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

[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"?

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...