Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Debating with Christians > Why Does God Allow Evil
Posted by: biggles7268 Feb 23 2004, 03:26 PM
I found this on that tribulations msg board, they were discussing why god allows satan to have his power.
QUOTE
This is a good question and it is one that the bible does not give any real clear answers to. What I believe is that God allows the devil to mess with people because this entire world was made because of Satan's defiance. I believe God made the world to prove a point: Sin is horrible and leads to death and destruction. God allows Satan to deceive us and trick us because the devil believes that He can fool us all! And he almost did before the flood! God took care of that and started over, though! In short, the devil wanted to be God, and so God is showing to the entire world, all the angels, and even Satan that rebellion cannot be tolerated in God's Kingdom! At the end of the 1000 millennium, though, Satan will get what he deserves!
Is this something that most Xtians really believe? That all of humanity and all life in general is simply an object lesson to show the devil that he was wrong?
thoughts?
Posted by: biggles7268 Feb 23 2004, 03:27 PM
QUOTE
"God in His wisdom saw He needed an adversary, someone to work counter to His plans and purpose, and undertake to overthrow His ultimate plan of the salvation and praise of all of the human family. So we see that Satan and sin was in God’s plan. Without opposition God could never have shown His superiority. This fact is simple when we think of it. God needed sin and wickedness in order to have an opportunity to show to the world His mighty power over Satan and his satellites. If King Pharaoh had not been motivated by a satanic spirit he would not have held the children of Israel in bondage for more than four hundred years, but it all occurred that God might show to the world His power over Satan. Paul says Pharaoh was raised up for this very purpose. There are many events recorded in Scripture, where God used Satan in carrying out His purpose."
this was also in the same topic
Posted by: UV2003 Feb 23 2004, 03:41 PM
QUOTE (biggles7268 @ Feb 23 2004, 03:27 PM)
QUOTE
"God in His wisdom saw He needed an adversary, someone to work counter to His plans and purpose, and undertake to overthrow His ultimate plan of the salvation and praise of all of the human family. So we see that Satan and sin was in God’s plan. Without opposition God could never have shown His superiority. This fact is simple when we think of it. God needed sin and wickedness in order to have an opportunity to show to the world His mighty power over Satan and his satellites. If King Pharaoh had not been motivated by a satanic spirit he would not have held the children of Israel in bondage for more than four hundred years, but it all occurred that God might show to the world His power over Satan. Paul says Pharaoh was raised up for this very purpose. There are many events recorded in Scripture, where God used Satan in carrying out His purpose."
this was also in the same topic
What else can we expect from the tribulations boards?
-UV
Posted by: Reach Feb 23 2004, 04:46 PM
QUOTE (biggles7268 @ Feb 23 2004, 03:27 PM)
QUOTE
"God in His wisdom saw He needed an adversary, someone to work counter to His plans and purpose, and undertake to overthrow His ultimate plan of the salvation and praise of all of the human family. So we see that Satan and sin was in God’s plan. Without opposition God could never have shown His superiority. This fact is simple when we think of it.
this was also in the same topic
If Satan and sin were in God's PLAN that would make God the consummate Architect of Evil.
If God is in NEED of something, he cannot be All-Powerful.
Faulty reasoning...
Posted by: Bruce Feb 23 2004, 04:56 PM
QUOTE
If God is in NEED of something, he cannot be All-Powerful.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
The alternative to the clearly stated claim that God creates evil, such as hardening the hearts of people simply to demonstrate his power, is that in fact god is a figmant of the imagination.
In fact, the God of the Bible is a logical impossibility, by the Bible's own definition, reference above and the following:
1. Love is not jealous 1 Corinthians 13:4
2. God is love - 1 John 4:8/4:16
3. God is a jealous god - Ex. 20:4/Duet. 5:9
Hence like the logical fallacy concerning evil and God, in this case God is either jealous; he is love; love is jealous; tthe Bible is in error regarding it's claims about love; or God doesn't actually exist.
I'll stick with logic and human reasoning.
//Bruce//
Posted by: ~Josalo~ Feb 23 2004, 05:33 PM
Hitler and the nazis thought there were doing good, we think they were evil. Its all what you percieve. I can say something is "good" or "bad" because thats how I percieve that certain thing or action or place.
Posted by: chefranden Feb 23 2004, 07:16 PM
QUOTE (reach @ Feb 23 2004, 06:46 PM)
If Satan and sin were in God's PLAN that would make God the consummate Architect of Evil.
If God is in NEED of something, he cannot be All-Powerful.
Faulty reasoning...
Reach,
You know I hate to call you on things, but here goes anyway.
If God is the Architect (designer) of everything, he is also the Archetect of Evil. No way around it; the head dog is always responsible for the pack.
QUOTE (Colossians 1)
16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
God could be all powerful and yet in need at some point. What he couldn't be is Perfect, if he needed something.
chef
Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Feb 23 2004, 07:59 PM
On the question of human nature, as in most areas of abstract belief in Judaism, there is a lot of room for personal opinion. There is no dogma on the subject, no required belief about the nature of humanity. There are a variety of contrary opinions expressed on the subject, and one is no less a Jew (and no less a good Jew) for disagreeing with any or all of these opinions. Nevertheless, there are certain ideas that seem to reflect the majority opinion in Jewish thought that are worth discussing.
In the Image of G-d
The Bible states that humanity was created in the image of G-d, but what does it mean to be created in the image of G-d?
Clearly, we are not created in the physical image of G-d, because Judaism steadfastly maintains that G-d is incorporeal and has no physical appearance. Rambam points out that the Hebrew words translated as "image" and "likeness" in Gen. 1:27 do not refer to the physical form of a thing. The word for "image" in Gen. 1:27 is "tzelem," which refers to the nature or essence of a thing, as in Psalm 73:20, "you will despise their image (tzel'mam)." You despise a person's nature and not a person's physical appearance. The word for physical form, Rambam explains, is "to'ar," as in Gen. 39:6, "and Joseph was beautiful of form (to'ar) and fair to look upon." Similarly, the word used for "likeness" is "damut," which is used to indicate a simile, not identity of form. For example, "He is like (damuno) a lion" in Ps. 17:12 refers not to similar appearance, but to similar nature.
What is it in our nature that is G-d-like? Rashi explains that we are like G-d in that we have the ability to understand and discern. Rambam elaborates that by using our intellect, we are able to perceive things without the use of our physical senses, an ability that makes us like G-d, who perceives without having physical senses.
The Dual Nature
In Genesis 2:7, the Bible states that G-d formed (vayyitzer) man. The spelling of this word is unusual: it uses two consecutive Yods instead of the one you would expect. The rabbis inferred that these Yods stand for the word "yetzer," which means impulse, and the existence of two Yods here indicates that humanity was formed with two impulses: a good impulse (the yetzer tov) and an evil impulse (the yetzer ra).
The yetzer tov is the moral conscience, the inner voice that reminds you of G-d's law when you consider doing something that is forbidden. According to some views, it does not enter a person until his 13th birthday, when he becomes responsible for following the commandments.
The yetzer ra is more difficult to define, because there are many different ideas about it. It is not a desire to do evil in the way we normally think of it in Western society: a desire to cause senseless harm. Rather, it is usually conceived as the selfish nature, the desire to satisfy personal needs (food, shelter, sex, etc.) without regard for the moral consequences of fulfilling those desires.
The yetzer ra is not a bad thing. It was created by G-d, and all things created by G-d are good. The Talmud notes that without the yetzer ra (the desire to satisfy personal needs), man would not build a house, marry a wife, beget children or conduct business affairs. But the yetzer ra can lead to wrongdoing when it is not controlled by the yetzer tov. There is nothing inherently wrong with hunger, but it can lead you to steal food. There is nothing inherently wrong with sexual desire, but it can lead you to commit rape, adultery, incest or other sexual perversion.
The yetzer ra is generally seen as something internal to a person, not as an external force acting on a person. The idea that "the devil made me do it" is not in line with the majority of thought in Judaism. Although it has been said that Satan and the yetzer ra are one and the same, this is more often understood as meaning that Satan is merely a personification of our own selfish desires, rather than that our selfish desires are caused by some external force.
People have the ability to choose which impulse to follow: the yetzer tov or the yetzer ra. That is the heart of the Jewish understanding of free will. The Talmud notes that all people are descended from Adam, so no one can blame his own wickedness on his ancestry. On the contrary, we all have the ability to make our own choices, and we will all be held responsible for the choices we make.
Essencially, what you interperet as evil is free will in the result of choices made by humans to follow their own selfish desires without regard to others.
Posted by: Skankboy Feb 24 2004, 05:30 AM
This might be a little off topic but I think it pertains. Does anyone here think angels have free will? I only ask because I remember my old pastor saying they didn't, but then how did Satan rebel if he didn't actually have free will?
1. Satan had no free will = God created evil
2. Satan has free will but God is omniscient = is Satan really free then? God still created evil
3. Satan has free will but God isn't omniscient = God is stupid and let evil into the world (not man).
I know it's mostly just semantics but I'm surprised I've never seen this argument before. Any thoughts?
Posted by: moorezw Feb 24 2004, 05:46 AM
I'm sorry, I just wanted to comment on how convoluted theology can become if left to boil on the stove for 2000-odd years. What a mess.
Posted by: Reach Feb 24 2004, 08:28 AM
QUOTE (chefranden @ Feb 23 2004, 07:16 PM)
QUOTE (reach @ Feb 23 2004, 06:46 PM)
If Satan and sin were in God's PLAN that would make God the consummate Architect of Evil.
If God is in NEED of something, he cannot be All-Powerful.
Faulty reasoning...
Reach,
You know I hate to call you on things, but here goes anyway.
If God is the Architect (designer) of everything, he is also the Archetect of Evil. No way around it; the head dog is always responsible for the pack.
QUOTE (Colossians 1)
16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
God could be all powerful and yet in need at some point. What he couldn't be is Perfect, if he needed something.
chef
Chef,
I knew I was stepping into a manure pile walking through this thread, but, oh well. I don't think I'm prepared to say that God is the Architect of Evil, but if he is the creator of all beings (both human and angelic) then common sense tells me that he created these beings with the potential for acting as wicked agents. I suppose one can argue that Satan was originally created with the propensity for evil but that doesn't jive with the loving-merciful-gracious God concept. What a mess indeed! I freely admit I do not have this all sorted out.
What I have thought is that the rebellion in heaven forced God's hand in a sense and so he created man as a lesser being than Satan. When I say 'lesser' I'm referring to power here, man being less powerful than angels. Ultimately, I see mankind involved in a warfare between God and the Adversary with God's choosing to use and partner with mankind to bring Satan down. I don't see God needing us at all but humbling himself to work with us and include us in this battle. I see God humbling himself in taking on human flesh and Christ at the Cross, to me, is the ultimate statement of humility and how far God would go to connect with man. I don't understand much of it, but that's the way I've loooked at it.
As an aside regarding the lead dog... here's some Lewis Grizzard humor for you, "Life is like a dogsled team. If you ain't the lead dog, the scenery never changes."
reach
Posted by: Reach Feb 29 2004, 10:41 PM
This post is what I call a drag... dragging up a topic from a back page.
*Chef, not sure if you noticed that I tried to form some response to you.*
Posted by: biggles7268 Mar 1 2004, 03:41 AM
Wow I'd forgotten about this, I had some thoughts on it not to long ago except I forgot what they were.
It had something to do with since God gave us free will he would have known that some of us would not behave ourselves and would need a little place for a timeout. Sorry I have the attention span wet lint sometimes.
Posted by: Lokmer Mar 1 2004, 11:12 AM
When I was a Christian, I never had a problem with the existence of Evil. I managed to concieve of a God for whom the existence of evil was a (forgive the phrase) "necessary evil."
As an artist/novelist, I latched on to God as the "author of life." I know that as a novelist, killing a character is a difficult thing to do. If I'm doing my job right, I hurt right alongside the characters. A good work of art requires dark as well as light. A good character requires evil, adversity, hardship, and grief as well as nobility, forbearance, and love. From the perspective of an artist in the business of growing characters to maturity, the problem of evil with regards to God never has vexed me overmuch.
Of course, there is gratuitous, purposeless natural evil (landslides, etc.), but that never really came in as a factor of consideration. And, even if it did, when one views the world as a cosmic opera, there is at least an allowance for dark notes.
For this reason, I have always thought the problem of evil, while a large one, is a bit of a red herring. A far more convincing argument against the existence of God is the argument from incoherency.
-Lokmer
Posted by: Skankboy Mar 1 2004, 12:15 PM
QUOTE
For this reason, I have always thought the problem of evil, while a large one, is a bit of a red herring. A far more convincing argument against the existence of God is the argument from incoherency.
Very well put lokmer. Honestly, I don't believe in "Evil" with the the big "e". Natural disasters are just that, natural and morally nuetral. Evil is what people do to each other and even then it's relative to the time/place/situation/etc. in which it occurs.
I think Joseph Campbell said "Every act is evil to someone."
Posted by: channelcat Mar 1 2004, 12:21 PM
The question of the devils existence has no bearing on the fact of evil. Even if the devil were to round up all his minions and retire to Jupiter for eternity, evil would remain as steady as always.
The same with Christianity; suppose some of His disciples did indeed steal His body away, and then concocted tales of His resurrection. Don't you know that there would still be a church on every corner(i'm in Georgia), people would still be getting "saved", speaking in tounges, changing of lives, etc.
A religion need not be based on "facts" to display bedazzling power.
Posted by: brick Mar 1 2004, 12:23 PM
I think the whole point of reading Golding's "Lord of the Flies" in school was to demonstrate that each of us has the potential for acts of evil as well as good.
Like Skankboy, I don't believe in evil with a capital 'E', thats black and white idealogy. The real world doesn't work that way.
If any of you fundies out there want to defeat evil, just don't do any.
Posted by: jjacksonRIAB Mar 1 2004, 12:45 PM
QUOTE (chefranden @ Feb 23 2004, 07:16 PM)
QUOTE (reach @ Feb 23 2004, 06:46 PM)
If Satan and sin were in God's PLAN that would make God the consummate Architect of Evil.
If God is in NEED of something, he cannot be All-Powerful.
Faulty reasoning...
Reach,
You know I hate to call you on things, but here goes anyway.
If God is the Architect (designer) of everything, he is also the Archetect of Evil. No way around it; the head dog is always responsible for the pack.
QUOTE (Colossians 1)
16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
God could be all powerful and yet in need at some point. What he couldn't be is Perfect, if he needed something.
chef
Arguing from the Apologist perspective, evil is a side effect of Free Will. Considering that we celebrate Free Will as it proves both beneficial and detrimental, but augmenting that with the concept that we consider the ability to make choices of greater importance than that of the existence of evil, a God who created evil as a byproduct of Free Will could not be malevolent by simply providing us with the ability to choose what to do.
I guess the main question is: were I God, would you rather be a robot acting according to my will, or would you rather be concious of your own choices and act according to your own will, even knowing that without complete knowledge you cannot be guaranteed to make the correct choice, and as such you would be permitted to act against the programming of moral conduct?
The question is pitting the concept of happiness in slavery vs God the malevolent creator of Evil. Having Free Will, I would not give it up. Being a slave, I would not care to know what I am missing, for I would merely be acting according to my programming.
I for one would rather be a sovereign being and have to put up with the failure of others' incomplete knowledge or lack of concern (evil) than a robot existing in harmony with others, performing a predefined task (why? If God is Omnipotent, why would he create a predictable simulation?).
Several questions arise:
1. If God is Omnipotent and complete by definition, what necessitates our existence?
2. If God is Omniscient, what can he learn from our creation
...
The idea of an Omnipotent and Omniscient God means that there is no need for us to exist at all, unless we ourselves are part of God, but then we go very deep into paradoxical thinking.
Ironically, a better argument could be made for an impotent neutrality that created many Gods who were collectively Omnipotent but singularly lacking in some area (perhaps in knowing each other's thoughts) so as to create all of humanity as a game to play between them, where we are a random colony with our own behaviors (perhaps created and managed by the impotent neutrality) and the Gods represent a measure of risk in our surrounding environments as an influencer of Man's observations and the actions they takes thereby.
There is no doubt in my mind that this is a construct of my own divising, and though it may be true, one cannot be given into such imaginings, for illusion has never proven fruitful.
Posted by: Bruce Mar 1 2004, 01:08 PM
Jackson,
If there exist an omniscient god, then free will is an illusion. If god is omniscient, then it already knows what choices every creature will make, including his own. If god knows these things, then prayer is also an illusion, for it can effect nothing. If prayer entices God to change his mind, then god does not know the future and is not omniscient.
Logically, one can only have five possible universes.
1. Universe A - God is omniscient and there is no free will at all, it is an illusion.
2. Universe B - God is not omniscient and free will exists.
3. Universe C - The Bible's claims of God being omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent are false attributes imputed to god.
4. Universe D - God does not exist and free will exists.
5. Universe E - Neither God or perfect free will exists, both are false assumptions of humans.
//Bruce//
Posted by: jjacksonRIAB Mar 1 2004, 01:38 PM
QUOTE (Bruce @ Mar 1 2004, 01:08 PM)
Jackson,
If there exist an omniscient god, then free will is an illusion. If god is omniscient, then it already knows what choices every creature will make, including his own. If god knows these things, then prayer is also an illusion, for it can effect nothing. If prayer entices God to change his mind, then god does not know the future and is not omniscient.
Logically, one can only have five possible universes.
1. Universe A - God is omniscient and there is no free will at all, it is an illusion.
2. Universe B - God is not omniscient and free will exists.
3. Universe C - The Bible's claims of God being omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent are false attributes imputed to god.
4. Universe D - God does not exist and free will exists.
5. Universe E - Neither God or perfect free will exists, both are false assumptions of humans.
//Bruce//
Sure, but isn't that idea already short-circuited before it even gets to that point? Why would a complete God need a creation?
By the way, here's an interesting situation on free will, though for the life of me I cannot remember who devised it, but it proves that being omniscient can actually be a disadvantage.
Imagine you are playing chicken with an omniscient being. Being omniscient, he knows whether or not you will veer away and lose before you even play the game. Since you know that he is omniscient, you also know that he knows whether you will veer or not, so simply by resolving never to veer, you will never lose and he will always lose.
Omniscience in this sense is actually a weakness when it would seem a strength; therefore, it would seem the best choice would to either not be omniscient or simply be omniscient and act as if you weren't to ensure no one would act upon that premise to your utter failure...
Posted by: chefranden Mar 1 2004, 01:43 PM
QUOTE (reach @ Mar 1 2004, 12:41 AM)
This post is what I call a drag... dragging up a topic from a back page.
*Chef, not sure if you noticed that I tried to form some response to you.*
Now I have noticed. I'm thinking.
Posted by: jjacksonRIAB Mar 1 2004, 02:02 PM
QUOTE (jjacksonRIAB @ Mar 1 2004, 01:38 PM)
Omniscience in this sense is actually a weakness when it would seem a strength; therefore, it would seem the best choice would to either not be omniscient or simply be omniscient and act as if you weren't to ensure no one would act upon that premise to your utter failure...
At the risk of quoting myself, I just wanted to add to that:
Is being Omniscient and acting as if you aren't really any different from not being Omniscient at all?
Posted by: chefranden Mar 1 2004, 02:44 PM
QUOTE (Reach)
I knew I was stepping into a manure pile walking through this thread, but, oh well. I don't think I'm prepared to say that God is the Architect of Evil, but if he is the creator of all beings (both human and angelic) then common sense tells me that he created these beings with the potential for acting as wicked agents.
Creating the potential is the same as creating the actuality once the potential becomes actual. In order for the potential to exist in a creature the potential must by definition be created. For example: If I place a land mine in my lawn I am potentially a murderer, by my own hand. If some one steps on the land mine I am a murderer, again by my own hand. A creature cannot bring into existence something the creator has not created. That evil may have started as a potential, does not let the creator off the hook. Ignorance cannot be claimed because the creator knew the potential would be used. (Space, I’m speaking of the Xian creator, not yours) Indeed, since everything was planned from the beginning the creator intended for the potential to be used.
QUOTE
I suppose one can argue that Satan was originally created with the propensity for evil but that doesn't jive with the loving-merciful-gracious God concept. What a mess indeed! I freely admit I do not have this all sorted out.
That is exactly the problem. You can either have the loving-merciful-gracious God concept, or a universe with evil, not both.
QUOTE
What I have thought is that the rebellion in heaven forced God's hand in a sense and so he created man as a lesser being than Satan. When I say 'lesser' I'm referring to power here, man being less powerful than angels. Ultimately, I see mankind involved in a warfare between God and the Adversary with God's choosing to use and partner with mankind to bring Satan down. I don't see God needing us at all but humbling himself to work with us and include us in this battle. I see God humbling himself in taking on human flesh and Christ at the Cross, to me, is the ultimate statement of humility and how far God would go to connect with man. I don't understand much of it, but that's the way I've loooked at it.
The Isaiah passage calls Lucifer a man not an angel.
QUOTE (Isaiah 14)
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
I think that the legend of Lucifer and the angels comes from the book of Jubilees, which as a rewrite of the Pentateuch was an attempt to get god off the hook for the problem of evil. This book is accepted as scripture only by the Coptic church, as far as I know. Therefore the legend cannot be of help to your cause.
chef
Posted by: biggles7268 Mar 1 2004, 02:55 PM
Does God actually claim Omniscience in the bible or is that something that man has slapped on to him?
Posted by: chefranden Mar 1 2004, 02:58 PM
QUOTE (Skankboy @ Mar 1 2004, 02:15 PM)
QUOTE
For this reason, I have always thought the problem of evil, while a large one, is a bit of a red herring. A far more convincing argument against the existence of God is the argument from incoherency.
Very well put lokmer. Honestly, I don't believe in "Evil" with the the big "e". Natural disasters are just that, natural and morally nuetral. Evil is what people do to each other and even then it's relative to the time/place/situation/etc. in which it occurs.
I think Joseph Campbell said "Every act is evil to someone."
Neither do I. It is the Xian assumption that an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful god exists as a part of the same universe in which evil exists.
If evolutionary theory is correct, then the kind of universe that a conscious self-interested being would observe as containing evil would be predictable. Nature doesn't care if any individual lives much less has a good life. Nature doesn't care about the existence of a species or even a planet or what have you. In a random universe shit happens.
Since shit does happen, the probability of XianGod must be near 0.
Posted by: jjacksonRIAB Mar 1 2004, 03:09 PM
QUOTE (chefranden @ Mar 1 2004, 02:44 PM)
QUOTE (Reach)
I knew I was stepping into a manure pile walking through this thread, but, oh well. I don't think I'm prepared to say that God is the Architect of Evil, but if he is the creator of all beings (both human and angelic) then common sense tells me that he created these beings with the potential for acting as wicked agents.
Creating the potential is the same as creating the actuality once the potential becomes actual. In order for the potential to exist in a creature the potential must by definition be created. For example: If I place a land mine in my lawn I am potentially a murderer, by my own hand. If some one steps on the land mine I am a murderer, again by my own hand. A creature cannot bring into existence something the creator has not created. That evil may have started as a potential, does not let the creator off the hook. Ignorance cannot be claimed because the creator knew the potential would be used. (Space, I’m speaking of the Xian creator, not yours) Indeed, since everything was planned from the beginning the creator intended for the potential to be used.
QUOTE
I suppose one can argue that Satan was originally created with the propensity for evil but that doesn't jive with the loving-merciful-gracious God concept. What a mess indeed! I freely admit I do not have this all sorted out.
That is exactly the problem. You can either have the loving-merciful-gracious God concept, or a universe with evil, not both.
QUOTE
What I have thought is that the rebellion in heaven forced God's hand in a sense and so he created man as a lesser being than Satan. When I say 'lesser' I'm referring to power here, man being less powerful than angels. Ultimately, I see mankind involved in a warfare between God and the Adversary with God's choosing to use and partner with mankind to bring Satan down. I don't see God needing us at all but humbling himself to work with us and include us in this battle. I see God humbling himself in taking on human flesh and Christ at the Cross, to me, is the ultimate statement of humility and how far God would go to connect with man. I don't understand much of it, but that's the way I've loooked at it.
The Isaiah passage calls Lucifer a man not an angel.
QUOTE (Isaiah 14)
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
I think that the legend of Lucifer and the angels comes from the book of Jubilees, which as a rewrite of the Pentateuch was an attempt to get god off the hook for the problem of evil. This book is accepted as scripture only by the Coptic church, as far as I know. Therefore the legend cannot be of help to your cause.
chef
It seems I am destined to be the Apologist for a little bit because I find the others to lack a certain spirit of debate (though even that statement itself is out of character - referring to destiny)...
If human beings were to completely conquer reality around them and in addition committed no evil against one another while still acting in a compromising fashion, would God then exist and not be malicious? Asking the question in that fashion, it seems that maliciousness of God depends more on us than it does God himself. It seems the failure of the Atheist's logic is that Evil is an abstract concept and not a failure of moral compatibility from the lowest level, two people, up to the greatest level, multitudes at odds following their respective common codes. If God created only one person, evil would not exist, for there would be nothing to visit one's adverse designs upon.
To add some weight to this question: are we to blame our predecessors for our genetic failings?
For example, if our parents could scientifically determine that we as their offspring would suffer from some malformity, chronic disease, etc, would they be at fault for not terminating the pregnancy? Could we blame their parents for lending to their chromosomal mismatch? And so on and so forth to the origin? Were time and generations infinite, who then could we blame besides the whole of past itself?
Then we get into a philosophical question: would you really want to live in a world in which there was no adversity, and everything was agreeable, perfectly matched and no choice was necessary, for every choice was obvious and therefore not really a choice?
Again, that brings us back to being a robot who can assign no blame or a singular conscience that assigns blame to its creator for giving it something superior to what it would have otherwise been.
I would choose to deal with evil and push it away from me by living morally in order to affect my rise in stratified society before I would ever choose to be equal to a robot and likewise mindless - the ability to choose being unnecessary.
Posted by: chefranden Mar 1 2004, 05:06 PM
QUOTE (Jackson)
If human beings were to completely conquer reality around them and in addition committed no evil against one another while still acting in a compromising fashion, would God then exist and not be malicious?
Please re-word this I’m not getting it.
QUOTE
Asking the question in that fashion, it seems that maliciousness of God depends more on us than it does God himself. It seems the failure of the Atheist's logic is that Evil is an abstract concept and not a failure of moral compatibility from the lowest level, two people, up to the greatest level, multitudes at odds following their respective common codes. If God created only one person, evil would not exist, for there would be nothing to visit one's adverse designs upon.
The nature of evil is irrelevant. A creator that has created all things has created it. The necessity of evil for the existence of free will in the presence of an all-knowing god is clearly debatable. Even if you allow for evil as the necessary result of free will, there is too much evil left over. Please see Bruce’s perceptive post on the matter.http://www.vanallens.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2583&hl=
QUOTE
To add some weight to this question: are we to blame our predecessors for our genetic failings?
For example, if our parents could scientifically determine that we as their offspring would suffer from some malformity, chronic disease, etc, would they be at fault for not terminating the pregnancy? Could we blame their parents for lending to their chromosomal mismatch? And so on and so forth to the origin? Were time and generations infinite, who then could we blame besides the whole of past itself?
I don’t see what this adds to the debate. Parents are not capable of not adding their chromosomal mismatch. They are not all-knowing, all-powerful, perfectly moral beings. If XianGod existed they would be just creatures acting as their creator made them. If XainGod does not exist then that which happens from nature has no moral component. Morality is an evolutionary construct of social self-aware beings.
QUOTE
Then we get into a philosophical question: would you really want to live in a world in which there was no adversity, and everything was agreeable, perfectly matched and no choice was necessary, for every choice was obvious and therefore not really a choice?
It is clearly not a matter of wanting. The state of being that you describe is the state from which we have supposedly fallen if you support the Xian view. The state that somehow God both wanted and didn’t want at the same time.
If you are describing God’s desire for an adversary you are describing something closer to Hinduism, in which god gets bored with being perfect and tears things up to get some excitement going.
From a human perspective it is Xian theology that claims that the universe was a moral place which somehow we had the power to screw up. Nevertheless, if that is the case, the source of the power is still the creator. The ability to use the power negatively is still the construct of the creator if we are creatures. If the creator made us so in order that he would not be bored, then condemning us for being that way is illogical.
QUOTE
Again, that brings us back to being a robot who can assign no blame or a singular conscience that assigns blame to its creator for giving it something superior to what it would have otherwise been.
If there is a creator that has the qualities assigned to it by Xian theology, then it is responsible for all your qualities as a creature. The quality of free will does not change your source, if your source is a creator. You may be able to make the result of the quality appear indirect, but that is the best you can do. If the creator is moral, this universe does not exist. If this universe exists, then a moral creator does not.
Posted by: jjacksonRIAB Mar 1 2004, 06:06 PM
What I mean to say is:
If we all acted according to what was morally correct (without exception, and I'm talking about one universal morality that was in no way contradictory), then we would not be saying that God created evil, but we would be sacrificing free will in the process...
Plus, there is some duality to what constitutes Good and Evil, owing to some measure of subjectivity. Thus, if we cannot pin the definition of Evil and Good down, then God is the unwitting victim no matter what. Everyone who has lived a satisfied life will praise God on the one hand will curse him when favor passes onto someone else to his detriment.
It's like money - there is a limited supply of which stratifies into varying amounts over the population, creating classes of individuals. Some will make wise decisions, elevating their status while indirectly pushing others down and others will either make poor decisions or cease to make decisions and sink from the burden of being poor. Free will always results in stratification, whereas constrained will drives us all into servitude and makes us equal, but equally poor.
If you apply this analogy to good and evil as an abstraction, then for good to matter the wise must be possessing of a greater amount of good and the foolhardy must be possessing of a lesser amount of it; for wisdom and foolishness are class definers of good and evil. So if there is a limited amount of good and evil, then yes you are right in saying that God is malicious.
To lose evil entirely is to deny ourselves the ability to pursue happiness in thrusting it away from us.
It seems the only man who would curse God for creating evil would do so because he had accumulated a wealth of unhappiness, whereas the happy would praise God for the good that had been their fortune to receive.
After all, the poor blame the rich for being poor and question why money exists in this world as if it is some joke meant to deprive them of their due, yet the rich blame no one and praise their good fortune.
Similarly, perhaps those who have had evil done to them blame God for being unhappy and having created evil, yet those who have led a good life count their many blessings.
However, if God has a part in who receives what, as the Bible plainly states, then yes, by all accounts he is malicious unless he provided some code of conduct by which all evil could be avoided and all good could be retained of an infinite measure. The Bible purports to be that code of conduct. This doesn't limit our free will per se, because we still have a choice in what we do, just as we have a choice in not paying our taxes knowing full well that eventually it will lead to jail. If all of us chose to accept a key to goodness that had been presented to us by the divine hand, we would all be happy and no one would think God malicious, for some would think that good and evil are not limited, but are of infinite supply, but then all must think it is possible to satisfy everyone, which is possible if everyone was of a similar and flexible mind.
And that is why how we define God as malicious depends more on our actions towards each other than it does God himself...
(I'm dying from the sappiness of self righteousness over here)
I'll look over Bruce's post.
Posted by: jjacksonRIAB Mar 1 2004, 07:05 PM
Reading over Bruce's post and the poem, I am delighted to respond to it.
First, must we define something like Gravity as inherently evil because it can bring us to our deaths, yet it also keeps us locked onto this planet? Must we define Friction as inherently evil, though on the one hand it gives us the ability to move where our will commands and on the other it can burn or destroy us utterly? Such effects are, for all intents and purposes, neutral.
It is said that the first adaptations were available for mastery over one's local environment. So, we have here a formula for adversity. One creature that is adapted to acrobatics, for example, has grown a tail whereas another who has adapted to swimming has gained webbed feet, and still another has grown wings for the purpose of exploring the currents of air that surrounds us - all of this through neutral efforts to foster free will and live in an environment we best affect.
Our free will also requires a concerted effort, which of course requires energy, the same energy we extract from our environs. If we had infinite energy, none of us could exact our free will, because every will would be equal, and every will could oppose every other will exactly. So, we must have mastery in certain areas in which we are better able to conduct the process of existence, and we must gain the energy to do so from the surrounding environment, of which we are all products.
Unfortunately, if we were to consume energy from our environment directly it would require more energy to put it into order than it would itself produce (given our energy requirements), therefore we have for our use plants that do not move and are adapted to extract energy from the sun and the earth, that have much lower energy requirements for growth, since what little movement they do make is entirely focused on growth. An ordered being cannot consume an unordered material and retain free will - this necessitates our requirement for consuming ordered beings in a long chain that goes back to an ordered being without free will: a plant.
So now locales begin to clash, for one bacteria has come against the barrier of another and there is no more room for growth. That barrier has itself become an environment, albeit a biological one, the point in fact is that we are designed to overcome an environment, therefore just as a biological entity with free will develops tools to overcome an environment, a bacteria intermingles with its enemies to develop tools to overcome them and sometimes, quite by accident, the code to the existence of one bacteria is accidentially provided to a differing bacteria, and now we have a new half-breed bacteria, knowing the secrets of both parents and able to overcome one or the other. So are natural defenses devised, and the order inherent in biological entities has affected it to turn against other entities, an ill effect of the capability to adapt for one creature and a benefit for another, all of which is a product of free will.
It seems what you would call evil has all come about through our free will - by our need to consume energy, overcome gravity and maximize our control over neutral barriers.
(If I was dying before, I am totally rotting right now)
Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Mar 1 2004, 08:33 PM
QUOTE (chefranden @ Mar 1 2004, 05:44 PM)
The Isaiah passage calls Lucifer a man not an angel.
QUOTE (Isaiah 14)
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
I think that the legend of Lucifer and the angels comes from the book of Jubilees, which as a rewrite of the Pentateuch was an attempt to get god off the hook for the problem of evil. This book is accepted as scripture only by the Coptic church, as far as I know. Therefore the legend cannot be of help to your cause.
Well looking at the hebrew, there is no lucifer at all! (On a side note, the opening to the chapter is supposed to be a song against babylon, sort of an insult if you will.)
Note: Sheol = equivilent experiance of the soul in Gehinom ("hell")
QUOTE (Nevi'im (prophets) @ Isaiah, 14.28)
9. Sheol below was astir
To greet you to your coming
Rousing for you the shades
Of all earth's chieftains,
Raising from their thrones
All the kings of nations.
10. All speak up and say to you,
"So you have become stricken as we were,
You have become like us!
11. Your pomp is brought down to sheol
and the strain of your lutes!
Worms are to be your bed,
Maggots your blanket"
12 How you are fallen from heaven
O shining One, son of Dawn (Note: A character in a lost myth)
how are you felled to earth,
O vanquisher of nations!
To me this isn't about any particular person, but anyone who should try to be better than anyone else, further that oppressing people on the way up makes it more difficult to be rectified.
In essence: The bigger they are the harder they fall.
Posted by: Aryan Mar 2 2004, 02:12 AM
QUOTE (UV2003 @ Feb 23 2004, 03:41 PM)
QUOTE (biggles7268 @ Feb 23 2004, 03:27 PM)
QUOTE
"God in His wisdom saw He needed an adversary, someone to work counter to His plans and purpose, and undertake to overthrow His ultimate plan of the salvation and praise of all of the human family. So we see that Satan and sin was in God’s plan. Without opposition God could never have shown His superiority. This fact is simple when we think of it. God needed sin and wickedness in order to have an opportunity to show to the world His mighty power over Satan and his satellites. If King Pharaoh had not been motivated by a satanic spirit he would not have held the children of Israel in bondage for more than four hundred years, but it all occurred that God might show to the world His power over Satan. Paul says Pharaoh was raised up for this very purpose. There are many events recorded in Scripture, where God used Satan in carrying out His purpose."
this was also in the same topic
What else can we expect from the tribulations boards?
-UV
QUOTE
What else can we expect from the tribulations boards?
You would at least expect them to get their basic Sunday School stories straight, or at least watch reruns of the Ten Commandments
QUOTE
Exodus 10:20 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let the Israelites go.
Exodus 10:27 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he was not willing to let them go.NIV
Who hardened Pharaoh heart?
QUOTE
Paul says Pharaoh was raised up for this very purpose.
That out of content statement seems to imply that the Pharaoh was created for what ever purpose and had no choice in the matter. That goes against the Bible teaching of man having free will. Read the OT quote and look at the foot note, it makes more sense.
QUOTE
Exodus 9:16 But I have raised you up [1] for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.
Footnotes
1. 9:16 Or have spared you
Not sure where this poster is getting all this Satan stuff and Gods need to show his superiority and need for an adversary. This person is out and out ignorant of the very book he claims to believe in. There are many different understandings of the Bible, but there is no excuse to misquote it and add things that are not there.
Posted by: chefranden Mar 2 2004, 06:33 PM
QUOTE (jjacksonRIAB @ Mar 1 2004, 09:05 PM)
Reading over Bruce's post and the poem, I am delighted to respond to it.
First, must we define something like Gravity as inherently evil because it can bring us to our deaths, yet it also keeps us locked onto this planet? Must we define Friction as inherently evil, though on the one hand it gives us the ability to move where our will commands and on the other it can burn or destroy us utterly? Such effects are, for all intents and purposes, neutral.
It is said that the first adaptations were available for mastery over one's local environment. So, we have here a formula for adversity. One creature that is adapted to acrobatics, for example, has grown a tail whereas another who has adapted to swimming has gained webbed feet, and still another has grown wings for the purpose of exploring the currents of air that surrounds us - all of this through neutral efforts to foster free will and live in an environment we best affect.
Our free will also requires a concerted effort, which of course requires energy, the same energy we extract from our environs. If we had infinite energy, none of us could exact our free will, because every will would be equal, and every will could oppose every other will exactly. So, we must have mastery in certain areas in which we are better able to conduct the process of existence, and we must gain the energy to do so from the surrounding environment, of which we are all products.
Unfortunately, if we were to consume energy from our environment directly it would require more energy to put it into order than it would itself produce (given our energy requirements), therefore we have for our use plants that do not move and are adapted to extract energy from the sun and the earth, that have much lower energy requirements for growth, since what little movement they do make is entirely focused on growth. An ordered being cannot consume an unordered material and retain free will - this necessitates our requirement for consuming ordered beings in a long chain that goes back to an ordered being without free will: a plant.
So now locales begin to clash, for one bacteria has come against the barrier of another and there is no more room for growth. That barrier has itself become an environment, albeit a biological one, the point in fact is that we are designed to overcome an environment, therefore just as a biological entity with free will develops tools to overcome an environment, a bacteria intermingles with its enemies to develop tools to overcome them and sometimes, quite by accident, the code to the existence of one bacteria is accidentially provided to a differing bacteria, and now we have a new half-breed bacteria, knowing the secrets of both parents and able to overcome one or the other. So are natural defenses devised, and the order inherent in biological entities has affected it to turn against other entities, an ill effect of the capability to adapt for one creature and a benefit for another, all of which is a product of free will.
It seems what you would call evil has all come about through our free will - by our need to consume energy, overcome gravity and maximize our control over neutral barriers.
(If I was dying before, I am totally rotting right now)
Ah so, but now XianGod is gone from the picture.
Posted by: jjacksonRIAB Mar 2 2004, 07:34 PM
QUOTE (chefranden @ Mar 2 2004, 06:33 PM)
QUOTE (jjacksonRIAB @ Mar 1 2004, 09:05 PM)
Reading over Bruce's post and the poem, I am delighted to respond to it.
First, must we define something like Gravity as inherently evil because it can bring us to our deaths, yet it also keeps us locked onto this planet? Must we define Friction as inherently evil, though on the one hand it gives us the ability to move where our will commands and on the other it can burn or destroy us utterly? Such effects are, for all intents and purposes, neutral.
It is said that the first adaptations were available for mastery over one's local environment. So, we have here a formula for adversity. One creature that is adapted to acrobatics, for example, has grown a tail whereas another who has adapted to swimming has gained webbed feet, and still another has grown wings for the purpose of exploring the currents of air that surrounds us - all of this through neutral efforts to foster free will and live in an environment we best affect.
Our free will also requires a concerted effort, which of course requires energy, the same energy we extract from our environs. If we had infinite energy, none of us could exact our free will, because every will would be equal, and every will could oppose every other will exactly. So, we must have mastery in certain areas in which we are better able to conduct the process of existence, and we must gain the energy to do so from the surrounding environment, of which we are all products.
Unfortunately, if we were to consume energy from our environment directly it would require more energy to put it into order than it would itself produce (given our energy requirements), therefore we have for our use plants that do not move and are adapted to extract energy from the sun and the earth, that have much lower energy requirements for growth, since what little movement they do make is entirely focused on growth. An ordered being cannot consume an unordered material and retain free will - this necessitates our requirement for consuming ordered beings in a long chain that goes back to an ordered being without free will: a plant.
So now locales begin to clash, for one bacteria has come against the barrier of another and there is no more room for growth. That barrier has itself become an environment, albeit a biological one, the point in fact is that we are designed to overcome an environment, therefore just as a biological entity with free will develops tools to overcome an environment, a bacteria intermingles with its enemies to develop tools to overcome them and sometimes, quite by accident, the code to the existence of one bacteria is accidentially provided to a differing bacteria, and now we have a new half-breed bacteria, knowing the secrets of both parents and able to overcome one or the other. So are natural defenses devised, and the order inherent in biological entities has affected it to turn against other entities, an ill effect of the capability to adapt for one creature and a benefit for another, all of which is a product of free will.
It seems what you would call evil has all come about through our free will - by our need to consume energy, overcome gravity and maximize our control over neutral barriers.
(If I was dying before, I am totally rotting right now)
Ah so, but now XianGod is gone from the picture.
Oh well, I suppose you can't blame me for trying...
You know, when I was a Christian there was always that nagging seed within me telling me that other people's explanations of the Bible didn't make any sense, both Christians and atheists.
Now that I think back, I really just gutted the Bible and took the parts that I really wanted (the philosophies), filling the holes in with science.
These days I borrow from just about everything. Never really liked being a cookie cutter person.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)