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 179 by hoghead1]

You said that Christians routinely deny that God has any connection with evil. That is not completely true. Those who hold with predestination, such as Calvin, argued that evil is directly result of God's hidden or secret will. They then tried to argue that evil is merely apparent. Terrible things were ordained by God to happen as sell-deserved punishments for our sins. Of course, that argument is flawed. However, I am just pointing out that those in the predestination camp did see a direct connection between God and evil.

By "Christians" of course I was referring to the majority of Christians. The Christian majority rejects Calvin's predestination conclusion and argues instead for free will. As I have been pointing out however, the Bible nowhere openly extends any promise of free will. The main argument for free will is that practical experience indicates that we have free will as a matter of course. But you see, this argument only works if one begins with the assumption that God exists. If no God ever existed to begin with, than free will is a NATURAL STATE.

Calvin recognized that if God is omnipotent and omnipresent then all of the events of our lives are predestined. Evil was built right into the system by God from the very beginning. However the Christian majority refused to accept this obvious flaw in doctrine through the simple expedient of denying it and replacing predestination with God's gift of free will. Since free will is our obvious state of existence, and since the possibility that no God exists was unthinkable and never on the table, then free will MUST have been granted to us as God's gift to mankind. But you see, if one considers the unthinkable possibility that no God exists, then free will necessarily represents a natural condition. Free will eliminates the possibility of the existence of a an omnipotent and omniscient God. God is reduced to representing a researcher running an experiment which He does not know the outcome to. It eliminates prophecy. It eliminates God's plan to redeem humanity by sending Jesus to bleed and die and be resurrected. A God who is not omnipotent HAS NO SUCH ABILITY TO MAKE PLANS WITH THE CERTAIN EXPECTATION THAT THEY WILL SUCCEED.

The point ultimately is, that Christian doctrine is exposed as being too fundamentally flawed to be valid. It is and always has been, NONSENSE. And that cat is now irrevocably out of the bag, I am afraid. Because science has offered another explanation for existence, and religion is no longer the only game in town.

And no, teh Bible is not the only source of knowledge about God in Christendom. I know may Christians may claim that. But it is definitely not true. Classical theism, the reigning traditional model of God as he is in his own nature (God wholly immutable, void of body, parts passions, compassion, etc.) came largely from the influx of Hellenic metaphysics and standards of perfection into the church, not Scripture. Indeed, Aquinas cites Aristotle more than Christ. Calvin, who argued the Bible was ultimate authority, also cites Augustine as a major authority. In fact, he sad he would never have become a believer, had he not read Augustine. Again, the Bible is not the sole authority. Basically, Christendom has three major appeals to authority. There is church-type Christianity, where the church is the ultimate authority, your conscience. In Augustine, you could not get saved by just reading the Bible,. it had only a half revelation. Hence, to be fully saved you needed to be taught additional truths provided by the church. Then there is sect-type Christianity, where the Bible is the ultimate authority, though sect-type Christians have appealed to many other authorities. And finally there is mystical-type Christianity, where one's own transcendental experiences serve as the ultimate authority.

There are fundamentalists, and then there is everyone else. Non fundamentalists represent the "make it up and declare it to be true" portion of Christianity. It allows each individual to assert that they are in personal contact with the Almighty, and allows them to make declarations of what God desires based on their personal "experience" with God. It's a large part of the reason that there are as many as 40,000 different denominations of Christians. And why virtually ALL of them declare that only a very few individuals who declare themselves to be Christians, are actually TRUE Christians.

I find that biblical prophecy was intended as a warning of what might happen. Hence, we find more than one unfulfilled prophecy in Scripture, such as Ezekiel 26 , which says that Nebuchadnezzar will take Tyre. he didn't, Alexander did. Jeremiah makes this clear when he says God warns, the waits to see what happens, before taking definite action. Plus, there are biblical passages were God changes his mind at he prophet's intercession, which was largely their job, as in Amos 7:3. And in the case of Sodom, God's knowledge of the future is presented as iffy. So no, the Bible does not present God as an all-controlling cosmic dictator who has predetermined all of the future. Saying that God is almighty does not mean omnipotent. I can say God is almighty, very powerful, transcendent, unsurpassable, save by himself, and I certainly do not mean God is all-controlling. Also important here is the fact that the church fathers who stressed omnipotence also saw fit to kill it with a million qualifiers. Aquinas, for example, had a definite cannot-do list for God, that God could not change, have any potentiality, experience any emotion, especially negative emotion, could not violate the laws of geometry, etc.

The possibility of things which MIGHT occur are as vast as the stars. The bottom line is, accurate prophecy, like fortune telling, astrology and the occult in general, is ancient mystical NONSENSE.

As to assuming the Bible is all washed up because it is not inerrant, as I said before, I don't agree with this kind of either-or thinking. The Bible is a combination of afct and myth. Hence, we have to red it with great discretion. Some material we may well want to reject, but not everything in the Bible is contradictory. There is plenty of solid food as well. Just don't make the Bible a paper pope, fall into Bibleolatry.

The Bible will never be "all washed up" as long as people choose to believe in it. The process of discrediting and discounting the Bible is currently well under way however. There was a time when it seemed that the Bible was the only possible avenue to understanding existence. That time has passed. Just as with the belief in Valhalla, or Olympus, the belief in the God of the Bible will not disappear in a cataclysmic flash. It will simply fall into disuse as it's faithful adherents pass away. Those that remain devoted to their ancient superstitions will be considered quaint remnants of another time. Like the Amish.

Is that a prophecy on my part? Well, let's say it's a prediction based on history and an understanding of the way things are currently going. The west and the middle east are currently on a collision course over religious differences. The west will be in a much better position to prevail intellectually if it can first put it's own superstitious beliefs behind it. And that is currently in the process of occurring. Europe is already roughly 50% secular. Non belief has been rising in the US at about a 1% per year rate since the beginning of this century. At the current rate, the US will be about roughly 50% secular by the middle of the century. And 50% I predict will represent the tipping point for religion's slide into disuse. Because one of the greatest argument for any religious belief is "everyone knows it's true, so it must be true." Once that is gone, only the hard core die hards will remain. And no one lives forever.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 180 by William]

And this is the heart of the problem. You acknowledge that the Bible is not trustworthy, and then declare your ability to know and cherry pick the "good bits" from the bad bits.

That is not a 'problem.'

Not a problem for you, because it makes you exceptional. Claiming that you personally possess the ability to discern what is true from what is false in the Bible or in life is a problem for everyone else.

Which is no different from making up a version which suits you.

It suits me for the same reason as the method I use for choosing my friends. I have no problem with those friends.

You will find that over the course of your life your friends have a tendancy to change. Concepts and beliefs also have a tendency to change over the course of one's life. As they reasonably should.

That is not my problem. I have no interest in validating my position with anyone but myself. I get to choose and that is my authority.

Is that why you joined a forum dedicated to testing religious concepts?

I also get the opportunity to share what I have found, but don't try to force anyone to adopt it for themselves or otherwise try to convince people to take my position.

No one on a religious debate forum is in any position to "force" anyone into anything. Are you still in the process of learning and accepting new ideas? Or are you one of those "My mind is made up, so don't bother trying to confuse me with reason, logic and the facts," types?

I am not a Christian and do not support Christendom nor do I see it as a product of what Jesus spoke of.

Many Christians take the position that Christianity as it is generally practiced is a perversion of what Jesus said and stood for. And they are under the illusion that they know what Jesus actually said and actually stood for. Jesus did not have the foresight of putting his own thoughts down in writing however, so everyone is forced to subscribe to a version of Jesus that is really only the opinion of someone else. But you see, the true historical Jesus (Yeshua) cannot be recovered. So we are left with fundamentalists, who declare the words of the Bible to be inerrant because they say so, the cherry picking variety, like yourself, and the variety that see no purpose in accepting the contradicting and untrustworthy ancient superstitious claims made by the Bible, and have chosen to seek the truth elsewhere. Like myself.

I decide for myself what the good bits are. What Christians think the good bits are is entirely up to their particular belief systems.

More than 40,000 denominations of Christian, all cherry picking the bits which appeal to them personally. This can work to make a satisfying world view, obviously. It will not serve you well in a debate, I am afraid. Because "I know the Bible says that but I do not personally choose to believe it," is inevitably a failed argument, if you are attempting to in any way argue from the Bible.

One could scarcely make a legitimate claim to be a Christian at all, if they do not accept the story of the risen Jesus as necessarily true. And yet the very nature of the claim is preposterous.

Actually I don't think it is preposterous as a literal event (and the same goes for the miracles attributed to Jesus) if a species far older than humanity and exceedingly more scientifically advanced, were involved in the events. I don't claim that is what happened, but do acknowledge that it could be the case and does not contradict the known laws of physics in relation to the universe.

Of course it is always possible to make up a scenario that explains the claims. Which is why we have the back story that Superman was sent to earth when the planet Krypton exploded. And how, now being under the influence of Earth's yellow star Sol, rather than Krypton's red star, have given Superman super powers.

But of course comic book mythology is not to be taken seriously, you say? Then how about this back story. The God Elohim lives on a planet that orbits the star Kolab with his many wives. Centuries ago the two eldest sons of Elohim, Jesus (Jehovah) and Lucifer (Satan), began a contest for the hearts and minds of the spirit people of Earth. The winner will become the ruling god of Earth. According to Mormon theology. Joseph Smith was a master cherry picker, you see.

And thus is everything explained.

Wikipedia
Mormon Cosmology
Mormon cosmology is the description of the history, evolution, and destiny of the physical and metaphysical universe according to Mormonism, which includes the doctrines taught by leaders and theologians of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), Mormon fundamentalism, the Restoration Church of Jesus Christ, and other Brighamite denominations within the Latter Day Saint movement. Mormon cosmology draws from Biblical cosmology, but has many unique elements provided by movement founder Joseph Smith. These views are not generally shared by adherents of other Latter Day Saint movement denominations who do not self-identify as "Mormons", such as the Community of Christ.

According to Mormon cosmology, there was a pre-existence, or a pre-mortal life, in which human spirits were literal children of heavenly parents. Although their spirits were created, the essential "intelligence" of these spirits is considered eternal, and without beginning. During this pre-mortal life, two plans were said to have been presented, one championed by God the Father, and another presented by Lucifer (Satan) that would have involved loss of moral agency. When Lucifer's plan was not accepted, he is said to have rebelled against God and been cast out of heaven, taking "the third part" of the hosts of heaven with him to the earth, thus becoming the tempters.

According to the plan of salvation as described by God the Father, Jehovah (the premortal Jesus) created the earth, under the direction of God the Father, as a place where humanity would be tested. After the resurrection, all men and women—except the spirits that followed Lucifer and the sons of perdition—would be assigned one of three degrees of glory. Within the highest degree, the celestial kingdom, there are three further divisions, and those in the highest of these celestial divisions would become gods and goddesses through a process called "exaltation" or "eternal progression". The doctrine of eternal progression was succinctly summarized by LDS Church leader Lorenzo Snow: "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be." According to Smith's King Follett discourse, God the Father himself once passed through mortality as Jesus did, but how, when, or where that took place is unclear. The prevailing view among Mormons is that God once lived on a planet with his own higher god.

According to Mormon scripture, the Earth's creation was not ex nihilo, but organized from existing matter. The Earth is just one of many inhabited worlds, and there are many governing heavenly bodies, including the planet or star Kolob, which is said to be nearest the throne of God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_cosmology

Cherry picking at it's finest.

The story is derived from a book which is simply not trustworthy.

The story may have derived from eye-witness accounts, handed down, even elaborated on. There is no compulsion on my part to believe the stories true or false. They are simply stories and do nothing whatsoever to take away or enhance my own idea of what GOD is, and how I relate with that.

"Eyewitness accounts" of a corpse that returned to life and then subsequently physically flew off up into the sky which were derived ONLY from rumors being spread by the followers of the dead man after his execution. These stories MAY be true in the same way that the Mormon version of cosmic reality MAY be true. Or stories of flying reindeer MAY be true. All that is required is a lifetime of indoctrination, a willingness to believe, and abject childlike gullibility.

Belief in such claims rely on closing one's eyes and simply believing on faith. Which Christians have made into a virtue. But this is the 21st century, and modern educated people in growing numbers are finding that abject childlike gullibility is no longer possible. Or even desirable.

Religious stories, perhaps. Political ones, no. Childlike gullibility is alive and kicking in today's day and age. Belief in political promises and even scientific righteousness is very desirable. People do like to fill in the gaps left over with something else to put their faith into.

Childlike gullibility has been alive and well in every era. That does not mean that it is intellectually desirable however, even though many Christians consider it a virtue. The reality is that not all humans have the same capacity for deep independant thought. The capacity for deep independant thought is often NOT considered a virtue by Christians. Certainly not by the Christian clergy. Gullibility however, is prized.

To clarify. What I said was that the bible does not claim to be the word of GOD. In the bible, Jesus is the one who claims to be the word of GOD.

You have to make a leap of faith to assume this is true. In the Bible it is claimed by others that Jesus claimed to be the word of God. Jesus left no claims of his own written in his own hand, however. But you see, people who like to pick and choose those things that they personally prefer to believe to be true often accept claims made by anonymous others years after Jesus was dead as being the undeniable words of Christ. Christianity is in fact constructed on a vast network of assumptions which are only sustained by appeal to other assumptions. But when one attempts to determine the foundation of solid fact, one discovers that there IS no foundation of solid fact. Simply empty claims constructed on more empty claims. All revolving around a story which by it's very nature is silly and unbelievable. Enter blind faith and abject gullibility, which are necessary ingredients to belief.

What I have discovered is that there are many sources outside of Christianity which have the same kind of message as Jesus in relation to the best way a human being can behave. The best way a human being can behave, is the word of GOD. That is what I get from the whole title.

Notice the way that the golden rule covers everything. The best manner in which a human can behave is to treat others in a manner that they themselves would wish to be treated. "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (Matt. 22:39) It's the very same idea.

The 'Golden Rule' oft mentioned on this board, is the word of GOD, understood in its intent.

The concept of the golden rule is older than the Bible. Without a concept of the golden rule, societies simply would not function. The concept of the golden rule is a natural HUMAN outgrowth of the recognition that working together in cooperative societies have HUGE survival advantages for everyone.

Words are sounds, and not just as vibrations in the air. The voice of your individual thoughts are sounds within your head. You hear them.

NO, you do not "hear them." Hearing involves very fine movements by the components of your ear responding to vibrations in the air. Sounds ARE simply vibrations in the air. The thoughts in your brain are not "heard." They are thoughts. Defining sounds that you hear as being the same thing as the thoughts in your brain is simply another example of cherry picking that which you prefer to believe because it seems to make sense to you. It's nothing less than make believe. Which is what people have largely done over the centuries. But we have science now, you see. And science has already punctured and laid to rest many of these sorts of ancient assumptions.

Where did you get this idea about me from? The voice in your head?

There is no "voice in my head." I have thoughts. Because I speak English as my native language, and because the symbols of the written words visible on my monitor correspond to a language that I understand, I am able to change the symbols into thoughts. When I read the things you have written, I am reading your thoughts on a given subject. Which I then compare with my own thoughts on that subject. Deaf people who cannot hear sounds at all are perfectly capable of accomplishing exactly the same task.

I compare the various thoughts, and reach a conclusion. There is no voice in my head, although I do normally think in English. But my thoughts are not sounds. People who are completely conversant in more than one language, often think in more than one language. Or so I have been told.

What has that got to do with me or my position shared? You assume much about me, but have no excuse not to know what it is that I think.

I can only know what you choose to tell me. But I have been involved in thousands of discussions over the years, and certain patterns of belief have become obvious to me. And of course there is the ongoing problem of remembering exactly what a particular individual has told me. If I misremember what someone has said that they chose to believe, that is the result of having too many things in my head to keep them all straight all of the time. And not a degradation of my brain due to age. Hopefully. But then, if my mind is becoming faulty I would almost certainly be the last to recognize it. So I can only do the best I can.

My best option in a conversation with any individual is to go back and review what has already transpired. And I do that. Sometimes. But not every time. And so I make mistakes. But I do actually have a life away from the forum, and my time is limited.

There are others who believe just as you do. And hundreds of millions who hold competing beliefs, some comparatively close to your beliefs, and others significantly different.

So? I could say the same of you, but see no logical reason to bring that into the conversation.

There are two types of people on this forum. Believers and non believers. Believers attempt to reach hard and fast conclusions. It's known as dogma. Non believers tend to attempt to avoid reaching hard and fast conclusions and rate probability from most likely to least likely. For example, I view the probability of the story of a corpse coming back to life and then flying off up into the sky as least likely to be valid. On the other hand, I view the science that has produced working technology as most like to be valid.

In any discussion both sides have reached conclusions, for varying reasons of validity. Science has very concise empirical reasons for reaching the conclusions that it has. Believers have reached conclusions that are nearly as varied as the billions of people that hold them. That was my purpose in bringing it up.

You are predisposed to be calling me a real Christian? What business is it of mine what label you so choose to stick onto me? That is your opinion and it has no relevance to anything to do with who I am and how I self identify.

Not being a Christian myself I find that I am not qualified to determine who is a "real" Christian or not. Most Christians I find are perfectly happy to make that determination about others when requested.

Your seem to be focused on the negatives and wish others to do the same. Many who do this, come across as being bitter.

Most Christians suppose that they are freely offering an eternity of salvation, and are puzzled when they encounter resistance. They interpret this resistance as bitterness. Non believers on the other hand are simply reacting to what they perceive as childish foolishness. Many non believers often consider the possibility of conversing with a believer as an exercise in dealing with a child. And they prefer not to bother. Those non believers who do choose to converse with believers often, unfortunately, take on a condescending tone. Which often comes across as bitterness. I attempt to not be condescending in my tone, but in any attempt at detailed explanation as to why these ancient beliefs are nothing more than childlike ignorance and superstition, a certain amount of condescension becomes inevitable.

When the negatives overwhelm the positives it is time to walk away. There is nothing useful in the Bible which cannot just as effectively be accomplishing by following the golden rule. When faced with a convoluted self contradictory philosophy that only results in hundreds of millions of competing interpretations, it's time to make things simple by going back to basics. The golden rule is basic to people simply getting along. Remember K-I-S-S. (Keep It Simple Stupid)

Agreed. Intelligent design is still viable as far as I am concerned, and nothing about science has shown me anything but that. All the costumes and masks dressing that up to be some sky-daddy, can safety and confidently be put to rest.

Who "intelligently designed" God? And if that was not necessary, then intelligent design must not be necessary. Unless one cherry picks necessity.

I am here to learn what I need to. It is part of my journey. Anyone who has issues with my position is free to do all they want to try and convince me that their position is the best one to adopt. So far, they fail in that regard. My subjective experience of life trumps their protests and their particular interpretation of what science has to show, is debatable.

Learning presumes that one is attempting to gain in knowledge and therefore what one has learned is the truth. And this opens the question of just how one is going to go about separating out fact from fiction. Because fact is a finite set of information, while fiction is infinite in it's possibilities. So how do we separate fact from fiction?

The laws of physics represent the highest state of confidence that we have attained in understanding the universe we live in. The laws of physics are derived from much observation and experimentation resulting in achieving exactly the same result repeatedly and without fail. The application of these laws have led to working computers, smart phone and all of the other technological marvels of our rapidly changing technological world. If the laws of physics are NOT inviolate as we now believe them to be, we are in the embarrassing position of having no idea why our technology works at all!

Ancient people worked on a different theory of how the universe works. Since they did not yet possess enough technology to acquire the information needed to explain the natural phenomenon going on around them, lightning, thunder, earthquakes and the like, they made up answers. They presupposed solutions for question which they otherwise had no means to answer.

Presupposition can simply be another word for make believe, can it not? If one presupposes that humans, and the universe we exist in must have been created by an intelligent designer whom one not only presuppose exists, but whom one presupposes exists without the need for such a creation Himself, one has simple added an extra layer of presupposition which is not obvious at all. Because it was simply made up, which is, as I have just pointed out, what presupposition is all about. There is another way of looking at the universe however. It's called the empirical method, and it involves investigating the physical evidence for what the physical evidence has to tell us. The empirical method entails close observation, much experimentation and direct experience, resulting in detailed conclusions that allow for the same results to be reached repeatedly. It requires that the results, when discovered, be accepted at face value even to the extent of completely abandoning centuries of make believe. This sort of research has also led us rather inextricably to the conclusion that EVERYTHING THAT OCCURS DOES SO FOR NATURAL REASONS which can be understood and even utilized for our advantage. The general term for this deeper understanding of the basis for how the physical universe operates is called quantum mechanics. Does the empirical method have credibility? Well, does that computer you are sitting at actually work? Do we have operating smart phones and all of the other modern technological marvels of this modern technological age? They are all based on an working understanding of quantum mechanics. They were NOT rendered extant by make believe.

So, where were all of these modern marvels in Jesus' time? The laws of quantum physics are exactly the same today as they were 2,000 years ago... or millions of years ago for that matter. However, by in large the ancients used a different method for reaching conclusions then the empirical method. They presupposed! What ancient peoples did not understand they simply made up reasons for. Gods and goddesses, elves, fairies, and the like. Whatever served to answer questions for which no obvious answer was readily at hand. This was the old "make it up and declare it to be true" method of reaching a conclusion. It really had no practical value, other than to create the illusion of providing an answer, even though that answer had no connection to anything valid and true. Sadly, many people today still operate this way, applying made up solutions to questions they don't otherwise understand. Which is a shame, because the actual answers are most often readily available now, so make believe is no longer necessary. We have learned, through much trial and error, that the empirical method for accumulating genuine knowledge far surpasses the old "make it up and declare it to be true" presupposition method. So, I don't "presuppose" that there is no deity. I simply see no point in arbitrarily making up the existence of an invisible Being with infinite powers where no such Being is obvious. In fact, the existence of an infinitely powerful invisible Being that possesses the power to manipulate the laws of physics at will contradicts everything we believe that we know about how the universe works. This is the inevitable face off between make believe and knowledge you see. Which do you suppose is going to win out over time?

There are many sources from which I derive my thinking. You are contriving that the bible is the only source of data in which I get my information from.

You have already implied that there are voices in your head which drive your thoughts. How is this any different from "make it up and declare it to be true?" Because this is the same method humans have been using since before the dawn of history. What other sources do you find valid? And are you certain that you are not presupposing answers that serve to conform to that which you prefer to believe?

It is flawed and not trustworthy. You are forced to contrive a system of belief that makes sense to you personally from an untrustworthy source by picking and choosing those things you have concluded are the "good bits," from those things that seem to be clearly illogical or contradictory.

There is nothing wrong with doing that with anything.

There is nothing wrong with it if you don't mind mind ending up subscribing to nonsense. My opinion is that life is to short to subscribe to nonsense. I prefer to get as close to factual truth as I possibly can before my life is over. Not that it matters, ultimately. Because dead is dead. Still, there is always the possibility that something I said or wrote may influence someone to advance the course of human knowledge in some way. I can always hope.

And that is the very definition of contrived.

No. It is the definition of using common sense.

The concept of an invisible uncreated creator Being that creates entire universes out of a word is the very definition of contrived, since it is based on absolutely NO physical evidence whatsoever. But the term "make believe" actually gets closer to the concept. Cherry picking information from a book that you have already agreed is not trustworthy is contrived to the extreme.

I often refer to this method as "making it up as one goes along."

Such is the nature of the human experience. Always question. Always hold on to that which has proven itself to be good. Connect the dots. Assume nothing, including that GOD does not exist, or is some sky daddy, or is male, or is myth etc et al.

"Always question." I agree. Humans are fallible, and are always subject to being wrong. So we should always be ready to challenge our conclusions. On the other hand, if we don't build on the conclusions that we have reached, we can never advance in knowledge. By the same token, we must be ready to discard old conclusions once it becomes obvious that that they are not valid if we do wish to advance in knowledge. No matter how beloved or admired the earlier conclusion is or once was.

Keep the subject open for consideration. Be an individual. Be responsible for your choices. Don't be a victim to circumstances. Don't jump to conclusions. Remember that you know next to nothing and that on occasion one just has to make things up as one goes along. Find the position that does not allow for hypocrisy by keeping an eye open for hypocrisy. Live your life as if it is your own.

I am here, on this forum, listening to you. I have kept the subject open for consideration. It has been a good many years since I have seen an argument that I have not already thoroughly considered however. The conclusions that I have currently reached consistently hold up.

I know of not a single other person who believes the exact same as I do, nor do I think being content or happy is a problem or shouldn't be the case just because the world is not.

Given that there are more than 40,000 different denominations of Christian, this is hardly surprising.

It works for me, so who am I to spurn it for something that only brings discontent and unhappiness? I am better than that. Why would anyone have a problem with another being content and happy or make a criticism that this is somehow "remaining in a comforting cocoon"? Are you not happy and content? If so, is it because you live in a "comforting cocoon" Why imply that I am not being real about reality, and what gives you the right to do so? Your assumptions about me? Hardly.

I am neither discontent nor unhappy. But if the search for contentment and happiness is one's goal, then they should settle on whatever serves to make them contented and happy. The search for the truth however is not predicted on making anyone content or happy. It's predicated on understanding how things actually are and how they work. Discovering that serves to make some people content and happy. But it's not for everyone. Because many people prefer illusion. And the truth often has no relationship to anyone's prefered illusion.

So far, I have yet to experience anything remotely like serious criticism. I don't count derision and personal slights as 'serious criticism'. I challenge others on points to do with their positions. I don't stoop to telling them they are living in some belief bubble, should adopt my position or that they should become atheists.

Is it your belief that the story of the corpse of Jesus returning to life and then flying away is at least "potentially" true? Because if you suspect that it might be true, I have much very serious criticism of that notion to present you with. But otherwise your decision to spurn Christian dogma leaves you free to adjust your notions of reality to accommodate whatever it is that serves to please you. I base my own notions of reality on current scientific evidence. That is ever changing I agree. But I am ready to embrace change when it becomes clear that a new concept is better grounded in fact than the old one was.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Does God create evil?

I don't fret me so much whether it is he did or didn't, as I do to shake my head that he can't do him nothing about it.

[William]

Not all the angels chose to be evil, did they.

That was my point.
You said;
1*

So neither will we ever choose evil again once we are made righteous in holiness. Everyone could; no one will.

2*Some angels were obviously made holy from the beginning while others were not, based on what you have said there, and here;

1*

Some are called the holy angels so they can never have chosen evil:

*(1+1=2)

Sounds to me like an evolution of beings from unholy to holy and the fact that those made righteous first had to be sinful in order to have the experience of knowing the difference, so that even when they could choose to be evil, they won't because they know where that leads.

Sounds like that to others too but it is sure the low road and making everyone innocent and able to choose to be holy or evil is the high road.

Yes, but some were granted the high road from the go get. The position you are arguing from is that some of GODs critters have always been holy because they were created that way and simply cannot choose evil as a result.
They are the 'high-roaders'.
The 'low-roaders' went through the evolution of being created ignorant and having to find out the hard way.

Do you think that Michael the archangel really misses something by not have been created sinful?

Why would I think that? Why would anyone created in a position where they would not choose to be evil, miss that?
It would be like a privileged rich kid wanting to experience the crap life that poor people have. No point in wanting to be like the poor as one can plainly see without having to experience for ones self, what a crap existence they endure.

Do you not think he knows the difference between Satan and himself?

Sure he does. He was created holy and thus will not choose evil and Satan was not created holy and thus had the option to choose evil.
(if you claim that Satan was created holy and chose evil then your doctrine here falls to bits as your argument is "once we are made righteous in holiness. Everyone could; no one will.")

I know this is your favorite bit, probably having come to it by yourself without a teaching but does it really have the quality of thought that makes it acceptable in Christian doctrine?

It matters not that it is acceptable to the doctrines of Christendom. My quality of thought is more advanced because I choose to question those doctrines and find them wanting. They lack consistency and they lack logic.

GOD makes HIS Bride evil so She can understand what the Bliss of holiness is? HE hates evil, and the selfish corrupt suffering it causes... HE would never put HIS Bride though that... it is inadequate to the horror let alone it dismisses free will guilt.

You seem to be saying here that being born in ignorance, enduring evil and not succumbing to it is better than being created an arch angel and never having been in a position to experience evil let alone succumb to it. But really? You claim GOD hates evil but is willing to succumb others to it? Does GOD hate evil because it has proven to be something he has no control over?

I think the whole doctrine is a twisted mess. You are welcome to it.

[ttruscott]

Not all the angels chose to be evil, did they.

That was my point.
You said;
1*

So neither will we ever choose evil again once we are made righteous in holiness. Everyone could; no one will.

2*Some angels were obviously made holy from the beginning while others were not, based on what you have said there, and here;

A mistaken conclusion for some reason. I never implied this. made holy from the beginning while others were not - is fallacious. All people made / created in HIS image were created ingenuously innocent, not good nor bad but with a will free to chose to become either. All holy people / angels became so by their free will decison to follow HIM in all things.

once we are made righteous in holiness means once the sinful elect have been made righteous by sanctification, not to their creation!

When you twist things up like this I hardly know how to answer. Your 1* refers to where I say some were made righteous - I never use made to refer to our creation and in this quote I used it to refer to the sinful elect being made righteous by HIS gift of repentance and sanctification, not creation!

Some are called the holy angels so they can never have chosen evil:

Once innocence is past and the decison to be holy is made, not one who is one in holiness with the HOLY GOD will ever choose to be evil after that experience.

Sounds to me like an evolution of beings from unholy to holy

It was the evolution of things from INNOCENCE to either (both) holiness or demonism pre-earth.

and the fact that those made righteous [no one was made / created righteous!!!]* first had to be sinful in order to have the experience of knowing the difference, so that even when they could choose to be evil, they won't because they know where that leads.

This is your twisted doctrine you seem intent on placing on me, I think.

* my edit from frustration...

Those made righteous as implied by GOD's work for them cannot refer to the holy angels which holiness was by their free will NOT THEIR CREATION. But some of the innocent chose to accept GOD's deity and to put their faith in HIS Son (becoming elect) as their saviour from any future sin which did not yet make them holy as they were tested by HIS call to join with HIM in the judgement of the demonic, a test they failed and in their rebellion against the judgment as righteous become evil elect, the sinful good seed.

All sinners, both non-elect and elect, are sent to earth to live lives perfectly determined to bring HIS sinful elect to redemption the best way possible.

There was no reason they had to be MADE sinners first either by creation or by being forced to sin - they chose to be sinners and so HE had to fulfill HIS promise of election and salvation to them. They were not made evil to learn holiness so they would never choose sin again - they chose to be evil and their being made holy and heaven ready will have the positive effect of them never choosing sin again. GOD creating evil or evil people is anathema to me...

Sounds like that to others too but it is sure the low road and making everyone innocent and able to choose to be holy or evil is the high road.

I am so tired - this is what I've been saying for all this time. How do you distort it to something else? All I do different is suggest that the timing of choosing our eternal relationship with HIM must have been in the pre-earth past since we are conceived as sinners here so our choice must have been pre-conception.

IF you actually read anything I wrote, you cannot believe I advocate anything beside our moral characters are related only to our free will choice, not our creation!

Yes, but some were granted the high road from the go get. The position you are arguing from is that some of GODs critters have always been holy because they were created that way and simply cannot choose evil as a result.

This is not a lie, but it is wrong.
It may be inattention that made you so wrong.
It may be careless thinking that made you so wrong.
But until you can quote where I claimed anything but that we chose to be good or evil, and no one was created that way, I ask you to publicly rescind this mistake.

I think the whole doctrine is a twisted mess. You are welcome to it.

Yes. You have made it a twisted mess and then condemned it. Well done. Everything I've posted for five years contradicts your understanding of my position...ask anyone. Now, please...

[jcforever]

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.

Yes. God is responsible for everything we experience.

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

Deuteronomy 32
39: "`See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.

Deuteronomy 28
15: “But if you will not obey the voice of the Lord your God or be careful to do all his commandments which I command you this day, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you.
16: Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the field.
17: Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading-trough.
18: cursed shall be the fruit of your body, and the fruit of your ground, the increase of your cattle, and the young of your flock.
19: Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out.
20: “the Lord will send upon you curses, confusion, and frustration, in all that you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and perish quickly, on account of the evil of your doings, because you have forsaken me.
21: The Lord will make the pestilence cleave to you until he has consumed you off the land which you are entering to take possession of it.
22: The Lord will smite you with consumption, and with fever, inflammation, and fiery heat, and with drought, and with blasting, and with mildew; they shall pursue you until you perish.
23: And the heavens over your head shall be brass, and the earth under you shall be iron.
24: The Lord will make the rain of your land powder and dust; from heaven it shall come down upon you until you are destroyed.

61: Every sickness also, and every affliction which is not recorded in the book of this law, the LORD will bring upon you, until you are destroyed.
62: Whereas you were as the stars of heaven for multitude, you shall be left few in number; because you did not obey the voice of the LORD your God.
63: And as the LORD took delight in doing you good and multiplying you, so the LORD will take delight in bringing ruin upon you and destroying you; and you shall be plucked off the land which you are entering to take possession of it.

[jcforever]

Not all the angels chose to be evil, did they.

That was my point.
You said;
1*

So neither will we ever choose evil again once we are made righteous in holiness. Everyone could; no one will.

2*Some angels were obviously made holy from the beginning while others were not, based on what you have said there, and here;

A mistaken conclusion for some reason. I never implied this. made holy from the beginning while others were not - is fallacious. All people made / created in HIS image were created ingenuously innocent, not good nor bad but with a will free to chose to become either. All holy people / angels became so by their free will decison to follow HIM in all things.

once we are made righteous in holiness means once the sinful elect have been made righteous by sanctification, not to their creation!

When you twist things up like this I hardly know how to answer. Your 1* refers to where I say some were made righteous - I never use made to refer to our creation and in this quote I used it to refer to the sinful elect being made righteous by HIS gift of repentance and sanctification, not creation!

Some are called the holy angels so they can never have chosen evil:

Once innocence is past and the decison to be holy is made, not one who is one in holiness with the HOLY GOD will ever choose to be evil after that experience.

Sounds to me like an evolution of beings from unholy to holy

It was the evolution of things from INNOCENCE to either (both) holiness or demonism pre-earth.

and the fact that those made righteous [no one was made / created righteous!!!]* first had to be sinful in order to have the experience of knowing the difference, so that even when they could choose to be evil, they won't because they know where that leads.

This is your twisted doctrine you seem intent on placing on me, I think.

* my edit from frustration...

Those made righteous as implied by GOD's work for them cannot refer to the holy angels which holiness was by their free will NOT THEIR CREATION. But some of the innocent chose to accept GOD's deity and to put their faith in HIS Son (becoming elect) as their saviour from any future sin which did not yet make them holy as they were tested by HIS call to join with HIM in the judgement of the demonic, a test they failed and in their rebellion against the judgment as righteous become evil elect, the sinful good seed.

All sinners, both non-elect and elect, are sent to earth to live lives perfectly determined to bring HIS sinful elect to redemption the best way possible.

There was no reason they had to be MADE sinners first either by creation or by being forced to sin - they chose to be sinners and so HE had to fulfill HIS promise of election and salvation to them. They were not made evil to learn holiness so they would never choose sin again - they chose to be evil and their being made holy and heaven ready will have the positive effect of them never choosing sin again. GOD creating evil or evil people is anathema to me...

Sounds like that to others too but it is sure the low road and making everyone innocent and able to choose to be holy or evil is the high road.

I am so tired - this is what I've been saying for all this time. How do you distort it to something else? All I do different is suggest that the timing of choosing our eternal relationship with HIM must have been in the pre-earth past since we are conceived as sinners here so our choice must have been pre-conception.

IF you actually read anything I wrote, you cannot believe I advocate anything beside our moral characters are related only to our free will choice, not our creation!

Yes, but some were granted the high road from the go get. The position you are arguing from is that some of GODs critters have always been holy because they were created that way and simply cannot choose evil as a result.

This is not a lie, but it is wrong.
It may be inattention that made you so wrong.
It may be careless thinking that made you so wrong.
But until you can quote where I claimed anything but that we chose to be good or evil, and no one was created that way, I ask you to publicly rescind this mistake.

I think the whole doctrine is a twisted mess. You are welcome to it.

Yes. You have made it a twisted mess and then condemned it. Well done. Everything I've posted for five years contradicts your understanding of my position...ask anyone. Now, please...

If God gave us the free will to choose, then we would all be doomed. However, that is not how the will of God works.

God chooses who he will enlighten spiritually and teach the difference between the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life. Those he enlightens with his spirit will learn they are eating of the tree of life and will continue to eat of the tree of life even after the tree of the knowledge of good and evil has been destroyed.

[ttruscott]

If God gave us the free will to choose, then we would all be doomed.

This blanket statement must be proven. How would our free will doom us? You gotta build your credibility, not just expect it.

However, that is not how the will of God works.

A meaningless personal opinion unless you add the details of how HE works with our free will.

God chooses who he will enlighten spiritually and teach the difference between the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life. Those he enlightens with his spirit will learn they are eating of the tree of life and will continue to eat of the tree of life even after the tree of the knowledge of good and evil has been destroyed.

What happens to those whom HE does not choose? What reason did HE have to choose some but not others?

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 188 by ttruscott]

You gotta build your credibility, not just expect it.

I have said the same to God. Fear of eternal damnation without proof of what he can do doesn't work for me. Seems using fear to get worshipers is evil in itself. IMO.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 188 by ttruscott]

You gotta build your credibility, not just expect it.

I have said the same to God. Fear of eternal damnation without proof of what he can do doesn't work for me. Seems using fear to get worshipers is evil in itself. IMO.

HIS pointing out hell as the end for some people has nothing to do with encouraging them to repent - they are condemned already, John 3:18. It has everything with opening the eyes of HIS sinful elect to their need to repent.

Fear to get worshippers as a calumny, a strawdog with no bite, with no reality in the Christian system.