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 229 by hoghead1]

Yes, but whose " indoctrination"? How do you know what you are claiming is not a result of your indoctrination into some sort of unreflective skepticism? There are other possibilities. The fact that one holds with certain religious beliefs is no guarantee they are correct, true. However, the same holds for skepticism. The skeptics have been known to be wrong in many matters. If you are against religion for being very dogmatic, the same criticism applies to your views as well. We are not dealing here with absolute truth based on absolute proof, one way or the other. We are dealing with leaps of faith, probabilities of an assumption being true.

I was raised Christian, so the indoctrination process I underwent was Christian indoctrination. I went to Sunday school. I attended vacation Bible school. And then when I was 13 I reached the conclusion that Christian claims were far too silly to be either believable or true. I was an atheist by default at that point, even though I had never actually met another atheist. And that was 1961. It would be years yet before I actually did meet another self proclaimed atheist (in college). So there really was no one to indoctrinate me. Of course it is possible that the conclusions that I have reached and maintained over the last 55 years are wrong. By they are entirely MY conclusions. And fairly reached all on my own.

"The Disciples already had legal possession of the body?' Evidence please. Maybe they did and maybe they didn't. It's a leap of faith either way. On your end, you have failed to provide one bit of hard evidence to back your claim. You don't have the body, you don't have any accounts of anyone ever finding the body, you don't have any credible witnesses claiming that they saw the disciples steal it, etc. As I said before, if you accuse someone of committing a crime, the burden falls on you to prove it. As yet, you have failed to do so. You presented a possible scenario where they committed a crime, but that's all, just a scenario, no actual hard evidence they did. Case dismissed.

Matthew 27:
[57] When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple:
[58] He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered.

John 19:
[38] And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
[39] And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.

So who has control of the body of Jesus right from the start? His followers.

If you feel the believers have not made an impressive case for their side, the same criticism can be levied at your position as well. You are in the same boat and therefore should be careful about being so dogmatic about it.

If one can't be dogmatic in pointing out the impossibility of a corpse returning to life and then flying away, or hordes of the dead coming up out of their graves and wandering about, then where does reality reasonably end and make believe begin?

It is important to remember that charging the disciples with all being chronic liars would be considered a most incredible claim in many quarters, analogous to saying the Founding Fathers were all chronic liars. To win over the opposition, you need to present incredible evidence to back your case. As yet, all you have offered in pure supposition and no hard evidence.

This opinion is largely because the disciples, specifically the apostles, have been uniformly proclaimed to be saints by 2,000 years of Christian proclamation. The truth of course is that, outside of Peter, we really know very little about the apostles. So what do we know about Peter, outside of the fact that he has been declared a saint as well as the "prince of heaven" by the Catholic church? Well we know that Peter was a violent man who carried a sword and was fully prepared to use it... if the odds were on his side. Peter was the great ear slayer, fully prepared to take on an unarmed servant. But when confronted by trained armed guards, Peter ran like a dog and repeatedly denied he even knew Jesus. And then of course there is the case of the extortion/murder of Ananias and his wife Sapphira at the hands of Peter and his band of thugs. (Acts 5:1-10) To put it bluntly, Peter was a weasel. Are such men capable of lying?

Now let me make this clear. I am not suggesting that the Christian founding fathers were uniformly liars. There is nothing in the writings of Paul, for example, to suggest that he was anything other than a fully committed believer. That DOES NOT mean that his claim to have encountered the years dead Jesus at a time when he, Paul, was deathly ill, was anything other than a hallucination. A hallucination which convinced Paul to undergo a life altering change in his beliefs. I have known many Christians during the course of my life, and it is clear that their firm beliefs are completely sincere. But their unwavering belief that a corpse returned to life and flew away, an event that they have no direct knowledge of, cannot serve to make that claim either believable or probable.

Your argument that the Jews would know best is suspect. The Disciples were also Jews. So if the Jews know best, they'd be the ones to know. What we are dealing are dealing with here is a reformed movement within Judaism, not gentiles fighting Jews or anything like that.

Early Christianity was a Jewish sect, this is true. But the claims were largely dismissed by the Jewish population. Christian claims are still widely dismissed by Jews. It was with the non Jewish populations which the stories that Paul and others spread to the rest of the Mediterranean world that Christianity found it's audience.

When anyone accuses "believers" of presenting "no evidence," that is all you can say. "no evidence" simply means just that and thong more. it means we can't say yes and we can't say no. We just don't know for sure.

No evidence means "no evidence." It is a lack of proof. The very thing necessary if one is attempting to make claims which contradict all observation and experience. Because rumors and make up stories are as easy to spread as simply exhaling while one's lips are moving.

The fact that, according to Matthew, some Romans had a fear the disciples might steal the body does not mean that they actually did. And the fact they put guards on the grave strongly rules out the possibility that they could have stolen it. Are you saying now that the guards were bribed or something?

The Gospels make NO claim that "some Romans had a fear the disciples might steal the body." It was the Jewish chief priests that expressed this fear. I am not suggesting that the guards were bribed at all. Nor were they over powered. The priests took possession of a CLOSED TOMB, upon which they placed official seals, and then set a guard. However, the tomb proved to be empty the next morning. What I am pointing out is the obvious conclusion that the priests took possession of a tomb THAT WAS ALREADY EMPTY. I am also pointing out that the last one's to be in clear physical possession the body of Jesus were his followers! The very people that Gospel Matthew indicates that the priests believed intended to relocate the body, and to then spread the rumor that Jesus had risen from the dead. A perfectly valid concern as it turned out, BECAUSE BOTH OF THESE THINGS OCCURRED JUST AS THEY FEARED THEY WOULD.

Ancient aliens all nonsense? Evidence please. They can make just as reasonable a circumstantial case as you can.

Precisely. Evidence please! The actual physical evidence for alien visitation is exactly the same as the physical evidence for Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster. EXACTLY NONE!

If you can account for where the additional material originated from in Matth3ew and Luke, then you might have a case. So, what better case, what better explanation, can you provide and with what hared evidence?

Where did the author of Gospel Matthew get his evidence? That is a question for the ages. Gospel Matthew indicates that Herod sent soldiers to kill all of the babies two and under in the Bethlehem area. This is news to Jewish historians, since there is no mention of any such occurrence in Jewish records. The claim in Gospel Matthew is the ONLY historical record of such an event. Gospel Matthew indicates that when Jesus died hordes of dead bodies returned to life and wandered the streets of Jerusalem. Again, this is news to Jewish historians who have no record of such an event. And in fact the story of the guard at the tomb is found only in Gospel Matthew, and is mentioned NOWHERE ELSE. Not even in the other Gospels. Where Matthew got this information that only he seemed to know about is a very significant question.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 228 by William]

Thinking about what is good and evil, it is obvious that neither actually exist in this universe apart from in the actions and reactions of human beings.

Good and evil are human concepts. They are essentially opinions. We may or may not are agree in our opinion of what is a good thing and what is a bad thing. But good and evil are not physical forces in the world.

There seem to be two requirements for the emergence of good and evil. Willfulness and Ability.

The Willingness to do good or evil and the Ability to carry it out.

Things that are generally considered to be good revolve around those things that are beneficial to us individually. Things which are generally considered to be evil revolve around the horrific things that human beings do to each other.

The processes involved in the thinking about it and reaching the point where good or evil are then made real through human action can be considered to being part of what makes up good or evil.

Yet one can perhaps think about doing evil and even planing it through and then realizing at some point that the plan is no good, thus a countering thought of good has the potential to reason against the evil thought, resulting in no evil being manifested into the external reality.

So, even given that there are many interpretations as to what good and evil are, these are all potentials until they are made real through actions.

These observations simply verify what I said about good and evil being concepts. I am not disagreeing with your observations, simply pointing that out.

There are other animals which also express purposeful actions into their reality which can see seen as acts of good or evil, and it appears that the more able animals are in expressing self consciousness, the more potential they have to understand concepts of good and evil.

If a tiger in India becomes a man eater and begins killing people, expert hunters are called in to eliminate it. Some people do consider such maneaters as evil. But that is silly. Tigers are neither good or evil. Tigers simply do what tigers do. Which is to prey on other creatures.

The knowledge of good and evil is really more like an inkling than anything substantially concrete. I think it is possibly that perhaps nearly everyone is born with an instinctual knowing, for example, of the good wisdom of the Golden Rule but not with the maturity necessary to sustain any ongoing expression of it into the world, especially when they are abused by the world - it appears easier for people to follow the rule 'if you can't beat them, join them' and thus abuse perpetuates itself through the abused.

There is no "knowledge" of good and evil. There are simply socially accepted practices and general public opinion. Considering the golden rule during our interactions with our fellow citizens is a way of attempting to remain within what are the generally accepted practices of the society. And that is generally considered "good."

But if the question is 'Does GOD cause evil?' then - unless humans are regarded as being god, in which case the answer could be 'yes' because of that, then the answer has to be 'no' because evil is caused by the actions of human beings against one another and against the environment in which they exist within.

Asking the the question "Does God create evil?" Not only first requires a belief in the existence of "God," but it requires some definition of what God is, and what attributes God is claimed to have. If the attributes ascribed to God are contradictory (God created everything but is not responsible for the existence of evil), then no actual conclusions are possible. Other than, perhaps, the entire concept is invalid.

Until it is manifested as real, good and evil are merely potentials.

Good and evil are, and will forever remain, opinions. Which is not to say that there is not a tremendous advantage in all of us reaching the similar conclusions in an attempt to enjoy harmony.

The thing also to remember is that we are generally always active in our conscious experience, so those potentials come out as they do - as we each allow them too, as we enact - and that there are probably more actions within the grey area (those actions which cannot be fixed into good or evil categories) and the good or the evil are known for their stark differences - not only compared to each other but to the grey area as well. Some actions must be neutral and cannot and need not be categorized as good or evil.

The thing to remember is to do no harm to another which you would not want done to you. If everyone followed that concept to the letter there would be no conflict.

[William]

[Replying to post 232 by Tired of the Nonsense]

The thing to remember is to do no harm to another which you would not want done to you. If everyone followed that concept to the letter there would be no conflict.

Wishful thinking.

Evil (and good) exists and is more than a matter of opinion. Opinions are not evil. Actions are. Actions are what make good or evil real.

Just like you said above - DO no harm. That is an action.

As I said, when good or evil thoughts [opinions] are not enacted, they are only potentials.

The thought (opinion) does not cause the good or evil - the action causes the good or evil. The thought itself can be negotiated with.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 231 by Tired of the Nonsense]

AS I said before, I ant to stay n the OP and discuss God and evil. The points you raise are interesting. However, I am not going to respond to them, except to say they are important to address, but belong in another OP. Let's get back to discussing God and evil. As I said before, I would be happy continuing the discussion, so why don't you set up an OP for these issues?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 231 by Tired of the Nonsense]

AS I said before, I ant to stay n the OP and discuss God and evil. The points you raise are interesting. However, I am not going to respond to them, except to say they are important to address, but belong in another OP. Let's get back to discussing God and evil. As I said before, I would be happy continuing the discussion, so why don't you set up an OP for these issues?

You are bowing out of the discussion. I understand. This is not exactly the first time one of my discussion partners has bowed out of a discussion.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 232 by Tired of the Nonsense]

The thing to remember is to do no harm to another which you would not want done to you. If everyone followed that concept to the letter there would be no conflict.

Wishful thinking.

Evil (and good) exists and is more than a matter of opinion. Opinions are not evil. Actions are. Actions are what make good or evil real.

Just like you said above - DO no harm. That is an action.

As I said, when good or evil thoughts [opinions] are not enacted, they are only potentials.

The thought (opinion) does not cause the good or evil - the action causes the good or evil. The thought itself can be negotiated with.

The thing to remember is to do no harm to another which you would not want done to you. If everyone followed that concept to the letter there would be no conflict.

Wishful thinking.

The statement was that IF everyone followed the concept of the golden rule to the letter there would be no conflict. That statement is true. It is only wishful thinking to suppose that everyone might actually follow the the golden rule 100% of the time, of course. There will always be the antisocial minority that will require being isolated from the rest of society and confined. But promoting the advantages of following the golden rule are obvious.

When I was a youngster attending kindergarten and first grade in the early 50's, we received regular lessons in good citizenship. On Romper Room, Miss Nancy regularly advocated to her audience the advantages of being a "do-bee," rather than a "don't-bee." Most children are eager to be "do-bees," and to fit in as good citizens. I am suggesting that this is a good message, presented in increasingly more sophisticated ways, that should be conveyed right on up through high school. We don't teach our children the advantages of being good citizens any more. Today it seems that the message children receive is one of an overriding personal self importance. As long as the message is one of "me," rather than us, the golden rule will a matter of "wishful thinking," at least to some degree. A simple change in the way we raise our children could have a profound long term effect on society.

Don't get me wrong. I am all in favor of individuals not only being allowed but encouraged to think and reason for themselves. I am not advocating any heavy handed system of indoctrination. I have always been a free thinker myself. And I have always seen the advantages of treating everyone else with the same respect that I wish to be treated with. Children need direction, and respond well to it. A message of the advantages of good citizenship in an increasingly crowded world is only obvious. The Japanese have had a great deal of success with putting the concept of social politeness into effect.

[William]

[Replying to post 236 by Tired of the Nonsense]

What you are advocating here is good principle in actions, which was primarily the focus of my argument that good and evil are not 'opinions' but are actions. They are real things, rather than just potential things, as opinions are only potential things until the are carried out in actions, and the actions are what make good and evil real.

Why I said 'wishful thinking' is because the golden rule is only an opinion while it remains inactive, and systems of disparity which govern practically all human societies are NOT advocates of the golden rule, which is also why I questioned you on whether you put as much effort in trying to convert Christians into trying to change the systems of disparity.

I think that it would be far better to have a real alternative in which Christians would happily let go their perceptions IF the world in general played fairly.
Christianity - as far as I can tell - was an invention of the rich and powerful who do not live by the golden rule and who do not want anything replacing the systems of disparity because those systems are what give the rich their power over the poor etc.
Christianity was invented in order that the poor would toe the line as to what the establishment demands, and that is why the message of Christianity is embedded in the hope of a savior returning to remove the yoke that the rich and powerful placed upon the poor while they stole their birthright from under them and demanded they pay for their lives with tribute.

Christendom is a political organisation, and until atheists see that, they will not understand that their efforts to convert Christians to their way of thinking, are simply motivated by wishful thinking, rather than logical and critical thinking.

GOD does not cause evil. Human beings are the ones who do this, in their actions.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 236 by Tired of the Nonsense]

What you are advocating here is good principle in actions, which was primarily the focus of my argument that good and evil are not 'opinions' but are actions. They are real things, rather than just potential things, as opinions are only potential things until the are carried out in actions, and the actions are what make good and evil real.

Why I said 'wishful thinking' is because the golden rule is only an opinion while it remains inactive, and systems of disparity which govern practically all human societies are NOT advocates of the golden rule, which is also why I questioned you on whether you put as much effort in trying to convert Christians into trying to change the systems of disparity.

I think that it would be far better to have a real alternative in which Christians would happily let go their perceptions IF the world in general played fairly.
Christianity - as far as I can tell - was an invention of the rich and powerful who do not live by the golden rule and who do not want anything replacing the systems of disparity because those systems are what give the rich their power over the poor etc.
Christianity was invented in order that the poor would toe the line as to what the establishment demands, and that is why the message of Christianity is embedded in the hope of a savior returning to remove the yoke that the rich and powerful placed upon the poor while they stole their birthright from under them and demanded they pay for their lives with tribute.

Christendom is a political organisation, and until atheists see that, they will not understand that their efforts to convert Christians to their way of thinking, are simply motivated by wishful thinking, rather than logical and critical thinking.

GOD does not cause evil. Human beings are the ones who do this, in their actions.

I agree with you. Humans cause evil. And humans define what is evil. God never existed to begin with.

And I agree that Christendom has become a political organization, at least here in the US. Politically active Christendom has largely become an arm of the Republican party. As a result Christian beliefs which drive right wing policies have become fair game for rebuttal. Which is why there is currently an operation underway by those in opposition to right wing policies to dismantle the basis for Christians beliefs in detail, from the ground up. At current rates Christians will be in the minority by the middle of this century. So keep right on being a political organization. It's far too late to stop the process now anyway.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 235 by Tired of the Nonsense]

No, I haven't bowed out. I just think we should stick with the OP. If you or someone else sets up an OP on the issues we've been discussing, I would be happy to participate there. A problem I'm having with this site is that so many posts go way, way off the OP. I know I am guilty of doing that. However, I think you, I, and others should stay on the OP. That's mu new resolution: stay on the OP.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 235 by Tired of the Nonsense]

No, I haven't bowed out. I just think we should stick with the OP. If you or someone else sets up an OP on the issues we've been discussing, I would be happy to participate there. A problem I'm having with this site is that so many posts go way, way off the OP. I know I am guilty of doing that. However, I think you, I, and others should stay on the OP. That's mu new resolution: stay on the OP.

So it's your opinion that God is NOT the all powerful creator of all things?