Does Jesus Cause Evil?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Haven
Guru
Posts: 1803
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 8:23 pm
Location: Tremonton, Utah
Has thanked: 70 times
Been thanked: 52 times
Contact:

Does Jesus Cause Evil?

Post #1

Post by Haven »

On another thread, a Christian said:
[color=darkorange]99percentatheism[/color] wrote:. . . 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?
♥ Haven (she/her) ♥
♥ Kindness is the greatest adventure ♥

Korah
Under Suspension
Posts: 706
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 7:16 pm
Location: Dixon, CA

Re: Does Jesus cause evil?

Post #41

Post by Korah »

Danmark wrote:
Korah wrote: [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. :)
Wow, D,
We agree about a lot, except 220 years seems much more warranted than just 100. And I too as blithely dismissed reincarnation until I was 28 years old And yes, I would regard you (or myself) as an abominable person if you (or I) failed to rescue a child easily rescueable. In your closed-minded terms your argument is good, I grant you.
But that's not the deal. My rebuttal asked us to suppose that we're already in Hell, and in that case "rescuing" somebody to stay here wouldn't look so unthinkable (but yes, is still does remain unthinkable to me). But if we're considering God's position regarding anyone's state of misery or dying here, the deal is that God already refrained from sending anyone to a place as bad as we may have deserved, a fiery place about which all the preachers had warned us how bad it was going to be. Consider that the suffering we go through here may be much less than we deserve and may nevertheless be considered to earn us a place back where we were before we messed up so badly and wound up here. (I'm not necessarily saying we're all in Hell here--maybe for most of us it's Purgatory--probably another concept regarding which your mind is sealed shut.)

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Does Jesus cause evil?

Post #42

Post by Danmark »

Korah wrote: Wow, D,
We agree about a lot, except 220 years seems much more warranted than just 100. And I too as blithely dismissed reincarnation until I was 28 years old And yes, I would regard you (or myself) as an abominable person if you (or I) failed to rescue a child easily rescueable. In your closed-minded terms your argument is good, I grant you.
But that's not the deal. My rebuttal asked us to suppose that we're already in Hell, and in that case "rescuing" somebody to stay here wouldn't look so unthinkable (but yes, is still does remain unthinkable to me). But if we're considering God's position regarding anyone's state of misery or dying here, the deal is that God already refrained from sending anyone to a place as bad as we may have deserved, a fiery place about which all the preachers had warned us how bad it was going to be. Consider that the suffering we go through here may be much less than we deserve and may nevertheless be considered to earn us a place back where we were before we messed up so badly and wound up here. (I'm not necessarily saying we're all in Hell here--maybe for most of us it's Purgatory--probably another concept regarding which your mind is sealed shut.)
Yes, re: 'W' I won't object to 220 years. I used 100 because I wanted to at least appear reasonable. :)

I not only do not believe in heaven and hell, I think they are actually dangerous ideas. I've met more than one person who murdered because he believed his children would be better off in 'heaven.' And no, altho' I don't believe in purgatory either, I think it more likely than preexistence or reincarnation. I meant that IF* there is an afterlife, that upon death, I suppose it makes some sense there would be a waiting room.
___________________
*That's a really big 'IF.' :D

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11064
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Does Jesus cause evil?

Post #43

Post by ttruscott »

Danmark wrote:
...

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.
If I had that luxury, maybe, but GOD vexed me and harassed me and shook me like a dog toy until I repented and quit trying to ignore HIM and what HE wanted from me.
Danmark wrote: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.
Yes they have free will and never joined in the Satanic rebellion but some of those angels did rebel against GOD when HE started to set HIS plan for the judgment of the fallen ones. The difference between these two groups is that the satanic never ever did bow to YHWH as their GOD before they became evil but the sinful elect did accept HIM at first then rejected HIM over HIS plan of judgment.

That which makes both the groups the same is that all sinners, both the eternally sinful and those temporarily sinful able to be saved are born as humans to live together until the sinful elect good seed mature in their faith and holiness, stop interfering with HIS plans for the tares and then the harvest as per the parable of the good seed, Matt 13:36-43.

Those spirits who never sinned were chosen to work for GOD as HIS messengers from which we get the word angel.
Danmark wrote: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.
On the idea alone, I agree but I disagree with the word selfish because of the bad connotations it has. To choose in one's self interest is not to be necessarily selfish if part of the self interest is to stay with and be in the community of your friends.

When we were offered the promise of heaven for accepting YHWH as our GOD and warned of hell being the natural consequence of rejecting HIM as GOD and therefore HIS promises too, we in fact were being asked to decide where we saw our best chance for a perfect life with the most happiness as we could see it from all of the evidence. Did we think heaven sounded like a good enough reason to put our faith in HIM as divine without proof just to get it or not. Self interest but not necessarily selfishness.
Danmark wrote: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.'
Well, I've explained it many times - I'm sorry you missed it because it is quite long, sigh. :)

It has to do with the enslaving addictive nature of evil. Once someone sins, they are addicted to feelings of power and freedom from GOD which bolsters their own self aggrandizement so that given a choice, they will reject GOD at every turn. (I know this from personal experience...) They can never break that addiction on their own but only with GOD's help.

Those people who rejected HIM as their GOD and so rejected HIS promises of heaven by salvation from their sin (because they could not accept that any being could be greater than themselves or more worthy of praise than themselves so they concluded that YHWH must be a liar and a false god with no power to fulfill HIS promises or the warnings of hell) self created themselves as eternally evil.

A major tenant of free will is that if you choose it by free will, GOD will let you have it and not interfere (unless it conflicts with a previous choice) or where is the freeness of your choice? Therefore as outside of HIS promise of salvation, their choice to reject HIM as their GOD self created themselves as eternally evil.

So it is not as simple as saying how can they be eternally punished for not believing when the nature of their not believing is found in their eternal sinfulness and hatred for and aggression towards GOD and HIS church if the restrainer does not hold them back.

They are banished from created reality not for the sin of not believing but to remove a self created eternal evil from HIS creation. Non-belief identifies them only on earth (though all sinners are non-believers at first) since in sheol, all folk, sinners and non-sinners alike are all believers knowing the truth about YHWH's divinity and their fate with HIM or to be banished.

Knowing the truth of HIS divinity and power is not enough to get them to break their addiction to sin and repent. Knowing Christ's loving sacrifice is not enough to get them to break their addiction and repent. Therefore, since they reject GOD ever interfering with their lives, there can only be one answer to their relentless evil, banishment from GOD's created reality where the heavenly experience will take place.

Peace, Ted
PCE Theology as I see it...

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: Does Jesus cause evil?

Post #44

Post by Zzyzx »

.
ttruscott wrote: Logically no. Is the maker of the match guilty for the flames of the arsonist? No, so legally the answer is no.
If a person makes a match (or a bomb) KNOWING that it will be used destructively, they ARE responsible, legally, morally, ethically.
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Does Jesus cause evil?

Post #45

Post by Danmark »

[Replying to post 42 by ttruscott]

Ted, I gather this is the essence of your argument:
Well, I've explained it many times - I'm sorry you missed it because it is quite long, sigh. Smile

It has to do with the enslaving addictive nature of evil. Once someone sins, they are addicted to feelings of power and freedom from GOD which bolsters their own self aggrandizement so that given a choice, they will reject GOD at every turn. (I know this from personal experience...) They can never break that addiction on their own but only with GOD's help.

Those people who rejected HIM as their GOD and so rejected HIS promises of heaven by salvation from their sin (because they could not accept that any being could be greater than themselves or more worthy of praise than themselves so they concluded that YHWH must be a liar and a false god with no power to fulfill HIS promises or the warnings of hell) self created themselves as eternally evil.
With respect, I have to say that to me this makes no sense at all.

The essential point of being a non theist is that the person simply does not believe in the traditional God of theism. This may be a simply an intellectual decision, not even necessarily a choice. When one believes mountains and rivers exist, no one would claim 'sin' or morality is involved. Why is it a sin to simply not believe in something there is no clear evidence of?
Is it a 'sin' to not believe in astrology, or Islam, or Hinduism?

There is no feeling of self aggrandizement or 'power' to simply not believe in something. There is a sense that one is not a fool, or that one's critical intellectual capacity has not been compromised, but there is no sense of 'addiction' to simply add 2+2 and come up with 4.

The reasoning you suggest seems both morally and intellectually bankrupt to me. It seems equally reasonable to suggest that belief in and reliance on the God myth is addictive and gives the believer a sense of power and union with God and that this belief is addictive because of the false sense of security it brings.

"Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them," Matthew 7:20 if memory serves.

The 'fruit' of this belief you describe considers, by your own claim, that a doctor who helps children survive abuse and who works for a mere subsistence wage so he can help these unfortunates is a 'sinner' if he does not believe in God; yet by your standard he is equal in 'sin' to a preacher who has sex with those same children and hides behind his cross.

This belief is an example of a 'fruit' that shows how morally hideous is the belief system you defend. It is only religious belief that could bring someone to such an incredibly ridiculous opinion. Logic and reason cannot hope to account for such a conclusion.

User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #46

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

[Replying to post 28 by ttruscott]
ttruscott wrote: I don't get it, you think the verse was written with the English word 'evil' in it?
Here is the direct Hebrew-English translation for Isa 45:7. Is everyone lying? Or is it simply that your own personal belief system seems to continuously keep getting itself caught in the wringer?

one-forming light and·one-creating darkness one-makingdo well-being and·one-creating evil I one-makingdo all-of these
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte ... /isa45.pdf

ttruscott wrote: 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.
Genesis rather strongly "implies" that God is responsible for everything, and with His omnipotence and omniscience gets exactly the result He intends to get. God created the serpent with a purpose in mind. Because God IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EVIL.
Last edited by Tired of the Nonsense on Tue Jun 17, 2014 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11064
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Does Jesus cause evil?

Post #47

Post by ttruscott »

Zzyzx wrote: .
ttruscott wrote: Logically no. Is the maker of the match guilty for the flames of the arsonist? No, so legally the answer is no.
If a person makes a match (or a bomb) KNOWING that it will be used destructively, they ARE responsible, legally, morally, ethically.
Since this is an analogy for GOD's creation, and I contend HE did not know at the time of creation that any one would use their free will (the match) for any evil (the fire) but only that HE knew there was a possibility of evil being created, what has this to do with my argument?

Peace, Ted
PCE Theology as I see it...

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Does Jesus cause evil?

Post #48

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

ttruscott wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: .
ttruscott wrote: Logically no. Is the maker of the match guilty for the flames of the arsonist? No, so legally the answer is no.
If a person makes a match (or a bomb) KNOWING that it will be used destructively, they ARE responsible, legally, morally, ethically.
Since this is an analogy for GOD's creation, and I contend HE did not know at the time of creation that any one would use their free will (the match) for any evil (the fire) but only that HE knew there was a possibility of evil being created, what has this to do with my argument?

Peace, Ted
ttruscott wrote: Since this is an analogy for GOD's creation, and I contend HE did not know at the time of creation that any one would use their free will (the match) for any evil (the fire) but only that HE knew there was a possibility of evil being created, what has this to do with my argument?


GOD DID NOT KNOW? YOUR GOD IS THEREFORE LIMITED in His knowledge and in His abilities? How well does this blasphemy of yours sit with other actual Christians, I wonder?

You're boxed in here ttruscott. Refusing to answer me will not serve as a defense as long as everyone else is a witness to your unwillingness to respond to questions or points of view that you would rather not face.
Image "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11064
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Does Jesus cause evil?

Post #49

Post by ttruscott »

Danmark wrote: [Replying to post 42 by ttruscott]

Ted, I gather this is the essence of your argument:
Well, I've explained it many times - I'm sorry you missed it because it is quite long, sigh. Smile

It has to do with the enslaving addictive nature of evil. Once someone sins, they are addicted to feelings of power and freedom from GOD which bolsters their own self aggrandizement so that given a choice, they will reject GOD at every turn. (I know this from personal experience...) They can never break that addiction on their own but only with GOD's help.

Those people who rejected HIM as their GOD and so rejected HIS promises of heaven by salvation from their sin (because they could not accept that any being could be greater than themselves or more worthy of praise than themselves so they concluded that YHWH must be a liar and a false god with no power to fulfill HIS promises or the warnings of hell) self created themselves as eternally evil.
With respect, I have to say that to me this makes no sense at all.

The essential point of being a non theist is that the person simply does not believe in the traditional God of theism.
The usual Christian contention is that everyone has heard the gospel preached (Col 1:23) and everyone has seen the proof of HIS divinity and power, (Rom 1:20) but those who are under GOD's wrath are those who repressed these memories because of their addiction to sin which is explored in the latter part of Romans 1.
Danmark wrote: Why is it a sin to simply not believe in something there is no clear evidence of?
The sin of the non-believer is not in the non-belief but caused by their non-belief...that is, when they chose to accept that there was not enough credibility in the evidence to accept YHWH as their GOD, they self created themselves as eternally evil outside of HIS promise to save them from sin for all eternity. It this change of nature caused by their unbelief resulting in their unbreakable addiction to evil that has them banished from HIS reality for ever.
Danmark wrote:There is no feeling of self aggrandizement or 'power' to simply not believe in something.
I'm interpreting this from some scripture that alludes to Satan's fall being based upon pride - when presented with the idea of of YHWH being the creator GOD over him, he balked and the ensuing complicated syndrome of feelings and rationalizations became the essence of sin.
Danmark wrote:The reasoning you suggest seems both morally and intellectually bankrupt to me. It seems equally reasonable to suggest that belief in and reliance on the God myth is addictive and gives the believer a sense of power and union with God and that this belief is addictive because of the false sense of security it brings.
Yes,
this is exactly how the sinners in the Church do feel and act but it is a common underlying theme to all sin, that is , it is the person's nature not the content of the belief system that causes such addictive responses to decisions.
Danmark wrote:"Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them," Matthew 7:20 if memory serves.

...

This belief is an example of a 'fruit' that shows how morally hideous is the belief system you defend. It is only religious belief that could bring someone to such an incredibly ridiculous opinion. Logic and reason cannot hope to account for such a conclusion.


I cannot see how this reference to false prophets is relevant to our topic. That a man's life is not the measure of his righteousness before GOD is often repeated in Christian doctrine. Those without faith want their good lives to be the measure of their 'hearts' and resist strongly any hint that the good of their lives is NOT meritorious but only the result of GOD's blessing on those who would suffer under them if they were left to their sin.

It may be reflected in the fact that not every psychopath is driven to be cruel and murderous but even so, at the end of it all, he is still a psychopath, deficient in his emotional commitments. What you are is more important than what you do in the Christian system for salvation though I understand your confusion about this since only those who actually study in the Scripture have any understanding of this at all and most church goers still believe life's actions and choices that create election and salvation, leading them into the obvious self righteousness we so often see.

Peace, Ted
PCE Theology as I see it...

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Does Jesus cause evil?

Post #50

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

[Replying to ttruscott]
ttruscott wrote: I'm interpreting this from some scripture that alludes to Satan's fall being based upon pride - when presented with the idea of of YHWH being the creator GOD over him, he balked and the ensuing complicated syndrome of feelings and rationalizations became the essence of sin.
Where exactly does scripture allude to " Satan's fall being based upon pride?" Or is this simply more of your own made up religious belief?
Image "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.

Post Reply