[
Replying to post 49 by ttruscott]
It is a logical necessity given Christian premises:
Christian premises can hardly be considered to being 'logical' in the first instance, thus automatically one is arguing from the platform of the illogical.
1. GOD doesn't create evil.
Weapons manufacturers do not fight in wars, they merely sell their wares to those who do.
This is called opportunity. The platform for evil to be realized as a potential reality was created by your idea of GOD. The universe offers both the opportunity for good and evil actions, so indirectly the GOD has to be responsible for initiating the opportunity for evil to potentially take place and since it has, one has to be truthful about that. Your idea of GOD has some responsibility/accountability.
Even if this GOD were real, and there are no others powerful enough who can make this GOD accountable, does not mean the GOD is not accountable for his part of the proces, just the weapons manufacturers have to be seen as accountable for the evil of war, and their part in that.
Dark does not come from a source of light.
It appears more that light comes from the dark. Certainly without the dark, the light is not distinguishable. If everything was light, then nothing would exist but light. The same applies to darkness.
Light is information, as dark is lack of information.
Metaphorically 'GOD is light' is to say GOD is knowledge (rather than ignorance).
Evil does not emanate from good.
Knowledge, in relation to this universe and consciousness within it, derives from the default position of ignorance.
Solid matter derives from light (as energy) but without the darkness, nothing would appear to be separate from anything else and without the light, solid things would not exist.
The light and the dark work together as
one single thing. This is important, so please keep that in mind as you read on...
2. There is evil. Somehow it was created.
It was created through ignorance but ignorance itself cannot be said to be 'evil' just because it is ignorant.
Ignorance is only something which consciousness can have, just as surely as knowledge is.
Evil intent and willful ignorance are how evil is manifested into the universe through consciousness.
Same applies to goodness.
Evil is a consequence of consciousness being placed into this universe. Your theory that all consciousness which has been placed into this universe was evil BEFORE being placed into this universe is questionable.
Evil is a response to the situation consciousness finds itself suppressed within.
This universe, and biological forms.
It is not the
only response which one can have - it is likely enough the most natural response or the easiest one to exhibit as it takes a lot of willful effort for the individual to seek to express goodness in the face of evil...BUT with genuine practice such a thing does get easy as evil, to do.
For your theory of preexistence of evil prior to that consciousnesses to being cast/interned/incarnated into this universe to be correct, then it would mean that the
prior environment ALSO had to have similar properties in which evil could be as easily (or easier) to do as good.
Environment plays a huge part in the way consciousness responds/reacts and one could suggest a perfect place exists where a perfect creator might abide in which the environment is perfect for that entity to be totally perfectly GOOD within as long as that entity remains within that environment.
For an entity to create, through conscious willfulness, environments which are
not perfect for only goodness to manifest and then to place consciousnesses INTO those environments, and then
complain about the results, is illogical, and to believe in such an entity as being a perfect example of goodness, is ignorant and perhaps a product of evil as well. One
cannot logically say that such a creator entity is perfectly GOOD for doing so. To do so, would be to express evil/ignorance rather than good/knowledge. I repeat myself in the same paragraph to underscore the conclusion of such belief systems. They are NOT
good beliefs.
3. Therefore someone else, not GOD, created evil.
Always look to the
First Source, we
have to.
What created environments in which evil could then self manifest through consciousnesses - specifically self aware consciousnesses?
Evil simply cannot be brought into any reality unless the environment permitted this to being the case. This whomever created such environments also created the opportunity for evil to manifest.
3. Therefore someone else, not GOD, created evil. The only likely candidates are HIS creation, those created in HIS image.
There ya go. So 'created in the GODs image' but placed within an environment which allows for the opportunity for evil to manifest shows a flaw in that particular image or idea of GOD. Some situations where GOD-consciousness is placed, allows for the possibility of evil to being manifested through the actions of that Consciousness within such environments.
To be guilty of a crime, one must have mens rea, the intent to do the crime knowing it was a crime to someone. A person cannot mistakenly become sinful or evil, nor can they be forced to be guilty by the actions of another.
To create ignorant beings and place them into environments might be concidered to be evil in itself, especially if the results of doing so were predictable in relation to the knowledge of the being doing so.
We are unaware of course, of any laws which might be in place in alternate realities where entities who are able to create universes and place their (or another entities) consciousness into said universes, are forbidden to do so, but are still able to do so regardless.
But just because we are unaware of any such possible laws, does not mean that there are not such laws which do exist.
4. Therefore this creation of evil had to be by the free will choice of the person for them to be considered guilty for choosing to be sinful in GOD's eyes.
And following the pattern of that logic, it is plausible that a free will being with such creative powers can also use his free will choice to break rules in order to do the forbidden thing that the laws of his kind had agreed together, were not to be broken.
5. Christ told us that all sinners are enslaved to sin, that is, our free will is impaired by sin and we learn elsewhere that
6. we all are born sinners which leads to the inevitable conclusion that if the Christian premises are accepted, we must have used our unsullied free will to become sinners before our birth on earth.
Which in itself aligns with my argument against your own logic that you are dealing with an entity which you presume HAS to be a law-abiding and perfect GOD of itself.
What we are clearly enslaved to is the environment which of itself is more supportive of sin than not - which is to say, it allows for the possibility and even the probability of sin to flourish and for evil to overcome good, more than the other way around.
Fortunately it is not all evil, as can be seen by acts of good, but the confusion is still there as acts of evil are able to be achieved through deceptive means in relation to the gullible and far too trusting. WE can all be misled by what we think and assume to be good, which when examined can be shown to be evil.
And to repeat what I have already said on a number of occasions, if we were already sinners before we incarnated into this universe, then the prior reality we came from must have also been an environment which promoted or otherwise allowed for the manifestation of evil actions.
As for Bible supports for this conclusion, it is throughout the bible if one is not blinded by bias, esp in Matt 13: 36-39 paying particular attention to meaning of the word sown.
36 Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.�
Matt 13: 36-39
37 He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.
Which suggests that neither this present environment or the one which we came from prior to this one, is the one in which those who are able to be good (as per rehabilitation) will eventually go to.
Personally I do not have any problem with this concept. What I do have a problem with is the concept that this has to be a
final solution to the problem of rouge/wayward consciousnesses, because ALL Consciousness
has to be traced back to ONE consciousness and evil consciousness is simply that which has forgotten this, or otherwise have been convinced through deceptive means, that there are at least two sources. One is called "GOD" and the other is called "DEVIL" and the two are considered to being eternally separate, which implies separate sources, which of course is the fallacy of the whole belief structure.
Why?
Because First Source is the undivided Consciousness from which all consciousnesses derive from, and thus the problem of evil cannot be swept under the carpet of 'hell' as an eternal reality for the wayward consciousnesses as their (the aspects of First Source Consciousness which are in ignorance of their true source.) final destination, as these represent that which is in need of
reintegration into the wholeness of First Source Consciousness/Reality, thus to place them in a situation where there is no hope of reintegration is to place those aspects of First Source into eternal damnation, thus wholeness can never be achieved.
So, what I find interesting about your belief systems in relation to Jehovah's Witness belief systems is that you think it acceptable that there is an alternate reality which is not either this universe or the one prior to this universe in which the good aspects will end up while they do not. In relation to that, They think that those aspects of consciousness which failed to make the grade are simply kept from ever existing again, while you believe they are destined for eternal hell.
Neither belief systems tackle the problem of evil realistically in relation to the wholeness of GOD (First Source) as both sweep it under the carpet as if doing so effective deals with it.
The way I see it, the whole thing is relative to position, and our position in this universe is far too close to the beginning to make any concrete calls on what the future holds for consciousness within this universe or for that matter, consciousness which has gone through this universe and moved onto another. Such stories of dogma are simply enough explained as being heavily influence by ignorant attitudes and are unacceptable as examples of truth for that.
I think that the problem of evil is too vast and complicated to form beliefs about to the point of dogmatism, the unmovable wall which allows for the individual to make up their mind about how the story will end, when the story is really only beginning.
I prefer to allow for the likelihood that even a tiny part of forever is ample enough time for the wayward to find their way back to their TRUE source, as opposed to accepting any possible counterfeit belief which fits into particular personality profiles, in a, 'that will do-I-have-all-the-truth-I-need-to-make-a-decision-on-the-matter' manner.
The truth is, we all are way too in the dark to be making such absolute calls in the first instance, and making choices which carry us into positions which close our minds because of the dogma we believe is truth, based upon limited information - being ill-informed - because we trust in the words of a book simply because we have been told it is 'The Word Of GOD' and we accept that without question, is not in itself anything to be claimed as sensible.
It is not sensible.
Especially when the book can be interpreted any number of opposing ways...making Christendom a 'kingdom divided' and we know what happens to a divided kingdom, do we not?
The better alternative is to remain open, understand that, sure, we do have to make choices based upon limited information, but we need to allow those choices to change as more information makes itself available to us.
