Does God cause evil?

[DanieltheDragon]

Does God cause evil?

Some assert that God causes no evil. Is there cause to believe this is true. Can this position be supported. Is the character described in the bible incapable of evil?

I would assert that a position that claims God created everything would make him the original cause of evil. That God cannot escape being the cause of evil since he created any and all situations in which evil would arise.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 118 by ttruscott]

What makes you think it was a surprise? I hinted at nothing like that; the Bible hints at nothing like that...hmmm, only you seem to think like that with no reason why at all...it is illogical.

Of course when HE created us with the ability and opportunity to chose to be evil HE knew some MIGHT choose evil so it was obviously no surprise when a few did.

If the origination of evil was not a surprise, then God must have gotten the result He intended to get when He created Satan.

What horrendous logic. He did not know what we would choose but the possibility was real someone could choose evil so it was not a surprise when Satan did but that doesn't mean that HE wanted Satan to choose evil nor created him to do that. It doesn't make any sense.....

Let's discuss the concept of "horrible logic" for a bit, shall we? First, how does an omnipotent omniscient Being become "surprised" at the way things turn out? An omnipotent omniscient Being knows how things turn out. For that matter, why should an omnipotent omniscient Being ever need to change His mind? That would mean that He got it wrong the first time. And yet the God of the OT clearly becomes angry (surprised and displeased) at the way things are turning out, changes his mind, and essentially starts over. This may well describe a fallible human father, but is a complete contradiction to the claim that God is omnipotent and omniscient. Surprise, displeasure and anger are human qualities which may be associated with a human-like father figure, but have no connection to an omnipotent omniscient Being. Because they represent failure to achieve the original intended goal. An omnipotent omniscient Being who fails is a contradiction in terms. Things which contradict themselves are nonsense by definition. And since Christian theology is inherently self contradictory, that is the first and best indication that it is derived from fallible human beings and not an infallible Being.

If God is omnipotent and omniscient then when He created Satan He got exactly the result He intended to get. And Satan has always been doing exactly what he was created to do. If someone creates a robot and programs it to kill, who is responsible for the resulting deaths... the robot, or the one who created the robot knowing it would kill? But God gave Satan free will you say, and is therefore not only not responsible for Satan's actions, but was apparently unaware or uncertain of what those action would prove to be. How does an omniscient Being manage to be selectively unaware of how things will turn out? And furthermore (now pay attention because this is important) WHERE DOES THE BIBLE SAY THAT SATAN, OR ANYONE ELSE WAS GIVEN GENUINE FREE WILL? Because an omnipotent omniscient Being will only achieve the results an omnipotent omniscient Being intends to achieve. Anything else is failure. An omnipotent omniscient Being cannot fail by definition. Or become surprised, displeased and angry. These are inherent contradictions in Christian theology which render it obvious nonsense because they are concepts, and claims, which are self contradictory.

They are in fact the result of "horrible logic."

Of course. You could write this paragraph in the PCE Book. But only for sinners who have lost their free will to the addictive influence of evil clouding their minds, not for those with a free will. No one on earth has a free will and all live lives perfectly determined to bring HIS sinful elect to redemption and holiness so the postponement of the judgement may end.

And again I ask you... where has anyone one been promised free will?

Good luck with your Zoroastrianism...

I am not a Zoroastrian either of course, although Zoroastrians still do exist. But if after my death I actually am forced to stand and account for my actions, at least I won't have to worry about explaining why I worshiped the wrong God.

[Joe1950]

The problem of free will and god is one that cannot be resolved logically.
The only way to explain it is to admit that god is NOT all powerful and all knowing OR that god is simply not benevolent.

This is where Christianity, Judaism and Islam break into competing camps.

If you take the position that god is benevolent, then logic dictates that he would not create even the possibility of harm to his people. He could have created a world with no sickness, no war, etc. A truly benevolent being would have done that.

If you take the position, however, that god is NOT benevolent, then the Bible makes sense. He is cunning and kind of nasty. He tricks people, traps people and causes great harm to people. He is, the the words of the Bible , a "jealous god".

Fundamentalists see god as a harsh punisher, no matter how they try to deny it. And the Bible backs them up.

Liberal Muslims, Jews and Christians largely ignore the god to the Old Testament and focus on the message of brotherhood, my brother' s keeper, peace, etc. they reject literal interpretations precisely because it make god look like a real creep.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 110 by ttruscott]

Well. IF god is all powerful then god ALLOWS free will.

Our free will has nothing to do with HIS power except HIS power of creation in that HE created us to the enjoyment and responsibility of free will by creating us with a free will. Jeepers.

[ttruscott]

First, how does an omnipotent omniscient Being become "surprised" at the way things turn out? An omnipotent omniscient Being knows how things turn out.

The pagan Greek definition of all knowing that has leaked into the church is that HE must know everything there is to know from eternity past to eternity future which is proven to be a wrongly held blasphemy because it denies GOD's loving holiness in that it implies that HE knew before their creation who would end in hell BUT CREATED THEM ANYWAY. So I reject it in favour of the Biblical definition of Acts 15:18 Known unto GOD from eternity are all HIS works.
All HIS works refers to HIS acts of creation by HIS decrees of creation. The implication of this definition is that if HE did not create something, HE does not know it. To me that IF HE did not create the results of our true free will decisions, then HE did not know them until we brought them into reality by our choosing them.

For that matter, why should an omnipotent omniscient Being ever need to change His mind?

Where does HE do that?

[ttruscott]

And again I ask you... where has anyone one been promised free will?

1. Our free will is a theological necessity or we are not guilty for any sin and not facing any retribution for that sin. The guilty one would be HE who made us this way, to sin.

2. Our free will is a theological necessity or we cannot experience true love nor a real marriage, no matter that it may seem like we are choosing, we are not. As puppets we might be happy with a charade we do not know is being perpetrated upon us but GOD HIMself would know that the love HE commands and the marriage with HIM in heaven, the purpose for our creation, is meaningless and a puppet show....which I do not think would be acceptable to HIM.

The whole system breaks down without free will before we became sinners so seeking a fictive promise of a free will is moot.

[ttruscott]

The problem of free will and god is one that cannot be resolved logically.

I've provided the logic many times which you just pass by and reject for no reason...and no, I will not repeat myself again at this time just to see my work ignored.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

First, how does an omnipotent omniscient Being become "surprised" at the way things turn out? An omnipotent omniscient Being knows how things turn out.

The pagan Greek definition of all knowing that has leaked into the church is that HE must know everything there is to know from eternity past to eternity future which is proven to be a wrongly held blasphemy because it denies GOD's loving holiness in that it implies that HE knew before their creation who would end in hell BUT CREATED THEM ANYWAY. So I reject it in favour of the Biblical definition of Acts 15:18 Known unto GOD from eternity are all HIS works.
All HIS works refers to HIS acts of creation by HIS decrees of creation. The implication of this definition is that if HE did not create something, HE does not know it. To me that IF HE did not create the results of our true free will decisions, then HE did not know them until we brought them into reality by our choosing them.

So did God fail to get the result He expected and and intended to get when he was doing his creating?

For that matter, why should an omnipotent omniscient Being ever need to change His mind?

Where does HE do that?

This is as good as an example as any.

Genesis 6:
[5] And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
[6] And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
[7] And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

And again I ask you... where has anyone one been promised free will?

1. Our free will is a theological necessity or we are not guilty for any sin and not facing any retribution for that sin. The guilty one would be HE who made us this way, to sin.

2. Our free will is a theological necessity or we cannot experience true love nor a real marriage, no matter that it may seem like we are choosing, we are not. As puppets we might be happy with a charade we do not know is being perpetrated upon us but GOD HIMself would know that the love HE commands and the marriage with HIM in heaven, the purpose for our creation, is meaningless and a puppet show....which I do not think would be acceptable to HIM.

The whole system breaks down without free will before we became sinners so seeking a fictive promise of a free will is moot.

You have yet to provide chapter and verse in which God promises anyone genuine free will.

And yet it seems clear and indisputable that we DO have free will. Free within the confines of the circumstances that we were born into at least.

On the other hand, if no God ever existed to begin with, then free will (within the confines of the circumstances we were born into) would be a NATURAL state. In what way is the free will you say God has given us, but for which you can provide no such Biblical assurance, in any way different from the natural state of free will which would occur if no God ever existed to begin with? And if you cannot provide such an obvious difference, doesn't that mean you are attempting to make up an offering of a condition which is automatically the nature of our birth anyway?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 121 by Tired of the Nonsense]

I am inclined to agree with much of what you say. I do not see any way the Bible presents god s omnipotent or omniscient, the latter in the sense of knowing the future as a decided matter of fact. In Scripture, a major theme is God's great disappointment in a creation and creatures who do not obey his will. In addition, more than one passage affirms that the future is iffy for God, as in Sodom: "If I find X." And also in Jeremiah, where it is said God warns, then waits to see what happens, before taking definitive action.

I think divine omnipotence is a major theological mistake, as I have mentioned in other posts. it denies human freedom and makes God the au5hor of terrible human sufferings. The major church fathers, who stressed omnipotence, saw fit to kill it with a million qualifiers. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, provided a kind of cannot-do list for God: God cannot change, experience emotion, especially negative emotion, break the laws of geometry, have any potentiality, etc.

I do not think it makes any degree of sense to argue God is really omnipotent but just holds back. Why? All that means is that God is not doing all that he could. Not a very helpful God.

I view God as the ideal model of power: power over others, participating in the free self-decisions of others. God lures, not coerce. And I don't think God does so just because freedom is such a great thing. Freedom of creatures is a necessity for God. I view God as Cosmic Artist. God's goal is the production of beauty. Beauty demands complexity, and complexity makes for freedom, as I explained in earlier posts.

I add that in around 100 passages, the Bible speaks of God as changing, e.g., Gen. 6:6, Hosea 11:8. I agree. I think dynamic, contingent elements should be ascribed to God. It is a virtue to be deeply moved and affected by others, and God is the supremely sensitive one. If God cannot change, if nothing can make any difference in God, then saint or sinner, it's all the same to God, who remains blissfully indirrrent to the world.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 121 by Tired of the Nonsense]

I am inclined to agree with much of what you say. I do not see any way the Bible presents god s omnipotent or omniscient, the latter in the sense of knowing the future as a decided matter of fact. In Scripture, a major theme is God's great disappointment in a creation and creatures who do not obey his will. In addition, more than one passage affirms that the future is iffy for God, as in Sodom: "If I find X." And also in Jeremiah, where it is said God warns, then waits to see what happens, before taking definitive action.

I think divine omnipotence is a major theological mistake, as I have mentioned in other posts. it denies human freedom and makes God the au5hor of terrible human sufferings. The major church fathers, who stressed omnipotence, saw fit to kill it with a million qualifiers. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, provided a kind of cannot-do list for God: God cannot change, experience emotion, especially negative emotion, break the laws of geometry, have any potentiality, etc.

I do not think it makes any degree of sense to argue God is really omnipotent but just holds back. Why? All that means is that God is not doing all that he could. Not a very helpful God.

I view God as the ideal model of power: power over others, participating in the free self-decisions of others. God lures, not coerce. And I don't think God does so just because freedom is such a great thing. Freedom of creatures is a necessity for God. I view God as Cosmic Artist. God's goal is the production of beauty. Beauty demands complexity, and complexity makes for freedom, as I explained in earlier posts.

I add that in around 100 passages, the Bible speaks of God as changing, e.g., Gen. 6:6, Hosea 11:8. I agree. I think dynamic, contingent elements should be ascribed to God. It is a virtue to be deeply moved and affected by others, and God is the supremely sensitive one. If God cannot change, if nothing can make any difference in God, then saint or sinner, it's all the same to God, who remains blissfully indirrrent to the world.

Rev.19
[6] And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

God is omnipotent according to the Bible. For God to be truly omnipotent He must necessarily know the full outcome of every action He takes and achieve that outcome without fail! God therefore must also be omniscient to be omnipotent God. As the NT suggests.

Acts 15:
[18] Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

The OT however clearly portrays God becoming surprised, angry, and changing His mind over the way things are turning out. The God of the OT fails to achieve his intentions and is forced to begin again. A God who fails can scarcely be considered an "omnipotent" God at all. And the OT God is jealous, spiteful, angry, vindictive, and very harsh. The OT God not only allows, but orders mass murder, including the hacking deaths of children and babies. He callously plays games with the lives of even with His most loyal servants just to prove how much He is revered. (Book of Job). He kills all terrestrial life on the planet when He becomes piqued with humans. He repeatedly harshly punishes the entire country of Israel for the sins of some. The OT God as portrayed in the OT is vain, capricious and psychotic.

The NT God on the other hand is the wise and benevolent Christian God of peace and love. This God bears little resemblance to the OT Jewish God. Which is no surprise really, since these two different views of God were conceived more than a thousand years apart. Do God's change? Or do concepts of Gods evolve over time. Giving the thousands of concepts of gods that have existed (and vanished), I would suggest the answer is clearly the latter.

Gods change because popular notions of gods change. Because the notions about gods are created by humans to fill human needs. And because humans are invariably fallible, their concepts of gods prove to be illogical and self contradictory. Anything which contradicts itself is nonsense by definition.

Wikipedia
Nonsense
nonsense is synonymous with absurdity or the ridiculous.
posting.php?sid=11d0fb8a7e1ab41f65d866a7f0aa95a5