Is “Satan� actually a competing “god�?

[Zzyzx]

.
Is “Satan� actually a competing “god�?

All we “know� about the Satan character is from the POV of Bible writers – who claim that “he� is inferior to “God� (and presumably Jesus).

Since Bible writers and promoters have a vested interest in glorifying their favorite God(s) they could be expected to bad-mouth / demean / discredit the competition.

Since there is no assurance that there is only one “god� (or three-in-one for Christendom), the opposition might be one (or more) of the thousands of proposed gods. In fact, the only “evidence� for any of them consists of unverified tales, testimonials, conjectures, opinions, beliefs.

Thus, is there any sound reason that “Satan� could not be one of the other proposed gods and be equal in “power� to the Bible God?

“The Bible says� is NOT acceptable as proof of truth in this C&A sub-forum or in this thread.

Perhaps “Satan� isn't really the “bad guy� he is made out to be by promoters of the Bible God. Maybe “he� is another one of the “gods� and is equal to the Bible God and/or Jesus – and no more bad or good (or real or unreal) than they are.

It does not seem as though God and/or Jesus are able to defeat or eliminate Satan. Wonder why?

[OnceConvinced]

"Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness."

And the same section says he will make righteousness rain from heaven and spring up from the earth so your refusal to defer to metaphor says that righteousness is a form of precipitation as well as a species of plant.

Is righteousness a metaphor?

[marco]

And the same section says he will make righteousness rain from heaven and spring up from the earth so your refusal to defer to metaphor says that righteousness is a form of precipitation as well as a species of plant.

My refusal to defer to metaphor? You jest, surely. It is you who have been denying the creative, metaphorical use of the simple word "create." I have been a lover of metaphor since an early age.

Your difficulty seems to be with metaphor, then. The Isaiah passage is an example of using "create" in a way that you, apparently, have never been taught. I gave you many other examples of this common usage. It now remain only for you to digest them.

I can do no more. Give instruction to a wise man, they say, and he will be yet wiser.

[JLB32168]

That is clearly not the type of darkness that scripture is referring to.

What type of darkness is it then that it can be created?

It also quite blatantly states that God creates evil. Don't argue with me about it. Argue with God!

And how does God create a thing that you cannot describe except by explaining the result of someone’s actions? Did God create “run�? Did he create “Marathon� or “50m Dash�?

When it speaks of precipitation it's clearly speaking metaphorically. Righteousness however is not a metaphorical term. Neither is "evil"

No one said that righteousness was metaphorical, but how does it rain from heaven or spring up from the earth?

It says there in plain English "I create EVIL". What do you think it means when it says "evil"?

You’re just repeating your same conclusion over and over again w/o addressing my rebuttals, which if they’re meritless should be easily debunked. And yet you don’t do that. I’ll ask again, how does the earth open up and bring salvation? All of this is written in the same style, that is, Hebrew parallelism designed to do one thing – emphasize the omnipotence of the Hebrew deity and isn’t meant to be taken in a slavishly literal fashion (cf. XLV Isaiah 5“I am the LORD, and there is no other;
There is no God besides Me,� XLV Isaiah 6b “That there is none besides Me.
I am the LORD, and there is no other,� XLV Isaiah v. 14 “ ‘Surely God is in you, And there is no other; There is no other God.’�) You’re proof texting like some Bible-thumper – the kind of person that you guys routinely condemn and it’s almost comical.

So if Adam (the consumer) sins and the world (the robot) becomes corrupted, it is doing exactly as designed. You can't blame the corruption on Adam.

Where does Adam’s responsibility begin???

The world is the robot. If natural disasters start happening, herbivores become carnivores, non-venomous animals become venomous, things start dying.... that's the robot!

All created things are joined in essence/ontology. If you introduce a virus into a level 5 CDC lab then the whole lab is contaminated. You would blame the one who designed the room for “fatal flaws� even when a lab assistant deliberately introduced the virus into the room. You’d place none of the responsibility upon the assistant. It’s amazing how former Christians apply a different set of criteria on the same scenario – it’s almost as if they’re trying to talk themselves into the rightness of their new position.

You can't blame Adam applying the oil for that corruption.

If Adam deliberately put the wrong oil into a robot – knowing that oil was the wrong kind – then who would you fault with error? You’d fault God of course and that’s bias working.

The sensible thing to do was create a robot that does NOT go berserk if the wrong oil is applied.

In other words, create something that is perfect, which of course is like saying, “Create a man that’s a woman,� since anything created cannot be perfect by virtue of the fact that it’s created in the first place.

Mankind can be created "perfectly" and then based on his own freewill decides to apply the incorrect oil to the robot.

God created man the only way he could create and God’s way is perfect, but the product cannot be perfect by virtue of the fact that it was created from w/o and couldn’t will itself into existence. That means it can improve or worsen. In the case of man, he was created with freewill since creating him to automatically do “good� is nonsense. Good will isn’t good if it’s automatic. If you are forced to give money to a beggar, you’ve done nothing good. Robots who disable bombs by blowing them up and are blown up in the process aren’t praised for their sacrifice.

Why are you talking about man? I'm talking about creation in general.

Yes – you’re separating man from creation as if they’re two things rather than one and that is where you error. In my example of the sterile environment of the lab, the whole thing will become corrupt – the agar/agar in the sterile petri dishes, the air in the room – all will become corrupt because it is all joined together as one whole and the man knows it is and knows he is screwing everything up.

Who gets the blame for the house falling down around your ears?

You – the one who goes into the basement knowing that something bad will happen. Of ocurse, your analogy isn’t perfect (as is the nature of all analogies) in that Adam and Eve weren’t oblivious to the consequences of their actions. Jewish interpretation was that Adam and Eve knew that all created things were joined to them in some way and they know that their actions would affect everything according to how they acted.

Clearly you haven't thought it through all the way.

I answered every one of your points with an answer I’ve arrived at over the years; therefore, I’m quite certain that I’ve thought about it extensively.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 97 by Blastcat]


"Meh... Satan is thought of as a fallen angel.. so he has at least angelic powers.

1 Chronicles 21:1, "Satan stood up against Israel"... one guy against a nation?.. seems to me he needs some kind of super power to even TRY that. "

Satan has no power whatsover except what man gives it.

Why is satan a 'one' guy?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 104 by Monta]

"Meh... Satan is thought of as a fallen angel.. so he has at least angelic powers.

1 Chronicles 21:1, "Satan stood up against Israel"... one guy against a nation?.. seems to me he needs some kind of super power to even TRY that. "

Satan has no power whatsover except what man gives it.

Could you perhaps cite where it says that in the Bible?.. or are you just voicing your opinion?

Why is satan a 'one' guy?

I have NO idea what this "Satan" character is supposed to be, really, a snake, a guy with wings... a spirit, an angel, a metaphor for evil... who knows? But I have never heard that it was a gang in the Bible... is it?

[catnip]

[Replying to post 93 by catnip]

.

I meant Yahweh !!!

Ok, I came into this discussion a little late, and haven't been following your position very much. So, if you don't believe in Satan, do you believe in Yahweh?

In other words, the foundation of this thread requires the Bible to establish it as a topic of conversation. There is no use in then dismissing the Bible as any kind of evidence for the existence of Satan because it has been used to suggest that Satan could be something other than shown in the Biible. Huh?!

YEAH, HUH?

Could you try that again... I don't know what it means.

This is impossible! It is one thing to establish a thread challenging the reality of Satan and demand some kind of proof of him apart from the Bible. It is quite another to imagine that Satan is a god elsewhere, a biblical character whose character is established by the Bible and even that fact is cited in the OP--and his role in the Bible. So atheists can establish their discussion using the Bible, suggest that he could be a god in another religion--yes, currently there are "Satanists" but the only source for Satan and myths about him is the Bible. In order to respond to biblically based fantasies and speculations about what is written, then the Bible, whether it is true or not, logically should be within bounds to respond the supposition that Satan might really be a competing god. I don't think this falls under the rule against using the Bible as proof of Satan--no one is proving Satan, they are required to be convincing that Satan is not a god to an atheist who suggested it. Purely fictional, of course.

Satan is real/not real: discussion about a character that some consider real
Suppose Satan is a god: discussion about whether or not a potentially fictional character could be a competing god. A fictional scenario for what is a now fictional character. That is why I said, "huh?" Neither one of us believe in Satan.

If Satan is fictional, then Satan can't be a god either.

Right.

If both God and Satan are just fictional characters and not real at all.. then they aren't real gods at all, but just story book gods. Got me there.

Speculating about Satan requires consulting the mythology about him.

And it logically follows that if there is no Satan then there is no possible role for Satan apart from what is described in the Bible.

You mean as a character in stories?

Yeah. At least historically. You could name any character Satan, I suppose.

And it fails as an attack on those who believe in God and Satan as an argument.

The OP is meant as a question, not an attack.

I see most questions such as this as a form of attack, but that goes back to my beliefs about our natures and our view of what we need to do. One of these days, I promise to write an OP about that, but in the meantime, I will accept your suggestion that is merely a question.

I am especially amused about this because, very simply, Christianity would be very much BETTER if it weren't for enhancements given Satan outside of and apart from what is written in scripture!

Kinda hard to prove that one, isn't it?

It should be hard to prove that Satan's image has been enhanced in popular culture since biblical times? Why should it be? The Bible may not be proof that Satan exists, but it is the source of the concept of Satan and a comparison between what people think about Satan according to popular culture and according to the Bible should not be against any rules, just as the biblical view of Satan could be cited in the OP to establish the question. It should be no more so than Homer's Iliad should be against the rules in establishing the character of Odysseus.

Meh... Satan is thought of as a fallen angel.. so he has at least angelic powers.

1 Chronicles 21:1, "Satan stood up against Israel"... one guy against a nation?.. seems to me he needs some kind of super power to even TRY that.

By withdrawing his grace from Israel, God permitted the tempter to prevail over them.

Psalm 109:6b "and let Satan stand at his right hand" Gee wiz... You'd think that someone who stands at his right hand must have SOME kind of power.

In the Job story, Satan seems to be pretty cozy with God. Maybe not magical powers.. but kinda, too. He does stuff to poor old Job.

Yes, early on it says that he basically served God. Some say he was like a prosecutor in God's court, but nowhere does it imply he had godly powers.

I also remember that in the Garden of Eden, that Satan guy was in the form of a talking walking snake?.. who could outsmart humans? That's kinda magical to me.

If you take it literally, perhaps.

It also seems that he can stand a lot of heat, since he was thrown into a lake of fire and survives. Neat trick !

I dunno. Some Christians think that people will be thrown into the lake of fire for eternity. I don't take it that way . . .

I actually asked you if you believed that Yahweh was real.. but never mind, I suppose. I am not too sure what you are saying exactly. Are you saying that these Bible characters are only metaphors?

Yahweh was a lower god in the Canaanite echelon. In fact, the list I consulted listed him as last on the list. This may be where the idea comes into scripture that early on he was a god of war and may explain some of the early stories told about him of conquests that archaeologists can't seem to find a match for between the fall of a place, such as Jericho, and the Hebrews.

When we act apart from God, we are ruled by Satan.

That's like saying "If you aren't with us, you are again' us."

Well, I think that is what is actually reflected in the Bible.

The whole objective of faith is to rise above the temptations of the personality, the attribution of the needs of the body which--in scripture--is explained by Paul to be the source of sin.

OHHHHH you are against people fulfilling their physical NEEDS... yikes. I usually urge people to have as much fun as possible in life. We are different.

I have nothing against fun. I highly recommend it.

So, ok ... I get it that you think Satan isn't real. I was actually asking you about Yahweh, though.

I'm just weird. But I think the whole "Yahweh" thing is of later origin and I rather dislike it.
I don't hang my hat on the Jewish scriptures.

It's only in the Bible that Yahweh is real, too. We aren't really asking if Satan is real. We are asking if Satan couldn't have been a competing god that the Bible authors wrote about so negatively to disparage some rival tribe's beliefs.

If that were true, then you could find him if you researched rival tribes. Otherwise, it is just speculation and that is neither here nor there. I haven't actually found a Satan anywhere. I mentioned Zoroastrians, but they have duality going on--maybe a bit more like what the Gnostics had. I do think that they somewhat influenced Syrian Christianity early on. I think this is where the singular mentions of Satan as the god of this world may come from.

Satan is somewhat borrowed from the Zoroastrians.

And Yahweh too, right?

No.

Again, the mythology of the cosmology of the Bible used as a topic of conversation is disingenuous if what is said in scripture is not grounds for rebuttal.

Not sure what you mean.

If we are into speculating as to the nature, the possibility of the existence of Satan apart from scripture as a god, then that needs to be compared to scripture as a general source for the mythos of Satan.

And what can be drawn on as a rebuttal but the only source for the topic of the discussion?

You may want to review the rules of debate for your answer:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6

I don't think it is as black and white as you think it is. The Bible was cited in the OP and a postulation was made--that Satan could be a god. The earliest source for all things Satan is the Bible whether it is true and believed or not. If for example, you wanted to suggest that the Palestinians are the descendants of the Philistines, then you might actually have to cite what is written in the Bible in order to infer that and to even begin to research it. Ha! To form a hypothesis! To suggest that the myth of Satan has possibly other sources as a competing god, one must look at when Satan is first referred to and how in the Bible--then go elsewhere in that period searching for similarities among other known religions. Even in speculating about a myth from the Bible, the Bible comes into play.

I do this all the time. I enjoy researching everything, digging deep into dark cobwebby corners and ferreting out possibilities. I like to question. I like to discuss. That is why I like lists like this: they give me ideas as to what to look into.

[marco]

I don't think it is as black and white as you think it is. The Bible was cited in the OP and a postulation was made--that Satan could be a god. The earliest source for all things Satan is the Bible whether it is true and believed or not.

Hi catnip, I skipped the War and Peace preamble to your reply. Life is short.

There's nothing wrong with looking into the Bible, as one would look at a Shakespeare play, and making deductions. I'm not sure that the writers were as consistent as Shakespeare though.

If we compare Satan with gods say in Roman and Greek mythologies then he's just an evil god. He exists external to our weary world. He is denied divine status by his creators so as not to incur the wrath of a jealous god. There's a lot of theological diplomacy goes on. My problem is that, for all that Satan is characterised as very, very bad, his recorded crimes are hard to find.

[OnceConvinced]

That is clearly not the type of darkness that scripture is referring to.

What type of darkness is it then that it can be created?

It’s a metaphor for evil. So even when we take it as a metaphor we see that God is admitting that he creates it. Light = good. Darkness = evil. So not only does God use a metaphor with the word “darkness�, he also explains it to us literally. “I create evil�.

Note he tells us that he is the lord and there is no other. In other words he is saying that anything that exists, is because he created it. Light and darkness can only have been created by him.

What do you think it means when it says darkness?

And how does God create a thing that you cannot describe except by explaining the result of someone’s actions?

God created the evil beings didn’t he? Eg Satan. Demons. He also created humans with human nature, ie rebellious natures, sinful cravings etc.

What do you think he is saying when he said “I form the light and create darkness?�

He is taking responsibility for all this. He is taking responsibility for creating what commits evil acts.

Note he also says I bring prosperity and create disaster. Ie, he is taking responsibility for the evil that falls upon people, eg natural disasters.

There are numerous verses in the bible where God sends evil spirits.

He created it all. He states it quite plainly in these verses.

No one said that righteousness was metaphorical,

You are the one trying to make out these verses are speaking metaphorically. The word “righteousness� is not metaphorical. Neither is the word “Evil�. So when God says he created evil he is speaking literarily not metaphorically.

Even if you want to say that evil is what comes from man, God is still saying he created it. He also says that he “knitted us together in our mother’s womb�. If evil is there it’s his intention fully.

, but how does it rain from heaven or spring up from the earth?

This is the metaphorical part!

This is him bragging about how righteous he is and how his righteousness shall be upon the Earth. He wants it to flourish. Metaphors are being used to give a beautiful picture of his desire and how he wants it to happen. That doesn’t do away with the fact that he also claimed a few lines earlier that he creates disaster and evil.

The picture we clearly see here is a god who does both evil and good. He creates all of it himself because there is no other god to do it.

It says there in plain English "I create EVIL". What do you think it means when it says "evil"?

You’re just repeating your same conclusion over and over

No, I am asking you what you believe the verse is saying when it says “I create evil�. This is the first time I have asked that.

again w/o addressing my rebuttals, which if they’re meritless should be easily debunked.

What rebuttals? All you have done is claim that metaphors are being used but have made no effort whatsoever to explain what these metaphors are actually saying. Now you are dodging my questions.

I’ll ask again, how does the earth open up and bring salvation?

“Earth open up� is no doubt a metaphor. But Salvation is not a metaphor. What God is saying here is that he will bring salvation across the earth. Salvation from the evil he created. That in no way takes away the fact that God also said he creates evil. Can we just focus on the “create evil� part which God quite clearly admits to. His very own literal words? Words that are clearly not metaphors?

All of this is written in the same style, that is, Hebrew parallelism designed to do one thing – emphasize the omnipotence of the Hebrew deity and isn’t meant to be taken in a slavishly literal fashion (cf. XLV Isaiah 5“I am the LORD, and there is no other;
There is no God besides Me,� XLV Isaiah 6b “That there is none besides Me.
I am the LORD, and there is no other,� XLV Isaiah v. 14 “ ‘Surely God is in you, And there is no other; There is no other God.’�)

I agree it is saying all this. But it is also saying that God created evil. You seem to want to avoid that fact.

You’re proof texting like some Bible-thumper – the kind of person that you guys routinely condemn and it’s almost comical.

I am taking the words at face value. I can see where metaphors are being used and where they are not. How about we just focus on the words “I created evil� rather than shucking and jiving and throwing in red herrings?

So if Adam (the consumer) sins and the world (the robot) becomes corrupted, it is doing exactly as designed. You can't blame the corruption on Adam.

Where does Adam’s responsibility begin???

Adam’s responsibility began when he disobeyed God. However to determine who is most responsible for the corruption we need to go back before Adam to the original design and development which opened up the opportunity for corruption. Why was it possible for everything to become corrupt when Adam didn’t obey the rules?

The world is the robot. If natural disasters start happening, herbivores become carnivores, non-venomous animals become venomous, things start dying.... that's the robot!

All created things are joined in essence/ontology. If you introduce a virus into a level 5 CDC lab then the whole lab is contaminated.

Viruses can only be entered in to the system if the security is inadequate. IF there are flaws in the system that can be taken advantage of. If security is inadequate, we blame the designers and the developers. The person putting the virus is guilty of sabotage, but if the system had been designed perfectly there would have been no way it could have been sabotaged.

You would blame the one who designed the room for “fatal flaws� even when a lab assistant deliberately introduced the virus into the room.

Of course we do. If you know anything about software development you will know that if there is any security flaws, then that is the fault of inadequate design. If a virus can infiltrate the system, then the system could never have been perfect. If sin could so easily corrupt the system, then clearly the design was incompetent. After all, sin was surely a major problem that should have been taken into account shouldn’t it?

If you are aware that a user is most likely going to put in a virus in a certain part of the program, then you fix it so that they can’t. God must surely have been aware that Adam would insert a virus into the system. Why was God so negligible with his design process? God has to take the brunt of the blame for this corruption.

You’d place none of the responsibility upon the assistant.

I would indeed place responsibility on the assistant. However not as much responsibility as I would on the shoddy design and development of the system which allowed for the assistant to so easily corrupt it.

You do realise that for an assistant to plant a virus it requires a great knowledge of the system to be able to create that virus. It requires major effort and skill. You can’t compare that to the sin of Adam. Adam would not have had the knowledge required to plant a virus in the system.

What we are talking about here is actually a BUG in the system. Not a virus. A bug is something that is there due to error or lack of care in programming, that causes the system to misbehave if the wrong thing is done. This is a more accurate analogy when it comes to Adam. Adam did the wrong thing which caused the entire system to become corrupt. So it’s not as manipulative or evil as planting a virus. It’s just a matter of not obeying the rules.

Having got a degree in software development and having worked for 11 years now in the field, it has taught me that no matter what the operator does, any corruption that occurs in the system is not their fault. It is the fault of the design and the development. If a system if perfect, it should never have any security flaws in it. There should be no way that a user can do anything that will corrupt it. But in reality its not the case. Even the smallest little mistake or misuse can some time corrupt an entire system.

Adam was not plotting to bring down the system when he sinned. All that happened was he broke a rule and as a result the entire system became corrupted. You cannot blame him for the fact it became corrupted. You can only blame the fact that the system was not adequately designed. (Or the developer deliberately set it up to be come corrupt).

It’s amazing how former Christians apply a different set of criteria on the same scenario – it’s almost as if they’re trying to talk themselves into the rightness of their new position.

I’d say the Christian is desperately trying to avoid having to hold God responsible for his awful design and development. Adam was not creating a virus to corrupt the system when he sinned and even if he did, it could only exploit a weakness already in the system due to poor design.

You can't blame Adam applying the oil for that corruption.

If Adam deliberately put the wrong oil into a robot – knowing that oil was the wrong kind – then who would you fault with error? You’d fault God of course and that’s bias working.

I never every said that Adam did not hold some of the blame. He was guilty for applying the wrong oil. However he is not the one who designed the robot so that it would go berserk if the wrong oil was applied.

The sensible thing to do was create a robot that does NOT go berserk if the wrong oil is applied.

In other words, create something that is perfect, which of course is like saying, “Create a man that’s a woman,� since anything created cannot be perfect by virtue of the fact that it’s created in the first place.

You are twisting the analogy now. I am not saying that at all. Where would you get that ridiculous idea from?

What I am saying is design a system that CANNOT become corrupted by someone doing a bad thing! Leave out the malevolence from your design.

Why are you talking about man? I'm talking about creation in general.

Yes – you’re separating man from creation as if they’re two things rather than one and that is where you error. In my example of the sterile environment of the lab, the whole thing will become corrupt – the agar/agar in the sterile petri dishes, the air in the room – all will become corrupt because it is all joined together as one whole and the man knows it is and knows he is screwing everything up.

The only way this can happen is if the environment was designed in a way that would allow that to happen. If the agar becomes corrupt it is because it was designed to become corrupt.

What you have here by making the argument you are making is saying that God created the entire system so that man would do the wrong thing and then that wrong thing would corrupt everything. So it was all part of God’s design when it happened.

Who gets the blame for the house falling down around your ears?

You – the one who goes into the basement knowing that something bad will happen.

If a builder tried using that defence in court he'd be laughed out of the place. He'd also be on charges for negligence. For designing and building a dangerous building.

Why was the house built in a way that it would crumble to the ground when I opened up the basement? Can you not see the malevolence of someone building a house that is designed to crumble to the ground as soon as you open the basement door? Can you really not see how the builder would be held responsible for such a heinous thing?

Of ocurse, your analogy isn’t perfect (as is the nature of all analogies) in that Adam and Eve weren’t oblivious to the consequences of their actions.

Once again irrelevant. If you go and open the door to the basement you know you have disobeyed the builder. But it’s not your fault that the entire house crumbles to the ground. That is the fault of the malevolent design of the builder.

Jewish interpretation was that Adam and Eve knew that all created things were joined to them in some way and they know that their actions

Then you must surely conclude that the whole system was designed in such away to become corrupt when Adam sinned. God surely knew Adam was going to sin, but he designed the system that way anyway so that it would become corrupted.

That is malevolent design. God is clearly responsible for the corruption. He designed it to become corrupted when Adam sinned.

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 97 by Blastcat]


"Meh... Satan is thought of as a fallen angel.. so he has at least angelic powers.

What would angelic powers entail? Are angels omni-present and all knowing? Satan appears to be omni-present and all-knowing. At least according to the myths and what Christians claim. They say he is out there tempting everybody. Trying to lead us all to sin. That's billions and billions of people he's out their tempting.

Surely only a god could achieve something like that?

Satan has no power whatsover except what man gives it.

Or what God gives him. Remember, God gave him permission to ruthlessly slaughter Job's family. God also SENDS evil spirits to attack people. The bible tells us this.

[JLB32168]

Note he tells us that he is the lord and there is no other. In other words he is saying that anything that exists, is because he created it.

Running exists. Eating exists. Flying exists. Did God create running, eating, and flying or did he create people/animals/birds that do all three? We both know the answer.

Evil isn’t a thing. It is an abstract – one we use to describe the action of doing something with which we are in great disagreement.

What do you think it means when it says darkness?

He doesn’t create darkness. He can extinguish light – that is actually doing something.

God created the evil beings didn’t he? Eg Satan. Demons.

God created beings. They choose to do evil/good things and their actions we describe as evil but evil isn’t a thing.

He also created humans with human nature.

Human nature was fine until Adam’s sin – assuming all of this stuff is true for the sake of argument.

He is taking responsibility for creating what commits evil acts.

He’s taking responsibility for creating. He’s not taking responsible for their acts.

You are the one trying to make out these verses are speaking metaphorically. The word “righteousness� is not metaphorical. Neither is the word “Evil�. So when God says he created evil he is speaking literarily not metaphorically.

And you’ve already admitted that God creates the creatures and they create the actions but God doesn’t create the actions.

No, I am asking you what you believe the verse is saying when it says “I create evil�. This is the first time I have asked that.

That’s easy. He allows men to do bad things. That’s what it means. That doesn’t mean that He’s making men to the bad things – only that he’s allowing them to do what they do.

Salvation from the evil he created.

What does the thing, salvation, look like? What color is it? Is it big?

Or is God saying that He will move someone or something to act and deliver people from a bad things that’s about to happen?

Viruses can only be entered in to the system if the security is inadequate.

Inadequte or failed security protocols that someone is trying to keep an individual out. If the powers that be aren’t trying to keep people out then there’s no design flaw there. A design flaw is an accident – a variable that was unknown affected things. God, however, created man knowing that man would fall, knowing how it would occur, the exact method and that it would deleteriously affect all of creation. He could have created a system immune to this but He didn’t. I don’ t know why and I’m not meant to know this side of death. I’m cool with that.

Can you not see the malevolence of someone building a house that is designed to crumble to the ground as soon as you open the basement door?

Building a house designed to crumble if the door was opened but then commanding the men to not open the door until he’s ready (since the concrete will cure in six days) – I’m not seeing malevolence there.

If you go and open the door to the basement you know you have disobeyed the builder.

Adam and Eve were told, “You’ll die a death.� If you open the door after being told, “If you open the door, you’ll die� then you knew good and well that opening the door went hand to hand w/death and you bear all of the blame – especially since you knew that there was a time in the future when you would be allowed to open the door w/o fear of death.