Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Not sure I buy that premise Ceridwen. We call the absense "evil".
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Well, that would certainly work under the assumption that god is good.Not sure I buy that premise Ceridwen. We call the absense "evil".
Isaiah 45:7 (JPS) -NetDoc said:God did not create evil. Evil is the absense of God.
But is God not ominpotent, and EVERYWHERE?NetDoc said:Not sure I buy that premise Ceridwen. We call the absense "evil".
SoulTYPE01 said:But is God not ominpotent, and EVERYWHERE?
Ceridwen018 said:Yes, this makes a lot of sense. Just because god is not 'good', doesn't mean he is 'bad'. The point is that we cannot put human labels on god. So it still stands then that god is not all-good, but that is because good is a human definition, (although given us by god), and god is above human definitions.
NetDoc said:Hmnnnn... the NIV renders this:
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.
The romanized word is "rah", and seems to have a plethora of meanings, some extrapolations and some not. Does anyone have a literal translation?
Strong's Lexicon lists "evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity". It is the same term used for "evil" in Genesis 2.9 and elsewhere. It is translated as "evil" in the standard from the Jewish Publishing Society (JPS). That is also the translation employed by the Hebrew Names Version, as well as Webster's, Darby, Young, and the ASV. It is likewise the term employed by the online Septuagint.NetDoc said:The romanized word is "rah", and seems to have a plethora of meanings, some extrapolations and some not. Does anyone have a literal translation?
Excellent, No*s!No*s said:God is not human, and "God is good" or "God is bad" can only describe aspects of His interaction and so on. He is not human, so He is neither "good" or "bad" anymore than a rattlesnake, snail, or an orange.
Please read the words I wrote. Please read all of them.NetDoc said:Hey Spinks...
So are you saying tsunamis are evil??? I can't answer your question until you answer that one.
Yes, but it goes beyond questioning why God allows evil to questioning why God perpetrates evil. Even if one leaves aside the biocide of the Global Flood, what remains is a pattern of rather ugly acts: the destruction of Sodom, the killing of the first born, the genocide of the Midianites, the enslaving of their virgin daughters, the shredding of 42 children by two she-bears. If the Tanach is taken literally, YHWH's commitment to excessive force is matched only by his disregard for collateral damage.No*s said:Whether one talks about evil in the sense of God's absence or evil in the sense of actions, I believe you can see the argument.
Deut. 32.8 said:Yes, but it goes beyond questioning why God allows evil to questioning why God perpetrates evil. Even if one leaves aside the biocide of the Global Flood, what remains is a pattern of rather ugly acts: the destruction of Sodom, the killing of the first born, the genocide of the Midianites, the enslaving of their virgin daughters, the shredding of 42 children by two she-bears.
To cry out in indignation: "How dare you presume to understand God! How dare you judge him!" is just a bit too convenient. Such a response can be used to justify just about anything.
Then, not understanding his actions, inactions, and intentions, you should not presume to market him as loving and caring.No*s said:My rsponse isn't "how dare" someone question God. My response is that we can't understand God.
Deut. 32.8 said:Then, not understanding his actions, inactions, and intentions, you should not presume to market him as loving and caring.
No, but it was entirely my fault. The "you" in my sentence referred, not to you personally, but to Judeo-Christian apologists in general, i.e., those who presume to argue that their God is worthy of worship.No*s said:I take offense here, because you are a intelligent person. You know what I said, and I'm pretty sure you understood it. Because of this, I assume you're choosing to ignore it for what for some reason.
I am reticent to answer further lest more words be stuck in my mouth that I did not utter. You may find my answers in posts 71 and 78 of this thread. But you didn't accept them then, so I doubt you will accept them now.I would be thrilled if NetDoc would give me a straight answer to my question.