God and Evil, working towards a solution

[rational experiences]

If you were a rational human life and mind, and considered self spiritual as I did...then you would not accept what anyone else taught.

Seeing you are born, own either a very healthy life or a severely mutated and sick life as a human.

So you know as that human our parents give us our life presence by their sexual act and human choice.

And males today want to talk about the first 2 human being parents. Well they are deceased. Before they died they had sex. Sperm and an ovary is what owns our natural human life continuance.

What has God O got to do with that history factually?

Biologists in science medical advice said.....the human being life ONLY exists after this form of ape/monkey body type in bio life. Yet we are not the ape or monkey self.

If a human in science tried to string our human life to what he says is our parent, an ape or monkey, what chemistry a human owns would be destroyed and what cellular presence a human owns would be destroyed.

As some so called God theorist....for all science today no matter who they claim they are or represent is talking only about O Earth a stone planet, sitting in space with its owned gases, that once in natural history were burning...became cooled and clear.

Sun radiation, of a sun bursting however changed the Nature of Earth...and made it reburn again...and took the natural clear night time sky away from Earth.

As a science story.

So Earth is factually just our entity no matter what any scientist wants to talk about. How the theme O GOD planet stone and Entity became an exact science teaching of relative human advice, that already advised any scientist today that your cosmological themes are totally FAKE and PROVEN evil.

For your science forms SINK holes in the ancient past.....just as you did in modern times...proven wrong, were proven wrong before. Yet still today some egotists claim that they are trying to work out how stone exists in its natural form. And anyone who uses common sense would ask, for what reason do you science self want to know how stone was created.

When it is inferred to be GOD O and the presence GOD, the stone the only reason why any of us own a life today....as relative advice.

Not to claim a story about how God created a human life for you would be lying.

But if you were a medical scientist, you would say.....well first of all a human would claim that they are trapped living on Earth spiritually because their body of bones, which is like a whole OTHER presence inside of their bio cells is like stone.

As medical information talking and discussing human relative bio existence.

Therefore if a medical human advice talked about the types and forms of spirit bodies that a human owned...then they did. One of the spirit bodies, which in natural life is factually totally separate, yet part of the whole is the body of bones, very much like the planet God O, the stone. Medical advice only.

For you have to be living as a human for another human to be talking about your body as a separate identity. Inference.

Just as human beings, present in life as that human being, talking about the human being. Bio genesis as they live.

And not be talking about any other state for any other reason. For medical science already taught humans that if you talk about any past, in bio nature all of those bodies are deceased. And if science talks about the past and then own a theory, then they tried to link us to all being deceased....seeing history in science is reactive conversions, when no life even existed.

Why it was a proven EVIL human choice, and relative to why God O the planet changed and attacked human life...as relative medical science advice. Common human sense would advise any of you if you cared to think rationally. Where you live, not where you never personally lived.

Yet for some evil male theorising reasoning males keep trying to claim that science knew how a human being was created. And I would ask, any non medical scientist in nuclear sciences, which is radiation destruction for what reason would your mind be thinking about what we personally and naturally own?

If you are not owner radiation itself, in bio life form and think and relate your science information about us evilly with intent of having us all personally and bio life removed by radiation conditions. Bio life body, the genesis, is not bone like God the stone....as relative scientific informed human teaching. Medical or healer advice.

As the history of what you study, radiation in space.

God the STONE is our entity and it is a planet and stone sitting in space. It is NOT radiation in space as you suggest...and it is truly evil what you are saying....for it is a fact you always wanted God the stone to not exist.

And still own the same male Satanic science themes that you always owned, to have God the stone body of destroyed....claiming that you are a victim of God and a prisoner and trapped on Earth as a prisoner by the UFO story/theme/radiation Sun history. And a lot of human consciousness expresses that theme, irrationally. And the theme was about owning a spirit body, separate as a body of bones. Like the planet of stone, God. And it was just self medical advice.

For no human can talk about humans unless they are a human existing created and self present, human in their human natural living conditions, natural bodies and owned natural bodies. And spiritually I learnt that humans are all naturally healer medical aware in their Nature and natural life awareness due to owning the natural support of the bodies in Nature that support our human existence.

How your minds irradiated by science radiation UFO events of the past, is why you speak irrational thinking concepts today...the very fact of it.

As some form of mental health psyche conscious expression proven to be owned by a lot of irrational human beings today. Chemical effect due to radiation sciences, and the history of. As a warning to self.

And it was MEDICAL science in the past that had to try to deal with this irrational human behaviour after studying its apparent expression in our life.....to conclude that it was in fact a mind/chemical radiation effect as a medical advice to self, human.

What the stories about God the stone O relative to Sun time and human healing/medical scientific Genesis was discussing. The nuclear effects upon the human body life cell and human existence in its Nature upon its own PLANET...why it was a self informed statement just about ONE BODY only, the planet Earth as God O the stone history.

To impose that we only live due to this One O planetary presence, to stop males from their Satanic pursuit to claim that O stone began as a black hole, for their intent was to force God to become O as stone a HOLE....and it is already scientifically proven to be their motivation, sink holes the proof.

 

[wellwisher]

God and Evil, working towards a solution

As part of a class I'm taking, I'm working towards an argument to show that it is rational to believe in God. But before I get to that point, I'm looking at what is probably the biggest stumbling block, which is the question of theodicy; why does evil exist if God is all loving and all powerful.

I'm linking to a podcast episode (and article) that goes more in depth about this all, but to sum it up, there are two main reasons why suffering exists with a God who is all loving.

First, God is limited. God limits Godself in order for humans to be humans, and to have some sort of power. It also allows God to be in a relationship with humans.

Second, humans are also limited. We aren't perfect, and we make mistakes. We also have free will, which allows us to make horrible decisions that end up having long lasting impacts.

The link goes much deeper into this, but the suggestion that I'm getting at is that God limits Himself, so we can be what we are created to be. We have power ourselves, and because of that, God expects us to step up and and fight against oppression, and towards justice. In other words, God works through us.

Good and Evil is a subjective polarization of the mind, that human have created and evolved. The Tree of Knowledge of God and Evil was not something that God wanted for humans. They were told not to eat of the tree. Humans chose this forbidden path, as symbolized by Adam and Eve eating of the tree. Before the tree of knowledge of good and evil, humans were under natural instinct, which is morally neutral. The Tree of Knowledge began a polarization of the human mind.

Good and Evil is often subjective. For example, the Democrat party in the USA, defines anything Trump does as evil. Some people are ready for a lynching due to their perceived injustice caused by Trump as defined by their leadership. This is a subjective and manmade definition of evil based on political orientation and political advantages, since not all humans see it the same. It is not an objective fact of nature. It is humans trying to create a polarization of the mind for their own benefit.

The ten commandments said thou shall not kill and thou shall not steal. Man created the divine right of kings which allowed the king to kill and steal. Adultery used to be a sin, but to the Progressive atheist, who does not recognize God, this is now a valid lifestyle. Human define right and wrong as the see fit. The people in power, who make laws, can institute injustice, and call it good. This is not due to God, but to man trying to play god.

This subjective nature of good and evil, is how Satan intoxicated and fooled Eve. If you eat of that tree; buy into the concept of good and evil, you shall surely die. The reason is when human define what is right and wrong, those in charge will tend to define these things for their own benefit, and not always to the benefit of the collective. This will then come back to bite everyone. For example, the marijuana taboo of 1920's was manmade and not in the bible. This led to organized crime growing and people punished for what would eventually be refined, as not evil. This is due to man playing God. Then man; leadership, teaches us to blame God for this, as a smoke screen to cover his own behavior.

In the USA Congress makes the laws. If they decide to create a law that is evil, they can do that. God has been purged from Congress, by misapplying the separation clause, allowing man to rig the system, even against the law of God. The Impeachment of Trump, by Congress, broke all the rules because those who made the laws in Congress get to define evil and good; ends justifies the means blurred the line. The swamp has not yet been punished for their coup attempt, since they changed the laws to benefit evil, so only the victims of the coup will get punished. This is not from God, since this is not taught in any religious book, as being good. The IRS has 70,000 pages of laws of good and evil financial behavior, none of which are from God. These rig the system for the rich and is called good since it results in campaign donations for those who make the laws. This is not from God, but from man; will and choice. Human, as defined by God, are free moral agent who make such choices for themselves.

 

[wellwisher]

Jesus and others taught a path that was not polarizing. Jesus taught love, instead of love and hate. He said love your enemy; unified mind, instead of love your friends and family, but hate your enemy; polarized mind. Jesus said, "your enemies are of your now household", which means your perception of evil are in your own head as learned and subjectively inferred from what was learned. The path of the unified mind was why Jesus is often referred to as the second Adam. He was at the crossroads of unity versus polarization, and chose unity.

As history would show, those in power retained law since this was an easier way to rig the system to their own benefit. You first need to polarize the brains of the masses, so the dark side is subjectively among us; accept the polarization. This can be disguised by defining evil as good. The ends justifying the means is the most common way of doing this. It allows the mind to bypass objective law, since this apparent logical trinity appears to be more advanced than a simple binary. Unity is really the most advanced. As the bible says, it is not yes and no; law, but it is yes in him; faith.

 

[amatuerscholar]

Really!, He certainly hasn't put any limits on his immoral behavior; endorsing slavery, (Leviticus 25:44-46) and even beating slaves ( Luke 12:47). inciting the killing
of anyone who has sexual relations with an engaged virgin (Deuteronomy 22:23-24). Exhorting people to kill those who curse their mother or father (Exodus 21:17), and even killing children who jeer their elders ( 2 Kings 2:23-24).

This argument is only relevant if one believes the Bible is the literal word of God. If one sees it as maybe inspired, or even just the product of humans, gets rid of all of that. I agree that there is immoral behavior that is justified in the Bible. The Bible has a number of problems, and because of that, I find it virtually impossible to see it as the literal word of God.

Then obviously we were created to rape, pillage, and kill, because, among other things, that's what we do.

That doesn't follow. We weren't created to do evil. But that is a possibility that occurs because of human nature, because of the nature of chaos that is present in the world, and that allows for creation.

So god expects we mere mortals to have better ethics than himself. To tell the truth, in many respects we do. I don't know a single soul who endorses slavery. or would suggest that children be punished for the misdeeds of their parents.

Your argument works only if one sees God directly working in the world.

 

[Skwim]

This argument is only relevant if one believes the Bible is the literal word of God. If one sees it as maybe inspired, or even just the product of humans, gets rid of all of that. I agree that there is immoral behavior that is justified in the Bible. The Bible has a number of problems, and because of that, I find it virtually impossible to see it as the literal word of God.

Yup, but I used the examples I did because many, many Christians DO take the Bible to be the word of god, or at least much/most of it.

That doesn't follow. We weren't created to do evil.

Sure we were. Heck, according to the Bible god even creates evil for us to do (Isaiah 45:7). In any case, according to most Christians god is omniscient, and being so he knew that mankind would do be doing despicable things such as raping, pillaging, and killing, yet he went ahead and created us anyway.

But that is a possibility that occurs because of human nature,

And who do you think is responsible for the way we are, our human nature? It's the big guy. He puts evil into the world, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." and we're left to deal with it.

because of the nature of chaos that is present in the world, and that allows for creation.

Need some evidence. Whatcha got?

Your argument works only if one sees God directly working in the world.

And if you believe the Bible, in particular what is said in the book of Isaiah says, then "my argument" does work. God:

Forms light
Creates darkness
Makes peace
Creates evil
​

(Note the present tense)

.

 

[iam1me]

God and Evil, working towards a solution

As part of a class I'm taking, I'm working towards an argument to show that it is rational to believe in God. But before I get to that point, I'm looking at what is probably the biggest stumbling block, which is the question of theodicy; why does evil exist if God is all loving and all powerful.

I'm linking to a podcast episode (and article) that goes more in depth about this all, but to sum it up, there are two main reasons why suffering exists with a God who is all loving.

First, God is limited. God limits Godself in order for humans to be humans, and to have some sort of power. It also allows God to be in a relationship with humans.

Second, humans are also limited. We aren't perfect, and we make mistakes. We also have free will, which allows us to make horrible decisions that end up having long lasting impacts.

The link goes much deeper into this, but the suggestion that I'm getting at is that God limits Himself, so we can be what we are created to be. We have power ourselves, and because of that, God expects us to step up and and fight against oppression, and towards justice. In other words, God works through us.

God wants us to do good. In fact, that is arguably our purpose:

Ephesians 2:10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.​

The greatest good is love, and the greatest love is to sacrifice oneself for another.

John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.​

However, there is a dilemma: can you truly do good if you can only choose to do good? Does a machine perform a morally good action by caring out pre-programmed instructions that ends up saving lives? Of course not. It is simply going through the motions. Without a will, and without a choice, an action is morally neutral.

The Solution? Choice.

Only by giving the ability to choose between doing good or doing evil can we in fact truly do good. Thus God gave us the capacity for both that we might choose to do what is good, accepting the logical consequence that we might also choose to do what is evil.

Deuteronomy 30:11-20
Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

15 See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. 16 For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.

17 But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, 18 I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess.

19 This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live 20 and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.​

 

[Koldo]

God and Evil, working towards a solution

As part of a class I'm taking, I'm working towards an argument to show that it is rational to believe in God. But before I get to that point, I'm looking at what is probably the biggest stumbling block, which is the question of theodicy; why does evil exist if God is all loving and all powerful.

I'm linking to a podcast episode (and article) that goes more in depth about this all, but to sum it up, there are two main reasons why suffering exists with a God who is all loving.

First, God is limited. God limits Godself in order for humans to be humans, and to have some sort of power. It also allows God to be in a relationship with humans.

Second, humans are also limited. We aren't perfect, and we make mistakes. We also have free will, which allows us to make horrible decisions that end up having long lasting impacts.

The link goes much deeper into this, but the suggestion that I'm getting at is that God limits Himself, so we can be what we are created to be. We have power ourselves, and because of that, God expects us to step up and and fight against oppression, and towards justice. In other words, God works through us.

Why does 'being the way we are created to be' take precedence over erasing suffering ?

 

[amatuerscholar]

Yup, but I used the examples I did because many, many Christians DO take the Bible to be the word of god, or at least much/most of it.

I will agree that the examples you used, for those who are literalists, make a great argument.

Sure we were. Heck, according to the Bible god even creates evil for us to do (Isaiah 45:7). In any case, according to most Christians god is omniscient, and being so he knew that mankind would do be doing despicable things such as raping, pillaging, and killing, yet he went ahead and created us anyway.

I'm not getting how Isaiah 45:7 says that. But as for what most Christians think is really irrelevant when it comes to the argument I'm forming. Most Christians can be wrong. When we look at what the scholarship says, what theologians actually say, it often stands in contrast to what most Christians say because most Christians aren't diving into the work. As for the omniscient idea. Being omniscient doesn't necessarily mean that God knows everything that will happen, but instead, God knows all of the possibilities. He knows what can happen, but not what will happen. This is a stance theologians have taken for quite some time. It could also be that God simply isn't omniscient, as the omniscient idea isn't as ancient as many may think.

And who do you think is responsible for the way we are, our human nature? It's the big guy. He puts evil into the world, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." and we're left to deal with it.

That or the author of Isaiah was trying to explain the world in which he lived, and thus attributed all to God. He does this because he's reaffirming there is just one god, and thus that god must have all the attributes of the gods. Giving God the power for light and darkness, peace and evil. Isaiah here is also going back to the creation stories, and trying to make sense of them (he's doing this in verses 1-7, and uses allusions to those older stories).

But even working in that framework, when we look at evil, we are looking at chaos. Chaos and evil are often associated. It is out of chaos that God created the earth though, it is from disorder to order (not saying the creation is a literal thing, but that is the thought process). So evil is created, but it's used in order to create in general. So it's necessary.

Need some evidence. Whatcha got?

Two points here. If we look at the creation story, there is something at the beginning. Looking at Genesis 1, we are told that When God began to create heaven and earth, and the earth was then welter and waste and darkness over the deep and God's breath hovering over the water, God said Let there be light. Often it is pictured that this waste and darkness is chaos. If we look at Isaiah again, we see how connection between darkness and evil is formed. But it is out of this chaos, out of this darkness, that all is created.

Job goes into this as well. Specifically when he is speaking of God wrestling the Leviathan. The Leviathan is most likely symbolic for chaos, as such sea serpents are in ancient literature. There we see God not destroying chaos, but wrestling with it, and using it to create.

And if you believe the Bible, in particular what is said in the book of Isaiah says, then "my argument" does work. God:

Forms light
Creates darkness
Makes peace
Creates evil
​

(Note the present tense)

.

If you believe the Bible to be literal. But one doesn't need to believe it to be literal.

God wants us to do good. In fact, that is arguably our purpose:

Ephesians 2:10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.​

The greatest good is love, and the greatest love is to sacrifice oneself for another.

John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.​

However, there is a dilemma: can you truly do good if you can only choose to do good? Does a machine perform a morally good action by caring out pre-programmed instructions that ends up saving lives? Of course not. It is simply going through the motions. Without a will, and without a choice, an action is morally neutral.

Two things. It seems to me, based on our previous discussions, that you're saying the greatest good we can do is commit suicide, or lay down out lives as Jesus did. Might be something to think about.

And yes, you can do good if you only have the choice to do good. Morally good and good are two different things. We can't assign morality to a machine, as morality is human based. But I can say that a machine allowing a child to be airlifted to a hospital to save their lives is a good thing. Good doesn't necessarily relate to morality only.

The Solution? Choice.

Only by giving the ability to choose between doing good or doing evil can we in fact truly do good. Thus God gave us the capacity for both that we might choose to do what is good, accepting the logical consequence that we might also choose to do what is evil.

​

I don't think that is a logical conclusion as you're conflating good with morality.

Why does 'being the way we are created to be' take precedence over erasing suffering ?

Very good question. I would suggest that God doesn't have the problem to erase chaos, and thus can't erase suffering. Nor would I think God would want to erase suffering as suffering can be a good thing.

 

[iam1me]

Two things. It seems to me, based on our previous discussions, that you're saying the greatest good we can do is commit suicide, or lay down out lives as Jesus did. Might be something to think about.

The greatest good we can do is to sacrifice our lives for the sake of saving others. This is a qualified form of suicide, yes - and the qualification matters. In fact, we must lose our lives to save it.

Matthew 16:25 For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it.​

Not that this necessarily means a physical loss of life (though there are always martyrs too) - but it means that like Christ we must devote ourselves to doing God's will, wherever that take us.

And yes, you can do good if you only have the choice to do good. Morally good and good are two different things. We can't assign morality to a machine, as morality is human based. But I can say that a machine allowing a child to be airlifted to a hospital to save their lives is a good thing. Good doesn't necessarily relate to morality only.
I don't think that is a logical conclusion as you're conflating good with morality.

I am referring to moral action, not the pleasantness of a situation/outcome. The good in question is moral good. I think that was pretty clear, but if it was not then now you know. With that qualification understood, it is a logical conclusion.

 

[Koldo]

Very good question. I would suggest that God doesn't have the problem to erase chaos, and thus can't erase suffering. Nor would I think God would want to erase suffering as suffering can be a good thing.

I don't understand the second sentence in your post. Something seems amiss. Can you rephrase it ?

As for the last part,

1) I take it you mean suffering can be both a bad and a good thing. Why doesn't God erase suffering when it is a bad thing ?

2) Can you point at least one case where suffering is a good thing ? I will argue that even if suffering can lead to good things, it is unnecessary to lead to good things. And by being unnecessary to lead to good things, it is always a bad thing.

 

[Skwim]

I will agree that the examples you used, for those who are literalists, make a great argument.
I'm not getting how Isaiah 45:7 says that.

Very easily:

Isaiah 45:7
יֹוצֵר אֹור וּבֹורֵא חֹשֶׁךְ עֹשֶׂה שָׁלֹום וּבֹורֵא רָע אֲנִי יְהוָהעֹשֶׂה כָל־אֵֽלֶּה׃ ס

" I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. "​

So, if anyone does evil it's because god puts it there. If he didn't create it, it wouldn't be there to do.

But as for what most Christians think is really irrelevant when it comes to the argument I'm forming. Most Christians can be wrong.

I'd say that at the very least every Christian thinks other Christians, those whose beliefs are different are wrong.

When we look at what the scholarship says, what theologians actually say, it often stands in contrast to what most Christians say because most Christians aren't diving into the work. As for the omniscient idea. Being omniscient doesn't necessarily mean that God knows everything that will happen, but instead, God knows all of the possibilities. He knows what can happen, but not what will happen. This is a stance theologians have taken for quite some time. It could also be that God simply isn't omniscient, as the omniscient idea isn't as ancient as many may think.

Other than to excuse god for creating beings who rape, pillage, etc. I see no reason to qualify the notion of omniscience. The definition of the word itself is certainly never qualified to do so.

om·nis·cient
/ämˈnisēənt,ämˈniSHənt/

adjective
adjective: omniscient
knowing everything.​

_______________________________

omniscient
[ om-nish-uh nt ]

adjective
having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.
​

_______________________________

omniscient
om·nis·cient

adjective
The definition of omniscient is seeing all or knowing all.
An example of omniscient is God.​

_______________________________

omniscient
/ɑmˈnɪʃənt/
Adjective
Having total knowledge.

Etymology
From Medieval Latin omnisciens (“all-knowing”), from Latin omnis (“all”) + sciens (“knowing”).​

That or the author of Isaiah was trying to explain the world in which he lived, and thus attributed all to God. He does this because he's reaffirming there is just one god, and thus that god must have all the attributes of the gods. Giving God the power for light and darkness, peace and evil. Isaiah here is also going back to the creation stories, and trying to make sense of them (he's doing this in verses 1-7, and uses allusions to those older stories).

Nah, **** poor excuse. Isaiah 45:7 says what it does because the scholars and interpreters who put your Bible together felt this best represented the idea expressed in the source material

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." ​

But even working in that framework, when we look at evil, we are looking at chaos.

Why?

Chaos and evil are often associated.

Where?

It is out of chaos that God created the earth though, it is from disorder to order (not saying the creation is a literal thing, but that is the thought process). So evil is created, but it's used in order to create in general. So it's necessary.

Now you're really reaching and getting silly.

Two points here. If we look at the creation story, there is something at the beginning. Looking at Genesis 1, we are told that When God began to create heaven and earth, and the earth was then welter and waste and darkness over the deep and God's breath hovering over the water, God said Let there be light. Often it is pictured that this waste and darkness is chaos. If we look at Isaiah again, we see how connection between darkness and evil is formed. But it is out of this chaos, out of this darkness, that all is created.

Sorry but making up *** isn't acceptable.

Have a good day.

.

 

[amatuerscholar]

I am referring to moral action, not the pleasantness of a situation/outcome. The good in question is moral good. I think that was pretty clear, but if it was not then now you know. With that qualification understood, it is a logical conclusion.

I'm going to move past the whole suicide thing because we clearly have different definitions. As for good referring to moral good, you're trying to pigeonhole ideas in order to fit with a conclusion. That doesn't work. If you're only talking about moral good, then that really answers nothing as a whole. If a dog rips out my sons throat and kills him, I can't say that the dog was making a moral choice, as to place morality on a dog doesn't make sense. I can call it evil though, as opposed to being good. On the other hand, if that same dog instead rescues my son from drowning, the dog prevented evil even though there wasn't a moral choice in it's actions.

And that then gets back to your analogy about the machine, which can't make a moral choice, but as I presented, can do good.

More so, if we are looking at God and what God deems good, it isn't just morally based. So, it would reason that if God commands us to do good, He isn't just talking about what is morally right as God describes many other things as good. So your argument may be a logical conclusion when you pigeonhole ideas, but it breaks down quickly when we look at the topic as a whole.

I don't understand the second sentence in your post. Something seems amiss. Can you rephrase it ?

As for the last part,

1) I take it you mean suffering can be both a bad and a good thing. Why doesn't God erase suffering when it is a bad thing ?

2) Can you point at least one case where suffering is a good thing ? I will argue that even if suffering can lead to good things, it is unnecessary to lead to good things. And by being unnecessary to lead to good things, it is always a bad thing.

I go more into this in the article and podcast linked at the beginning, but if we look at physical suffering, it can be a good thing. If we just look at exercising. If I over exercise, and I push my limits, the next day I will most likely suffer. It's not necessarily a bad thing though as one, it helps me know my limits which can be a very beneficial thing, and two, while it may be suffering in the short term, it also means that you you're getting stronger or the like. If we move this a bit forward, if place my hand on a burner, and I start to burn myself, because of the pain, or suffering, I will quickly move my hand. I may suffer a bit more from the injuries, but it will be minimal. Now, if we remove that pain or suffering, I wouldn't move my hand, and the damage that would be inflicted would be much more serious, and possibly life threatening.

A good way to picture this is that there is a small segment of the population who can't feel pain. So that sort of suffering is removed from them. Yet they tend not to survive for very long as pain is often a warning that helps keep us alive.

So why doesn't God just eliminate the bad suffering? Could that even be possible? Let's say that I go out and get drunk. I'm feeling good so I get in my car and I run over someone in the street. I don't realize it, so there really is no bad suffering on my part. But the person I ran over suffered in a bad manner as did their family. At what point does God interact to change this? Does God interact my limiting my free will and preventing me from drinking and/or driving? Or does God prevent the free will of the person crossing the street by making them do something else? Or does God simply whisk the person away? The third option would cause many additional problems, and this is really just looking at a very simple problem.

Very easily:

Isaiah 45:7
יֹוצֵר אֹור וּבֹורֵא חֹשֶׁךְ עֹשֶׂה שָׁלֹום וּבֹורֵא רָע אֲנִי יְהוָהעֹשֶׂה כָל־אֵֽלֶּה׃ ס

" I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. "​

So, if anyone does evil it's because god puts it there. If he didn't create it, it wouldn't be there to do.

Okay, I get you. I will address this more later on in order to just keep it all together.
[quote
I'd say that at the very least every Christian thinks other Christians, those whose beliefs are different are wrong.[/quote] In pretty much every field, we can say certain people are either right or wrong. If Christians claim that Noah's flood is a historically accurate portrayal of history, they would clearly be wrong. If Christians claim that Paul was a Christian, they would be demonstrably false. So just because Christians may think something doesn't mean they are right. I can say that all YEC are wrong because they clearly are. Personally, I'm not all that concerned about what the general Christian thinks, because they don't have the background or expertise in many subjects.

However, I'm fine with Christians have different beliefs from mine, if it works for them. If they factually incorrect, such as saying there was a global flood, they are wrong, but if they say the Trinity doesn't exist, that's fine. One is demonstrably false through clear evidence, the other is more theological than anything else.

Other than to excuse god for creating beings who rape, pillage, etc. I see no reason to qualify the notion of omniscience. The definition of the word itself is certainly never qualified to do so.

A dictionary is great when it comes to a general overview of what a word means to the general public. But it doesn't tell us of the use in various fields. If we look at John Polkinghorne, in Science and Theology, he speaks of the idea of a limited omniscience.He argues for a inherent omniscience, versus a total omniscience. But he is hardly the first to suggest such, as can be seen in Augustine in his work, On Free Choice and Will.

Nah, **** poor excuse. Isaiah 45:7 says what it does because the scholars and interpreters who put your Bible together felt this best represented the idea expressed in the source material

Who are these scholars and interpreters who put it all together? The canon of the Old Testament was put together probably before Jesus was ever born. Smaller canon and collections were collected before the finalized canon. So it may be true some time back a thousand plus years ago, that's what some people thought was the best representation at that time, but what does that mean for today? Not much.

Why? Where?

Evil is the absence of good, in a general sense. If we look this from a Biblical perspective, good is order. Disorder, which is chaos, would then be evil. We can expand on the idea of evil, but a general perspective is needed.

Now you're really reaching and getting silly.

That is what the Bible says though. It goes from disorder or chaos, to order. That is the general understanding of creation, at least from a theological view (again, not saying it is literal, but saying that creation is not literal, but is meant to portray theology).

Sorry but making up *** isn't acceptable.

Have a good day.

.

Didn't make anything up. This is the standard view of the creation story, at least among scholars. It is largely the consensus view. So I'm not making anything up, I'm following what is the standard idea here.[/quote]

 

[Koldo]

I go more into this in the article and podcast linked at the beginning, but if we look at physical suffering, it can be a good thing. If we just look at exercising. If I over exercise, and I push my limits, the next day I will most likely suffer. It's not necessarily a bad thing though as one, it helps me know my limits which can be a very beneficial thing, and two, while it may be suffering in the short term, it also means that you you're getting stronger or the like. If we move this a bit forward, if place my hand on a burner, and I start to burn myself, because of the pain, or suffering, I will quickly move my hand. I may suffer a bit more from the injuries, but it will be minimal. Now, if we remove that pain or suffering, I wouldn't move my hand, and the damage that would be inflicted would be much more serious, and possibly life threatening.

A good way to picture this is that there is a small segment of the population who can't feel pain. So that sort of suffering is removed from them. Yet they tend not to survive for very long as pain is often a warning that helps keep us alive.

Sure, but that is still unnecessary suffering. Consider the case where you put your hand on a burner. Is it useful to feel pain in that case ? Sure but only if you can get burned in the first place. If you were invulnerable to fire, what purpose would this sort of suffering have ? None. If there is an alternative solution to a problem that doesn't require suffering then that suffering can't be excused. You would need to explain why the alternative is less desirable.

So why doesn't God just eliminate the bad suffering? Could that even be possible? Let's say that I go out and get drunk. I'm feeling good so I get in my car and I run over someone in the street. I don't realize it, so there really is no bad suffering on my part. But the person I ran over suffered in a bad manner as did their family. At what point does God interact to change this? Does God interact my limiting my free will and preventing me from drinking and/or driving? Or does God prevent the free will of the person crossing the street by making them do something else? Or does God simply whisk the person away? The third option would cause many additional problems, and this is really just looking at a very simple problem.

Which one of those would you consider a bad suffering ? All of them ? If so, then God could just remove the biggest suffering. Why not ? ( There is a more elegant alternative but I want to keep it apart rom this point. )
Why not ?

 

[iam1me]

I'm going to move past the whole suicide thing because we clearly have different definitions. As for good referring to moral good, you're trying to pigeonhole ideas in order to fit with a conclusion. That doesn't work. If you're only talking about moral good, then that really answers nothing as a whole. If a dog rips out my sons throat and kills him, I can't say that the dog was making a moral choice, as to place morality on a dog doesn't make sense. I can call it evil though, as opposed to being good. On the other hand, if that same dog instead rescues my son from drowning, the dog prevented evil even though there wasn't a moral choice in it's actions.

And that then gets back to your analogy about the machine, which can't make a moral choice, but as I presented, can do good.

I'm not pigeonholing anything - moral good is clearly the connotation of good to which I was referring and which is appropriate for a conversation on "God and Evil." Furthermore, we know that from a scriptural perspective, sin is the ultimate root of suffering in the world. The world has been tainted by sin, and is no longer the ideal paradise that God initially created. Sin is what brought about death. So even if by "evil" you meant simply: "why do bad things happen" - morality/sin is still very much at the center of the conversation.

More so, if we are looking at God and what God deems good, it isn't just morally based. So, it would reason that if God commands us to do good, He isn't just talking about what is morally right as God describes many other things as good. So your argument may be a logical conclusion when you pigeonhole ideas, but it breaks down quickly when we look at the topic as a whole.

God's will is morally right. The Law teaches morality. And the Law can be summed up as love. Love God and love your fellowman.

 

[amatuerscholar]

Sure, but that is still unnecessary suffering. Consider the case where you put your hand on a burner. Is it useful to feel pain in that case ? Sure but only if you can get burned in the first place. If you were invulnerable to fire, what purpose would this sort of suffering have ? None. If there is an alternative solution to a problem that doesn't require suffering then that suffering can't be excused. You would need to explain why the alternative is less desirable.

If we take this to the logical end though, what we are looking at are people who are superhuman. The alternative really would be people who were invincible. Basically we'd be looking at robots, and at that time, we get away from humanity.

Which one of those would you consider a bad suffering ? All of them ? If so, then God could just remove the biggest suffering. Why not ? ( There is a more elegant alternative but I want to keep it apart rom this point. )
Why not ?

The person being hit by a car would be bad suffering for that person. To remove that suffering, that person would have to feel no pain, and have super strength as not to be injured. That or God has to start messing with free will.

I'm not pigeonholing anything - moral good is clearly the connotation of good to which I was referring and which is appropriate for a conversation on "God and Evil." Furthermore, we know that from a scriptural perspective, sin is the ultimate root of suffering in the world. The world has been tainted by sin, and is no longer the ideal paradise that God initially created. Sin is what brought about death. So even if by "evil" you meant simply: "why do bad things happen" - morality/sin is still very much at the center of the conversation.

Here's the problem. You came into this discussion and then decided that your definition must be abided by. That's not how a conversation works. You can't just say oh, this is all about moral good, when I've shown that wasn't what was solely being talked about. Whatever your connotation may have been is irrelevant then as to get to your connotation, we must ignore everything else up to that point.

Furthermore, sin is not the ultimate root of suffering. Tell that to Job. More so, morality and sin are not the same thing. There are things that are sinful that aren't morally wrong. You're conflating to different ideas. As for what evil is, I've explained this elsewhere, that it is the absence of good, and as I've been clear, good isn't just in reference to morality. One can also call evil chaos, or disorder, as is often done in the Bible.

God's will is morally right. The Law teaches morality. And the Law can be summed up as love. Love God and love your fellowman.

The Law teaches a lot more than just morality. Yes, it lays down morality, but it lays down other things as well. More so, the Law is for Jews, not anyone else. More so, the idea that the sum of the law is love creates problems for the Law, as Jewish scholars have seen for centuries.

As for what is God's will, how can we even say what God's will is? We can't.

 

[Koldo]

If we take this to the logical end though, what we are looking at are people who are superhuman. The alternative really would be people who were invincible. Basically we'd be looking at robots, and at that time, we get away from humanity.

Why would being a superhuman entail being a robot ?

The person being hit by a car would be bad suffering for that person. To remove that suffering, that person would have to feel no pain, and have super strength as not to be injured. That or God has to start messing with free will.

Why does being invincible entail messing with free will ?

 

[amatuerscholar]

Why would being a superhuman entail being a robot ?

What is unnecessary suffering? You point out pain is unnecessary suffering. So we must be super strong, our organs must be perfectly operating. We must be impervious to both hot and cold. We can't get sick. We can't really have emotions as well. If my wife leaves me, that will cause a lot of suffering for me. If my children die, more suffering. So death is out as well. There's not much left for humanity there, and really it's more robotic than anything.

Why does being invincible entail messing with free will ?

Being invincible doesn't mess with free will. It causes other problems. But if aren't invincible, the only way to eliminate unnecessary suffering is by stripping us of free will.

 

[Koldo]

What is unnecessary suffering? You point out pain is unnecessary suffering. So we must be super strong, our organs must be perfectly operating. We must be impervious to both hot and cold. We can't get sick.

I will stop you right here for a moment. Is there any problem with being impervious to cold and hot, having invulnerable organs and not feeling pain ?
I just want to make sure we are on the same page.

We can't really have emotions as well. If my wife leaves me, that will cause a lot of suffering for me. If my children die, more suffering. So death is out as well. There's not much left for humanity there, and really it's more robotic than anything.

Death is out as well if we are to consider that death must cause suffering.
Joy, trust, optimism, anticipation, surprise, serenity, awe, ecstasy... One would still be able to feel all of them.
Either because people would be unable to experience bad feelings or because nothing would be able to trigger them.
Think about it this way: If nothing ever caused you to feel sad so far in your life, would you be a robot ? I don't see why.

Being invincible doesn't mess with free will. It causes other problems. But if aren't invincible, the only way to eliminate unnecessary suffering is by stripping us of free will.

Why? I mean, how does even eliminating free will would result in eliminating unnecessary suffering as a consequence ?

 

[Skwim]

A dictionary is great when it comes to a general overview of what a word means to the general public. But it doesn't tell us of the use in various fields. If we look at John Polkinghorne, in Science and Theology, he speaks of the idea of a limited omniscience.He argues for a inherent omniscience, versus a total omniscience. But he is hardly the first to suggest such, as can be seen in Augustine in his work, On Free Choice and Will.

Question is, WHY do they qualify "omniscience'? The Bible certainly doesn't suggest that omniscience should be limited.

1 John 3:20
For whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.

Job 28:24
For he looks to the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens.

Matthew 6:8
Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

John 6:64
But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)


In any case, you should be able to find dictionary entries that say "omniscient doesn't necessarily mean that God knows everything that will happen, but instead, God knows all of the possibilities. He knows what can happen, but not what will happen." Two or three examples will suffice.

Who are these scholars and interpreters who put it all together?

I have no idea, although, I'm sure if you check your Bible or a source that explains its translation into English, they should be mentioned.

The canon of the Old Testament was put together probably before Jesus was ever born. Smaller canon and collections were collected before the finalized canon. So it may be true some time back a thousand plus years ago, that's what some people thought was the best representation at that time, but what does that mean for today? Not much.

It means quite a bit today because the meaning of its English words, translated from whatever source, are important. If an English language Bible uses the word "rubbish" for "σκύβαλον" (skybalon), instead of, say "dirt," it must be because the choice of "rubbish" was felt to best expresses the intent of the original writer. So, if scholars use "evil," as in Isaiah 45:7,it must be because this is what they felt the original author of the verse meant.

Evil is the absence of good, in a general sense.

And good is the absence of evil, in a general sense. Now what?

If we look this from a Biblical perspective, good is order.

Why? Here's some order

​

Is it good?

Disorder, which is chaos, would then be evil.

Why? Here's some disorder.

​

Is it evil?

That is what the Bible says though. It goes from disorder or chaos, to order.

Where does it say this?

Didn't make anything up. This is the standard view of the creation story, at least among scholars. It is largely the consensus view. So I'm not making anything up, I'm following what is the standard idea here.

You said:

"Two points here. If we look at the creation story, there is something at the beginning. Looking at Genesis 1, we are told that When God began to create heaven and earth, and the earth was then welter and waste and darkness over the deep and God's breath hovering over the water, God said Let there be light. Often it is pictured that this waste and darkness is chaos. If we look at Isaiah again, we see how connection between darkness and evil is formed. But it is out of this chaos, out of this darkness, that all is created."
​

Where does the Bible say:

"the earth was then welter and waste"?
"God's breath hovering over the water,"?
​

Where does Isaiah say

how a connection is formed between darkness and evil?
"out of this chaos, out of this darkness, that all is created."

​

Chapters and verses please.

.

​

 

[amatuerscholar]

I will stop you right here for a moment. Is there any problem with being impervious to cold and hot, having invulnerable organs and not feeling pain ?
I just want to make sure we are on the same page.

Yes, there would be a problem. If we can't feel pain, it either means we most likely will die as we have no warning system in place to prevent us from possibly harming ourselves, or we simply can't be harmed. If we can't be harmed, that will lead to a massive amount of problems unless we are limited in some other way. What if I was psychotic and wanted to destroy everything around me. No one could stop me because I can't be harmed. Now, expand this to say 50 people who just want to cause havoc. And with superhuman ability, there will be people who take advantage of that, unless they are simply unable to cause any other sort of harm, which would mean stripping away free will.

Death is out as well if we are to consider that death must cause suffering.
Joy, trust, optimism, anticipation, surprise, serenity, awe, ecstasy... One would still be able to feel all of them.
Either because people would be unable to experience bad feelings or because nothing would be able to trigger them.
Think about it this way: If nothing ever caused you to feel sad so far in your life, would you be a robot ? I don't see why.

Could you feel anything though? There would be no reason to feel trust as no one could lie, as lying causes suffering. You may be able to feel other things, as long as they didn't cause harm or suffering to another person. If humans can't suffer, that means we can't go hungry, so there would be no reason to be ranchers or farmers because we would be immune from having to eat. No one would suffer the stress of not having money, but money promotes progress. I'm not going to go mining in some cave to help someone else out as mining sucks. There's no motivation to do that. So where would progress go? And then we'd have to live forever, so slowly nothing would be all that surprising, and life would become tedious.

Really, to strip life out of all unnecessary suffering strips life of much motivation as well. It strips the need to be creative, or even the possibility to be creative. If there is no motivation to gather raw materials, then how would we expect to create something like the means to produce electricity?

Why? I mean, how does even eliminating free will would result in eliminating unnecessary suffering as a consequence ?

We are all interconnected. My actions effect others, just as your actions do. If I just go about my life, people are going to be effected by my actions, and that can cause harm. Maybe I get distracted while driving and I hit another car. The effects ripple quite far. What if I'm distracted because I'm texting and driving, as is the case with many accidents? That's part of free will though. I can do irresponsible things, even if they effect others. To prevent this, free will has to be stripped away. If we go back to my first response here, I have the free will to cause chaos just because I want to. People do it all the time but it has the possibility of causing massive harm. So for no unnecessary harm, you have to strip away that possibility.

But you have to go further. So lets hypothetically say you decide to insult me just because, and it makes me upset (which it probably wouldn't, but let's assume it does). I work with my wife and there is a very real possibility that me being in a bad mood will make me become short with her, which will make her become short with our kids. So that's a good amount of suffering because of your choice to be insulting. Well we can't have that so your ability to insult others has to be stripped away.

Now push this one step further. Let's say we are having a political discussion, and you start ticking me off because I think your views are idiotic ( which is a common occurrence in political discussions. People tend to get upset). I'm angry to I take it out on my wife, who takes it out when her mom calls and she takes it out on her family. More suffering, so we have to strip away the ability to disagree because disagreements often lead to anger and suffering. That or we are stripped of the ability to care.