God and Evil

PureX

Well-known member
Ok interesting point i just think if God created the world and Mankind he would of eradicated all evil at conception, or is our perception of what God intended incorrect... maybe he wants to have all the conflict and suffering and then see how we deal with it , either way i cant help thinking its a bit perverse of him and a bit hypocritical.
Not necessarily. We are defined to a large degree by how we respond to our adversities in life. It seems logical to me that we are being given the gift of physical existence so that through our time in this realm, we can define ourselves, for ourselves. Wouldn't any caring creator want this for his creation?
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
Ok interesting point i just think if God created the world and Mankind he would of eradicated all evil at conception, or is our perception of what God intended incorrect... maybe he wants to have all the conflict and suffering and then see how we deal with it , either way i cant help thinking its a bit perverse of him and a bit hypocritical.
God pronounced his creation "Good."

We rage at God and claim he deceives us or has abandoned us.

Never!
 

boristhespider

New member
Interesting ,

Can you please explain how you came to that conclusion or where it is clearly documented , as i would say Mankind is made in gods image is a very common misconception if you are correct.
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
Jesus never said it would be easy. His metaphor of the camel going through the eye of a needle speaks to that, as well as his command to "pick up your cross and follow me."

We have to live in the world we have, not sit around pining for a world that is out of our view.

God gave us free will. Jesus gave us the teaching of a Kingdom of God "ON EARTH as it is in Heaven."
 

boristhespider

New member
@PureX

I could not agree with you more , i just cant help the notion that when i create something i want it to be as perfect as it can be , if i notice faults i fix them it the creation needs my support i provide it , i would not sit back and let it destroy itself i would save it.

Thoughts ?
 

PureX

Well-known member
Interesting ,

Can you please explain how you came to that conclusion or where it is clearly documented , as i would say Mankind is made in gods image is a very common misconception if you are correct.
I think we are "made in God's image" in that we are free to determine our own spiritual natures. And in that we have the capacity for unconditional love. Which does seem to me to be a common religious message all around the world. (Not that humanity's religions are necessarily the gauge of any or all truth.)
 

OCTOBER23

New member
NOTICE THAT HE DOES NOT DARE TO REPLY TO MY LAST POST.........

If he was a Bible Studying Christian like God tells him to be , he would know better...

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman
that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life:
and they are they which testify of me.
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
Interesting ,

Can you please explain how you came to that conclusion or where it is clearly documented , as i would say Mankind is made in gods image is a very common misconception if you are correct.
Over the years, I guess. I was raised up a little child who believed "Jesus loves me, this I know; for the Bible tells me so." and have never lost that feeling.

I have learned to try and see what the actual verses and the passages meant to their original writers. I have also learned to separate those sayings from Jesus that he really spoke and those which reflect the theology of the church after he died.

I have found that the real, first-century Jesus spoke in a unique way ("...with authority, not as the Scribes"). He taught the Kingdom of God in puzzling parables and spoke in short, pithy one-liners and unique proverbs.

He dislocated and overturned the conventional wisdom of his day and ours. He did not speak in propositional theology. He used metaphor and parable to indicate what he was thinking. In fact, metaphoric and mythic language are the only ways we humans can speak about the divine and the sacred. The rational, logical language of dogma and belief cannot abide by metaphor.

I hope this answers your question. If not, please have back at me!
 

PureX

Well-known member
@PureX

I could not agree with you more , i just cant help the notion that when i create something i want it to be as perfect as it can be , if i notice faults i fix them it the creation needs my support i provide it , i would not sit back and let it destroy itself i would save it.

Thoughts ?
I'm an old man. I have struggled with addiction both in myself and in others. And addiction is a good example of what you are referring to. In my experience, I will have to say that I believe it's better that I cannot control the minds and hearts of those addicts I would like to save from a painful and humiliating death. Because in the end, I have come to understand that they have to have the right to destroy themselves, to have the ability to transcend themselves. And if they do not have the these options available to them, even the most pleasant existence is basically pointless, because the being that exists without this autonomy is just a "thing".

I hope I'm explaining this clearly enough.
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
Interesting ,

Can you please explain how you came to that conclusion or where it is clearly documented , as i would say Mankind is made in gods image is a very common misconception if you are correct.

From Genesis 5:1-5, and from the lexical range of meanings for tselem (image).

Adam was made in the image of God. Seth is in the image of Adam.
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
Interesting ,

Can you please explain how you came to that conclusion or where it is clearly documented , as i would say Mankind is made in gods image is a very common misconception if you are correct.
I will quote Thomas Jefferson who was speaking of the difference between historical and faith claims in the New Testament:

The worthy parts of the Bible were easily distinguishable from the worthless—"as distinguishable," he later wrote in a letter to John Adams, "as diamonds in a dunghill."

Jefferson felt the "diamonds" of Jesus's speech had to be separated from "the dunghill" of the church's ideas of Jesus.

He also wrote that "The church's meddlings have caused good men to reject the whole in disgust."

He comes to us as One unknown, without a name, as of old, by the lakeside. He came to those men who knew Him not. He speaks to us the same words: "Follow thou me!" and sets us to the tasks which He has to fulfill for our time. He commands. And to those who obey Him, whether they be wise or simple, He will reveal Himself in the toils, the conflicts, the sufferings which they shall pass through in His fellowship, and, as an ineffable mystery, they shall learn in their own experience Who He is.

--Albert Schweitzer, 1910, The Quest of the Historical Jesus.
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
NOTICE THAT HE DOES NOT DARE TO REPLY TO MY LAST POST.........

If he was a Bible Studying Christian like God tells him to be , he would know better...

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman
that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life:
and they are they which testify of me.

I've consistently found George Affleck to be insightful and a lover of truth and of God.
 

PureX

Well-known member
OCTOBER23 said:
NOTICE THAT HE DOES NOT DARE TO REPLY TO MY LAST POST.........

I've consistently found George Affleck to be insightful and a lover of truth and of God.
I agree.

I see no reason to be accusing anyone of being disingenuous, here. At least not so far. It's an interesting discussion with lots of perspectives. Let's keep up the productive conversation! :)
 

boristhespider

New member
@akidio7

I would say you have provided an extremely insightful response to my question and have given me some food for thought , but again i would say this is an opinion rather than documented evidence that gives unequivocal proof , but thank you for your contribution.
 

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
It would really help to know the over-arching lexical comparative definitions of tov (often translated "good") and ra'a (often translated "evil"), and to understand Hamartiology ("sin"-ology) and Ponerology ("evil"-ology). Especially considering Isaiah 45 indicating God creates evil (which means nothing like it seems to mean at first glance in English)

Guess the English shoulda left out create?

Functional.......

Adam was a creature subject to vanity.

He was created that way.

Adam followed Eve into the transgression because he did not want to give her up.


So yeah, Adam functioned just as he was created to function.



Romans 8:20 KJV


20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
 

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
He comes to us as One unknown, without a name, as of old, by the lakeside. He came to those men who knew Him not. He speaks to us the same words: "Follow thou me!" and sets us to the tasks which He has to fulfill for our time. He commands. And to those who obey Him, whether they be wise or simple, He will reveal Himself in the toils, the conflicts, the sufferings which they shall pass through in His fellowship, and, as an ineffable mystery, they shall learn in their own experience Who He is.

--Albert Schweitzer, 1910, The Quest of the Historical Jesus.

This dude had some wisdom, gained through experiential knowledge.
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
This dude had some wisdom, gained through experiential knowledge.

Although I sometimes read secular, Islamic or Jewish scholars' take on Jesus, my heart always resonates with scholars that are believers.

They might not be believers in the traditional, dogmatic sense, but their language elevates me and draws me closer to that figure of history I am continually following.

I think this is why I have been banned a lot lately. Many Christians cannot take the metaphoric truth any way but literally. And the atheists accept the literalness, but they claim it is nonsense while their brothers and sisters in Christ interpret everything though a lens that says "factually correct."
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
@akidio7

I would say you have provided an extremely insightful response to my question and have given me some food for thought , but again i would say this is an opinion rather than documented evidence that gives unequivocal proof , but thank you for your contribution.
Exactly. Please let traditional Christians to beware! They should not take my claims as "absolute truth." They should check out what I say by using the Bible as their guide.

I was once challenged by a speaker in the middle of my weekly homily who said "How do you know you are right about all of this?"

I had to answer honestly: "I do NOT 'know' that "I am right." I can only take the historical data, facts and evidence and draw my conjectures from there. In doing this, I am no more different that any other believer is. Or different from Mark, Luke. John, Matthew and Paul.

We find and reveal a Jesus that has to make sense to US.

When it comes to clearing away the church's later theology from the actual words attributed to Jesus takes a lot of tools. It's not easy to describe the surrounding cultural, religious and political environment of the Son of Man. ALL translations of any kind betray us. J.P. Hartley once noted "The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there."

Looking at the ancient world through our modern, 21st century lenses is a profound mistake.
 

George Affleck

TOL Subscriber
"Good" and "evil" (like many English words used to translate Hebrew or Greek word-to-word) are horrific stand-alone terms that have lended themselves to endless vague-though-adamant conceptual misunderstandings and misrepresentations. Tov and ra'a don't mean good and evil in any manner moderns apply.

Ra'a is privation or negation of tov. The most over-arching applicable meaning for tov is "functional"; so ra'a is the privation or negation of function as dys-/mal-/non-functionality.

God created all things tov. Completely functional according to His design. But latent within the actuality of functionality is the potentiality for dysfunction, malfunction, or non-function. Such is administered as subtraction by addition, much like adding a wrench to functioning gears subtracts functionality of a mechanism.

Like sin (hamartia in Greek), ra'a is not a "something". It's a degree of "somethinglessness". A void or lack. Just as hamartia is from "a-" (no/not) and "meros" (share/part) and is "the missing share or part" as a negation of "something" instead of a "something"; ra'a is a negation of tov.

Within every functional component of creation as actuality of existence, there is the latent potentiality of varying degree of subtraction or negation of that functionality. It's a qualitative issue, not a quantitative issue.

That which is functional (tov) is that which brings forth the character and quality of the Creator as activity within creation. That standard for character, quality, and activity is dikaiosune in Greek... righteousness, justice. God's standard is the only standard, and is the only true functionality.

"Evil" and "bad" have become incredibly diluted concepts that are individually subjective according to personal determination of one's own standard. One's own standard is self-righteousness, which is unrighteousness to whatever degree it differs from God's standard.

And God's standard is the whole of His eternal, uncreated, and immutable attributes (both incommunicable and communicable). HE is the standard for all character and conduct, and He revealed Himself in His Son.

Ra'a is the result of the Edenic scenario, and for which we have redemption, etc. The consequences aren't only individual, but environmental. And it's mercy that is for those sin consequences, just as grace is for sin itself (the articular noun, not just the doing and done of sinning and resulting sins).

God extends mercy and grace according to His sovereignty, etc., and is not obligated by His creation's entitlement or expectations. He laid down His very soul-life in Christ for all who hear and believe.

God is a covenant God. Part of the meaning for YHWH is "He who exists to covenant".

It's amazing how so many who are not in covenant with God expect Him to intervene in the dysfunctional groaning creation beyond the miracle of salvation and the Incarnation of the Logos, His Son.

Most thought and reasoning on this issue it ra'a, even among professing Believers.

PPS you always lift us up to higher ground. Thank you my friend for bringing clarity and excellence.

The biggest mistake that can be made when considering a subject as difficult as this is to assume that "me" is central. Our generation continues to plumb the depths of being concerned chiefly with themselves. This spills over, even into the Christian community, and supplants a right perspective which God's Word encourages us to adopt. We need a God's eye view in order to come to grips with these questions - and that is exactly why God left us His Word!

It is not about me or us or them. It is about God and His glory, and about His Son and how a perfect plan that was decided upon before the foundation of the world is being carried out to fulfilment. Even though we are just along for the ride, the crumbs that spill from God's table are more than enough to sustain us until we see His face.

I love what you said PPS about "Ra'a is privation or negation of tov". Thanks for illuminating that for us. There is no such thing as darkness; just absence of light, and, as you point out, we are in no position to tell God how to apportion any of His blessings.

I have yet to hear anyone address an important element for this discussion mentioned in post 37
It is not possible to recognize, label or condemn evil without some standard of good by which to measure. Indeed, it is not possible to declare good to be better than evil without a standard of some kind.
This is why (with a few intervening steps of logic) the existence of evil and/or suffering is actually a proof of God and why our protagonist is in error in using it as a defence of his unbelief.
 

George Affleck

TOL Subscriber
It's not unacceptable to me. I think it's absolutely fine for one to say "I don't know".

Yes. You think it is absolutely fine that God is unacceptable according to your standards because it reconciles your unresolved problem.

You have defined God according to your own expectations of Him (mistake 1) and arbitrarily decided (mistake2) that if He does not live up to your expectations (unacceptable part) that He must not exist or be a bad god (mistake 3). Problem solved. :third:
 
Top