Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."
-
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
strikeviperMKII
Well-Known Member
You haven't changed your position...which means you still are getting things mixed up.
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
I could always return to the "child wandering into a volcano" analogy again if you'd like, and then we can dance in this little circle all over again. :yes:
strikeviperMKII
Well-Known Member
Thief
Rogue Theologian
From another thread of similar working...I quote myself....
Too many people caught in the words we are using....
not enough deep thought.
In the beginning was ...what?
And when something is declared good.... you immediately think of evil?
And no one seems to consider we are working a foundation stone of existence.
No one is looking ahead to the consequence of declaration.
If God created evil simultaneously to His creation of good....
Then anyone believing in life after death has more problems than he first considered.
If God is the source of all good and is held equally to the source of all evil...
then no religion can stand well before God.
A separation took place between darkness and light...'let there be light'.
But there is no cause to say the darkness was evil.
If you do...ALL things arise out of evil...God is evil....so are you.
Too many people caught in the words we are using....
not enough deep thought.
In the beginning was ...what?
And when something is declared good.... you immediately think of evil?
And no one seems to consider we are working a foundation stone of existence.
No one is looking ahead to the consequence of declaration.
If God created evil simultaneously to His creation of good....
Then anyone believing in life after death has more problems than he first considered.
If God is the source of all good and is held equally to the source of all evil...
then no religion can stand well before God.
A separation took place between darkness and light...'let there be light'.
But there is no cause to say the darkness was evil.
If you do...ALL things arise out of evil...God is evil....so are you.
As mentioned in a previous post, God does not torture people eternally. The hellfire doctrine is a pagan teaching adopted by apostate "christians" in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. The Bible tells us the wages of sin is death, not eternal torment. (Romans 6:23) References to "hell" often translate the word "Gehenna", a term for the valley of hinnom outside Jerusalem that was used as a garbage dump. Dead bodies of criminals considered unworthy of burial were dumped there and burned up. Thus, Gehenna is a fitting symbol of eternal destruction. Jesus said; "be in fear of him that can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna. (Hell KJV) " (Matthew 10:28)
I'm assuming you're referring to objective good and bad? i.e. x is always good and y is always bad.
ManTimeForgot
Temporally Challenged
Begs the question of why an omniscient "God" would allow a soul destined to sin to be created in the first place...
The whole issue is so profoundly complicated by absolutes and infinities that I find it rather absurd that people actually try to debate it.
The only explanation I have come across that actually makes a lick of sense is that ""God" creates everything and a bag of chips and then does nothing." If there is "Evil" then it is because we decided there was such a thing as "Evil" and we acted in such a way as there was "Evil" performed.
Once you start introducing concepts like omniscience, omnibenevolence, omnipresence, and omnipotence all human argumentation breaks down.
Omnipresence... So every time we harm each other we also harm "God" and this is somehow okay under some possible circumstances? Shouldn't harming "God" (which includes everything that is real) be anathema? How do we eat if we harm that which we eat (life takes life to continue living)?
Omnipotence... defines all the laws of reality, so how can anything ever be against this things attributable will (I say attributable because I am not sure you can attribute will to anything which defines everything).
Omniscience... breaks down all ends means calculations and cost benefit analyses. If you can't follow the logic of decisions made 4x10^1000000000 moves ahead, then how can you possibly gainsay this things decisions?
Omnibenevolence is at once the easiest and the most difficult to reconcile. Everything this thing does is good, so you should never question it in an absolute sense. Okay, that's fine, but does this include other species. What moral weight does grass have? Is it okay to sterilize the planet of grass if it saves one human life? Is it is okay to have a plague on Omicron Perseii 8 if it would save a million humans? The scope of the universe is VAST...
Taken altogether means you have something which should be so far removed from human discourse as to make it positively laughable to attempt to discuss it meaningfully.
MTF
strikeviperMKII
Well-Known Member
The verse is famous itself, Paul said it somewhere.
So in front of God what you will say? "As sinners, we deserve your love and effort to sacrifice your own son to save us"
Or,
"We are the sinners who don't deserve your love and effort. However out of love of a loving God, you choose to save us and even sacrificed your own son to do so"
If you think the first statement should be the one to choose, I can't help that much. It's all common sense to me. And it is so obvious that one doesn't need any verse to support it, IMO.
Moreover, He loves the world in the sense that here is the field for His harvest. Jesus Christ has the wheat and weeds parable (again a famous one that I don't need to quote to point out). The weeds are placed there by the "enemy", if you think that God loves the weeds in His field of wheat, that remains your own opinion and your quote of verses are of an out of context spinning about what is said, IMO.
Last edited:
No, the judgment that it would be silly speaking Swedish without understanding Swedish is based on lack of knowledge. I would say it is based on fear, masquerading as absurdity.
We don't observe homosexuality. We judge what it is. This may be (I would say likely is) where we could play semantical game, but I will, for now, stay steadfast in what I assert is actual determination that one never observes homosexuality. Of course, this will come down to definitions, but I understand homosexuality to be orientation. You may instead be referencing 'homosexual behavior' of which heterosexuals and (for sure) bisexuals can engage in. Just as homosexuals can engage in heterosexual behavior.
I agree that homosexuals experience homosexuality, but this is very relativistic to the person, which was the point I made and the one you are in denial / disagreement with.
Will you please point out where you previously pointed out that 'knowledge of good and evil' is not comparable to 'knowledge of swedish language?'
It is, but continue anyway.
With you here.
Understanding knowledge from perspective of a&e, I feel misses what the story is actually saying. IMO, a&e are a distraction (more or less) from what the story is actually telling us. It is a tale about LORD God (as demiurge) and how LORD is filtering said knowledge.
Either way, the "knowledge" here is known a priori, which is key #1 to this whole debate. Key #2 is that 'good and evil' do not actually exist, except in the illusion that is the Garden, and beyond the Garden are manifested as relativistic / dualistic in 'practice.' The (higher) knowledge is knowing 'how' they exist, rather than assumption (and fundamental error) of 'that' they exist. They do not. And yet, in the way they do 'exist' they cannot exist without the other.
The term homosexual and/or homosexuality doesn't necessitate the 'having sex' part, and is behavior that could be attributed to persons who are self identified as heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual. We cannot observe people who are 'homosexual' because it is more or less self identified.
I would say further disagreement on this is perhaps better left to another thread, and likely is in thread that already exists.
Yes, you are misinterpreting what actual knowledge is. You don't actually know what butter, sugar, mouth are, but do perhaps have 'good understanding' of them. Nor do you actually know if the materials you put in 'your mouth' are 'butter / sugar' while you might have high trust (faith) in understanding that says this is what it 'is.'
Even the terms you are using are 'dead giveaway' for how you are misinterpreting. You are saying "know what its like' is knowledge. Knowledge isn't 'like something' but instead 'is as it is.'
It doesn't rely on the smoke and mirrors use of definitions and interpretation to 'gather' information to determine validity and enhance understanding.
If judged irrelevant for you, then the answer is not necessary, I guess.
I am the type that thinks understandings are relational (and/or relativistic).
Therefore it is not only homosexuals who understand homosexuality. With this admission you've provide, a person who has only had heterosexual relations (behaviorally) for past 5 years, but is bisexual, would have full awareness (and/or equal awareness to homosexuals) regarding homosexuality.
As I had said, there are ways to get around your 'knowledge of what it's like' type logic. This is actually one of at least 2 ways I know how to get around this example. I believe there could be many.
I assure you, there very well could be beings, all around you, concerning themselves with things that are self-determined (via judgment and understanding) as 'good' and 'evil.'
We are unknowingly crossing the imaginary (made-up) line constantly. The line that says, "this is evil act." Or line that says, "this is a good thing to do." Not only do we unknowingly cross the line, but unknowingly make up what is good and evil, constantly (in time). It is for sure partially true that the lines and concepts appear to already exist, but both collectively and individually we are making up new lines and making up added understandings of good and evil. The illusion is 'good' like that. It allows evil to be made further 'known' so as to justify relativistic version of 'reality.'
From your relativistic understanding(s), there would be no proof to offer you. For when I do speak it, you will have concluded (and really manifested) that I must have learned it in some way in order for 'me' to show up to you as one who speaks swedish. There would be no other way for you to process this, as long as 'knowing what it is like' equals 'knowledge' for you.
Which is a judgment.
And misunderstanding.
waitasec
Veteran Member
have you ever witnessed someone conversing in a language they didn't know?
you seem to be implying that all it takes is arrogance to be able to speak swedish on the fly without knowing it...
we judge what it is by observing...the experience is different from the POV of a homosexual than it is from a heterosexuals...
and what determines the definition? is it not the experience of the POV of knowledge either by personal experience or by observation?
the inclination to being attracted to someone of the same sex is homosexuality there is nothing relative about that.
i said:
is in the context of this thread...this is where i pointed it out.
i'm just using various examples to make my point that good and evil are relative...the knowledge of something empirical is absolute; the swedish language or homosexuality have been my examples thus far...
should we discuss reading a musical composition to make my point again?
so you agree that the knowledge of good and evil are not absolute.
you also believe not KNOWING swedish, one can still communicate in that language they do not know...
is that right?
the reason it's a distraction is because the knowledge of good and evil was already known before they partook of the forbidden fruit...
it's a contradiction.
if god had knowledge of evil...it was known to god
if god is the creator of life...god created good and evil.
you are right, sex is not a determining factor...however attraction is.
which is why a person who is not a homosexual judging those who are, are not in a position to judge those that do find themselves attracted to people of who are of the same gender
it 's like speaking swedish without knowing it
or reading a musical composition when one can't tell the difference between a "c" and an "a"...
to attempt to do so, would require arrogance.
agreed.
just like speaking swedish if i never learned how to...
well you and i are both learned through he process of personal observation what it's like to tastes what butter and sugar are...
butter is not sugar.
if everyone agrees that butter is not sugar then you can call anything that is empirically observed as this thing we call butter, butter.
let me put it this way,
who are you to judge something you have no knowledge of?
it's like judging the notes on a musical composition and interpreting it on an instrument when you don't know what they are...
it appears you think you can speak swedish without ever learning it.
a bi sexual has the knowledge of what it is to be attracted to both sexes...
tell me about it...
knowing the swedish language exists is not knowing what it is is to speak it...
one would have to learn it...right?
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Sure. Cheesecake is much better than chocolate cake.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Back to topic...
Good and evil refer to the nature of a living thing.
Good and bad refer to the condition of a thing.
My rhetorical question is aimed at the actual source.
In becoming Creator, His creation is His reflection.
Light and substance are bad?...no...of course not.
In declaring the creation...'good'....He did likewise unto Himself.
So where do you see the evil?
Are we not seeking a 'point' where duality does not exist?
That can only be ...in the beginning.
Good and evil refer to the nature of a living thing.
Good and bad refer to the condition of a thing.
My rhetorical question is aimed at the actual source.
In becoming Creator, His creation is His reflection.
Light and substance are bad?...no...of course not.
In declaring the creation...'good'....He did likewise unto Himself.
So where do you see the evil?
Are we not seeking a 'point' where duality does not exist?
That can only be ...in the beginning.
The source is human subjectivity. Everyone has their own opinion on right and wrong, good and bad.
Darkness is good? Also with nothing to compare good to, his statement is meaningless. It also makes him boastful.
As being the opposite of the good
Before God created anything
javajo
Well-Known Member
I happened to be reading Genesis again today and I came across this passage in Genesis 3:
22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
My thought was simply that while Elohim knew about evil, he didn't actually create it. Once man knew about it, and God knew it would not be long before he began to practice it, he had to remove them from access to the tree of life or their evil would possibly know no bounds. Just something I chewed on a bit during my devotions, not something I'd care to argue about, since I wasn't there and don't presume to know God's mind.
22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
My thought was simply that while Elohim knew about evil, he didn't actually create it. Once man knew about it, and God knew it would not be long before he began to practice it, he had to remove them from access to the tree of life or their evil would possibly know no bounds. Just something I chewed on a bit during my devotions, not something I'd care to argue about, since I wasn't there and don't presume to know God's mind.
Majikthise
nude
Simple answer: god created evil because man created god to explain evil. Glad to be of service.
javajo
Well-Known Member
Hi, and welcome. I really do believe in God, so that explanation, while clever, doesn't work for me. But, nice to meet you.
Majikthise
nude
Thanks! Been a member for quite a while but forgot my pass word. Had to re register. God is a construct of the human mind to me so I'm not trying to be clever, just honest. Trying to get back in to the swing of things here at RF.