If god is everything, doesn't that make him evil as well as good?

[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.