would like to ask you if evil and bad are the same why do we have two different words for it?

Evil is a possibility coming from our free will. Evil doesn't exist in material form but something can *become* evil. That's why most of the crimes are done with good intentions. The existence of evil is a result of a choice.

----------


## mazHur

Evil is bad in the same way a father is also called dad !
please try to get into the spirit of things--there could be more than one word to describe or define something, anything !

Okay. take it this way. anything sinful is evil. Now don't ask me what sin is.

There is no crime as an innocent crime. No sin as 'Innocent sin''.
If one does wrong he gets punished for it ----in this world. Why wouldnt he be punished by God for his evil deeds in this world as well as the hereafter?
I don't believe Jesus will take up all our sins,,,absurd!
I wouldn't like to be so mean and selfish as to hold Jesus responsible for wrongs committed by me !

God is the Master of the entire show, good and evil. He knows the tricks of his Game , we don't. But, all and everything emanates from Him alone!

----------


## Whifflingpin

Mazhur "I don't believe Jesus will take up all our sins,,,absurd!"
1 Corinthians 1:23 "But we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness;" and to Moslems absurd :Smile: 

But, in this forum, you should not call other religions absurd. All religious belief is absurd to non-believers, and vital to those who believe it. 


Mazhur "If one does wrong he gets punished for it ----in this world. Why wouldnt he be punished by God for his evil deeds in this world as well as the hereafter?"

Because justice dictates that one is only punished once for a wrongdoing, and in proportion to the wrong.

----------


## mazHur

Well, I commented based on common sense, not against any religion.
It is not true that people of one religion think ill about other religions,No.A Moslem will spontaneously cease to be a Muslom if he talks even the slightest ill about Jesus or the Scriptures revealed to him. similarly, Muslims firmly believe in the exalted status of Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Lot, David, etc and you have no reason to suspect a Muslim for expressing any profanity against them or any other prophets. I only assessed from my common sense and not from any point of view of any religion. Even in Islam, there are controversial issues on whom Muslims do not agree. this doesnt mean that they are not muslims or irreligious. Atleast, I ,as a matter of intrinsic nature, try to evaluate things by dint of common sense and some rationale (total reasoning is fatal to religion, any religion )
sorry, it doesn't appeal to me that Jesus would be responssible for all the evils that the mankind goes on to commit. This philosophy hits at the very root of the purpose of Creation and good and bad.
Sorry, if the use of words hurt your feelings but please rest assure my comments were a simple inquiry of common sense.

The mouse said: "I want to find crumbs."
The dog said: "I have come to find crusts."
The simpleton said: "What you need is bread, you fools!"
The wise man said: "But you could let them have other kinds of
food..."
The simpleton was annoyed. He said: "The common denominator of
their desires is bread, not food. You are becoming too complicated. "

as collected by Idries Shah

----------


## Whifflingpin

"Sorry, if the use of words hurt your feelings but please rest assure my comments were a simple inquiry of common sense."

I am not a Christian, so you have not hurt my feelings.

The belief that Jesus died as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind is the central belief of Christianity. If you call the belief absurd, you are not insulting Jesus, but you are insulting Christians.

----------


## mazHur

I am not insulting anyone ! The thread doesn't say it is reserved for discussion of Christianity or Islam only. It's about God. If you can question God why can't I question a question of simple common sense? Moreover, as I believe in Jesus I am partly christian!! So, if you are not a Christian be not more loyal than the king. It appears from your writing that you have been hurt more than anyone by my difference in opinion.

Were this a specifically Christian thread i would turn off immediately.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"It appears from your writing that you have been hurt more than anyone by my difference in opinion."

Not hurt at all, but I think it is wrong of you to describe the central belief of another religion as absurd. It may be a wrong belief, and you are free to say so if you want to, and to question as much as you like. But to call the belief absurd is insulting.

It also makes you appear somewhat narrow minded, although that is not my concern. Clearly, many highly intelligent people, for two thousand years or so, have found the idea of Christ's sacrifice not only within the bounds of reason but also a belief to shape their lives by. They may all be wrong, but it would be wiser to try and understand the ideas behind the belief than just to dismiss them as absurd.

----------


## mazHur

I guess we are not discussing Christianity on this thread. If you are so narrow minded to twist the words to a specific religious niche, moreso not even related to that religion, you better not plead for others.

Just on another thread someone is saying Bible was not revealed to Jesus, does that mean he is insulting Christianity?? 

For those who don't have tolerance in matters of religion and just try to catch words in a general discussion to exploit their vested interest, it's better for them to keep off such discussion lest they get hurt and hurt. Such people are rightly called 'fundamentalists''........as they have nothing else to discuss but to compel others to go by what they believe to be true or false!

----------


## Whifflingpin

"Only in the Zoroastrian religion do we have god splitted into two: Ishwar---good god and Ehrman---god of evil. But, then, how many followers of that religion do you have in the world?"

Back on topic.
I, at least, follow Zarathustra in believing that evil has an entirely separate source from good. 

As written in verse 2 of the 45th Yasna:
"I shall now speak about the twin spirits which have existed since the creation's dawn. Of the two spirits thus did the Holy one speak to his twin, the evil one; between us two, neither thoughts, nor teachings, neither will, nor beliefs, neither words, nor inner selves accord, and they are quite separate from each other."

----------


## Scheherazade

*W a r n i n g 

Please do not personalise your comments.*

----------


## hellsapoppin

> yes, it means he creates evil to give man and jinn the CHOICE.
> it doesn't mean He himself is evil...



Again, you need to read where it says in the Bible ''that which is of flesh is flesh ...'' which means that something can only come from its source.

Therefore, evil can only come from evil. Since the Bible's god creates evil, it means he is evil.

----------


## crazefest456

hellsapoppin:

I guess I understand what you mean; but doesn't the quote refer to an inward 'conscience', the sense of morality and ethics that is programmed in our souls. And our souls are separate from our creation, God created us with brain, heart, other organ systems, as a zygote, then breathed into us some part of his spirit (what you mean by the above-mentioned quote). Our desires are worldly, that are _almost_ self-generated (contributions by satan) because of our ability given by God. Our desires only become evil when we become extremely infatuated by them, and are shed, along with our physical self at the point of death.
I don't know, really, what do you think?

----------


## mazHur

God is not Evil.




> ''that which is of flesh is flesh ...''


if taken literally it means only living things can procreate.........
metaphorically, it seems to mean that the nature of a thing cannot change. For example, take milk as the basis. One can make so many things out of it such as cheese,butter, curd,yogurt etc etc but all these still contain the basic thing, Milk.

The saying does not connote that God is evil. If He were so this world wouldnt exist. Afterall is any one there who can stop him?? 

I recall one analogy and it might help to comprehend the subject

Suppose you are doing a test in a class and the teacher tells you that you sont cheat. During the exam the teacher finds that one guy was cheating. So, do you think that the teacher was responsible for the act of his student??
The teacher taught 'good' to the student but yet he disobeyed him and opted for 'evil' deeds. It's the same way with God and the teachings of all holy books where the Master is God and the 'students' . Since God has given men the will it is the man who is to be blamed and held for his wrongdoings, not God.

----------


## hellsapoppin

``Since God has given men the will it is the man who is to be blamed and held for his wrongdoings, not God.``


We're going around in circles as you simply do not understand what is in the Bible. Again, if you would only read what is in that book rather than going in circles, you would know that it clearly states that this same god knew and has known all along who would be saved even before he created the world.

Suppose somebody was impoverished and stole in order to eat and survive, and had no other means of a livelihood, and dies or is killed before he could repent, must he spend eternity in hell? 

The Bible is perfectly clear --- god :Flare:  is evil because he creates all evil.

----------


## mazHur

No, He isn't ,Might be some misprint telling you the other way round.

----------


## hellsapoppin

Oh, I see --- you've been pulling my leg all along.

Funny thing is, the Bible tells us there are pre-Adamic races walking the earth and have been doing so for ''generations'' before Adam was created {Genesis 2:4}. Biblical and Christian teaching tell us that Adam and his lot came into existence around 4004 BC. Science proves humans walked the earth for millienia before that time and that these races still exist to this day. Native Americans and people descended of their ancestry in Asia serves as an example. 

These people suffer just as do Adamic races, sin every bit as much, suffer, and have joy as well. Centuries and millenia before Adam they suffered from war, pestilence, and starvation just like everyone else. Yet, their ancestors did not know what the Garden of Eden was. So how is it that they, too, were affected by the Fall?

Obviously, it is because evil has always existed. It existed long before Adam walked the earth. And what does it ultimately mean?

It means that evil had to be created by another agency. And the Bible tells us in Isaiah 45:7 what that agency is. Therefore, contrary to Christian teaching, it is your god who created that evil which complies with what the Bible teaches.

----------


## mazHur

```
  hellsapoppin -----/god is evil because he creates all evil./
```

Sorry, I cannot agree with this statement. It is just like saying that Alfred Nobel, for example, was evil because he invented dynamite or, more broadly speaking, scientists are evil because they prepared the tools for human destruction. :Yawnb:   :Biggrin:

----------


## hellsapoppin

If you don't want to believe your own Bible, that is fine and dandy with me.

But it's a good bet you will NEVER come up with a logical answer to my question about how pre-Adamite peoples have suffered from evil even though it was created only after Adam's ''fall''.

Good luck, pal, cause it's a question no one has ever answered in all of Christian history.

 :Smile:

----------


## Etienne

> ```
>   hellsapoppin -----/god is evil because he creates all evil./
> ```
> 
> Sorry, I cannot agree with this statement. It is just like saying that Alfred Nobel, for example, was evil because he invented dynamite or, more broadly speaking, scientists are evil because they prepared the tools for human destruction.


Nobel didn't have a claim in perfection and omnipotence.

----------


## Pendragon

> Oh, I see --- you've been pulling my leg all along.
> 
> Funny thing is, the Bible tells us there are pre-Adamic races walking the earth and have been doing so for ''generations'' before Adam was created {Genesis 2:4}.


 I read my Bible very carefully, and think carefully quoting it would be handy at times. Your scripture, my friend, from the KJV:Genesis: 2:[4] These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
[5] And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

I include the fifth verse, because it continues the fourth. Notice the line I have highlighted. These generations, were they aliens? It in fact says nothing of them walking the earth, and that there was no man to take care of it.




> Biblical and Christian teaching tell us that Adam and his lot came into existence around 4004 BC. Science proves humans walked the earth for millienia before that time and that these races still exist to this day. Native Americans and people descended of their ancestry in Asia serves as an example.


 I never quarrel with science on any subject as much as them trying to build a race of people from one badly fragmented skull. That the individual existed is beyond question. But that that one individual could have been diseased, mutated in some way, or genetically a freak is more logical than an entire different race from one skull.

And example here: Let us propose that John Merrick was not born when he was, but a million years before. One finding his misshapen skeleton or skull could easily be mislead into thinking it perhaps the missing link. Andre the Giant is another case in point. Humans have 32 teeth. Andre had 48. He was essentially, a giant-dwarf, and never ceased to grow as long as he lived. What would his skull have set off as a million-year-old artifact? 




> Obviously, it is because evil has always existed. It existed long before Adam walked the earth. And what does it ultimately mean?
> 
> It means that evil had to be created by another agency. And the Bible tells us in Isaiah 45: [7] I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. what that agency is. 
> 
> Therefore, contrary to Christian teaching, it is your god who created that evil which complies with what the Bible teaches.


I added in the verse to your reference. The Tree in the Garden was Knowledge of Good and Evil. This man was told to leave alone, that it would bring death. He wouldn't listen. Man chose Knowledge, whether that Knowledge would be used for good or for evil. People say "money is the root of all evil." That's a misquote: 

1Tim.6

1. [10] For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

It is no sin to be rich. It is not wrong to be intelligent. But when your money means more to you than God and you have became so wise in your own eyes that you don't need God, there comes forth evil.

God Bless.

Pen

----------


## hellsapoppin

Now go back and read Genesis 1:26, 27 and you see that man had already been created and had dominion over ''all the earth'' {verses 28,29}.


``when your money means more to you than God and you have became so wise in your own eyes that you don't need God, there comes forth evil.``


You needn't worry about me along that score as I am not a Republican. :Wink:

----------


## Pendragon

> Now go back and read Genesis 1:26, 27 and you see that man had already been created and had dominion over ''all the earth'' {verses 28,29}.
> 
> 
> ``when your money means more to you than God and you have became so wise in your own eyes that you don't need God, there comes forth evil.``
> 
> 
> You needn't worry about me along that score as I am not a Republican.


Yes I know Popeye. It is a common error. Man was created in the image of God in the day of his creation. God is a spirit. God then housed the spirit in flesh, split the masculine and feminine into two bodies. (Wait I have reference: Gen.5
[1] This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
[2] Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.) You see, spirit. Had to divide the two latter, and took from Adam to make Eve. Yet believe what you will. 

Rom.14

1. [5] One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

You have to see it for you, not because I say that's the way it is. If people could only get that part down, we'd have less arguing. A Man or woman must be persuaded in their own mind and not do things because someone else thinks or preaches it a different way. What if the person is wrong? You have followed a delusion to be damned in the end.

God Bless

Pen

----------


## mazHur

> Yes I know Popeye. It is a common error. Man was created in the image of God in the day of his creation. God is a spirit. God then housed the spirit in flesh, split the masculine and feminine into two bodies. (Wait I have reference: Gen.5
> [1] This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
> [2] Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.) You see, spirit. Had to divide the two latter, and took from Adam to make Eve. Yet believe what you will. 
> 
> Rom.14
> 
> 1. [5] One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
> 
> You have to see it for you, not because I say that's the way it is. If people could only get that part down, we'd have less arguing. A Man or woman must be persuaded in their own mind and not do things because someone else thinks or preaches it a different way. What if the person is wrong? You have followed a delusion to be damned in the end.
> ...


Pen is so right it makes me feel like a christian ! :Smile:

----------


## hellsapoppin

``Pen is so right it makes me feel like a christian !``


I'll gladly go to any church that practices the miracles shown in the New Testament. Jesus said that any true minister could duplicate and surpass his miracles and that's what I definitely want. :Wink:

----------


## Pendragon

> ``Pen is so right it makes me feel like a christian !``
> 
> 
> I'll gladly go to any church that practices the miracles shown in the New Testament. Jesus said that any true minister could duplicate and surpass his miracles and that's what I definitely want.



St . Matthew 7:
[15] Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.


[21] Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
[22] Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
[23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

I'm sorry. I just feel it my duty to point this out. There is a song by the Gather Vocal Band where Mark Lowery as lead singer tells it like I had to live it gowning up in the old Pentecostal/Mon-Denominational tent revivals:

_I've seen a lot of crazy things done in your name,
I know the tricks behind the magic show.
I've almost thrown the towel in a time or two
Just walked away from everything I know.
But that won't fill the emptiness inside of me--
Or calm the raging waters of my mind...
So if You are really out there and You're listening.
Then prove to me that those who seek shall find.

If You could just see fit to show me some of who You are.
If You could shine Your Light upon a broken sinners heart.
I need to know the truth, but I need something I can feel
I need You to make it real

There must be some good reason why You brought me here
Through valleys where The Shadow lingers close.
Down here there's a mask to cover every face,
But it's Your Sweet Face I long to see the most
So if You think that there's the slightest hope for me
In spite of all my questions and my doubt;
Then let me here Your Still Small Voice call out my name--
And let me know what others just talk about._ 

Song says it all. You want God, He has to make it real, not anyone else.

God Bless

Pen

----------


## hellsapoppin

I'm not sure why you are quoting the Bible since it is a book that I know better than most preachers do.

But yes, I'll go for a few miracles, esp on this Holiday season.  :Smile:

----------


## mazHur

Jesus was bestowed with various greatest miracles any prophet ever had.
Jesus is alive and he will return to earth as Imam Mehdi or Saviour of human kinds. It is impossible for any human to show any miracle, whatsoever, at this time or in the future,,,,and if he tries to imitate Jesus he would only be faking and getting himself into trouble like Houdi did.

----------


## hellsapoppin

That's not what it says in the Bible's New Testament as it is the power of the holy spirit that supposedly makes miracles.

----------


## mazHur

Okay, if the holy spirit makes miracles happen, then it is only Him that can do it now or in future by virtue of his position and leave of god .

----------


## Nightshade

> Jesus was bestowed with various greatest miracles any prophet ever had.
> Jesus is alive and he will return to earth as Imam Mehdi or Saviour of human kinds. It is impossible for any human to show any miracle, whatsoever, at this time or in the future,,,,and if he tries to imitate Jesus he would only be faking and getting himself into trouble like Houdi did.


Actually I dont think the Imam Mehdi _is_ Jesus, I was pretty sure that he is supposed to be the Uniter who is a sign of the Return of Christ , ( and I delibritly use Christ as in the _Messiah_. As for the mircals I belive that the coorect format for reffering to them is By the will of God, which is important because it reffers too the prophets being, not only part of the mircale but as a tool of Gods Mircale.


*** Actually question what does _Christ_ mean, anyone, I was opperating under the aassumption that it was equivellent to Messiah but it occured to me I might be wrong in which case please excuse.

----------


## Niamh

English term from the greek word christos meaning the anointed one. (chosen one type of thing)

----------


## Beverly S

The bible says that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. Only Satan is pure evil and he became that way because he chose to rebel against God.

----------


## Nightshade

> English term from the greek word christos meaning the anointed one. (chosen one type of thing)


So I was right Messiah means that too  :Nod:  

Edit: Ok my sister just gave me the etamological breakdown Im wrong Mesiah ( the arbic one) comes from some arabic root word or other and means the sent one...

----------


## mazHur

> Beverly S
> The bible says that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. Only Satan is pure evil and he became that way because he chose to rebel against God.


How beautifully Beverly has stated the gist of the matter! I have but to agree with her completely.

----------


## weepingforloman

> In a plane crash all die but one. We say it was a miracle which saved the survivor. How do you explain that? Why did 99 percent of the passengers die??


All the world is a miracle. If we take exercising of divine power to be a miracle, then the very fact that the world exists is a miracle. 
Why did the other passengers die? Probably because they took impact in a different way than the survivor. Sometimes there is no greater "why," just that God made matter in a certain way, and did not intervene to save someone in this case.

----------


## mazHur

there could atleast be two reasons for the the survivor single after the plane crash:
1. related to matter
2. related to soul or spirit

Ordinarily, only the first comes to the 'science-ridden' mind and that sounds fair enough though arguable.

The second aspect or cause of tragedy or miracle is only believed by those who believe in miracles or the world of the soul or spirit.

It is commonly observed that people (and even animals) don't feel the same way under all circumstances. For example, some people can endure hardships and pain comparatively more than others. Some experience 'fear' more than others; some startle even at the strong beat of their heart or at the gust of wind whereas others don't. What I mean to stress is that more often people die of how poorly they respond or react to matters related to their spirituals or soul and thus suffer accordingly. There have been reports of people dying of hear failure at the news of a loss, (such as the stock market crash,) which fate so many others didn't suffer. Some faint at the sight of a gheko or a rat, others don't bother. All the abstract feelings as they are called are infact unseen and yet un-exploited mysteries of nature that play their vital role in determining the destinies of people, including those who died and the one who came out alive. Matter alone is mere dust.

----------


## Pendragon

A miracle is a sudden change for which there is no reasonable explanation. For example, I had ulcers very badly, which showed clearly on x-rays with that nasty chalk stuff. I was prayed for and healed. The next x-rays were clean. The Doctor was shocked and said he didn't know what happened, but it must have be a miracle. The evidence was there.

God Bless

Pen

----------


## Niamh

> So I was right Messiah means that too  
> 
> Edit: Ok my sister just gave me the etamological breakdown Im wrong Mesiah ( the arbic one) comes from some arabic root word or other and means the sent one...


Maybe he is Jesus _christ_ the _Messiah_ because he was the anointed one sent by god!

----------


## mazHur

> Maybe he is Jesus _christ_ the _Messiah_ because he was the anointed one sent by god!


Messeeh in Arabic means Christian, so Messiah is Saviour of Mankind who is none other than Jesus.

----------


## Nightshade

Actually Messeh is the word used to indicate christians it means followers of the Messiah or if you were to directly transalte it it means Messiah-ians.

----------


## mazHur

thanks, that's right

----------


## weepingforloman

> there could atleast be two reasons for the the survivor single after the plane crash:
> 1. related to matter
> 2. related to soul or spirit
> 
> Ordinarily, only the first comes to the 'science-ridden' mind and that sounds fair enough though arguable.
> 
> The second aspect or cause of tragedy or miracle is only believed by those who believe in miracles or the world of the soul or spirit.
> 
> It is commonly observed that people (and even animals) don't feel the same way under all circumstances. For example, some people can endure hardships and pain comparatively more than others. Some experience 'fear' more than others; some startle even at the strong beat of their heart or at the gust of wind whereas others don't. What I mean to stress is that more often people die of how poorly they respond or react to matters related to their spirituals or soul and thus suffer accordingly. There have been reports of people dying of hear failure at the news of a loss, (such as the stock market crash,) which fate so many others didn't suffer. Some faint at the sight of a gheko or a rat, others don't bother. All the abstract feelings as they are called are infact unseen and yet un-exploited mysteries of nature that play their vital role in determining the destinies of people, including those who died and the one who came out alive. Matter alone is mere dust.


I have to disagree with you that matter is "mere dust." Did not God create it? 
And, of course, we Christians believe that God _became_ matter. Please don't disparage it. 
However, I am well aware that people react in different ways to the same stimulus- but that is not grounds for a miracle. The reactions of men are governed to a certain extent by naturally occuring chemicals in the brain, and also by the exercise of will. Miracle means something which is beyond nature, which accelerates, slows, or changes the normal workings of matter- water to wine is a process that occurs in nature at a much slower pace, God caused the sun to hang in the sky (stopped the rotation of the earth) for the Israelites, and He raised Christ from the dead, changing the normal processes of nature.

----------


## hellsapoppin

god kills:

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot....od-killed.html


a great biblical re-cap of all of his killings


Old Testament: the lord kills whomever he pleaseth - I Samuel 2:6

----------


## mazHur

God is a Giver as well as Taker. It does not mean He kills. It's just like saying that because the government takes taxes from us therefore the govt is evil. No.
Similarly, if a convict is hanged you cant say that the executioner acted evilly.
By your quote it is simple to understand that the one who can give life can also take it away ! 
there seems to be toooo much dwindling unbelief ,,,,,,,,,!

----------


## Pendragon

> god kills:
> 
> http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot....od-killed.html
> 
> 
> a great biblical re-cap of all of his killings
> 
> 
> Old Testament: the lord kills whomever he pleaseth - I Samuel 2:6


A common sense look at things, Popeye. from fellow cartoon character Pogp Possum: "Don't take life seriously son, it ain't nohow permanent" In other words life is always fatal. In this world!

God Bless

Pen

----------


## hellsapoppin

``it is simple to understand that the one who can give life can also take it away ! ``


I suppose that means that parents can commit infanticide without facing consequences.

----------


## mazHur

> ``it is simple to understand that the one who can give life can also take it away ! ``
> 
> 
> I suppose that means that parents can commit infanticide without facing consequences.


Wrong example! Parents dont give life --they just 'bear' children. It's only God who gives life and we hold it in 'trust' until He takes it back........

Take the example of a moneylender,an employer, tax department, the government,,,,,all of these 'give' you but also 'take ' in return. Give and Take always go together,,,,, :Biggrin:

----------


## RichardHresko

> How beautifully Beverly has stated the gist of the matter! I have but to agree with her completely.


Satan cannot be pure evil, for if he were pure evil he would cease to exist.

1) All of God's creations were good at the time of their creation. 
2) Therefore everything that exists has some goodness.
2b) To have existence is therefore to partake of some good.
3) Evil is the corruption of goodness, and has no independent existence.
4) Anything that has been completely corrupted would cease to exist.
5) Satan exists.
6) Satan can not be purely evil.
QED.

The essence of this argument is based on _de libero arbitrio_ by Augustine.

----------


## Whifflingpin

Maybe

----------


## liberal viewer

It is an absurd premise because there is no god, no "invicible man" as George Carlin so aptly put it.

----------


## mazHur

> It is an absurd premise because there is no god, no "invicible man" as George Carlin so aptly put it.


but it's also said

THERE IS NO GOD BUT GOD !

----------


## RichardHresko

> It is an absurd premise because there is no god, no "invicible man" as George Carlin so aptly put it.


The non-existence of God would not make the premise "absurd" since the underlying question of the origin and nature of evil would still remain. This question explores the internal coherence of one possible approach to these questions.

With all due respect to Nietzsche, there is no ultimately convincing argument about the existence of God in _either_ direction. 

I would argue (in a different thread, of course) that given the undecidability of the proposition the reasonable thing to do is to acknowledge in one's ontology whether or not God is a part of your set of axioms. Geometers seem to have no problem working with Euclidean and non-Euclidean spaces without having crises of mathematical faith.

----------


## hellsapoppin

``It's only God who gives life and we hold it in 'trust' until He takes it back``


He also created Satan - if the latter is evil it is because he was made that way by you know who ...  :Wink:

----------


## RichardHresko

> ``It's only God who gives life and we hold it in 'trust' until He takes it back``
> 
> 
> He also created Satan - if the latter is evil it is because he was made that way by you know who ...


That does not follow. Given that angels have free will, an angel can choose to sin. The evil would be the result of Satan's choice, not God's creation.

This is not to suggest that Satan chose to be evil. He chose to make himself the equal of God, which was contrary to his true happiness. Choosing that which can not make you happy eternally as though it could make you eternally happy is the basis of evil.

----------


## hellsapoppin

... and who creates that evil ?

----------


## RichardHresko

> ... and who creates that evil ?


Evil is created by the action of free will.

Also note that evil does not have substantial existence, so it does not involve a positive act of creation, such as the creation of a penguin or chihuahua.

----------


## hellsapoppin

``Evil is created by the action of free will.``

By god's free will  :Wink:  as per Isaiah 45:7.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

Just think, that at this very moment 'God' may be pondering whether man exists.

----------


## mazHur

Free will is guided by Allah(God), which implies that God saves people from evil only if they ''believe'' (in Truth)

64:11 No calamity befalleth save by Allah's leave. And whosoever believeth in Allah, He guideth his heart. And Allah is Knower of all things.
Al-Quran

----------


## Pendragon

> Just think, that at this very moment 'God' may be pondering whether man exists.


Not "whether", mon ami, but "why?" I can see God, head in His hands, thinking about man and wondering "Where did I go wrong?"

----------


## Whifflingpin

Pen: "I can see God, head in His hands, thinking about man and wondering "Where did I go wrong?""

But God cannot go wrong, therefore man is as God meant him to be, which includes the evil in man, therefore God is responsible for the evil, and so round we go again.

----------


## Adolescent09

> Satan cannot be pure evil, for if he were pure evil he would cease to exist.
> 
> 1) All of God's creations were good at the time of their creation. 
> 2) Therefore everything that exists has some goodness.
> 2b) To have existence is therefore to partake of some good.
> 3) Evil is the corruption of goodness, and has no independent existence.
> 4) Anything that has been completely corrupted would cease to exist.
> 5) Satan exists.
> 6) Satan can not be purely evil.
> ...


1) Goodness at creation is a consequence of innocence. This ideal has been suggested on several occasions. Since a being of new creation has no prior existence as far as we know it has no experience. Nothing is innately evil; that much is known. Evil must be encountered or thoroughly experienced to circumvent that which is good. Like a virus, vice must have a host (that which is good) in order to transgress and permeate.

2) The extent of sin is virtually unfathomable by man and thus must somehow be determined by a metaphysical phenomenon. As far as human moral is concerned, sin is absolute. But moral is still bound by mere opinion and thus to contend that "Everything that exists has some goodness" is not factually grounded. 

2b) Read prior counterargument.

3) This might be true but still isn't absolute. 

4) Anything that has been corrupted may *inevitably* cease to exist. Take tyrants, potentates and dogmatic nationalists as examples.

5) Satan is conveyed in and confined to the Christian faith (although he goes under a variety of titles in other respective religions). Whether he exists or not is strictly opinion.

6) Read prior counterargument.

*This is MY opinion. Please don't take offence.*

----------


## RichardHresko

> ``Evil is created by the action of free will.``
> 
> By god's free will  as per Isaiah 45:7.


When God refers to creating evil in that verse it is certainly not meant as 'sin' but clearly as natural evil and punishment of those God chooses. Since no one is innocent, there is no question of innocents suffering.

A good example of proper exegesis of this verse is given by John Calvin (granted, he was thoroughly Augustinian, but clearly NOT a Catholic theologian) in his commentary on Isaiah. Specifically on this verse he writes:
"Making peace, and creating evil. By the words light and darkness he describes metaphorically not only peace and war; but adverse and prosperous events of any kind; and he extends the word peace, according to the custom of Hebrew writers, to all success and prosperity. This is made abundantly clear by the contrast; for he contrasts peace not only with war, but with adverse events of every sort. Fanatics torture this word evil, as if God were the author of evil, that is, of sin; but it is very obvious how ridiculously they abuse this passage of the Prophet. This is sufficiently explained by the contrast, the parts of which must agree with each other; for he contrasts peace with evil, that is, with afflictions, wars, and other adverse occurrences. If he contrasted righteousness with evil, there would be some plausibility in their reasonings, but this is a manifest contrast of things that are opposite to each other. Consequently, we ought not to reject the ordinary distinction, that God is the author of the evil of punishment, but not of the evil of guilt."

One of the difficulties we have to face is the question of how to interpret Scripture. Scripture _needs_ interpretation, and the idea that one can just read a verse at random or interpret the "plain" words generally leads to great distortions. This verse is an excellent case in point.

----------


## hellsapoppin

Taking one quote out of context can lead to a misunderstanding, as you say. That is why it is so necessary to read Romans 9 along with Isaiah 45:7 (along with the other cites I listed previously) to see that, indeed, humanity is not to blame for evil or its consequences.

----------


## RichardHresko

> Taking one quote out of context can lead to a misunderstanding, as you say. That is why it is so necessary to read Romans 9 along with Isaiah 45:7 (along with the other cites I listed previously) to see that, indeed, humanity is not to blame for evil or its consequences.


In your previous post you referred only to Isaiah 45:7.

You do not represent Romans 9 correctly. Romans 9:14 clearly states that there is no injustice on God's part. If man were not responsible for sin and God punished man, then clearly there is injustice on God's part. Romans 9 should be read in conjunction with such verses as 2 Corinthians 3:6, which states that the letter kills while the Spirit gives life.

No one merits anything other than damnation (1 Corinthians 4:7) thus any punishment we receive is just. That God elects some to be saved is by his grace and mercy, but does not affect his justice (Romans 9:20).

You might find Augustine's _To Simplician_ interesting, since he discusses Romans 9 in some detail there.

I will be away for the next several days, but look forward to continuing the discussion on my return next week.

Pax vobiscum!

----------


## Pendragon

I would say read Ezekiel 18 and 33. But Rich, there is an old saying: Beware of the man with just one book. How about the man who clings to but once source to explain everything? Augustine seems to be your man. Ireneaus and St. Columba and St. Martin also wrote about these things, as later would other men like Martin Luther. How many popes issued doctrinal statements? The Books would fill a room.

Pen

----------


## RichardHresko

> I would say read Ezekiel 18 and 33. But Rich, there is an old saying: Beware of the man with just one book. How about the man who clings to but once source to explain everything? Augustine seems to be your man. Ireneaus and St. Columba and St. Martin also wrote about these things, as later would other men like Martin Luther. How many popes issued doctrinal statements? The Books would fill a room.
> 
> Pen


I've also used Aquinas, Boethius, and Calvin in my posts (to start an alphabetical list). On this particular topic I found that Augustine suited, that's all.

I would also include people who use the Bible exclusively in your rubric about those who use just one book.

----------


## mazHur

Good and Evil are linked to specific spots in the brain. If someone thinks that God possesses brain of a man then surely God is responsible for good and evil otherwise NOT.
If he's only good then he is not a human being because humans have both good and bad spots in their brains. this is proven by science and is also quite near to horse sense !

----------


## RichardHresko

> Good and Evil are linked to specific spots in the brain. If someone thinks that God possesses brain of a man then surely God is responsible for good and evil otherwise NOT.
> If he's only good then he is not a human being because humans have both good and bad spots in their brains. this is proven by science and is also quite near to horse sense !


It is not clear what exactly is meant by "linked." It is not exactly clear what is meant by "Good and Evil" in this context, either. Are "Good and Evil" to be regarded as physical substances? Are they predispositions? If so, how are they to be distinguished? If only by the regions of the brain where they are somehow linked, are Good and Evil arbitrary designations, such as positive and negative for the two types of electrical charge?

Since there has thus far been no argument that God is human, or that he has a brain, or is material in any way, the argument here does not seem to work, even if one could verify any part of what was presented as "proven by science." Though a posting of the source of this proof would be interesting in and of itself.

----------


## hellsapoppin

``I will be away for the next several days, but look forward to continuing the discussion on my return next week.``


I hope you will have a delightful time.

And note that as Alan Watts said many years ago: *more people have been killed in the name of the Bible than for any other reason in history*. A god who claims to be all about love could not possibly have dictated a book he knew would be used as the greatest instrument of death in history.

----------


## mazHur

Rich

An interesting article has been published by TIME, issue 3rd Dec 2007,on 'what makes us Good/Evil'' and could be had of [email protected], since it is a new article no link is yet available.

----------


## RichardHresko

> ``I will be away for the next several days, but look forward to continuing the discussion on my return next week.``
> 
> 
> I hope you will have a delightful time.
> 
> And note that as Alan Watts said many years ago: *more people have been killed in the name of the Bible than for any other reason in history*. A god who claims to be all about love could not possibly have dictated a book he knew would be used as the greatest instrument of death in history.


Yes, I did. Thanks! I hope everyone is doing well.

I'm not sure God dictated the Bible.

I will grant that he of course knows what was done in the name of the Bible. However, there is the important point that these acts were the choices of those acting with free will. God is not the cause of the evil. The evil comes from the turning away from God on pride.

----------


## RichardHresko

> Rich
> 
> An interesting article has been published by TIME, issue 3rd Dec 2007,on 'what makes us Good/Evil'' and could be had of [email protected], since it is a new article no link is yet available.


Thank you!
The article is an interesting one. Mr Kluger carefully delineates what science can say, but does not have an answer to what makes us good or evil.
What _is_ in the article is that different areas of the brain are involved in different types of moral choices. The more abstract 'reasonable' situations are handled in one area, the more emotion-laden ones in another. Conflicts can be observed by looking at fMRI's of the brain (replacing, I suppose, the old PET scan approach). This however is far from finding either Good or Evil in the hard-wiring of the brain.

----------


## hellsapoppin

``God is not the cause of the evil.``

Every biblical scholar whose books I have read disagrees.

----------


## mazHur

poppin!

Disagreement about a certain thing does not necessarily make it false. Rather it confirms the existence of that very thing which men are unable to comprehend. Not God's fault. :Biggrin:  


Rich !

good you read the article. The point is that science is still trying to find out the reason for good and evil and has no final word to say yet. One of the friends here attributed it to some ''hormones'' such as love being produced by Oxytocin.
I think we should now go to Walmart and 'buy' some love potion whenever we feel lacking in love!! :FRlol:   :Biggrin:

----------


## hellsapoppin

``it confirms the existence of that very thing which men are unable to comprehend``


Can't say I agree --- the Bible seems quite clear to me.  :Smile:

----------


## mazHur

if a man cannot comprehend a man how can he comprehend God !

----------


## hellsapoppin

People rarely write autobiographies.  :Smile:

----------


## mazHur

A man is his own (auto) biography--he speaks for himself !

----------


## hellsapoppin

Bingo. Which is why it is so difficult to speculate upon or to criticize someone's history or actions based on another's experiences.

But if the Bible is to be believed, there is much basis for criticizing a god who claims to be benevolent while he boasts of his malevolence.

----------


## mazHur

you are confused and mixing up the acts of Satan with those of God, the merciful, the magnificient, the kind , the loving, the caring, the One and the Supreme!

----------


## weepingforloman

> ``I will be away for the next several days, but look forward to continuing the discussion on my return next week.``
> 
> 
> I hope you will have a delightful time.
> 
> And note that as Alan Watts said many years ago: *more people have been killed in the name of the Bible than for any other reason in history*. A god who claims to be all about love could not possibly have dictated a book he knew would be used as the greatest instrument of death in history.


I'm afraid Watts was dead wrong. I trust he refers mostly to the Crusades and other religious wars- these are not the product of Scripture. "Turn the other cheek..." "Pray for your enemies..." "If your enemy is hungry, give him something to eat, if he is thirsty, give him something to drink..." That is Scripture. The Crusades and the "Christian" agressor is something else entirely, a being driven by greed, lust, power-hunger, fear, or hate. Do not assume that all who claim the backing of God actually have it. Remember that Christ said that there would be men who preached and drove out demons in His name but would not be recognized on the day of reckoning.

----------


## RichardHresko

> ``God is not the cause of the evil.``
> 
> Every biblical scholar whose books I have read disagrees.


It would be good if you would cite at least one, with his argument, so we can evaluate it.

I don't know of any author within the Greek or Latin Patristic tradition who would agree that God is the cause of evil. Moving to the Protestant tradition, neither Calvin (who I quoted above in his Commentary on Isaiah), nor Luther (who I did not quote), would agree. I would be shocked were Hans Kueng or Martin Buber to take the position you do.

----------


## RichardHresko

> Rich !
> 
> good you read the article. The point is that science is still trying to find out the reason for good and evil and has no final word to say yet. One of the friends here attributed it to some ''hormones'' such as love being produced by Oxytocin.
> I think we should now go to Walmart and 'buy' some love potion whenever we feel lacking in love!!


I agree on buying love potion #9. And maybe some Rainy Day Women numbers 19 & 35.

The article was very stimulating. And certainly scientists do and should research these things. But even if they were able to find what regions of the brain are involved in the choosing of particular responses that is not likely to result in reducing Good and Evil to merely biochemical functions. 

As a side note, Aquinas (following Aristotle) explicitly ties the soul to the body, as the animating force, and allows the body and soul to interact with each other. Augustine, by the way, does not allow for the influence of the body on the soul, due to his neo-Platonic beliefs. Now I am _not_ claiming that Aquinas was a neurobiologist, however, I will point out that the connection between soul and body is part of Western Christian tradition, as well as Eastern religions. I will also mention in passing that the Eastern Orthodox monastic tradition is extremely rich in this area as well, see especially the work of Gregory Palamas, and Symeon the New Theologian.

You have opened a wonderful area for thought and reflection. Thanks!

----------


## hew2702

I wouldn't say evil is a thing or something like that. Evil is only the absence of God.

Look at it this way: Is there such thing as heat :Flare:  ? Yes, you would say, of course there is. We can measure it, see its effects, etc. 

Now, is there such a thing as cold :Cold: ? You might be quick to answer yes but think for a second. Cold is only the absence of heat. You can not measure cold but only heat. Even when it is cold there is still heat, just very little. Heat is only the transference of energy. Cold is only low levels of heat.

Same with light and dark. Darkness is only the absence if light.

----------


## RichardHresko

> I wouldn't say evil is a thing or something like that. Evil is only the absence of God.
> 
> Look at it this way: Is there such thing as heat ? Yes, you would say, of course there is. We can measure it, see its effects, etc. 
> 
> Now, is there such a thing as cold? You might be quick to answer yes but think for a second. Cold is only the absence of heat. You can not measure cold but only heat. Even when it is cold there is still heat, just very little. Heat is only the transference of energy. Cold is only low levels of heat.
> 
> Same with light and dark. Darkness is only the absence if light.


I agree with you. Evil does not have substantive existence.

----------


## hellsapoppin

> I'm afraid Watts was dead wrong. I trust he refers mostly to the Crusades and other religious wars- these are not the product of Scripture. Do not assume that all who claim the backing of God actually have it.



He was referencing all forms of hate and violence that arose in history. But he was correct in saying that all such violence was done in the name of the Bible and its god.

As for authors who agree that this same god is the cause of all evil, he was the principle writer in this regard. Professor Dan Barker (at one time a preacher, now an atheist who works for Freedom From Religion, Inc) is another. Both are among the most brilliant writers I have ever seen.

----------


## weepingforloman

> He was referencing all forms of hate and violence that arose in history. But he was correct in saying that all such violence was done in the name of the Bible and its god.
> 
> As for authors who agree that this same god is the cause of all evil, he was the principle writer in this regard. Professor Dan Barker (at one time a preacher, now an atheist who works for Freedom From Religion, Inc) is another. Both are among the most brilliant writers I have ever seen.


Really? So murder is done in the name of "love your enemies?" So violence is brought about in the name of one who told His disciples to carry not even a walking stick because it could be used as a weapon? So hatred is done in the name of the God who says His own greatest commandments are "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength" and "love your neighbor as yourself?" Make no mistake, violence done "in the name of" God is an affront to God.

----------


## mazHur

It was (is) human madness which provokes him to kill,,,,like paying Peter to pay Paul ! ugh !

----------


## hellsapoppin

``Make no mistake, violence done "in the name of" God is an affront to God.``

Obviously, you have not read the Bible very much. For if you did, you would know that it is this same god who kills as in Deuteronomy 32:39. He is so cruel that he even killed a group of children for daring to laugh at a man's baldness!

I can give you many other instances of this god's cruelties but anyone can easily look them up online.

----------


## mazHur

God is not 'cruel'. It's man who defames HIm through his cruelties and evil actions..

----------


## Niamh

> I wouldn't say evil is a thing or something like that. Evil is only the absence of God.
> 
> Look at it this way: Is there such thing as heat ? Yes, you would say, of course there is. We can measure it, see its effects, etc. 
> 
> Now, is there such a thing as cold? You might be quick to answer yes but think for a second. Cold is only the absence of heat. You can not measure cold but only heat. Even when it is cold there is still heat, just very little. Heat is only the transference of energy. Cold is only low levels of heat.
> 
> Same with light and dark. Darkness is only the absence if light.


I like your way of thinking.  :Nod:

----------


## RichardHresko

> ``Make no mistake, violence done "in the name of" God is an affront to God.``
> 
> Obviously, you have not read the Bible very much. For if you did, you would know that it is this same god who kills as in Deuteronomy 32:39. He is so cruel that he even killed a group of children for daring to laugh at a man's baldness!
> 
> I can give you many other instances of this god's cruelties but anyone can easily look them up online.


The problem here is that the standard being used to judge God as "cruel" is inappropriate. Since, as Paul wrote, all we have comes from God, anything that he takes is his own, by definition. 

One can, of course, reject the Bible entirely. However, within the Biblical context one cannot prove God unjust.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"One can, of course, reject the Bible entirely. However, within the Biblical context one cannot prove God unjust."

In which case, since the God of the Bible clearly behaves in a way that could only be considered unjust, one is forced* to reject the Bible, or at least reject the possibility that it is God's description of Himself.

[Edit: not forced, of course, just strongly encouraged, anyone is at liberty to believe what he wants. If one is bound to accept every biblical statement about God as true, then one is continually having to make excuses for Him, and finally opting out of any argument by concluding that as He is God He can do what He wants. If the God of the Bible is just, by definition, then justice has no useful meaning - or, at least, God's justice is not of any use as a model on which to base human justice.]

----------


## hellsapoppin

> God is not 'cruel'. It's man who defames HIm through his cruelties and evil actions..



That's a rather unique answer --- god is not ''cruel'', but he commits cruel and evil actions. Yes, I like that one. :Wink: 

``One can, of course, reject the Bible entirely.``


In that same Bible, your god says he is the creator of all evil, kills whomever he pleases, is a jealous god, and visits iniquity (evil) upon the third and fourth generations of those who ''hate'' him (that is, worship idols). When you disregard these truths, it is YOU who reject the Bible.

----------


## RichardHresko

> "One can, of course, reject the Bible entirely. However, within the Biblical context one cannot prove God unjust."
> 
> In which case, since the God of the Bible clearly behaves in a way that could only be considered unjust, one is forced* to reject the Bible, or at least reject the possibility that it is God's description of Himself.
> 
> [Edit: not forced, of course, just strongly encouraged, anyone is at liberty to believe what he wants. If one is bound to accept every biblical statement about God as true, then one is continually having to make excuses for Him, and finally opting out of any argument by concluding that as He is God He can do what He wants. If the God of the Bible is just, by definition, then justice has no useful meaning - or, at least, God's justice is not of any use as a model on which to base human justice.]


The premise is off. It is not true that God in the Bible behaves in a way that can only be considered unjust.

It is also not an "excuse" to note that the relationship between the Creator and his creation is not analogous to that between creatures of the creation.

There is a confusion that results from this lack of appreciation of the difference in relations. The confusion is to believe that what God can do with justice is, or should be, what creatures can do justly. 

The underlying problem is perhaps an unconscious concept of God as being merely a very powerful human being.

----------


## RichardHresko

> ``One can, of course, reject the Bible entirely.``
> 
> 
> In that same Bible, your god says he is the creator of all evil, kills whomever he pleases, is a jealous god, and visits iniquity (evil) upon the third and fourth generations of those who ''hate'' him (that is, worship idols). When you disregard these truths, it is YOU who reject the Bible.


You keep on going back to Isaiah 45:7 after the verse has been explained to be other than you interpret it, and you do not add anything more than reference the verse. Please either show your analysis, cite your reference material (other than a repetition of the verse again and again), or please try a different tack.

----------


## Whifflingpin

Whifflingpin: "If the God of the Bible is just, by definition, then justice has no useful meaning - or, at least, God's justice is not of any use as a model on which to base human justice."
RichardHresko: "The confusion is to believe that what God can do with justice is, or should be, what creatures can do justly. "

Unfortunately, the confusion is common, and rulers and parents throughout history have seen themselves as God's vicars, with the right to exercise "justice" as if they were God.

There was, however, no such confusion on my part. As I said, God's justice, if you take Him as portrayed in the Bible, is not of any use as a model on which to base human justice. The misfortune for us arising from this is that we cannot claim any divine basis for any kind of justice that we may attempt. We cannot tell whether God would prefer us to feed cheeky children to the bears, or to forgive up to seventy times seven times.

----------


## hellsapoppin

``Please either show your analysis``

I have already done so by giving you the notes from blueletterbible.org which is comprised of biblical experts. This may not be what you want to read or understand but it is the way the verse was intended to be interpreted.

----------


## mazHur

"If you want to make progress on the path and ascend to
the places you have longed for, the important thing is not
to think much but to love much, and so to do whatever best
awakens you to love. If you fall sometimes, do not lose heart.
Keep striving to walk your path with integrity. God will draw
out the good even from your fall, just as the man who sells
antidotes will drink poison to test their effectiveness. "

~Teresa of Avila

----------


## mazHur

''It is as if a raindrop fell from heaven into
a stream or fountain and became one with the
water in it so that never again can the raindrop
be separated from the water of the stream; or as
if a little brook ran into the sea and there was
thenceforward no means of distinguishing its water
from the ocean; or as if a brilliant light came
into a room through two windows and though it comes
in divided between them, it forms a single light
inside.''

~St. Teresa of Avila Quoted in
'The Virago Book of Spirituality'
Ed. Sarah Anderson

----------


## mazHur

''... self-knowledge is so important that, even
if you were raised right up to the heavens, I
should like you never to relax your cultivation
of it; so long as we are on this earth, nothing
matters more to us than humility... As I see it,
we shall never succeed in knowing ourselves
unless we seek to know God: let us think of His
greatness and then come back to our own baseness;
by looking at His purity we shall see our foulness;
by meditating upon His humility, we shall see how
far we are from being humble.'''

~Teresa of Avila

----------


## hellsapoppin

Very nice quotes.  :Smile:

----------


## Etienne

> The premise is off. It is not true that God in the Bible behaves in a way that can only be considered unjust.
> 
> It is also not an "excuse" to note that the relationship between the Creator and his creation is not analogous to that between creatures of the creation.
> 
> There is a confusion that results from this lack of appreciation of the difference in relations. The confusion is to believe that what God can do with justice is, or should be, what creatures can do justly. 
> 
> The underlying problem is perhaps an unconscious concept of God as being merely a very powerful human being.


The very fact that we have free will doesn't make us His in the sense where anything would be justified by that simple fact. The justification you gave is alright taken separately, but in a whole, it is different. There is already topics on problem of evil and free will, but starting from the premise that "anything is justified by God since it is His", then the problems arise. This is often the problem, people each give a different answer and none coincide in a dogmatic whole, however each answer in itself is dogmatic but it seems as there is no complete thought. How do you want other to find this credible when everyone lives in his own dogmatic conceptual world, different from each other? Where is that link with God? if there was one, wouldn't beliefs be more homogeneous? No in fact everyone create his own God, customized as he likes, inspired by a model.

There is a throughout inconsistency among believers that goes against the notion of belief by inspiration or metaphysical knowledge of God.

----------


## dzebra

> We cannot tell whether God would prefer us to feed cheeky children to the bears, or to forgive up to seventy times seven times.


Vengeance is the Lord's. 

"Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's
wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,'
says the Lord." (Romans 12: 19)

God wants humans to forgive, he will worry about the bears.

----------


## Whifflingpin

Whifflingpin: "We cannot tell whether God would prefer us to feed cheeky children to the bears, or to forgive up to seventy times seven times. 

dzebra: "Vengeance is the Lord's. 
"Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's
wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,'
says the Lord." (Romans 12: 19)
God wants humans to forgive, he will worry about the bears."

Well that is one biblical text, but there are many others in which humans are commanded to punish in God's name or are commended for acts which, in human terms would be considered grossly unjust.

Purely as an example, chosen because of the similarity of her name and yours, I refer you to Debbora, prophetess and ruler of Israel, and her song of triumph and praise for Jahel. Jahel was the woman who murdrered Sisara her guest (reckoned by all societies to be among the vilest of actions) by banging a tent peg through his head while he slept. Moreover Jahel's people were, at the time, at peace with Sisara's, so there was not even the justification that she might have been slaying an enemy.

So if Debbora was right, then any kind of baseness and murder can be carried out in God's name.

(Judges, chapers 4 & 5)

----------


## RichardHresko

> Whifflingpin: "If the God of the Bible is just, by definition, then justice has no useful meaning - or, at least, God's justice is not of any use as a model on which to base human justice."
> RichardHresko: "The confusion is to believe that what God can do with justice is, or should be, what creatures can do justly. "
> 
> Unfortunately, the confusion is common, and rulers and parents throughout history have seen themselves as God's vicars, with the right to exercise "justice" as if they were God.
> 
> There was, however, no such confusion on my part. As I said, God's justice, if you take Him as portrayed in the Bible, is not of any use as a model on which to base human justice. The misfortune for us arising from this is that we cannot claim any divine basis for any kind of justice that we may attempt. We cannot tell whether God would prefer us to feed cheeky children to the bears, or to forgive up to seventy times seven times.


You are absolutely right that there is confusions. However the confusion comes, I think, more from an assumption that the Bible does not need careful interpretation or no interpretation at all.

I think that it is not impossible to distinguish the actions of God as God (and therefore not to be imitated) in most if not all cases in the Bible. In the very hard cases it may require considering the overall Bible themes to figure things out. In many other cases it is possible to consider what it is that God instructs us to do. Earlier, in this or a related thread, I posted Calvin's analysis of Isaiah 45:7 to show that an apparently troubling verse can be better understood in such a fashion. Many rules are given as explicit commandments. Many of the actions of Jesus can be held as applicable to us. On the other hand, I don't think that most careful readers would need to spend time wondering if they should curse barren fig trees (Mark 11:11-23).

----------


## RichardHresko

> The very fact that we have free will doesn't make us His in the sense where anything would be justified by that simple fact. The justification you gave is alright taken separately, but in a whole, it is different. There is already topics on problem of evil and free will, but starting from the premise that "anything is justified by God since it is His", then the problems arise. This is often the problem, people each give a different answer and none coincide in a dogmatic whole, however each answer in itself is dogmatic but it seems as there is no complete thought. How do you want other to find this credible when everyone lives in his own dogmatic conceptual world, different from each other? Where is that link with God? if there was one, wouldn't beliefs be more homogeneous? No in fact everyone create his own God, customized as he likes, inspired by a model.
> 
> There is a throughout inconsistency among believers that goes against the notion of belief by inspiration or metaphysical knowledge of God.


If one considers that one's entire existence, including the possession of free will, is due God's act alone, then there is such justification. (Aquinas even goes so far as to claim that God's continuous act of creation is required for us to exist, and if he did not do so then we would simply "fall out of existence.")

If I understand your argument correctly you are claiming that because there is no homogeneity in belief that therefore the phenomenon does not exist ("How do you want other to find this credible when everyone lives in his own dogmatic conceptual world, different from each other?"). If there are several witnesses to an event and they describe the event differently from each other are we to conclude that the event did not occur? Issues such as capability, culture, perspective, etc. would need to be taken into account. You know that even something as simple as an undergraduate lab experiment is repeated several times and the average of the results is taken because the results even under such a highly controlled environment will vary.

Why would one think that because there is a lack of homogeneity about the idea of God that that tells us something about God rather than something about humans?

----------


## dzebra

> Well that is one biblical text, but there are many others in which humans are commanded to punish in God's name or are commended for acts which, in human terms would be considered grossly unjust.
> 
> Purely as an example, chosen because of the similarity of her name and yours, I refer you to Debbora, prophetess and ruler of Israel, and her song of triumph and praise for Jahel. Jahel was the woman who murdrered Sisara her guest (reckoned by all societies to be among the vilest of actions) by banging a tent peg through his head while he slept. Moreover Jahel's people were, at the time, at peace with Sisara's, so there was not even the justification that she might have been slaying an enemy.
> 
> So if Debbora was right, then any kind of baseness and murder can be carried out in God's name.
> 
> (Judges, chapers 4 & 5)


It is common for people to give praise to people who have killed their enemies. If I'm in a war, and you kill my enemies, I will praise you for it. Even if you are in an alliance with my enemies, and you kill them, it may be considered by many to be bad for you to do that, but I will still thank you. Maybe Jael was shunned by everyone in the world except for Deborah, but what we have here is Deborah's account.

God is being praised in Deborah's circumstance because those actions fulfilled a prophecy of God.

God used Jael to fulfill a prophecy, so Deborah was giving praise to God for being faithful to what he promised, and she was giving praise to Jael for being an instrument of God.

I know you were just giving that as an example, but in all circumstances like that in the Bible that I can recall, I think the case is similar. God gives a promise, and the promise is fulfilled, then God and the people that God used to fulfill his promise are praised.

----------


## Whifflingpin

Dzebra: "in all circumstances like that in the Bible that I can recall, I think the case is similar. God gives a promise, and the promise is fulfilled, then God and the people that God used to fulfill his promise are praised."

I think you have just confirmed that if you take the Bible for your guide "then any kind of baseness and murder can be carried out in God's name."

----------


## dzebra

Not any kind of murder. Some murders during the time of the prophets under the old law.

And that's assuming the definition of "murder" is the same as "kill."

----------


## Jane Jane

I very seldom tread into this type of water.
And I confess that I have acted like Moses, who, though being the meekest man on earth and a friend of God, still was so angry at Him at one point that he stalked away from camp one evening to be alone and he spoke in a less than respectful, to me, tone to God about the people he was put over.He moe or less said that since he didnt' 'beget' them they were God's responsibility. They truly were a stiff necked group, exasperating to anyone
I have always had a problem with Aaron's getting away with building the golden calf for the others to worship instead of God while his brother Moses was up on the mountain 'face to face' with God as it were doing business.
Many of the others were killed upon Moses return but Aaron not only wasn't he was made priest.
But that anger and feeling of injustice only lasts until I realize that God alone knows the heart, the end from the beginning and all the intricasies that are truly mind boggling about the life and destiny and eternal welfare of each human.So for me, I look to the Passion of Christ and see the compassion , forgiveness, unbelievable love of God, and then all that killing stuff that seems so confusing and contradictory fades away in my mind and I just figure that God, who framed the worlds knows pretty much what he is doing.

----------


## Etienne

> If one considers that one's entire existence, including the possession of free will, is due God's act alone, then there is such justification. (Aquinas even goes so far as to claim that God's continuous act of creation is required for us to exist, and if he did not do so then we would simply "fall out of existence.")


But then Augustine's argument about the problem of evil (evil is the absence of God) and the free will answer to the problem of evil, both fall. What is Aquinas answer to the problem of evil? I'm afraid I only got a few extracts from his Super Boetium, where it is not discussed, my field of interest being more on the philosophical side.




> If I understand your argument correctly you are claiming that because there is no homogeneity in belief that therefore the phenomenon does not exist ("How do you want other to find this credible when everyone lives in his own dogmatic conceptual world, different from each other?"). If there are several witnesses to an event and they describe the event differently from each other are we to conclude that the event did not occur? Issues such as capability, culture, perspective, etc. would need to be taken into account. You know that even something as simple as an undergraduate lab experiment is repeated several times and the average of the results is taken because the results even under such a highly controlled environment will vary.


Since the belief is dogmatic, relativism is not applicable. So my main point was aimed toward the dogmatic aspect of the belief, but the belief and the dogmatism are indissociable here. I'm not saying that because of the heterogeneity, it doesn't exist, that's non sequitur. But when you consider that the knowledge comes from the same "absolute" source, the Holy Scripture, or Churches, or a special link with God, it finally only shows that in all this there is a big degree of fallibility and so none of this knowledge, and by extension, the very existence of God cannot be taken as dogma or out of blind faith. If it is not taken like that then therefore the belief should not be outside reason and logic, am I wrong?




> Why would one think that because there is a lack of homogeneity about the idea of God that that tells us something about God rather than something about humans?


Like I said my point was toward the human belief, not the existence of God itself.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"Not any kind of murder. Some murders during the time of the prophets under the old law.

And that's assuming the definition of "murder" is the same as "kill.""

I don't know how you would define murder. I would say that inviting a fugitive, with whom you have no quarrel, into your home, promising him safety, feeding him, and then banging a tent peg into his head while he's asleep could reasonably be classed as murder, rather than merely "killing."

Putting witches to death, or those who lie with beasts, might not be murder. That would just be killing in the name of the Lord - if you accept that Biblical commandments (Exodus XXII, vv18,19) are to be obeyed. (It would be considered murder in my country, but I think that in some countries it would be the legal penalty. Even though I am not a beastly sorcerer, I thank God that I don't live in a country that follows biblical law.)

----------


## dzebra

God has the ability to let every man do what he chooses to do, and still have complete control, and even though murder is not something that God likes, if a person chooses to murder, God can use it for his purposes.


Responding to your last comment: even though it's very strict sounding, you'd have to admit that the people who had to live under the Old Law, if they actually did what the laws say, would be very well behaved people. I am glad I don't live under that law too, though.

----------


## RichardHresko

> But then Augustine's argument about the problem of evil (evil is the absence of God) and the free will answer to the problem of evil, both fall. What is Aquinas answer to the problem of evil? I'm afraid I only got a few extracts from his Super Boetium, where it is not discussed, my field of interest being more on the philosophical side.
> 
> 
> 
> Since the belief is dogmatic, relativism is not applicable. So my main point was aimed toward the dogmatic aspect of the belief, but the belief and the dogmatism are indissociable here. I'm not saying that because of the heterogeneity, it doesn't exist, that's non sequitur. But when you consider that the knowledge comes from the same "absolute" source, the Holy Scripture, or Churches, or a special link with God, it finally only shows that in all this there is a big degree of fallibility and so none of this knowledge, and by extension, the very existence of God cannot be taken as dogma or out of blind faith. If it is not taken like that then therefore the belief should not be outside reason and logic, am I wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said my point was toward the human belief, not the existence of God itself.


You are mistaken on Augustine and evil. For Augustine moral evil (we'll leave natural evil out, since it is not relevant here) is the turning of the will away from what makes us truly happy to something that can not make us truly happy. For him only God can make us truly happy because only God is eternal and unchanging. Arguments by Augustine along this line can be found in _Confessions_ I believe in Book VII, and is a major focus of _de libero arbitrio_. Turning away from God is not the same thing as his absence. In fact in several places in _Confessions_ Augustine notes that God was always present, but it was that Augustine was alienated from himself. 

Augustine in several places affirms we have free will, but there is the nettlesome question of reconciling free will to his doctrine of the elect as presented in _The Predestination of the Saints_. A possible resolution is that God can present Himself so overwhelmingly that we find ourselves unable to resist. An argument in its favor is that grace leads to faith and faith to love, and that love is something that is beyond our power of choice (I think it is a common experience that we fall in and out of love in spite of our intentions. Or, as Woody Allen put it, "The heart wants what the heart wants.")

A nuance often missed in Augustine is that humans do not have true free will unless they receive grace, since without grace they lack the ability to fully choose not to sin. This came out in his anti-Pelagian writings.

Aquinas follows Augustine fairly closely on the nature of evil as being a lack of goodness. Aquinas accepts that we have free will and that therefore we can choose to act sinfully.

Not all belief is dogmatic in the way you portray. Nor is all dogmatic belief religious in nature (materialism, for example). I think that it would be better to drop this particular line and deal with arguments that are reasonable rather than straw men.

There is a distinction between killing and murder. Murder is when the death is brought about by someone who has no right to take the life. God by definition can not commit murder. Aquinas believed that IF a person took a life under God's instruction that too would not be murder. The question then would be how would we know if God gave approval. But that is a different question than whether in such a case, if shown, was there a murder.

----------


## Whifflingpin

Whiff: "I think you have just confirmed that if you take the Bible for your guide "then any kind of baseness and murder can be carried out in God's name.""
RichardHresko: "Aquinas believed that IF a person took a life under God's instruction that too would not be murder."

There is merely a shift of definition here, so Aquinas too is confirming that any kind of behaviour that would be generally considered morally vile is acceptable if God wishes it. I can accept that as an axiom, but it is totally unhelpful. 

There are at least two questions arising out of that, not one. 
There is your question of how would we know if God gave approval.
There is also the question of whether God would ever give such approval.

I do not believe that God would ever give that approval, how ever often he is portrayed in the Bible as doing so.

----------


## RichardHresko

> Whiff: "I think you have just confirmed that if you take the Bible for your guide "then any kind of baseness and murder can be carried out in God's name.""
> RichardHresko: "Aquinas believed that IF a person took a life under God's instruction that too would not be murder."
> 
> There is merely a shift of definition here, so Aquinas too is confirming that any kind of behaviour that would be generally considered morally vile is acceptable if God wishes it. I can accept that as an axiom, but it is totally unhelpful. 
> 
> There are at least two questions arising out of that, not one. 
> There is your question of how would we know if God gave approval.
> There is also the question of whether God would ever give such approval.
> 
> I do not believe that God would ever give that approval, how ever often he is portrayed in the Bible as doing so.



Aquinas does not say that morally vile behaviour is acceptable if God wishes it. He states that if God wishes a thing it is not morally vile. This came up in the discussion of "Abraham's Dilemma". In that thread I pointed out that Aquinas wrote (and I gave the specific reference to the place in the Summa) that Abraham, had he sacrificed his son would not have murdered since God had the right to Isaac's life.

The question of any individual's belief is not for me to comment upon. However, within the framework of the Bible, and also in the patristic tradition, God's behaviour is by definition just. It is no more a dodge to point out that the standards for God and man differ, than to accept that a human should be held to a different standard than a puppy.

It is not clear what "helpful" means in this context.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"Aquinas does not say that morally vile behaviour is acceptable if God wishes it."
Neither did I. 
"He states that if God wishes a thing it is not morally vile."
That's what I said he said - the kind of behaviour that *would be generally considered* morally vile is acceptable if God wishes it. Feel free to substitute "otherwise" for "generally" if that would make it clearer.

But when Aquinas or anyone states that anything God does is acceptable, that is simply making a definition that is both unarguable and unhelpful.

It is unhelpful because it means that God's behaviour offers no clue whatever to what our behaviour should be, and provides no basis for any kind of morality, or concept of good and evil. 

It is possible to distinguish (not, for us, absolutely or infallibly, but at least practically) between a good person and an evil one. If such a distinction has any meaning, it is because (in the context of this discussion) what we call good behaviour is also what God calls good behaviour, and because God's behaviour is in the same direction as what we would call good, even if infinitely far in that direction. 

Of course "the standards for God and man differ," but the teachings of Jesus may give a clue as to how they differ. The parable of the labourers in the vineyard or the prodigal son indicate a God who is generous beyond the human standard of generosity. Humans forgive up to seven times, God forgives beyond seventy times seven. Human love may extend to laying down one's life for his friends, divine love includes laying down one's life even for the very people who want to destroy it.

Now I cannot dispute that Jael's actions would have to be deemed morally correct if commanded by God, and I cannot deny that God would have the power and right to issue such a command, and I accept that, even if God had not commanded it He could turn an evil action into a good result. What I do not believe, however, is that God would ever command or condone such treachery and meanness as displayed by Jael, or behave Himself in a way that would be considered vile in humans. 

The Bible, particularly the historical books of the Old Testament, shows God exhibiting or encouraging behaviour that would otherwise be considered morally repugnant To that extent, I believe it to provide a very unreliable portrait of God. It makes a wonderful history of man's quest for God, and shows how one nation developed its understanding of Him. The earlier books, I believe, were written by humans in their puppy stage, and show Dog as a champion chewer of carpets - the later ones show him as faithful companion and protector.

----------


## RichardHresko

> "Aquinas does not say that morally vile behaviour is acceptable if God wishes it."
> Neither did I. 
> "He states that if God wishes a thing it is not morally vile."
> That's what I said he said - the kind of behaviour that *would be generally considered* morally vile is acceptable if God wishes it. Feel free to substitute "otherwise" for "generally" if that would make it clearer.
> 
> But when Aquinas or anyone states that anything God does is acceptable, that is simply making a definition that is both unarguable and unhelpful.
> 
> It is unhelpful because it means that God's behaviour offers no clue whatever to what our behaviour should be, and provides no basis for any kind of morality, or concept of good and evil. 
> 
> ...


It is not disputatable that God's behavior offers no clue whatever to what our behavior should be. It shouldn't. Any more than a human's behavior should offer a clue to a cat how to behave. That does not make the human's behavior "unhelpful" in any way. The problem here is assuming that there somehow _ought_ to be a connection.

You were right that good behavior is what God calls us to do (we won't go into here the various ways God can issue such a statement -- revelation, natural law, etc.). The failure is in the second part, in taking God's actions as necessarily being part of that call. There is no basis for that.

We come now to a point where there is no dispute, given that it is based on premises. The point is this, where is the ultimate reference for us as to the nature of God? Your answer suggests that you hold a reference point outside the Bible as your ultimate reference, since you use that external reference to judge the Biblical account. Others would hold revelation as the ultimate reference point, and should there be a difference between their external (to the Bible) conception and the Bible will assume theirs is wrong. The reason there is no dispute is that the approaches are irreconcilable, and there is no way to successfully indisputably prove which set of premises is more useful.

----------


## Whifflingpin

RichardHresko: "The point is this, where is the ultimate reference for us as to the nature of God? "
The ultimate reference for each individual as to the nature of God is, and can only be, within each individual. One can only choose the Bible as his reference point by an act of his own will driven by his own mind or conscience, and so it is some point within him that is the ultimate reference. 
Only having reached the conclusion that the nature of God is such as to be fully described within the Bible can an individual reject other descriptions. 

RichardHresko: "you hold a reference point outside the Bible as your ultimate reference, since you use that external reference to judge the Biblical account. Others would hold revelation as the ultimate reference point, and should there be a difference between their external (to the Bible) conception and the Bible will assume theirs is wrong. The reason there is no dispute is that the approaches are irreconcilable, and there is no way to successfully indisputably prove which set of premises is more useful."

I agree completely with that. The majority of this thread seems to depend on a biblical view of God. I have tried to show that there are other views. Such an exercise would be appear to be trivial, except that many of the posters on both sides of the "Is God Evil?" argument seem to think that the Bible (taken fairly literally) gives the only valid description of God. But there are other starting points, and, as you say, "there is no way to successfully indisputably prove which set of premises is more useful." 

RichardHresko: "It is not disputatable that God's behavior offers no clue whatever to what our behavior should be. It shouldn't."
Maybe you are technically correct in this - well, of course you are. That does not stop the supposed connection from being used in many arguments. "God gave this therefore he has a right to do that" for instance, is based entirely on a projection of human morality onto God. Given the truth of your comment, the second part holds irrespectively of the first, but most disputants feel the need to insert or imply that "therefore."

----------


## hellsapoppin

``that's assuming the definition of "murder" is the same as "kill."``


Jesus said that to hate another person was an act of murder and that the punishment would be eternal death. Since Christians hold the record for killing the most people on earth in the name of the Bible, this means quite a few of them are going to miss out on the promised eternal bliss.

----------


## RichardHresko

> ``that's assuming the definition of "murder" is the same as "kill."``
> 
> 
> Jesus said that to hate another person was an act of murder and that the punishment would be eternal death. Since Christians hold the record for killing the most people on earth in the name of the Bible, this means quite a few of them are going to miss out on the promised eternal bliss.


One need not hate to kill.

----------


## mazHur

> One need not hate to kill.



yep. one doesn't even need to know one to kill . Killing is governed by many factors, including love and lust, hunger and power.

poppins arguments are merely based on the assumption that whatever is mentioned in the Bible is correct. That all other premises are not related to the subject. This thinking clouds the very image of God and the purpose of killing in His name.........

----------


## RichardHresko

> RichardHresko: "The point is this, where is the ultimate reference for us as to the nature of God? "
> The ultimate reference for each individual as to the nature of God is, and can only be, within each individual. One can only choose the Bible as his reference point by an act of his own will driven by his own mind or conscience, and so it is some point within him that is the ultimate reference. 
> Only having reached the conclusion that the nature of God is such as to be fully described within the Bible can an individual reject other descriptions. 
> 
> RichardHresko: "you hold a reference point outside the Bible as your ultimate reference, since you use that external reference to judge the Biblical account. Others would hold revelation as the ultimate reference point, and should there be a difference between their external (to the Bible) conception and the Bible will assume theirs is wrong. The reason there is no dispute is that the approaches are irreconcilable, and there is no way to successfully indisputably prove which set of premises is more useful."
> 
> I agree completely with that. The majority of this thread seems to depend on a biblical view of God. I have tried to show that there are other views. Such an exercise would be appear to be trivial, except that many of the posters on both sides of the "Is God Evil?" argument seem to think that the Bible (taken fairly literally) gives the only valid description of God. But there are other starting points, and, as you say, "there is no way to successfully indisputably prove which set of premises is more useful." 
> 
> RichardHresko: "It is not disputatable that God's behavior offers no clue whatever to what our behavior should be. It shouldn't."
> Maybe you are technically correct in this - well, of course you are. That does not stop the supposed connection from being used in many arguments. "God gave this therefore he has a right to do that" for instance, is based entirely on a projection of human morality onto God. Given the truth of your comment, the second part holds irrespectively of the first, but most disputants feel the need to insert or imply that "therefore."


I think that you have stated the differences here concisely and well. My one quibble is over whether "only valid" or "ultimate" description is the more accurate for the position of some on the Bible. But that is minor.

Given these differences it is very easy for each side to talk past the other.

----------


## hellsapoppin

> One need not hate to kill.



That may well be true. But my point is that according to that Bible, one need not commit the act in order to be guilty of murder. 

It's a good thing most Christian professing people do not take the Bible literally or many more peope would have faced the gallows than have done so throughout history.

----------


## emilylou06

i agree with Fisherofmen, evil is the absence of God. God create good, and he created man with FREE WILL. Man chose to do evil acts because he would not be struck down on the spot. We will never know why or how God does things, if we did, he would be no greater than man. His logic is so much greater than ours that the closest we have gotten to figuring Him out is still miles away.

----------


## mazHur

IF God is everything doesn't it mean He is Nothing ??

----------


## dzebra

Nothing is the opposite of everything, so I don't understand how that could possibly follow.

----------


## RichardHresko

> That may well be true. But my point is that according to that Bible, one need not commit the act in order to be guilty of murder. 
> 
> It's a good thing most Christian professing people do not take the Bible literally or many more peope would have faced the gallows than have done so throughout history.


However, what is lacking in your point is an understanding of _why_ hatred is equated to murder. And also to the distinction between killing and murder.

There is, of course, a great need to take care in interpreting the Bible. This is why it is insufficient to merely read the book (especially in translation), and also why it is ultimately an exercise in futility to try to fully grasp what is in there without an understanding of the traditions, and yes, a community. It is probebly true (with rare exceptions) that a solitary Christian is, in the final analysis, a contradiction in terms.

----------


## hellsapoppin

``a solitary Christian is, in the final analysis, a contradiction in terms.``


Not really --- according to that same Bible, Jesus said to his followers: ''know ye not, ye are gods?''

Gods are self contained or can be (in theory).

I don't know why you persist in in your insistance that your interpretation of that book is any better than anyone else's. As always, look up blueletterbible.org for any misunderstandings you have such as those expert comments on this god's creation of all evil.

----------


## RichardHresko

> ``a solitary Christian is, in the final analysis, a contradiction in terms.``
> 
> 
> Not really --- according to that same Bible, Jesus said to his followers: ''know ye not, ye are gods?''
> 
> Gods are self contained or can be (in theory).
> 
> I don't know why you persist in in your insistance that your interpretation of that book is any better than anyone else's. As always, look up blueletterbible.org for any misunderstandings you have such as those expert comments on this god's creation of all evil.


Once again, the quote you take is out of context. The doctrine of deification has a long tradition, especially in the Eastern Orthodox. Deification does not, even in theory, imply that we are or can become God Himself. 

See, for example, Symeon the New Theologian's _Discourses_ and Palamas' _Triads_. In both of these works it is made clear that what is involved is not that we become stabd-alone gods as your interpretation would have it, but rather that we participate in the activity _energeia_ of God. We can not participate in the Being of God because we are not of the same substance _ousia_ as God.

----------


## RichardHresko

> ``a solitary Christian is, in the final analysis, a contradiction in terms.``
> 
> 
> Not really --- according to that same Bible, Jesus said to his followers: ''know ye not, ye are gods?''
> 
> Gods are self contained or can be (in theory).
> 
> I don't know why you persist in in your insistance that your interpretation of that book is any better than anyone else's. As always, look up blueletterbible.org for any misunderstandings you have such as those expert comments on this god's creation of all evil.


First of all, I list my sources. Second of all, these sources are certainly not fringe commentators of unknown provenance.

Thirdly, you don't even read all the commentaries of your own "source," the blueletterbible.org, as is revealed by looking at the commentaries they list for Isaiah 45:7. Leaving aside the qualifications of Rev Chuck Smith (the first commentator listed), and Rev. Guzick (the second) neither of them agree with _your_ interpretation of that verse.

Further, looking at the list of commentaries on your touted website, it should be noted that there are so many omissions of serious commentaries (Augustine, Aquinas, Jerome, Calvin, Palamas, Chrysostom, just to name a few from a very long list) and the inclusions of, well, Reverend "Chucks" that one would need to approach using this source with extreme caution. It would be folly to rely on it as the sole source of information.

----------


## hellsapoppin

``We can not participate in the Being of God because we are not of the same substance ousia as God.``


God is suppose to be limitless. Jesus plainly said that any of his ministers can easily duplicate and surpass any of his miracles. Therefore, they can control the weather and alter the chemistry of substances by turning them into food and water. That would certainly make one ''self contained''.

As for blueletter, that is precisely my point: it has all opinions and is authoritative.

----------


## hellsapoppin

http://members.aol.com/Patriarchy/pr...n/sendevil.htm

Interesting article that acknowledges divine creation of evil but suggests that, ultimately, good comes from it.

----------


## RichardHresko

> ``We can not participate in the Being of God because we are not of the same substance ousia as God.``
> 
> 
> God is suppose to be limitless. Jesus plainly said that any of his ministers can easily duplicate and surpass any of his miracles. Therefore, they can control the weather and alter the chemistry of substances by turning them into food and water. That would certainly make one ''self contained''.
> 
> As for blueletter, that is precisely my point: it has all opinions and is authoritative.


No, blueletter _lacks_ most of the most respected sources. Thus it is not even close to having "all" opinions, and many of the ones listed there are hardly authoritative. It is not a particularly good website. CCEL (it is either christian classic ethereal library or classic christian ethereal library, I forget) is a better website in that it has many of the classics.

There is confusion in your post as to what "self-contained" means theologically. Also, there is a basic misunderstanding about what "ousia" and "limitless" mean in the context of a theological discussion. I look forward to continuing this discussion when those issues have been addressed.

----------


## Tuninks

God cannot be labeled good or evil, the reason is because God himself does not have human morals and ethics. Good and evil is a terminology made by man to label words or actions and their effects on society and the environment. "One man's freedom fighter is another man's Terrorist."

For God, this does not apply for over the eons of existence, we can witness through texts that God himself evolves in his mindset. From quizzical, to curious, to wrathful, then to forgiving. Through all these changes his actions are defined as paradoxical and unearthly. In this, I believe, we cannot label him with a humanly term such as good or evil, and even then to do so would be to judge him.

----------


## RichardHresko

> http://members.aol.com/Patriarchy/pr...n/sendevil.htm
> 
> Interesting article that acknowledges divine creation of evil but suggests that, ultimately, good comes from it.


_Anarcho-Calvinism_??? This has to be a joke. But of course this organization _has_ to be in California. Where else?

Once again, the basic problem is that merely stringing together a bunch of verses without careful, thoughtful work at interpretation will lead to things like this. There is no scintilla of evidence that there is any attempt to understand the nature of evil, or of God. No evidence that any thought went into what it means when the Bible says that God sends evil. It's just a cut-and-paste collage.

----------


## hellsapoppin

So say you.

----------


## RichardHresko

> So say you.


I read the site. It strings together a number of verses without any analysis in order to try to validate a fairly common apocalyptic vision of the world. _Res ipsa loquitur._

----------


## hellsapoppin

That's OK, RH. You are entitled to your opinion. Doesn't mean that anyone else is wrong, though.

For a god to be always present and all knowing, to have determined who is going to be saved even before he creates the world, to stand by and allow people to succumb to a lie, and to then blame people for falling victim to a crime that he created all clearly proves that this same god is evil and the exclusive cause of all evil.

As I wrote before, in some jurisdictions if you know that a crime is going to take place and you fail to stop it or inform the authorities, you would be in big trouble. So how any god can claim to be innocent of the crime he set up has no logic whatsoever. But if you still feel he is ever so innocent, fine and dandy.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> That's OK, RH. You are entitled to your opinion. Doesn't mean that anyone else is wrong, though.


Quite so - I fully agree.




> For a god to be always present and all knowing, to have determined who is going to be saved even before he creates the world, to stand by and allow people to succumb to a lie, and to then blame people for falling victim to a crime that he created all clearly proves that this same god is evil and the exclusive cause of all evil. 
> 
> As I wrote before, in some jurisdictions if you know that a crime is going to take place and you fail to stop it or inform the authorities, you would be in big trouble. So how any god can claim to be innocent of the crime he set up has no logic whatsoever. But if you still feel he is ever so innocent, fine and dandy.


This is true only if your presuppositions about God's relation to Time are correct. How do you know if they are? Who says that God experiences reality as we do - in a linear fashion - where the future lies along a continuum that we've yet to reach. Some theologians make the (correct, in my opinion) assertion that the future does not exist to be known - by anyone, including God, because saying that God has an exhaustive knowledge of _what doesn't exist_ is illogical (like the silly conundrum of "If God is all-powerful, can He create a rock so big He can't lift it?"). As such, I don't believe that God "knows the future" as we conceptualize "knowing the future." 

If God exists "in time" like we do, how could He process the millions of prayer request that go up every second? 

Seriously - the idea that God "knew" what would happen contradicts the description of Him given in the Bible - in that God as He is described (all-good, "love," compassionate, merciful and just) could not logically "set up" humanity for its own failure. God knew that creating beings with freewill entailed a potential for the rebellion and suffering that resulted, but I contest that idea that He "knew" what _hadn't had a chance to happen yet_. Yes God can "read" the human heart with incredible accuracy - but we have freewill, and can always choose against our nature or tendency. It's tough, but possible.

As well, if God was evil, then He certainly wouldn't bother to let those who criticize Him exist for long; to think that He would, would be to attribute some form of "fairness" to Him - wouldn't it?

----------


## hellsapoppin

``Who says that God experiences reality as we do ``

Who says he doesn't?


``freewill ... tough but possible``

Not so for an abortion victim.


``fairness``

This same god laughs at the aggrieved. Perhaps he likes to hear the truth.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> ``Who says that God experiences reality as we do ``
> 
> Who says he doesn't?


That's not really a response, you know. 

Logic says that God doesn't experience reality as we do because we are confined to 3-4 dimensions, whereas God - by very fact of His spiritual and eternal nature, exists in a much different way. The banal examle I gave of God having to attend to the myriad prayers as they are offered in _real time_ is one example of the illogical idea that God experiences reality exactly as we do.





> ``freewill ... tough but possible``
> 
> Not so for an abortion victim.


And God - in His goodness, mercy, and justice, welcomes that child into heaven, no questions asked.





> ``fairness``
> 
> This same god laughs at the aggrieved. Perhaps he likes to hear the truth.


Got a citation for that? Charges are one thing and support for those, quite another.

----------


## hellsapoppin

``That's not really a response, you know.``

Others have already pointed out that your god is vengeful, that he is jealous, and he kills whomever he pleases. Such attributes are definitely those of humans and of animals. It is a fair inference that he experiences everything as we humans do as well.

BTW, his incessant demand for praise is a (shall we say) highly human fault.


``heaven``

The Kingdom is here on earth. See Revelations Ch 21.


``laughing at the aggrieved``

See Romans 9 for a very haughty comment about mercy upon whom he pleases.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> ``That's not really a response, you know.``
> 
> Others have already pointed out that your god is vengeful, that he is jealous, and he kills whomever he pleases. Such attributes are definitely those of humans and of animals. It is a fair inference that he experiences everything as we humans do as well.


1. But we were talking about the issue of God's "foreknowledge" and human freewill - issues of _time_. That is specifically the aspect of God's existence we were discussing - not his attributes or alleged behaviors.
2. Vengeance, "jealousy" and killing are not exclusively human traits - and you speak as if they were things God should not do - why would you suggest such a thing? If we humans can find "just" reasons for enacting vengeance, for experiencing jealousy, and for taking a human life, you don't think the supreme being of the universe also can't have a good reason for doing so?




> BTW, his incessant demand for praise is a (shall we say) highly human fault.


What if I suggested to you that God's command (not "demand") for praise is something that the _believer_ benefits from, not God. God is not made better, happier, or more complete because we little clay things say nice statements about Him. Because God created us, He knows what's good for us - and what is good for us is to acknowledge the source of our lives, our blessings,and our salvation. Many Christians will attest to the beneficial results of incorporating praise into ones life - it alters perspective, makes us focus on our blessings, and reminds us that our God is a great God, who is in control of everything. Besides, if God is who the Bible claims Him to be, isn't He justified in expecting praise from those to whom He has given everything?





> ``heaven``
> 
> The Kingdom is here on earth. See Revelations Ch 21.


Clever, but incorrect. Revelation 21 deals with the "made new" earth after the final judgment. 





> ``laughing at the aggrieved``
> 
> See Romans 9 for a very haughty comment about mercy upon whom he pleases.


Well, then there's a bit of hyperbole in the term "laughing" because my Bible has nothing of the sort in Romans 9. God may take mercy on whomever He pleases - to what standard of mercy would you like to hold Him? If God is perfect in His justice (He really couldn't be God and be imperfect in any way, could He?), then His taking mercy "on whom He pleases" is just.

----------


## Ozymandias

Think back on one of the oldest stories of the bible in Eden. What was the sin that was committed by Adam and Eve that separated them from God? It was obtaining the knowledge of the difference between good and evil. 

They created the world of duality, or rather the perception of duality which did not exist prior to the eating of the fruit of that tree. 

Literally one cannot live in paradise if they accept the judgement of what is good and what is evil. It was this action and knowledge that put distance between them and their creator.

----------


## hellsapoppin

``issues of time ... not his attributes or alleged behaviors``

Maybe you were restricting the exchange of ideas to these limited circumstances. Nobody else was.


``things God should not do``

This same god calls himself ''love''. Does a loving father commit such atrocities and then pretend to be ever so loving???


``praise is something that the believer benefits from, not God``

That's your belief, not mine. 

In the many years I lived in NY, I knew of many people detained in Hitler's death camps. All had previously been devout believers of biblical teaching. most wound up cursing this same god for abandoning them in their time of need. Praise does nothing but flatter this god's ego.


``final judgment``

Precisely. AFTER the Judgment Day takes place, that's when the elect will get their reward. They will not go to heaven as this same god will leave it and live there.


``hyperbole``

Again, so say you. You are entitled to your belief. But it does not mean that anyone else is wrong. In that part of the New Testament your god is exceedingly haughty. And, as always, he is displaying vile attributes that he condemns in humans!

AMAZING!!! :FRlol:

----------


## Whifflingpin

hellsapoppin: "Others have already pointed out that your god is vengeful, that he is jealous, and he kills whomever he pleases."

This may be a misinterptretation of some of my posts. 
To clarify: in discussing the Old Testament, you seem to be saying that God is described as bad so reject God; whereas I am saying, God is described badly so reject the description. 
(Redzeppelin and RichardHresko argue that the description is correct, and God, by definition, is not bad, so we have to accept that what might be bad for a human to do is not bad when God does it.)

----------


## hellsapoppin

``we have to accept that what might be bad for a human to do is not bad when God does it``


See 

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot....od-killed.html


according to the Bible, this same god who claims to be ''all loving'' and of unceasing mercy killed over 2 million people

don't know how anyone can claim that this is a good sign but if that is what you wish to believe, so be it

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Think back on one of the oldest stories of the bible in Eden. What was the sin that was committed by Adam and Eve that separated them from God? It was obtaining the knowledge of the difference between good and evil. 
> 
> They created the world of duality, or rather the perception of duality which did not exist prior to the eating of the fruit of that tree. 
> 
> Literally one cannot live in paradise if they accept the judgement of what is good and what is evil. It was this action and knowledge that put distance between them and their creator.


The Knowledge of Good and Evil was knowledge that only God could possess because evil is so dangerous, so toxic that only God as Supreme uncreated being could be exposed to evil and not be contaminated by it. Just as we try to protect our children from certain types of knowledge that they are not ready for, God did the same.





> ``issues of time ... not his attributes or alleged behaviors``
> 
> Maybe you were restricting the exchange of ideas to these limited circumstances. Nobody else was.


Perhaps.





> ``things God should not do``
> 
> This same god calls himself ''love''. Does a loving father commit such atrocities and then pretend to be ever so loving???


You are not really dealing with the complexity of what I'm suggesting. A loving father may - at times - have to do things that his children might call "mean." The father who consequences his child does so out of love - the overly permissive father who allows all under the guise of "love" warps his child. 

I understand that your response will say there is a big difference between the example I gave and God's actions. Fair enough - but there is also a big difference between a human father and an all-knowing, all-powerful being.

I won't argue that there are some pretty sad, ugly things that happen in the OT. What I'm contending is that those who wish to condemn God for His behavior do so with only a partial command of the facts - PERIOD. Here on earth we accept the truism that justice is blind - ie that justice can never really know the complete truth. God does know the complete truth - His knowledge is the complete register of all reality. If He destroys, He has a reason that will be consistent with His character - whether or not you agree. Putting God on trial is like a child complaining about not being able to go to Disneyland for vacation who doesn't understand the desperate financial position his parents are in. We do not have a command of all the facts.





> ``praise is something that the believer benefits from, not God``
> 
> That's your belief, not mine. 
> 
> In the many years I lived in NY, I knew of many people detained in Hitler's death camps. All had previously been devout believers of biblical teaching. most wound up cursing this same god for abandoning them in their time of need. Praise does nothing but flatter this god's ego.


Right - but what's the basis of your belief?

God's "ego" (if he has one in the sense that we use it) cannot be "flattered" by mere human beings. God is self-sufficient - He requires nothing. God's sense of His identity cannot be victim to the myriad problems we humans experience in our desire to be loved - God needs nothing from us. He does not ask us for things because He _needs_ them - He asks us for things that He knows are good for us.





> ``final judgment``
> 
> Precisely. AFTER the Judgment Day takes place, that's when the elect will get their reward. They will not go to heaven as this same god will leave it and live there.


Sorry - I'm lost as to how your response rebuts in any way point I made about the salvation of aborted children.





> ``hyperbole``
> 
> Again, so say you. You are entitled to your belief. But it does not mean that anyone else is wrong. In that part of the New Testament your god is exceedingly haughty. And, as always, he is displaying vile attributes that he condemns in humans!
> 
> AMAZING!!!


You're still not really dealing with my argument. Your 2nd and 3rd sentence merely state a matter of reality - but it deals in no way with what I said.

"Haughty" - no. Paul simply tells us that God possesses - as Supreme Being - certain prerogatives in terms of whom He saves and whom He doesn't. What you're ignoring is the issue of character. Even our legal system recognizes the issue of character (hence "character witnesses"). God's character, as the Bible describes, points to the reality that things that may appear very wrong, or inappropriate to us may not necessarily be wrong or inappropriate because God's character vindicates His actions. That he does not always give us the complete rundown of all the facts behind His decisions means that we will - on faith - assume that God is just in all that He does.

----------


## hellsapoppin

``He requires nothing.``


Then why demand so much praise???

I know you said it benefits people (your opinion but one that has no actual basis, in my opinion). But time can be better spent without such a useless waste of energy.


``we have to accept that what might be bad for a human to do is not bad when God does it``

One last thought on this sentence = in it you have admitted that god is evil. 


I'll re-read and post re the rest of your note tomorrow.

----------


## NikolaiI

Yes, well, Paul is not author of ultimate truth. In fact, his opinion is just that, an opinion. *I* will tell you I have never seen God do anything for humans, good or bad. I do believe he exists as an infinite, but that's an infinite of infinite GOOD. He does not DO anything, if God works you will not know he did anything. And he would not do anything to hurt anyone. Further, Christianity has no more monopoly on aboslute truth than Paul. If Christ is at one with the infinite, good for him. There are many, many, saints, boddhisattvas, gods and demigods, written about in other religions. None of them are greater than the infinite, but absolute truth is universal.........I mean, it is not limited to Christians nor is it limited to not offending their sensibilities......as what good Christian would not be offended by the mentioning of demigods???? Yet what is an angel?????

----------


## dzebra

> ``He requires nothing.``
> 
> 
> Then why demand so much praise???
> 
> 
> 
> ``we have to accept that what might be bad for a human to do is not bad when God does it``
> 
> One last thought on this sentence = in it you have admitted that god is evil.


He wants the praise of humans because God is the only one who is worthy of that praise. Giving the praise to anyone else is like thanking your brother for your birthday gift when your brother didn't actually get you anything, your parents did. 


And I don't understand why you think that sentence says that God is evil. Contrary to that, it sounds like it says God is good no matter what (which is the opposite of evil).

----------


## mazHur

there is a saying in the East which reflects on the situation, 
''God doesn't beat you down with a baton, He simply inverts your senses''!!
Now, you have a reason to say evil is not brought about by God...

----------


## hellsapoppin

~~ god is not ''haughty'' ~~

His actions in killing all those millions {see link above} clearly prove the point that not only is he haughty, he's a murderer as well!

~~ always give us the complete rundown of all the facts behind His decisions ~~


To the dead abortion victim, no such chance is given.


~~ If He destroys, He has a reason that will be consistent with His character ~~

A point I agree with but for reasons that differ with yours: yes he kills but not out of justice or beneficence. He does so out of vengeance, hate, and malice. You already have several instances of homicidal actions consistent with this from the OT.


~~ there is also a big difference between a human father and an all-knowing, all-powerful being.~~

Jesus spoke of himself as a model. A model based upon his father. He never said ''worship me''. He only said ''follow me'' --- that is, do as I do, imitate me in every way. He made himself quite human didn't he? And he did so because his father is every bit as ''human'' as he. Well, at least in theory both are.

But because this god is greatly ''different'', this means that he is all the more accountable for his actions. In the legal world there is a concept called *respondeat superior.* This means that the boss is answerable for the misdeeds of his charges. A superior person answers for the weak. As a god he is morally and ethically responsible for all sins and all evils that are undertaken in his name. At least that's the way it is supposed to be. Your god simply has no excuse for the crimes, injustices, and evils that befall this troubled world. None whatsoever.

You can continue to make up every excuse in the world but you will never succeed in proving that this god is moral and just. If he was, then people like Alan Watts would not be pointing out that more people have been killed in the name of the Bible than for any other reason in history. 

Just as one last example (and not to get unnecessarily political about it), Bush has invaded an innocent country and killed over one million people in an unjust war with many tens of thousands injured. As you likely recall, this liar said he was ordered by the Bible's god to commit this atrocious act.

If your god is so just and he knows that his name has been so wantonly profaned by this evildoer Bush, why hasn't he stepped up and put a stop to those crimes? According to the Bible which you and others continually use, he is supposed to have stopped it all by now but he does nothing.

How then can belief in the Bible and its god be justified???

----------


## hellsapoppin

``God is the only one who is worthy of that praise``


I know of Odinists, Buddhists, animists, and others who say that their gods are worthier of that praise. However, none are willing to kill or to have anyone killed in the name of their divinities.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> ``He requires nothing.``
> 
> 
> Then why demand so much praise???
> 
> I know you said it benefits people (your opinion but one that has no actual basis, in my opinion). But time can be better spent without such a useless waste of energy.


First, because you and I are starting from different foundations, of course you'll answer like you do. Nobody who actually believed in a supreme being capable of bringing the universe into existence through His spoken word would talk about "time better spent" doing something else. Here's a couple excerpts from bible-history.com that say it better than I:

*The Grounds of Praise.*
Sometimes God is praised for His inherent qualities. His majesty (Ps 104:1) or holiness (Isa 6:3) fills the mind, and He is "glorified as God" (Rom 1:21) in view of what He essentially is. More frequently He is praised for His works in creation, providence, and redemption. References may be dispensed with here, for the evidence meets us on almost every page of the sacred literature from Genesis to Revelation, and the Book of Psalms in particular, from beginning to end, is occupied with these themes. When God's operations under these aspects present themselves, not simply as general effects of His power and wisdom, but as expressions of His personal love to the individual, the nation, the church, His works become benefits, and praise passes into blessing and thanksgiving (Pss 34; 103; Eph 1:3; 1 Pet 1:3).

*The Duty of Praise.*
Praise is everywhere represented in the Bible as a duty no less than a natural impulse and a delight. To fail in this duty is to withhold from God's glory that belongs to Him (Ps 50:23; Rom 1:20 f); it is to shut one's eyes to the signs of His presence (Isa 40:26 ff), to be forgetful of His mercies (Dt 6:12), and unthankful for His kindness (Lk 6:35). If we are not to fall into these sins, but are to give to God the honor and glory and gratitude we owe Him, we must earnestly cultivate the spirit and habit of praise. From holy men of old we learn that this may be done by arousing the soul from its slothfulness and sluggishness (Ps 57:8; 103:1), by fixing the heart upon God (Ps 57:7; 108:1), by meditation on His works and ways (Ps 77:11 ff), by recounting His benefits (Ps 103:2), above all, for those to whom He has spoken in His Son, by dwelling upon His unspeakable gift (2 Cor 9:15; compare Rom 8:31 ff; 1 Jn 3:1).





> ``we have to accept that what might be bad for a human to do is not bad when God does it``
> 
> One last thought on this sentence = in it you have admitted that god is evil.


That would be an incorrect interpretation of my remarks. I admitted nothing - I made it clear that there is a huge moral difference between us and God.




> Yes, well, Paul is not author of ultimate truth. In fact, his opinion is just that, an opinion.


Then he's not worth reading. But, if we accept what he says about his relationship with God and the fact that he claims divine inspriation in his writings, well that's a different story: it is not "just" his opinion. You do not found a church on a man's "opinion."





> *I* will tell you I have never seen God do anything for humans, good or bad.


This statement proves nothing. I've not seen England either, but I know it exists. Christ makes it clear in the NT that one of the greatest problems he came to free people from was blindness - not the literal kind, the figurative kind.




> I do believe he exists as an infinite, but that's an infinite of infinite GOOD.


I have no idea what this statement means.




> He does not DO anything, if God works you will not know he did anything.


And the your basis for this belief? What about those of us who flatly disagree with you?




> And he would not do anything to hurt anyone.


I do not wish to be insulting, my friend, because I have great respect for you - so please don't be offended by what I'm about to say.

This conception of God is nothing less than a childish demand that God never do anything that cause us discomfort or inconvenience, or do things that may cause us some sort of pain. It is the same logic behind children's claim that a teacher is "mean" or that "my parents hate me" when said teacher or parents possess expectations about behavior/performance or allow the child to experience the natural consequences of his behavior. "Hurt" is a vague term. As a teacher, I occasionally have to "hurt" a child by giving him an "F" in my course; as a parent I occasionally have to "hurt" my child by refusing to bail him out of consequences that his poor choices have brought upon him. Please don't ask God to be the overly-protective, permissive parent that ends up warping His children by always protecting them from "hurt." Most people acknowledge that character is built through struggle and disappointment - and those do "hurt" - but how are we to become adults?





> Further, Christianity has no more monopoly on aboslute truth than Paul.


Debatable.




> ~~ god is not ''haughty'' ~~
> 
> His actions in killing all those millions {see link above} clearly prove the point that not only is he haughty, he's a murderer as well!


You're not going to be convincing here, because your usage of the word "haughty" ("arrogant and disdainful") expresses _your evaluation_ of God's words more than it expresses His actual tone. 

Second, you seem (like many I've spoken with here) to be in possession of the idea that any loss of human life is wrong. That is not true. The Bible does not forbid all types of killing. As I've said before, the creator of life has as His prerogative to take life away if He sees fit to do so. If you question the justness of God's behavior, what you're really revealing is that you don't see God as the Bible describes Him - all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect in His love, mercy, kindness and justice. Most non-believeres simply conceptualize God as some glorified human being with superpowers and that is absurd. If God were nothing more than that, then yes - we should doubt His sincerity and question His behavior. This simply isn't so. A perfect judge who has perfect love and perfect mercy may elect to give the death sentence to those for whom a continued life might make things even worse. Remember that God is less concerned with our temporary life/happiness here on earth than He is with our eternal existence.





> ~~ always give us the complete rundown of all the facts behind His decisions ~~
> 
> 
> To the dead abortion victim, no such chance is given.


Well what's God supposed to do about that? He gave humans free will and humans often excerise that will by terminating their pregnancies. These children will be in heaven - an existence that will make even the best times on earth seem like playing in a sewage-strewn mud puddle.





> ~~ If He destroys, He has a reason that will be consistent with His character ~~
> 
> A point I agree with but for reasons that differ with yours: yes he kills but not out of justice or beneficence. He does so out of vengeance, hate, and malice. You already have several instances of homicidal actions consistent with this from the OT.


 A God as you describe would have killed _you_ the minute you decided to criticize Him. Please provide some texts that support your claims.

Note: "vengeance" is not in and of itself a negative term as "malice" or "hate." When we sentence a criminal to jail, we are enacting vengeance ("punishment inflicted for wrong to oneself or one's cause") on that individual.





> ~~ there is also a big difference between a human father and an all-knowing, all-powerful being.~~
> 
> Jesus spoke of himself as a model. A model based upon his father. He never said ''worship me''. He only said ''follow me'' --- that is, do as I do, imitate me in every way. He made himself quite human didn't he? And he did so because his father is every bit as ''human'' as he. Well, at least in theory both are.


Completely wrong - God is not "human" - it is the other way around: we were designed "in God's image" (Genesis 1) - meaning that we carry attributes reflective of God. Jesus was God incarnated into flesh - but God is not "human" in any sense of the word - to do so is to degrade God. Jesus said "If you have seen me, you have seen the father" but he wasn't talking about his physicality.




> But because this god is greatly ''different'', this means that he is all the more accountable for his actions.


Accountable to whom? Us? The things He created? We get to "put God on trial" for His actions? That's like kids putting their parents on trial.





> In the legal world there is a concept called *respondeat superior.* This means that the boss is answerable for the misdeeds of his charges. A superior person answers for the weak. As a god he is morally and ethically responsible for all sins and all evils that are undertaken in his name. At least that's the way it is supposed to be. Your god simply has no excuse for the crimes, injustices, and evils that befall this troubled world. None whatsoever.


"No excuse" to you - _you_, who possesses a mere _sliver_ of the facts, who possesses a brain that functions only at approximately 10% of its potential, whose existence is limited by 5 highly inadequate senses and 3 dimensions - a creature that God created and sustains on a daily basis. _You_ are going to hold the transcendant being who called the universe into existence with His words accountable for His "crimes"? 

Your statements make the assumption that you possess the knowledge and the authority to call God into accounting.




> You can continue to make up every excuse in the world but you will never succeed in proving that this god is moral and just. If he was, then people like Alan Watts would not be pointing out that more people have been killed in the name of the Bible than for any other reason in history.


I'm not trying to prove God is just or moral - He doesn't need my help. I'm trying to get you to understand that it is presumption of the highest order for human beings to arrogantly put God on trial for things He did which they barely understand.

All movements, all beliefs, all organizations have "bad" employees, so to speak. I'm not sure Watts actually did any research to make such a claim - but a handful of bad cops doesn't make the institution of law enforcement a thing of evil.




> Just as one last example (and not to get unnecessarily political about it), Bush has invaded an innocent country and killed over one million people in an unjust war with many tens of thousands injured. As you likely recall, this liar said he was ordered by the Bible's god to commit this atrocious act.


No comment - Christians are human beings; we are imperfect and make mistakes - the Bible makes that clear. We will be held accountable for the times where we misused the Bible.




> If your god is so just and he knows that his name has been so wantonly profaned by this evildoer Bush, why hasn't he stepped up and put a stop to those crimes? According to the Bible which you and others continually use, he is supposed to have stopped it all by now but he does nothing.


Wrong again; God is not some cosmic policeman who exists to interfere in the affairs of the earth. Nothing in the Bible indicates what you claim - have you even read it? More than once? I have, and I don't recall anything in there like you have described. God gave Mr. Bush free will - just like you have. To some of us, what _you_ say and believe is just as bothersome as Bush's activities are to you - but I would never ask God to silence you.






> ``God is the only one who is worthy of that praise``
> 
> 
> I know of Odinists, Buddhists, animists, and others who say that their gods are worthier of that praise. However, none are willing to kill or to have anyone killed in the name of their divinities.


Once again: for whatever reason, you have decided that killing is the acid-test. So be it. God does not will that anybody be killed simply because they don't obey Him or worship Him - if God commissions the death of an individual or culture, it is because "the patient is beyond cure." Once God is utterly and completely rejected, then the human becomes more of a monster than anything else, and the person/community in this condition will suffer far more by being left to its continual degeneration than it will by a merciful death from the God who created them. If my own child had become so twisted and warped that he was determined to kill his own family and I was the only one available to stop him, I would - with immense sadness - be forced perhaps to kill him in order to save others. God takes no pleasure in the death of His creatures - I guarantee that you cannot find anywhere where God takes pleasure in the death of his "children." 

Evil is powerful and toxic - like gangrene or cancer, it destroys; if it infects a person/community and the person/community rejects God's numerous invitations to accept His help in escaping that life of sin, then that person/community becomes dangerous in the same way gangrene and cancer are. What are God's choices? Let the "infected limb" start killing the "healthy tissue" surrounding or cut off the infected part to save the rest?

----------


## hellsapoppin

Excuses, excuses. But if this is what you choose to believe, fine.

Many years ago when I was in law school I came across a very interesting case. In it, a frustrated man stalked a woman and wrote down copious notes of his intentions. He wrote that a relationship with her would be mutually fruitful and rewarding. That it would be her absolute pleasure and privilege to have him as her mate. And that the ordeal that he had subjected her to {repeated threats, importunities, destroyed property, rumor mongering, etc} would in the long run be met with the greatest gratitude on her part.

Naturally, she repeatedly rebuffed him.

Ultimately, his ''patience'' runs out and he declares that he will now kill her if she rebuffs him again.

He again approached her and she rebuffs whereupon he empties his revolver on her.

Police caught him ''red-handed'' as we used to say and establish in court a _prima facie_ case of homicide.

The issue at court, then, was is this a case of premeditated murder?

The prosecutor took the perpetrator's writings to the jury and they determined that, yes, there had been premeditation and convicted him of first degree murder. This, despite the defense attorney's bold assertions that while his client contemplated the commission of the crime, he should not have been convicted of 'capitol one' on the grounds that other circumstances could have or should have intervened.

Naturally, the jury refused to buy his assertions.

The point here is that, if the Bible is to be believed, your god has made his evil intentions clear: he knew that there would be a Fall in the Garden of Eden, he deliberately put a devil or serpent there, he easily could have placed the Tree of Knowledge somewhere else, he could easily have shown what Adam's fate would have been if he listened to the Temptor, he could easily have put angels there to ward off any evil influence, since this same god supposedly created ''generations'' of other humans he could easily have populated the Garden of Eden with them, or he could have formulated beings that were superior in knowledge and wisdom to Adam. Thus, all this trouble that we read of in the Bible and in history could easily have been avoided if this god had chosen to do so.

Same thing with that evil stalker --- he made his intentions clear {as did your god in the Bible} and was held accountable. How then could the _great exemplar_, if that is what he is, escape the same accountability that everyone else is held to???

To me, I always say, *practice what you preach*. But if you still insist that you and every one else is ''obligated'' to believe the many excuses that you make, again, fine and dandy.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Excuses, excuses. But if this is what you choose to believe, fine.
> 
> Many years ago when I was in law school I came across a very interesting case. In it, a frustrated man stalked a woman and wrote down copious notes of his intentions. He wrote that a relationship with her would be mutually fruitful and rewarding. That it would be her absolute pleasure and privilege to have him as her mate. And that the ordeal that he had subjected her to {repeated threats, importunities, destroyed property, rumor mongering, etc} would in the long run be met with the greatest gratitude on her part.
> 
> Naturally, she repeatedly rebuffed him.
> 
> Ultimately, his ''patience'' runs out and he declares that he will now kill her if she rebuffs him again.
> 
> He again approached her and she rebuffs whereupon he empties his revolver on her.
> ...


From someone who claims law school experience, I expect better responses than calling my detailed answers "excuses." You have rarely actually tried to deal with the implications of my arguments beyond simply dismissing them. Address the components of my position you believe are "excuses" and show me the problem with my logic - show me where I'm in error.

Note: I've not insisted that anybody is "obligated" to believe me and my so-called "excuses." I prefer to call them _explanations_ based upon reasonable inferences conjectured upon evidence contained within the book that claims to give an accurate representation of the character of God. What are _yours_ based on?

If the future is _unchanging_ and _exists to be known_, then you're right: there is no way around the reality that God is responsible for evil.

However, you assume that the future is unchanging and that it exists to be known: how do you know this to be true? If God "knows" the future, then those two conditions must be true.

But, if the future does not exist to be known, then how can God "know" what does not yet exist to be known by His all-encompassing mind? Granted, there are certain things about what is to come that God knows - He knows the results of His will, and His intimate knowledge of history and humanity allows Him to know certain things that absolutely will happen - but in the realm of personal decision, I don't think this is so. The Bible indicates that humanity was given freewill - freedom requires the existence of at least two valid alternatives - or more specifically, freedom to choose requires that something _indefinite_ become _definite_ at some point. When I wake up, I may wear the red shirt or the blue shirt - before I finally choose, it is undetermined what I'll be wearing. Once I choose, my attire is now determined. 

I would conjecture that our decisions do not exist to be known until we make them. As such, God created Satan with the knowledge that Satan could rebel, but until Satan actually made the choice, it did not exist to be known by God. (For the origin of these ideas, see _God's Foreknowledge and Man's Free_ Will by Richard Rice).

----------


## hellsapoppin

Quite the contrary, it is you who does not answer my questions but respond with excuses. For example, you say ''it did not exist to be known'' even though I have repeatedly shown you where in the Bible he specifically says he knew who was going to be saved all along. Even though I repeat it to you, you continue to ignore this truth.

----------


## NikolaiI

> Then he's not worth reading. But, if we accept what he says about his relationship with God and the fact that he claims divine inspriation in his writings, well that's a different story: it is not "just" his opinion. You do not found a church on a man's "opinion."


Well, let's set aside Paul for a moment, I'd like to address all of your replies, and I'm really glad that you're debating here! My views have changed many times, and particularly because of what they are now I am glad to be discussing these things with you.

Now what you said about my point that God does not hurt people, I would like to make a clarification. God does NOT hurt people. Pain is an illusion in the most extreme case, and in the most liberal case, pain is fleeting and only exists because of our microcosmic perspective. Red, and I'm not saying this TO you so much as to everyone, there is one thing that I cannot express, not love, or philosophy, as those things I seem to be able to, it's just there's one thing higher than everything else, and that is extending the perspective above time, basically----- words don't describe it. I mean, _there is a peace to be had_.

Now, one way my views have changed since I last spoke to you, is that now I believe in the existence of God as infinite. When I was speaking to you before, I actually would argue both sides of it, atheist with you and Christian in other instances. This is not important. My understanding of it now is more complete-- not complete, mind you-- and of course I am still young, and a year or so ago, when I was an atheist, it was partly because I didn't understand. Yet I would never believe if it weren't true. When I was a younger thinker, less mature I believe, I would have the exact same standard for my belief, and it is because of this in fact I didn't believe. Etc. ... moving on.

So now in my understanding, God is an infinite, which exists. I believe this is according to reason; though neither I understand his existence completely nor the reasons I believe are true and support it completely, I understand several other things a little more completely. Now you said my view was childish, but this you wouldn't think if I had cleared it up a little. I said that pain was illusiory, this I believe is true and will argue; a related point is that our souls are not affected by material phenomena. Material phenomena and spirituality are one and the same, even as all things are interconnected, but there are two parts of the soul to understand to make my next point. One meaning of it is the metaphorical symbol of the soul-- not quite the same as consciousness, this is the individual soul, which is described atomic in the Gita. You know how you can have a conception of yourself, and then you realize since you are the one having this conception of yourself, it no longer includes you, and so on and so forth ad infinitum? This is this part of the soul. It's a metaphor which we cannot explain in words, except perhaps like I have done for you. Nor can we understand the soul in our habitual consciousnesses. We are conditioned by habit to blindness of the soul, whose movements are very subtle, in fact, and require much keen understanding to observe. This part of the soul is what goes to heaven when we die. 

The other part of the soul is the visible intimation or understanding of the soul. The first part was the soul learning about itself, asking "What is the soul? It is an animal that cannot be contained by any concept, and by its limitless source of possibility makes it a route to the highest, and to what is true." But the soul doesn't need to ask about itself, it doesn't need to grow. I do not apologize in the least if anyone who has the intelligence to read my posts would have the audacity consider me smaltzy. If they don't realize that the soul--if not true as an atomic soul, is true as a metaphorical symbol-- needs to grow and that there are certain things which nourish it, this is their mistake.

I just meant to say this, I didn't think to go into all of it, but just to say that no, I don't think God hurts people. 

Now, I'd just like to say that while I don't have a complete understanding of God, I do not think this is attainable, and have in fact valueless riches which satisfy me. I believe in God because I've seen him, that is, he's revealed himself to me in more than one way and on more than one occasion. God must exist, though I am forgetful of him, sadly, in my meditation always, but I've become aware of his presence other times. I recently wrote an article, Red, about God, which I actually referred to as Gods, I hope you don't mind-- and I desribed an experience which if it was not useful for others, at least when I read over it I could not elude a new value you from it, and usually successfully succeeded in achieving what I had the first time. The value of the repititiousness of this task is very rewarding, I believe, and every time I went over my article I felt a part of the infinite, I felt a clear intimation of the boundless possibility. And I believe it is real and true; I believe in limitless possibility of this world and of time and of our place in it. God revealed himself to me in showing me the temporality of all phenomena, and in the attitude of growth on a path, along the right state of mind, encountering and creating objects which nourish the soul, and attending to peace, always, and good health, that peace can be attained which gives equanimity upon all objects.




> This statement proves nothing. I've not seen England either, but I know it exists. Christ makes it clear in the NT that one of the greatest problems he came to free people from was blindness - not the literal kind, the figurative kind.


And he did. But he was up against such an impossible task. It was fifteen centuries before the middle ages even!






> I have no idea what this statement means.


God as infinite GOOD. God is infinite, as the source of being, as the source of thought, as the source of goodness. I have seen God revealed as a means of shedding the incorrect views of attachment to material phenomena, as I said above, this is one-- but God is also revealed as giving us strength and guidance and peace in our spiritual relationships, as a spiritual guide. God is the source of goodness and intelligence in all matters.




> =And the your basis for this belief? What about those of us who flatly disagree with you?


Perhaps I will clarify to you the statement I made that we are not able to see when God does something. This simply means that he goes unnoticed. Kierkegaard sought to see God in everything, good and bad, that happened to him, and then by living his life in a certain way, to see God in the good that he did for others. 

You don't flatly disagree with me anymore, I would imagine. I'm sorry I wasn't clear from the beginning, but if you will make an effort to understand me now, I tell that it will be of value. As follows: we make an effort to learn about God, through reason or through individuals or through scripture or tradition, through our culture or that of others. We cannot have complete knowledge of him, because that would give us complete knowledge of everything, which we do not have the capacity for. Still, we have an understanding that he is the infinite, and we have faith in him as we have seen him working in our lives. Because God as infinite breaks through everything with his love. But these are all words and as they say, words lie-- but please continue reading. The lie of saying we understands him is revealed when we know just how much of a prison we are in. We are all, every one of us, in a prison very subtle, with walls and a ceiling dome so high, that it almost affects us like God. Such a subtle prison we are fortunately given the gift to break out of, but we can only break out of what we can understand. The prison is our understanding, it is our understanding of ourselves. We cannot break out of this dome prison, we can only extend its limit further and further. Except we can break out of it. To truly do so is accept an alternative consciousness which gives us light years of growth. This is the highest thing which has ever happened to me. View our prison dome, how vast it is, how it contains an ecosystem. It is like Earth in a way! Now understand that God is an infinite. God breaks through all barrieres. Once again we are trying to define him, to capture him in the prison of words. The only way we can now make progress is to ACCEPT these things. They are true. We've been shown the truth about the passing of material phenomena, now all we have to do is continue making progress in a positive state of mind, we must only pray, meditate, practice mindfulness and awareness, and practice recollection at all times. 

Now let me mention quantum theory again for a moment. This is something that is not understood. I understand it, though. It teaches us humility. It teaches science something which sadly it has lost. Science had all faith in all its theories, because as you know they had been proven beyond 100&#37; probability. Then we get a new theory, which is proved beyond 100% probability, which PROVES ALL OUR OTHERS FALSE. Now if this is viewed with any kind of honesty, curiosity, OPENNESS FOR KNOWLEDGE, then how can anyone not have a headache over these numbers? How true we thought it all was! And then it was all proved wrong-- we were proved wrong! This is why it's a theory that's not understood, we just can't fathom how we were proved wrong. The existence of this, this almost embarassment-- all we had to do was keep true to the humility of the scientific method!!-- it indicates we were wrong about what it means to be sure of something. For me, now, I am sure, positive, that everything is like this-- within the containment of every system are what it acts on, but if there is anything, if anything can be definied, then our definition is a system and there is something outside of this system. We were proven wrong.

We don't see God's actions because there are countless little spirals of clockwork reasoning, that have their value, but at their base express the truth: We are wrong! Red, have you ever felt your brain shift, as if some connection, some mad, perfect, connection had been made? This happened to me a couple minutes ago, reading this-- believe me, I have an elegant view of these matters. The only problem is that we're always having difficulty communicating. But I hope you have understood some of the metahpors in this post? Back to the topic: We don't see or understand God's works due to the elusiveness of his nature, which exists as I have indicated because of our relation to him. Quantum theory, which will not be understood until it's understood fully in relation to all existing theory-- understood in that occurruing once it exists infinitely, and due to the significance of it, actually exists outside of time since moments other than those understanding quantum theory are less important-- this quantum theory tells us there is no deep reality. At the foundations of reality, after we have incised through all science to get to the smallest building block of reality, we find that it is elusive like this and we can't pin it down. Now, this is just one wonder that God has put before us, and it is our most sacred obligation to live up to what this knowledge gives us!!! Heaven on earth, my dear friend. Now you have heard Nietzsche say that what is done in love is beyond good and evil? What is done by God as it pertains to his being we are not able to view with our blinders on, and it is not good or evil-- actually it is a good closer to the source of good, but in that, it is not our understanding of good or evil. 

So we cannot comprehend God completely.  :Biggrin: 




> I do not wish to be insulting, my friend, because I have great respect for you - so please don't be offended by what I'm about to say.
> 
> This conception of God is nothing less than a childish demand that God never do anything that cause us discomfort or inconvenience, or do things that may cause us some sort of pain. It is the same logic behind children's claim that a teacher is "mean" or that "my parents hate me" when said teacher or parents possess expectations about behavior/performance or allow the child to experience the natural consequences of his behavior. "Hurt" is a vague term. As a teacher, I occasionally have to "hurt" a child by giving him an "F" in my course; as a parent I occasionally have to "hurt" my child by refusing to bail him out of consequences that his poor choices have brought upon him. Please don't ask God to be the overly-protective, permissive parent that ends up warping His children by always protecting them from "hurt." Most people acknowledge that character is built through struggle and disappointment - and those do "hurt" - but how are we to become adults?


I hope you've read my post-- and I hope it was okay readable-- I want to share things of value, I really do, and like I said at the beginning I am glad you're here to discuss, Richard! (I am grasping, was that correct?) 

I hope I've clarified my view a little bit-- look forward to your response!



Debatable.QUOTE]




[Edit: to take an intelligent leap from the example and event of quantum theory; consider that we might first think like this: "Well, our theories which were indicated and proved by countless experiments, which were accepted almost as law, were proven wrong. It has always been theoreticaly or scientificially politically correct to call these still theories, which could be proven wrong at any time; so we should take the event and example as a lesson! We have renewed faith in the correctness of our humility." This might be the way to think. But actually, if we take the event to have all likelihood of indicating a pattern, we should know that it's 100% likely that what we think now WILL be proven wrong!  :Biggrin: ]

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Quite the contrary, it is you who does not answer my questions but respond with excuses. For example, you say ''it did not exist to be known'' even though I have repeatedly shown you where in the Bible he specifically says he knew who was going to be saved all along. Even though I repeat it to you, you continue to ignore this truth.


I'm sorry, my friend, you have never quoted anything that suggested the God "knew who was going to be saved all along." Check your posts. If you wish to do so now, I'll be happy to deal with the excerpts - but please, let's be real here: I have responded in detail to each of your charges - and instead of discussing my responses, you glide over them and call them excuses. I ignore some of your statements because they are OPINIONS of yours that I disagree with. You claim the status of "fact" for things that cannot necessarily be established as such. What you call "truth" is your opinion or your understanding of something - but that doesn't qualify it as truth. 

Time and again, I have asked you to consider the logic of the god you describe and what that means. Based on the description of Him in the Bible - New and Old Testament - your claims cannot be true. If you wish to invalidate the Bible, then upon what do you base your opinion? If the OT descriptions of Him are satisfactory evidence that He is "capricious" and "cruel," then what how do you respond to the much more numerous descriptions that He is patient, loving, kind, merciful, just, long-suffering, gentle and compassionate? How do you reconcile the two - or do you just pick and choose which parts of the Bible are "true" for you - emphasizing the negative to make your point and ignoring the positive all-together? The difference is is that I don't ignore the negative - I try to interpret it within the context of the entire Bible and the established character of God.

----------


## NikolaiI

Indeed, positive and negative we only view as so far apart because of the linguistic _terminology_ we have developed to express these terms. To quote "The Joyous Cosmology," 

"The principle is that all dualities and opposites are not disjoined but polar; they do not encounter and confront one another from afar; they exfoliate from a common center. Ordinary thinking conceals polarity and relativity because it employs terms, the terminals or ends, the poles, neglecting what lies between them. The difference of front and back, to be and not to be, hides their unity and mutuality."

But anyway, the implications of this I do not expect to be noticed or considered much less understood! Positive and negative exfoliating from a centere? Nah. ( :Smile: )

Anyway Red did you read my post yet? Tell me what you think!

----------


## hellsapoppin

``I have responded in detail to each of your charges``

My 'charges'. Yeah, right. that's a good one.

For a god to be by his own admission, all knowing and ever present, to suddenly be ignorant of the fact that someone will succumb in the Garden of Eden is a total contradiction. One that you still persist in sidestepping. If he hadn't played ignorant at that time there would be need for ''patience'' or other self laudatory nonsense.

Since you do not answer my questions but only respond with convenient excuses, there is no further use in continuing this discussion.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> ``I have responded in detail to each of your charges``
> 
> My 'charges'. Yeah, right. that's a good one.
> 
> For a god to be by his own admission, all knowing and ever present, to suddenly be ignorant of the fact that someone will succumb in the Garden of Eden is a total contradiction. One that you still persist in sidestepping. If he hadn't played ignorant at that time there would be need for ''patience'' or other self laudatory nonsense.
> 
> Since you do not answer my questions but only respond with convenient excuses, there is no further use in continuing this discussion.


I'll call this one a forfeit too. Your responses clearly show that you've not even _tried_ to consider the implications or the logic of what I've said. That's a shame because I truly thought you were interested in a discussion of some sort - but your posts have been flippant dismissals of my points. So be it. 

I have tried to focus our discussion by providing context for the behaviors of God that you've focused on, as well as trying to point out the illogical nature of accepting certain behaviors "at face value" (the killing of certain tribes in the OT and the issue of creating Satan) without even considering the context of God's character as the Bible states it, the description of God throughout the entire Bible (rather than just the OT), and the reality that your judgments are based on a _partial_ understanding of the circumstances at hand (and little understanding, apparently, about the character of God and how it relates to His actions).

Better luck next time, I suppose.

----------


## hellsapoppin

Anybody else want to try to ''prove'' that an all loving, merciful, and ever beneficent divine father of unparalleled and unmatchable greatness can, somehow, be *all knowing and ever present*, yet still not know that a Fall would take place in the Garden of Eden so that he would be helpless to stop such a catastrophic event even though he had forecasted such unhappiness tens of thousands of eons before it took place???

 :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Anybody else want to try to ''prove'' that an all loving, merciful, and ever beneficent divine father of unparalleled and unmatchable greatness can, somehow, be *all knowing and ever present*, yet still not know that a Fall would take place in the Garden of Eden so that he would be helpless to stop such a catastrophic event even though he had forecasted such unhappiness tens of thousands of eons before it took place???


For the last time: your position is based on the PRESUMPTION that the future exists, unchanging, to be "known" by God. You cannot prove that assumption. For freedom to exist (for even _your words_ to have been freely chosen) then the future must be indeterminant; that's what a choice does: it renders _determined_ something that was previously _undetermined_. The future does not exist to be known. Our free will and God's "foreknowledge" interact in this way - until we render an undetermined decision as determined, it doesn't exist to be known.

God knew that His created beings carried the _potential_ to disobey - but He took the risk anyway (love always involves risk); He was not "helpless" - He could have stopped it, but at the cost of violating His creatures' free will - and that would make Him a tyrant on par with Saddam Hussein - because that's what dictators do: they refuse to allow the exercise of freedom that challenges them. God allows us to challenge and reject Him. Our freedom is worth more to God than our happiness. Sorry.

----------


## hellsapoppin

``you cannot prove that assumption``

First, my challenge was not directed at you.

Second, if anyone wishes to defy logic and common sense by pretending that an ''all knowing and ever present'' god is incapable of preventing troubles of any kind --- a laughable presumption with no basis in reality, especially in view of his own assertions to the contrary in the Bible --- that's up to them. In all my years of discussing this subject with scholars from every walk of like, I have never seen anyone attempt to defy logic in such an absurd fashion. Let's see if anyone else tries to do so.

----------


## kilted exile

Some theory in relation to the current discussion:

This is from the introduction to my copy of Paradise Lost (2003 Penguin Classics edition which has an introduction by John Leonard. The part I want to discuss can be found in the intro on pages xxvi & xxvii in this edition.) Due to copyright (not to mention time) I cant obviously re-type the entire pages, however, I think this section gives some further explanation of Red's point:




> How can Adam & Eve be free when God foresees their every act and speaks of their Fall as a certainty before it has even happened (iii 93-7)? Milton addresses this in De Doctrina Christiana. He there draws a distinction between certainty & necessity. Because God has foreseen the Fall from all eternity, and because his knowledge is infallible, the Fall was always a certainty. But it was not necessitated by any divine decree. It was a free act in the moment of its occurence. God foresaw the Fall, and permitted it, but he did not make it happen. He therefore has every right to hold Adam & Eve responsible for their disobedience.
> /SNIP/
> So long as Adam & Eve are free to resist Satan's temptation, his act of tempting them does not necessitate their fall. One might even argue that God aids and abets Satan's arrival into paradise for the benign reason that he respects Adam & Eve's freedom, and does not want to censor their experiences

----------


## hellsapoppin

And as I wrote previously, in most jurisdictions, if you know a crime is going to be commissioned and you sit by and do nothing, then you will held accountable for your inaction.

GUILTY AS CHARGED.

*CASE CLOSED.*

----------


## Redzeppelin

> And as I wrote previously, in most jurisdictions, if you know a crime is going to be commissioned and you sit by and do nothing, then you will held accountable for your inaction.
> 
> GUILTY AS CHARGED.
> 
> *CASE CLOSED.*


Not so fast, Perry Mason. Your logic ignores several important points (some already made that you have never given a satisfactory answer to):

1. You assume that God exists in time the _exact same way_ in which we do.
2. You assume that the future is defined, unchanging, and already exists 
to be "known" by God.
3. You ignore statements the Bible makes about God's character that are 
clearly in conflict with your assessment of God's character.
4. Believing that the future is defined, unchanging and exists to be known 
means that freewill doesn't exist - an odd idea because I assume that 
you think you freely have chosen your beliefs and words.

You cannot "put God on trial" as you have and so easily "win" - your case is based upon incomplete information from a source (the Bible) which does not provide the complete set of facts at God's command and likewise your case is also based on numerous misconceptions about the character of God.

How about actually addressing some of these issues before starting the victory celebration?

----------


## hellsapoppin

Red,

Clearly, you have not read my posts.

I specifically wrote that your god is ''omniscient'' and ''all knowing''. This means he is and will be ever present unlike we humans. I cannot make this more clear.

Since you will not understand what I write I will not address the rest of your note.

----------


## Scheherazade

*W a r n i n g

Further personal comments will lead to thread closure.*

----------


## hellsapoppin

Thank you Scheherazade.

As you can see from above, I specifically referred to the biblical god as ''omniscient'' in post 390 {''ever present''}, yet was accused of saying this was not so. Moreover, I was asked if this god was not merciful,''why are YOU still here?''.

Indeed, it would be best if such distortions and personalizations were not made here.

 :Smile:

----------


## Ydfkdy

Read your bible,that is what they tell me when I wonder about God.No he is not evil,but that is my opinion,he is a forgiving God.Though I do have alot to answer for when judgement day comes cause when I go down I say things I should not and ask why does God hate me,when I should be saying something else.I don't remember it is in this book I am reading,(When Bad Thing's Happen To Good People).Maybe you should check that book out to if you think that will halp if you are sick like me or curiose about God and his way's(idk).

----------


## hellsapoppin

If I understand you correctly, you have are suffering from illness. First, my hope is that you will enjoy a quick and full recovery. Second, in the New Testament, every time Yahshuah (commonly called ''Jesus'') healed a sick person he said ''thy sins are forgiven''. This means that healing miracles represent the divine forgiveness of sin. 

Yahshuah also taught that his ministers could duplicate and surpass his miracles. He did not put any limit or time frame as to this dispensation. Therefore, you need not do any further reading to avail yourself of healing. All you need do is to have any of his ministers perform a miracle. Since so many people here insist that the Bible is not and cannot be wrong in any way, and that its god is without ceaseless mercy and blessings, such an act should be of no trouble to any of his appointed servants. 

And for the record, I have suffered life long illness. Therefore, such a person can undertake such an endeavor on my behalf as well.

Let us see these actions take place in order to confirm the Bible's teachings.

----------


## Scheherazade

> Second, in the New Testament, every time Yahshuah (commonly called ''Jesus'') healed a sick person he said ''thy sins are forgiven''. This means that healing miracles represent the divine forgiveness of sin.


Or maybe it suggests that only those who are "sinful" get ill and once their sins are forgiven, they recover.

Disclaimer: I am not of this view; only suggesting another way of intrepreting the text.

----------


## hellsapoppin

Don't think so because other examples are given of people who were born sick and remained that way for most of their lives despite not having any knowledge or propensity towards sin. But therein lies the ambiguity: these did not sin, yet their ''sins'' were forgiven.

A seeming contradiction but that's the Bible for you.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Red,
> 
> Clearly, you have not read my posts.
> 
> I specifically wrote that your god is ''omniscient'' and ''all knowing''. This means he is and will be ever present unlike we humans. I cannot make this more clear.
> 
> Since you will not understand what I write I will not address the rest of your note.


I've read them very closely. Your idea about God's omniscience is simply wrong - period. You have constructed an argument that makes sense to you, and I'll accept that. But it is a simplistic view, one that the Bible does not support. Had you - _even once_ - dealt with the points I'd brought up, we might have had a real conversation. I see that that is impossible, and that's too bad.

I'll leave you alone.

----------


## Ydfkdy

There is no arguement except 4 the question posed.Religion and polotics are the most argued about subjects in the world.The easiest way to answer this question posed is to read your bible.

----------


## hellsapoppin

``read your Bible``

In college, my humanities term paper and my law school jurisprudence paper was on biblical law. A professor of Jewish law used part of my writing in a book he published a year after I graduated.

I have participated in numerous public debates on biblical teaching and perhaps a couple in Canon law. My opponents have demonstrated that they greatly appreciate my knowledge of the subjects.

When anyone {and I mean *anyone*} can prove to me that my idea of omniscience is incorrect, I'll be the first to thank them for their success.

----------


## Scarlet'sWalk

> The easiest way to answer this question posed is to read your bible.


It may be the easiest way yet can't say it would be the most credible one. If you resort to merely one source to find the answer, that won't help much. It is best to read the Holy Books that have been sent to people thus far.

----------


## jon1jt

Holy Book I: Lament for lost love.

----------


## islandclimber

this is all seeming to assume that there is some kind of creator god that humans can understand and comprehend to some degree... isn't the very idea of being able to understand ideas such as timeless, eternal, infinite, kind of absurd... for even putting names to them gives them definition which they necessarily don't have... timeless means everything is nothing, and nothing is everything... and even that gives definition and form, but I think of it more as just saying it is beyond comprehension, we just have to accept... so all concepts of good and evil, of time, of value, of things, necessarily vanish, at least when put in human terms... if we ever do get to an infinite and timeless existence, it will be something completely foreign and unrecognizable.. god, or the godhead, or whatever you may want to call it, cannot be explained in human terms, cannot be defined by our language or thoughts, god encompasses everything and nothing all at once, all of time, and none of it, for there is no past, present, future for infinite being... it is completely incomprehensible to humans, we can only accept, not understand.. somewhat like the original buddhist ideas of anatta and nirvana...

but humans will never be able to just have faith that there is something that is everything, or is part of and behind everything, they will need to see it proven, or at least find some idea of it... so I would say in accordance with some previous posts that god, or the idea of god, cannot be judged on a human level, or even by human minds, for god is everything and god is nothing (on that note I believe so are we in essence)... 

or maybe I'm just talking nonsense, the thoughts of another rambling, ridiculous man... hmmm...

----------


## azulnoel

Look up the word theodicy

----------


## islandclimber

> Look up the word theodicy


but that is what we are talking about here... why look at others attempts to reconcile good and evil when we can start afresh and solve it here? *smile* no one has really satisfactorily answered the problem that, or resolved, hence the fact new solutions are come up with quite often... I guess each one of us has to either solve it or accept it in our own particular way...

----------


## NikolaiI

> this is all seeming to assume that there is some kind of creator god that humans can understand and comprehend to some degree... isn't the very idea of being able to understand ideas such as timeless, eternal, infinite, kind of absurd... for even putting names to them gives them definition which they necessarily don't have... timeless means everything is nothing, and nothing is everything... and even that gives definition and form, but I think of it more as just saying it is beyond comprehension, we just have to accept... so all concepts of good and evil, of time, of value, of things, necessarily vanish, at least when put in human terms... if we ever do get to an infinite and timeless existence, it will be something completely foreign and unrecognizable.. god, or the godhead, or whatever you may want to call it, cannot be explained in human terms, cannot be defined by our language or thoughts, god encompasses everything and nothing all at once, all of time, and none of it, for there is no past, present, future for infinite being... it is completely incomprehensible to humans, we can only accept, not understand.. somewhat like the original buddhist ideas of anatta and nirvana...
> 
> but humans will never be able to just have faith that there is something that is everything, or is part of and behind everything, they will need to see it proven, or at least find some idea of it... so I would say in accordance with some previous posts that god, or the idea of god, cannot be judged on a human level, or even by human minds, for god is everything and god is nothing (on that note I believe so are we in essence)... 
> 
> or maybe I'm just talking nonsense, the thoughts of another rambling, ridiculous man... hmmm...


nono quite the contrary, sir or madam. i really like the two posts of yours i've read so far! i'm glad to breathe the same air as you. ah, er, hope that didn't come off weird.
i think i have almost the exact same idea of god as you. i've had a couple experiences which, er, convinced me. something almost similar to something i heard about but haven't read yet, Sojourner Truth's description of her meeting with Jesus.

----------


## islandclimber

> nono quite the contrary, sir or madam. i really like the two posts of yours i've read so far! i'm glad to breathe the same air as you. ah, er, hope that didn't come off weird.
> i think i have almost the exact same idea of god as you. i've had a couple experiences which, er, convinced me. something almost similar to something i heard about but haven't read yet, Sojourner Truth's description of her meeting with Jesus.


haha... not weird... sir it is... I would be interested in hearing of Sojourner Truth's description... is it in her book? for I was looking at it online a while back, just never actually read it... but I may have to now :Smile:  

A movie, called "the man from earth" has quite an interesting twist on the Christ story.. it maybe isn't the best of movies but is quite good nonetheless and the Christ story in context is fascinating, if it was actually true would explain a lot of things, and for that matter make some sense.

----------


## impishmonkey

God is perfect. He has no evil in Him. I believe you have to ask him into your heart. you don'y have him there already otherwise the whole heaven and hell thing won't work.

----------


## hellsapoppin

Jesus also said ''be ye perfect''. I know of many Christians but not one is even close to being ''perfect''.

 :Wink:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Jesus also said ''be ye perfect''. I know of many Christians but not one is even close to being ''perfect''.


We are all declared righteous through Christ's atoning sacrifice; the "perfection" you speak of is a lifetime journey for the believer. It is not a "presto-chango" magic trick God performs. Like any good parent, He wishes for His children to develop character. Being a Christian doesn't mean that you have instant character; it means that you're willing to let your Creator start teaching you how to be a man/woman of character.

----------


## hellsapoppin

See the example of Saul of Tarsus --- that belies your assertion.  :Wink:

----------


## dzebra

The same Saul that changed his name to Paul? This one?

Acts 7:14+

We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do... For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing...
So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am!

He was not perfect. He tried to be, but he admits his faults.

----------


## NikolaiI

If you feed on negativity like that, you'll trip on knives and stuff.

----------


## hellsapoppin

``He was not perfect.``

In his earlier life he murdered possibly tens of thousands of Christians. Frankly, I don't blame him for having a guilty conscience.

----------


## islandclimber

if there are a heaven and a hell in this universe, and if god or christ can forgive evil for others, which they have no right to do... then there can never be harmony in the universe, as Ivan says in "TBK"... for how can god forgive for the little boy ripped apart by the hunting dogs of the rich landowner in the scenes described by Ivan in "TBK"... because christ sacrificed himself, it is okay to do anything as long as you are genuinely sorry for doing it... what kind of harmony and endless good does that inspire? The answer is none...

harmony can only be found outside of the idea of a personal creator god, beyond good and evil, beyond doubt, with endless faith in love, and the realization that somewhere, on some elementary level we are all the same, and all different, we are all everything and nothing... nothing is everything, and everything is nothing... love is..

----------


## dzebra

> do anything as long as you are genuinely sorry for doing it...


I think this is where your statement is flawed. A person who is genuinely sorry for something is not very likely to repeat it. Maybe he was once purposefully bad, and he was not sorry, then he did lots of bad things. If he ever became genuinely sorry, his bad things would drastically reduce in quantity.

----------


## islandclimber

> I think this is where your statement is flawed. A person who is genuinely sorry for something is not very likely to repeat it. Maybe he was once purposefully bad, and he was not sorry, then he did lots of bad things. If he ever became genuinely sorry, his bad things would drastically reduce in quantity.


you forget the power of addiction... and I'm not just referring to people who do lots of bad things, but even one terrible thing, you can be sorry for doing it, but who has the right to forgive you? Christ? God? That idea is absurd... that Christ can forgive for others.... there can't be harmony in the universe with a creator god, with heaven, with hell, with a god forgiving for others.. if there is I want nothing to do with it...

----------


## dzebra

Oh, I read your first post with a different twist than I think you intended. I think I understand it better now that I read your second one.

When God forgives people, it's for the offenses that people do against God himself. If I murder someone, it's not only an offense to the person I murdered, it's an offense to God. God forgives me for offending him. The other person must also forgive in order for me to be fully forgiven from all angles. I would need to be reconciled both to God and to that person I murdered (or his friends and relatives, since he'd be dead).

----------


## islandclimber

> Oh, I read your first post with a different twist than I think you intended. I think I understand it better now that I read your second one.
> 
> When God forgives people, it's for the offenses that people do against God himself. If I murder someone, it's not only an offense to the person I murdered, it's an offense to God. God forgives me for offending him. The other person must also forgive in order for me to be fully forgiven from all angles. I would need to be reconciled both to God and to that person I murdered (or his friends and relatives, since he'd be dead).


sounds interesting... yes I agree with you here if you think there is some kind of superhuman god, that exists in this universe... that forgives people... but I don't think that... I think one needs to forgive oneself, for each one of us, is part of you could call it the infinite godhead... like in buddhism... only in forgiving ourselves can we truly find harmony, and in forgiving ourselves we then show true remorse, for we must have realized the terrible thing we did,  and can be forgiven by others... though forgiving oneself, if one truly is sorry is an almost impossible thing... what do you think?

cheers

----------


## dzebra

I agree that forgiving oneself is very tough. In my experience, that only way I can forgive myself for things is only after everyone else involved has already forgiven me. I don't know if that's the way it goes with everybody, but it's definitely extremely difficult to forgive oneself. If others have not forgiven, then forgiving oneself is even closer to impossible.

----------


## Ancestor

I agree forgiving is hard to do but you do not always need another's forgiveness before you can forgive yourself. I had to forgive someone whom did an unforgivable act against me but I did not forgive for him but for myself. In order for there to be balance in life we are all made up of good or evil and we choose which path to take. I believe the same in my Creator too.

----------


## NikolaiI

Where are sins? Inside or without? 
I just now read a story of two monks, one asked for salvation or something similar, of his sins, and the other said, bring your sins to me and I will absolve you. After a while, the first monk said his sins were unattainable to him, and the second monk said he'd finished enlightening him.

----------


## Ancestor

Isn't sin really in the eye of the beholder? What I consider sinful is not what the Catholic church believe's to be sinful or most people for that fact. I just know that I there is light and dark within me and I chose to walk on the light side.

----------


## islandclimber

> Where are sins? Inside or without? 
> I just now read a story of two monks, one asked for salvation or something similar, of his sins, and the other said, bring your sins to me and I will absolve you. After a while, the first monk said his sins were unattainable to him, and the second monk said he'd finished enlightening him.


yes, this is exactly it... put so concisely... one can only forgive oneself.. there is no external forgiveness... in forgiving oneself if it is truly meant, one is forgiven by everything, for we all part of the same whole, we are all god, and god is all of us... therefore self forgiveness is the only true forgiveness...
only through it can we be at peace and find harmony in the universe, for as Christ said, echoing Siddhartha before him, "the kingdom of god is within you"....

*Nikolai*, what is this story? where did you read it?

cheers

----------


## YALASH

Peace!

According to holy Quran:

He is Allah, the Creator, the Maker, the Fashioner. His are the most beautiful names. All that is in the heaven and in the earth glorifies Him, and He is the Mighty, the Wise. [ chapter 59, verse 25 ]

and one of His name is *Al-Quddus (the Holy One)* given in verse 24.
regards.

The Quran teaches that by virtue of His excellences:
1- God is One, without associate. 
=====================
2- He suffers from no defect.
=====================
3- He comprehends all good qualities and manifests all holy powers. 
4- He is the Originator of all creation and is the fountain-head of all grace.

----------


## blazeofglory

God has nothing to do with goodness and badness. It is nature that does everything.

----------


## Hypercrit Htd

God alway beyond good and evil.

----------


## hellsapoppin

"It is nature that does everything"

Is nature a "god" to you? What religious texts (if any) do you use in making this definition?

----------


## Equality72521

"Is nature a "god" to you? What religious texts (if any) do you use in making this definition?"

Since when were religious "texts" required to have a belief?

----------


## ClementOfRome

to quote tom waits... 'there ain't no devil, it's only God when he is drunk.'

on one side we have this great point.. if God is all, than God made sin, which means God is bad... thus, God is satan. following that line of reason we could very easily be some wet dream of some deified kid who still wets the bed. Since mankind is not separate from Deity, but everything is enclosed in thus said deity, than we could very easily be some detailed daydream.

however, on the other hand, if God made it, and is outside of it, yet interacts with it, this could pose the option that the antithesis of what God wills being done could exist without God being a part of it.

thus God is not sin/satan....

but what do i know, follow everyone elses advise.... cause it seemed to me that ALL THEIR ANSWERS LEAD TO THIS SATAN=GOD DIETY!!!



Bravo!

p.s. this 'nature' talk is so humorous. i could 'guess' at the nature of God... even follow the bible... but is it not a bit presumptuous to know what God's 'Nature' is... isn't that what the Pharisees did?

----------


## nasir

We may have our grievances, but they can never be laid at God's door. Now when I say "door" that's just a figurative sense. I don't intend to give him any location for God is everywhere. Again, that's not easy to explain. When I say "everywhere" I don't want to sound as if God is physical or that He makes movements like us human being. He is as He was and as He will be Always. He is with us in his Knowledge. 

Our petty grievances or complaints or the so called intellect or intelligence - all these don't entitle us to call God "evil". God is absolute Goodness. Being judgmental about God is, in my opinion, digging a hellish pit of everlasting suffering and torment. Now, does that make God evil? No! The bottom line is that the God's Mercy precedes His Wrath. He is Ever-Forgiving, Most Merciful, and Most Benevolent. Who knows we might find ourselves in the everlasting Paradise despite our sins - subject to the fact that we first believe in Him as our Creator, be aware of our shortcomings and sins and ask His forgiveness time and again. Surely, that's not tough for gaining the Bliss of Paradise! What say?

----------


## blazeofglory

> We may have our grievances, but they can never be laid at God's door. Now when I say "door" that's just a figurative sense. I don't intend to give him any location for God is everywhere. Again, that's not easy to explain. When I say "everywhere" I don't want to sound as if God is physical or that He makes movements like us human being. He is as He was and as He will be Always. He is with us in his Knowledge. 
> 
> Our petty grievances or complaints or the so called intellect or intelligence - all these don't entitle us to call God "evil". God is absolute Goodness. Being judgmental about God is, in my opinion, digging a hellish pit of everlasting suffering and torment. Now, does that make God evil? No! The bottom line is that the God's Mercy precedes His Wrath. He is Ever-Forgiving, Most Merciful, and Most Benevolent. Who knows we might find ourselves in the everlasting Paradise despite our sins - subject to the fact that we first believe in Him as our Creator, be aware of our shortcomings and sins and ask His forgiveness time and again. Surely, that's not tough for gaining the Bliss of Paradise! What say?


I agree to a certain extent if not wholly with your views on God. God is to me rather different than what you construed It to be. God is above all these attributes of goodness and badness and what we call good or bad is just our interpretation of phenomena. Even in nature there is no anything good or evil and God is far over and above these worldly attributes of goodness and badness and to liken God to worldly attributes is to misunderstand God totally. 

I do not say God is kind and unkind and I do not believe God is just or unjust to us. Moreover I do not say God is pleased with our prayers. God is indifferent to us and our understanding of God is rooted in what we gleaned from the scriptures we have read or from what we have learned from our elders.

I do not subscribe to the Biblical or mythological God and God to me is universal not a personal one. 

Karma is a good word that tells us lots of things about worldly affairs and phenomena and things happen to us owing to Karma. If we behave properly with your neighbors you are likely to get similar treatments from your neighbors and if you misbehave you will receive likewise.

Of course God has nothing to do with your actions and your fortunes and what is more you cannot comprehend the nature of God through your three dimensional mind and God is all above and over these dimensions.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> God has nothing to do with goodness and badness. It is nature that does everything.


Respectfully disagree. "Good" and "evil" cannot be completely divorced from God, because then they become merely subjective. "Good" is defined by that which is consistent with the character of God: justice, mercy, compassion, generosity, sacrifice, courage, love. "Evil" is that which is inconsistent with the character of God: betrayal, slander, selfishness, cowardice, malice, injustice.

Nature is amoral. It cannot "do" anything.

----------


## mazHur

> well duh!
> 
> Doesnt every one think that?? Well not evil but then God not exactly good either. God is God. Not Good or evil as we understand it, its soooo much more complicated. My 6 year old sister asked me somthing similar this morning what is this the day of religious questions?
> 
> Anyway my point is as Muslim that is pretty much what I belive for us god has 99 names and some of them are a bit contradictry until you put it in this context like The Giver, The Taker, The Merciful, The Strict, The Forgiving, The Unforgiving, The aparnt, The hidden, The first The Last , just to mention a few that are translateable, I can off the top of my ead only think of a handful that dont have oposites, The Iternal, The One, The all-Knowing, and a few like that.




Those 99 names are infact traits of Allah, the God. Since Man is created in the image of God he is believed to have all those 99 traits as mentioned in the Quran.




> Respectfully disagree. "Good" and "evil" cannot be completely divorced from God, because then they become merely subjective. "Good" is defined by that which is consistent with the character of God: justice, mercy, compassion, generosity, sacrifice, courage, love. "Evil" is that which is inconsistent with the character of God: betrayal, slander, selfishness, cowardice, malice, injustice.
> 
> Nature is amoral. It cannot "do" anything.


You have a point there!! :Wink:

----------


## Babbalanja

> "Good" and "evil" cannot be completely divorced from God, because then they become merely subjective.


Got that backward, didn't you? It's actually the believer who is making the concept of good and evil meaningless by subordinating them to his definition of God. The binding of Isaac demonstrates that the believer needs to think that whatever God orders is good, regardless of how reprehensible we humans may think it is.

Regards,

Istvan

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Got that backward, didn't you? It's actually the believer who is making the concept of good and evil meaningless by subordinating them to his definition of God. The binding of Isaac demonstrates that the believer needs to think that whatever God orders is good, regardless of how reprehensible we humans may think it is.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Istvan


Hardly; because humans are selfish, sinful and self-interested, leaving such definitions up to us leaves them liable to abuses of the worst kind. Only by defining good and evil as something transcendant _beyond_ mere human opinion can it have a stable definition. Nowhere is it indicated that we are to see the binding of Isaac as "good." What we are encouraged to see as "good" was Abraham's faith that God would rescue his son.

----------


## Babbalanja

> Hardly; because humans are selfish, sinful and self-interested, leaving such definitions up to us leaves them liable to abuses of the worst kind.


Well, we made God in our image, so I guess that's what we should expect.




> Only by defining good and evil as something transcendant _beyond_ mere human opinion can it have a stable definition.


Oh, that's right. That must be why God exhorts the Israelites to genocide in Deuteronomy 20:16.
_
However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy themthe Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusitesas the LORD your God has commanded you._ 

So even mass murder is just fine as long as the Big Guy orders it?




> Nowhere is it indicated that we are to see the binding of Isaac as "good." What we are encouraged to see as "good" was Abraham's faith that God would rescue his son.


Wow! That's quite a rationalization! 

But the message that millions upon millions of mainstream Christians take away from the episode is that it was a test of Abraham's faith. To Christians, it was in fact "good" because it indicated that Abraham put his obedience to God above humanistic values and logic. Wouldn't it have spoken volumes about Abraham's regard for God's infinite love if he had refused to kill his son, since his God would never have asked him to do such a thing?

Regards,

Istvan

----------


## Radha Krsna

*Looked as evil but it is not...
God is everything ...*

----------


## hellsapoppin

From an atheist:


*Little-Known Bible Verses V: God Creates Evil*


The passage that today's edition of "Little-Known Bible Verses" will examine is, if I say so myself, one of the most shocking in the entire Bible. In a book that contains talking snakes and donkeys, a man taking two of every living species to survive a flood in a wooden boat, and a god who hates pillows, shrimp, mixed fabrics, and fig trees for some reason, that is no mean feat, but I believe this verse lives up to that promise.

The problem of evil has vexed Christian theologians for nearly two millennia, burdening them with the impossible task of explaining how so much evil and suffering could exist in a cosmos overseen by an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good deity. A wide variety of answers have been proposed to this problem, all of which are as imaginative as they are insufficient. But all this scholarly ink need not have been spilled: the Bible itself tells Jews and Christians exactly where evil comes from.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

Isaiah 45:7 

There you have it, folks - straight, as it were, from the horse's mouth. Evil exists because God created it. All you theologians can pack it in and go home now.

Of course, the story does not end there. The translators of many modern Bible editions, aware of the unsettling implications this verse holds for their faith, have attempted to soften the blow by translating it in a more palatable way. The New International Version, for example, has this passage say that God creates "disaster", while the English Standard Version has it as "calamity", and the Revised Standard Version says "woe". The Message translation creatively renders this verse as "I make harmonies and create discords". 

Although these alternate translations wouldn't seem to solve much, they are still not as faithful to the original Hebrew than the KJV's unflinching translation. The Hebrew word translated by the KJV writers as "evil" in Isaiah 45:7 is "ra", and from textual evidence, it is clear that in the Bible this word does mean evil in a moral sense. Here are some of the other contexts in which it is used:

In Genesis 2:17, God instructs Adam and Eve not to eat from "the tree of good and ra". The tree of good and disaster? The tree of good and calamity? Clearly not: it is the tree of good and evil.
In Genesis 6:5, God resolves to destroy humankind in the great flood because "the wickedness (ra) of man was great in the earth".
In Genesis 13:13, the men of Sodom were "wicked (ra) and sinners before the Lord exceedingly".
In Deuteronomy 1:35, a furious God threatens the Israelites, "Surely there shall not one of these men of this evil (ra) generation see that good land, which I sware to give unto your fathers."
In Judges 2:11, "the children of Israel did evil (ra) in the sight of the Lord, and served Baalim".
In 1 Kings 16:30, the wicked king Ahab (husband of the infamous Jezebel) "did evil (ra) in the sight of the Lord above all that were before him". 
These and many other references make it clear that the primary meaning of ra is indeed evil in the sense of wickedness or sin. For believers who hold to the textual inerrancy of the Bible, therefore, there is no choice but to admit that God created evil. And in a way, this makes a great deal of sense. If an all-powerful, all-knowing god created everything, what other explanation for evil could there be, other than that he caused it? 

Even the Bible's theology bears this out. The text offers numerous occasions where God could have intervened to turn events to good and chose not to. He could, for example, have obliterated Satan and the rebel angels entirely, or at the very least confined them to Hell and not allowed them to escape, so that they could never have escaped to lead humanity into temptation. And God's behavior in the whole Eden affair, in any case, smacks strongly of either extreme incompetence or deliberate malice - not least, his choice to transmit the curse of original sin to all subsequent generations rather than letting every human start off with a morally clean slate.

Less-literalist believers might say that the imputation of evil to God is just textual corruption in the Bible, the product of fallible humans and not a divine revelation. And while this explanation might help the cause of theodicy, it can only do so at the cost of hugely undermining the Bible itself. After all, if God would allow as basic and fundamental a distortion of his nature as this, for what reason should we believe that the Bible reflects any of his words? If the biography of some great human being contained a distortion as blatantly slanderous as this, by attributing to that person an attitude that is totally contrary to all they believed and stood for, would it be wise or prudent to simply disregard that passage and then continue to trust the rest of the book as accurate?

The attribution of evil to God's handiwork, while it may solve the problem of theodicy, raises an even more difficult question for Jews and Christians in its place. Namely, why would such a deity be worthy of our belief? Why would any believer want to worship a god who accepts responsibility for evil and suffering? Because he's the most powerful and will punish people who don't do what he says? But what assurance would we have that the afterlife is not also a place of torment and sorrow, even for the good?

This is a nightmare of a dilemma for anyone to have to face. Fortunately, there is another way out: the door that opens onto atheism. It is in our power to cast aside these bleak and malevolent fantasies, and to recognize that the specters that menace us are illusions of our own imagination. They have no more reality or substance than shadows, and are just as easily dispelled by the light. 

For those who wish to cease the futile obsession with the words of ancient texts and face reality as it truly is, the gate is open and the path is clear. There are no gods, no devils or angels, no heaven or hell. There is only us, human beings, living together in the natural world. Once we recognize this, the next step - a lifelong step - is to forsake fantasy, treat others with kindness and make the most of the one life we are fortunate to have.



http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/...ates-evil.html


Some may not like it or want to agree but if the Bible is to be believed, then it's true.

----------


## Leonidas300

Also from an atheist:

Faith without secular knowledge is immorality.
The more time one spens reading scripture and the less time one spends studying, the less moral one has the potential to be.
The spreading of religious faith at the expense of formal education is the spreading of evil.
Therefore the spreading of faith is intrinsically evil.

For evidence of this, we need only turn to Socratic Method - kudos to the author. Refute this if you can.
http://www.socraticmethod.net/morality/page1.htm

And please, for those of you that are faithful, consider how far this kind of argument could go. Don't just blindly believe what you believe because you always have; question those beliefs for the sake of your common man.

Consider that for every one Islamic or Christian moderate arguing on this forum, there are hundreds of hard-liners willing and intending to kill 'infidels' and 'heretics'. By the time I have finished typing this message, more humans will have been killed by other humans from other religions.

How many words are in the Bible? How many in the Koran? I don't know how many there are, but I do know that more people have been killed for religion than there are words in both of these books. Is a word worth ten lives?

If there were a God, if he created us in his image, and if he could see what we do to each other in his name, he would weep.

----------


## mazHur

> there are hundreds of hard-liners willing and intending to kill 'infidels' and 'heretics'.


 Please define 'Infidels' and 'heretics'.




> By the time I have finished typing this message, more humans will have been killed by other humans from other religions


.


I think more people are being killed by people of their own religion..
Apart from religion or religious sects most killings have been committed in history on ethnic, sectarian, linguistic, racial divisions and expansionist whims....why then only blame religion?? 





> How many words are in the Bible? How many in the Koran? I don't know how many there are, but I do know that more people have been killed for religion than there are words in both of these books. Is a word worth ten lives?


All that is history...now people die because of 'political reasons' and unfounded treatment of neo-diseases, famine and poverty.....





> If there were a God, if he created us in his image, and if he could see what we do to each other in his name, he would weep


Why should he weep and not smile at human follies??

----------


## Neo_Sephiroth

> And please, for those of you that are faithful, consider how far this kind of argument could go. Don't just blindly believe what you believe because you always have; question those beliefs for the sake of your common man.
> 
> If there were a God, if he created us in his image, and if he could see what we do to each other in his name, he would weep.


I don't think anyone "blindly" believes. They believe because they know. And, yes, I agree: If there were a God and we were using his name for justification of bloodshed He would weep and has and is.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

To lump all religions together is foolish. One cannot judge all religions OR any one religion based on the actions that have happened throughout all of history by people of many walks of life. Often there are actions that have multiple reasons and many facets. What may have been done in the name of a god, may also have political and economic reasons behind it. The foundation of your arguments may be more efficiently productive if they were narrowed to one religion at a time, and document your claims with some facts. Otherwise, you comments are just baseless rants.

----------


## mazHur

> I don't think anyone "blindly" believes. They believe because they know. And, yes, I agree: If there were a God and we were using his name for justification of bloodshed He would weep and has and is.


God is the master of Life and Death. 
Natural calamities kill millions
Why attribute him to feeble-heartedness?
HE controls life and death
Life after death
There's nothing for him to weep on! :Beatdeadhorse5:

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> God is the master of Life and Death. 
> Natural calamities kill millions
> Why attribute him to feeble-heartedness?
> HE controls life and death
> Life after death
> There's nothing for him to weep on!


Under my belief system, Jesus Christ is the Son of God...also Deity Himself. Jesus wept.

----------


## mazHur

> Under my belief system, Jesus Christ is the Son of God...also Deity Himself. Jesus wept.


I respect you belief .......
According to my belief Jesus is One of the Greatest Prophets of God....and commands my full and profound respect. True, he must have wept at the human sufferings and surely did his best to alleviate their problems.


But here we are discussing God...as understood by numerous religions in the world and by millions who deny His existence!  :Smile:

----------


## Leonidas300

To mazHur, with respect.




> Why should he weep and not smile at human follies??


From the standard of behaviour shown by many followers of organised religion, I would not be surprised at all if their god were to laugh at his children slaughtering one another, if he were not, of course, a figment of their imagination.




> 'political reasons' and unfounded treatment of neo-diseases, famine and poverty.....


...and car bombs and suicide bombers and missiles and machetes and sanctions ad infinitum. You have a point, but you seem to gloss over much.




> I think more people are being killed by people of their own religion..


Agreed: catholics kill more catholics than protestants do; but catholics don't kill other catholics because they are catholics, but for social reasons that have nothing to do with religion.




> Apart from religion or religious sects most killings have been committed in history on ethnic, sectarian, linguistic, racial divisions and expansionist whims....why then only blame religion??


I do agree with you, religion is not the root cause of these problems, human nature is. Our nature has evolved over millennia to wipe each other out as a method of population control, as we have no predators our equal but ourselves.
It is in human nature to want to carry out the atrocities you mention, as it is in human nature to invent justification for why they were necessary; religion being so often the fall-guy. 
But the people who carry out these crimes, more often than not, do so in the name of religion. Taking that religion away would at least remove the respectability of it all.

You have not made any comment one two things, in my opinion, the two most important things: 
one, on the link I posted (http://www.socraticmethod.net/morality/page1.htm), stating that faith itself is morally bankrupt. Do you have one?
and the other, do you think a word is really worth a human life?

----------


## Neo_Sephiroth

> God is the master of Life and Death. 
> Natural calamities kill millions
> Why attribute him to feeble-heartedness?
> HE controls life and death
> Life after death
> There's nothing for him to weep on!


He wept.




> Under my belief system, Jesus Christ is the Son of God...also Deity Himself. Jesus wept.


Yep.




> I respect you belief .......
> According to my belief Jesus is One of the Greatest Prophets of God....and commands my full and profound respect. True, he must have wept at the human sufferings and surely did his best to alleviate their problems.
> 
> 
> But here we are discussing God...as understood by numerous religions in the world and by millions who deny His existence!


With all due respect, according to my knowledge, Jesus is the Son of God and also a prophet.

----------


## Leonidas300

To BienvenuJDC, with respect.




> The foundation of your arguments may be more efficiently productive if they were narrowed to one religion at a time, and document your claims with some facts. Otherwise, you comments are just baseless rants.


Baseless rants? _ All religion is baseless ranting!_ 

If you can provide me with any physical evidence whatsoever that proves what you believe has any base to it, I will take that back and agree with you that you that religion is not baseless. 

And if you cannot, it is baseless, and you are ranting by default.

And don't give me the old "the faithful require no evidence" routine.

----------


## mazHur

> To mazHur, with respect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the standard of behaviour shown by many followers of organised religion, I would not be surprised at all if their god were to laugh at his children slaughtering one another, if he were not, of course, a figment of their imagination.
> 
> ...



any word is bad which leads to killing except in times of war, slef defense or as a legal pertinent.

----------


## NikolaiI

Religions seem like they are different, but most religions are made by us. In truth, there is One Reality, and we are all part of the same one. Religion is simply a quest for knowledge, and it came upon the answer of God as the Source of Being, the Source of Everything. To attain peace, or union with the source, does not require religion nor is does it preclude it. 

Anyway, God, worshipped as the Source of Love, the Source of Being, is the correct form of religion. External ritual doesn't matter at all, all that matters is the feeling of the heart. 

The question of this thread is supposed to be a clever question, but it also leads to philosophy. 

People fight over these issues and it is really absurd; to fight over it is to attempt to profane the sacred, and the only question is, does it work? Everything has some effect, and so it must be agreed that certain words have some effect...

such as "Delusional."

I have been called delusional here for merely stating that God, as the source, does exist. Merely for stating that "everything has a source"! 

That surely has some effect! Just as there would be some effect for a believer calling a non-believer "delusional." 

_Both_ sides are human, and the fact that both sides are human doens't mean that for anyone to say they feel the divine exists, they should be considered irrational.

Many of the greatest minds of humanity have had a spiritual life, and asserted that there is some source of existence, some truth, or God; and there is some divinity.

Many say the ultimate goal is to be one with the universe. Many say it is to help others...

So this is my statement... the source of existence is Divine Reality. I have experienced this in different ways, sometimes directly... I cannot say anything else and remain truthful. The source of existence is that truth - indivisble and violable, with divine joy, peace, understanding... that by its existence begs to be known... and its message is just, "Be at peace, for everything is of Me."

----------


## mazHur

> Religions seem like they are different, but most religions are made by us. In truth, there is One Reality, and we are all part of the same one. Religion is simply a quest for knowledge, and it came upon the answer of God as the Source of Being, the Source of Everything. To attain peace, or union with the source, does not require religion nor is does it preclude it. 
> 
> Anyway, God, worshipped as the Source of Love, the Source of Being, is the correct form of religion. External ritual doesn't matter at all, all that matters is the feeling of the heart. 
> 
> The question of this thread is supposed to be a clever question, but it also leads to philosophy. 
> 
> People fight over these issues and it is really absurd; to fight over it is to attempt to profane the sacred, and the only question is, does it work? Everything has some effect, and so it must be agreed that certain words have some effect...
> 
> such as "Delusional."
> ...


Bravo! nice thoughts! :Santasmile:

----------


## Babbalanja

> Religions seem like they are different, but most religions are made by us...Religion is simply a quest for knowledge, and it came upon the answer of God as the Source of Being, the Source of Everything.


All religions are made by us. The religious quest for knowledge is completely unlike any other form of inquiry: it starts out with what it calls the "truth" and then affirms it repeatedly until it sinks in.

This is why the God-is-God-ain't debate is so tiresome and irrelevant: what religion is has little to do with any notion of transcendent reality. Religion involves convincing people that they know things that they can't possibly know. It involves making them believe that _knowledge_ comes from within, rather than from a laborious, cumulative process of objective inquiry.




> The question of this thread is supposed to be a clever question, but it also leads to philosophy.


Why are these two things mutually exclusive? It is indeed a clever question, because it merely takes the believer's definition of God to its logical conclusion. If God, as you say, is the Source of Everything, then He is the creator of not just the nice things, but also suffering, injustice, oppression, and misery.




> I have been called delusional here for merely stating that God, as the source, does exist. Merely for stating that "everything has a source"!


Merely for that? Could it be because every post you compose is a New Age word salad?

Regards,

Istvan

----------


## NikolaiI

> Bravo! nice thoughts!


Thank ya. Salaam.  :Tongue:

----------


## NikolaiI

> All religions are made by us. The religious quest for knowledge is completely unlike any other form of inquiry: it starts out with what it calls the "truth" and then affirms it repeatedly until it sinks in.
> 
> This is why the God-is-God-ain't debate is so tiresome and irrelevant: what religion is has little to do with any notion of transcendent reality. Religion involves convincing people that they know things that they can't possibly know. It involves making them believe that _knowledge_ comes from within, rather than from a laborious, cumulative process of objective inquiry.
> 
> Why are these two things mutually exclusive? It is indeed a clever question, because it merely takes the believer's definition of God to its logical conclusion. If God, as you say, is the Source of Everything, then He is the creator of not just the nice things, but also suffering, injustice, oppression, and misery.
> 
> Merely for that? Could it be because every post you compose is a New Age word salad?
> 
> Regards,
> ...


Um... peace.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> To BienvenuJDC, with respect.
> 
> 
> 
> Baseless rants? _ All religion is baseless ranting!_ 
> 
> If you can provide me with any physical evidence whatsoever that proves what you believe has any base to it, I will take that back and agree with you that you that religion is not baseless. 
> 
> And if you cannot, it is baseless, and you are ranting by default.
> ...


There are very well laid out evidential arguments that gives foundation to Christianity. They are divided into three areas: the existence of God, the Deity of Christ, and the inspiration of the Bible. I'm not going to recreate them in this post, but you can search it out under the keyword Christian Apologetics. There are arguments that establish the base, such as: The Teleological Argument, Cosmological Argument, etc. If you choose to reject these arguments and the evidence attached to them, that does not negate the fact that there is a base...it's just not one that you choose to accept.

----------


## Babbalanja

> There are very well laid out evidential arguments that gives foundation to Christianity.


The ones you mentioned are ontological arguments, not evidential proofs.

Regards,

Istvan

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> The ones you mentioned are ontological arguments, not evidential proofs.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Istvan


I'm not about to try to prove whether there is, or is not, any evidential proof... all I set out to do is to show that there IS a basis for some religions. I'm not going to make this a thread of back and forth arguments.

I don't know why atheists, skeptics, and agnostics seem to be so dogmatic in stating that religious people are stupid for having faith.

While you can SAY...regards and respects...you don't really show a respectful attitude.

----------


## Neo_Sephiroth

> And don't give me the old "the faithful require no evidence" routine.


I ask, with all due respect, are you asking questions about whether or not God exists or are you just stating that people who believes in God are, for lack of better words here, fools for believing such things?

If you're truly asking about the existence of a God then you must have some doubts of whether God actually exists or not.

If you're just trying to prove or state that there is no God then you shouldn't be because no matter what it is that is said, pertaining to God, there must be faith and from the looks of it, you don't believe in faith.

----------


## mtpspur

I was highly amused by the ranting religious claim. I have nothing to offer you but simple faith in the claims of the Bible. May I politely point you to the Bible rather then demagogues, fire and brimstoners or avaricious pious types for enlightenment. It is easy to shoot a straw man but the real deal is well worth the knowing and experiencing. I would be more impressed with your search for the truth if oyur judgments weren't obscured by frankly bad examples of 'religious' types. Bottom line I personally am NOT religious in the LEAST BUT I am a SINNER and very acquainted with THAT and the cure.

----------


## Babbalanja

> I'm not about to try to prove whether there is, or is not, any evidential proof... all I set out to do is to show that there IS a basis for some religions.





> no matter what it is that is said, pertaining to God, there must be faith and from the looks of it, you don't believe in faith.





> May I politely point you to the Bible rather then demagogues, fire and brimstoners or avaricious pious types for enlightenment. It is easy to shoot a straw man but the real deal is well worth the knowing and experiencing.


This thread is all about trying to come to a consistent, coherent definition of what believers affirm, but all it has done is demonstrate the curious philosophical shell game of faith. It seems that any definition of _God_ or _belief_ or _faith_ that nonbelievers use (even if it's in the exact same words that the believers originally used to describe the term) can be dismissed as a straw man if it seems to put the notion of faith in a less-than-flattering light.

If God is, as one believer here said, the _Source of Everything_, then it logically follows that He is the source of evil as well as good. Believers feel this constitutes disrespect on the part of nonbelievers, even though it's inherent in the way the believers originally defined the term.

If we should go to the Bible, as one believer recommended, then we need to confront all the shameful things that were done at the behest of the Almighty, such as the binding of Isaac or the slaughter of the Canaanites. Believers then tell us we're wrong to take these scriptures at face value, even though that's what they instructed us to do in the first place.

If faith is said to be an inductive method of inquiry, we point out that it lacks the evidence that fuels such inquiry. If it is said to be a deductive process, then we point out the logical flaws in its ontological proofs. In either case, the believers criticize us for expecting their beliefs to conform to human reason, even though they were the ones who initially asserted that faith is a rational pursuit like any other method of inquiry. Yet, if we conclude that faith is merely believing whatever the person wants to believe, the religious object that we are oversimplifying the concept of faith.

Even though it makes dialogue utterly futile, this obfuscation is just what religion needs to survive in the modern day. Faith can't be held to any standard, it can't be subjected to criticism like any other claim in society, and it must be accepted as rational and beneficial even if it seems just the opposite.

Regards,

Istvan

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> If God is, as one believer here said, the _Source of Everything_, then it logically follows that He is the source of evil as well as good. Believers feel this constitutes disrespect on the part of nonbelievers, even though it's inherent in the way the believers originally defined the term.


Your assumption is flawed.

In the beginning there was no light...that means there was darkness.

Did God create darkness? No...it is the lack of light.
Did God create evil? No...it is the lack of good.


And it is not your questions that constitutes disrespect, it is your manner.

----------


## blazeofglory

This topic is really moving me. It is really interesting to read and discuss here.

As I understand God is not a person and not impersonal as well.

We cannot say what god and what god is not for we have no thing to compare with or no metaphor to describe God.

With regard to evil all I think is both evil and good are unreal and they are our classifications and are mundane attributes in point of fact. Rise above and over all these worldly attributes there is no good and bad, not devilishness or saintliness as such. Rather I say there is godliness or divinity everywhere no matter where we are.

The way a balloon can be blown out into a bigger size and the same can shrink back into its original shape. 

Of course sinners will be also accepted in the kingdom of heaven ultimately.

We are too much conditioned to think the way we do based on what we read in a book.

Let us close our eyes for a while everything will be to us as clear as the day.

----------


## Leonidas300

> This thread is all about trying to come to a consistent, coherent definition of what believers affirm, but all it has done is demonstrate the curious philosophical shell game of faith. It seems that any definition of God or belief or faith that nonbelievers use (even if it's in the exact same words that the believers originally used to describe the term) can be dismissed as a straw man if it seems to put the notion of faith in a less-than-flattering light.
> 
> If God is, as one believer here said, the Source of Everything, then it logically follows that He is the source of evil as well as good. Believers feel this constitutes disrespect on the part of nonbelievers, even though it's inherent in the way the believers originally defined the term.
> 
> If we should go to the Bible, as one believer recommended, then we need to confront all the shameful things that were done at the behest of the Almighty, such as the binding of Isaac or the slaughter of the Canaanites. Believers then tell us we're wrong to take these scriptures at face value, even though that's what they instructed us to do in the first place.
> 
> If faith is said to be an inductive method of inquiry, we point out that it lacks the evidence that fuels such inquiry. If it is said to be a deductive process, then we point out the logical flaws in its ontological proofs. In either case, the believers criticize us for expecting their beliefs to conform to human reason, even though they were the ones who initially asserted that faith is a rational pursuit like any other method of inquiry. Yet, if we conclude that faith is merely believing whatever the person wants to believe, the religious object that we are oversimplifying the concept of faith.
> 
> Even though it makes dialogue utterly futile, this obfuscation is just what religion needs to survive in the modern day. Faith can't be held to any standard, it can't be subjected to criticism like any other claim in society, and it must be accepted as rational and beneficial even if it seems just the opposite.


That is a great post.

----------


## Babbalanja

> Your assumption is flawed.
> 
> In the beginning there was no light...that means there was darkness.
> 
> Did God create darkness? No...it is the lack of light.
> Did God create evil? No...it is the lack of good.


 :Rolleyes: 

Don't you even know your own Bible?

_I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things._  - Isaiah 45:7




> And it is not your questions that constitutes disrespect, it is your manner.


I never called anyone "stupid," as you claimed in a recent post. I've just been pointing out that there seems to be no consistency in the way believers define _God_ and _faith_, and no objective way to assess religious claims the way we judge the validity of any other claim in human society.

Regards,

Istvan

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Don't you even know your own Bible?
> 
> _I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things._  - Isaiah 45:7


Try keeping this in context. The Bible is a piece of literature that uses metaphor, simile, hyperbole, and other literary tools. While I do not claim to know and understand all of the Scriptures, I do know the Bible fairly well. You can search day by day for that version and passage out of context to try to prove your point, but you do not try to understand the intent of the written passages.

If you would like to open up the context of the passage to see what is being written, to whom it is written, and the purpose for the passage, we might truly understand what is being told here. But I would expect that you don't want to honestly understand the Scriptures. Therefore, I do not want to make this forum a contentious battle ground. You do not believe as I do, nor do I believe as you do. You do not have to try to rip my beliefs apart.




> I never called anyone "stupid," as you claimed in a recent post.


No...you didn't. However, this is a general statement. Your implications might speak ill of believers though.

----------


## Babbalanja

> Try keeping this in context. The Bible is a piece of literature that uses metaphor, simile, hyperbole, and other literary tools. While I do not claim to know and understand all of the Scriptures, I do know the Bible fairly well. You can search day by day for that version and passage out of context to try to prove your point, but you do not try to understand the intent of the written passages.
> 
> If you would like to open up the context of the passage to see what is being written, to whom it is written, and the purpose for the passage, we might truly understand what is being told here. But I would expect that you don't want to honestly understand the Scriptures. Therefore, I do not want to make this forum a contentious battle ground. You do not believe as I do, nor do I believe as you do. You do not have to try to rip my beliefs apart.


This is a perfect example of what I'm saying about the religious shell game.

To answer the question in the OP, even a nonbeliever can accept the words of the faithful: if God is the Source of Everything, then God is the source of evil as well as good.

However, you claim that God is no more the creator of evil than He is the creator of darkness. When I point out that in the canonical Scripture itself, God indicates that He is the creator of both darkness and evil, _you merely handwave away_ this scriptural reference, with which I assume you were previously unfamiliar.

So I'm not supposed to take this fairly clear and straightforward verse to mean _exactly what it says_, simply because it doesn't support the point you're trying to make? What context am I ignoring in the case of Isaiah 45:7 that makes it so irrelevant to this ethical question? And what does it say about the usefulness of scripture itself, if I'm not supposed to read it and interpret it to mean literally what it says?

Regards,

Istvan

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> So I'm not supposed to take this fairly clear and straightforward verse to mean _exactly what it says_, simply because it doesn't support the point you're trying to make? What context am I ignoring in the case of Isaiah 45:7 that makes it so irrelevant to this ethical question?


Do you take everything in all literature to be literal? If you do, then you don't understand literature.

I'm not extending this argument any further. If it is a shell game to you, then that is your prerogative. But if you cannot look further into literary works than what you are, then your judgments will always be shallow. You don't see me opening other religious works, try to bash and critique them. So I don't expect someone to take the Bible out of its context to try to prove it to be unreliable and wrong. I don't try to convert people to my religion who do not want to be.

You really ought to stop what you are doing... :Beatdeadhorse5: 
It's not becoming to this forum.

----------


## mazHur

> Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC View Post
> Your assumption is flawed.





> In the beginning there was no light...that means there was darkness.
> 
> Did God create darkness? No...it is the lack of light.
> Did God create evil? No...it is the lack of good.



This explanation is pretty neat and I agree with it.

Let's all keep the discussion restricted to the topic rather than vehemently criticize scriptures or their interpretation. Remember, God may overlook our talk but not the ever-watchful mods :Smile:

----------


## NikolaiI

I guess the question only leads into another: is the "everything" good or bad? The only way you can criticize God for creating everything is if you say that the everything is bad -- in other words, the sorrow makes life unnecessary, unjustified, in the face of the idea of balancing opposites, which says that life is valuable both for its "Good" experiences and its "Bad" experiences. Why not an infinite affirmation of life? This is what mystics found. They say that beyond duality, beyond the dualities of right and wrong, self and other, there is a boundless, sole, indivisible reality... they say that is God, or the Source. So in other words, God is beyond the dualities of Good and Bad. But also, God is the Supreme good, being the Source of Being, and the Source of Love.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Don't you even know your own Bible?
> 
> _I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things._  - Isaiah 45:7


Your assertion a few posts above that God created evil is questionable because not all translations render the verse with the word "evil" - some chose other terms - which suggests that the "evil" of the King James and American Standard versions may well be "evil" as in "bad thing that happens" (which fits with the translations "calamity" and "disaster") as opposed to "metaphysical concept diametrically opposed to good" (which is how you're interpreting it). An important distinction.


From the New International version:
7 I form the light and create darkness, 
I bring prosperity and create *disaster*; 
I, the LORD, do all these things.

From the New American Standard:
7The One (A)forming light and (B)creating darkness,
Causing well-being and (C)creating *calamity*;
I am the LORD who does all these. 

From the New King James (since your quote is from the original King James):
7 I form the light and create darkness, 
I make peace and create *calamity*; 
I, the LORD, do all these things. 

God did not create "evil" (though these texts do suggest that He may well be the author of things that are unfortunate and catastrophic). Evil is the result of our free will. In order for free will to exist, there must be two valid choices for a human to make. As such, if serving/loving God is one, choice, then not serving/not loving God must be the other choice. Since the Bible makes it clear that God is the source of all that is good, then it makes sense that to chose NOT to love/serve Him results in the creation of evil. Evil comes from the human choice to NOT serve God; God did not create evil - He gave us free will which carried with it the potential to create evil.

----------


## Lynne Fees

> I saw Lucifer in starlight standing elegant and grim;
> A slim, conceited bastard in his uniform and boots.
> And I watched him get excited as he waved his arms and boasted,
> The worlds a prize to seize for those who have the will.
> And would I be inclined to run for office?
> I thought it over quietly,	
> Politely turned him down
> And wondered, was he beaten as a child?
> The biggest bullies were once victims themselves.
> ...


You have done an excellent job of a modern-day interpretation of temptation, ala Eve and the apple.

----------


## tailor STATELY

Another interesting thread.

First, to personalize some tenets from my faith before expounding on the thread's premise: I claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of my own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
I believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; I also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.. (  LDS "Articles of Faith" ) 

Second, God is not evil in any context. No evil may dwell with God.

LDS scripture that help me understand good and evil may be found at The Book of Mormon / 2 Nephi Chapter 2. Further insights may be gained by study of other LDS texts, including The Pearl of Great Price, which expound upon our Heavenly Father's Plan of Salvation.

A number of passages from _The Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Jesus Christ_: 


> from _The Second Book of Nephi Chapter 2_: 
> 
> 5 And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever. 
> 
> 8 Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise. 
> 
> 11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility. 
> 
> 12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God. 
> ...


Humbly,
tailor STATELY

----------


## Leonidas300

Thank you Mr Stately. However, I have to admit that I feel sorry for you.

----------


## tailor STATELY

> Thank you Mr Stately. However, I have to admit that I feel sorry for you.


LOL. Thank you for your concern.

----------


## blazeofglory

> I guess the question only leads into another: is the "everything" good or bad? The only way you can criticize God for creating everything is if you say that the everything is bad -- in other words, the sorrow makes life unnecessary, unjustified, in the face of the idea of balancing opposites, which says that life is valuable both for its "Good" experiences and its "Bad" experiences. Why not an infinite affirmation of life? This is what mystics found. They say that beyond duality, beyond the dualities of right and wrong, self and other, there is a boundless, sole, indivisible reality... they say that is God, or the Source. So in other words, God is beyond the dualities of Good and Bad. But also, God is the Supreme good, being the Source of Being, and the Source of Love.


Nikolai, a well read philosopher, a thinker, a spiritualist is right in stating that God id beyond the dualities of good and bad. There is godliness beyond the attribute of goodness and badness in point of fact. Both devilishness and godliness merge there or thaw there and there will be no conflict there, not discordance. There will be an endless stretch of evenness. I cannot say what will be and what not there in Godliness but all that I can say is Godliness is not the opposite of evilness or devilishness. When there will be Godliness devilishness will melt into godliness. Devilishness is a state and state is not unchangeable and of course Devil will purge him of the devilishness and once purged all will be once again Godliness. How can you find a shadow of darkness when your room is flooded with light.

I think Nikolai can understand and interpret it better than me.

----------


## ana123love

Personally I think God is both good and bad. I know it sounds crazy but in order for someone to understand what Bad is, dont they experience it first? Sure some peple have gone to longer lengths in badness, but a good person always has a bad side. There is no such thing as a perfect person. It's an illusion that we make ourselfs believe is real so that when the times comes we can judge ourselves and others. Everyone has a different view on whats good and whats bad. 

Which is why I believe that God must have experimented with badness in order to have a more understanding way of it. Otherwise how is he able to pass judgement on us when he's the one who decides wether we go into heaven or not? How can he send you to hell for your wrong deeds when people have drilled into our heads that he is the figure of goodness? In order for someone to understand something you have to experience it otherwise you cant pass judgement on anyone. 

So for me, God is neither good or evil. Why? Cause nobody is. If we were good people there wouldnt be problems in the world today. If we were bad people then we wouldnt have feelings or a conscience. Which lives us with one question: What exactly are we?

----------


## blazeofglory

Everyone imagines God in his own way, and of course a violent man has the reason of his own for acts of violence and every sinner justifies his sin. People think that a particular circumstance compels him to act sinfully.
No sinner blames himself for the sins committed. It is the onlooker who labels him and the onlooker must at the sinner from the sinner's point of view and also thru the circumstance the sinner was while he was committing the sin.

God justifies or is indifferent to all sinful or sacred acts

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Personally I think God is both good and bad. I know it sounds crazy but in order for someone to understand what Bad is, dont they experience it first? Sure some peple have gone to longer lengths in badness, but a good person always has a bad side. There is no such thing as a perfect person. It's an illusion that we make ourselfs believe is real so that when the times comes we can judge ourselves and others. Everyone has a different view on whats good and whats bad. 
> 
> Which is why I believe that God must have experimented with badness in order to have a more understanding way of it. Otherwise how is he able to pass judgement on us when he's the one who decides wether we go into heaven or not? How can he send you to hell for your wrong deeds when people have drilled into our heads that he is the figure of goodness? In order for someone to understand something you have to experience it otherwise you cant pass judgement on anyone. 
> 
> So for me, God is neither good or evil. Why? Cause nobody is. If we were good people there wouldnt be problems in the world today. If we were bad people then we wouldnt have feelings or a conscience. Which lives us with one question: What exactly are we?


The problem here, Ana, is that you make good and evil things that are "outside" of God - as if they have existence independent of Him. The Bible makes it clear that God has no traffic with evil - evil cannot touch Him - all that is impure, evil, tainted simply burns away in his presence. Good is defined by things that are consistent with God's character; evil is that which is contrary to his character. God is the basis of reality - as such, good and evil do not exist independently of God - they are definitions given to things that either conform to God's character or contradict it.




> Everyone imagines God in his own way, and of course a violent man has the reason of his own for acts of violence and every sinner justifies his sin. People think that a particular circumstance compels him to act sinfully.


Hence the importance of the Bible; without some stable "ground" upon which to base our ideas of God, He becomes whatever we want, and at that point, He becomes meaningless and liable to the wildest flights of fancy.




> God justifies or is indifferent to all sinful or sacred acts


I'd be curious what you base this idea of God on - because unless you have some sort of foundation, you are simply saying "this is who I think God to be" but you just as well could say "God is a 7 foot tall smurf" and assume that to be authoritative unless you have a basis for that belief outside your own opinion. I'm not sure which sacred text makes God indifferent to sin or that he justifies it - except that if he justifies it, it is no longer a sin.

----------


## hellsapoppin

The bible says 'that which is of flesh is flesh, that of spirit is spirit.' In other words, something can only come from its source.

Since this god is the source of evil (Isaiah 45:7; Amos 3:6; Lamentations 3:38) then it shows that he, too, is evil. This assuming the bible is correct.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> The bible says 'that which is of flesh is flesh, that of spirit is spirit.' In other words, something can only come from its source.
> 
> Since this god is the source of evil (Isaiah 45:7; Amos 3:6; Lamentations 3:38) then it shows that he, too, is evil. This assuming the bible is correct.


Or consider that your interpretation might be incorrect...

Isa 45:7
I form the light and create darkness,
I make peace and create calamity;
I, the LORD, do all these things. 

Amos 3:6
If a trumpet is blown in a city, will not the people be afraid?
If there is calamity in a city, will not the LORD have done it?

Lam 3:38
Is it not from the mouth of the Most High
That woe and well-being proceed? 

Try looking at the context next time...and use more than just one version.

----------


## mazHur

Since man was created in God's image, God must be having all those traits before passing them on to Man! Consequently God cannot be said to be evil,,,but a 'bouquet' of all sorts of traits exhibited by men!!




> Or consider that your interpretation might be incorrect...
> 
> Isa 45:7
> I form the light and create darkness,
> I make peace and create calamity;
> I, the LORD, do all these things. 
> 
> Amos 3:6
> If a trumpet is blown in a city, will not the people be afraid?
> ...



We, the Muslims, are lucky in that we have ONLY ONE version of the holy Quran! :Smile:

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> We, the Muslims, are lucky in that we have ONLY ONE version of the holy Quran!


Why do you consider that lucky? That would mean that you cannot consider the different translations to understand more deeply the meaning of the passage. Is the Quran not written in more than just one language?




> Since man was created in God's image, God must be having all those traits before passing them on to Man! Consequently God cannot be said to be evil,,,but a 'bouquet' of all sorts of traits exhibited by men!!


God is ALL GOOD, and anything that is not like God is evil. God created light which is opposite of darkness. The two cannot coexist. It is as such with Good and Evil.

----------


## mazHur

> Why do you consider that lucky? That would mean that you cannot consider the different translations to understand more deeply the meaning of the passage. Is the Quran not written in more than just one language?


The holy Quran is read all over the world....by ALL Muslims, regardless of their sect or creed--in Arabic. The Quran in Arabic is the SAME in every Muslims house, mosque or country where ever he lives....Thus there is NO problem in citing an specific verse from the very same source universally!
Moreover many Muslims around the world have memorized whole of the Quran in Arabic word by word! Thus we are lucky in that nobody can fool us by distracting our attention to different versions of the same book!


Translations and interpretations are different things........they may differ and they do but the BASIC Quran is in Arabic and if a serious Muslim wants to check out he can at once make recourse to the Original Arabic text (with literal translation) and cross-check even if he doesn't know Arabic! 


This is not the case with the Bible which has been edited by men so many times that the original essence of it is mostly confounded and sorry to use the word 'corrupted'!

Another thing is that we Muslims do not make fun of our holy Book or holy personalities...Muslims are also forbidden by the Quran to speak ill of any other religion, its follower, its books or whatever....for this reason you will note that no Muslim can draw a caricature of Moses, Jesus etc or use filthy words about them even though
so much hate seems to prevail between them especially after 9/11 and due to Palestinian dispute.

----------


## oshima

The simple answer to the OP is that god is not just good and bad, but everything, period. God *is* creation, and what you would call bad or good (for simplicity's sake, I'm going to assume you're talking about conventional modernistic western morality) are manifestations of god (the aggregate of energy, matter, and consciousness). Even if one believes that a personal god exists separate from existential life, for that entity to truly be the source and creator of all, it would have to be "beyond good and evil" and in fact be beyond all ideas and human comprehension.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> The holy Quran is read all over the world....by ALL Muslims, regardless of their sect or creed--in Arabic. The Quran in Arabic is the SAME in every Muslims house, mosque or country where ever he lives....Thus there is NO problem in citing an specific verse from the very same source universally!
> Moreover many Muslims around the world have memorized whole of the Quran in Arabic word by word! Thus we are lucky in that nobody can fool us by distracting our attention to different versions of the same book!
> 
> 
> Translations and interpretations are different things........they may differ and they do but the BASIC Quran is in Arabic and if a serious Muslim wants to check out he can at once make recourse to the Original Arabic text (with literal translation) and cross-check even if he doesn't know Arabic! 
> 
> 
> This is not the case with the Bible which has been edited by men so many times that the original essence of it is mostly confounded and sorry to use the word 'corrupted'!
> 
> ...


I do not agree with what you are saying, but any example that I might present will most assuredly be censored. The muslim religion does not practice the way that you say. muslims react in an ill manner toward other religions all the time. I'm not saying that all muslims do this, but there are enough that do in fact speak ill of all other religions. More than just speak, they act also.

----------


## Scheherazade

The OP:


> This is a bit of weird one I think. This came to me when I was reading a Philip K. Dick short story about something similer. This is purly hypothetical and I mean no offence.
> 
> *If god is in everything and everyone, does that not make him as much an evil malevolent as a divine benevolent?*
> 
> It just seems to me that evil is as much a thing as good; and something claimed to be _everything_ must surely be both? 
> 
> Thoughts on this random thought?


*Preaching and championing one particular religion at the expense of others are not allowed on this site.

Off-topic posts will be deleted without further notice.*

----------


## hellsapoppin

''Try looking at the context next time...and use more than just one version. ''

The quotes you use clearly prove that this supposed god creates both good & evil. Again, assuming such a god exists.

----------


## mazHur

> ''Try looking at the context next time...and use more than just one version. ''
> 
> The quotes you use clearly prove that this supposed god creates both good & evil. Again, assuming such a god exists.


a nice googly by you! :Smile:

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> ''Try looking at the context next time...and use more than just one version. ''
> 
> The quotes you use clearly prove that this supposed god creates both good & evil. Again, assuming such a god exists.


Calamity is not the same as 'evil'. Calamity can be the destructive results of a storm. Jesus Christ had shown that he had the power over the winds and the waves, which could produce peaceful waters, or such as is...a storm of calamity and destruction. But this is a far cry from the interpretation of creating EVIL. And there is no other assumption based on sound logic than for such a God to exist.

----------


## hellsapoppin

''Calamity is not the same as 'evil'. Calamity can be the destructive results of a storm.''

We've gone over this before so rather than discuss it further, here's a quote from blueletterbible for the Hebrew word ''ra'' or ''rah'':


1) bad, evil

a) bad, disagreeable, malignant

b) bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)

c) evil, displeasing

d) bad (of its kind - land, water, etc)

e) bad (of value)

f) worse than, worst (comparison)

g) sad, unhappy

h) evil (hurtful)

i) bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)

j) bad, evil, wicked (ethically)

1) in general, of persons, of thoughts

2) deeds, actions

n m

2) evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity

a) evil, distress, adversity

b) evil, injury, wrong

c) evil (ethical)

n f

3) evil, misery, distress, injury

a) evil, misery, distress

b) evil, injury, wrong

c) evil (ethical)

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 663
AV — evil 442, wickedness 59, wicked 25, mischief 21, hurt 20, bad 13, trouble 10, sore 9, affliction 6, ill 5, adversity 4, favoured 3, harm 3, naught 3, noisome 2, grievous 2, sad 2, misc 34
Gesenius's Lexicon (Help)
H7451



http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/...gs=H7451&t=KJV


Interpret it how you will.

----------


## bojangle

God is within you. God is a power within you. God is courage, strength, happiness, freedom, God is virtue. God is the opposing force to what is bad in this world. Being with God is being in harmony with the good. This is what the Bible says, not what the intellectuals say. Their motive is to be the smartest guys in the room.

----------


## hellsapoppin

In other words, abortion and war victims lack the proper degree of righteousness to be in harmony with your god?

OK. Makes sense to me.

----------


## bojangle

> In other words, abortion and war victims lack the proper degree of righteousness to be in harmony with your god?
> 
> OK. Makes sense to me.


I don't know if that was directed at me or not. The only God I know is the one brought up in the Bible. The God to the intellectuals can be whoever they want him to be. It's just students being silly. The church can lead those who can't lead themselves, can bring up issues that will give food to the intellectuals of the world so they can debate and write meaningless nonsense and call it philosophy. It's not real, just for appearances. "abortion, war, same-sex" <- just quibbling, bumping into each other like headless chickens. people who only read and never write. LONG LIVE THE CHURCH!

----------


## hellsapoppin

''The God to the intellectuals can be whoever they want him to be. It's just students being silly.''

The same is true for the churches. After all, no institution in history has killed more people in the name of the Bible than the churches.

----------


## bojangle

I don't know what that means. It seems like most people on this forum are trying to be the smartest guys in the room...

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> ''The God to the intellectuals can be whoever they want him to be. It's just students being silly.''
> 
> The same is true for the churches. After all, no institution in history has killed more people in the name of the Bible than the churches.


Seems like you're saying that it is not a religion of peace....huh?

----------


## hellsapoppin

''It seems like most people on this forum are trying to be the smartest guys in the room... ''

True.


''it is not a religion of peace....huh?''

The signature I use may give you a hint.  :Wink:

----------


## Abir

Religion is juste the manner bywhich people think it's the cause to believe in god , however the real belif is in heart and not anywhere.

----------


## mazHur

> Religion is juste the manner bywhich people think it's the cause to believe in god , however the real belif is in heart and not anywhere.


Mind is clever and treacherous
sees everything with compound eyes
views pros and cons, risks and gains.
Heart, on the other, is naive, innocent
like a poor blind dolphin in the river
it views risks as gains.
Let mind be the guide of your heart
so it may not go astray
but sometimes, yes, sometimes,
It is advisable to let the heart free!

Heart is Faith
Mind is doubt..

----------


## frenchchick825

> The only God I know is the one brought up in the Bible. 
> LONG LIVE THE CHURCH!


Just terribly curious; what makes Christian beliefs any more true than those of other religions? Had you been born in India you would most likely believe fervently in Hinduism 

Organized religion can be a beautiful thing, but it has proven time and time again that can destroy just as easily as it heals and unites. 
And another aspect of God that I fail to understand, the Christian one at least. How can he damn people to eternal hellfire as punishment for their sins? 
Fear and God should not be used in the same sentence.

----------


## mazHur

> Just terribly curious; what makes Christian beliefs any more true than those of other religions? Had you been born in India you would most likely believe fervently in Hinduism 
> 
> Organized religion can be a beautiful thing, but it has proven time and time again that can destroy just as easily as it heals and unites. 
> And another aspect of God that I fail to understand, the Christian one at least. How can he damn people to eternal hellfire as punishment for their sins? 
> Fear and God should not be used in the same sentence.



God created everything in pairs...it is said and observed. Why then he shouldn't be loving and fearful at the same time??
Ever heard about the wrath of God???

Yeah, it is not only the Christian God that rules the world! All roads lead to Rome! :Smile:

----------


## YesNo

> Just terribly curious; what makes Christian beliefs any more true than those of other religions? Had you been born in India you would most likely believe fervently in Hinduism 
> 
> Organized religion can be a beautiful thing, but it has proven time and time again that can destroy just as easily as it heals and unites. 
> And another aspect of God that I fail to understand, the Christian one at least. How can he damn people to eternal hellfire as punishment for their sins? 
> Fear and God should not be used in the same sentence.


I'm curious about this as well since I was born in a predominately Christian culture. It is sort of in my face.

In reading about Hell, specifically Mary Boyce's books on Zoroastrianism, it looks as if Zarathustra came up with the idea first. He also had a last judgment to punish evil in a molten flow of metal, which reminds me too closely of the punishment in Revelation for these two ideas to be unrelated.

Personally, I don't think Christian beliefs are any more true than other religions. You are not required to think so either, to my knowledge, although when ideas are in your face, it is hard to ignore them.

----------


## Cunninglinguist

> ''Calamity is not the same as 'evil'. Calamity can be the destructive results of a storm.''
> 
> We've gone over this before so rather than discuss it further, here's a quote from blueletterbible for the Hebrew word ''ra'' or ''rah'':


Bienvenu makes a point, and a good one. His is the whole idea behind _felix culpa_, or the good fall, which is a rather prevailing interpretation of Satan's fall and cannot be dismissed.




> The same is true for the churches. After all, no institution in history has killed more people in the name of the Bible than the churches.


Not true in the least. If I stick strictly to how many people the christian church has directly killed it is so few as to be trivial. Indirectly speaking, i.e. religious war, it is still trumped by ww2, the Mongolian conquest, the Chinese Revolution, ww1, etc. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_death_toll And even thought religious aspects existed in some of these wars, they were certainly not, for the most part, the sole motivating force.

----------


## hellsapoppin

The modern day has a better way of recording life and death records. Past eras did not have census bureaus in order to ascertain how died from Mongol horde invasions or Crusader attacks on peaceful Muslims.

----------


## mazHur

> The modern day has a better way of recording life and death records. Past eras did not have census bureaus in order to ascertain how died from Mongol horde invasions or Crusader attacks on peaceful Muslims.



You forgot to mention the Huns!!

Stats my not be recorded in the event of a WAR....the Mongol invasion and the Crusades were wars...and I think during a war all arrangement to keep record of the dead or alive gets upset as people are more worried to save their lives. They only guess the the number of dead from the number of remaining alive!

It's astonishing that still there is NO accurate record or data about population in some countries....which clearly reflects on planning but who cares?? Pakistan is such a country where I live....where all figures are sketchy and mostly guess work!! Pity If there is a war and people die one can only ascertain their true number through guess work! 

On the contrary situation in developed country is different where every person is registered, but not so in some places :Smile:

----------


## chrissy613

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

Hopefully that Proverb provides a little insight  :Smile:

----------


## sports24x

no..i don't think so..

----------


## Dark Passenger

Agnostic until proven otherwise.

I've always thought of God--if there is one--to be similar to a referee. He's a watcher, a hands-off kinda guy. He judges the battle of your two halves, and he can ring that bell whenever he wants.

----------


## naphelge

> If god is in everything and everyone, does that not make him as much an evil malevolent as a divine benevolent?


Hawthorne asks a similarly thought provoking question near the end of his novel "The Scarlet Letter" that goes something like: doesn't it take just as much passion and devotion to be evil as it does to be good?, when summing up thoughts about Hester's evil husband (his name slips my memory atm).

In fact, I cam to see Hester's husband in the story, after reading that quote, as the darker side of god (although I am not a religious person and do not in fact believe in any sort of personified ultimate source of creation as what many call God) or rather nature that must deal with the darker issues or sides of life.

It is only through this darker character in the story that Dimmesdale can find his peace. Kind of like necessary tough love, with which he would have remained a lost soul, dying an emptier death than what he did. So evil, or what many people perceive to be the evil in the story is in fact interestingly Dimmesdale's salvation.

Of course without evil, goodness fails to exist. Evil defines what is good as much as good defines what is evil, both necessary for the other's existence (in one's perception of course, which differs from person to person, society to society, and culture to culture).

cheers,
nap

----------


## lobanw

There was a time when there was no "devil" and people view God as both holy and righteous and punishing as well. God is said to be ALL good but we truly do not know the extent of his powers or ways and we probably never will. A lot of people a presumptive and assume that they know how God works but no one will really know that so you just have to trust in what you know and how you feel.

----------


## G L Wilson

"God is a little more than everything." e. e. cummings

----------


## iankropp

> well duh!
> 
> Doesnt every one think that?? Well not evil but then God not exactly good either. God is God. Not Good or evil as we understand it, its soooo much more complicated. My 6 year old sister asked me somthing similar this morning what is this the day of religious questions?
> 
> Anyway my point is as Muslim that is pretty much what I belive for us god has 99 names and some of them are a bit contradictry until you put it in this context like The Giver, The Taker, The Merciful, The Strict, The Forgiving, The Unforgiving, The aparnt, The hidden, The first The Last , just to mention a few that are translateable, I can off the top of my ead only think of a handful that dont have oposites, The Iternal, The One, The all-Knowing, and a few like that.


I totally agree! I believe the problem arises when people stick to over simplifying things. Any being that controls the entire universe is obviously so immense and so complex that we could never have any way to completely comprehend he/she. We humans are so adversely simplistic that the question of "why would God create people such as Hitler" is believed to disprove the existence God.

----------


## G L Wilson

> I totally agree! I believe the problem arises when people stick to over simplifying things. Any being that controls the entire universe is obviously so immense and so complex that we could never have any way to completely comprehend he/she. We humans are so adversely simplistic that the question of "why would God create people such as Hitler" is believed to disprove the existence God.


Why, may I ask, has God created you?

----------


## prickly_pete

Why do 90% of analogies in life involve Hitler, Nazis, or Nazism? I for one would like to know.

----------


## G L Wilson

It might be that God is not so much evil as mad.

----------


## mazHur

> Why do 90% of analogies in life involve Hitler, Nazis, or Nazism? I for one would like to know.


Donovan Collection:
Analysis of Hitler's Personality

Special Collections Donovan Analysis of Hitler's Personality
Dr. Henry A. Murray
Analysis of the Personality of Adolph Hitler:
With Predictions of His Future Behavior and Suggestions
for Dealing with Him Now and After Germany's Surrender
Introduction
Analysis of the Personality of Adolph Hitler

In 1943, the Allied forces wanted to understand Hitler's psychological makeup in order to predict, to the extent possible, his behavior as the Allies continued their prosecution of the war and to anticipate his response to Germany's defeat. The Allies were also seeking to understand the German national psyche to gain an understanding of how to convert them into a "peace-loving nation." This report was written for the OSS by Dr. Henry A. Murray, pre-war Director of the Harvard Psychological Clinic. Dr. Murray obviously was forced by circumstances to psychoanalyze his subject from a distance. He gathered information from a variety of second-hand sources, such as Hitler's genealogy; school and military records; public reports of events in print and on film; OSS information; Hitler's own writings; Hitler biographies; and "Hitler the Man - Notes for a Case History," an article written by W.H.D. Vernon under Dr. Murray's supervision. From these resources and his "needs theory" of personality, Dr. Murray created a psychological profile that correctly predicted the Nazi leader's suicide in the face of Germany's defeat.

With the benefit of hindsight and more than 60 years of scientific advances, one can appreciate this analysis of Hitler's personality and also catch a glimpse into an early application of personality psychology by one of the discipline's founders. Dr. Murray's Explorations in Personality (NY: Oxford Press, 1938) established personality psychology as a behavioral science. Murray explored a theory of personality in which the interplay of 20 psychogenic needs of varying strength produced distinct personality types. Murray pegged Hitler's personality as "counteractive narcism," a type that is stimulated by real or imagined insult or injury. According to Dr. Murray, the characteristics of this personality type include: holding grudges, low tolerance for criticism, excessive demands for attention, inability to express gratitude, a tendency to belittle, bully, and blame others, desire for revenge, persistence in the face of defeat, extreme self-will, self-trust, inability to take a joke, and compulsive criminality. Dr. Murray concluded that Hitler had these characteristics (and others) to an extreme degree and lacked the offsetting qualities that round out a balanced personality.

The language of needs theory may seem unfamiliar to today's readers since personality theory moved on to new terminology and theories. However, Dr. Murray's writing style and descriptive language make this report as intelligible to the lay reader of today as to the World War II era psychologist.

Cornell Law Library is pleased to share this report, part of our Donovan Nuremberg Trials Collection, in its original format.

Sources: AdolfHitler.ws: Historical Archives, NoBeliefs.com (Freethinkers), and Kimmo Nummela's Life Of Führer In Pictures.
StatCounter - Free Web Tracker and Counter
blog stats

----------


## G L Wilson

Okay, Hitler was a little like God, what does that prove? Either God is good or evil or mad, that's all there's to it.

----------


## Serena03

Yes, this would explain why the problem of evil still exists because the problem of God still exists. Although God is merely a figure head for all this, removal of the head does not entirely eliminate the body.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Okay, Hitler was a little like God, what does that prove? Either God is good or evil or mad, that's all there's to it.


Yeah....just like Walt Disney

----------


## G L Wilson

> Yeah....just like Walt Disney


Walt Disney was neither good nor evil nor mad, he was indifferent.

----------


## mazHur

God seems to be a ''mixture of opposites'' as is Man!! Virtue cannot be thought to exist without Evil.

Reason and Passion

By Kahlil Gibran
(1883 - 1931)



And the priestess spoke again and said: Speak to us of Reason and Passion.
And he answered, saying:
Your soul is oftentimes a battlefield, upon which your reason and your judgment wage war against your passion and your appetite.
Would that I could be the peacemaker in your soul, that I might turn the discord and the rivalry of your elements into oneness and melody.
But how shall I, unless you yourselves be also the peacemakers, nay, the lovers of all your elements?

Your reason and your passion are the rudder and the sails of your seafaring soul.
If either your sails or your rudder be broken, you can but toss and drift, or else be held at a standstill in mid-seas.
For reason, ruling alone, is a force confining; and passion, unattended, is a flame that burns to its own destruction.
Therefore let your soul exalt your reason to the height of passion, that it may sing;
And let it direct your passion with reason, that your passion may live through its own daily resurrection, and like the phoenix rise above its own ashes.

I would have you consider your judgment and your appetite even as you would two loved guests in your house.
Surely you would not honour one guest above the other; for he who is more mindful of one loses the love and the faith of both.

Among the hills, when you sit in the cool shade of the white poplars, sharing the peace and serenity of distant fields and meadows -- then let your heart say in silence, "God rests in reason."
And when the storm comes, and the mighty wind shakes the forest, and thunder and lightning proclaim the majesty of the sky, -- then let your heart say in awe, "God moves in passion."
And since you are a breath in God's sphere, and a leaf in God's forest, you too should rest in reason and move in passion.

----------


## Arrowni

For the sake of the argument, which stems from purely theological reasoning -we're talking about God after all-, it's nonesense to impose God the concepts of good or evil; good or evil would be defined _from_ God and not the opposite. That doesn't solve anything though.

----------


## The Idiot

> God seems to be a ''mixture of opposites'' as is Man!! Virtue cannot be thought to exist without Evil.
> 
> ...


Doesn't this idea display an a priori assumption about the nature of God?

While typically eastern concepts of God may be consistent with this idea, in the West there is a long tradition that views Evil not as an independent force contrasting with Good, but rather as existing only as a corruption of what is Good.

----------


## G L Wilson

> For the sake of the argument, which stems from purely theological reasoning -we're talking about God after all-, it's nonesense to impose God the concepts of good or evil; good or evil would be defined _from_ God and not the opposite. That doesn't solve anything though.


If God is beyond good and evil, where is he then? Nowhere, cloud cuckoo land!

----------


## mazHur

> Doesn't this idea display an a priori assumption about the nature of God?
> 
> While typically eastern concepts of God may be consistent with this idea, in the West there is a long tradition that views Evil not as an independent force contrasting with Good, but rather as existing only as a corruption of what is Good.


Eastern outlook in this matter differs from religion to religion, even from sect to sect. 

Yes, as absence of light means Darkness, lack of Evil means Good or vice versa.

God seems to have created all and everything in Pairs, such as light and darkness, good and bad, light and heavy, curse and blessing, low and high, peace and terror, etc etc. Viewing any of these traits in isolation will tend to confuse the divine nature of God.....which human mind is not capable of comprehending at all! 

It is said that those who do not believe in God or the Creator are typically confused people who are not even capable of knowing themselves, lest God!!

----------


## mazHur

> If God is beyond good and evil, where is he then? Nowhere, cloud cuckoo land!


In the East, it is said that the Only way to find God is to die first (perhaps for His sake!!!!

----------


## G L Wilson

> In the East, it is said that the Only way to find God is to die first (perhaps for His sake!!!!


Oh, that's okay then because I don't plan on dying.

----------


## Arrowni

> If God is beyond good and evil, where is he then? Nowhere, cloud cuckoo land!



God is the sempiternal axiomatic argument, you cannot really ever argue in a logical fashion by questioning your own axioms. Obviously God -if there's any- cannot be argued.

----------


## mazHur

> Oh, that's okay then because I don't plan on dying.


*Death is a visitor
which comes to All
without notice 
without schedule
like it or Not!*

----------


## G L Wilson

> *Death is a visitor
> which comes to All
> without notice 
> without schedule
> like it or Not!*


To fear not pain is to love.




> God is the sempiternal axiomatic argument, you cannot really ever argue in a logical fashion by questioning your own axioms. Obviously God -if there's any- cannot be argued.


Of course He can be argued, what is to stop me, you?!

----------


## Arrowni

> Of course He can be argued, what is to stop me, you?!



Language itself. Axioms are a predefined need for speech to exist, what we call logic is only a sort of language, so you cannot actually argue using God _IF_ He happens to exist.

You can argue something that you _think_ is God, but that doesn't make it God. Whenever any faith talks about God, they're not really discussing any actual divinity, because either 1) it doesn't exist or 2) it's not taking its place as an axiomatic form for all the creation, ergo the thing they are discussing isn't God.

This leaves you with the option of devoting your speech to false gods 100% of the time.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Language itself. Axioms are a predefined need for speech to exist, what we call logic is only a sort of language, so you cannot actually argue using God _IF_ He happens to exist.
> 
> You can argue something that you _think_ is God, but that doesn't make it God. Whenever any faith talks about God, they're not really discussing any actual divinity, because either 1) it doesn't exist or 2) it's not taking its place as an axiomatic form for all the creation, ergo the thing they are discussing isn't God.
> 
> This leaves you with the option of devoting your speech to false gods 100% of the time.


The true believer doesn't believe that his god is false, he believes all other gods are false.

----------


## Arrowni

Well, you can always justify that by another of the limitations of language, which is the negative language paradox in which by saying no, you're seem to make things bigger instead of shrinking them. The definition is actually a form of exclusion, so talking about God more or less limits what God _is_, instead of actually helping their case, any people talking about God -again, assuming Its a real concept-, would be minimizing the divinity.

Arguing God holds its water when you discuss against God, if you're actually trying to defend divinity you're better off not using explicit language.

----------


## ZTay

St Augustine struggled over this. He came to the conclusion that there is only good and what perceive as bad is really good corrupted; and it is sin that acts as the corrupting agent. 

I think personally that we are pained by evil not because evil is so powerful, but because because good is so powerful that seeing it corrupted damages us tremendously, even if only on sub conscious level.

----------


## G L Wilson

> St Augustine struggled over this. He came to the conclusion that there is only good and what perceive as bad is really good corrupted; and it is sin that acts as the corrupting agent. 
> 
> I think personally that we are pained by evil not because evil is so powerful, but because because good is so powerful that seeing it corrupted damages us tremendously, even if only on sub conscious level.


I have no belief in sin, only a belief in wrongdoing.




> Well, you can always justify that by another of the limitations of language, which is the negative language paradox in which by saying no, you're seem to make things bigger instead of shrinking them. The definition is actually a form of exclusion, so talking about God more or less limits what God _is_, instead of actually helping their case, any people talking about God -again, assuming Its a real concept-, would be minimizing the divinity.
> 
> Arguing God holds its water when you discuss against God, if you're actually trying to defend divinity you're better off not using explicit language.


I see what you are saying, Arrowni, but how does one minimalise God in the eyes of a believer? As far as I'm concerned, it can't be done.

----------


## ZTay

Don't get hung up on nomenclature Mr Wilson. Wrong doing has a degenerative effect. Take your finest china and use it as a hammer, or your hammer as a spoon. Suddenly they are ruined, all because of wrong doing. And when that wrong doing is upon the soul or body, it is called sin.

----------


## mazHur

> Don't get hung up on nomenclature Mr Wilson. Wrong doing has a degenerative effect. Take your finest china and use it as a hammer, or your hammer as a spoon. Suddenly they are ruined, all because of wrong doing. And when that wrong doing is upon the soul or body, it is called sin.


so true!!

----------


## G L Wilson

> so true!!


I may wish to use a person as a means to my own ends, would that be a sin or wrongdoing? It seems very hard to believe that it would be sinful as the abuse would not be willingly made against my body or soul.

----------


## ZTay

Abusing, and I assume it's abusive as you admit wrong doing, another person is in violation to what is natural in the soul. What is natural in the soul is all that is good.

----------


## ShoutGrace

Who speaks authoritatively on what is natural to the soul? Also, how do you distinguish between "natural to the soul" and simple desire?

Also, what about people who find it comforting and right to inflict grave harm on others? Is there some interpersonal principle at work here? I personally think that a statement like "What is natural to the soul is all that is good" is more than a little simplistic.

----------


## ZTay

You are right, it is simplistic; but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Insofar as the soul proceeds from God, and God is all good, the soul is all good. And there is a God insofar as there is an orderly universe created within some kind of system. And that God is good insofar as the universe is orderly. And that God is the highest good insofar as God is the source of all good, the first good. So, the soul proceeds from the highest good. 

Now, how can it be considered good to inflict grave harm on another soul? Injuring what is good, can never be good. 

And who can speak authoritatively on the soul? Any man owning a soul... That is, any man who owns his soul.

----------


## G L Wilson

> You are right, it is simplistic; but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Insofar as the soul proceeds from God, and God is all good, the soul is all good. And there is a God insofar as there is an orderly universe created within some kind of system. And that God is good insofar as the universe is orderly. And that God is the highest good insofar as God is the source of all good, the first good. So, the soul proceeds from the highest good. 
> 
> Now, how can it be considered good to inflict grave harm on another soul? Injuring what is good, can never be good. 
> 
> And who can speak authoritatively on the soul? Any man owning a soul... That is, any man who owns his soul.


For a man to own a soul, he must have a will. As it is impossible to own both, the soul must go.

----------


## ZTay

A man can will to own his soul the same as a man can will to tell it to go.

----------


## G L Wilson

> A man can will to own his soul the same as a man can will to tell it to go.


Will is the soul of man.

----------


## ZTay

I think the soul runs deeper than what we actively will. I think we are unexposed to the greater part of our soul, our potential and our true nature. This is why we must will to understand our soul, and through knowledge of it, take ownership.

----------


## G L Wilson

> I think the soul runs deeper than what we actively will. I think we are unexposed to the greater part of our soul, our potential and our true nature. This is why we must will to understand our soul, and through knowledge of it, take ownership.


You can't will to know something that you don't have.

----------


## ZTay

No, you can't. But you do have a soul. Or at least, essence and pre-disposition. Call it what you will.

----------


## G L Wilson

> No, you can't. But you do have a soul. Or at least, essence and pre-disposition. Call it what you will.


I have nothing that I have not willed.

----------


## Arrowni

> I see what you are saying, Arrowni, but how does one minimalise God in the eyes of a believer? As far as I'm concerned, it can't be done.


To be honest, I can imagine many functions in the conception of God that would indicate minimalization, both conscient and unconscious, but I cannot say there is one way that will happen for everyone, such thing is built in the messure of subjectivity. Many people with conceive divinity as a lived experience, in face of which speech has not any real power, the word of those who practice scepticism are dismissed without consideration, as they're treated simply as mere words.

In the internal logic of the discussion about faith it makes sense, and in the general balance of things, at least it works as an admission of the limits of argumentation and abstractions to make life choices. But I think the speech of faith is intrinsically an impaired speech, not necessarily in a negative connotation, but words themselves are not capable of leading to truth, because reality is only admitted by revelation.

Anyhow, the conception of divinity for the believer isn't a consistent concept which last through time, it's actually a notion that shifts with the experience and knowledge of the believer; in the same way that theology incorporates new realities in their view of the words despite the fact they never move the core realities of their practice.

----------


## G L Wilson

> To be honest, I can imagine many functions in the conception of God that would indicate minimalization, both conscient and unconscious, but I cannot say there is one way that will happen for everyone, such thing is built in the messure of subjectivity. Many people with conceive divinity as a lived experience, in face of which speech has not any real power, the word of those who practice scepticism are dismissed without consideration, as they're treated simply as mere words.
> 
> In the internal logic of the discussion about faith it makes sense, and in the general balance of things, at least it works as an admission of the limits of argumentation and abstractions to make life choices. But I think the speech of faith is intrinsically an impaired speech, not necessarily in a negative connotation, but words themselves are not capable of leading to truth, because reality is only admitted by revelation.
> 
> Anyhow, the conception of divinity for the believer isn't a consistent concept which last through time, it's actually a notion that shifts with the experience and knowledge of the believer; in the same way that theology incorporates new realities in their view of the words despite the fact they never move the core realities of their practice.


The last bastion of faith is arrogance; and the last guard, ignorance.

----------


## mazHur

> The last bastion of faith is arrogance; and the last guard, ignorance.


Wow! That makes a great quote!!

----------


## Arrowni

> The last bastion of faith is arrogance; and the last guard, ignorance.


You could argue that modern scientificism works in the same argumentative basis that faith does, except it's aggressive and dismisses any kind of knowledge that cannot be put in speech. Which is to say, arrogance and ignorance are the basis for any human conviction, as soon as it pretends objectivity.

----------


## ZTay

Faith's first worldly step is compassionate, while faithlessness is moved by disgust and contempt.

----------


## mazHur

> , arrogance and ignorance are the basis for any human conviction, as soon as it pretends objectivity.


I like this line!! :Smile:

----------


## G L Wilson

Man can reach for the stars but he will never reach heaven.

----------


## mazHur

> Man can reach for the stars but he will never reach heaven.


Heaven is more dearer than stars and only meant for the faithful dear!

----------


## Arrowni

> Man can reach for the stars but he will never reach heaven.



You can probably find that in the bible  :Biggrin:

----------


## G L Wilson

> You can probably find that in the bible


Not likely.

----------


## mazHur

> Not likely.


then, is it mere fantasizing??

Blaming God, is it fair??? Sufi quotes...
''The creation is a mirror of Divine Qualities (sifat) and nothing can contain God except the heart of the faithful. Thus God manifests in the heart according to the capacity and ways the inner heart within the breasts of man perceives the Divine.''

''Human vision is myopic and hence his opinions based on the events of very small scale often lead to lose hope, to become ungrateful. This is because the grand mercy of the Most Merciful sometime is concealed within the trials and tribulations and it is the right of the Creator to test and try Her creation.''

----------


## G L Wilson

> Blaming God, is it fair???'


Him I will hate with all my heart if he does exist.

----------


## mazHur

> Him I will hate with all my heart if he does exist.


 Ironically, I can note you hate Him or Her without even knowing whether He/She exists or not??

----------


## G L Wilson

> Ironically, I can note you hate Him or Her without even knowing whether He/She exists or not??


I think that He is better off dead, His life would be unbearable if He were alive. And if it wasn't, I'd make it so.

----------


## prickly_pete

> and it is the right of the Creator to test and try Her creation.''


Pretty easy to say that from your computer screen in your upper middle class home. I wonder if people in the Congo feel the same way.

----------


## mazHur

> I think that He is better off dead, His life would be unbearable if He were alive. And if it wasn't, I'd make it so.


unfortunately you sound too bitter without any reason. In fact in your inimical frustration towards the One you don't even know you are getting more and more flustered and losing your mind. And that's not expected of a sober, serious debater, is it??

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Him I will hate with all my heart if he does exist.


That is making a lot of sense...now can you explain why you hate God?

----------


## G L Wilson

> That is making a lot of sense...now can you explain why you hate God?


Because he is a do-nothing, lousy bum.

----------


## mazHur

> Because he is a do-nothing, lousy bum.


Hey! See how kind he is to you, you call Him names yet he's soo tolerant about you BECAUSE HE is God!!

Someone hath rightly said, " It Takes strength to be gentle and kind." Check out for it at Maceys!!

----------


## Scheherazade

*~

W a r n i n g

Please show respect towards those whose views differ from yours.

If you find yourselves unable to do so, please do not hesitate to ignore these discussions.

~*

----------


## G L Wilson

Hey, I know that you guys love Him but I don't see him as all that lovable myself.

To me, he's a bastard.
To you, he's Lord.

What more can be said?

----------


## mazHur

> To me, he's a bastard.
> To you, he's Lord
> 
> 
> .


OMG!! What an insult to bastards!!

----------


## Scheherazade

*~

Unless everyone is showing respect towards others' beliefs,

the discussions especially in this section of the Forum will not be longlasting.

~*

----------

