|
Post by estude on Oct 10, 2009 19:00:37 GMT -8
If God created everything, then God created evil, right? How could a loving God create evil?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 10, 2009 20:39:53 GMT -8
This question has come up with three different people I know lately. Must be a hot one right now.
No, I don't believe God created evil. Evil isn't a thing to be created, but merely the perversion of good. Evil isn't a thing on it's own. It is a dependent variable which would be simply meaningless without the existence of good. Good could exist without evil, but not evil without good.
By creating free will, God however did create the possibility of evil.
Does evil "exist"? Yes, but not on it's own.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Oct 19, 2009 17:31:00 GMT -8
God did not create good nor evil; both are interpretations of things that are otherwise indifferent. Good and Evil are mental projections.
However, there are some things that man does that goes against Nature. In that, it is MAN that does it. But God's will is always given out, as the future is constantly changing with decisions that people make- changing to always arrive at the same conclusion of the Millenium.
but if we were to assume that Good and Evil are both present and completely real (as opposed to mental projections and interpretations of indifferent happenings) then i would say that God did create evil. whether directly or indirectly he did create it.
i see evil and good as opposites, but i dont see god as either good or evil. good and evil both interact with each other to fulfill the plan of God, but god exists outside of the understanding of Good and Evil- he is the indifferent force from which they spring.
genesis I says that "God said 'let there be light, and there was light... and he seperated the light from the darkness." where did god ever create the darkness? he never did! but how did he seperate light from it? there are two answers:
1. darkness always existed; this cannot be true because the only thing without a cause is God then we would have to conclude that God is darkness, which he is not. or
2. in creating light, he automatically brought into being the polar opposite of it which is darkness. in creating day, night came into being. without beauty there can be no ugliness, without light there can be no dark.
light and dark dont describe God but describe the forces that are used seperate and distint, apart from god to carry out God's plan. God is indifferent, neither good nor evil. but he did create what we call "evil" and "good".
and what we call "evil or good" depends on what benefits us. it rains on the day we were supposed to go to the park, so we call that "bad." however, it raining is an indiffernt happening. the only reason we call it bad is because it does not benefit us. the concept of Good and Evil stem from ego, worrying about the I.
we are given the $20 that we needed to buy ourselves some groceriesby a man who just wants to be nice. we call that "good." but only because it benefits us.
however, we must also realize that there is a time when the idea of polar opposite "good" vs "evil" falls apart. moral ambiguity and good-evil ambiguiity is highly presnt in this world.
what if when it rained- something you called "bad'- it actually kept a man from driving because he was scared of driving in the rain, when if it had not have rained, he would have died from a drunk driver. now is it "good", "bad" or "both." and if you said, "okay now i see the rain as good," you proove my point that good and bad are only intretations of something.
good-evil ambiguity!
what if that man's $20 came from dealing drugs, and he gave you the money when he was high? what if those $20 bought a can of peanut butter that had salmonella in it and killed your kids?
moral ambiguity, and good-evil ambiguity.
so, as you can see, the question of whether God created evil depends on what is seen as evil which can be - since it is only an interpretation projected by the mental ego- pretty much anything in the world.
shalom
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 19, 2009 20:24:37 GMT -8
yeshuafreak wrote:
I could not disagree with you more fully.
Let's see, where to start?
First, with a slight point of agreement: I do not believe God created "good". He Himself is "good". He Himself is the standard by which we define "good".
Part of the problem with your analysis is that you are equating good with what is subjectively beneficial for the individual. But that isn't the utlimate biblical or logical definition of good*. If good is merely what is subjectively beneficial, then, as you've demonstrated, the term is useless.
But rather, if good is defined as that which comforms or complies with the attributes of God, then we must say that "good" is objective (whether or not in a given situation the "good" is difficult to determine).
There is no evil in God (though there may be things about him that we don't find pleasant):
1 John 1:5
This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.
There is moral ambiguity in whether a rainstorm is "good" or "bad". There is no moral ambiguity in God's eyes whether it is "good" or not to sacrifice your sons and daugther to Molech, to judge someone hypocritically, or to lust after someone else's wife.
Your perspective is much more in line with Eastern philosophy than the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition (or Plato for that matter).
*sometimes the word "evil" is used in Scripture of that which is merely "unpleasant" but most of the time the word evil refers to an objective reality, the opposite of that which is of God.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 19, 2009 20:33:11 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 20, 2009 14:53:45 GMT -8
Another verse that came to mind today as I was thinking about this: Psalm 92:15 "The LORD is upright; he is my Rock, and there is no wickedness in him."I realize that I've taking a stronger tone than normal in my response. That's probably because I think this idea is so fundamentally important. But I hope that doesn't squelch the conversation. You can fight me. I like some good rhetorical sparring as long as the punches are above the belt
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Oct 20, 2009 17:38:35 GMT -8
lol to your last post.
well... lets see. first: i definitely believe the eastern concept more fully than judeo-christian def of evil.
if evil is defined as the opposite of God, and good is seen as anything about God, than your definition is correct. agggh! i dont know how to phrase what i am trying to say. bbl.
shalom
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 20, 2009 18:02:51 GMT -8
Just curious- have you ever read C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity?
|
|
|
Post by robcantrell11 on Oct 21, 2009 10:03:27 GMT -8
I agree that God did not intentionally create evil, but He did create everything that is, including that which set itself over and against the good. If God had not set something apart from Himself, there would have been no evil. By creating that which could choose to set itself against His own goodness, ipso facto evil exists. It does not sound correct to say that God created evil, but His creation had the potentiality from the beginning.
Saying that God created evil is like saying I caused my sin nature. I was born with all capacity to good and evil, but it has always been my choice to be good or evil. We are made in his image[i/], so can we not say that the potential is there within Him as well, even though He would never choose evil because He is wholly good? God is the only true force in the Universe - there is nothing that is outside of God.* Where can we go that He is not?
In another post Josh brought up that I do not trust words. This is true, but only because language is a most imperfect medium for expressing eternal truths. Even calculus can only ever bring us in closer proximity to infinity. So, too, can words only describe and never fully define the divine nature of the Mind of God. Our little beliefs based on words are a limitation to us - a limitation that can only be surpassed through Love.
*(I envision Heaven and Hell to take up the same space - Heaven is experienced by those who have been atoned by the blood of the Lamb, so that God's presence is Paradise - and Hell is experienced by those who have not, so that God's presence is eternal separation from Him - eternal fire.)
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 21, 2009 14:30:22 GMT -8
RobC:
Interesting post.
Have to chew on it a bit.
A quick question: how does even the word "love" escape the limitation of words?
Yeshuafreak:
So, do you define "evil" as that which is inconvenient or that which is contrary to the nature of God?
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Oct 22, 2009 12:00:02 GMT -8
i do not define evil as that which is contrary to the nature of God. But if that were your definition than you could definitely say that God is wholly good.
i think that Good and Evil are opposites, but neither is opposite to God.
shalom
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Oct 22, 2009 12:02:27 GMT -8
Manly Hall, writer of The Secret Teachings of All Ages, stated that the english language is almost perfect in describing everything except spiritual and metaphysical truths, where it is lacking fully.
ekhart tolle, writer of A New Earth, said that words are stepping stones- to be left behind as quickly as possible, but needed to reach the goal.
shalom
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 22, 2009 18:46:00 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 23, 2009 18:35:44 GMT -8
yeshuafreak, could you provide me with your working definition of "evil" (you kinda touched on this, but not directly) beyond that you think it is a "mental projection"? In other words, what differentiates evil from other "mental projections".
Oh, and another thing: in your view, are there things that God hates?
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Oct 24, 2009 8:42:43 GMT -8
oh god this is getting complicated- but you asked! :-)
there is no diffrentiation. evil is an illussion of the mind, except in one case. this case involves humans.
humans are the only ones who can work evil by intending to cause discomfort on someone or something else. no other situation in the world means to cause you or anyone else discomfort. the twin towers- that can be defined as evil. the tsunami- that is NOT evil. that is an indifferent situation.
and even though humans have chosen to go against the path, every time we make an action contary to the Will of God, he rearranges and reforms his will so that action will lead to the same result as if his Will was never changed in the first place. (NOTE: note however, that this does not mean that we should sin (go against his Will) just so that grace may abound (him changing it to lead to a great utopia). how can i be dead to sin and still livve in it? how can i be a child of light and still live like a child of darkness?)
yes and no. i will use a teaching in hinduism to illustate this example.
in hindusim, brahman is incomprehensible, eternal in every aspect, beyond comprehension. this is called Nirguna Brahman.
however, when we try to understand the ineffable deity Brhaman, we knowlingly project our limitations on him. we assign him attributes and no matter how hard we try not to, our understanding of Brahman and our interpretation of him will always end up being quite human,
this God will attributes is called saguna brahman. and also Ishvara
i do not believe that Saguna God hates anything- he is incomprehensable. However, Ishvara- our mental projection of him- can hate things, love things, be male or female, etc.
So yes and no. i do not beleive that trying to interpret God is wrong, so i believe that every Ishvara is correct, or rather, incorrect for they are all imperfect representations of Saguna.
shalom
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 3, 2009 11:16:26 GMT -8
yeshuafreak:
I don't have a ton of disagreement with this except that I wouldn't use the phrase "evil is an illusion" because most of the time when humans think of evil it is the kind involving humans (or free will entities- I'm not going to leave out evil spiritual forces here).
Christian philosophers have dealt with this distinction for centuries, using terms like
"moral evil" vs. "natural evil" where natural evil is a subjective, unintentional evil such as a tsunami or cancer. The reason Christian philosophers still call it an evil is because humans wouldn't presumably be experiencing it except for the fall of man.
This is a bold statement on an age-old dilemma. I'm not going to gripe with it except to say that predestination is no cake-walk topic, of course.
Be back...
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 3, 2009 11:37:20 GMT -8
This reminds me of C.S. Lewis' "preface to all prayers":
"The prayer preceding all prayers is 'May it be the real I who speaks. May it be the real Thou that I speak to'"
and his "footnote to all prayers":
"Take not, oh Lord, our literal sense. Lord, in Thy great, unbroken speech Our limping metaphor translate"
Still, I think that in Jesus, God has manifested himself in a unique way. Jesus is the "express image" of God, as Paul says. God, in Jesus, experienced what it means to be "quite human". Jesus' metaphors for God can be trusted: God is our father, God is judge, etc..
How are you to decide not to trust God's own words* that He hates certain things? How do you know that when Scripture says God hates something it is not part of "saguna god" but only our mental projection? What becomes the arbiter of which is which? Your personal preference or philosophical mold?
*sort of a rhetorical question because I know you doubt that much of Scripture is really "God's words". But, again, how do you know which parts are God's words and which parts aren't?
|
|