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.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 158 by Tired of the Nonsense]

By "the Word," I assume you are talking about the Bible. But the Bible is qualitatively NOT TRUE. The Bible makes claims which contradict each other. The Bible makes claims of events that never happened. The Bible, like God, was created by flawed humans beings and as a result THE BIBLE IS FLAWED. "The Word" is NOT inerrantly true.

If you try to read it as historical fact or as natural science, then sure, you'll find lots of errors. But again, I don't think that's what it's trying to convey, and would be poor evaluation criteria. In moral terms, I think we see consistency from beginning to end in what God's Word is, i.e., what God calls for, is working toward, and tries to engage us in.

It is that Word that I would evaluate. Not, say, whether there really was a flood and an ark, etc, etc.

And yet as you have already acknowledged, God's full omnipotence might never occur. Because God might lose the struggle with the other side. The side that you identify as evil. So let's take stock of the side you are on. God (your side) endorses slavery as a perfectly natural human condition. God (your side) agrees to allow his most loyal servant to be brutally tortured and all of the man's children killed, just to prove a point. God (your side) orders thousand of helpless women and children and babies to be hacked to death with swords. God (your side) once once drowned every living thing on the planet in a fit of pique. Are you REALLY certain that you are on the right side? Because the leader of your side seems to be an insecure narcissistic psychopath.

I don't accept your gloss over of complicated realities. Although you see it as something else (i.e., fallible), I see God's word as consistently pragmatic. God is compromising, will change God's mind, and is willing to take steps toward the true end that God is working toward.

So take slavery: pretty sure the bible nowhere says this is a natural condition, but it is a condition of the time. (Pretty sure in Genesis 1-2 before the fall there was no such hierarchy called for - but rather this is something that arises in a fallen world due to fallen attitudes toward each other.)

Thus, any laws that I see on slavery (law itself being one of God's compromises and tactical steps), let's look at the good in them:

They actually give rights to slaves in a time when otherwise they would have none!

If I was God, I would take that step if I could get it on the way to full abolition and no hierarchy between men and women.

That is what I call a pragmatic, compromising God that works steadfastly toward the desired end.

(And once we loosen up on that whole "omnipotence" thing, this is the kind of true Word we can begin to discern in the bible...)

Of course these stories themselves are drawn from a book that simply isn't trustworthy. So based on the Bible how could you possibly know WHAT to believe?

I should be pragmatic. Open minded. Seek to absolve false hierarchies. Be compromising when doing so to accelerate good in this world (i.e., small steps at a time versus trying to get what I want all at once.)

Again, the bible is all about shaping and filling the world with life. That is the context we need to see all of God's actions / Words in, and how we recognize and accept the truth of those Words.

And for all you know, the other side is really the true virtuous side

If the other side is saying something that is truly on the side of life, that is something we need to actively and pragmatically discern and affirm if true. That is the Word - it's not like it can only come from Christians! It is everywhere. In many forms.

To err is human. To be Divine is not to make mistakes in the first place.

We'll just have to be on different sides on this one.

You are pushing a very GREEK notion of divinity here. I am not convinced the Hebrews thought the same.

In the Hebrew imagination (Gen 1), there is chaos at the heart of the world. The deep, or tehom is not killed as in other creation myths (e.g., Enuma Elish) but stays an essential part of the world moving forward. God works to shape and fill the world with life, but this chaos never leaves. It is never fully within God's or our control.

Thus your whole notion here just flies in the face of the truth of things. That the chaos is there, that there is something important to life in preserving it, and that God will have to take a pragmatic approach to God's work, and may very well make mistakes along the way.

You recognize that the Bible is inconsistent, and yet you continue to declare "the Word" to be true.

What? I said the Bible is not history or science, if that's what you mean. I think that taken on its own terms, it is a remarkably consistent text, at least at the level that matters, i.e., the consistency of God's Word (what God calls for, is working toward, and tries to engage us in).

I have not found any inconsistencies there whatsoever.

The universe operates in accordance with the principles of quantum mechanics. What evidence can you provide which would serve to indicate that quantum mechanics is not perfectly self sustaining.

Why would I want to do that? Why don't you link this ask up with what I said before about chaos being an enduring and essential aspect of the world. I think it actually coheres quite well.

The quantum realm where everything is chance is the scientific version of what Gen 1 calls "the deep" or tehom. (And in other myths is a sort of chaos monster, or dragon, that is slain when the world is ordered - versus maintained and worked with in the Hebrew imagination....)

I am 68 years old, and I have found that it is has been possible live a perfectly moral life by simply following only one rule. It's called the golden rule, and it covers pretty much every situation.

But how inconsistent is that rule with God's Word? It is certainly proclaimed in the bible.

What the bible does is provides foundation for that "rule." It situates it in a broader context. It provides a vision and greater purpose that following that rule enables, and helps us work toward.

Maybe if you start to realize the compromising nature of God, you'll even see that rule active in, say, those archaic laws for slaves. Yes, absolutely dated, and for a time and place. But they start to treat slaves as human beings, by giving them rights. They start to treat others how we would want to be treated.

Perfectly consistent. The issue is if we don't see the more specific rules as for a specific time - which they are, and assume that they still hold and somehow legitimize slavery - which they don't.

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 136 by OnceConvinced]

It all depends on what you mean by "indirectly caused evil."

If he creates things which then go on to create evil themselves, then he has indirectly created evil.

If I was to say create a robot and give it free will and that robot went on to exercise his freewill and go on a killing spree, killing humans, then I would be considered indirectly responsible for the mass killings and would have to take responsibility for creating such an abomination.

[Joe1950]

[Replying to post 161 by theophile]

I have to say I am a bit befuddled by the claim that god is somehow changing. That is a new one to me.
Also, there is the idea that the Bible is "consistent" or the word of god is "consistent". While that may be true, I don't see that as a positive.
After all, Yahweh is consistent in encouraging and abetting slavery, rape, genocide, forced removal of populations form the land they own, plagues, floods, etc.
What seems to be "consistent " to me is the demand by god that no matter what whim he has all of his chosen people must submit to it. He is , in the end, simply a dictator who shows little mercy, if any. Submit. (The same concept is true in Islam: Submission).

Now, another poster mentioned the "golden rule". Certainly this cannot be applied to the god of the Old Testament. Would he want to be a slave? Would he want to be raped? Would he want to be murdered? Would god really want to be treated as he treats others?

Of course, New Testament selections paint a picture of a different god. Kind. Forgiving. Instead of bringing death he raises form the dead. But that contrasts sharply with the Old Testament god. It is as though there are 2 gods, each with his own book.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 136 by OnceConvinced]

It all depends on what you mean by "indirectly caused evil."

If he creates things which then go on to create evil themselves, then he has indirectly created evil.

If I was to say create a robot and give it free will and that robot went on to exercise his freewill and go on a killing spree, killing humans, then I would be considered indirectly responsible for the mass killings...

Yes, this most Christians accept though we call it creating the possibility of evil, that is, by giving us a free will.

...and would have to take responsibility for creating such an abomination

Yes, but not responsibility for the evil he does...that is his own responsibility since he could have chosen to do righteously but thought sin would give him a better life. It is the free will choice of the creation against the will and plans of GOD (but which HE allows) that is the disconnect between creation of the one who would choose to become evil and being responsible for his sin. A child is not guilty for the sins of the parent. The one who sins is the one who dies.

IF someone dies, they die for their own sin, no one elses...

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 162 by OnceConvinced]

Well, given that is your definition of "indirectly created," then yes, God would be responsible. Thus, some theologians who share my POV have said that God is responsible, though not indictable, for evil.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 163 by Joe1950]

You raised an important point, the immutability of God. This has been a major issue in theology since day one. I could go into a long history here, but I will try and be brief.

The classical or traditional Christian model of picture of God as he is in hi own nature came actually from certain major schools of Hellenic philosophy, not Scripture. The reason is that Scripture is not a book of metaphysics and says very little about how God is built, offers but snap shots that often seemingly conflict. Hence, teh church, early on, looked to Hellenic metaphysics and standards of perfection. The Greeks enshrined the immune and the immutable. Major philosophers such as Plato, Zeno, Parmenides contemned the world of time and change as sheer illusion. The "really real," the truly divine, was wholly immutable, immaterial, simple. Baptized into Christianity, this meant God was traditionally defined as void of body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly immutable. God was essentially Aristotle's great Unmoved Mover.

In recent years, since the 1940's, the classical model has been challenged by what are called neo-classical or process theologians, who represent a major movement in contemporary Christian thought. I happen to be one. Basically, our position is that the classical model is too unrealistic and lopsided in its concept of divine perfection. Anything real is a synthesis of both consistency and change. Dynamic, contingent attributes are also just as much a perfection as static ones. If it is a virtue to say, "Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes. I won't be deterred by anyone.", it is also a virtue to be deeply moved and affected by others. If God cannot change, if nothing can make any real difference in God, then saint or sinner, it's all the same to God, who remains blissfully indifferent. But who can put any faith in a totally indifferent, unresponsive God? I know I can't. In process, God's transcendence is God's immanence or participation in life. We are empathic, but only to a very limited degree. In sharp contrast, God enjoys a direct, immediate empathic response to any and all creaturely feeling. We are total strangers to sensitivity on this grand of a scale. God is the Most Moved Mover.

The Bible is often mistakenly assumed to be claiming God is immutable. But that is not true. In about 100 passages, change is attributed to God, e.g., Gen. 6:6, Hosea 11:8. Malachi is sometimes cited as a definite reference that God is wholly immutable. But read carefully, Malachi 3:5-7, says otherwise. "I, the Lord, change not" means God enjoys a fixity of goals, and in that fixity does not vary. But rather than denying change, such immutability insists on change. "Return to me, that I might return to you" means that if we change in such-and-such a way, God will change accordingly. So the Bible, though not a work in metaphysics, at lest implies that God is a synthesis of both consistency and change. Whether you speak of God as changing or not all depends on what particular aspects of God you are speaking of.

[Joe1950]

[Replying to post 166 by hoghead1]

Thanks for the historical background. I think we may be talking about 2 different things. I was referring to a post (don't remember which one) that seemed to suggest that the nature of god changes over time. In other words, the god of yesterday may be substantially different than the god of tomorrow.

I only brought up the point because I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that most Christians believed that god is both perfect and immutable. Along with omnipotent and omniscient. Perhaps that is a misconception on my art of basic Judeo-Christian-Islamic beliefs.

That said, the brief passages of the Bible you referred me to (Gen 6:6; Hosea 11:8 and Malachi 3: 5-7.) do not suggest that god has changed. They refer to god changing his MIND. Being disappointed in human behavior. That does not really speak to the issue of god's substance, although it may point to the conclusion that he is neither omniscient nor omnipotent, different issues.

Don't the passages you referred me to demonstrate that god remains primarily an authoritarian, interested mainly in man following his orders? Isn't that why he gets upset? Because man disobeys. And isn't that consistent with the rest of the OT?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 159 by William]

See the bible is not the 'Word of GOD' and doesn't proclaim to be. What it does say is that JESUS is the 'Word of GOD' More about this in my Members Notes.

John.1
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was with God. It says so in the Bible. But the Bible is untrustworthy, and it is NOT itself the Word of God. Where is this Word then, that I might read it? You say the Word is Jesus himself. But Jesus left no Word either. Jesus wrote nothing. Everything proclaimed to have been believed or said by Jesus is based on words placed into his mouth by anonymous individuals years after he was dead, and contained in a book that is untrustworthy and for which even you agree is not the Word of God. So where are you getting your information?

While the bible indeed was created by flawed human being, GOD - on the other hand, may be real, and not even very much like the idea of the GOD of the bible is portrayed.

In other words, truth be told, you have no actual idea what you are talking about! Because you have no source for your beliefs.

At least while you argue about that, you understand that some of those events you find horrific in the bible, are not even real events which actually happened. So assigning events which you know didn't happen, to any GOD idea (regardless that organised religions do this,) is not the most honest/constructive way to argue against the idea of GOD unless you are open to their being an actual GOD which actually exists...which obviously you at least appear not to be open to.

I can only hope that the mass murder depicted in the Bible is nothing more than a fiction. But you see, I am not relying on the Bible to justify mass murder, or slavery, or any of the more unrealistic supernatural claims that are made in the Bible. I simply see the Bible as representing the world view of a group of ancient primitive people. And it certainly is interesting for that reason alone. But once it has been acknowledged that the Bible does not represent any divinely inspired message from the God that it creates and depicts, there really is nowhere else to go with it. The Bible is a great source of cultural anthropology, and that's about it.

I am open to that and thus can argue against the bible being the only say on what GOD is and simply assigning the horrific attributes of that GOD in those stories, to the rubbish pile. Nothing to argue honestly about there...move on...

Move on to WHERE? You are still attempting to extract your understanding of God from an untrustworthy source. If the Bible is not the source for understanding the existence of God, you are left with make it up personally and declare it to be true. Why should anyone be impressed by that?

The horrific stories are made up and attributed to some idea of a GOD. This in itself does not mean that they are evidence that GOD was created by flawed humans or that GOD does not exist. It is just evidence that if GOD does exist, it is completely likely that flawed human ideas of GOD are errant/erroneous and nothing much like what that real GOD is at all.

I fully agree. Except that I don't for a moment suppose that any such Being ever existed to begin with. So we are left here with your contrived concept of God. One of billions of contrived concepts of God which exist, or have existed.

[OnceConvinced]

...and would have to take responsibility for creating such an abomination

Yes, but not responsibility for the evil he does...that is his own responsibility since he could have chosen to do righteously but thought sin would give him a better life. It is the free will choice of the creation against the will and plans of GOD (but which HE allows) that is the disconnect between creation of the one who would choose to become evil and being responsible for his sin. A child is not guilty for the sins of the parent. The one who sins is the one who dies.

I'd love to see how far you got in a court of law with that. I'm betting not far. If you create something and put no checks in place to ensure it doesn't commit atrocities, then you are no more innocent than the creature you have created.

IF someone dies, they die for their own sin, no one elses...

You wouldn't consider it a sin to create a robot that goes on to commit mass murder?

You've deliberately created a creature that chooses to commit evil.

For all we know, you created that robot for that exact purpose.

Let's take my other analogy I have used before. What say I create a computer and I put a self destruct button on the keyboard and then provide warnings with my computer "Don't press the self destruct key as it will detonate a nuclear explosion which will destroy the entire city". Now you as the user decide to ignore that warning. Perhaps you don't really take the warning that serious. You press the key and the entire city, including you are destroyed.

You don't think that I, the computer builder should be held responsible in any way for the city being nuked?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 169 by OnceConvinced]

I'd love to see how far you got in a court of law with that. I'm betting not far. If you create something and put no checks in place to ensure it doesn't commit atrocities, then you are no more innocent than the creature you have created.

Unless it was an accident, like Frankenstein's Monster, in which case, if God didn't intend the results, such as if Satan undermined God's will, by have Eve eat the apple...