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.

[ttruscott]

When people who could be credible debaters join the Forum and start down that path, I often make an attempt to gently and in friendly manner through PM communication encourage them to avoid assuming superiority, using jargon, making blanket statements, making claims they cannot substantiate, etc. Some understand – others evidently think that their 'credentials' and their brilliant opinions make them immune from the realities of public debate.

I'm curious - does your advice ever provide the hint that the constant repetition of the same old straw man arguments, untrue characterizations of Christian doctrine and pov, is harmful to the spirit of true debate? That is to essentially encourage debaters to quit characterizing Christian doctrine in a false way just to denigrate it, especially after hearing the various accepted Christian interpretations which prove the contending pov is NOT Christian...?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 279 by Zzyzx]

Well, I didn't say I was going to quit the forum, not yet anyway. I do have to say I find the tone of you post here to be particularly offensive and inappropriate, and I intend on ignoring any future posts you send me of this nature.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 281 by ttruscott]

I have to agree with you in a big way here. What I find her is that just about every and any theist is immediately submitted to ridicule, caricaturized, etc.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 280 by ttruscott]

I'm not quite sure I follow you here. I do agree there is beauty in everything, even demons. As I mentioned in a previous post, teh "bad guys" also seek beauty.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 279 by Zzyzx]

It would be helpful for you to tone down your language here a bit. It sounds like you are on some sort of tirade. I'm not about to respond that kind of accusatory tone. So kindly tone it down if you wish for me to respond to any of your points.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 281 by ttruscott]

Ted, most of my effort to encourage members (especially new members) to become credible debaters is with Theist members. My intent in that encouragement is to move toward balance 'across the aisle' -- that typically is out of balance -- with many Non-Theist debaters and few Theist debaters. In other words, the Non-Theist 'side' doesn't need encouragement. The imbalance is a matter of concern to members, moderators and administrators.

Debate would be more interesting and challenging if the numbers and capabilities of 'the two sides' were more nearly equal. If anyone has suggestions for recruiting capable Theist debaters kindly send them via PM.

Much of what I suggest for anyone is available as various tutorials in General Chat
viewtopic.php?t=18785
viewtopic.php?t=9533&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
viewtopic.php?t=29308

I'm curious - does your advice ever provide the hint that the constant repetition of the same old straw man arguments, untrue characterizations of Christian doctrine and pov, is harmful to the spirit of true debate?

Are you referring to straw-man arguments presented by Christians? Non-Christians?

Are you referring to untrue characterizations presented by Christians? Non-Christians?

Who decides what is TRUE characterization of Christian doctrine?

If a debater quotes the Bible directly and accurately and someone disagrees with the quotation by saying that the words of the Bible (or the version quoted) are NOT correct (and supplies different words and meanings), whose 'interpretation' is to be accepted and why?

That is to essentially encourage debaters to quit characterizing Christian doctrine in a false way just to denigrate it,

1) There is no such thing as 'Christian doctrine' because the 40,000 sects of Christendom do not agree among themselves what constitutes 'Christian doctrine'. They cannot even agree upon what constitutes a Christian -- and often condemn each other as 'Not REAL Christian'.

2) Exactly what 'false way' is Christian doctrine characterized by debaters? Are you referring to Christian debaters falsely characterizing the doctrine? For instance, your PCE theories are evidently not accepted as doctrine by most Christian sects. Are those theories, therefore, false characterization of Christian doctrine?

Are you referring to Non-Christian debaters falsely characterizing the doctrine? If so, what (exactly) are the 'same old straw-man arguments' and what (exactly) are characterizations typically incorrect?

especially after hearing the various accepted Christian interpretations which prove the contending pov is NOT Christian...?

If 'Christian' A says that 'Christian' B's POV or doctrine is not Christian and 'Christian' B says that 'Christian' A's POV and doctrine is not Christian which one is right and why? Who is authorized and entitled to make such determinations?

[Zzyzx]

.

It would be helpful for you to tone down your language here a bit. It sounds like you are on some sort of tirade. I'm not about to respond that kind of accusatory tone. So kindly tone it down if you wish for me to respond to any of your points.

Exactly and specifically (verbatim quote) is accusatory and in need of toning down?

Well, I didn't say I was going to quit the forum, not yet anyway.

Has someone said you did?

I do have to say I find the tone of you post here to be particularly offensive and inappropriate,

It is not uncommon for opposition debaters to consider 'offensive and inappropriate' posts that call attention to failure to substantiate claims.

and I intend on ignoring any future posts you send me of this nature.

Once a person demonstrates inability or unwillingness to substantiate their claims it makes little difference if they respond or not since they are no longer debating but are just posting their opinions.

[marco]

[Replying to post 276 by marco]

It is obvious to me that the quest for beauty does apply to all persons. I have never yet found anyone who did not seek to live well and live better.

You are playing with various interpretations of the word, beauty. You extend its definition to mean: anything one seeks after to make one's life better. In fact this is a good example of what you have labelled an "Aunt Fanny" statement. The definition is made so wide that it can incorporate anything, rendering the statement empty.

Having extended the definition to suit your purposes, you return to the traditional concept of artistic beauty, as if you'd never been away.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 280 by ttruscott]

I'm not quite sure I follow you here. I do agree there is beauty in everything, even demons. As I mentioned in a previous post, teh "bad guys" also seek beauty.

But you do NOT accept that the beauty of a demon is a different beauty and found in different goals than the GODly harmonious beauty of heaven? When you said: "It is obvious to me that the quest for beauty does apply to all persons. I have never yet found anyone who did not seek to live well and live better." beauty is essentially defined as "living well and better" which does not actually say that this wellness and betterness must be the same for all beings. I capitalized upon this point by suggesting that the polar opposites of GOD and the demons would probably have opposite and conflicting definitions of wellness and betterness.

If we look at the Biblical position of YHWH in contrast to the false gods and of Jesus in contrast to the demons, I think such a supposition is proven to be biblical.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 279 by Zzyzx]

Well, I didn't say I was going to quit the forum, not yet anyway. I do have to say I find the tone of you post here to be particularly offensive and inappropriate, and I intend on ignoring any future posts you send me of this nature.

People are offended by whatever offends them. Being offended, like free will, is everyone's right. Believers are typically offended by those things which contradict what they have chosen to believe, because they consider those things which serve to contradict that which they have chosen to believe to be blasphemy. But the very nature of any dialog between a believer and a non believer is that virtually everything the non believers says will be considered blasphemy by the believer. I have observed that believers become especially offended when they are confronted with arguments for which they discover they have no good means to overcome. The solution for the believer is to make better arguments. The problem for the believer, as they soon discover, is that their arguments invariably prove to be weak and ineffectual, and they become frustrated. Which they translate as being offended.