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?;)

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.


:D

[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 :)

[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 :)
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 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.

[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.

:)
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 :D
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 :)

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"? :confused:

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...:angel:

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:(

[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! :)

[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... :) ) 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]

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/herbnjamaal2007081527611.gif 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. :)

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. :D

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 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."

[B]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/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_1/hebrew_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/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_1/hebrew_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?

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.

[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 (http://books.google.com/books?id=QJb16_AAePkC&pg=PR9&lpg=PR9&dq=doubt+hecht&source=web&ots=Kt07eQ3wt5&sig=fjvAtvcq2nvs3tfIKuAtVaw_gc0#PPR9,M1), 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. :)

[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.

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

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.


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.

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.
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.

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/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07451&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/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07451&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.

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;-
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!

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!:)

[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 !:D ;)

[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 !:D ;)

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:)

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: :D

[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.

:)

[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.:yawnb: :D

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.;)

[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.

God Bless

Pen

Pen is so right it makes me feel like a christian !:)

[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.;)

[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. :)

[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.