IsmailaGodHasHeard
Well-Known Member
It is wrong to blame God for evil. Blame Satan and blame mankind for committing evil acts, but not God, because God is good.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why did God create evil?
- Thread starter Friend of Bill W
- Start date
It is wrong to blame God for evil. Blame Satan and blame mankind for committing evil acts, but not God, because God is good.
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
You have dodged my request for evidence and poorly might I add.
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Would an evil person think their works were good?
javajo
Well-Known Member
In John 16:2 it says, yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. So, yes, if one is greatly deceived it could happen. Terrorists come to mind. Jeremiah 17:9 says, The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? So, really we are all evil, born with a sinful nature passed down by Adam, but Romans 5:17 says, For if by one man's (Adam's) offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
So, if God had a higher or just a different morality than humans, we could perceive his "good" as bad, correct?
javajo
Well-Known Member
Well, that is what people are saying. They see things in the Bible that God did or said and so perceive him as being/creating evil. I can understand that. Our own human reasoning can deceive us into thinking God really is bad if we want to bad enough. I still can't move...
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Well, if God is all good, or morally supreme, how can that be proven?
javajo
Well-Known Member
Romans 5:8 says, But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
...which ultimately did nothing, since before all were in the grave, and now we have the option of infinite suffering or infinite pleasure, with the majority getting the former. Was it love or simply raising the stakes?
Bringing in that infinite stuff was messed up without a probation. Thats why god invented purgatory.
javajo
Well-Known Member
All were not just "in the grave", all have sinned, so all were lost. By paying our sin debt, God provided a way we could be reconciled to him even though we had sinned, for free. Every person can choose wickedness or righteousness: God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Acts 10:34b-35, Romans 10:13)
The O.T. is often written in an absolute sovereignty sense. "God created evil" here means God allows the possibility of the existence of evil as a free will choice. If He doesn't allow, evil won't be able to exist. If evil exists it must first get the approval from God. And in this sense, God created evil.
Moreover, it is a self-centered (and unintelligent) thinking to place earthly humans as the central focus. And to say that the eternal pleasure and eternal damnation are prepared for us.
The Bible said that we are the (unworthy) sinners who may not deserve God's effort. So God's focus may not be on us (i.e., the earthly humans living inside Satan's realm, they are the captive waiting for help) during this earthly period.
God's focus as part of His Ultimate Plan is to build an eternity call "His Kingdom in Heaven". Sorry to tell you that planet earth is never His favorite, it is just a middle ground for a split to occur. Planet earth is just the middle of a process, it's not the final aim.
He thus sets up Laws not for the sake of us earthly humans. Law is set up for the sake of the eternity. His Laws guards His Kingdom in Heaven such that the unqualified won't be able to get in to mess things up there (in a time frame of infinity).
We are however the unqualified captive under Satan's influence. Out of love, He gives us a second chance to be part of His Kingdom in Heaven. That is, by delivering our faith in accordance to the New Covenant, we still stand a chance to be in Heaven though we are the unqualified in terms of His Law (He made a self-sacrifice in order to get to this point).
If you can't make it there, you'll be left on your own. It is called a permanent separation. God will remove His influence from you. Why do you have to be with someone you never like anyway!
What left is, without God as a standard what will you be?! You are on your own following your own standard, it is thus expected that you will turn yourself into an evil by giving time. In terms of sovereignty, whenever it is considered that His bottom line is exceeded, the fire awaits.
Moreover, it is a self-centered (and unintelligent) thinking to place earthly humans as the central focus. And to say that the eternal pleasure and eternal damnation are prepared for us.
The Bible said that we are the (unworthy) sinners who may not deserve God's effort. So God's focus may not be on us (i.e., the earthly humans living inside Satan's realm, they are the captive waiting for help) during this earthly period.
God's focus as part of His Ultimate Plan is to build an eternity call "His Kingdom in Heaven". Sorry to tell you that planet earth is never His favorite, it is just a middle ground for a split to occur. Planet earth is just the middle of a process, it's not the final aim.
He thus sets up Laws not for the sake of us earthly humans. Law is set up for the sake of the eternity. His Laws guards His Kingdom in Heaven such that the unqualified won't be able to get in to mess things up there (in a time frame of infinity).
We are however the unqualified captive under Satan's influence. Out of love, He gives us a second chance to be part of His Kingdom in Heaven. That is, by delivering our faith in accordance to the New Covenant, we still stand a chance to be in Heaven though we are the unqualified in terms of His Law (He made a self-sacrifice in order to get to this point).
If you can't make it there, you'll be left on your own. It is called a permanent separation. God will remove His influence from you. Why do you have to be with someone you never like anyway!
What left is, without God as a standard what will you be?! You are on your own following your own standard, it is thus expected that you will turn yourself into an evil by giving time. In terms of sovereignty, whenever it is considered that His bottom line is exceeded, the fire awaits.
Last edited:
strikeviperMKII
Well-Known Member
And yet how many children are in that volcano? None? If that's your answer, you are ignoring a great deal of reality.
Is that God's fault? That we have to ask that question says it is our own. If its God's fault, then what do we have to do? What can we do against some deity? Nothing...which is the point.
Maybe we can take a little responsibility for what we do, and stop worrying about what we can't fix.
What's that saying again?
God, grant me the strength to change the things I can, the serenity to live with the things I can't, and the wisdom to know the difference.
Simply put, life sucks sometimes. We don't have to make it suck more by playing the blame game. We aren't five anymore, are we?
javajo
Well-Known Member
Where does the Bible say we may not deserve God's effort, chapter and verse? Romans 5:8 says, But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. That was some effort and focus.
In Revelation 21 it says, And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people...Sounds like His Kingdom will be on earth where he will be with his people for whom Christ died.
Your point being that knowledge relies on understanding? Or which point?
And as the foundation, knowledge doesn't need understanding or judgment to be knowledge, while understanding and judgment need knowledge (at some level) to even pretend to work.
I've experienced "not knowing what tomorrow brings." Is that what you are saying in response to, "I don't believe I've experienced tomorrow. How would I comprehend this? Please explain."
That all definitions were made up at some point. If you can think of exception to this, I am most interested.
This was in response to where you earlier said: what you are saying is that homosexuals aren't homosexuals because what they know of homosexuality isn't correctly judged as homosexuality...
That has been your argument the whole time?
So, your argument has been straw-man the whole time?
I think I'm caught up in that case.
Does your stating this to be the case mean that you've proven it?
Okay, I'll restate what I said earlier, but put it another way to hopefully help you.
You had previously asked, "how can you define what you don't know?" and "how can one judge what they don't know?"
To which I replied, '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.'
While homosexuality is plausibly a wonderful example, let's go with glipper instead, since you are apparently in need of a basic understanding of this word. Now, as I said, glipper is glipper, and knowledge conveys this, directly and honestly. But in defining what glipper is, things will become a little bit fuzzy. I wish I knew way around this, but it will seem a lot less fuzzy if you show up in agreement with what definition I provide, or you may just utilize judgment about a thing you don't know, to essentially draw a distinction between various understandings.
Glipper (noun)
1 - a state of being or process of becoming aware of something that is not glopper
2 - a way of regarding present circumstances through a glopperless filter
Glipper (adjective)
1 - melancholy
Now you understand? Previously you seemed very glipper about the course of our debate, but hopefully with this definition and deeper understanding, you can reach a state of glopperness. One can only hope.
Would you say I know you very well to judge you as glipper? Perhaps even better than you know yourself as I am one that knows glipperness, while you are one who does not, but it is clear (via my judgment) that this applies to you. And now with a clear understanding from the provided definition, you too can judge yourself as undeniably glipper.
Or perhaps, if judgment is not accurate and understanding is not as clear as I'm making it out to be, though don't know how I can make it much more clear, then perhaps one might realize, with certainty, that this accurate judgment is not (based on) knowledge, even while I clearly know what glipper is.
Blackdog22
Well-Known Member
So couldn't it be said that God then made us with the intention of us becoming evil. If having the ability to have choice results in evil and God decided not to make us incorruptible(how is that possible without breaking free will?) then isn't he still responsible for evil.
Actually lets look at the whole Adam and Eve story. Let's say that Adam and Eve didn't eat of that fruit. Okay, cool.... Now we have Cain and Abel whom we have to keep from this tree. Fast forward a few thousand years, now we have billions of people who can't die and none of them can eat this tree. Just how big is this garden in the first place? Is it not relatively obvious can God intended sin to enter the world? Does this not make him at least somewhat responsible for original sin? Wouldn't a reasonable person agree that the parent should hold some responsibility for setting their own children up to intentionally fail? Or does all sense of responsibility and morality go out the window when you bring your God into the picture?
There are, with respect, aspects of your post that make no sense to me. In your second paragraph you say 'it is a self-centered (and unintelligent) thinking to place earthly humans as the central focus.' And yet that is precisely what mystical beliefs imply: benefits and rewards for humans in the form of an eternal life! It is the unbelievers who accept that we're just one small part of this material/experiential world which, along with every other thing, flourishes, degrades and then dies. New objects develop from the old constituents to grow to maturity, ensuring continuity and maintaining the cyclical balance of life. We don't need a priori knowledge to understand that, as with every other animal on the planet, we are born to die. Theism on the other hand places humankind at the centre of being - even before God himself. One can't logically believe in God unless one first believes in one's self. And even those indivuals who give up their lives for their gods are answering the needs of the prior self.
And I'm sorry but nor does it make sense to me where you say: 'Out of love, He gives us a second chance to be part of His Kingdom in Heaven.' So, very clearly his 'love' is conditional! He is not on that account a Loving God, but a God with needs and a God that created unnecessary evil.
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Where were the souls before Jesus died? If all were in the grave, then surely God upped the stakes of sin. If all were in Hell, how can any sane person say it was "good" for 2,000ish years to send all souls to suffer forever?
So, you would bow to a tyrant?
And yes, in terms of the infinity ahead and behind us, we might as well be five, which was the reason I described the child as a child.
Last edited:
strikeviperMKII
Well-Known Member
Yes, that is a very mature response. Kids whose parents say they can't have another cookie call their parents tyrants. Having rules does not mean tyrant.
So you would deny yourself the ability to grow because...you're angry? Try standing for something rather than against something. It takes a lot more maturity.
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
I never said I was angry. I said (or was trying to say) that blindly accepting and following the rules just because the person is stronger than you and proclaims themself more moral than you isn't right. If you want to make this about parental issues, so be it. You didn't actually answer me on whether a loving parent would allow their child to suffer forever. You merely said "God is in control, and life sucks, but you can't change God, so live with it".