Why Did God Have to Make Evil?

[Voter]

I love the part in the Bible where Jesus says unto the doubters "FAIL!" puts on a banana suit and dances.

While of course that doesn't happen, we do see athesits called fools, Jesus refers to Gentiles as dogs, and Paul suggests that jewish legalists cut their junk off. You don't have enough Biblical knowledge to imply that my behavior is unBiblical.

Anyway, I see that my contribution here is not appreciated, so I'll finish up a discussion with AD and take off.

[McQ]

I love the part in the Bible where Jesus says unto the doubters "FAIL!" puts on a banana suit and dances.

While of course that doesn't happen, we do see athesits called fools, Jesus refers to Gentiles as dogs, and Paul suggests that jewish legalists cut their junk off. You don't have enough Biblical knowledge to imply that my behavior is unBiblical.

Anyway, I see that my contribution here is not appreciated, so I'll finish up a discussion with AD and take off.

No, I don't think you will.

[TheJackel]

I love the part in the Bible where Jesus says unto the doubters "FAIL!" puts on a banana suit and dances.

While of course that doesn't happen, we do see athesits called fools, Jesus refers to Gentiles as dogs, and Paul suggests that jewish legalists cut their junk off. You don't have enough Biblical knowledge to imply that my behavior is unBiblical.

Anyway, I see that my contribution here is not appreciated, so I'll finish up a discussion with AD and take off.

Is that why we have genitals? It seems your GOD has a Hate problem, and anger issues.. The basic message of that argument is to fear monger people into conforming to the religious ideology by use of social dogma as a form of peer pressure. It's no different than threatening people with eternal burning in hell for their difference of opinion. It's also an argument to keep people from actually doing their own critical thinking and questioning that might steer them away from the religion. Hence, the concept born of the forbidden Knowledge posted as an ultimate sin should you seek it out!. They post that as good vs evil..This translation is specifically coded in subliminal terms (anything against the religion is evil, and anything for it is good). Well, it's a good thing I didn't take your GOD's advice at eating anything that bares seed, or I would be dead already! And the funny part about that GOD comment is that the forbidden fruit is a fruit! All fruits bare seed! lol

[The Magic Pudding]

Why Did God Have to Make Evil?

25 pages I suppose it's been done,

I think god is a human creation, so why did these human creators need to add evil to the story?
I'd guess it was just another tool to keep us in place.

[iSok]

Why Did God Have to Make Evil?

25 pages I suppose it's been done,

I think god is a human creation, so why did these human creators need to add evil to the story?
I'd guess it was just another tool to keep us in place.

Oh boy...here we go.



So you can grow, evil is not seen as a punishment.

[LegendarySandwich]

Why Did God Have to Make Evil?

25 pages I suppose it's been done,

I think god is a human creation, so why did these human creators need to add evil to the story?
I'd guess it was just another tool to keep us in place.

Oh boy...here we go.



So you can grow, evil is not seen as a punishment.

And what I've been saying is that evil would be not be necessary for our growth if an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent/good being exists.

[iSok]

And what I've been saying is that evil would be not be necessary for our growth if an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent/good being exists.

Well, sorry Ls. But the argument you give, I don't see that as valid.

You want to measure God by 'scientific methods' created by man, man with limits.
And you want to subdue God, by saying.

- I can't do that in theory
- Therefore God can't do that either.
- God does not exist.

[LegendarySandwich]

And what I've been saying is that evil would be not be necessary for our growth if an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent/good being exists.

Well, sorry Ls. But the argument you give, I don't see that as valid.

I don't see the arguments you give as valid.

You want to measure God by 'scientific methods' created by man, man with limits.

It's not science, it's simple logic.

And you want to subdue God, by saying.

- I can't do that in theory
- Therefore God can't do that either.
- God does not exist.

...What. That's not what I'm saying.

[elliebean]

And what I've been saying is that evil would be not be necessary for our growth if an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent/good being exists.

Well, sorry Ls. But the argument you give, I don't see that as valid.

You want to measure God by 'scientific methods' created by man, man with limits.
And you want to subdue God, by saying.

- I can't do that in theory
- Therefore God can't do that either.
- God does not exist.

That isn't the argument at all. None of us have claimed to be gods. Nowhere on this forum will you find anyone claiming to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, or the creator of the universe, or that we rely on any combination of those for our existence.

The argument goes more like this:

- God must simultaneously possess all of these attributes [pick a list of godlike attributes] to be considered God
- These attributes [refer to the list] are self-contradictory and/or mutually exclusive of each other
- All of these attributes cannot be held by a single entity at the same time
- Nothing that could exist can be considered God

The only way th wheedle out of it is to eliminate contradictory elements from the list of God's necessary attributes, but by doing this the word "God" quickly loses meaning and relevance, to the point where believing in its existence makes no difference to the believer.

[AnimatedDirt]

The argument goes more like this:

- God must simultaneously possess all of these attributes [pick a list of godlike attributes] to be considered God
- These attributes [refer to the list] are self-contradictory and/or mutually exclusive of each other
- All of these attributes cannot be held by a single entity at the same time
- Nothing that could exist can be considered God

And I think what iSok is saying (or at least what I think he is saying) is that only a being with omniscience can make this claim as you and I don't have the knowledge to make such a claim.  We, the animated mud from space dust, cannot simply claim to KNOW this by our limited knowledge.  We do agree our knowledge is limited, yes?  If this is what iSok IS saying, then on this one item we agree.

This is when the Christian's simple reply of, "Says the finite being." fits, but is also not very good as while it insinuates the above, it also provokes the other side of the argument to anger and disgust more than it promotes dialogue.  I am guilty of this.  

[LegendarySandwich]

The argument goes more like this:

- God must simultaneously possess all of these attributes [pick a list of godlike attributes] to be considered God
- These attributes [refer to the list] are self-contradictory and/or mutually exclusive of each other
- All of these attributes cannot be held by a single entity at the same time
- Nothing that could exist can be considered God

And I think what iSok is saying (or at least what I think he is saying) is that only a being with omniscience can make this claim as you and I don't have the knowledge to make such a claim.  We, the animated mud from space dust, cannot simply claim to KNOW this by our limited knowledge.  We do agree our knowledge is limited, yes?  If this is what iSok IS saying, then on this one item we agree.

This is when the Christian's simple reply of, "Says the finite being." fits, but is also not very good as while it insinuates the above, it also provokes the other side of the argument to anger and disgust more than it promotes dialogue.  I am guilty of this.  

So, basically, your response to this is "We can't know that for sure"? I'm kind of confused here.

[Achronos]

St. Diadochus of Photiki: "Evil does not exist by nature, nor is any man naturally evil, for God made nothing that was not good. When in the desire of his heart someone conceives and gives form to what in reality has no existence, then what he desires begins to exist. We should therefore turn our attention away from the inclination to evil and concentrate it on the remembrance of God; for good, which exists by nature, is more powerful than our inclination to evil. The one has existence while the other does not, except when we give it existence through our actions"

I think Diadochus sums up my position quite well, and I excerpted this from a lengthy post a few pages back.

[elliebean]

The argument goes more like this:

- God must simultaneously possess all of these attributes [pick a list of godlike attributes] to be considered God
- These attributes [refer to the list] are self-contradictory and/or mutually exclusive of each other
- All of these attributes cannot be held by a single entity at the same time
- Nothing that could exist can be considered God

And I think what iSok is saying (or at least what I think he is saying) is that only a being with omniscience can make this claim as you and I don't have the knowledge to make such a claim.  We, the animated mud from space dust, cannot simply claim to KNOW this by our limited knowledge.  We do agree our knowledge is limited, yes?  If this is what iSok IS saying, then on this one item we agree.

This is when the Christian's simple reply of, "Says the finite being." fits, but is also not very good as while it insinuates the above, it also provokes the other side of the argument to anger and disgust more than it promotes dialogue.  I am guilty of this.  

And yet some finite beings do somehow know enough to be able to make the claim that God does exist. Interesting.

If omniscience is required to even understand the argument, then everyone should be atheists or agnostics, except God.

[AnimatedDirt]

So, basically, your response to this is "We can't know that for sure"? I'm kind of confused here.

Don't be confused.  It's just to say that both you and I cannot be sure in our own finite knowledge.  (we are finite and our knowledge is limited, agreed?) If omni-all exists, then we, of non-omni-all cannot understand it fully.  We can only have our interpretations of these terms/characteristics.  If God exists, then He is all of these things (speaking of the Abrahamic God).  One has evidence that the other rejects, the other has his/her science and philosophies that disagree.  Absolute proof of God will either never come or come when He says He will be revealed.  Until then, BOTH of our stance remain in, for me, Faith, and for you, Conjecture.  We are without absolute proof on the matter of God and on His characteristics.

[TheJackel]

So, basically, your response to this is "We can't know that for sure"? I'm kind of confused here.

Don't be confused.  It's just to say that both you and I cannot be sure in our own finite knowledge.  (we are finite and our knowledge is limited, agreed?) If omni-all exists, then we, of non-omni-all cannot understand it fully.  We can only have our interpretations of these terms/characteristics.  If God exists, then He is all of these things (speaking of the Abrahamic God).  One has evidence that the other rejects, the other has his/her science and philosophies that disagree.  Absolute proof of God will either never come or come when He says He will be revealed.  Until then, BOTH of our stance remain in, for me, Faith, and for you, Conjecture.  We are without absolute proof on the matter of God and on His characteristics.

Again this fails to address separation of entities or minds. Claiming one to be infinite to where it would have to be existence itself while stating others as being finite makes no logical sense. And when your GOD can Know what it is to be me in total to the point of actually and literally being me AnimatedDirt, your argument of Omniscience is silly..Unless of course you want to call me GOD

Anyone want to Bow before your Jackel?