Why Evil?

[Robert Landbeck]

In the beginning God created everything. Even evil. Any thoughts?

Evil only came into the world with man as the result of his first disobedience. Evil or ignorance of what is right was and remains the punishment for that first disobedience. And that is where our species remains today. Rooted within an evolutionary paradigm, dominated by a materialist conception that limits both human moral and spiritual progress.

 

[truthofscripture]

Evil only came into the world with man as the result of his first disobedience. Evil or ignorance of what is right was and remains the punishment for that first disobedience. And that is where our species remains today. Rooted within an evolutionary paradigm, dominated by a materialist conception that limits both human moral and spiritual progress.

Robert, you are correct. Evil was created as a result of passing judgement on Adam and Eve. Sad that the vast majority of the planet is so clueless as to God, His son, and His word to us. Even more sad is the direct choosing of God's opposer by so many people, with knowledge aforethought. It's no surprise as the scriptures do pretty well tell us what to expect with regards everything.

 

[Robert Landbeck]

Robert, you are correct. Evil was created as a result of passing judgement on Adam and Eve. Sad that the vast majority of the planet is so clueless as to God, His son, and His word to us. Even more sad is the direct choosing of God's opposer by so many people, with knowledge aforethought. It's no surprise as the scriptures do pretty well tell us what to expect with regards everything.

I would suggest that the whole of history and human nature itself is, as you say, 'clueless as to God, His son and His word'. For a start, history has already proved that the Bible is incomplete. Discoveries of the Dead Sea Scroll and Nag Hammadi Library already offer, as before an institutional church was established, alternatives to existing orthodoxy. And who is to say more will not be discovered? Recently discovered lead codices have yet to be unraveled and translated. Then there is the question of interpretation. If the scriptural record is incomplete then those doctrines founded upon it are of dubious value. The scriptural record is full of warning of false teaching and interpretation. Does theology only exist because nothing has been revealed? What God would allow his promise to be subject to two thousand years of blood and dispute that continues even today?

 

[truthofscripture]

I would suggest that the whole of history and human nature itself is, as you say, 'clueless as to God, His son and His word'. For a start, history has already proved that the Bible is incomplete. Discoveries of the Dead Sea Scroll and Nag Hammadi Library already offer, as before an institutional church was established, alternatives to existing orthodoxy. And who is to say more will not be discovered? Recently discovered lead codices have yet to be unraveled and translated. Then there is the question of interpretation. If the scriptural record is incomplete then those doctrines founded upon it are of dubious value. The scriptural record is full of warning of false teaching and interpretation. Does theology only exist because nothing has been revealed? What God would allow his promise to be subject to two thousand years of blood and dispute that continues even today?

A lot of the texts recently found are most likely written by some of those false sects of the past. A lot of sects/denominations/divisions have and do exist, and most teach things that differ from God's inspired word. There are texts that say Jesus was married. There are texts that say Jesus is Pleaidean. There are Gnostic texts that are pretty strange also. None of them really hold up when compared to archaeology or contemporary (to Jesus) secular historians. We don't really know for certain. God allows bad things but doesn't cause them. He is doing things legally. Satan challenged Him and must be handled justly and legally. Satan's period of presenting evidence is just about up. A day to God is as a thousand years to us, so it hasn't really been very long in the grand scheme of things. Orthodoxy is really a function of religions, whom God said are all false anyway.

 

[Robert Landbeck]

A lot of the texts recently found are most likely written by some of those false sects of the past. A lot of sects/denominations/divisions have and do exist, and most teach things that differ from God's inspired word. There are texts that say Jesus was married. There are texts that say Jesus is Pleaidean. There are Gnostic texts that are pretty strange also. None of them really hold up when compared to archaeology or contemporary (to Jesus) secular historians. We don't really know for certain. God allows bad things but doesn't cause them. He is doing things legally. Satan challenged Him and must be handled justly and legally. Satan's period of presenting evidence is just about up. A day to God is as a thousand years to us, so it hasn't really been very long in the grand scheme of things. Orthodoxy is really a function of religions, whom God said are all false anyway.

 

[Robert Landbeck]

I cannot except that 'God's inspired word' even exists. If it ever did, it was lost in ancient times. And I for one would be happy to assume that Jesus was married. After all, our first understanding of 'religion' is from Genesis before the fall that was founded upon a spiritual conception of marriage that was no doubt also lost in the Fall together with the 'image and likeness'. You can't honestly speak of God's inspired word and then lean upon archaeology. That we don't know for certain' is self evident but contrary to the expectations of the Incarnation. Even within the partial scriptural record that exists, there is no contradiction between the idea that an omniscient, omnipotent God cannot provide a path of faith that offers direct cause and effect confirmation of His will, covenant and Law. And that is what is missing. That original command [or Law] that existed from the beginning which brought us into direct unambiguous contact with God. The contradiction is that 'orthodoxy' claims to speak in the name of Christ but are unable to demonstrate their license to do so. History has left humanity with a theological counterfeit, sold to a gullible and vain humanity. A poisonous hope and crime against humanity which all the crime of history pales to insignificance. I doubt God is amused to see His Promise unrealized . But then again it is not God that fails man, but man who fails God, himself and his fellow man. That is the way of our world.

 

[Nietzsche]

Thanks,

Note to self; don't post translation of anything when reeeeeally tired.

 

[truthofscripture]

I cannot except that 'God's inspired word' even exists. If it ever did, it was lost in ancient times. And I for one would be happy to assume that Jesus was married. After all, our first understanding of 'religion' is from Genesis before the fall that was founded upon a spiritual conception of marriage that was no doubt also lost in the Fall together with the 'image and likeness'. You can't honestly speak of God's inspired word and then lean upon archaeology. That we don't know for certain' is self evident but contrary to the expectations of the Incarnation. Even within the partial scriptural record that exists, there is no contradiction between the idea that an omniscient, omnipotent God cannot provide a path of faith that offers direct cause and effect confirmation of His will, covenant and Law. And that is what is missing. That original command [or Law] that existed from the beginning which brought us into direct unambiguous contact with God. The contradiction is that 'orthodoxy' claims to speak in the name of Christ but are unable to demonstrate their license to do so. History has left humanity with a theological counterfeit, sold to a gullible and vain humanity. A poisonous hope and crime against humanity which all the crime of history pales to insignificance. I doubt God is amused to see His Promise unrealized . But then again it is not God that fails man, but man who fails God, himself and his fellow man. That is the way of our world.

The inspired word of God has been preserved, at the hand of God, since it was first put to parchment and animal skin scrolls. It cannot be destroyed, and many have tried throughout the millennia. As far as your direct cause and effect confirmation, if you were to do what God requires, it's possible.. It's not missing at all. No religion created by man is valid. God said they're all false. As far as "His promise unrealized", nothing could be further from the truth. Everything that God purposed has happened, and what is yet future WILL happen exactly as stated without fail. It always has, and always will.

 

[Robert Landbeck]

Scripture may have been preserved on parchment and animal skin scrolls, even CD's and DVD's but whether they contain the 'Inspired' word of God is a matter of considerable historical and theological dispute. Consider just the entire history of Christianity which has more to do with schism and theological difference than any unifying ideal, I cannot accept anything theologically derived [thus human] as either divine or inspired. Any true message 'inspired' by God would no doubt be able to penetrate the conscience and thus the consciousness of every human being on earth. And there could be no disagreement on the nature and character of such a Word. It would not be open to dispute. Only obedience or disobedience. That of course is not the case. All are 'theological'. "No religion created by man is valid. " God said they're all false" quite right, and thus the need for a judgement to determine what is of God and what is of man, so a right choice can be made among so many hundreds, even thousands of competing claims. And what could differentiate itself with absolute clarity from all that is theological and thus false? Only a definitive PROOF. A religious teaching, and wisdom able to demonstrate itself as not of human intellectual origin; empirical and transcendent, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof. And it may already be circulating on the web!

 

[truthofscripture]

Scripture may have been preserved on parchment and animal skin scrolls, even CD's and DVD's but whether they contain the 'Inspired' word of God is a matter of considerable historical and theological dispute. Consider just the entire history of Christianity which has more to do with schism and theological difference than any unifying ideal, I cannot accept anything theologically derived [thus human] as either divine or inspired. Any true message 'inspired' by God would no doubt be able to penetrate the conscience and thus the consciousness of every human being on earth. And there could be no disagreement on the nature and character of such a Word. It would not be open to dispute. Only obedience or disobedience. That of course is not the case. All are 'theological'. "No religion created by man is valid. " God said they're all false" quite right, and thus the need for a judgement to determine what is of God and what is of man, so a right choice can be made among so many hundreds, even thousands of competing claims. And what could differentiate itself with absolute clarity from all that is theological and thus false? Only a definitive PROOF. A religious teaching, and wisdom able to demonstrate itself as not of human intellectual origin; empirical and transcendent, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof. And it may already be circulating on the web!

What you call Christianity is not. It is Christendom. Half pagan half Christian, and was created by Constantine, a PAGAN emperor. Theology as the world understands it refers to religion, and religious teachings. God and the scriptures He gave us has NOTHING to do with religion. God created no religion, in fact He said they are all false. Not having seen an honest heart when searching yours, He hasn't used holy spirit to unveil their meaning to you. Therefore your arguments are really only contradiction, since you cannot possibly have an understanding of what God said to us. Your arguments are pointless.

 

[Robert Landbeck]

He hasn't used holy spirit to unveil their meaning to you. Therefore your arguments are really only contradiction, since you cannot possibly have an understanding of what God said to us.

Well someone appears to have such understanding. He may very well have revealed it to someone as I'm studying such an absolute proof, downloaded for free off the web, at this very moment. And I have every intention of TESTING this new moral insight within my own marriage. And it can only be true or false but not subject to any human opinion, prejudice or bias. For as in the beginning, this is a covenant of marriage. And it offers the PROMISE or Word, of a direct demonstration of transcendent power to confirm that the teaching is of God. There has never been anything like it in the whole of known religious history. So given the choice between a faith leading directly to a moral insight of omniscient wisdom and the theological codswallop that history offers in the name of tradition, the only honest the choice is clear, at least to me! But the prerequisite to testing this proof is a painful humility and honesty with self, the confession accepting that human nature itself exists in a profound ignorance and confusion of God. Gnashing of teeth can't be far off?

 

[truthofscripture]

Well someone appears to have such understanding. He may very well have revealed it to someone as I'm studying such an absolute proof, downloaded for free off the web, at this very moment. And I have every intention of TESTING this new moral insight within my own marriage. And it can only be true or false but not subject to any human opinion, prejudice or bias. For as in the beginning, this is a covenant of marriage. And it offers the PROMISE or Word, of a direct demonstration of transcendent power to confirm that the teaching is of God. There has never been anything like it in the whole of known religious history. So given the choice between a faith leading directly to a moral insight of omniscient wisdom and the theological codswallop that history offers in the name of tradition, the only honest the choice is clear, at least to me! But the prerequisite to testing this proof is a painful humility and honesty with self, the confession accepting that human nature itself exists in a profound ignorance and confusion of God. Gnashing of teeth can't be far off?

Knock yourself out. But merely reading the scriptures is of little benefit.

 

[Robert Landbeck]

Knock yourself out. But merely reading the scriptures is of little benefit.

I agree completely. Reading is not knowledge. But experience is. And it is the experience that will decide the truth or falsehood of the material I'm studying at the moment. But like it or no, and many like yourself won't, a new religious teaching, a wisdom not of human intellectual origin, empirical and transcendent, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists. Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious revolution is getting under way. To test or not to test, that is the question? Not by reading, only by testing for the efficacy of this new claim does one have a valid opinion on the validity of the claim. And I mean to know.

 

[Ingledsva]

Note to self; don't post translation of anything when reeeeeally tired.

No, you did good. It is read from right to left.

He just turned it around so everyone that doesn't know that, would understand the sentence.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Gah! It shouldn't be possible to have too many damn books! How do we know that Molech worship included "Sacred Sex"?

ING - Sorry I didn't get back to you faster. I just noticed this post.

We have plenty of scholars telling us Molech worship included Sacred Sex, - just Google it. However, if you look at the quotes I provided, - and others from the Bible that I didn't, - the Bible itself says Sacred Sex was included with Molech worship.

How do we know it even says "Molech"?

ING - Because it says so in the Hebrew. Lev 18:21 And your semen don't give in copulation to MOLECH, and don't desecrate/prostitute yourself; honor Elohiym, I am YHVH.

It is Strong's H4432.

Q'deshim[=holy ones]. How do you stretch that to what I usually see refered to as "Sacred Prostitution"?
Stephanie Lynn Budin in the "The Myth of Sacred Prostitution in Antiquity", Cambridge University Press, 2009, to my mind successfully, undermines this whole trope. It rests on very shaky foundations and pretty much disappears on examination of it's existence anywhere else in the ANE and Classical-Hellenistic worlds. It rests ultimately on a misunderstanding of Herodotos. After that it is the usual morass of circular citations if I am recalling correctly. I can lay my hands on thousands of volumes apropos to this not at all; but who knows where the one I want has secreted itself! My point is you might be disputing Red Dragon94 with material that is equally unsound. All this is supposed to be going on about 1100BC, when there is no evidence of an Israelite Settlement at all. Deutoronomy seems to have been conjured up from whole cloth at the time of Josiah and the rest or even all of it might be a creation of the Persian period. If you are going to feed the troll; make sure you feed him something he can choke on and not spit straight back at you.

EXPAND HIS POST.

First let me say I am not a Christian. And of course they made up a lot of this stuff. Stories and Myth were written down long after said events. However, in the case of Sacred Prostitutes, which should be noted is a modern interpretation, of a Sacred person that represents the God, or Goddess, in a Sacred Marriage ceremony, - is actually mentioned in the Bible, for a reason.

In other words, they may, or may not have, misunderstood Herodotus, but It doesn't matter if it is actually history, - as we are discussing - with Abrahamic believers, - what their Bible actually says, - concerning what they erroneously translate as homosexuality.

In other words, the challenge is to show, - using their own text, - that the Bible does not condemn homosexuals. ALL of the verses mistranslated as being anti-homosexuals, are actually talking about acts done in Sacred Sex - which the Bible lists for us.

The Bible itself tells us the translation of Q'deshim, that it is using. It has the already listed verses such as - there shall be no Qadeshah, - linked with the words for prostitutes.

And it tells us this was being set up in the Temples - over - and over - leading to the slaughter of the kings and people doing so. And shown again with the Eli verse, that this is exactly what they were setting up, and doing at the Temples. -

1 Sa 2:22 Now Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did unto Israel; and how they had sex with the women that waited at the entrance of the Tabernacle of the congregation.

Sacred Sex at the Hebrew Temples.

*

 

[eagerlearner]

There are a lot of good things here said by many people. Lots of points and counterpoints and different interpretations, citing scripture.

I am not sure what causes these discussions to produce such venom and what can only be described as hatred between people, even total strangers. But I think it is a tragedy. I am ashamed of many people I see on the internet, how they act...all to feel they made a point, that they are the only ones that got it right. It's shameful. And the people that post here are mostly grown adults. We could very easily open our hearts and have a calm discussion and maybe enlighten each other.

Just because someone else has a different belief doesn't mean you have to believe what they believe. It also does not make your belief 'wrong' even if it directly contradicts what another person said. I believe we get hung up on who got it right. Who is the holder and keeper of truth. There are many religious organizations that have built their entire structure around this. I think it is silly.

When I think of God...when I feel in my heart for God...I can feel God is there. My faith/instinct/connection/personal relationship with God comforts me. I even have a bible on my bedstand that I often open and read. As I am sure all of you do.

Nothing...and I mean nothing can shake my faith...I believe in my personal relationship with God.

But here's the kicker. Sometimes I see some things you guys post. Or talk to friends and hear what they have to say. Or watch some guy or woman on tv claiming to be a preacher/minister etc etc. Or I read the bible. And the point is....there is so much of it that screams to me, that this is not representing any God I know. What you or they are describing is not MY GOD. I feel this, many many times.

There have been many times I've read the bible and closed it and thought...that is not my God they are talking about. So I start to question who wrote it and why. Who was the author of that particular scripture..what time period did he live in, what was his economic background and social standing? What was his motive for writing about God? Here's some funny ones...What kind of weed was he smoking when he wrote it? Was he mentally unstable? Crazy? Delusional? Seeing pink elephants on the wall? Also, was he just trying to get attention, to feel better about himself by proclaiming that he had this intimate connection with our God and was a holder of the truth. A receiver of the divine word? Are these verses historical facts or divine word or simply the most extravagant made up stories in literature.

You see I love God and I defend God. And in doing that I must question everything I see or hear...any input coming into my brain. Even from the bible itself. Information must be filtered and brutally scruitinized in defense of our God. Especially our views (the views of the average person who is not an authority or agent of God). Our 'opinions' must be criticized most of all because they are just opinions and dangerous if they are not in defense of God.

The reason I say that is....if you defend God then instead of arguing back and forth in these endless debates...quoting bible verses and trying to get the last word and be right...you could just take a small leap to say, 'This is just a story written by many people over many hundred years and is of the highest probability to be inaccurate....false...made up....fiction....the most of extreme fantasy.'

The OP asked about 'evil'. Good and Evil are subjective terms. You can never exist in a realm where one concept exists without the other. It is always subjective to the viewer and can always be turned to fit your perspective. So if you believe a text that says God killed every man, woman, and child on the earth or destroyed many cities....then that's evil. I don't believe he did these things or ordered these things anway...but let's argue that is true. What if he had not done so? And this certain type of humanity remained. The worst type of people. A cancer. Evil people who would forever cause suffering. Would that not be the actions of an irresponsible God/Parent and would that not be negligence of the highest order? And is that not Evil.

You see when people want to flip things or attack things they always have a way. God is just like the rest of us. Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.

I know my God. I know how good and right he is. I don't even believe he is perfect. I believe he made mistakes. Mistakes that allow our perception of reality to perceive mistakes. Like evil and poverty and crime, sickness, hunger, pain, death, injustice. Our individual. unique, subjective perception makes a perfect world into an imperfect world. And we must blame someone. And guess who all fingers point to. Sorry, God. You're out scapegoat from now until forever.

But there are some of us out here that love you.

I think this is why so many people love debates involving all these bible verses when we know what we're reading isn't true. We're babbling incoherently about what someone else babbled about incoherently thousands of years ago and it's silly. If we write some ridiculous story about God today, a story that we know is just not true...God was a talking dog, and talked to Joe, and blah blah blah, and Joe killed every human because God said so because God is an evil being that wanted to kill everyone....do you think people would talk about that 3 thousand years from now? The sad truth is...they probably would. Look at us now.

We can all feel God in our hearts and we can all perceive the truth. We all know what is Evil or Good. God is not Evil.

 

[truthofscripture]

I agree completely. Reading is not knowledge. But experience is. And it is the experience that will decide the truth or falsehood of the material I'm studying at the moment. But like it or no, and many like yourself won't, a new religious teaching, a wisdom not of human intellectual origin, empirical and transcendent, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists. Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious revolution is getting under way. To test or not to test, that is the question? Not by reading, only by testing for the efficacy of this new claim does one have a valid opinion on the validity of the claim. And I mean to know.

I am not sure experience is the key. it is comparison of each scripture to ensure it harmonizes with each other scripture. That's the key. If any scripture seems to disagree with a particular scripture, then the understanding of it isn't correct. If one drew close to God, did His will all day every day with no exceptions, and became one of "God's People", then many other manifestations of the principles in the Bible would show up in your life. That is the proof. It simply cannot be read and studied and shown to be proven to you that it's real or not. It MUST be applied as written, the principles in it, that is.

 

[rrosskopf]

It is all about civilization. God spreads his version of civilization throughout the universe, and people are free to be a part of his civilization, or to reject it. Sin is anything that separates us from God and his civilization. Civilization starts with an adopted moral code that defines how people will act towards one another, and the freedoms one may enjoy. We get to choose our own heaven, to some degree, by selecting the laws we will obey, with the understanding that others will have the same freedom. God gives us the opportunity to have the greatest joy, providing only that we have enough faith to follow him.

 

[truthofscripture]

It is all about civilization. God spreads his version of civilization throughout the universe, and people are free to be a part of his civilization, or to reject it. Sin is anything that separates us from God and his civilization. Civilization starts with an adopted moral code that defines how people will act towards one another, and the freedoms one may enjoy. We get to choose our own heaven, to some degree, by selecting the laws we will obey, with the understanding that others will have the same freedom. God gives us the opportunity to have the greatest joy, providing only that we have enough faith to follow him.

Fair enough.

 

[Ingledsva]

It is all about civilization. God spreads his version of civilization throughout the universe, and people are free to be a part of his civilization, or to reject it. Sin is anything that separates us from God and his civilization. Civilization starts with an adopted moral code that defines how people will act towards one another, and the freedoms one may enjoy. We get to choose our own heaven, to some degree, by selecting the laws we will obey, with the understanding that others will have the same freedom. God gives us the opportunity to have the greatest joy, providing only that we have enough faith to follow him.

Laws came about from cavemen starting to gather in groups, - and needing to keep the peace. These ideas grow over time, and become accepted laws.

And I know you understand how the non-religious feel when you make - all you need is faith, statements.

It is like saying - per your last sentence -

Pasta Monster gives us the opportunity to have the greatest joy, providing only that we have enough faith to follow him.

In other words, - you need more than faith statements to make non-believers - into believers.

*