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

[Babbalanja]

I'm not about to try to prove whether there is, or is not, any evidential proof... all I set out to do is to show that there IS a basis for some religions.

no matter what it is that is said, pertaining to God, there must be faith and from the looks of it, you don't believe in faith.

May I politely point you to the Bible rather then demagogues, fire and brimstoners or avaricious pious types for enlightenment. It is easy to shoot a straw man but the real deal is well worth the knowing and experiencing.

This thread is all about trying to come to a consistent, coherent definition of what believers affirm, but all it has done is demonstrate the curious philosophical shell game of faith. It seems that any definition of God or belief or faith that nonbelievers use (even if it's in the exact same words that the believers originally used to describe the term) can be dismissed as a straw man if it seems to put the notion of faith in a less-than-flattering light.

If God is, as one believer here said, the Source of Everything, then it logically follows that He is the source of evil as well as good. Believers feel this constitutes disrespect on the part of nonbelievers, even though it's inherent in the way the believers originally defined the term.

If we should go to the Bible, as one believer recommended, then we need to confront all the shameful things that were done at the behest of the Almighty, such as the binding of Isaac or the slaughter of the Canaanites. Believers then tell us we're wrong to take these scriptures at face value, even though that's what they instructed us to do in the first place.

If faith is said to be an inductive method of inquiry, we point out that it lacks the evidence that fuels such inquiry. If it is said to be a deductive process, then we point out the logical flaws in its ontological proofs. In either case, the believers criticize us for expecting their beliefs to conform to human reason, even though they were the ones who initially asserted that faith is a rational pursuit like any other method of inquiry. Yet, if we conclude that faith is merely believing whatever the person wants to believe, the religious object that we are oversimplifying the concept of faith.

Even though it makes dialogue utterly futile, this obfuscation is just what religion needs to survive in the modern day. Faith can't be held to any standard, it can't be subjected to criticism like any other claim in society, and it must be accepted as rational and beneficial even if it seems just the opposite.

Regards,

Istvan

[BienvenuJDC]

If God is, as one believer here said, the Source of Everything, then it logically follows that He is the source of evil as well as good. Believers feel this constitutes disrespect on the part of nonbelievers, even though it's inherent in the way the believers originally defined the term.

Your assumption is flawed.

In the beginning there was no light...that means there was darkness.

Did God create darkness? No...it is the lack of light.
Did God create evil? No...it is the lack of good.


And it is not your questions that constitutes disrespect, it is your manner.

[blazeofglory]

This topic is really moving me. It is really interesting to read and discuss here.

As I understand God is not a person and not impersonal as well.

We cannot say what god and what god is not for we have no thing to compare with or no metaphor to describe God.

With regard to evil all I think is both evil and good are unreal and they are our classifications and are mundane attributes in point of fact. Rise above and over all these worldly attributes there is no good and bad, not devilishness or saintliness as such. Rather I say there is godliness or divinity everywhere no matter where we are.

The way a balloon can be blown out into a bigger size and the same can shrink back into its original shape.

Of course sinners will be also accepted in the kingdom of heaven ultimately.

We are too much conditioned to think the way we do based on what we read in a book.

Let us close our eyes for a while everything will be to us as clear as the day.

[Leonidas300]

This thread is all about trying to come to a consistent, coherent definition of what believers affirm, but all it has done is demonstrate the curious philosophical shell game of faith. It seems that any definition of God or belief or faith that nonbelievers use (even if it's in the exact same words that the believers originally used to describe the term) can be dismissed as a straw man if it seems to put the notion of faith in a less-than-flattering light.

If God is, as one believer here said, the Source of Everything, then it logically follows that He is the source of evil as well as good. Believers feel this constitutes disrespect on the part of nonbelievers, even though it's inherent in the way the believers originally defined the term.

If we should go to the Bible, as one believer recommended, then we need to confront all the shameful things that were done at the behest of the Almighty, such as the binding of Isaac or the slaughter of the Canaanites. Believers then tell us we're wrong to take these scriptures at face value, even though that's what they instructed us to do in the first place.

If faith is said to be an inductive method of inquiry, we point out that it lacks the evidence that fuels such inquiry. If it is said to be a deductive process, then we point out the logical flaws in its ontological proofs. In either case, the believers criticize us for expecting their beliefs to conform to human reason, even though they were the ones who initially asserted that faith is a rational pursuit like any other method of inquiry. Yet, if we conclude that faith is merely believing whatever the person wants to believe, the religious object that we are oversimplifying the concept of faith.

Even though it makes dialogue utterly futile, this obfuscation is just what religion needs to survive in the modern day. Faith can't be held to any standard, it can't be subjected to criticism like any other claim in society, and it must be accepted as rational and beneficial even if it seems just the opposite.

That is a great post.

[Babbalanja]

Your assumption is flawed.

In the beginning there was no light...that means there was darkness.

Did God create darkness? No...it is the lack of light.
Did God create evil? No...it is the lack of good.

Don't you even know your own Bible?

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. - Isaiah 45:7

And it is not your questions that constitutes disrespect, it is your manner.

I never called anyone "stupid," as you claimed in a recent post. I've just been pointing out that there seems to be no consistency in the way believers define God and faith, and no objective way to assess religious claims the way we judge the validity of any other claim in human society.

Regards,

Istvan

[BienvenuJDC]

Don't you even know your own Bible?

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. - Isaiah 45:7

Try keeping this in context. The Bible is a piece of literature that uses metaphor, simile, hyperbole, and other literary tools. While I do not claim to know and understand all of the Scriptures, I do know the Bible fairly well. You can search day by day for that version and passage out of context to try to prove your point, but you do not try to understand the intent of the written passages.

If you would like to open up the context of the passage to see what is being written, to whom it is written, and the purpose for the passage, we might truly understand what is being told here. But I would expect that you don't want to honestly understand the Scriptures. Therefore, I do not want to make this forum a contentious battle ground. You do not believe as I do, nor do I believe as you do. You do not have to try to rip my beliefs apart.

I never called anyone "stupid," as you claimed in a recent post.

No...you didn't. However, this is a general statement. Your implications might speak ill of believers though.

[Babbalanja]

Try keeping this in context. The Bible is a piece of literature that uses metaphor, simile, hyperbole, and other literary tools. While I do not claim to know and understand all of the Scriptures, I do know the Bible fairly well. You can search day by day for that version and passage out of context to try to prove your point, but you do not try to understand the intent of the written passages.

If you would like to open up the context of the passage to see what is being written, to whom it is written, and the purpose for the passage, we might truly understand what is being told here. But I would expect that you don't want to honestly understand the Scriptures. Therefore, I do not want to make this forum a contentious battle ground. You do not believe as I do, nor do I believe as you do. You do not have to try to rip my beliefs apart.

This is a perfect example of what I'm saying about the religious shell game.

To answer the question in the OP, even a nonbeliever can accept the words of the faithful: if God is the Source of Everything, then God is the source of evil as well as good.

However, you claim that God is no more the creator of evil than He is the creator of darkness. When I point out that in the canonical Scripture itself, God indicates that He is the creator of both darkness and evil, you merely handwave away this scriptural reference, with which I assume you were previously unfamiliar.

So I'm not supposed to take this fairly clear and straightforward verse to mean exactly what it says, simply because it doesn't support the point you're trying to make? What context am I ignoring in the case of Isaiah 45:7 that makes it so irrelevant to this ethical question? And what does it say about the usefulness of scripture itself, if I'm not supposed to read it and interpret it to mean literally what it says?

Regards,

Istvan

[BienvenuJDC]

So I'm not supposed to take this fairly clear and straightforward verse to mean exactly what it says, simply because it doesn't support the point you're trying to make? What context am I ignoring in the case of Isaiah 45:7 that makes it so irrelevant to this ethical question?

Do you take everything in all literature to be literal? If you do, then you don't understand literature.

I'm not extending this argument any further. If it is a shell game to you, then that is your prerogative. But if you cannot look further into literary works than what you are, then your judgments will always be shallow. You don't see me opening other religious works, try to bash and critique them. So I don't expect someone to take the Bible out of its context to try to prove it to be unreliable and wrong. I don't try to convert people to my religion who do not want to be.

You really ought to stop what you are doing...
It's not becoming to this forum.

[mazHur]

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC View Post
Your assumption is flawed.

In the beginning there was no light...that means there was darkness.

Did God create darkness? No...it is the lack of light.
Did God create evil? No...it is the lack of good.

This explanation is pretty neat and I agree with it.

Let's all keep the discussion restricted to the topic rather than vehemently criticize scriptures or their interpretation. Remember, God may overlook our talk but not the ever-watchful mods

[NikolaiI]

I guess the question only leads into another: is the "everything" good or bad? The only way you can criticize God for creating everything is if you say that the everything is bad -- in other words, the sorrow makes life unnecessary, unjustified, in the face of the idea of balancing opposites, which says that life is valuable both for its "Good" experiences and its "Bad" experiences. Why not an infinite affirmation of life? This is what mystics found. They say that beyond duality, beyond the dualities of right and wrong, self and other, there is a boundless, sole, indivisible reality... they say that is God, or the Source. So in other words, God is beyond the dualities of Good and Bad. But also, God is the Supreme good, being the Source of Being, and the Source of Love.

[Redzeppelin]

Don't you even know your own Bible?

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. - Isaiah 45:7

Your assertion a few posts above that God created evil is questionable because not all translations render the verse with the word "evil" - some chose other terms - which suggests that the "evil" of the King James and American Standard versions may well be "evil" as in "bad thing that happens" (which fits with the translations "calamity" and "disaster") as opposed to "metaphysical concept diametrically opposed to good" (which is how you're interpreting it). An important distinction.


From the New International version:
7 I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.

From the New American Standard:
7The One (A)forming light and (B)creating darkness,
Causing well-being and (C)creating calamity;
I am the LORD who does all these.

From the New King James (since your quote is from the original King James):
7 I form the light and create darkness,
I make peace and create calamity;
I, the LORD, do all these things.’

God did not create "evil" (though these texts do suggest that He may well be the author of things that are unfortunate and catastrophic). Evil is the result of our free will. In order for free will to exist, there must be two valid choices for a human to make. As such, if serving/loving God is one, choice, then not serving/not loving God must be the other choice. Since the Bible makes it clear that God is the source of all that is good, then it makes sense that to chose NOT to love/serve Him results in the creation of evil. Evil comes from the human choice to NOT serve God; God did not create evil - He gave us free will which carried with it the potential to create evil.

[Lynne Fees]

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.

You have done an excellent job of a modern-day interpretation of temptation, ala Eve and the apple.

[tailor STATELY]

Another interesting thread.

First, to personalize some tenets from my faith before expounding on the thread's premise: I claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of my own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
I believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; I also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.. ( LDS "Articles of Faith" )

Second, God is not evil in any context. No evil may dwell with God.

LDS scripture that help me understand good and evil may be found at The Book of Mormon / 2 Nephi Chapter 2. Further insights may be gained by study of other LDS texts, including The Pearl of Great Price, which expound upon our Heavenly Father's Plan of Salvation.

A number of passages from The Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Jesus Christ:

from The Second Book of Nephi Chapter 2:

5 And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever.

8 Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise.

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.

17 And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God.

18 And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.

19 And after Adam and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit they were driven out of the garden of Eden, to till the earth.

20 And they have brought forth children; yea, even the family of all the earth.

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

Humbly,
tailor STATELY

[Leonidas300]

Thank you Mr Stately. However, I have to admit that I feel sorry for you.

[tailor STATELY]

Thank you Mr Stately. However, I have to admit that I feel sorry for you.

LOL. Thank you for your concern.