The problem of evil

[William]

Q: Is the statement "Then there is "The problem of evil"" one of fact or conjecture? [science or opinion] In realty, does such a problem actually exist?

The problem of evil refers to the challenge of reconciling belief in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God, with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. eta:{SOURCE}

[TRANSPONDER]

Your post is a waste of time and not worth an answer, and that isn't getting at you. It is not your fault...

Moderator Warning

Oh but you are being so Wude. Quit it.

Please review our Rules.



______________



Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

I'll try, but it's hard when some Bible-wagging Spam gets posted.

I don't know whether the Christians are praying for me, or if they are, what they are praying to happen to me, but I continue to Think for them.

And my first Real Girlfriend was a Buddhist. Oh boy. We ended up married.

On the side........... how long have you been married to your Buddhist wife?

Married 1986.

[oldbadger]

Married 1986.

Excellent..... Thanx for that.

[TRANSPONDER]

Married 1986.

Excellent..... Thanx for that.

That's what she said.

[William]

[Replying to tam in post #175]

The being known as Satan is a real being. But I do not think that evil is personified through him.

Do you mean, 'not at all' or 'not the only real entity doing it?

[oldbadger]

That sign? Ban the Bomb?
My Dad and most in his generation (around where I lived) thought that folks displaying that sign were 'low-life lazy no-goods' and bad.
Ideas about 'evil' were rather different, back-then, back-there.

Strange ideas, back then....
Being able to drink ten pints at the bar and still walk straight made you a great guy, good character.
Dinking ten pints and being obviously disabled drunk made you a socially dysfunctional misfit.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #169]

It is important to me to be accurate in my posts, and especially in matters that concern my Lord.

Even so, what your beliefs are re biblical Jesus, is not important to the OP subject whether biblical characters are treated as fictional or not as it doesn't matter if it is the one or the other, or even a mix of both. We are discussing biblical narrative, [re OP] not any particular Christian belief or interpretation of biblical narrative, over any other.

Then why ask me about it?

[I am clipping out the conversation about the - or rather a - Jewish perspective, because it has already been covered.]

You were asked to explain the similarities of the metaphor being used to describe what you refer to as two opposing enemies [YHWH & Satan] {SOURCE}

Your reply;

Yeah, I don't make a connection between them.

Obviously there is a connection between them "I Am LION, Hear Me ROAR!"

Just because someone (and others) are described to do something 'like a lion' does not mean that they are the same person. Christ is also described as the Lion of the tribe of Judah.

Nor does it mean they are not.

"Nor does it mean they are not" is not evidence for anything. Especially not when there is evidence AGAINST the idea you are presenting.

More to the point I am making, it is Satan being described as a roaring lion, which up until then, was a biblical description of YHWH.

It is also simply descriptive of a king's wrath:

A king’s wrath is like the roaring of a lion, But his favor is like dew on the grass. Proverbs 19:12

There are some options to consider re that. One such option being;

~The writer using the roaring devouring lion to analogize Satan, was unaware that YHWH had already been analogized in that way, and thus would have not comprehended the ripple effect of his use of the same analogy for his version of Satan.~

But Christ is one person. His Father is another person. The Adversary is another person altogether. And of course Christ is the Truth; whereas the Adversary is a liar and the father of lies.

Which - if the option I mentioned, is the correct one, means that you have been misinformed by the writer.

Which writer?

Some people are described as being 'as strong as an ox' but that doesn't make them the same person.

That is besides the points I am arguing Tammy. I am being specific re beings who are not Human...

Why would that matter to the point?

My interests lay elsewhere - in the observation that the 1Peter version enlists the metaphor applied [attributed] to YHWH, long before the writer of 1Peter then applies it to the [so-called] Enemy of Christianity [Satan].

Satan is not the enemy of Christianity (the religion); he is mankind's enemy, and he goes after those who are faithful to Christ and His Father, who profess their faith in Christ and His Father. To get them to give up their faith, to 'curse God and die'.

Coupling that fact with words attributed to biblical Jesus saying to religious Jews that;

Biblical Jesus: “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”

...one could be forgiven for thinking that Jesus was referring to YHWH...

That is what I thought you were implying. I will suggest that the only way one could think that Christ was referring to His Father there would be if one was looking for that connection and ignoring the evidence that refutes that connection.

I am not implying anything, nor am I ignoring evidence. I am comparing the evidence as it presents.

From the same account:

I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father.” Christ makes a distinction between His Father and their father.

But if that is not clear enough for you, then here is the rest of the context that clearly separates God (the Father of Christ), from the devil:

“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”

42 [Jesus] said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”

Jesus' mention of the accuser being their father is because of their accusations. They were deferring to Satan rather than to YHWH. They [Jesus included] would have understood it in that way, rather than in the way the Christianities evolved it into the mythology you are arguing for.

The evidence does not support this suggestion.

First - again - note that the clear distinction.

Second, please note that accusation was not the issue; but the desire to murder was.

From the same passage:

“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would[c] do what Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41 You are doing the works of your own father.”


Their father who was a murderer from the beginning, a liar and the father of lies.

William: Also, please explain why YHWH had no doubts about Job and was confident the accuser would not sway Job, but did have doubts with Adam and was not confident Adam could not be swayed...since that is what we are told happened - Adam was swayed - and we can assume that YHWH knew Adam would fail as surely as YHWH knew Job would not.

He knew the people involved. What is in them; the inside of the cup. Nothing is hidden from Him.

Therefore requiring an explanation as to why YHWH would create a being [Adam] and place said being within an environment where YHWH knew that being would fail the test of the Adversary.

The environment is existence. To not create Adam would have been to judge him for something he had not even chosen to do yet;

If Adam was NOT created, then there would be no Adam for YHWH to judge. One cannot judge no one for doing no thing.

it would have been like giving him the death penalty for something that is not unforgivable.

Not at all. Something which never lived, cannot be put to death.

To not create Adam based on what Adam would do, implies that that Adam (or at least the possible Adam) must have been (fore)known.

From the Rabbi's perspective, this is all well and good and casts no shadow upon the good nature of YHWH, because YHWH knows what He is doing and there are no enemies of YHWH and all serve YHWH's agenda, whether some actively understand that they do so or not;

An enemy can serve someone's agenda without realizing it.

Just as a friend can serve someone's agenda through realizing it. Both arguments cancel each other out.

The point that you appear to have missed is that just because someone serves God's agenda, does not mean that they are not an enemy.

Can you show any OT scripture which identifies that Satan is YHWH's enemy and was unaware that he is serving YHWH's agenda without realizing it?

I believe I said that Satan is OUR (mankind's) enemy. He seeks to destroy us (mankind). He doesn't think he can destroy God.

Re Satan.
He has intimate understanding of the role He plays in the service of YHWH and it wasn't Satan who made Christians despise Jews.

I am a Christian and I do not despise Jews.

But of course you are talking about religion, and so you might want to consider that Jews first persecuted those Jews who accepted Christ (at the behest of religion/religious leaders); then later some of those who professed to be Christian (something anyone can profess to be; though it does not mean that they ARE what they claim), persecuted the Jews (also at the behest or encouragement/approval of religion/religious leaders, starting with the fledgling RCC and continuing).

Religion does not get its authority from Christ though. If people had been listening to Christ instead of to religion (which teaches many lies and misleads many people), then they should have been doing what He commanded: bless those who curse you; forgive; do good to those who wrong you; do not judge and you will not be judged; be merciful and you will be merciful. Christ did not persecute anyone; execute anyone (He GAVE His life); and though He could have asked 'eye for eye' - according to the law that the religious leaders claimed to uphold - instead He asked that they be forgiven.

You present as being just another religious individual Tam, even that you deny that you are, you always revert to religious interpretation of doctrine, even that you deny doing so. You believe in the doctrine of Satan as presented by the Christian religion, even that you may not have adopted the actual imagery [mentioned in post#101]

Even the words you believe in re Christianity's take on Satan;

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Then should not this daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be released from her bondage on the Sabbath day?”

And the great dragon was hurled down— that ancient serpent called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

...create images to which you clearly consent to as being "from Christ" because biblical Jesus is attributed with being the one saying the words, according to your own professed beliefs.

From Christ... is the point here.

I have made no qualms about that. I listen to and remain in Christ.

You can't reject something JUST BECAUSE a religion also teaches it... well, you can do that if you want, but then you would need to reject the idea that there is a Satan to begin with (because a religion teaches it - Judaism, Islam, Christianity; and you would need to reject the idea that there is a Christ because a religion teaches it; and you would need to reject the idea that there is a God - active and personal, or even more of a deistic version - because religions also teach this. You would need to reject the idea of forgiveness, because religions also teach this. Seeing a pattern yet? Religions teach a mixture of true and false things. If religion never taught anything true, then religion would never be able to mislead the elect and/or those who are seeking truth. I listen to Christ - the One who is and who speaks and who teaches TRUTH.)

Jesus also preached forgiveness because he would have realized too, that eventually - re the problem of evil - humans would have to forgive YHWH for utilizing Satan in YHWH's overall agenda and occasional interaction with Humans.

Christ preached forgiveness because a) forgiveness comes from love and love is the law from God, from the beginning; and b) WE (not God) all sin and commit wrongdoing. If WE want to be forgiven, then we must forgive.

“Do not judge, or you will be judged. 2For with the same judgment you pronounce, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. "

Want to be forgiven? You have to forgive. Want to have mercy shown to you? You have to show mercy to others. Want NOT to be judged? Judge NOT.

For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive yours.

Christians despising Jews and Christians making a scape-goat out of an Angelic Being and pointing to Satan as the reason why the world is evil - saying to the world "never mind our evil - LOOK at the real reason for WHY evil exists!" - there is a "kind of magic" in this slight of hand type proselytizing but ultimately any claim of truth in it, is subject to scrutiny/questionable and thus, why such threads as these exist.

This has nothing to do with anything I have said.

Except that you are guilty by association re your belief that YHWH has enemies.

If that is your reasoning process William, you would be guilty by association for using the bible (including the NT, at least when it suits you). Or just using the word "Satan" at all, considering that "the Chrsitianities" also use the word. According to your reasoning here, it doesn't matter that you are saying something completely different about that being, if you mention that being at all, you are "guilty by association".





Peace again to you.

[tam]

Peace to you!

Peace to you,

And oldbadger (peace to you!), I have not forgotten your post. I can't remember if there is much more to add, or if we have simply reached a state where we have communicated and hopefully understood one better. As for your question 'what do I think should happen to the adulterer'... that would be between them and their spouse. Beyond the natural consequences that come with having committed adultery (pain for the spouse, the family, children; shame; reputation in possible ruins with friends as well), the only things I think should happen would be separation and/or divorce.

(A Christian would do well to remember Christ's words about forgiving, even if just for one's own inner peace, but that does not mean you must remain married to your unfaithful spouse. You are free to remain and you are also free to divorce.)

Peace again.

Hello Tam,
Your answer, above, more or less mirrors the law where I live........ adultery can be forgiven and a couple just carry on, on there can be separation/divorce with lawful separation of property and agreements over who looks after and who visits any children. Many couples don't bother with marriage at all and simply live in trust. But thousands of years ago adultery was deadly dangerous and a community riddled with it was not safe from the spreading of deadly disease. I that that is what made adultery so abhorred, like breaking food rules.....dangerous.

May I ask what deadly disease you are referring to? I ask because unfaithfulness against God (including idolatry) is likened to adultery. It is the unfaithfulness aspect, the betrayal, that is highlighted.

I thought of a question to ask you, I get the impression that you do not belong to a congregation or church,

Correct, in the sense that 'congregation or church' here means sect or denomination in Christianity (the religious organization).

many which proselytize or want to convert pagans to Christianity. Some still knock on doors to promote their faith...... do you promote your particular faith to people or do you just live it yourself, quietly?

I do bear witness to Christ, and I do invite people to come (to Him). For those who are seeking and/or interested.

I am here, right? As well as some other online 'cities' (where people are interested and/or seeking), and I can bear witness in person if the opportunity arises and/or if I am sent to someone in particular. One can bear witness to Christ 'quietly' as well (such as if my Lord sent me to feed someone - I can just to do that, give them food - physical food - without any kind of 'preaching' involved. In fact, when I was younger, I needed to go to a food bank for food, and a final condition to receiving any food was praying with the person who decided if you qualified or not. I didn't have a problem praying, myself, but this was forced. And if you didn't do it, you didn't eat. It felt SO wrong that they would make that a condition. Christ did not make that a condition of feeding the hungry).


What I cannot do is "convert" anyone. "Conversion" (especially forced conversion) is a religious thing. It is not about God or bringing anyone to God. It is about man and religion, bringing more money and people to MAN (and their particular religion). God does not force anyone to believe in or exercise faith in Him. Doing something like that is not within my power nor desire (because people are free to choose). The most I could do is plant a seed. Other than that... no one comes to the Son unless the Father draws them. (John 6:44-45)

Peace to you

Thank you!

Peace again to you and to your household!

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #175]

The being known as Satan is a real being. But I do not think that evil is personified through him.

Do you mean, 'not at all' or 'not the only real entity doing it?

Thanks for asking William. It might just be a difference in understanding of the word 'personification'. To me, that seems to infer some supernatural nameless 'force' (evil), got transformed into a 'being' (in this case, Satan).


A person can be real and evil (wicked/bad) without being the personification of evil.


Peace again.

[William]

William: We are discussing biblical narrative, [re OP] not any particular Christian belief or interpretation of biblical narrative, over any other.

[Replying to tam in post #186]

Then why ask me about it?

The thread is open to all and the question asked in the OP is specific to my investigations as I want to see if I can source where this problem derives.

[I am clipping out the conversation about the - or rather a - Jewish perspective, because it has already been covered.]

The Jewish perspective is important as it reveals the fundamental differences between Hebrew and Christian narratives on the nature of YHWH.
So it is relevant in the context of truthfulness re the OPQ as the Hebrews did not see the problem of evil in the same way as Christianity.
The Hebrew Perspective is therefore on the table and remains uncovered.

As you may or may not know, the Jewish perception of the Hebrew culture and accompanying beliefs about YHWH [as GOD] was that they did not have the notion that GOD had enemies.
Their notion was that YHWH used what humans think of as "Good/Evil" as YHWH saw fit to do, and the only enemy/adversary/accuser anyone had to concern their selves about, was YHWH.

"Nor does it mean they are not" is not evidence for anything. Especially not when there is evidence AGAINST the idea you are presenting.

Well no such evidence has been presented.
What has been presented shows that YHWH works with Satan for particular purposes in specific situations.

What is important is how Christianity built mythology re Satan and how you are using that mythology to make claims which cast a shadow of evil over Satan, which has the affect of staining the name of GOD - a blemish which created the problem of evil [as per the OPTopic]

The problem of evil refers to the challenge of reconciling belief in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God, with the existence of evil and suffering in the world.

William: More to the point I am making, it is Satan being described as a roaring lion, which up until then, was a biblical description of YHWH.

It is also simply descriptive of a king's wrath:

Indeed - as is the devouring of enemies.
Are we thus to consider Satan a "King"?

How shall we consider The Bright Morning Star? Both bible Satan and bible Jesus are titled the same.

My point remains. If these agencies are at war as Christian mythology declares, why is this not reflected in the titles they have been given through the cultures of humankind?

William: There are some options to consider re that. One such option being;

~The writer using the roaring devouring lion to analogize Satan, was unaware that YHWH had already been analogized in that way, and thus would have not comprehended the ripple effect of his use of the same analogy for his version of Satan.~

But Christ is one person. His Father is another person. The Adversary is another person altogether. And of course Christ is the Truth; whereas the Adversary is a liar and the father of lies.

William: Which - if the option I mentioned, is the correct one, means that you have been misinformed by the writer.

Which writer?

The writer of 1stPeter.
The one who was possibly unaware that YHWH was already referred to as The roaring hunting devouring Lion.
{I am not concerned with the writers name, but the content of what was written. Writers can misinform through writing - even unintentionally.]

My interests lay elsewhere - in the observation that the 1Peter version enlists the metaphor applied [attributed] to YHWH, long before the writer of 1Peter.

Satan is not the enemy of Christianity (the religion);

The religion which gave us the NT part of the bible.

he is mankind's enemy,

"Humankind" is a more modern and acceptable expression than 'mankind'.
What is it that Humankind is doing which makes Satan the enemy of Humankind?

and he goes after those who are faithful to Christ and His Father, who profess their faith in Christ and His Father. To get them to give up their faith, to 'curse God and die'.

If this is the case, then he doing so in the service of YHWH. Just as in the case of Job.

It is interesting that The Father and The Son are unaware of who these supposed 'faithful' are, that they require the services of The Accuser to flush 'em out.

William: I am not implying anything, nor am I ignoring evidence. I am comparing the evidence as it presents.

But if that is not clear enough for you, then here is the rest of the context that clearly separates God (the Father of Christ), from the devil:

You are obviously confused as to my position and argument on the matter. I am not declaring that YHWH and Satan are the same being at all. I am pointing out that some appear not to have noticed and give the separate entities the same titles, which causes the confusion that they are the same being.

Since it is also know that YHWH uses Satan for certain tasks which help YHWH sort out the chaff from the wheat, one could argue that Satan roars like a lion and devours the enemy as YHWHs messenger - taking on those attributes of YHWH and acting the part on behalf...but that still doesn't mean they are the same entity.
What it also doesn't mean is that Satan is doing things to which YHWH does not permit. They are on the same Team.

“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do what Abraham did. As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the works of your own father.”

Their father who was a murderer from the beginning, a liar and the father of lies.

Whoever wrote that appears not to have known that Abraham was willing to murder his son Isaac and would have done so had not a messenger from YHWH not intervened and prevented him from doing so.
Abraham believed that YHWH had told him to murder his son [human sacrifice] and therein the example of scripture you quote here, supports the observation that Jesus appears to be calling YHWH a murderer.

William: Something which never lived, cannot be put to death.

To not create Adam based on what Adam would do, implies that that Adam (or at least the possible Adam) must have been (fore)known.

Obviously. YHWH knew and YHWH did it anyway.
Are you arguing that YHWH had no choice but to create Adam, even knowing what this would do re the ripple effect?

The point that you appear to have missed is that just because someone serves God's agenda, does not mean that they are not an enemy.

The point you appear to be missing is that YHWH has no enemies.
If some serve YHWHs agenda, believing that they are enemies of YHWH - the joke is on them.

William: Can you show any OT scripture which identifies that Satan is YHWH's enemy and was unaware that he is serving YHWH's agenda without realizing it?

I believe I said that Satan is OUR (mankind's) enemy. He seeks to destroy us (mankind). He doesn't think he can destroy God.

So we can agree then, that Satan serves as YHWHs messenger in that capacity?

William: Re Satan.
He has intimate understanding of the role He plays in the service of YHWH and it wasn't Satan who made Christians despise Jews.

Religions teach a mixture of true and false things.

Which is why questions need to be asked, examination needs to be done. It appears to me through what you are arguing, that Satan does not serve YHWH and that this arrangement is a mutually agreed on thing. Satan is not forced against Satan's will to serve YHWH and there is nothing to support the idea that Satan serves YHWH without knowing that this is the case...re your writing "An enemy can serve someone's agenda without realizing it."

William: Jesus also preached forgiveness because he would have realized too, that eventually - re the problem of evil - humans would have to forgive YHWH for utilizing Satan in YHWH's overall agenda and occasional interaction with Humans..

Christ preached forgiveness because a) forgiveness comes from love and love is the law from YHWH, from the beginning; and b) WE (not YHWH) all sin and commit wrongdoing. If WE want to be forgiven, then we must forgive

Indeed. We must forgive any and all evil attributed to being from/of YHWH...such as the belief Abraham had that YHWH wanted Abraham to sacrifice Isaac on an alter dedicated to YHWH.

There are many such incidences where YHWH is specifically said to be the one who orders humans to commit acts of evil.
So, either the acts are not evil [requiring explanation as to why] or the attributions are false and YHWH did not ever command acts of evil to be done in his name.
Or "Some other reason".

Point being, one would have to either forgive YHWH for those things he either did or was falsely accused of doing in order to approach YHWH as a potential friend and further develop the friendship into a loving relationship.
No such loving relationship can be genuinely achieved by those willing to turn a blind eye to the evidence, as far as I can tell.

Want NOT to be judged? Judge NOT.

It is not a case of judging YHWH. Rather it is a matter of sorting out the details re actions of questionable nature which have been attributed to YHWH.
Call it "discerning/discernment".

For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive yours.

Indeed.
This is a mirror-mirror effect.

For those among us hereabouts who refer to YHWH as a murderer and a liar and incompetent and lacking intelligence et al - due to the stories told of YHWH and the evil YHWH is said to have inflicted upon Humankind - acting the role of enemy of Humankind - they are in positions far from forgiving YHWH for commanding men trespass against others.

In this context, forgive the trespasses of men, = forgive YHWH the role of commander in chief who ordered the trespasses to be done by the men.

Not to forgive YHWH = "neither will your Father forgive yours"

This has nothing to do with anything I have said.

William: Except that you are guilty by association re your belief that YHWH has enemies.

If that is your reasoning process William, you would be guilty by association for using the bible (including the NT, at least when it suits you). Or just using the word "Satan" at all, considering that "the Chrsitianities" also use the word. According to your reasoning here, it doesn't matter that you are saying something completely different about that being, if you mention that being at all, you are "guilty by association".

I am not the one declaring anything Tam and my comment has to do with what YOU are declaring.

I am simply taking the overall story as presented in OT and NT and examining it.
I am not accusing anyone, YHWH, Satan, Jesus, Jew or Islam or Christian or any other theist, of being "guilty" of anything.

This is because I agree that it is better not to judge others.

My remark that you are "guilty by association" has only to do with the judgements and accusations that YOU are promoting through your particular beliefs and my holding up a mirror to those judgements and accusations that YOU are promoting through your particular beliefs, reflect on YOU.

My own thoughts on the OPQ were shared in post #6. where I write;

William: So far it appears that the "problem of evil" is an argument invented by folk who cannot entertain the idea that we exist within a creation - implying a creator - and thus implying a creator must have to be evil to have created this reality experience.

Said another way, there would not be "the problem of evil" if we do not exist within a creation - if there is no creator.

Peace again to you.

[tam]

Peace to you,

William: We are discussing biblical narrative, [re OP] not any particular Christian belief or interpretation of biblical narrative, over any other.

[Replying to tam in post #186]

Then why ask me about it?

The thread is open to all and the question asked in the OP is specific to my investigations as I want to see if I can source where this problem derives.

Again, I merely answered a question you asked me about. If my answer did not relate to the OP, then perhaps that is because your question did not relate to the OP? Do you even remember what this particular tangent is about?

"Nor does it mean they are not" is not evidence for anything. Especially not when there is evidence AGAINST the idea you are presenting.

Well no such evidence has been presented.

Evidence was presented that God and Satan are not the same being.

What has been presented shows that YHWH works with Satan for particular purposes in specific situations.

The evidence presented from the OT shows that they had interactions. But also that the ancient serpent (clearly identified as Satan in the NT) was punished for what he did. Not to mention the description (that is about the Adversary) about the Adversary having corrupted himself. (Ezekiel 28:12-19)

“‘You were the seal of perfection,
full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13
You were in Eden,
the garden of God;
every precious stone adorned you:
carnelian, chrysolite and emerald,
topaz, onyx and jasper,
lapis lazuli, turquoise and beryl.
Your settings and mountings[c] were made of gold;
on the day you were created they were prepared.
14
You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
for so I ordained you.
You were on the holy mount of God;
you walked among the fiery stones.
15
You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created
till wickedness was found in you.
16
Through your widespread trade
you were filled with violence,
and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God,
and I expelled you, guardian cherub,
from among the fiery stones.
17
Your heart became proud
on account of your beauty,
and you corrupted your wisdom
because of your splendor.
So I threw you to the earth;
I made a spectacle of you before kings.
18
By your many sins and dishonest trade
you have desecrated your sanctuaries.
So I made a fire come out from you,
and it consumed you,
and I reduced you to ashes on the ground
in the sight of all who were watching.
19
All the nations who knew you
are appalled at you;
you have come to a horrible end
and will be no more.’”

What is important is how Christianity built mythology re Satan and how you are using that mythology to make claims which cast a shadow of evil over Satan, which has the affect of staining the name of GOD - a blemish which created the problem of evil [as per the OPTopic]

That might be your opinion, but I can guarantee you that even if the Jewish perspective of Satan were presented, people would still be arguing the 'problem of evil', perhaps even more so.

The problem of evil refers to the challenge of reconciling belief in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God, with the existence of evil and suffering in the world.

Evil and suffering exists in this world regardless of what 'side' Satan is on.

William: More to the point I am making, it is Satan being described as a roaring lion, which up until then, was a biblical description of YHWH.

It is also simply descriptive of a king's wrath:

Indeed - as is the devouring of enemies.

Well there you go.

Are we thus to consider Satan a "King"?

I don't know how that matters to the point - but he is does have angels and he did take his angels and fight against Michael (the arkangel who remains faithful to God and to His Son). He is also called the 'god of this world', and does have (temporarily) authority over all the kingdoms in the world, or he could not have offered them to Christ, if Christ would have bowed down before him.

Please note that just because he is called a 'god', does not mean that he is THE God.

How shall we consider The Bright Morning Star? Both bible Satan and bible Jesus are titled the same.

Now who is listening to the traditional doctrines of the "Christianities"? What makes you think there is any "Bright Morning Star" verse that refers to Satan?

William: There are some options to consider re that. One such option being;

~The writer using the roaring devouring lion to analogize Satan, was unaware that YHWH had already been analogized in that way, and thus would have not comprehended the ripple effect of his use of the same analogy for his version of Satan.~

But Christ is one person. His Father is another person. The Adversary is another person altogether. And of course Christ is the Truth; whereas the Adversary is a liar and the father of lies.

William: Which - if the option I mentioned, is the correct one, means that you have been misinformed by the writer.

Which writer?

The writer of 1stPeter.
The one who was possibly unaware that YHWH was already referred to as The roaring hunting devouring Lion.

Since you are not claiming that they are the same person, then there really should be no issue here.

Satan is not the enemy of Christianity (the religion);

The religion which gave us the NT part of the bible.

Individual people authored the letters in the NT. Not a religion.

he is mankind's enemy,

"Humankind" is a more modern and acceptable expression than 'mankind'.
What is it that Humankind is doing which makes Satan the enemy of Humankind?

Being invited to reign with Christ as king-priests in the Kingdom.

Regardless of the reason though, he is clearly enraged at those who belong to Christ and seeks to destroy them:

Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about [Jesus.]

and he goes after those who are faithful to Christ and His Father, who profess their faith in Christ and His Father. To get them to give up their faith, to 'curse God and die'.

If this is the case, then he doing so in the service of YHWH. Just as in the case of Job.

A - see above. He is enraged. God is not enraged at those who keep His commands and hold fast to their testimony about His Son.

B - See earlier points in this discussion re: Job.

It is interesting that The Father and The Son are unaware of who these supposed 'faithful' are, that they require the services of The Accuser to flush 'em out.

I don't know how you draw that conclusion. He goes after them AFTER they make their confession and reveal themselves as sons of the Kingdom.

Even the example of Job disproves the conclusion you are drawing: Job was already faithful; God knew that Job would remain faithful. Satan was the one proven wrong.

William: I am not implying anything, nor am I ignoring evidence. I am comparing the evidence as it presents.

But if that is not clear enough for you, then here is the rest of the context that clearly separates God (the Father of Christ), from the devil:

You are obviously confused as to my position and argument on the matter. I am not declaring that YHWH and Satan are the same being at all. I am pointing out that some appear not to have noticed and give the separate entities the same titles, which causes the confusion that they are the same being.

Confusion in who? You are the one presenting that idea. The NT writers were not confused. I am not confused. I don't know anyone on this forum who is confused about such a thing. Now here you are also stating that you do not believe they are the same being, so even you are not confused. You are inventing a problem that doesn't exist.

“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do what Abraham did. As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the works of your own father.”

Their father who was a murderer from the beginning, a liar and the father of lies.

Whoever wrote that appears not to have known that Abraham was willing to murder his son Isaac and would have done so had not a messenger from YHWH not intervened and prevented him from doing so.
Abraham believed that YHWH had told him to murder his son [human sacrifice] and therein the example of scripture you quote here, supports the observation that Jesus appears to be calling YHWH a murderer.

What a reach William. I don't even know how to respond to this except to call it out as a reach based on nothing more than the desire to find a connection that does not exist. The evidence is in black and white that the ADVERSARY is the murderer, the father of lies, that Christ is pointing out. He has also clearly distinguishing His Father (God) from the Adversary, in this same passage. There is no union between them.

The suggestion that Christ was calling his own Father a murderer is absolutely absurd.

William: Something which never lived, cannot be put to death.

To not create Adam based on what Adam would do, implies that that Adam (or at least the possible Adam) must have been (fore)known.

Obviously. YHWH knew and YHWH did it anyway.
Are you arguing that YHWH had no choice but to create Adam, even knowing what this would do re the ripple effect?

Why would I be arguing that God had no choice?

The point that you appear to have missed is that just because someone serves God's agenda, does not mean that they are not an enemy.

The point you appear to be missing is that YHWH has no enemies.
If some serve YHWHs agenda, believing that they are enemies of YHWH - the joke is on them.

Indeed.

William: Can you show any OT scripture which identifies that Satan is YHWH's enemy and was unaware that he is serving YHWH's agenda without realizing it?

I believe I said that Satan is OUR (mankind's) enemy. He seeks to destroy us (mankind). He doesn't think he can destroy God.

So we can agree then, that Satan serves as YHWHs messenger in that capacity?

No.

And that is not a logical progression.

William: Jesus also preached forgiveness because he would have realized too, that eventually - re the problem of evil - humans would have to forgive YHWH for utilizing Satan in YHWH's overall agenda and occasional interaction with Humans..

Christ preached forgiveness because a) forgiveness comes from love and love is the law from YHWH, from the beginning; and b) WE (not YHWH) all sin and commit wrongdoing. If WE want to be forgiven, then we must forgive

Indeed. We must forgive any and all evil attributed to being from/of YHWH...such as the belief Abraham had that YHWH wanted Abraham to sacrifice Isaac on an alter dedicated to YHWH.

There are many such incidences where YHWH is specifically said to be the one who orders humans to commit acts of evil.
So, either the acts are not evil [requiring explanation as to why] or the attributions are false and YHWH did not ever command acts of evil to be done in his name.
Or "Some other reason".

Those would be the choices, yep.

For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive yours.

Indeed.
This is a mirror-mirror effect.

For those among us hereabouts who refer to YHWH as a murderer and a liar and incompetent and lacking intelligence et al - due to the stories told of YHWH and the evil YHWH is said to have inflicted upon Humankind - acting the role of enemy of Humankind - they are in positions far from forgiving YHWH for commanding men trespass against others.

William you are the one making those statements. You are the one claiming that Christ made those statement about His Father.

In this context, forgive the trespasses of men, = forgive YHWH the role of commander in chief who ordered the trespasses to be done by the men.

Not to forgive YHWH = "neither will your Father forgive yours"

No.

The actual words (which you always seem to feel the need to alter <- to add or take away from the words, thereby changing the meaning):

For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive yours.

This has nothing to do with anything I have said.

William: Except that you are guilty by association re your belief that YHWH has enemies.

If that is your reasoning process William, you would be guilty by association for using the bible (including the NT, at least when it suits you). Or just using the word "Satan" at all, considering that "the Chrsitianities" also use the word. According to your reasoning here, it doesn't matter that you are saying something completely different about that being, if you mention that being at all, you are "guilty by association".

I am not the one declaring anything Tam and my comment has to do with what YOU are declaring.

You just declared that I am 'guilty by association'.

I am simply taking the overall story as presented in OT and NT and examining it.
I am not accusing anyone, YHWH, Satan, Jesus, Jew or Islam or Christian or any other theist, of being "guilty" of anything.

You are accusing Christ of calling His Father a murderer. You are accusing the writers of making that connection. You are accusing the "Christianities" of teaching false doctrines that have contributed to the 'problem of evil'.

You are making all sorts of accusations.

You just declared that I am GUILTY by association.

This is because I agree that it is better not to judge others.

Discernment is not judgment, right?

My remark that you are "guilty by association" has only to do with the judgements and accusations that YOU are promoting through your particular beliefs and my holding up a mirror to those judgements and accusations that YOU are promoting through your particular beliefs, reflect on YOU.

Why is it 'judgment' when I do it (make a statement, even one backed up by the evidence), but 'discernment' when you do it?

My own thoughts on the OPQ were shared in post #6. where I write;

William: So far it appears that the "problem of evil" is an argument invented by folk who cannot entertain the idea that we exist within a creation - implying a creator - and thus implying a creator must have to be evil to have created this reality experience.

Said another way, there would not be "the problem of evil" if we do not exist within a creation - if there is no creator.

Isn't that the point the folk arguing 'the problem of evil' are trying to make?