Let the innocent children suffer

[jojom]

If you think it doesn't make sense, then its because you don't understand it. The concept makes fine sense.
Things are distinguished by contrast: you can't say someone is "wise" unless you can distinguish him from the "fool." If there is no fool to contrast with wisdom, then wisdom loses its meaning. One is no longer wise, one is just being.
The poster is saying that the same is true for "good". There is nothing that is positively good, unless it can be distinguished from the negative bad. Otherwise its just a neutral state of being.

To those trying excuse god, of course it does. But it's a flawed notion. To carry any validity it presupposes that what we call good couldn't be the the all-pervading norm in life. That in order for us to appreciate good god had to introduce evil, or just badness. The problem here is in the necessity of appreciating good. If all of life existed as a state of what we call goodness---no evil or badness whatsoever---god's original plan we are told---what is achieved in labeling it good: appreciating good? There isn't any. There would be no necessity to do so. It would simply be the status quo and left at that. Sure various things stand in opposition to each other; black vs. white, hot vs cold, high vs low, even wise vs foolish, although I don't see these as being direct opposites. but they don't carry the detrimental aspects of evil and bad: hurt and harm. And these are aspects of life I don't see a omnibenevolent god content to let exist. But god IS content to let them do so. In fact, the Bible tells us he purposely created evil. Think he did this so we would appreciate the good? If so, this brings right back to what I alluded to before: Where does the value lie in the necessity of appreciating good? There is none. The necessity doesn't benefit anyone or anything. What we call good could be the the all-pervading norm in life.

 

[Tumah]

To those trying excuse god, of course it does. But it's a flawed notion. To carry any validity it presupposes that what we call good couldn't be the the all-pervading norm in life. That in order for us to appreciate good god had to introduce evil, or just badness. The problem here is in the necessity of appreciating good. If all of life existed as a state of what we call goodness---no evil or badness whatsoever---god's original plan we are told---what is achieved in labeling it good: appreciating good? There isn't any. There would be no necessity to do so. It would simply be the status quo and left at that. Sure various things stand in opposition to each other; black vs. white, hot vs cold, high vs low, even wise vs foolish, although I don't see these as being direct opposites. but they don't carry the detrimental aspects of evil and bad: hurt and harm. And these are aspects of life I don't see a omnibenevolent god content to let exist. But god IS content to let them do so. In fact, the Bible tells us he purposely created evil. Think he did this so we would appreciate the good? If so, this brings right back to what I alluded to before: Where does the value lie in the necessity of appreciating good? There is none. The necessity doesn't benefit anyone or anything. What we call good could be the the all-pervading norm in life.

Oh, so you do understand the argument and it does make sense to you. You just have questions on the implications of the argument.

 

[jojom]

If you think it doesn't make sense, then its because you don't understand it. The concept makes fine sense.
Things are distinguished by contrast: you can't say someone is "wise" unless you can distinguish him from the "fool." If there is no fool to contrast with wisdom, then wisdom loses its meaning. One is no longer wise, one is just being.
The poster is saying that the same is true for "good". There is nothing that is positively good, unless it can be distinguished from the negative bad. Otherwise its just a neutral state of being.

To those trying excuse god, of course it does. But it's a flawed notion. To carry any validity it presupposes that what we call good couldn't be the the all-pervading norm in life. That in order for us to appreciate good god had to introduce evil, or just badness. The problem here is in the necessity of appreciating good. If all of life existed as a state of what we call goodness---no evil or badness whatsoever---god's original plan we are told---what is achieved in labeling it good: appreciating good? There isn't any. There would be no necessity to do so. It would simply be the status quo and left at that. Sure various things stand in opposition to each other; black vs. white, hot vs cold, high vs low, even wise vs foolish, although I don't see these as being direct opposites. but they don't carry the deterimental aspects of evil and bad: hurtful and harmful. And these are aspects of life I don't see a omnibenevolent god content to let exist. But god IS content to let them do so. In fact, the Bible tells us he purposely created evil. Think he did this so we would
appreciate the good? If so, this brings right back to what I alluded to before: Where does the value lie in the necessity of appreciating good? There is none. The necessity doesn't benefit anyone or anything. What we call good could be the the all-pervading norm in life.

 

[jojom]

This is of course Gods fault, man has nothing to do with the distribution of wealth. Is it God that owns the printing presses and all the material things or Humans.

Second money is not necessary. It is a Human made devise to insure people can maintain their wealth and status.


I have a friend who's son is 35 and does ministry work. The son has been doing this since he was 18. My friend told me a story of how he owns nothing and for his birthday they went out and bought him a whole bunch of clothes and suitcases from the mall for his next trip. When his son came back he only had the clothes on his back. His father upset quizzed him on it. His response the people in the county needed it more. My friend now buys his sons gifts from discount stores and thrift stores.

Unfortunately his Son is the exception when it comes to humans. If we all could live to his sons standards very few humans would be suffering. Good luck with blaming God.

Have a good day.

 

[jojom]

Oh, so you do understand the argument and it does make sense to you. You just have questions on the implications of the argument.

I give up. Have a good day.

 

[bobhikes]

To those trying excuse god, of course it does. But it's a flawed notion. To carry any validity it presupposes that what we call good couldn't be the the all-pervading norm in life. That in order for us to appreciate good god had to introduce evil, or just badness. The problem here is in the necessity of appreciating good. If all of life existed as a state of what we call goodness---no evil or badness whatsoever---god's original plan we are told---what is achieved in labeling it good: appreciating good? There isn't any. There would be no necessity to do so. It would simply be the status quo and left at that. Sure various things stand in opposition to each other; black vs. white, hot vs cold, high vs low, even wise vs foolish, although I don't see these as being direct opposites. but they don't carry the deterimental aspects of evil and bad: hurtful and harmful. And these are aspects of life I don't see a omnibenevolent god content to let exist. But god IS content to let them do so. In fact, the Bible tells us he purposely created evil. Think he did this so we would
appreciate the good? If so, this brings right back to what I alluded to before: Where does the value lie in the necessity of appreciating good? There is none. The necessity doesn't benefit anyone or anything. What we call good could be the the all-pervading norm in life.

It never said God purposely created evil. What is said is the God created choice. If I was God and want valuable creations I would give them the ability to decide there fate. Those that chose to be with me are those that would be with me. I would not want to overly influence the choice for what value would you be if I kept pushing and prodding you to do right. This world you see before you is perfect for a god of love that wants his creation to choose love. The problems you see are bad human choices. What you don't realize is that to God your life on earth is only a part of the many pin heads which are stuck in the whole of the universe.

 

[LASTINGLIGHT]

It never said God purposely created evil. What is said is the God created choice. If I was God and want valuable creations I would give them the ability to decide there fate. Those that chose to be with me are those that would be with me. I would not want to overly influence the choice for what value would you be if I kept pushing and prodding you to do right. This world you see before you is perfect for a god of love that wants his creation to choose love. The problems you see are bad human choices. What you don't realize is that to God your life on earth is only a part of the many pin heads which are stuck in the whole of the universe.

God specifically states in the Bible "I create evil".

 

[jojom]

It never said God purposely created evil.

Isaiah 45:7 (KJ21)
7 I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things.​

What is said is the God created choice.

Where?

 

[McBell]

If you think it doesn't make sense, then its because you don't understand it. The concept makes fine sense.
Things are distinguished by contrast: you can't say someone is "wise" unless you can distinguish him from the "fool." If there is no fool to contrast with wisdom, then wisdom loses its meaning. One is no longer wise, one is just being.
The poster is saying that the same is true for "good". There is nothing that is positively good, unless it can be distinguished from the negative bad. Otherwise its just a neutral state of being.

So using this understanding one can say that God cannot exist unless there is an opposite to compare him to?

 

[Tumah]

So using this understanding one can say that God cannot exist unless there is an opposite to compare him to?

I guess if one were to believe that everything that G-d is the embodiment of good, maybe...
Otherwise, I would just say that you couldn't describe G-d as good unless there is the opposite to compare him to.

 

[McBell]

I guess if one were to believe that everything that G-d is the embodiment of good, maybe...
Otherwise, I would just say that you couldn't describe G-d as good unless there is the opposite to compare him to.

and what would this opposite of god be?
the one that can be compared to him?

 

[Tumah]

and what would this opposite of god be?
the one that can be compared to him?

I guess anything that's not good?

 

[McBell]

I guess anything that's not good?

how can "anything" not good be comparable to an all knowing all powerful good?

Furthermore, some people claim god is all god.
Would that not mean we would need an all bad to compare an all good to?

I am of course ignoring the subjectivity of the words good and bad.

 

[Tumah]

how can "anything" not good be comparable to an all knowing all powerful good?

So you are saying, if G-d is really just the personification of good, then how can anything be His equal antithesis?
I'm not sure how someone who believed that would answer this question. Perhaps they would say that evil does not to be equally evil in order to contrast with G-d and that its existence is enough to provide that differentiation?
That's a question I would direct at a Christian really, since they are more inclined to believe something like that.

That's not what I was saying though. I was saying that the conception of "good" can't be applied to G-d, without its contrasting "evil". Not that G-d Himself is the personification of good.

 

[McBell]

So you are saying, if G-d is really just the personification of good, then how can anything be His equal antithesis?
I'm not sure how someone who believed that would answer this question. Perhaps they would say that evil does not to be equally evil in order to contrast with G-d and that its existence is enough to provide that differentiation?
That's a question I would direct at a Christian really, since they are more inclined to believe something like that.

That's not what I was saying though.

Fair enough.

I was saying that the conception of "good" can't be applied to G-d, without its contrasting "evil". Not that G-d Himself is the personification of good.

So good relies upon evil for its very existence?

 

[Tumah]

Fair enough.


So good relies upon evil for its very existence?

II think so, so long as we understand that we are talking about the concept of "good". An action could exist without the concept of "good", it just can't be described as such.
So for instance, I would say that G-d divested of the entire creation, can only be described as "is". Once the creation of "good" and "evil" exists, we can now ascribe to G-d, "good".

 

[bobhikes]

Isaiah 45:7 (KJ21)
7 I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things.​

Where?

You mean this Isaiah 45:7

-New International version: "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things."
-New American Standard Bible: "The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these."
-Amplified Bible: "I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and I create evil ; I am the Lord, Who does all these things."
-New Living Translation: "I am the one who creates the light and makes the darkness. I am the one who sends good times and bad times. I, the LORD, am the one who does these things."
-King James: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
-Contemporary English: "I create light and darkness, happiness and sorrow. I, the LORD, do all of this."
-New International Version - UK: "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things."

Besides my God is not the God of the Bible. I don't recall quoting any Bible and the threads is in the forum General Religious debates not Christian.

 

[jojom]

You mean this Isaiah 45:7

-New International version: "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things."
-New American Standard Bible: "The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these."
-Amplified Bible: "I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and I create evil ; I am the Lord, Who does all these things."
-New Living Translation: "I am the one who creates the light and makes the darkness. I am the one who sends good times and bad times. I, the LORD, am the one who does these things."
-King James: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
-Contemporary English: "I create light and darkness, happiness and sorrow. I, the LORD, do all of this."
-New International Version - UK: "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things."

Yeah, that's the one: Isaiah 45:7

KJ21
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things.

ASV
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.

BRG
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

DARBY
forming the light and creating darkness, making peace and creating evil: I, Jehovah, do all these things.

DRA
I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.

GNV
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

JUB
I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil: I am the LORD that does all this.

KJV
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

AKJV
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

LEB
I form light and I create darkness; I make peace and I create evil; I am Yahweh; I do all these things.

WYC
forming light, and making darknesses, making peace, and forming evil; I am the Lord, doing all these things.

YLT
Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I [am] Jehovah, doing all these things.

Besides my God is not the God of the Bible. I don't recall quoting any Bible and the threads is in the forum General Religious debates not Christian.

Sorry, but I don't see this as relevant to anything in our discussion; although you did seeming reference the Bible in your remark about "it" in post 66.

"It never said God purposely created evil."​

 

[Nakosis]

Assuming god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, why do innocent children suffer? The most common responses I've heard are:

1. God works in mysterious way. (Implication: children suffer for good reason.)

2. Who are we to question god's reasons for doing anything? (Implication: children suffer for good reason.)

3. What appears to us to be bad is really for the better. We are just incapable of seeing it. (Implication: children suffer for good reason.)
​

Whatever the case, as I point out, these responses imply that children suffer for a very good reason. However, if this is the case does anyone have the right to step into god's plan and alleviate the suffering? Should we be bringing children to doctors and hospitals to stop the suffering? If so, then where do we draw the line between trying to stop such suffering, and going along with god's plan to let children suffer? And, should we even care about the millions that suffered and died in WWII concentration camps?

if you do, then it was God's plan. Whatever happens, is God's plan. Whatever you feel about what happens, is also God's plan. Nothing is stopping you from doing whatever you do, just know that you doing so is God's plan.

 

[jojom]

if you do, then it was God's plan. Whatever happens, is God's plan. Whatever you feel about what happens, is also God's plan. Nothing is stopping you from doing whatever you do, just know that you doing so is God's plan.

So, are you saying that it's god's plan that we should not step in to stop the suffering that he permits children go through? Or that it's god's plan that we should step in to stop the suffering that he permits children go through?