If there's a god, why is there evil? - Page 11

Strongclad - I did it - I read your post.

I like your definition of the word of God - I'll let you keep it.

But you're still going to have to go to the library - Your post tired me out. I'm taking a break.

"why don't we just do it ourselves and quit being evil?"
Mainly out of practicality and the fact our in built sense of morals has a LOT of trouble applying itself to the world today.

"if God IS all powerful, all knowing, all good, or whatever, don't you think He is capable of dealing with this in His own way? If He is our Creator, and if this is all going according to His plan,"
Yes you've pretty much nailed it. What we perceive as evil are in fact only nescessary for the greater good that God's plan will create.

"We must define who God is FIRST, and make no assumption on what WE might think is evil. That is, if those of us here believe in God. And for the athiests here, we must show why our God is real, because obviously, they believe that He isn't."
I've always defined evil as selfishness. Letting another suffer for your own gain. It is not exactly the biblical defintion though.

OKCITYKID - "So the new testament is not the word of God but the old testament is, is that what you are saying? I can almost agree with you. Certainly a letter that Paul writes to Timothy could not be the word of God."
I'm glad you can kind of understand, or at least a little bit accept my point, because most of what I believe, I try to take from Scripture (the word I use for the whole Bible) without fudging it up. Now to be honest, I don't know if I should call the New Testament the "Word of God" or not. I would assume it is, but I wouldn't want to be caught in the wrong if it wasn't, if you know what I mean. Take this for example:

2 Timothy 3:16-17
"16ALL SCRIPTURE IS GOD-BREATHED and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
A lot of Christians assume that when Paul says in this letter that "ALL SCRIPTURE IS GOD-BREATHED" that he is saying that God used the authors of the Old and New Testament, by the Holy Spirit, to write the words we have of the Bible today. Or at least that's how I've understood it. I believe it, just because Paul says so, as I believe he is a trustworthy man. But as to whether I'm right or not, I don't think it really matters as long as you're getting his point about using it for "teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." In my mind, whether or not these specific words came from God, I'm not for sure; but, even if they're not, the ideas and ideals that are written are taken from God and His standards for humankind.

"But you're still going to have to go to the library."
Now maybe I'm just being ignorant, or maybe I missed something, but I just don't get it. What should I go to the Library for?

Crimson_Saint - "our in built sense of morals has a LOT of trouble applying itself to the world today."
Sweet! I'm glad that we both agree that we all have a built in sense of morals. Otherwise, why would we feel the emotion called guilt? When it comes to actually applying our morals to be morally sound in our lives, it is hard. I agree on this too. Though my reasoning behind it might be different than yours. Sin is what the Bible sometimes terms as "the flesh." You know how sometimes in Hollywood, when an actor or a cartoon is in the midst of doing something sinful (or evil) an angel and a devil will show up on his shoulders to try and win him over? I believe it's kind of the same thing that we humans actually go through. It's what some like to term "Spiritual Warfare." You see, as believers and followers of Christ, his death and his resurrection, we are set free from the bondage of sin that would otherwise send us to Hell. We don't have to be slaves to sin anymore since we are saved, but we still have to deal with combating the sinful nature that is still a part of our bodies. This is where choosing to follow God and His standards comes into place. We are gauranteed help in this, and that He will not leave us alone to fight the battle ourselves. The way I think of it, how could we do it otherwise? If you want some scripture reference to this, I'd be glad to offer it up.

"What we perceive as evil are in fact only nescessary for the greater good that God's plan will create."
This is pretty much my belief also, but I still believe that we have free will to do these evil things.

"I've always defined evil as selfishness. Letting another suffer for your own gain. It is not exactly the biblical defintion though."
I believe that selfishness is at the heart of all that evil is. But are you saying that you don't think selfishness is the biblical definition for evil? I may not have understood that last part, but I believe that selfishness is a key factor in what evil (or sin) is. If we weren't selfish, we would be kind neighbors to all who were in need. I doubt that there would be greed, hunger, poverty, and all the like.

Nice icon by the way. I still think it's funny how Jesus is portrayed as an american white man in a lot of his paintings. I mean dang!...he is descended from Abraham, a Hebrew. I'd expect a little more color in his skin!

"SCRIPTURE IS GOD-BREATHED" That is a new term I have not heard. Is this a term you made up or is it in one of the newer translations.

My anger was towards someone else who failed to read my post and bluntly tell me I'm wrong.

I tried to explain that "The Ego" in religion is bad and we must give up the ego, (MOST RELIGIONS TEACH THIS) however in the world's people sciences, the ego is considered good but dangerous if not well fed. This is important stuff - arguing about frivolous word meanings is a stupid waste of my time, and I'm not going to waste my time on it.

Concerning canonizing the bible, books being thrown out and other stuff lost - I can send you some information if you're really interested in it - not real important. (or you can go to the library).

"I don't know if I should call the New Testament the "Word of God" or not." I'm sure after you thought about it, you wished you hadn't said that. But it helps me realize your open mindedness which is very important. I'm sure that you believe that the new testament is the word of God according to your interpretation.

We may agree on your interpretation - but I think we will find that we disagree on what we will call the word of God. I'm sure you believe that most if not all of the new testament is the word of God. I do not. That is something we have to figure out on our own. But I will dare to venture out and share what I believe.

Paul calls himself an apostle just for the gentiles. Earlier - Peter discovers that the gentiles should be brought into the fold. An apostle is chosen - its not Paul. There are 12 apostles, not thirteen. There is no proof that Paul was made an apostle accept that he calls himself one and tells everyone else that he is, everybody believes it and it is now the word of God. Why would I challenge what is believed by all?

Paul tells everybody that we are saved by grace. He explains that Jesus died for our sins because we could not follow the law, we are doomed to hell, but by believing in Jesus and his death. Jesus becomes the sacrifice for our missing the mark, we can now be saved. He further explains that the law is now knoll and void. He even gets after certain people for following the law. The law can't save us anymore, only Jesus can. We don't pay no attention to what Jesus did or said while he was on earth, we're only concerned with his death.

Who said that I was condemned for hell just for being born?

I'm not going to loose my concentration on the most important part of the new testament - The Life of Jesus, by hoping that I believe enough in his death to be saved from hell - I've been in that trap and I'm not going back.

Now Paul has established that we're not saved by the law but by grace. If one was to follow just one part of the law, we would be required to follow all of it, etc. We are saved by grace alone, not of our own doing that we may boast. So if you're good you may go to hell, and if you're bad, that's all right, believe that Jesus died for you, you can go to heaven, while those you have stolen from and raped go to hell.

(I could go on - but I'll stop and get to my point)

Paul now turns around and writes a whole bunch of laws. What a hypocrite. A lot of people, even professing Christians cannot agree on the laws he wrote. Anyways, I believe the man is a fraud - even his life proved it. He never did one miracle, was not martered and he himself died of stomach sickness.

Now - you're going to want me to quote scriptures - I'm not going to do it. Everything I said is in the New Testament, you just have to read it to see what I'm saying.

I'm only going to tell you what I believe - I'm not going to prove it to you. We all have to figure things out for ourself.

I don't expect you to agree with me - just respect the fact that I have studied it and this is the conclusion I came up with.

Peace

"I believe that selfishness is at the heart of all that evil is. But are you saying that you don't think selfishness is the biblical definition for evil? I may not have understood that last part, but I believe that selfishness is a key factor in what evil (or sin) is."
The Bible does occasionaly condone selfishness, such as slavery as well as insensitivity towards women. The Bible sees homosexuality as evil, yet I have no idea how that could possibly be a selfish act. And if the Bible truly sees selfishness as evil, then the majority of the US people with all its capitalism and anti-communism, does not really understand the bible.

"Sweet! I'm glad that we both agree that we all have a built in sense of morals. Otherwise, why would we feel the emotion called guilt? When it comes to actually applying our morals to be morally sound in our lives, it is hard. I agree on this too."
We will probably disagree on where these morals come from though. If the inbuilt set of morals comes primarily from emotions, then it is not our choice to be moral or not. Because it is certain morals came about as an evolutionary social nescessity, and so are genetic. In this way we are created with an inbuilt sense of what is moral or not, something beyond our choice, which I find with a Christian God, is highly unfair.

"Nice icon by the way. I still think it's funny how Jesus is portrayed as an american white man in a lot of his paintings. I mean dang!...he is descended from Abraham, a Hebrew. I'd expect a little more color in his skin!"
Yeah, I've always thought it bizarre his colour is always peachy white perfect. This particular icon is in fact GWBush as Christ

HAH!!! GW Bush as Christ! That's great.

I guess you're right telling me that we disagree on where morals came from Crimson_Saint. And this is totally off the subject when it comes to this thread, but I'll state that the way I see it, we can't be just chemicals in motion. I mean, is the theory of evolution even proven empircally yet? I can't believe that the morals we have come from emotions. Is it genetic that our parents have been raising us since birth to be morally sound? How could it be if the choice to raise your kid in the wrong way exists? And how can we be certain that "morals came about as an evolutionary social nescessity, and so are genetic."? Is it necessary to choose between being moral or immoral?

"Because it is certain morals came about as an evolutionary social nescessity, and so are genetic. In this way we are created with an inbuilt sense of what is moral or not, something beyond our choice, which I find with a Christian God, is highly unfair."
This doesn't make any sense to me. You take a standpoint that comes from genetics. But, in genetics there cannot be any "unfair." If it's "all-in-the-genes", then we are programmed to react the way we do. In that case, there really is no emotions or morals, just reactions to the stimuli we come in contact with. From your standpoint, we are only robots. And I can't assume that you believe that totally.
Aside from believing in the Christian God, if our sense of morals is beyond our choice genetically, how can it be unfair that we can still choose in any certain social situation to do what is morally right or wrong? Someone could sucker punch me and I could choose not to retaliate even though I felt rage. It doesn't seem logical that we have no way of controlling any part of our beings. How could it be this way?

If my body, which is assumed to be at its most advanced stage (that is if we don't evolve into another higher life form, feh!) in the evolutionary scale, why don't I have control over all of my smallest functioning parts? You are saying instead that my smallest functioning parts actually control me. That doesn't make any sense when you bring in the fact of known emotions and morals. Wouldn't it be better for evolution, if we didn't have morals and emotions? If genetically, our bodies are just trying to keep us alive, it would seem morals just get in the way. I would think that if we didn't have the ability to do anything wrong, our survival rate would be better. Wait a minute! I forgot...everything in evolution just happens by chance! How could something created by chance, get better? How could something created by chance (an amino acid for instance) choose to be something more advanced (an emotional human personality)? Wouldn't it be in its best interest to become something with the ability not to do something morally wrong?

As I said, we cannot just be chemicals in motion. We all know that we have emotions and morals. It is a fact that we can gain knowledge and choose what we want to do with it. If everything were mere chance or genetics, there would be no morals, there would be no choosing. It's not genetic if we can do either or. I am not an advanced version of the terminator.

"I can't believe that the morals we have come from emotions. Is it genetic that our parents have been raising us since birth to be morally sound? How could it be if the choice to raise your kid in the wrong way exists? And how can we be certain that "morals came about as an evolutionary social nescessity, and so are genetic."? Is it necessary to choose between being moral or immoral?"
To me, it seems that morals are a combination of culture and emotion. However it was the emotion that prompted the creation of a moral culture and laws.
"Moral emotion" would be a GREAT asset to any species try to build a society. Guilt is possibly the greatest of moral emotions, this emotion helps keep people in check by inflicting mental pain if we feel we were selfish. Anger can be a moral emotion, in the case of theft or murder (in the family) anger would allow a primitive society to more readily punish those who abuse the society.
However unlike human machines these emotions only make us feel bad when we do something, or make us want to hurt something, these are not mechanical reactions.
The reason they cannot be mechanical reactions is because this would make our main asset (intelligence) completely useless. That is where the moral "choice" is apparent. It is when out intelligence must decide between an action which we feel uncomfortable about (stealing for example) or simply following the ways of society.

"If it's "all-in-the-genes", then we are programmed to react the way we do. In that case, there really is no emotions or morals, just reactions to the stimuli we come in contact with. From your standpoint, we are only robots. And I can't assume that you believe that totally."
If anything, emotions are THE most robotic thing about us. They insure we reproduce and take care of our offspring (love), that we don't undermine society too much (guilt), that we punish those who undermine society (anger), that we do not endanger ourselves needlessly (fear), that we do not show we are stupid in front of society (embarassment).

"If my body, which is assumed to be at its most advanced stage (that is if we don't evolve into another higher life form, feh!) in the evolutionary scale, why don't I have control over all of my smallest functioning parts? You are saying instead that my smallest functioning parts actually control me."
There is not really such a thing as "most advanced" in evolutionary terms heh. But actually, no the body often needs to keep the "intelligence" part completely independant from the rest of the body. Because our intelligence, is pretty dumb, in the vast majority of cases we learn by making mistakes. Would it be a good evolutionary decision to let intelligence have control of everything knowing this?

"That doesn't make any sense when you bring in the fact of known emotions and morals. Wouldn't it be better for evolution, if we didn't have morals and emotions? If genetically, our bodies are just trying to keep us alive, it would seem morals just get in the way."
I disagree, lack of morals can allow 1 person to survive, but morals can allow an entire society to function better because of the reasons I have stated.

"How could something created by chance (an amino acid for instance) choose to be something more advanced (an emotional human personality)?"
Because it allows them to become more succesful socially?

" Wouldn't it be in its best interest to become something with the ability not to do something morally wrong? "
Heck no, that would completely put our best asset, intelligence out of the picture. A society completely based on emotions would not take advantage of each other, but they could never be great thinkers and would be incredibly closed-minded, this means that two primitive villages could never cooperate together for lack of trust in this situation. And as we know, the greatest civilizations were those who could cooperate.

If you understand God, then you understand His nature. He is the Holy Spirit who Inspires. Note when Jesus breathed the Spirit upon His apostles; They could speak tongues, their eyes and ears were opened.

Also; Paul was Saul first. The one who persecuted early church christians. He was blinded by the Lord. He converted and preached FOR the Lord.
He was stoned twice and left for dead, jailed many times, and had many toturous accounts he lived through with the AID of the Lord and His angels.
Should he be believed? I would think so.



Now for the why evil exists.
Evil exists at the root of when Satan opened it up, when he was boastful and proud, and desired to be above God.

He was said to have boasted he would rise above the throne of God.
Of course he was dismissed from heaven, and all those who also had too much pride to be subservient to God.

Evil exists with free will, or free will would not exist. Even angels have free will.

Thus Satan led in the first act of evil, and therefore, wishing for revenge, he seeks ruin of all of creation to accompany him in his hell fire misery.

God is love and good, the opposing force is evil and hate.

Be glad you have this time on earth to get through the temptations and have your sins cleansed by God. In the person of Christ. Evil would wish for all to believe it was CREATED by God. For God created the world, and the Garden of eden was pure, but evil manages to infiltrate all places. Satan even tests our beliefs at all times. He practices these deceptions when people are confused, it is evil.

NO God did not create EVIL, He created free will. Take your choice.

So you say that because of free will, evil developed. You might be right.

God created Saten (but God didn't create Saten evil), saten was prized above the rest but became puffed up with pride and sought to overtake the thrown.

Did God make a mistake or was this a part of the plan? How can God make a mistake if he is perfect, then it must be a part of a plan. I think that is where this is going, or should go.

Personaly, I enterpret it differently. I believe we are Saten. I know the scriptures don't exactly say that, but you can read between the lines and see that. You might ask, why didn't the scriptures just say that. Because if they did, we wouldn't be reading them today, they would have been destroyed by every king that ever came across them. That's what I believe.

Satan was a beloved and beautiful angel. His pride, which besought and he fed from evil, filled him with hate. And hate did fill him.
God is perfect and cannot be filled with evil. Evil cannot fill God.
God is good.

Mankind have the exact free will of satan, but Satan is an actual entity who exists in the spriritual world. Not to be confused with the individual man.

Mankind alike the angels are also given free will. Did God plan evil, or allow evil? He allowed it. It was to be. It grew within it's father, Satan.

Evil cultivates within free will IF the love for God is replaced by self love above God.

Evil is against God. God is perfection. So we know evil is imperfect. Evil tries to overcome and consume good.

Man, in order to be near to God, must be perfect. Man is not perfect. Jesus died for man's sins and imperfections. Therefore man can then be in the presense of God. By no glory of our own, we are rewarded. Therefore evil cannot live near God, but in an abyss far from Him, where there is hatred and anger and burning. Then we know man is not evil, nor are we satan, but many give into the temptations according to their own free will.

God did not create evil, Satan did. Satan is not man, because man did not create evil. Satan shall suffer eternally, as will all souls who believe not in God.

Thanks for your input Okcity.

quote:

---

So you say that because of free will, evil developed. You might be right.

God created Saten (but God didn't create Saten evil), saten was prized above the rest but became puffed up with pride and sought to overtake the thrown.

---

I think that god has a sense of humor and i am not saying god as in christian i mean whatever created all of this. IT gave us free will a soul if you will. If god was all powerfull then he have a couple of choices either lead us or watch us like an ant farm and laugh.

Truth is alot more complicated than the black-and-white, good-and-evil conceptions of fundamental christian beliefs about God and the nature of the universe. Eastern concepts that recognize the "positive" and "negative" principles as being inseperable elements (such as the Yin and Yang) get it much more correctly. In nature light and darkness are one. All living things must devour other living things to continue living. Life and death are one. Nature is both beautiful and terrifying. A predator can be both noble and ruthless. Nature can be both nurturing and destructive. Good and evil are one. Yet to allow the good to dominate the evil is what gives human beings nobility and virtue. I'm rambling. Sorry. Truth is alot more complicated that most people recognize.

Life is full of "color" but many of the choices break down into black and white. Take binomail computers can show many colors but when you break it down its 0's and 1's which make all the colors black and white

For example: Shindlers list. One could easly say that Mr. Shindler was not a good man. He was an unfaithful womanizer who drank to much. Any success he had in this world was by way of lie, cheat and steal, earning his way off the shoulders of other. Yet he saved more Jews from the ovens then anyone else. The Jews call him a righteous man.

So - yes Good and Bad is a very complicated thing. When the sh*t hits the fan, you might be surprised about who are really your friends and who is not.

There is an evil, I doubt we could recognize it right off.

Even though the God in this thread is all powerful/knowing. He is also caring enough to give man the right to choose, though He already knows man will choose to do evil things, it would be cruel of Him to remove the one gift He really gave us.

There is evil in the world, because God gave us the ability to see it. He place the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in Eden, because he already knew that THIS would be the tree with which man would make his first true choice. To obey, or not to obey.

All 'evil' came from this one act of defiance, but this same act is what started us on a path away from acting like animals.