Why did God create evil?

[Blackdog22]

Yeah, I was just joking.

Oh..... well, then...... enjoy a tasty beverage :beach:.

 

[javajo]

I suppose if a person wants to believe that God created evil so they can say Christianity makes no sense and discard it, that is their right. I as a mere human do not presume to know everything about why or how an infinite all-knowledgeable, all-wise God planned everything. I do have what he has revealed in his Word and I believe God is Love and I trust him.

Whether God created evil or just allows it, I believe he allowed evil to give us a free will so we would choose to serve and love him and all that is good, genuinely and not out of obligation or as machines. That way we will have true fellowship and friendship with God.

There is so much about God we do understand from the Word. Just as I know a (very) little about my pc, there is a lot I don't know, but that doesn't stop me from using it. Same with my car, I don't know all about it, but I trust it to get me to where I am going. That's just my thots on the subject, I don't expect anyone to agree with me.

 

[javajo]

Oh..... well, then...... enjoy a tasty beverage :beach:.

I will, a bit later, still have a good bit of vodka...yummy, warm and tasty. :beach:

 

[waitasec]

This is an interesting question as are the other thoughts you posted in #174...so how is it possible that god had knowledge of evil if it didn't exist or good for that matter?
god said all that he created was good... good has no meaning if there wasn't anything to compare it to.


I think we can only speculate, but I believe since the scriptures state that God is eternal and good then good has always existed and since He is omniscient and aware of all things He knew about the possibility of evil, but evil did not become a reality until it arose out of the thoughts of Lucifer.

but good has no meaning if the knowledge of it wasn't realized as well as with the knowledge of evil.
the implication that there was a tree of knowledge of good and evil points to the existence of good and evil before adam and eve were aware of these ideals...

from my perspective, "the possibility of evil" doesn't make sense...for anything to be possible, it would have to exist in the 1st place

lucifer is representing an ideal in a smaller capacity...

 

[Acim]

the implication that there was a tree of knowledge of good and evil points to the existence of good and evil before adam and eve were aware of these ideals...

from my perspective, "the possibility of evil" doesn't make sense...for anything to be possible, it would have to exist in the 1st place

That you don't understand that knowledge precedes and/or supersedes existence is part of the issue you are having in this thread.

That you don't understand that 'tree of knowledge' is catalyst to the tale is another part of the issue you are having.

And that you don't grasp that evil doesn't actually exist is the third part.

I remember what it was like to believe in existence of evil / very bad stuff, as something outside of my thinking and attributed to either God or some unknown force. Took a whole lot of denial of responsibility to keep that illusion going.

 

[waitasec]

That you don't understand that knowledge precedes and/or supersedes existence is part of the issue you are having in this thread.

That you don't understand that 'tree of knowledge' is catalyst to the tale is another part of the issue you are having.

And that you don't grasp that evil doesn't actually exist is the third part.

I remember what it was like to believe in existence of evil / very bad stuff, as something outside of my thinking and attributed to either God or some unknown force. Took a whole lot of denial of responsibility to keep that illusion going.

i think you misunderstood what you were responding to.

this metaphor fails because the tree of knowledge might as well been call the tree of knowledge of glipper and glopper...
if there is no knowledge of it there is no understanding of it either.

 

[Acim]

i think you misunderstood what you were responding to.

this metaphor fails because the tree of knowledge might as well been call the tree of knowledge of glipper and glopper...
if there is no knowledge of it there is no understanding of it either.

Disagree. Knowledge and understanding are not the same.

Knowledge of glipper and glopper could equal to 'knowing these do not exist, but may be used by those caught up in illusion.' While understanding will insist that we define each term first and go from there, and in defining them, we must assume they exist in some rationale way, otherwise the definitions will be irrational.

Understanding relies on judgment, and judgment lacks knowledge.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Isaiah 45:7



Why would the Lord create evil? I'm sure Christians can explain this; I'm not looking for an argument, I'd just like to understand. Is this quote taken out of context?

Us Christians are pretty poor at explaining this. I use a yin/yang approach. We can't percieve good without evil. This perception is what allows us to choose.

 

[Skwim]

Us Christians are pretty poor at explaining this. I use a yin/yang approach. We can't percieve good without evil. This perception is what allows us to choose.

So you can't choose between 2, or 128 things without one of them being evil? How about eliminating that one evil thing, leaving you with 127 things, can't these still be ranked on a "goodness scale," some being "gooder" than others? I don't see why evil is necessary to anchor any goodness scale.

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

What's the point in obeying a God who doesn't let you have knowledge? Lucifer seems more like a savior than Jesus, being that he actually gave us something, Jesus gave us freedom from the Noahide laws... But still if you do them you go to hell, so basically he didn't accomplish anything.

God loves you. That is why you should obey Him.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

God loves you. That is why you should obey Him.

If God loved us, he wouldn't have created Satan, hell, cancer, malaria, etc.

 

[Skwim]

God loves you. That is why you should obey Him.

No offense, but that sounds rather stupid. What is it about receiving the love from something that obligates one to obey it? I love JoAnn therefore she should obey me! I love my president therefore he should obey me! This makes sense to you?

 

[9Westy9]

So you can't choose between 2, or 128 things without one of them being evil? How about eliminating that one evil thing, leaving you with 127 things, can't these still be ranked on a "goodness scale," some being "gooder" than others? I don't see why evil is necessary to anchor any goodness scale.

Without evil we have nothing to compare good to. All actions become good, making good a redundant term.

 

[InChrist]

Perhaps, but in this passage in Isaiah it isn't you, or I, or anyone being conquered who is using the word "evil." It's god, and he's saying he created it. "I . . . create evil."

That's fine, but in this case it also purports to be quoting god himself, "I . . . create evil," not any poor recipient of his wrath.


And that's the dilemma you and others are trying to extricate yourselves from. You want it both ways: take the Bible as the word of god when it suits your theology, but deny it's the word of god when it doesn't.

Of course not, they're too embarrassing.

and vengeful, wrathful, jealous, petty, intolerant, and evil.

Same for the characteristics I've listed. So what does one do? Pick one of the two lists and run with it while ignoring the other altogether, or does one recognize that they both apply and adjust one's concept of god accordingly? OR . . . does one dismiss both lists altogether? Pretty obvious which one Christians pick.

Hey, I never claimed the Bible is truth, as you do. That you accept that he and others depict him as good, just, holy, righteous, patient, and loving is fine. However, you can't turn around and then ignore the negative things said about him. Well, you can if you choose to be dishonest about it.

The problem is, Christians find it difficult to abide by their claim that the Bible is the word of god, and delivers only the truth. Instead, they have to strangle their theology to such an extent that to the outsider it takes on the guise of self-serving gibberish whose message doesn't begin to match up with the source material.

To the outsider, Christianity requires more than faith; it also requires turning a blind eye.

[FONT=&quot]With your style of interpretation, if you were an alcoholic instead of an agnostic, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]you would interpret the following verse, “No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities. 1 Tim. 5:23”, something like this:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I don’t believe the Bible, but it does say to use wine. So although I don’t believe in the Bible, no one can tell me this verse doesn’t mean what it says concerning the use of wine. When a relative concerned about your excessive drinking points out the context of this verse and that it was specifically given by Paul to Timothy for his particular stomach ailments and it says to use a little, you just remind them that the Bible plainly says to use wine, the amount can be relative. If a friend comes along and says that elsewhere in the book of Timothy believers are instructed not to drink too much wine and that in other parts of the Bible warning is given against drunkenness, you remind them again that you do not actually believe the Bible is true, you’re not a believer, but you readily accuse them of trying to ignore a clear verse that says to use wine. According to you, they are not willing to accept the entire Bible like this part about using wine, but you’re certain about what it says, therefore you are justified in your use of wine or any other alcoholic beverage since all they probably had back then was wine anyway. Never mind that you don’t believe the Bible, you definitely do believe this verse about wine and you want everyone to know about this verse. It doesn’t matter at all what the rest of the Bible has to say on the subject or why this verse was written.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You really can make the Bible say whatever you want it to say, but that does not mean what you are attempting to make it say is true. The Bible is to be taken as a whole and scripture is to interpret scripture …knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation 2Peter 1:20. Proper hermeneutics includes asking the following questions while attempting to understand the meaning of a verses or passage: who was it written to, what was occurring, when did it happen, where did it take place, and why did it happen and why was it recorded?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Do you ask any of these questions or do you prefer to ask only one question…how? “How can I use a certain verse or passage to make God or the Bible look bad? How can I come up with an interpretation that supports my view against the biblical God?” But your own private interpretation is flawed and falls into the category of twisting the scriptures…as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.2 Peter 3;16.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In the version I read (NKJV) the word used instead of evil in Isaiah 45:7 is calamity. I think this is a more accurate word than evil used in the Old English KJV and fits the context of the passages in Isaiah which are about the judgment and calamity God brings upon Babylon for their wickedness. If the scriptures were trying to inform readers that God actually created moral evil it would have been included in Genesis.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You are certainly free to believe that God created evil if that helps you rationalize your personal animosity toward Him or reject any authority you don't want Him to have over your life, but I think trying to validate your view with this verse in Isaiah is your own interpretation which does not line up with the rest of scripture. [/FONT]

 

[strikeviperMKII]

If God loved us, he wouldn't have created Satan, hell, cancer, malaria, etc.

Yeah...

Because your parents should have locked you in a room and kept you from all the bad things that are out in the world. Because they love you.

To love doesn't mean to keep evil away from you. Love expresses itself more when evil is the strongest force. You cannot have good without evil, love without hate, pleasure without pain, life without death. You must have both sides. Otherwise you would know the difference in name only, without any shred of meaning.

It is like saying that you can just magically grow muscles without doing anything at all. Just one day you wake up and poof, you're completely ripped. It doesn't work that way. You have to do something, and the best way to do it is to work out. Anyone who does a good work out will tell you that they feel a whole lot better after the workout than before.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Yeah...

Because your parents should have locked you in a room and kept you from all the bad things that are out in the world. Because they love you.

To love doesn't mean to keep evil away from you. Love expresses itself more when evil is the strongest force. You cannot have good without evil, love without hate, pleasure without pain, life without death. You must have both sides. Otherwise you would know the difference in name only, without any shred of meaning.

It is like saying that you can just magically grow muscles without doing anything at all. Just one day you wake up and poof, you're completely ripped. It doesn't work that way. You have to do something, and the best way to do it is to work out. Anyone who does a good work out will tell you that they feel a whole lot better after the workout than before.

Fine, then let me center on the existence of hell. There is no definition of a "loving parent" that would allow their child to wander into a volcano (which they can't see) where they will suffer forever for not following the vague contradictory rules (mixed with stories) left with them while the parent hides in the bushes.

 

[idav]

Fine, then let me center on the existence of hell. There is no definition of a "loving parent" that would allow their child to wander into a volcano (which they can't see) where they will suffer forever for not following the vague contradictory rules (mixed with stories) left with them while the parent hides in the bushes.

Sometimes the volcano gods require pure sacrifices.

 

[InChrist]

No offense, but that sounds rather stupid. What is it about receiving the love from something that obligates one to obey it? I love JoAnn therefore she should obey me! I love my president therefore he should obey me! This makes sense to you?

God does love and care for you so it would be thoughtful and loving in return if you would consider His wisdom and follow His directions, but the reason you are to obey Him is because He is the Creator and has authority over your life.

 

[InChrist]

Without evil we have nothing to compare good to. All actions become good, making good a redundant term.

You may have a point, but one does not have to participate in evil to understand it. A parent can teach their child about bad things or behaviors (drug addiction, driving under the influence, stealing, joining a gang, etc.) and the child can learn and understand without becoming involving or doing those bad things, whatever it may be.

 

[9Westy9]

You may have a point, but one does not have to participate in evil to understand it. A parent can teach their child about bad things or behaviors (drug addiction, driving under the influence, stealing, joining a gang, etc.) and the child can learn and understand without becoming involving or doing those bad things, whatever it may be.

I never claimed that you needed to partake in it to understand it. If there is no evil there is no concept of evil. There would be no need to teach about bad behaviour as 'bad behaviour' wouldn't exist.