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

[Rockin462]

4. True happiness is obtainable only from that which is eternally good and true and beautiful.
5. True happiness is therefore obtainable only by turning (technical term 'convertio' = converting ) to God.

This is true if you believe what you've read or been told. But what if you don't?
Is there really forces pulling people one direction or another? Good and evil, God and Satan, only exist because you think them to.
Religions were created as Laws for Society.
God was created as an answer for what we had no answer for.
Man has manipulated the laws and their God to get what they desire.
Mostly, I believe, the majority of people can not fathom non existance after death. To them if they do not continue to live, they lose faith in life. Thus they must believe in the continuation of life after death.
The good and the evil is in what we do. Heaven and hell is found in how we live our lives.
Yes we all desire happiness. We all have our own perception of what happiness is and how it can be achieved. Happiness can be found in everything, it's how it is perceived by the individual, be it considered by others as good or evil.
We are born greedy. Capable of all things, but unable to acheive them until we grow. As we grow we see what we do, hear what we do, our senses and our perceptions shape us. Once we have grown physically, we are able to decide as our experiences teach us or don't. We have the ability to change, as we desire. Some never learn, most do.

[RichardHresko]

4. True happiness is obtainable only from that which is eternally good and true and beautiful.
5. True happiness is therefore obtainable only by turning (technical term 'convertio' = converting ) to God.

This is true if you believe what you've read or been told. But what if you don't?
Is there really forces pulling people one direction or another? Good and evil, God and Satan, only exist because you think them to.
Religions were created as Laws for Society.
God was created as an answer for what we had no answer for.
Man has manipulated the laws and their God to get what they desire.
Mostly, I believe, the majority of people can not fathom non existance after death. To them if they do not continue to live, they lose faith in life. Thus they must believe in the continuation of life after death.
The good and the evil is in what we do. Heaven and hell is found in how we live our lives.
Yes we all desire happiness. We all have our own perception of what happiness is and how it can be achieved. Happiness can be found in everything, it's how it is perceived by the individual, be it considered by others as good or evil.
We are born greedy. Capable of all things, but unable to acheive them until we grow. As we grow we see what we do, hear what we do, our senses and our perceptions shape us. Once we have grown physically, we are able to decide as our experiences teach us or don't. We have the ability to change, as we desire. Some never learn, most do.

Let's consider whether statements 4 and 5 quoted above can be understood as true without any claim to authority.

Statement 4 reads: "4. True happiness is obtainable only from that which is eternally good and true and beautiful."

Note that the discussion is limited to "true" happiness, not happiness in general. What distinguishes true happiness from other kinds of happiness? Other kinds of happiness are always connected (ultimately) with pain -- even the best ends. Your loved one dies, you grow sick, and so on. Dennis Leary makes this point in his comedy performance "No Cure for Cancer." To have a true happiness would be to have a happiness that does NOT end. Thus the conclusion follows.

One can conclude, as Leary does, that there is no such possibility for us. In which case statement 4 is still true, but we would conclude that it is unobtainable.

Let's consider statement 5 now: "True happiness is therefore obtainable only by turning (technical term 'convertio' = converting ) to God."
Given that statement 4 is logically consistent, we can identify true happiness with attempting to be joined with that which is good, true, beautiful and unchanging. A being that has being as its essence is, philosophically speaking, the only one that matches that description. Such a being is labelled 'God'. This statement does NOT have built into it any particular religious 'God', but merely designates that being which has those attributes.

Once again, if one concludes that there is no God (which is an entirely different consideration) the consequence would be that true happiness, as defined above, is unobtainable. The internal validity of the logic is, however, left intact.

The truth values of the statements are independent of the individual's beliefs.

In considering the remainder of the post I am reminded of the line, I believe by Voltaire, "If God did not exist we would have to invent him. That, coupled with the line (I forget the source) "God was created in our own image and likeness," seem to match the sentiment.

[Kiba]

Well (my own opinnion for this theme) God is not really ultimate goodness couse , if you watched the movies readed bible or something like that you can se how manny people God really killed...right? So is killing bad? God did it why cant we?
i mean i beleve in God and Christ and Holy spirit , and i pray and go to Church and cant wait to die to see what will hapen to me ( my soul ) , but i just wanted to see your comments on this .
Dont take me wrong i dont judge anyone and anything i just posted this Fact.

[Whifflingpin]

"To have a true happiness would be to have a happiness that does NOT end. "
That is an arbitrary and unnecessary definition. Maybe transitoriness is an essential element of happiness.

[Redzeppelin]

Well (my own opinnion for this theme) God is not really ultimate goodness couse , if you watched the movies readed bible or something like that you can se how manny people God really killed...right? So is killing bad? God did it why cant we?
i mean i beleve in God and Christ and Holy spirit , and i pray and go to Church and cant wait to die to see what will hapen to me ( my soul ) , but i just wanted to see your comments on this .
Dont take me wrong i dont judge anyone and anything i just posted this Fact.

God did it so why can't I? That's like a 6-year old saying "Dad drives a car, shoots a gun, uses a credit card and is married - can't I do the same?" God - as creator of all - has more prerogatives than we (His creations) do. As well, we make a big deal out of the deaths that God commissioned, as if God's values must be ours or something is wrong with Him. Has it ever occurred to people that perhaps God's value of life may not exactly coincide with ours because He is less concerned with our life on this earth than He is with our life in the Hereafter?

[RichardHresko]

"To have a true happiness would be to have a happiness that does NOT end. "
That is an arbitrary and unnecessary definition. Maybe transitoriness is an essential element of happiness.

The definition is not arbitrary for the following reason. If the happiness is true, it is not mixed with anything else. If something makes us happy and we know we will be spearated from it at some point, then there will be a mixture of feeling, since we would feel some sadness or regret at the loss.

It is not clear how you would build transitoriness into a definition of what the essence of happiness is.

If you wish to argue that there is nothing that can provide true happiness as given above, that is possible. But then you would not be arguing that the definition is arbitrary.

It is not clear what is "unnecessary" about the definition. Is it that we all agree about happiness (your answer suggest not), or that it includes unnecessary terms? The latter point has been addressed.

[Whifflingpin]

"If the happiness is true, it is not mixed with anything else."

Maybe happiness is an alloy, and cannot otherwise be "true happiness" I think, for instance, of that satisfaction of a long marriage, where the weathered storms, and the certainty of future challenges, deepen the shared content.


"It is not clear how you would build transitoriness into a definition of what the essence of happiness is."
I had in mind my first taste of wild strawberries, an instant experience of startling joy, not to be prolonged or repeated or forgotten.

I don't know, but I am deeply suspicious of the deadness of your certainties.

[RichardHresko]

"If the happiness is true, it is not mixed with anything else."

Maybe happiness is an alloy, and cannot otherwise be "true happiness" I think, for instance, of that satisfaction of a long marriage, where the weathered storms, and the certainty of future challenges, deepen the shared content.


"It is not clear how you would build transitoriness into a definition of what the essence of happiness is."
I had in mind my first taste of wild strawberries, an instant experience of startling joy, not to be prolonged or repeated or forgotten.

I don't know, but I am deeply suspicious of the deadness of your certainties.

Notice that when you bring in the example of a long marriage you naturally shifted from "happiness" to "satisfaction" which may be a different thing. Also, I think that the happiness in weathering a storm such as say, the death of a child, is not unalloyed for obvious reasons.

In considering the case of wild strawberries, while there is no doubt that that is a happy event, the problem here is that the event is very limited. In a sense it suffers from the opposite problem of the marriage example.

Perhaps it is the adjective "true" here that's the problem. We could also refer to the type of happiness referred to in the definition as "complete" or "ultimate" or "perfect" without doing violence to the terminology.

I am not sure about the "deadness of [my] certainties." Notice that all I have done is strung together some definitions that are logically consistent. I have nowhere stated, let alone proved, either that true happiness exists, or that God exists, or that even if God exists that there would exist a means by which we could in a meaningful way make God the center of our happiness. All I have done is shown that if we accept certain premises and definitions (based on what is presumed to be reasonable conditions) that certain consequences follow. Nothing more.

[hellsapoppin]

If god is in everything and everyone, does that not make him as much an evil malevolent as a divine benevolent?


In Isaiah 45:7 God expressly states that he is the exclusive creator of ALL evil.

In many cultures the root for the word ''god'' is the same as that for the number two. This is because humanity has long recognized that god has a dual nature. So, yes, he is both good and evil.

[RichardHresko]

If god is in everything and everyone, does that not make him as much an evil malevolent as a divine benevolent?


In Isaiah 45:7 God expressly states that he is the exclusive creator of ALL evil.

In many cultures the root for the word ''god'' is the same as that for the number two. This is because humanity has long recognized that god has a dual nature. So, yes, he is both good and evil.

The version you refer to is the KJV. The NIV uses the word "disaster" instead of evil. Here we need to refer back to the Hebrew text. the Hebrew word here, "rah" can mean "calamity" and "disaster" and "to break" as well as "evil."

In addition, in the context of the verses we are looking at God as the author of things in the natural world. Thus he is the author of everything, including what are referred to as "natural evils" such as earthquakes. This does not apply to moral evil.

[weepingforloman]

Exactly right. If you wish to get technical, of course God is the creator of evil- in that, He created everything, and some beings, through exercise of will (I will not say free will for reasons I have stated before), do evil. But God Himself does not do anything that is morally wrong.

[hellsapoppin]

``This does not apply to moral evil.``

That is incorrect.

Go to www.blueletterbible.org for a complete translation and explanation for every verse, word, or concept in the Bible.

See http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/l...51&Version=kjv

for the definition of ''evil'' as shown in Isaiah 45:7. It clearly shows that god creates ALL evil or '' ra' '' {word H7451} and defines/illustrates it as such:


bad, evil

a) bad, disagreeable, malignant

b) bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)

c) evil, displeasing

d) bad (of its kind - land, water, etc)

e) bad (of value)

f) worse than, worst (comparison)

g) sad, unhappy

h) evil (hurtful)

i) bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)

j) bad, evil, wicked (ethically)

1) in general, of persons, of thoughts

2) deeds, actions



Therefore, contrary to your belief, god does create ALL evil including moral evil. I fully realize this is not taught in churches. However, it is clearly taught in the Bible.

[RichardHresko]

``This does not apply to moral evil.``

That is incorrect.

Go to www.blueletterbible.org for a complete translation and explanation for every verse, word, or concept in the Bible.

See http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/l...51&Version=kjv

for the definition of ''evil'' as shown in Isaiah 45:7. It clearly shows that god creates ALL evil or '' ra' '' {word H7451} and defines/illustrates it as such:


bad, evil

a) bad, disagreeable, malignant

b) bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)

c) evil, displeasing

d) bad (of its kind - land, water, etc)

e) bad (of value)

f) worse than, worst (comparison)

g) sad, unhappy

h) evil (hurtful)

i) bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)

j) bad, evil, wicked (ethically)

1) in general, of persons, of thoughts

2) deeds, actions



Therefore, contrary to your belief, god does create ALL evil including moral evil. I fully realize this is not taught in churches. However, it is clearly taught in the Bible.

Of all the definitions listed only "j" is moral evil. The "all" in the verse does not refer to all types of evil, including moral, but all natural evil.

A second difficulty in interpreting the verse as God creating moral evil is that such evil does not have substantial existence, but is rather a deficit in goodness.

A third difficulty is that the proposed interpretation is in conflict with the rest of the Bible.

[hellsapoppin]

``` but all natural evil ```

And what is that source?

The Bible tells us that which is of flesh is flesh, that which is of spirit is spirit. This means that something can only come from its source. Therefore, evil can only come from evil.

And as you know from reading Isaiah 45:7, there is only ONE source for that evil.

[RichardHresko]

``` but all natural evil ```

And what is that source?

The Bible tells us that which is of flesh is flesh, that which is of spirit is spirit. This means that something can only come from its source. Therefore, evil can only come from evil.

And as you know from reading Isaiah 45:7, there is only ONE source for that evil.

Look at Isaiah 45:5-12. Clearly God is referring to natural events, and even within verse 7 he talks of creating light and darkness.

Once again, the same three difficulties apply. Picking a verse out of context does not work as a rule.

Evil, according to the Bible, entered because of the sin of Adam and Eve, of their own free will. Not by the act of God.