Posted on 09/24/2022 9:27:48 PM PDT by OneVike
The debate about who created evil is an important one, since atheists and skeptics use the existence of evil in their arguments against theism. To begin with, Christians are told we must believe what the Bible tells us. Even a popular children's song has in its lyrics these words,
“Jesus Loves Me this I know, for the Bible tells me so"
If it is incumbent upon Christians to believe what the Bible tells us, then we can start with the first verse of the Bible that says,
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
(Genesis 1:1)
So, if God created everything, and if evil is in the world, doesn't it follow that God created evil? After all, in his Gospel, the most beloved Disciple tells us,
“All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.”Thus God made everything through Christ. However, are there any Scriptures that specifically say God is the author of evil? Well, the closest we can get is,
(John 1:3)
“I make peace and create calamity”Then we read what the Prophet Amos wrote,
(Isaiah 45:7)
“If there is calamity in a city, will not the LORD have done it?"Ok, so can we then point to any passages that might elude to God condoning evil? Probably the best examples would be the time Joseph confronted his brothers who sold him into slavery,
(Amos 3:6)
“you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good"Then in Exodus we read that God sent Moses to Pharaoh with this message, Now, to make an honest Scriptural argument for my stance on this issue, I had to first share with you the verses used by those who argue that Scriptures prove God is the author of evil. Those who come from the persuasion that God has foreordained the entire course of events as Calvinists do, then reason and logic would suggest that God must be the author of evil. However, Calvinists who teach that God is the author of evil would be wise to pay attention to the following quote from (John Calvin) himself:
(Genesis 50:20)
“It is helpful, I think, to understand that sin is not itself a thing created. Sin is neither substance, being, spirit, nor matter. So it is technically not proper to think of sin as something that was created. Sin is simply a want of moral perfection in a fallen creature. Fallen creatures themselves bear full responsibility for their sin. And all evil in the universe emanates from the sins of fallen creatures.” Calvin goes on to state unequivocally that, “God's role with regard to evil is never as its author. He simply permits evil agents to work, then overrules evil for His own wise and holy ends. Ultimately He is able to make all things--including all the fruits of all the evil of all time--work together for a greater good.”
[Institutes, 3:23:8]
Mind you, the biggest defenders among Christians who believe God created evil are those who adhere to the teachings of John Calvin. Well it seems to me that there is a bit of a schism in the ranks of the Calvinist movement.
Two verses used to defend the belief that God created evil are (Isaiah 45:7) and (Amos 3:6). In both instances the word evil, not calamity, is used in 12 of the 21 Bible translations I have. It is important to note that all but one of the translations using the word evil were published before 1948. This is important, because in 1948 the (Dead Sea Scrolls) were discovered by a shepherd boy in the caves of Qumran in 1948. After exhaustive and painstaking investigation,it was learned that the Scrolls revealed that the proper translation for these verses would actually be disaster or calamity, not evil.
Now some may argue that a calamity is an evil, because it causes pain and misery and so they will still argue that God is the creator of evil. However, when speaking of evil in regards to the nature of sin, it should be observed that there are three kinds of
(Excerpt) Read more at trfmf.com …
I have no idea. I am not God. I did not create this world like He did.
However, I do know that one cannot love freely without the ability to reject. One cannot be good without the ability to do evil. One cannot choose without the ability to choose the opposite.
It sounds to me that you are advocating for a world of robots. That is not conducive to true love, which (I believe) is why God created this universe in the first place.
"Would you intentionally create a Frankenstein and call that perfection? In that effort you are reducing yourself to absurdities like defininv perfection as perfect imperfection, loving as torture, all powerful as not all that powerful. Or to quote Orwell - War is Peace." Non-sequitur. It simply does not follow that creating a being who can choose to become as a Frankenstein - misusing the gifts given him - equates to God creating a monster. By insisting on defining perfection to essentially being utterly unable to make moral choices is to impose your meaning on perfection upon what Scripture means.
"Seems like you should be right at home with the belief that men can get pregnant and women can have penises. Words mean what you want them to mean to serve your purpose. I think it might have been Socrates who said, “You can resolve any argument is 10 minutes provided you first agree on the definition of the terms” As it stands, you and I are speaking different languages."
Indeed, as you are attempting to argue against the Bible by imposing a selective meaning of perfection in order to justify your untenable rant against God, ignoring what perfection in Scripture means. While you insist on a perfection that must exclude the ability to make negative moral choices, the word not only had many shades and degrees of meaning to choose from, but as used in Scripture, it does not mean what Hal 9000 presumed it had, but in context of created beings, without blemish, often describing beings who were, at least overall, but not as if they could not choose to sin.
As obviously perfect Lucifer could:
Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. (Ezekiel 28:14-15) Thus it remains that your argument is that a God simply could not create a being that had the perfect, non-compelled freedom and ability to choose to define, corrupt himself, without God being inconsistent with His character (aside from what your contrived meaning).
Which as explained, is simply unsustainable, unreasonable, absurd, irrational, as among lesser problems, it must of necessity require omniscience of you, to see the Big Picture, and all the knowledge of creation, of angels and men, and all his thoughts, intents, and effects of even the smallest action, not only on this life, but for eternity, and how and what it will effect via the ability and will of God. You are simply in no position to judge any omniscient, omnipotent being.
“Knowing that something will happen is never the cause of it happening.”
It doesn’t matter what the cause is - you will do what’s preordained.
The ties between cause and effect become irrelevant in a world with an omniscient God. They are simply a string of events that he causes to happen at his whim and they may or may not be related.
To the extend that God imposes some fairly constant relationship between certain events, that helps us - non-omniscent humans - to approximately predicting what’s likely to happen. (eg, you jump off a cliff you most likely die)
Every so often humans discern some of these relationships. It’s what we call, the “laws of nature”.
You an extension of what Hall 9000 presumed it was? (did it run Linux?). See post 65 for some alternatives.
Nature and life itself are selfish and cruel. It is red in tooth and claw and takes what it can for its own use and benefit.
God gave us intelligence and free will to allow us to rise above the natural state.
Goodness and unselfishness is what separates us from animals. It is what gives us dominion over them.
Your problem here is that once again, you are attempting to argue against the character of the God of the Bible while selectively ignoring key relevant aspects and blithely imposing your own unwarranted ideas, necessitated to justify your rant against the same. Rather than the omniscient God causing events to happen "at his whim,"as having no plan or purpose, what Scripture teaches is that God both allows and sometimes proactively causes events as having a definite purpose, whose "understanding is infinite." (Psalms 147:5) I can argue against the God of Mormonism, but I must be consistent with its description in so doing.
Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure [will]: (Isaiah 46:10)
He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. (Ecclesiastes 3:11)
“However, I do know that one cannot love freely without the ability to reject. One cannot be good without the ability to do evil.”
So you’re saying the all-loving God created evil for our own good, kinda to teach us a lesson to correct a mistake he made when he created us?
But why not give us the knowledge that that lesson would teach us, when he created us. Why make us go to all that suffering?
And an even deeper question, why did he bother creating us in the first place? What purpose do we serve for him?
Sometimes I think it’s for his amusement, a bit sadistic I might add. He gets up every morning, looks down at us and if he’s in the mood for some fun, throws a monkey wrench at us (an earthquake, a flood, a serial killer) and sits back and watches our reaction to the latest “act of God”
What do you think?
“He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. (Ecclesiastes 3:11)”
In other words we cannot know God. I agree, that’s why I’m an agnostic, but I lean toward there being something much bigger than us.
It’s the only intellectually honest position that can be defended.
I don’t pretend to know who or what God is, but I’ll use his most valuable gift, the brain, to find out what I can. In the meantime I’m OK with saying “I don’t know”.
I’m pretty sure he’s happy with that, or more likely not give a damn what this insignificant microbe in a dust particle known as earth thinks of him.
Not even close. No.
God created evil so that we might be able to choose good. It's about choice.
But why not give us the knowledge that that lesson would teach us, when he created us. Why make us go to all that suffering?
If we had no choice, we cannot be good--we cannot be evil. Also--we basically DO have the knowledge that lesson would teach us, after thousands of years of experience. Our ability to learn from others' mistakes and choices teaches us those consequences. Most of us merely choose to ignore those lessons.
And an even deeper question, why did he bother creating us in the first place? What purpose do we serve for him?
IMO, we are here to freely love God. That is our Purpose, and the Meaning of Life everyone is so desperately looking for.
1. I have free will, therefore God is NOT omniscient, or
2. God is omniscent, therefore I have no free will.
Actually, your premise is wrong. God can know everything that will happen, but not make it happen.
It's sort of like you knowing your kids will eat the chocolate bar you put on the table, yet, don't tell them to eat, or not eat, it.
“Actually, your premise is wrong. God can know everything that will happen, but not make it happen.”
It doesn’t matter WHO or WHAT makes it happens. If anybody knows what I’m going to do means I don’t have free will. I cannot choose anything other than what is known a priori with 100% probability.
If I know with 100% certainty that tonight you’re going to drink a bottle of beer, you will drink a bottle of beer. You think you’re choosing that, but you’re not it’s predermined. IOW, free will is just a wishful illusion.
“It’s sort of like you knowing your kids will eat the chocolate bar you put on the table”
You do not know that with 100% certainty. That’s THE crucial distinction.
Knowing something will happen is far different from making something happen.
Period.
You obviously did not read or understand my reply.
We’re talking about whether you have free will if ANYONE knows with 100% certainty what you will do.
YOU don’t! Period!
And you obviously don’t understand the difference between knowing and forcing.
Those are pretty simple concepts, to most people.
But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the Lord. (Jeremiah 9:24)
"I don’t pretend to know who or what God is, but I’ll use his most valuable gift, the brain, to find out what I can. In the meantime I’m OK with saying “I don’t know”."
No, you have instead shown yourself unreasonable, and irrationally opposed to anything close to the God of the Bible, who give you the answer to your question "why did he bother creating us in the first place? What purpose do we serve for him?" And instead, utterly contrary to what is written, you up come up with such adversarial postulations as "I think it’s for his amusement, a bit sadistic I might add. He gets up every morning, looks down at us and if he’s in the mood for some fun, throws a monkey wrench at us (an earthquake, a flood, a serial killer) and sits back and watches our reaction to the latest “act of God”'
Which type of ignorant portrayals is like that of irrational (they indeed are) anti-theists such as I have encountered, who also choose to attack the God of the Bible but dismiss what it says in refutation of them. Rather than being unknowing, God teaches that men as are accountable for general revelation, that of an obviously creased vast, well ordered systematic universe finely tuned with irreducible complexity for intelligent life, (Romans 1:20-21) in addition to the basic innate moral sense that all men at least initially have. (Romans 2:14)
And that in addition to the basic purpose of choosing to seek to know this God of creation, obeying the light one has and thereby coming to The Light, (John 3:19-21; 12:36) - even in a most basic manner placing all ones penitent faith in the mercy of God in Christ as did believers in the true God did before He was formally revealed, (Psalm 34:18) - then the purpose of men is to be instruments of God, or righteousness by His Spirit. (Romans 6)
For believers are to be as Christ incarnate in this world, expressing Him via what they say and do, as His mouth, hands, feet etc. Thereby making a positive difference in lives for time, and for eternity. Talk about a present purpose! And to be a reflection of Him afterwards, to shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father." (Matthew 13:43)
Which make it all worthwhile.
The issue then becomes the morality of the actions of the tester, and with the charge against God being that He know about the choices of the devil and yet allowed them to make their choices, and with consequences. But the morality of such is determined both by the motive and purpose, as well as the ultimate effect. And which certainly is not limited to the immediate persons, environment and time, but in the whole sphere of existence, and for time and for eternity. Which only God inhabits, and can make decisions thereby.
Which man cannot judge nor advise Him on. For while God has always provided men with what it needed for obedience to Him, and am only responsible for that, yet in the grand superintendence,
O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen. (Romans 11:33-36)
In such we are to be as
David, Lord, my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty: neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me. Surely I have behaved and quieted myself, as a child that is weaned of his mother: my soul is even as a weaned child. Let Israel hope in the Lord from henceforth and for ever. (Psalms 131)
Yet Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. (Matthew 7:6)
What you don’t seem to understand is the INESCAPABLE LOGICAL CONCLUSION that if any one in the world knows with 100% certainty the future, there cannot be free will.
The cause doesn’t matter. You will do by definition, what’s predicted. Period.
Wrong.
“Rather, as typical of your reasoning often demonstrated so far, you jump to unwarranted conclusions without dealing much with what else is said involved.”
Yes, I’m rather simple minded.
As they say, God works in mysterious ways.
So I’m quite content in saying I don’t know to the things I don’t know.
Sooner or later I’m sure we’ll all find out more about what this is all about... Or not.
Anyways, thanks for the conversation. I have to go now.
“Wrong!”
Yes you are!
But if you think about things a bit deeper, then you’ll be just as right as I am. 😉
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.