Did God create evil?

[Hufflechuff]

If God created existence itself, and all the natural laws, then he created evil as an option. Presumably he could have created us without the capacity for evil (as he created us without the capacity to fly). We could still have free-will but would have a fully functioning moral compass. If he is the Creator then He could create this quite easily. He either chose to create the concept of evil or was powerless to prevent it.

Does the concept of evil exist outside of God, or does God decide what is evil? If the latter then good and evil have no meaning, they are just pleasing or displeasing to God. If good and evil exist as concepts in their own right, then God is bound by them as much as we are. As such we are at liberty to judge His actions against the independent meaning of good and evil.

 

[InChrist]

If God created existence itself, and all the natural laws, then he created evil as an option. Presumably he could have created us without the capacity for evil (as he created us without the capacity to fly). We could still have free-will but would have a fully functioning moral compass. If he is the Creator then He could create this quite easily. He either chose to create the concept of evil or was powerless to prevent it.

Does the concept of evil exist outside of God, or does God decide what is evil? If the latter then good and evil have no meaning, they are just pleasing or displeasing to God. If good and evil exist as concepts in their own right, then God is bound by them as much as we are. As such we are at liberty to judge His actions against the independent meaning of good and evil.

So you are saying that God should have created beings that could only choose good and have no capacity to choose evil, is that correct?

 

[Ouroboros]

So are you saying that it is a good thing for individuals to have freedom to make moral choices?

That's very loose. I don't think it's a good thing for a person to have the freedom to choose to kill someone. But I think it's a good thing for a person to have the freedom to choose to have premarital sex. The first one is harmful, and the second one is not. Choosing between harmless things is still free will. Choosing to do evil is dependent on free will, but free will is not dependent on choosing to do evil. So God could have created a world without evil, yet still create free will. It was God's choice to go with the worst "free will" option.

Another problem with your analogy is that the court doesn't indirectly create evilness or free will. Free will is assumed. The court is rectifying the problem of free will producing evil. Since you're arguing that evil is a good thing because it produces free will, then why outlaw anything? Evil serves a greater good in your argument, you do realize that, right?

 

[Ouroboros]

It's because people choose to do things that they shouldn't do. Evil seems to be a result of all of our choices and not a separate thing.

Ok. Then good is a result of our choices too, not a "separate thing". Making "God=good" is objectifying the term "good" and making it a "thing" rather than results of actions. Results of actions depends on situation, not clear and consistent laws. Even the law allows for a lot of wiggle room for this very reason.

Is it just evil to murder someone or harm someone or is it also evil to eat too much at dinner (JUST AN EXAMPLE).

Eat too much at dinner could be evil since perhaps you ate the last of it and someone is starving to death next door. Right? And murdering an evil dictator could be a good thing. Was taking out Saddam Hussein an evil act or a good act? It's all depends on perspective, I'd say.

There are two other issues I find difficult to understand when it comes to this debate. One is that if free will is the greater good, can people still use it and still do evil in Heaven? The second is that if evil is required for free will, then how did God have free will to do anything before evil existed? I don't know the answers to those questions.

 

[BBTimeless]

So you are saying that God should have created beings that could only choose good and have no capacity to choose evil, is that correct?

To be fair, that would have solved quite a few things.

 

[Hufflechuff]

So you are saying that God should have created beings that could only choose good and have no capacity to choose evil, is that correct?

Why not? Ouroborous sums it up eloquently, but sure, why not? He could have. Or He could have made us intelligent enough to always intuit which actions are good and which are not. Or with an inherent morality that whilst leaving evil theoretically possible would be so against our nature that we wouldn't do it. If He created everything then he created evil.

 

[InChrist]

That's very loose. I don't think it's a good thing for a person to have the freedom to choose to kill someone. But I think it's a good thing for a person to have the freedom to choose to have premarital sex. The first one is harmful, and the second one is not. Choosing between harmless things is still free will. Choosing to do evil is dependent on free will, but free will is not dependent on choosing to do evil. So God could have created a world without evil, yet still create free will. It was God's choice to go with the worst "free will" option.

So then are you saying God should have made it so people could not choose the “worst evils ” that in your opinion are harmful, but the option to choose to do lesser evils or things we want to do that don’t really cause harm are okay? Where should God draw the line? Should God prevent people from choosing to be real thieves, but allow cheating on tests or taxes? Should God stop all people from choosing to drink or should He only prevent drunks from driving? Should God stop murder or the things which lead up to murder? Should He stop adulterous sexual affairs or also prevent access to pornography? You said premarital sex is fine, so that should be allowed. What if the woman gets pregnant and gets an abortion? I suppose that should be allowed, too? I assume you don’t consider abortion harmful. What if the abortion causes complications and she can never again have children and deals with depression and guilt the rest of her life? Suppose she is young and really scared and ends up committing suicide? Is this evil? Or maybe she really wants the baby, but her boyfriend doesn’t, or he wants to keep the baby, but she doesn't, and they end up in violent fight and he kills her or she kills him. Now it has reached murder, which you said was harmful and a real evil. Isn’t it often the small “evils” which lead to the big evils? So again, where should the line be drawn on moral choice? Who decides what choices are harmless?

Another problem with your analogy is that the court doesn't indirectly create evilness or free will. Free will is assumed. The court is rectifying the problem of free will producing evil. Since you're arguing that evil is a good thing because it produces free will, then why outlaw anything? Evil serves a greater good in your argument, you do realize that, right?

[/quote]

I’m not saying that evil is a good thing, or that it produces freewill. All I have said is that I believe in order for God to create truly morally free individuals He had to allow for the possibility of evil, if or when they did not choose what was good. I believe God has chosen to create a real world with people who have real moral freedom to make real choices and these choices have real consequences affecting ourselves and others. This is in no way saying that evil is necessary because if "good" was not rejected and always chosen "evil" and its consequences would have no impact on reality.

 

[InChrist]

There are two other issues I find difficult to understand when it comes to this debate. One is that if free will is the greater good, can people still use it and still do evil in Heaven?

According to the scriptures, those who are in heaven have chosen to trust God and are transformed into the likeness of Christ having no desire to do evil. Evil is not required for freewill. Only the freedom to choose good instead of evil is necessary.

The second is that if evil is required for free will, then how did God have free will to do anything before evil existed? I don't know the answers to those questions.

[/QUOTE]

.


[FONT=&quot]I am drug-free. I don’t have to participate in the use of meth or heroin to know that these drugs are dangerous and lead to harmful consequences for me or those around me. The scriptures [/FONT]indicate that God is good and evil-free. God is also infinite and all-knowing so He knows about sin and evil without participating in it.

 

[InChrist]

Why not? Ouroborous sums it up eloquently, but sure, why not? He could have.

Are you saying you think God should have made all people perfect cookie-cutter puppets with no freedom to choose good over evil?

Or He could have made us intelligent enough to always intuit which actions are good and which are not. Or with an inherent morality that whilst leaving evil theoretically possible would be so against our nature that we wouldn't do it.

Actually, the option God has given people is somewhat along these lines, except that again it is the free choice of each person...to be transformed into the likeness of Christ ...or not. Those who choose to submit to this transformation or being saved (from sin and evil) receive a new nature through Christ and will have their former desire for sin and evil replaced with the desire for what God determines to be good.

If He created everything then he created evil.

[/quote]

Again, I don't see evil as a created thing, but the absence of what is good.

 

[InChrist]

To be fair, that would have solved quite a few things.

If it meant some of your choices which may be considered evil by God’s standard would also be included in the category of “evils’ which could not be chosen, would you be okay with that?

 

[Ouroboros]

I’m not saying that evil is a good thing, or that it produces freewill. All I have said is that I believe in order for God to create truly morally free individuals He had to allow for the possibility of evil, if or when they did not choose what was good. I believe God has chosen to create a real world with people who have real moral freedom to make real choices and these choices have real consequences affecting ourselves and others. This is in no way saying that evil is necessary because if "good" was not rejected and always chosen "evil" and its consequences would have no impact on reality.

If evil isn't necessary, then God didn't need to allow it (since he's good, he shouldn't have).

If evil is necessary, then God was part of it.

Either way, God allowing evil for some greater purpose doesn't answer the question in this thread. The thread was about if God created evil, and so far, the only argument you've given is that evil was allowed by God to be created for some greater reason, which doesn't exempt God from responsibility, but rather just excuse his actions. It's like the Bobby hitting a friend on the playground and claims that he didn't do it because the other guy hit him first. (I hope you can see the logical flaw in Bobby's excuse).

If God didn't create evil, but he created Satan to create evil, then God created a robot to do execute his plan. Satan is nothing but a proxy for God's higher will. Just like Genesis says that God commanded the oceans to bring forth life (indirect creation), and believers still claim that God "created" the world, the argument that God only did it through proxy or not doesn't exclude his involvement.

 

[Hufflechuff]

InChrist, to me it seems your arguments negate each other. On the one hand you say it would be wrong to create us without the capacity for evil. Then on the other you say that is exactly the nature of Jesus and something God will turn us into in Heaven. You can't have it both ways. If it is okay to transform us into beings without the capacity for evil once in Heaven then God could have done that when placing us on Earth.

Evil is not the absence of goodness. The absence of goodness is impassivity, indifference. Evil is as evil does.

As for where to draw the line, it doesn't matter if lowly man can define it. If God is all-knowing and perfect then He could have worked it out Himself.

 

[Ouroboros]

According to the scriptures, those who are in heaven have chosen to trust God and are transformed into the likeness of Christ having no desire to do evil. Evil is not required for freewill. Only the freedom to choose good instead of evil is necessary.

Which can't be an "absolute" or "objective" truth unless evil exists. So... evil is necessary. You can't have a "free will" of choosing between white chocolate pudding with strawberry filling served on a silver platter with vanilla cream and slurblurglurgh (which doesn't exist or have no definition).

So evil was necessary. God created Satan to create evil. Satan is a proxy for God's will. That's how your argument is summed up.

I am drug-free. I don’t have to participate in the use of meth or heroin to know that these drugs are dangerous and lead to harmful consequences for me or those around me. The scriptures indicate that God is good and evil-free. God is also infinite and all-knowing so He knows about sin and evil without participating in it.

But those harmful drugs do exist. Right? And those drugs aren't just "absence from non-drugs" are they? So in the same manner, evil (as you say) would have to exist. So where did evil come from? Satan? Or non-good? Ok, non-good then. God was/is good, but non-good exists as a non-God thing. Non-God thing is necessary to exist for the choice to exist or you would have to choose between something that exists and something that doesn't exist. Simple. So it exists, right? And it came from somewhere, right? Did God have control over it to come into existence or not? Could God have stopped it or did he choose not to? Was he unable? Was he not powerful enough? Didn't he know? Any question you're answering will diminish God's powers. A fully and completely powerful God must incorporate good and evil for the necessity of the greater good. It's just logical.

And I'm not surprised you can't see it. I keep on repeating the same over and over again, and we'll not get anywhere. I understand your point (because I was Christian and used the same arguments in the old days), but I don't agree with your point anymore because I did reason them out over many years. I've come to this conclusion, not because I want to be difficult, but because I have thought about it and can't accept the excuses for this kind (definition) of God.

So I'm bowing out of this part of the discussion now.

 

[InChrist]

So I'm bowing out of this part of the discussion now.

Thanks for the conversation, Ouroboros. I've enjoyed it. I realize you said you are finished, but you said a couple of things which I think I'll have to address when I have the chance. Right now, I need to go somewhere. If you don't want to continue discussing and don't respond, that's fine.

 

[InChrist]

InChrist, to me it seems your arguments negate each other. On the one hand you say it would be wrong to create us without the capacity for evil. Then on the other you say that is exactly the nature of Jesus and something God will turn us into in Heaven. You can't have it both ways. If it is okay to transform us into beings without the capacity for evil once in Heaven then God could have done that when placing us on Earth.

[FONT=&quot]I don’t want it both ways. I want it God’s way and I believe that this is entails freedom. I believe that only when one freely chooses God’s will, good is the result. This choice was presented to humanity in the beginning and it is presented again through accepting transformation in Christ. If you have read the NT at all you readily see that Jesus always wanted to do the will of His Father. If the new heaven and earth are to be inhabited by those who are eternally good with no possibility of evil then it will be by those who choose God’s will, those who have said “yes” to God... ”Your will be done”. [/FONT]

Evil is not the absence of goodness. The absence of goodness is impassivity, indifference. Evil is as evil does.

[FONT=&quot]Maybe according to you, but the scriptures indicate that anything apart from God’s standard of right and good is sin and evil.

[/FONT]

As for where to draw the line, it doesn't matter if lowly man can define it. If God is all-knowing and perfect then He could have worked it out Himself.

[/quote]

I believe He has it worked out.

 

[Ouroboros]

Thanks for the conversation, Ouroboros. I've enjoyed it. I realize you said you are finished, but you said a couple of things which I think I'll have to address when I have the chance. Right now, I need to go somewhere. If you don't want to continue discussing and don't respond, that's fine.

I enjoyed our discussion too, but I feel that sometimes I just get too deep into a discussion and get frustrated when the point won't get across (in my view of course). It's a very slim chance that we'll even convince each other of our views, so it's a bit futile. We both expressed our views without getting into a war. I want to end when we're ahead and on a good note.

Anyway, you can go ahead and make the final response. It would be nice to have that as the last touch of our little side-panel.

:bow:

 

[BBTimeless]

If it meant some of your choices which may be considered evil by God’s standard would also be included in the category of “evils’ which could not be chosen, would you be okay with that?

If my mind had no other option I wouldn't know any better.

 

[Hufflechuff]

[FONT=&quot]Maybe according to you, but the scriptures indicate that anything apart from God’s standard of right and good is sin and evil.
[/FONT]
I believe He has it worked out.

You have a very wide definition of evil. I would say, so wide as to be meaningless. Tell me, when you here reports that, say, terrorists have committed an evil act, do you think along the lines of 'ah yes, but that's not really any different to cousin Bob who refuses to sell his possessions and give alms' [Luke 12:33]? I would expect people understand 'evil' to be aggressive in some way, not just an absence of good action, but you seem to be saying otherwise.

As for God working it out - that is not an answer. You are saying that God knows the answer, He just failed to implement it? Or chose not to because He wanted evil to be an option (an option that did not exist before He created it)?

 

[InChrist]

Yes, it can be frustrating to repeatedly continue on discussing something when it seems like the point is not getting across. You are probably right we won’t convince each other, yet, I think it is still worthwhile to exchange ideas to a point and then agree to disagree. It’s not that I totally don’t understand what you have been trying to say. It’s just that I strongly believe that as beings who were created in the image of God where the goal is an eternal relationship based on love, true freedom to make moral choices is a major part of the equation. True moral freedom, I believe, includes the possibility of making the wrong choice.

So evil was necessary. God created Satan to create evil. Satan is a proxy for God's will. That's how your argument is summed up.

I agree that Satan is a being that was created by God, but I don’t agree that Satan was a robot or proxy to execute evil. First, this again goes against what I have been saying in regard to freewill which Satan (initially Lucifer) had. Secondly, the scriptures reveal that Satan used his will to act against God’s will:

(here is the beginning and first expression of evil in the being and mind of Lucifer)

For you have said in your heart:
I will ascend into heaven
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds
I will be like the Most High (Isaiah 14:13-14)

But those harmful drugs do exist. Right? And those drugs aren't just "absence from non-drugs" are they? So in the same manner, evil (as you say) would have to exist.

Well, the analogy does break down a little since in our world drugs and evil already exist, but until sin arose within the mind of Satan evil was non-existent in reality. Prior to this only the goodness of God was was reality.

So where did evil come from? Satan? Or non-good? Ok, non-good then. God was/is good, but non-good exists as a non-God thing. Non-God thing is necessary to exist for the choice to exist or you would have to choose between something that exists and something that doesn't exist. Simple. So it exists, right? And it came from somewhere, right?

The will of a creature used against the will of God is the beginning of evil and it was initiated by the rebellion/sin of Satan in opposition to God’s will. Instead of God’s will which = good, Satan chose to exert his will in opposition to God which = evil. So this is where evil came from...Satan.

Did God have control over it to come into existence or not? Could God have stopped it or did he choose not to? Was he unable? Was he not powerful enough? Didn't he know?

God being omniscient knew about the possibility if evil occurring if good was not chosen, but until a created being (Satan) chose to sin evil was non-existent in reality. I don’t think this shows a lack of control or power on God’s part. How does having more power allow God to have a world of true moral choices where the only choice is to do good? Don’t you see that is contradictory? A world in which human beings have true moral choices means that they really have true moral choices, not just the choice to do good. No matter how strong God is, He cannot create a morally free creature for whom it is impossible to do evil, because a morally free creature must be free to choose good in their own being and right to be truly free moral creatures and for such good to have any meaningful significance. So it’s not about brute power, force, or control, but about allowing each person to willingly choosing good from their own heart.

And I'm not surprised you can't see it. I keep on repeating the same over and over again, and we'll not get anywhere. I understand your point (because I was Christian and used the same arguments in the old days), but I don't agree with your point anymore because I did reason them out over many years. I've come to this conclusion, not because I want to be difficult, but because I have thought about it and can't accept the excuses for this kind (definition) of God.

So I'm bowing out of this part of the discussion now.

[/quote]

I understand your points also, because I have not always been a Christian, but my perspective now is that moral freedom is a good thing and a good God allows for such freedom. I respect your freedom to disagree, but you are probably right we won't get anywhere in further discussion. Thanks again for the conversation.

 

[InChrist]

You have a very wide definition of evil. I would say, so wide as to be meaningless. Tell me, when you here reports that, say, terrorists have committed an evil act, do you think along the lines of 'ah yes, but that's not really any different to cousin Bob who refuses to sell his possessions and give alms' [Luke 12:33]? I would expect people understand 'evil' to be aggressive in some way, not just an absence of good action, but you seem to be saying otherwise.

I agree there are different levels of sin and evil, but according to the scriptures all sin is evil.

As for God working it out - that is not an answer. You are saying that God knows the answer, He just failed to implement it? Or chose not to because He wanted evil to be an option (an option that did not exist before He created it)?

[/quote]

I am saying that not only does God have the answer, but that He is implementing it right now. I don't consider evil to be an option that God "created". Evil is just what happens when God's will and goodness is rejected.