Just think, that at this very moment 'God' may be pondering whether man exists.
Just think, that at this very moment 'God' may be pondering whether man exists.
Free will is guided by Allah(God), which implies that God saves people from evil only if they ''believe'' (in Truth)
64:11 No calamity befalleth save by Allah's leave. And whosoever believeth in Allah, He guideth his heart. And Allah is Knower of all things.
Al-Quran
Not "whether", mon ami, but "why?" I can see God, head in His hands, thinking about man and wondering "Where did I go wrong?"Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceMyshkin
Pen: "I can see God, head in His hands, thinking about man and wondering "Where did I go wrong?""
But God cannot go wrong, therefore man is as God meant him to be, which includes the evil in man, therefore God is responsible for the evil, and so round we go again.
1) Goodness at creation is a consequence of innocence. This ideal has been suggested on several occasions. Since a being of new creation has no prior existence as far as we know it has no experience. Nothing is innately evil; that much is known. Evil must be encountered or thoroughly experienced to circumvent that which is good. Like a virus, vice must have a host (that which is good) in order to transgress and permeate.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardHresko
2) The extent of sin is virtually unfathomable by man and thus must somehow be determined by a metaphysical phenomenon. As far as human moral is concerned, sin is absolute. But moral is still bound by mere opinion and thus to contend that "Everything that exists has some goodness" is not factually grounded.
2b) Read prior counterargument.
3) This might be true but still isn't absolute.
4) Anything that has been corrupted may inevitably cease to exist. Take tyrants, potentates and dogmatic nationalists as examples.
5) Satan is conveyed in and confined to the Christian faith (although he goes under a variety of titles in other respective religions). Whether he exists or not is strictly opinion.
6) Read prior counterargument.
This is MY opinion. Please don't take offence.
When God refers to creating evil in that verse it is certainly not meant as 'sin' but clearly as natural evil and punishment of those God chooses. Since no one is innocent, there is no question of innocents suffering.Quote:
Originally Posted by hellsapoppin
A good example of proper exegesis of this verse is given by John Calvin (granted, he was thoroughly Augustinian, but clearly NOT a Catholic theologian) in his commentary on Isaiah. Specifically on this verse he writes:
"Making peace, and creating evil. By the words “light” and “darkness” he describes metaphorically not only peace and war; but adverse and prosperous events of any kind; and he extends the word peace, according to the custom of Hebrew writers, to all success and prosperity. This is made abundantly clear by the contrast; for he contrasts “peace” not only with war, but with adverse events of every sort. Fanatics torture this word evil, as if God were the author of evil, that is, of sin; but it is very obvious how ridiculously they abuse this passage of the Prophet. This is sufficiently explained by the contrast, the parts of which must agree with each other; for he contrasts “peace” with “evil,” that is, with afflictions, wars, and other adverse occurrences. If he contrasted “righteousness” with “evil,” there would be some plausibility in their reasonings, but this is a manifest contrast of things that are opposite to each other. Consequently, we ought not to reject the ordinary distinction, that God is the author of the “evil” of punishment, but not of the “evil” of guilt."
One of the difficulties we have to face is the question of how to interpret Scripture. Scripture needs interpretation, and the idea that one can just read a verse at random or interpret the "plain" words generally leads to great distortions. This verse is an excellent case in point.
Taking one quote out of context can lead to a misunderstanding, as you say. That is why it is so necessary to read Romans 9 along with Isaiah 45:7 (along with the other cites I listed previously) to see that, indeed, humanity is not to blame for evil or its consequences.
In your previous post you referred only to Isaiah 45:7.Quote:
Originally Posted by hellsapoppin
You do not represent Romans 9 correctly. Romans 9:14 clearly states that there is no injustice on God's part. If man were not responsible for sin and God punished man, then clearly there is injustice on God's part. Romans 9 should be read in conjunction with such verses as 2 Corinthians 3:6, which states that the letter kills while the Spirit gives life.
No one merits anything other than damnation (1 Corinthians 4:7) thus any punishment we receive is just. That God elects some to be saved is by his grace and mercy, but does not affect his justice (Romans 9:20).
You might find Augustine's To Simplician interesting, since he discusses Romans 9 in some detail there.
I will be away for the next several days, but look forward to continuing the discussion on my return next week.
Pax vobiscum!
I would say read Ezekiel 18 and 33. But Rich, there is an old saying: Beware of the man with just one book. How about the man who clings to but once source to explain everything? Augustine seems to be your man. Ireneaus and St. Columba and St. Martin also wrote about these things, as later would other men like Martin Luther. How many popes issued doctrinal statements? The Books would fill a room.
Pen
I've also used Aquinas, Boethius, and Calvin in my posts (to start an alphabetical list). On this particular topic I found that Augustine suited, that's all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
I would also include people who use the Bible exclusively in your rubric about those who use just one book.
Good and Evil are linked to specific spots in the brain. If someone thinks that God possesses brain of a man then surely God is responsible for good and evil otherwise NOT.
If he's only good then he is not a human being because humans have both good and bad spots in their brains. this is proven by science and is also quite near to horse sense !
It is not clear what exactly is meant by "linked." It is not exactly clear what is meant by "Good and Evil" in this context, either. Are "Good and Evil" to be regarded as physical substances? Are they predispositions? If so, how are they to be distinguished? If only by the regions of the brain where they are somehow linked, are Good and Evil arbitrary designations, such as positive and negative for the two types of electrical charge?Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
Since there has thus far been no argument that God is human, or that he has a brain, or is material in any way, the argument here does not seem to work, even if one could verify any part of what was presented as "proven by science." Though a posting of the source of this proof would be interesting in and of itself.
``I will be away for the next several days, but look forward to continuing the discussion on my return next week.``
I hope you will have a delightful time.
And note that as Alan Watts said many years ago: more people have been killed in the name of the Bible than for any other reason in history. A god who claims to be all about love could not possibly have dictated a book he knew would be used as the greatest instrument of death in history.
Rich
An interesting article has been published by TIME, issue 3rd Dec 2007,on 'what makes us Good/Evil'' and could be had of [email protected], since it is a new article no link is yet available.
Yes, I did. Thanks! I hope everyone is doing well.Quote:
Originally Posted by hellsapoppin
I'm not sure God dictated the Bible.
I will grant that he of course knows what was done in the name of the Bible. However, there is the important point that these acts were the choices of those acting with free will. God is not the cause of the evil. The evil comes from the turning away from God on pride.
Thank you!Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
The article is an interesting one. Mr Kluger carefully delineates what science can say, but does not have an answer to what makes us good or evil.
What is in the article is that different areas of the brain are involved in different types of moral choices. The more abstract 'reasonable' situations are handled in one area, the more emotion-laden ones in another. Conflicts can be observed by looking at fMRI's of the brain (replacing, I suppose, the old PET scan approach). This however is far from finding either Good or Evil in the hard-wiring of the brain.
``God is not the cause of the evil.``
Every biblical scholar whose books I have read disagrees.
poppin!
Disagreement about a certain thing does not necessarily make it false. Rather it confirms the existence of that very thing which men are unable to comprehend. Not God's fault.:D
Rich !
good you read the article. The point is that science is still trying to find out the reason for good and evil and has no final word to say yet. One of the friends here attributed it to some ''hormones'' such as love being produced by Oxytocin.
I think we should now go to Walmart and 'buy' some love potion whenever we feel lacking in love!!:lol: :D
``it confirms the existence of that very thing which men are unable to comprehend``
Can't say I agree --- the Bible seems quite clear to me. :)
if a man cannot comprehend a man how can he comprehend God !
People rarely write autobiographies. :)
A man is his own (auto) biography--he speaks for himself !
Bingo. Which is why it is so difficult to speculate upon or to criticize someone's history or actions based on another's experiences.
But if the Bible is to be believed, there is much basis for criticizing a god who claims to be benevolent while he boasts of his malevolence.
you are confused and mixing up the acts of Satan with those of God, the merciful, the magnificient, the kind , the loving, the caring, the One and the Supreme!
I'm afraid Watts was dead wrong. I trust he refers mostly to the Crusades and other religious wars- these are not the product of Scripture. "Turn the other cheek..." "Pray for your enemies..." "If your enemy is hungry, give him something to eat, if he is thirsty, give him something to drink..." That is Scripture. The Crusades and the "Christian" agressor is something else entirely, a being driven by greed, lust, power-hunger, fear, or hate. Do not assume that all who claim the backing of God actually have it. Remember that Christ said that there would be men who preached and drove out demons in His name but would not be recognized on the day of reckoning.Quote:
Originally Posted by hellsapoppin
It would be good if you would cite at least one, with his argument, so we can evaluate it.Quote:
Originally Posted by hellsapoppin
I don't know of any author within the Greek or Latin Patristic tradition who would agree that God is the cause of evil. Moving to the Protestant tradition, neither Calvin (who I quoted above in his Commentary on Isaiah), nor Luther (who I did not quote), would agree. I would be shocked were Hans Kueng or Martin Buber to take the position you do.
I agree on buying love potion #9. And maybe some Rainy Day Women numbers 19 & 35.Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
The article was very stimulating. And certainly scientists do and should research these things. But even if they were able to find what regions of the brain are involved in the choosing of particular responses that is not likely to result in reducing Good and Evil to merely biochemical functions.
As a side note, Aquinas (following Aristotle) explicitly ties the soul to the body, as the animating force, and allows the body and soul to interact with each other. Augustine, by the way, does not allow for the influence of the body on the soul, due to his neo-Platonic beliefs. Now I am not claiming that Aquinas was a neurobiologist, however, I will point out that the connection between soul and body is part of Western Christian tradition, as well as Eastern religions. I will also mention in passing that the Eastern Orthodox monastic tradition is extremely rich in this area as well, see especially the work of Gregory Palamas, and Symeon the New Theologian.
You have opened a wonderful area for thought and reflection. Thanks!
I wouldn't say evil is a thing or something like that. Evil is only the absence of God.
Look at it this way: Is there such thing as heat:flare: ? Yes, you would say, of course there is. We can measure it, see its effects, etc.
Now, is there such a thing as cold:cold:? You might be quick to answer yes but think for a second. Cold is only the absence of heat. You can not measure cold but only heat. Even when it is cold there is still heat, just very little. Heat is only the transference of energy. Cold is only low levels of heat.
Same with light and dark. Darkness is only the absence if light.
I agree with you. Evil does not have substantive existence.Quote:
Originally Posted by hew2702
Quote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
He was referencing all forms of hate and violence that arose in history. But he was correct in saying that all such violence was done in the name of the Bible and its god.
As for authors who agree that this same god is the cause of all evil, he was the principle writer in this regard. Professor Dan Barker (at one time a preacher, now an atheist who works for Freedom From Religion, Inc) is another. Both are among the most brilliant writers I have ever seen.
Really? So murder is done in the name of "love your enemies?" So violence is brought about in the name of one who told His disciples to carry not even a walking stick because it could be used as a weapon? So hatred is done in the name of the God who says His own greatest commandments are "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength" and "love your neighbor as yourself?" Make no mistake, violence done "in the name of" God is an affront to God.Quote:
Originally Posted by hellsapoppin
It was (is) human madness which provokes him to kill,,,,like paying Peter to pay Paul ! ugh !
``Make no mistake, violence done "in the name of" God is an affront to God.``
Obviously, you have not read the Bible very much. For if you did, you would know that it is this same god who kills as in Deuteronomy 32:39. He is so cruel that he even killed a group of children for daring to laugh at a man's baldness!
I can give you many other instances of this god's cruelties but anyone can easily look them up online.
God is not 'cruel'. It's man who defames HIm through his cruelties and evil actions..
I like your way of thinking. :nod:Quote:
Originally Posted by hew2702
The problem here is that the standard being used to judge God as "cruel" is inappropriate. Since, as Paul wrote, all we have comes from God, anything that he takes is his own, by definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by hellsapoppin
One can, of course, reject the Bible entirely. However, within the Biblical context one cannot prove God unjust.
"One can, of course, reject the Bible entirely. However, within the Biblical context one cannot prove God unjust."
In which case, since the God of the Bible clearly behaves in a way that could only be considered unjust, one is forced* to reject the Bible, or at least reject the possibility that it is God's description of Himself.
[Edit: not forced, of course, just strongly encouraged, anyone is at liberty to believe what he wants. If one is bound to accept every biblical statement about God as true, then one is continually having to make excuses for Him, and finally opting out of any argument by concluding that as He is God He can do what He wants. If the God of the Bible is just, by definition, then justice has no useful meaning - or, at least, God's justice is not of any use as a model on which to base human justice.]
Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
That's a rather unique answer --- god is not ''cruel'', but he commits cruel and evil actions. Yes, I like that one.;)
``One can, of course, reject the Bible entirely.``
In that same Bible, your god says he is the creator of all evil, kills whomever he pleases, is a jealous god, and visits iniquity (evil) upon the third and fourth generations of those who ''hate'' him (that is, worship idols). When you disregard these truths, it is YOU who reject the Bible.
The premise is off. It is not true that God in the Bible behaves in a way that can only be considered unjust.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
It is also not an "excuse" to note that the relationship between the Creator and his creation is not analogous to that between creatures of the creation.
There is a confusion that results from this lack of appreciation of the difference in relations. The confusion is to believe that what God can do with justice is, or should be, what creatures can do justly.
The underlying problem is perhaps an unconscious concept of God as being merely a very powerful human being.
You keep on going back to Isaiah 45:7 after the verse has been explained to be other than you interpret it, and you do not add anything more than reference the verse. Please either show your analysis, cite your reference material (other than a repetition of the verse again and again), or please try a different tack.Quote:
Originally Posted by hellsapoppin