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?
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
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.
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.
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)
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.
Who said "There's no Devil, there's just God when he drinks"? :confused:
>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...
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.
"...There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so."
From Shakespeare's Hamlet
Nice quote, Miss Darcy.
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?
Well thats a good way of putting it :nod:Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Darcy
Yes but dangerous isnt nesserially evil, and in a way 'evil' isnt nessiserly mortaly dangerousQuote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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
I thought that God was omnipresent?
>I thought that God was omnipresent?
He is, and He is in Hell now - his wrath.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
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 :)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by fisher
not for us :)Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by fisher
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 understandingQuote:
Originally Posted by 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.
"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.
:)Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
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.
I'm not saying I do either :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
It was something I read a while back, perhaps CS Lewis? Maybe something else, I thought it was an idea worth pondering
All the Way HomeQuote:
Originally Posted by Countess
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
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.
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.
"[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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
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"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
Not without making the lions suffer some form of "pain" that someone else might call "evil."Quote:
Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
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.
"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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
I agree, fully.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guzmán
-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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orionsbelt
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.