Does Jesus Cause Evil?

[Haven]

On another thread, a Christian said:

. . . Jesus makes it clear that He is in total control of the Universe.

If Jesus is in total control of the universe, then he is also in total control of every grisly murder, brutal rape, life-destroying terrorist attack, and pestilential genocide. He causes every natural disaster, every agonizing illness, every killer pandemic, every child's death from cancer, every elderly person's suffering from Alzheimer's disease. He personally abuses every victimized child, tortures every innocent victim, and declares every miscarriage of justice.

If Jesus is in "total control of everything," then it logically follows that he is obviously the most abhorrent entity ever to exist.

Debate question: Is Jesus in "total control of the universe?" Does Jesus cause (what most would consider) evil? If he does cause evil, wouldn't that make him abhorrent? Why worship such a god?

[Zzyzx]

.

I don't get it, you think the verse was written with the English word 'evil' in it?

If (since) the English language bibles that are read and revered by almost all US Christians contain the word "evil" it is reasonable for anyone to conclude that is exactly what it means.

If the bible used by most Christians does not mean what it says and say what it means, of what use is it?

"That isn't what the bible REALLY means" (according to my translation, interpretation, preference) is often employed by those who find themselves in an intellectual / theological corner and are looking for a way out.

[Skybringr]

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.

It's not like scripture doesn't come right out and say it..

As always, it's not that simple.
Yes, the King James reading "evil" has been followed by numerous newer versions, the American Standard, the Dartmouth, and even the Septuagint (as a translation of what transliterates what any two-year-old would understand, "kaka"), and some translations even worsen it with "disaster" as in the NIV and NJB (the latter even substituting "Yahweh" for "the Lord". The meaning hopefully more approximates the NAB "woe", as if God gives us trials that we must transcend to make us better. Note that the Septuagint Greek "eirenen" means literally "peace" as the opposite "good" condition, implying that the "evil" is more like "disorder", "upset", or "chaos", that God does will the life not be easy by being so orderly that it lets us stagnate or imposes continuance of dead customs that stultify the young and idealistic.

Yet the whole chapter makes a clear repudiation of Christian Deism. God does order our lives, even in bringing the disorder in them. And this is from Deutero-Isaiah, recognized as the most exalted of the prophets. This is also a repudiation of Gnosticism and Marcionism--no surprise that the OT shoots down any attempt to dispense with the OT!

I have a Catholic Bible, written and authorized by people whose agenda is orthodox. It says 'evil'.
Why do I need to worry about new translations when I have one whose authenticity falls directly on the original churches?

If anyone wanted to put real stock into a translation, they would go with what I have instead of fiddling with time and time again re-approached and adulterated texts.


Because I can tell you exactly what the verse means that apparently so called scholars pretty much neglect out of their zeal to change what is illustrated.

If you step in front of the light, you create darkness. And if you step in front of good, you create evil.
The passage illustrates the dual architect of these things.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 31 by Skybringr]
Maybe you're pulling my leg, but I'll answer as if you're serious.
Hyper-Calvinist does not apply only to arch-conservative Protestants, but just as bad can be found among rebellious Traditionalists (an oxymoron, sure, but all too true). If you're not a troll you're probably sedevacantist, Pope Pius X Society, Pope St. Pius V, or at least Society of St. Peter.

Yes, you're right, my Challoner-Rheims shows "evil" for Is. 45:7. As this translation readily admits at the start, it's just a translation of the Latin Vulgate, itself a late-comer from St. Jerome about 400 A. D. All modern Roman Catholic translations, however, acknowledged the need to refer to the original Hebrew for the Old Testament here. None of those I possess read "evil" here. My New Jerusalem Bible reads,
"I form the light and I create the darkness,
I make well-being, and I create DISASTER, (as also the NIV, Protestant)
I, Yahweh, do all these things."
To my mind that's worse than EVIL.
My New American Bible reads exactly the same except substituting WOE for DISASTER and "The Lord" for "Yahweh".

This NAB reading is softer than even any of the Protestant versions.
But none of this counts for you, I take it. I don't have the Vulgate in my library. What does it read? By modern standards one would expect that St. Jerome mistranslated the Hebrew to read something like "malo" which in itself could mean an number of things. I take it you are a Latin scholar, so help us out here, as it was the Latin that was canonized by the Council of Trent in the 16th Century.

[Skybringr]

[Replying to post 31 by Skybringr]
Maybe you're pulling my leg, but I'll answer as if you're serious.
Hyper-Calvinist does not apply only to arch-conservative Protestants, but just as bad can be found among rebellious Traditionalists (an oxymoron, sure, but all too true). If you're not a troll you're probably sedevacantist, Pope Pius X Society, Pope St. Pius V, or at least Society of St. Peter.

Yes, you're right, my Challoner-Rheims shows "evil" for Is. 45:7. As this translation readily admits at the start, it's just a translation of the Latin Vulgate, itself a late-comer from St. Jerome about 400 A. D. All modern Roman Catholic translations, however, acknowledged the need to refer to the original Hebrew for the Old Testament here. None of those I possess read "evil" here. My New Jerusalem Bible reads,
"I form the light and I create the darkness,
I make well-being, and I create DISASTER, (as also the NIV, Protestant)
I, Yahweh, do all these things."
To my mind that's worse than EVIL.
My New American Bible reads exactly the same except substituting WOE for DISASTER and "The Lord" for "Yahweh".

This NAB reading is softer than even any of the Protestant versions.
But none of this counts for you, I take it. I don't have the Vulgate in my library. What does it read? By modern standards one would expect that St. Jerome mistranslated the Hebrew to read something like "malo" which in itself could mean an number of things. I take it you are a Latin scholar, so help us out here, as it was the Latin that was canonized by the Council of Trent in the 16th Century.

Evil, disaster, calamity- these are all interchangeable meanings. "Evil" has always been the most popular because it's context is more direct and convicting.

You sit there and imply that I'm a troll or a sedevacantist because you can't accept a simple statement in the Bible that is virtually rational in proper account to God and Creation.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 28 by ttruscott]
But Ted,
isn't "kaka" an English word, right out of the Septuagint that any two-year-old would understand?
But I hear you (and agree). To say that the God Christians believe in is necessarily intentionally the bringer of evil for its own sake is to hand the victory to our atheist opponents. Hardly any educated humans are willing to believe in a God that for his own pleasure torments us on this Earth and then extrapolates that to infinity by torturing us in Hell besides. That Primitive-Baptist type of Hyper-Calvinism I have not heard of even on the radio since the 1980's. You still find some of that ilk on the internet--Theology Web had one who called himself Hobbes, but even he was banned about 2008.

Whether or not it is explicitly taught it IS implied in the the doctrine of original sin and all the baffle-gab about how our sin is inherited from Adam but not by GOD's choice, or fault is just so much smoke behind the mirrors.

All of orthodoxy believes in inherited sin based on one phrase of one verse... which implies a blasphemy as far as I'm concerned...

Peace, Ted

[Danmark]

.... I can't remember when the word 'cause' became the same word as "allow"?....

I believe that is the essence of the argument, that 'allow' does not equal 'cause.'

Please correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand Christian theology God is not only good, but he defines what is good. He is also all powerful. When an all powerful being 'allows' evil to flourish does it really make much moral significance that he did not 'cause' the evil?

If I see a child swept downstream in a rapid river and I know I am a strong swimmer capable of rescuing the drowning child, yet I do nothing, do I not have some moral responsibility for 'allowing' the child to die? I certainly did not 'cause' the death, but who among us would see me as 'good' when I allowed the child to die when I could have prevented the death?

[Korah]

[Replying to post 35 by Danmark]
Good argument, Danmark, but you're assuming all things are equal, and they're not since we cannot assume that we just popped into this life in this world with no antecedents.
Ted and I (and surely others) believe in pre-existence, that each human carries "baggage" from prior lives or existences. To put the baldest case on it (and not necessarily my prime belief), what if we all lived in a prior life (here or near some other star) in which Heaven or Hell was to be our fate--and now here we are, in Hell as we deserved to be. Only Hell did not turn out to be so bad as our preachers there said it would be. But it's no picnic.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 35 by Danmark]
Good argument, Danmark, but you're assuming all things are equal, and they're not since we cannot assume that we just popped into this life in this world with no antecedents.
Ted and I (and surely others) believe in pre-existence, that each human carries "baggage" from prior lives or existences. To put the baldest case on it (and not necessarily my prime belief), what if we all lived in a prior life (here or near some other star) in which Heaven or Hell was to be our fate--and now here we are, in Hell as we deserved to be. Only Hell did not turn out to be so bad as our preachers there said it would be. But it's no picnic.

I'm not sure I understand the significance of belief in preexistence re: the example of the drowning child. I'd appreciated a clarification. Would this preexistence be a factor in the decision to save or not save the drowning child?

As an aside, I will confess that of all the concepts related to Christian theology, I can think of few that my mind is so tightly closed about, besides preexistence. It's right there with the hindu notion of reincarnation in terms of ideas I reject out of hand. The only thing that comes to mind that I am more sure about is the belief that 'W' Bush is the worst U. S. President in the last 100 years.

[ttruscott]

.... I can't remember when the word 'cause' became the same word as "allow"?....

I believe that is the essence of the argument, that 'allow' does not equal 'cause.'

Please correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand Christian theology God is not only good, but he defines what is good. He is also all powerful. When an all powerful being 'allows' evil to flourish does it really make much moral significance that he did not 'cause' the evil?

...

Does allow mean to create? Logically no. Is the maker of the match guilty for the flames of the arsonist? No, so legally the answer is no.

If it is logical that the allowance of evil (but not its created reality) was necessary to the fulfillment of HIS perfect plan for all of creation to share with them the bliss of a perfect, loving and holy communion called the heavenly state, then the creation of that evil is not within HIS intent but an aberration outside of the control of the chosen method, to whit:

To share love in holiness with those spirits created in HIS image, they had to have free will because a coerced 'love' is not acceptable as true love nor is a rock holy even though it will never sin as true holiness must come from a free will decision not to do evil.

To achieve HIS purpose our free will was a necessity.

Also, the communion HE desired would be forever marred if HE Shanghaied people to enter that communion rather than have them enter by their free will. Thus our free will was also a necessity to separate all those who found nothing attractive in the idea that HE was their GOD nor viewed the heavenly delights as enticing from those who did like the sound of all this. In other words, only those people who liked the promises of YHWH about the nature of heaven's bliss would make the decision to come under HIS promise of being chosen to attain that state.

So by these three things, our free will was a necessity to achieve HIS goals and purpose for going to all the creation.

Then the crux, knowing that some might (but they did not need to) reject HIM and so create themselves as eternally evil had to be weighed against the nature of the fulfillment of HIS goal, which I am certain happened and then the decision to create was made.

So evil was created by no other action of HIS, by no evil impulse coming from HIM, by no temptation to evil coming from HIM but only by HIS creation of spirits with a free will. YEs if HE did not create them or if HE did not create them with a free will, there would be no evil but GOD is at arm's length from the creation of evil by it being the idea and the outcome of the person's decisions himself, with no input or temptation from GOD.

If I have a son who in his later years murders someone, am I a murderer? When does my bringing him into existence not contain the culpability for his actions? This disconnect between creation and choice is what allows me to claim that though HE created the free will, HE did not create the evil that flowed from the free will.

This is a theological point only because creating evil or not, HE is still responsible for its existence so within HIS creation HE put into place the method to clean up the mess that might happen if HE allowed free will, that is, the banishment of the eternally evil to outside of HIS created reality and the salvation of the sinful elect from their temporary evil by the redemption found in the death of HIS Christ.

Peace, Ted

[Danmark]

.... I can't remember when the word 'cause' became the same word as "allow"?....

I believe that is the essence of the argument, that 'allow' does not equal 'cause.'

Please correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand Christian theology God is not only good, but he defines what is good. He is also all powerful. When an all powerful being 'allows' evil to flourish does it really make much moral significance that he did not 'cause' the evil?

...

Does allow mean to create? Logically no. Is the maker of the match guilty for the flames of the arsonist? No, so legally the answer is no.

If it is logical that the allowance of evil (but not its created reality) was necessary to the fulfillment of HIS perfect plan for all of creation to share with them the bliss of a perfect, loving and holy communion called the heavenly state, then the creation of that evil is not within HIS intent but an aberration outside of the control of the chosen method, to whit:

To share love in holiness with those spirits created in HIS image, they had to have free will because a coerced 'love' is not acceptable as true love nor is a rock holy even though it will never sin as true holiness must come from a free will decision not to do evil.

To achieve HIS purpose our free will was a necessity.

Also, the communion HE desired would be forever marred if HE Shanghaied people to enter that communion rather than have them enter by their free will. Thus our free will was also a necessity to separate all those who found nothing attractive in the idea that HE was their GOD nor viewed the heavenly delights as enticing from those who did like the sound of all this. In other words, only those people who liked the promises of YHWH about the nature of heaven's bliss would make the decision to come under HIS promise of being chosen to attain that state.

So by these three things, our free will was a necessity to achieve HIS goals and purpose for going to all the creation.

Then the crux, knowing that some might (but they did not need to) reject HIM and so create themselves as eternally evil had to be weighed against the nature of the fulfillment of HIS goal, which I am certain happened and then the decision to create was made.

So evil was created by no other action of HIS, by no evil impulse coming from HIM, by no temptation to evil coming from HIM but only by HIS creation of spirits with a free will. YEs if HE did not create them or if HE did not create them with a free will, there would be no evil but GOD is at arm's length from the creation of evil by it being the idea and the outcome of the person's decisions himself, with no input or temptation from GOD.

If I have a son who in his later years murders someone, am I a murderer? When does my bringing him into existence not contain the culpability for his actions? This disconnect between creation and choice is what allows me to claim that though HE created the free will, HE did not create the evil that flowed from the free will.

This is a theological point only because creating evil or not, HE is still responsible for its existence so within HIS creation HE put into place the method to clean up the mess that might happen if HE allowed free will, that is, the banishment of the eternally evil to outside of HIS created reality and the salvation of the sinful elect from their temporary evil by the redemption found in the death of HIS Christ.

Peace, Ted

Thanks Ted. That was an excellent explanation of that particular aspect of Christian Theology. Well done.
However, I'm buying neither a jot or a tittle of it. To me, that theology is an excellent example of the kind of contortions one must go thru to try to make sense of something when one starts out with an absurd and absolute description of this imagined being, God. It makes much more sense to simply reject the idea and the impossibilities and contradictions it requires.

BTW, the notion of humans being created so they can exercise free choice about whether or not to believe in and love god, also makes no sense because the angels already had such a choice, as Lucifer demonstrated.

Further it makes no sense in terms of morality, since if those who choose God will do so because they see it is in their long term self interest; in other words, if one believes in God, than it is a selfish or self maximizing decision to follow him.

And I'm still waiting to hear your reasoning on why simply believing in the 'correct' answer can be the basis for 'good,' while not believing can be a basis for judging someone as 'evil.'