Why did God create evil?

[The Sum of Awe]

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

Again - Wonderful answer! Perfect! I think you got it all down!

 

[waitasec]

Disagree. Knowledge and understanding are not the same.

i never said they were.
do you know what a glipper is? explain your understanding of it...

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.

explain how can you define what you don't know?

Understanding relies on judgment, and judgment lacks knowledge.

knowledge is the foundation for judgement and understanding.
otherwise how can one judge what they don't know?

 

[Skwim]

Without evil we have nothing to compare good to.

Really? As I said HERE

"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."
​

All actions become good, making good a redundant term.

And, if it made the word superfluous, so what? If there's no use for a word then why keep it around?

 

[Blackdog22]

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.

If he automatically has authority over my life for creating me then I don't really have free will do I?

Also the idea that he loves and cares for us is unfounded. At no point in my life have I seen any reason to believe that some invisible guy in the sky cares about any of us at all. I have seen multiple things to suggest otherwise.

Also, your Gods kindness can be seen in the mass genocide he lays out on other people.

 

[Blackdog22]

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.

A good parent would do everything in their power to keep evil or harm from befalling you. They try to raise you to avoid the evil in this world. They evil cannot be helped, thus their only choice is to teach you the best they can and send you out into the world to live the best that you can. If it was up to my mom cancer would be done away with and so would aids, however she has no power to change this. God not only has the power to change this, but actually created this.

Your comparison makes no sense when comparing a human vs a God being.

Also, good can exist without evil, hot without cold, life without death. If good can't exist without evil then nothing God did was good before evil was introduced. Would you submit to this flawed idea? There are planets that are still cold despite having no heat. Surely you must think their is some hope for life in Heaven despite their being no death?

The only effect having the opposite of a given ideal is that you understand how precious what you have is. Both can exist on their own independent from one another, but cannot be fully appreciated. At least this is my opinion.

 

[Skwim]

With your style of interpretation, if you were an alcoholic instead of an agnostic, 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:

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.

That's quite a false analogy you've got going for yourself here, and one certainly not worth addressing.

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?

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.

There's a lot of words in what you say, and not much else. If you can't address the points I've made so be it.

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.

And I should care how you interpret the Bible because: __________________Fill in the blank_________________________ ?

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.

Come, come. Argumentum ad hominem was never convincing when you used it before and it isn't convincing now. Give it a rest.

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.

Well, that's a slightly better reason, but that I should obey him because he's my creator is no better than because he loves me. The only part that's better is because he has authority over me, in effect meaning, if I don't do as he says I will suffer for it. Problem is, his only so-called direction (his word), the Bible, is hardly convincing. In fact, it really speaks against the claim. So I fail to see any direction to follow.

"I make peace, and create evil" is no less clear than "I form the light and create darkness."

But go ahead and cherry-pick your theology, just don't try to tell us it's reasonable and expect us to believe you.

 

[Awoon]

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?

The ancients believed every happening was from their Gods.

 

[javajo]

I can't move! If I try to go from my chair to the door, I must first travel half the distance, right? But then to get half way, I must first travel half of that, or one-fourth the distance, eh? But to get half way to that, I have to travel one eight the distance, and to get halfway to that, one sixteenth of the distance, and so on and so forth ad infinitum. Logically speaking, I can't move!

That was Zeno's paradox, but I know I can move and can prove it by just walking to the door. In other words, logic is something that can be manipulated. That seems to happen a lot on this thread.

 

[Acim]

i never said they were.

You said if there is no knowledge, there is no understanding. Implying the two go together. One can have knowledge of things, and not need to understand.

do you know what a glipper is?

Yes.

explain your understanding of it

Why?

explain how can you define what you don't know?

By making up understanding. I don't know what the future will bring, and don't know that tomorrow exists, will ever exist. But would you like for me to provide you a definition of tomorrow? Most things (arguably all things) that are defined, reflect a fuzzy knowledge of those things. The obvious ones are obvious. The less obvious ones, where I / we feel certain we know these things, the definition seems all the more clear.

Knowledge of good and evil would be prime example of something that when separated into two terms, the understanding is very fuzzy. I think some people claim that they know good when they see it (or experience it) and pretty much same for evil.

knowledge is the foundation for judgement and understanding.
otherwise how can one judge what they don't know?

Happens all the time. You make up an understanding of what a thing is, and then you utilize judgment to essentially draw a distinction between various understandings, and namely between the perception of 'not me.' This happens on deeper levels of awareness than I think you are getting, especially with simplistic claim of, "knowledge is the foundation for judgment and understanding.'' It's not that I disagree with this, but judgment and understanding are attempting to make sense of idea of 'partial knowledge.' And within relative world, I think there is sense to this. But the deeper awareness I have of knowledge would suggest (strongly) otherwise. That judgment is antithesis of knowledge, and that understanding is for want of knowledge. As if knowledge is not a given, and needs to be sought.

 

[9Westy9]

Really? As I said HERE

"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."

​

And, if it made the word superfluous, so what? If there's no use for a word then why keep it around?

If there is no evil then all actions become as good as each other in any given situation, surely? reason being that in any given situation there is no option that can hurt or damage the minority, all actions become good. Just curious as to how it would be possible to rank these on a 'goodness scale'?

 

[waitasec]

You said if there is no knowledge, there is no understanding. Implying the two go together. One can have knowledge of things, and not need to understand.

nope. one relies on the other they are not the same thing..

Yes

.
what is it?

Why?

to convey your understanding of it. in my world, in order to communicate, we need to have a basic understanding of what words mean...in this case, what is the definition of glipper?

By making up understanding. I don't know what the future will bring, and don't know that tomorrow exists, will ever exist. But would you like for me to provide you a definition of tomorrow? Most things (arguably all things) that are defined, reflect a fuzzy knowledge of those things. The obvious ones are obvious. The less obvious ones, where I / we feel certain we know these things, the definition seems all the more clear.

you know tomorrows have come and gone because you have experienced them many many times...so you know what tomorrow is
you know what tomorrow brings is unknown because you have experienced that many many times

Knowledge of good and evil would be prime example of something that when separated into two terms, the understanding is very fuzzy.

hey i didn't come up with this metaphor...

I think some people claim that they know good when they see it (or experience it) and pretty much same for evil.
Happens all the time. You make up an understanding of what a thing is, and then you utilize judgment to essentially draw a distinction between various understandings, and namely between the perception of 'not me.'

no wonder there are so many cases of misunderstandings...
this mentality of making up your own definition only causes confusion...

This happens on deeper levels of awareness than I think you are getting, especially with simplistic claim of, "knowledge is the foundation for judgment and understanding.'' It's not that I disagree with this, but judgment and understanding are attempting to make sense of idea of 'partial knowledge.'

this is dangerous thinking because it implies that some have the correct understanding about things of others...things that really have no grounds to be judged.
same sex marriage for example... some have the understanding that homosexulaity is wrong and evil...when they are not in a position to judge such things for other people.
those who are homosexual can judge homosexuality...if one isn't gay, doesn't know what it's like to be gay, why get involved in matters that don't concern them?
the truth of the matter is homosexuality exists. some don't like it and this is how they deal with it...by subjecting homosexuals to their understanding of it as a wrong without knowing what it is to be gay...even to the point to where it is placed in the same box as murder.

And within relative world, I think there is sense to this. But the deeper awareness I have of knowledge would suggest (strongly) otherwise. That judgment is antithesis of knowledge, and that understanding is for want of knowledge. As if knowledge is not a given, and needs to be sought.

i disagree. because what you are saying is that homosexuals aren't homosexuals because what they know of homosexuality isn't correctly judged as homosexuality... as judgement is the antithesis of knowledge.

 

[rusra02]

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?

Good question. In the Bible, evil is not always synonymous with wicked. For example, God brought evil upon mankind in Noah's day by destroying them in a Flood. Genesis 8:21 quotes God as saying; "Never again shall I call down evil upon the ground on man's account". The Flood caused pain and death and could be thus called an evil, but it was not unrighteous or wrong. Rather, it served to cleanse the Earth of those who were filling it with badness and violence. (Genesis 6:9,10)
Similarly, the 10 plagues God brought upon the Egyptians brought evil upon them, calamity and suffering. God acted justly and righteously in this instance as well.
One modern translation (NWT) translates Isaiah 45:7 this way: "Forming light and creating darkness, making peace and creating calamity, I, Jehovah, am doing all these things."

 

[rusra02]

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

But, of course, God didn't create Satan, a fiery hell does not exist, and diseases are the result of our first parent's sin (Romans 5:12).

 

[The Sum of Awe]

But, of course, God didn't create Satan, a fiery hell does not exist, and diseases are the result of our first parent's sin (Romans 5:12).

Interesting how you think you are the only one right, getting your own translations to renew the Bible to make it make sense to you, right? Because as long as it makes sense to you makes it correct, and all of the rest of the Bible talking about Hell and Satan could mean something else.


I completely understand

 

[Gjallarhorn]

But, of course, God didn't create Satan, a fiery hell does not exist, and diseases are the result of our first parent's sin (Romans 5:12).

If God didn't create Satan, then Satan doesn't exist. If you wish to argue that Satan made his own choices and was not forced to do anything, may I remind you that God, in knowing all things, knows the future. He created Satan fully aware of his choices in life.

 

[waitasec]

If God didn't create Satan, then Satan doesn't exist. If you wish to argue that Satan made his own choices and was not forced to do anything, may I remind you that God, in knowing all things, knows the future. He created Satan fully aware of his choices in life.

god created the capacity for evil...
therefore evil existed before the capacity for it

 

[Skwim]

If there is no evil then all actions become as good as each other in any given situation, surely? reason being that in any given situation there is no option that can hurt or damage the minority, all actions become good. Just curious as to how it would be possible to rank these on a 'goodness scale'?

Take a sport, say football. are any plays really evil? I don't think so, yet in any given situation some will work better than others, and these will be the "gooder" plays. How about taking a route from work to home, aren't some better (quicker or more scenic) than others? These would the "gooder." ways to go. How about repairing a damaged wall. Aren't some fixes better, "gooder," than others. None would be evil. How about pacifying a crying infant? Aren't . . . .

 

[9Westy9]

Take a sport, say football. are any plays really evil? I don't think so, yet in any given situation some will work better than others, and these will be the "gooder" plays. How about taking a route from work to home, aren't some better (quicker or more scenic) than others? These would the "gooder." ways to go. How about repairing a damaged wall. Aren't some fixes better, "gooder," than others. None would be evil. How about pacifying a crying infant? Aren't . . . .

If you use good in the broad sense then yes.

 

[Acim]

nope. one relies on the other they are not the same thing..

Not even sure what you're disagreement is, but okay.

what is it?

Glipper is glipper. Knowledge is clear about this.

to convey your understanding of it. in my world, in order to communicate, we need to have a basic understanding of what words mean...in this case, what is the definition of glipper?

Why must I communicate with you about glipper? Again I don't need to have basic understanding to know what glipper is. A definition of glipper will likely show up fuzzy to you, as it is very fuzzy when judgment of glipper enters into the mind.

you know tomorrows have come and gone because you have experienced them many many times...so you know what tomorrow is

I don't believe I've experienced tomorrow. How would I comprehend this? Please explain.

no wonder there are so many cases of misunderstandings...
this mentality of making up your own definition only causes confusion...

Can you conceive of a word currently in use where the definition of that word was, at no point, made up?

this is dangerous thinking because it implies that some have the correct understanding about things of others...things that really have no grounds to be judged.
same sex marriage for example...

You have misunderstood what I said. It's okay. Time is on your side.

i disagree. because what you are saying is that homosexuals aren't homosexuals because what they know of homosexuality isn't correctly judged as homosexuality... as judgement is the antithesis of knowledge.

Again, this is misunderstanding, and I think misrepresenting, what I conveyed.

 

[javajo]

...still can't move...