Daylight Atheism > Little-Known Bible Verses V: God Creates Evil

Little-Known Bible Verses V: God Creates Evil

The passage that today's edition of "Little-Known Bible Verses" will examine is, if I say so myself, one of the most shocking in the entire Bible. In a book that contains talking snakes and donkeys, a man taking two of every living species to survive a flood in a wooden boat, and a god who hates pillows, shrimp, mixed fabrics, and fig trees for some reason, that is no mean feat, but I believe this verse lives up to that promise.

The problem of evil has vexed Christian theologians for nearly two millennia, burdening them with the impossible task of explaining how so much evil and suffering could exist in a cosmos overseen by an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good deity. A wide variety of answers have been proposed to this problem, all of which are as imaginative as they are insufficient. But all this scholarly ink need not have been spilled: the Bible itself tells Jews and Christians exactly where evil comes from.

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

—Isaiah 45:7

There you have it, folks - straight, as it were, from the horse's mouth. Evil exists because God created it. All you theologians can pack it in and go home now.

Of course, the story does not end there. The translators of many modern Bible editions, aware of the unsettling implications this verse holds for their faith, have attempted to soften the blow by translating it in a more palatable way. The New International Version, for example, has this passage say that God creates "disaster", while the English Standard Version has it as "calamity", and the Revised Standard Version says "woe". The Message translation creatively renders this verse as "I make harmonies and create discords".

Although these alternate translations wouldn't seem to solve much, they are still not as faithful to the original Hebrew than the KJV's unflinching translation. The Hebrew word translated by the KJV writers as "evil" in Isaiah 45:7 is "ra", and from textual evidence, it is clear that in the Bible this word does mean evil in a moral sense. Here are some of the other contexts in which it is used:

In Genesis 2:17, God instructs Adam and Eve not to eat from "the tree of good and ra". The tree of good and disaster? The tree of good and calamity? Clearly not: it is the tree of good and evil.
In Genesis 6:5, God resolves to destroy humankind in the great flood because "the wickedness (ra) of man was great in the earth".
In Genesis 13:13, the men of Sodom were "wicked (ra) and sinners before the Lord exceedingly".
In Deuteronomy 1:35, a furious God threatens the Israelites, "Surely there shall not one of these men of this evil (ra) generation see that good land, which I sware to give unto your fathers."
In Judges 2:11, "the children of Israel did evil (ra) in the sight of the Lord, and served Baalim".
In 1 Kings 16:30, the wicked king Ahab (husband of the infamous Jezebel) "did evil (ra) in the sight of the Lord above all that were before him".

These and many other references make it clear that the primary meaning of ra is indeed evil in the sense of wickedness or sin. For believers who hold to the textual inerrancy of the Bible, therefore, there is no choice but to admit that God created evil. And in a way, this makes a great deal of sense. If an all-powerful, all-knowing god created everything, what other explanation for evil could there be, other than that he caused it?

Even the Bible's theology bears this out. The text offers numerous occasions where God could have intervened to turn events to good and chose not to. He could, for example, have obliterated Satan and the rebel angels entirely, or at the very least confined them to Hell and not allowed them to escape, so that they could never have escaped to lead humanity into temptation. And God's behavior in the whole Eden affair, in any case, smacks strongly of either extreme incompetence or deliberate malice - not least, his choice to transmit the curse of original sin to all subsequent generations rather than letting every human start off with a morally clean slate.

Less-literalist believers might say that the imputation of evil to God is just textual corruption in the Bible, the product of fallible humans and not a divine revelation. And while this explanation might help the cause of theodicy, it can only do so at the cost of hugely undermining the Bible itself. After all, if God would allow as basic and fundamental a distortion of his nature as this, for what reason should we believe that the Bible reflects any of his words? If the biography of some great human being contained a distortion as blatantly slanderous as this, by attributing to that person an attitude that is totally contrary to all they believed and stood for, would it be wise or prudent to simply disregard that passage and then continue to trust the rest of the book as accurate?

The attribution of evil to God's handiwork, while it may solve the problem of theodicy, raises an even more difficult question for Jews and Christians in its place. Namely, why would such a deity be worthy of our belief? Why would any believer want to worship a god who accepts responsibility for evil and suffering? Because he's the most powerful and will punish people who don't do what he says? But what assurance would we have that the afterlife is not also a place of torment and sorrow, even for the good?

This is a nightmare of a dilemma for anyone to have to face. Fortunately, there is another way out: the door that opens onto atheism. It is in our power to cast aside these bleak and malevolent fantasies, and to recognize that the specters that menace us are illusions of our own imagination. They have no more reality or substance than shadows, and are just as easily dispelled by the light.

For those who wish to cease the futile obsession with the words of ancient texts and face reality as it truly is, the gate is open and the path is clear. There are no gods, no devils or angels, no heaven or hell. There is only us, human beings, living together in the natural world. Once we recognize this, the next step - a lifelong step - is to forsake fantasy, treat others with kindness and make the most of the one life we are fortunate to have.

Other posts in this series:

Little-Known Bible Verses

96 Comments

I was looking up some of the parallels in the Koran for this general idea that God causes or creates evil, and could not recall, nor find, an exact statement to that effect. (The proposition could be assumed, though, as with the Bible, that Allah created everything, including evil). A similar proposition is that Allah deliberately leads people astray, actually causes people to disbelieve or facilites their disbelief, and then punishes them for it.

19:83 (Hilali-Khan) “See you not that We have sent the Shayatin (devils) against the disbelievers to push them to do evil.”

(There are some differences in wording in the translations of this, so I had a look at some mainstream, classical explications [tafsirs] of the verse

al-Jalalayn, 19:83. "Have you not regarded that We unleash the devils against, We have set them upon, the disbelievers to urge them, to incite them to [commit] acts of disobedience, impetuously?"

Ibn Abbas, 19:83. "(Seest thou not) have you not been informed, O Muhammad, (that We have set the devils on the disbelievers to confound them with confusion) they forcefully drive them to disobey Allah and strongly entice them to do so?"

Similar sentiments are conveyed in other verses.

2:6 (Pickthall) “As for the Disbelievers, Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they believe not. 2:7. Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom.”

6:39. (Shakir). And they who reject Our communications are deaf and dumb, in utter darkness; whom Allah pleases He causes to err and whom He pleases He puts on the right way.

6:125. (Pickthall) And whomsoever it is Allah's will to guide, He expandeth his bosom unto the Surrender*, and whomsoever it is His Will to send astray, He maketh his bosom close and narrow as if he were engaged in sheer ascent. Thus Allah layeth ignominy upon those who believe not.

*The Islamic religion.

2:126. (Pickthall). “And when Abraham prayed: My Lord! Make this a region of security and bestow upon its people fruits, such of them as believe in Allah and the Last Day, He answered: As for him who disbelieveth, I shall leave him in contentment for a while, then I shall compel him to the doom of Fire - a hapless journey's end!”

7:27 (Pickthall). “O Children of Adam! Let not Satan seduce you as he caused your (first) parents to go forth from the Garden and tore off from them their robe (of innocence) that he might manifest their shame to them. Lo! he seeth you, he and his tribe, from whence ye see him not. Lo! We have made the devils protecting friends for those who believe not.”

4:88 (Shakir). “What is the matter with you, then, that you have become two parties about the hypocrites, while Allah has made them return (to unbelief) for what they have earned? Do you wish to guide him whom Allah has caused to err? And whomsoever Allah causes to err, you shall by no means find a way for him.”

92:8. (Shakir) “And as for him who is niggardly and considers himself free from need (of Allah), 92:9. And rejects the best, 92:10. We will facilitate for him the difficult end.”

The idea that Allah created evil seems to be dealt with by apologists through claiming that Allah only uses the evil to test people's faith--again, similar to what Christian apologists might say in response to Ebonmuse's above article. The links below provide a couple of Muslim interpretations of the proposition that Allah created evil:

http://islamtoday.com/showme2.cfm?cat_id=35&sub_cat_id=740
“However, Allah created evil as well as good, unbelief as well as faith.”

http://islamicweb.com/beliefs/creed/abdulwahab/KT1-chap-57.htm
“There is no contradiction here, for what is meant by the latter Hadith is that, while Allah created evil and ordained it, He does not do evil. It may be said that when Allah ordains evil for a person, it is only evil from the point of view of that person, for it is an affliction sent to him because of some sins he has committed; however, in Allah's Sight, it is not an evil, for it represents Allah's Wisdom, Justice and Knowledge”

Comment by: Archi Medez | January 21, 2007, 9:01 pm

When I was still a Christian, vereses like these were incredibly difficult to just rationalize away. I'm glad that I don't have to anymore...

Comment by: Christopher | January 22, 2007, 12:16 am

Just to play the devil's advocate; the preceding verses of that chapter are addressed to Cyrus of Persia. Essentially God tells Cyrus that He is going to use Cyrus to accomplish His purpose. The implication used by apologists is that God arranges for wars to happen as part of his plan; to punish the Hebrews for screwing up (which they had a knack for), in this case.

Comment by: Stephen | January 22, 2007, 12:24 am

Accidently hit submit before I was done! What they're getting at is that God wasn't talking about evil in general; just wars that He decided to use to accomplish his will. Whenever they bring this up,I reply with John 1:3 -- " 3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

Comment by: Stephen | January 22, 2007, 12:30 am

In other words, the God of the Bible and the Quran is kinky. He purposely creats evil so he can punish his people. That means the whole "Eden Affair" was a set-up from the beginning. The deity creats a garden in which he puts a man and a woman who probably have the mentality of adolescents, tells them not to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil," and then gets mad and punishes them by throwing them out of the garden sentencing them to death and cursing every generation of from then on.

This not unlike the some adult relationships whereby one partner assumes the role of the child and the other assumes that of the parent. The "child" is allowed to misbehave on purpose, eliciting punishment from the "parent." That is quite kinky. It makes me wonder about the about the poeple who believe in that this deity; and what is this obsession of theirs for corporal correction of their offspring.

Comment by: Guitar Eddier | January 22, 2007, 8:34 am

Cool, I've had xians come back at me with "it really should be translated as 'calamity', not 'evil'" and so on, and while suspecting that was a big smokescreen, didn't know just how to combat it. The "tree of good and ra..." That works.

One minor nitpick:

> The attribution of evil to God's handiwork, while it
> may solve the problem of theodicy, raises an even more
> difficult question for Jews and Christians in its place.
> Namely, why would such a deity be worthy of our *belief*?
(emphasis mine)

This seems a weird thing to say. If one of the major objections to belief is that God is supposed to all-good, yet evil exists, removing the assumption that he's all good only makes the thing more believable, not less, right? If something is evil, why would that make it unworthy of belief? Unworthy of worship, sure, but unworthy of belief? Just because it's evil? I don't think you can argue it both ways.

Granted, there are a ton of other reasons that Christianity makes no sense at all.

There's an obnoxious, specious line of argument which some Christians use that goes like this:

God refuses to reveal himself to atheists because even if he did, they would not follow him, or would follow only out of fear, so there is no point in him revealing himself to them, and it is better that he should remain hidden from them.

Saying things like "Such an evil god is not worthy of worship" may fuel the confidence of such Christians, but since their confidence is based on a specious argument, there's probably no avoiding it.

Comment by: SteveC | January 22, 2007, 9:18 am

I do find it interesting that some Christians do have that belief that God doesn’t want to bother showing himself to atheists because well, it’d just be worthless. For an omniscient, omnipotent, omni-benevolent being, God sure has some limitations.

It’s even more interesting when you can show that God does in fact choose who believes in him and created the rest of us just to be tortured for all eternity. Ah, sadism, isn’t it grand?

Acts 13:48
Romans 8:28-30
Ephesians 1:4-6
Revelations 13:7-8
Romans 9

Comment by: andrea | January 22, 2007, 12:53 pm

Fascinating. I'd never heard of that verse before.

Comment by: SM | January 22, 2007, 5:29 pm

This seems a weird thing to say. If one of the major objections to belief is that God is supposed to all-good, yet evil exists, removing the assumption that he's all good only makes the thing more believable, not less, right? If something is evil, why would that make it unworthy of belief? Unworthy of worship, sure, but unworthy of belief? Just because it's evil? I don't think you can argue it both ways.

You're right, and I apologize. That was a bad choice of wording - I meant "worship", not "believe". Whether God is morally good or not doesn't bear either way on whether there's evidence for such a being's existence. It does bear on whether we'd want to follow that being even if it did exist.

God refuses to reveal himself to atheists because even if he did, they would not follow him, or would follow only out of fear, so there is no point in him revealing himself to them, and it is better that he should remain hidden from them.

That line of apologetics can be effectively countered by pointing out that in the Bible, God often does reveal himself to people who do not believe in him, as I wrote in "One More Burning Bush".

Comment by: Ebonmuse | January 22, 2007, 7:32 pm

An interesting approach to the problem of evil is to look at this life as the "Pre-life" and the "afterlife" as "life" as opposed to looking at this life as "life" and what comes next as the "afterlife". Perhaps this is a praparation, a necessity, to make what comes next, "real life" possible.

I can't think of any good way to test this theory. It is a metaphysical construct. I guess the only way to test it is to die. So I guess we will all just have to find out for sure on our own.

Good article Ebonmuse. I liked it. Strong's Exhausive Concordance of the Bible is a good reference for looking at the various connotations of Hebrew and Greek words. It is incredibly inexpensive. I picked up a copy for $25. It really helps make our english translations more meaningful.

Matt R.

Comment by: Matt R | January 23, 2007, 7:47 am

"That line of apologetics can be effectively countered by pointing out that in the Bible, God often does reveal himself to people who do not believe in him, as I wrote in "One More Burning Bush"."

Well, whether it is *effectively* countered depends on what effect you want the countering to have. If you want it to have the effect of causing the Christian to concede defeat on this point, well, it may not be all *that* effective. :D

I'm trying to remember the argument I'm thinking of, but it was a long time ago. Went something like this: God is by definition good, whatever he does, no matter how evil seeming, it is in reality good. God doesn't reveal himself to atheists, because he knows they wouldn't follow him, because he knows they don't consider him to be good enough. Questions were put, along the lines of "If God revealed himself, asserted that all the bad stuff in say, Numbers 31 occurred just as written, and that this was good, but you're not permitted to understand why it is good but must trust that it is good, -- and this demand for trust is also good -- would you worship this God, and do so for reasons other than fear? No? I thought not. etc." I just remember a many many page thread on Christianforums with this argument being made, twisting and turning, but never conceding. Basically the the Christian's assertions amounted to an unfalsifiable (and of course unsubstantiated) premise, and involve the worshipping of an apparently evil God who claims to be good and demands faith on this point, despite appearances, and it's no good being scared into worshipping.

I don't think there are very many Christians with ideas like that, but there are a few.

Comment by: SteveC | January 23, 2007, 12:41 pm

MattR:

The "approach" you mention seems like philosophical white flaggery. You've just conceded the field.

And doesn't it disturb you in the least to see Christianity as a sort of spiritual Vichy regime?

Comment by: schemanista | January 23, 2007, 11:51 pm

Schemanista,

The term "Christianity" has taken on so many different connotations that it is hardly useful anymore. When you say, "I am a Christian", you may be Roman Catholic, fundamental protestant, Jehovah's witness, or Mormon. These four different groups classify themselves as "Christian" yet have an amazing diversity of actual beliefs. For example, fundamental protestants believe in a fiery hell (for the most part), but Jehovah's witnesses don't even believe there is a Hell and all "sinners" simply disappear. Jehovah's witnesses believe that most people will live forever on earth, and Mormons believe in three levels of heaven in the afterlife and an "outer darkness" for "bad" people.

My point is this: What I believe may be very different from what you suppose I believe when I say "I am a Christian". The interesting part about this is that I never even said that I was a Christian. It is an assumption you made. Your assumption is correct, and this reflects well on your intuition.

I do not say "I am a Christian" very often because it is such an ambiguous term and conjures up such negative connotations in some people's minds that they shut me out before they take the time to find out who I really am and what I really believe.

You might suppose that I, as a Christian, believe that I am the only one who has it figured out and everyone else will suffer eternal fire.

You would be wrong. I find most of the questions that most Christians try to answer cannot be answered with any real degree of certainty. I can speculate, but most of my ideas are just that-speculation.

I do not have a problem with innovative ideas about God because I believe that God will be God no matter what I think or believe. He is or he is not there. Nothing I say or believe will change that. The only thing my beliefs determine is how I live my life. I have chosen to believe there is a good God because it seems rational for me to do so. It has helped me live a good life and I am quite fulfilled. Mine is a religion of practicality. It works so I do it. I truly beleive that Jesus is God, but this is based on reason too, not some silly blind faith.

I belive that my ideas about God are rational and If you would like to question me about them, I will answer as best I can. I do not wish to persuade you to believe anything you do not want to believe. I think that is unrealistic and most likely impossible.

I hope this clarifies my approach to discussion in this forum.

Respectfully,

Matt R

Comment by: Matt R | January 24, 2007, 12:49 pm

Hi Matt. Thanks for the clarification.

With regards to the theodicy issue that Ebon raises, I understood your response to be an essential agreement with the point he raises: that God is directly responsible for the existence of evil. You seem to propose that this life is a dress rehearsal for the next and I was trying to call your attention to some of the ramifications of that.

If Christian thinkers, however you identify them, concede that Isaiah 45:7 torpedoes the theodicies, then they (and you) seem to be in an interesting position. The Christian God deliberately created evil. Worshipping a God like this for the expressed purpose of attaining the afterlife seems like a morally bankrupt foundation for one's existence. But without what Ebon calls 'The Eneffible Carrot and the Infinite Stick', what other reason do you have to worship this God? And if the reason to worship God is that you hope for a present under your metaphorical Christmas tree that's hardly the life of selfless devotion that perennial Christianity seems to exhort.

Comment by: schemanista | January 25, 2007, 12:07 pm

Schemanista,

Thank you for the clarification. I now fully understand your meaning. It is a good point. The problem of evil is poigniant for the very fact that God is amost universally seen as the creator of everything. Because evil falls into the realm of everything, God is responsible. So this puts me in a VERY strange situation. I somehow believe that not only did God create everything, but he is somehow good! I truly do not blame you for shaking your head slowly as you ponder the depth of my delusion! :)

My theodicy works in my head. I think if I was able to download my hard drive into your head, it would make sense to you. I cannot do that, so I will use language to convey my ideas to the best of my abilities.

Furthermore let me clarify by saying that my "theodicy" is completely imaginary as far as I know. It is a metaphysical construct designed to illustrate the possibility of a good creator God coexisting with "evil" in his creation.

There are, as you know, generally two categories of "evil". There is natural "evil", that which is outside of the control of men and there is human evil which springs from the choices that people make. Clearly if humans have free will (a commonly accepted notion) then the evil that springs from then is not directly linked to God, it is direcly linked to humans. Of course God is indirectly responsible because he created the humans. Here is where it gets weird. If God hadn't created humans, there wouldn't be any humans to do anything good or bad. None of us would have ever lived. So we cannot be mad at God for creating us. So maybe we can be mad that he made us with the capability of doing "evil". Ok, now we are getting somewhere. I think free will is possible only if all avenues are open to the "chooser". So to have real true free will, all avenues, even "evil" ones have to be open. So your next question is "why doesn't God just shut down the "Evil" choices and produce a paradise on earth. What is so great about absolute free will if it only brings about evil? Well if there is no greater purpose for absolute free will then I suppose it is arbitrary and cruel to give us this free will that we use to hurt each other (see how we like to blame others for our choices? Me included!).

So I think that there must be a greater purpose for absolute free will. I propose that it is so that God could experience love. Unless his creations could actually choose to not love him, they could not be reasonably said to love him. A creature without a choice does not love, it just does what it does. It may APPEAR to love, it may act like it loves, but it is, in reality, just doing the only thing it is capable of doing. It would be like me saying, what a nice rock! It never mocks anyone! Well, the rock isn't nice because it is not capable of mocking anyone.

So maybe God is selfish for wanting love, but maybe not. I cannot imagine existence without love. That would be hell. (figuratively speaking...as far as I know)

So I think God gave us free will so that we could be said to truly love God and God himself would know that we truly love him. I think that this results in bad things on this temporary earth, but these things are temporary and will be mended. I think God is justified in wanting to experience true love. I have experienced love and it is wonderful.

So what about natural evil? That which people do not cause? Well, this discussion hinges on the definition of evil. If a limb falls on my car I could say that it is evil, but if I was about to pull out and get in a fatal car accident I would say that it was good. Now, I am not suggesting that all "natural evil" is actually a great ploy to prevent even greater evil (although I suppose it is possible, I just don't know if it is probable). I am trying to illustrate that often that which is "evil" is subject to perspective.

One suffers when training for sports. The pain feels bad and is "evil". But it works toward a greater good. Therefore I propose that this earth is here for a greater good. There is suffering here but it is necessary to create that which is impossible-

A paradise that is free of evil but still preserves love. Now I just told you before that it is impossible to have real love without absolute free will. This is true, so you may think that "heaven" that has love and no evil is impossible. It is not. I have to go now because I have a prior engagement. I will return later and finish this up. Please just think about what I have said so far. Let me finish my idea and then you can start asking questions.

Thank you for your time,

Matt R

Comment by: Matt R | January 25, 2007, 12:45 pm

It is impossible for God, on his own, to create love. There must be choosing being in order for true love to exist.

The problem with choice is that it can lead to evil. So... God created this life for us to choose whether to give up the part of us that can choose against God. If we are willing to give that up, God can change us into a being that can choose anything except evil. This preserves love because the being freely chose to give up part of it's free will, a genuine expression of love. Those beings who choose to give up their ability to choose evil will populate heaven. Therefore heaven with love and without evil is theoretically possible.

Whether it is actually possible is another matter entirely. I suppose the only way to test it is to die. I will get around to doing it someday, but I think that it may be some time from now. Until then I just keep living and enjoying discussing ideas with complete strangers on the internet! :)

Cheers,

Matt R.

P.S. As far as I know, I invented this idea. If it is not original, please let me know the source so I can read it and reference it in any published work I create.

Comment by: Matt R | January 25, 2007, 3:18 pm

Thanks. It looks as if I was mistaken on this passage.

Comment by: John W. Loftus | January 25, 2007, 4:07 pm

If God is supposed to be complete, why would he need love?

And free will based on either believe in me/love me, or be consigned to torture for eternity? Not very free is it? except to the few who are either brave enough or crazy enough to resist such a fate.

And heaven is supposed to be just us adulating God. Where's the free will in that? Will I be able to choose not to, assuming I get there? I guess not from what you say about God "changing" us. Then I can't truly love and I'm kicked out of heaven?

Comment by: andrea | January 25, 2007, 4:17 pm

Andrea,

Thanks for your feedback. Your questions are good and I will answer them as best I can.

If God is supposed to be complete, why would he need love?

I do not have any reason to believe that God is or is not complete in and of himself. From my perspective, sitting around by onesself is dull. If God is anything like me then I expect he would want other thinking beings around. If God is complete in and of himself, it seems silly that he would create anything at all. I would think he would just sit around and be happy. To put it another way: When I am content I do not go out of my way to change the situation. If I am surfing and the waves are perfect, I do not look for another place to surf, I stay where I am until I am late for what I was supposed to be going to. So if God was complete and happy the way he was without us or the universe or anything, I would expect him to keep things the way they are and not go to the effort of creating everything.

And free will based on either believe in me/love me, or be consigned to torture for eternity? Not very free is it?

I would say that due to the ambiguity of God, you have utterly free will. You do not believe in hell, Andrea, therefore it is not an effective means of coercion. You have utter free will to believe what your want about God and the universe and reality as a whole. I would also say that I see no rational reason to believe that those who do not choose God must be punished for eternity. Maybe they go somewhere else that is away from God. Maybe they just disappear. This last one wouldn't be too bad because that is what some people expect to happen anyway. I have even known people to say that they want to disappear when they are dead because the idea of living forever is tiring. One person even went so far as to say that he would be "miffed" if there turned out to be an afterlife and he was cheated out of oblivion! So it seems that some people, at least, like the concept of just disappearing.

And heaven is supposed to be just us adulating God.

I certainly do not presume to know what heaven is supposed to be or even what it is like. My ideas are just that. Ideas. They may or may not reflect reality. They are intended to show possibility, not certainty.

Where's the free will in that?

There can only be free will if you freely choose to do it. Presumably, if you have arrived in heaven, you love God and interested in what he has for you. Again, I could be wrong, I am just trying to be consistent and rational in my ideas.

Will I be able to choose not to, assuming I get there? I guess not from what you say about God "changing" us. Then I can't truly love and I'm kicked out of heaven?

In my hypothetical portrayal of heaven, you would already have chosen to love God before arriving in heaven. In effect, by choosing God, you also choose to give up the ability to not love him. I have proposed this choice as the admittance critera for a hypothetical perfect afterlife in which love can exist in the absence of evil. Again, I think the construct works but I can neither prove nor disprove it. As far as I know it is not open to verification. The point of creating it is to develop a scenario in which a good God can exist with the suffering and so forth that we observe in our world today.

Thank you for your time,

Matt R.

P.S. I hope your questions were not rhetorical. I would feel silly writing all these words if you did not want an answer after all! :)

Comment by: Matt R | January 25, 2007, 5:49 pm

Matt, I'm curious, and this is an honest question: Why go through all these mental gymnastics to figure out a way for there to be a deity of some form or another that doesn't conflict with reality when there are much simpler answers out there?

I guess that could be simplified to "What is the basis of your belief?" Sorry if you've answered something like this somewhere else already, I do tend to have a poor memory sometimes.

Comment by: Nes | January 25, 2007, 7:27 pm

Hi MattR:

Again, thank you for your posts. I won't be able to get very far in any discussion about your theological interpretations because, for me, the conversation can't progress beyond the issue of free will.

To wit: I don't think there's any such thing as contra-causal free will. Cognitive science certainly can't find it, and perennial philosophy's dependance on it introduces all kinds of strange loops into epistemology. The resources at http://www.naturalism.org do a better job of explaining this than I could ever hope.

In addition, you also depend on the survival of conscious identity after the death of the physical body. Ebon puts this idea to bed in The Ghost in the Machine. I highly recommend it.

I'd also like to point out that, even as you emphatically insist on the necessity of contra-causal free will, you've reduced your God to a deterministic entity, or at least it reads that way to me. No wonder YWHW didn't want Adam and Eve to have the "power of knowing good from evil". They had Free Will™ and He didn't!

The idea of an asymptotically-omnipotent supernatural-yet-deterministic being seems ridiculous on its face. Please don't take this as disrespect, but have you really thought this through?

Comment by: schemanista | January 26, 2007, 12:08 pm

Nes,

You pose a good question that every person should ask themselves frequently. “What convinces me to accept my beliefs as truth?” it is a very good question indeed.

I have considered this often and developed another question to help me answer this question. It is, “What fact or observation, if taken away, would most likely cause me to change my mind about God?” This question cuts to the heart of the matter. It trims away the biological theories, the sociological observations, the metaphysical speculations and leaves me with the foundation of my belief. I find that after considerable self-reflection, my foundation my belief in God is experimentation and experience.

Simply put, someone told me that following Jesus (whom I equate with God) would have a positive impact on my life. So I tried following Jesus and it had a positive impact in my life. This lead me to trust that there is truth in the words of Jesus. Allow me to clarify what I mean by the term positive experience. The sum total of all my perspectives, attitudes, emotions, actions, desires, and aspirations is better from a moral and practical standpoint after I followed Jesus than before. I do not mean to say that I simply get a warm happy feeling at church. Jesus has performed a revolution in my life. The old Matt is gone and in his place is a new Matt, happier, full of peace, more loving, more considerate and thoughtful. I enjoy life more, I have more fun, I do not give or receive offense as easily as I did before. I feel like I connect with people better now. I feel like I can see life more clearly now. I no longer fear other people and their attitudes and beliefs, I can open myself to them and interact with them openly and genuinely. Something has happened to me. It is real and it is wonderful.

If I had tried following Jesus and experienced nothing, then I think that I would be inclined to strongly doubt the truth of his words. Jesus makes some very bold and unlikely claims about himself and reality. If I had not experienced anything, then I would have almost certainly not followed Jesus.

With that being said, I undergo “mental gymnastics” because my mind is an active one, and I like to keep it limber. I enjoy discussions on theology and logic, so I go to forums where I can have meaningful discussion with people who have different perspectives and beliefs. This is one form of recreation for me. I continue to come here because I have had very good exchanges with several posters here and I anticipate more.

Thank you for your question, Nes, I hope my answer is adequate.

Cheers,

Matt R

Comment by: Matt R | January 26, 2007, 12:16 pm

While that would not be sufficient for me to start believing (though it would certainly be enough to make me wonder and start questioning/researching), I do understand it. Thanks Matt.

Comment by: Nes | January 26, 2007, 5:22 pm

Schamanista,

I have not intentionally reduced God to a deterministic entity. If my comment reads that way, it was poor communication on my part. I believe that God can and does choose. May I ask what part of my post made you think that I believed in a deterministic entity for God?

I think I understand your point about counter-causal free will. I do not intend to suggest that counter-causal free will is necessary for love.

Regarding persisting conciousness after death, I do not know how one would verify or refute its existence. As I stated before, I do not see how this is open for validation. I view this as a neutral point becuase it neither supports nor undermines my argument. I will say that it seems rather bold to suppose that we have already measured and described all phenomena that exist in the universe and that which has never been observed cannot possibly be. Perhaps what I have called "metaphysical" is nothing more than an extension of physical reality that we do not perceive until death.

Cheers,

Matt R

Comment by: Matt R | January 26, 2007, 6:01 pm

Your blog contains great material that I'm using for my Daily Bible Readings blog. I plan on posting a different passage from the Bible for the entire year in an attempt to show the ridiculousness of believing the Bible to be the "Word of God." I am, however, approaching it from a perspective of truth :)

Comment by: Roopster | January 27, 2007, 2:40 pm

For a few posters above: Yes, christianity has taken on a new meaning. While this is completely not what this original post had in mind I'll go on a tiny rant.

Christianity is made of THOUSANDS of demoninations. Each of these demoninations believes something differently because of how vague the bible is. The bible clearly states many and sometimes frankly absurd things to get into heaven. Unfortunately, I doubt if any denomination practices all of them... so it most definately means almost no one will ever get there (according to the bible)

The bible clearly states we:
1. Must become like little children.
2. Be Born Again.
3. Not be Rich.
4. Believe in God.
5. Be Baptized.

The 1st 2 seem impossible and are clearly up to interpretation. And people like Oprah don't pay attention to #3. (Sorry Oprah, you're not getting there.)

Some denominations violate clear rules that state women can't be priests (thankfully) but that goes directly against the old testament. And certainly no one practices even a remote few of the law anymore except for homosexuals.

To the real post response:
God created evil. I compare this, which I wrote on another blog, to god being omnipotent. Even IF the bible never directly he created evil, you have to assume that anyway.
-God being omnipotent had to know that the world he was going to create was going to have evil. Otherwise he's not omnipotent.
-God being all-powerful, could've created a world without evil or he could use his all-powerfulness to vanquish evil in one foul swoop. But he doesn't. He could've created a utopia where no one dies of starvation or ebola in africa. Etc.
-He could've stopped Hitler and Stalin(Though, I truely see nothing different between God and Hitler) or any other calamaties.

Anyway, just a small rant.

Comment by: jake3988 | January 27, 2007, 9:10 pm

Jake3988,

Out of curiosity, what makes you think that God is omnipotent?

Matt R.

Comment by: Matt R | January 27, 2007, 9:56 pm

Matt, my life became better after I became an atheist, so your life seeming better to you after believing in Jesus proves nothing.

Comment by: Tommykey | January 27, 2007, 11:07 pm

Matt: we may be using different definitions of "deterministic". I'm using the generally-accepted range of philosophical definitions. You seem to say that God is somehow incomplete and this incompleteness causes, in some unspecified manner, a desire to enter into relationships with created beings. If that ain't determinism, then I don't know what is.

The obverse, and "usual" interpretation is that God willed the universe into existence, but God is, as we are supposed to be, causa sui---his own first cause, which is one of the attributes of His presumed omnipotence.

As far as the survival of consciousness past death, I think you didn't read Ebon's essay since it addresses your point exactly. If, as The Ghost in the Machine demonstrates, consciousness does not survive death, then all of your suppositions about an afterlife are moot. I also refer you to Owen Flanagan's The Problem of the Soul: Two visions of mind and how to reconcile them.

Finally: the bit about

I will say that it seems rather bold to suppose that we have already measured and described all phenomena that exist in the universe and that which has never been observed cannot possibly be. Perhaps what I have called "metaphysical" is nothing more than an extension of physical reality that we do not perceive until death.

... rather misses my point. One doesn't need to exhaustively disprove (since that's demonstrably impossible) a proposition. On the other hand, if there's no indication that consciousness pre-exists or post-dates biological death, then it's entirely appropriate to dismiss notions such as the "soul" and the "afterlife". That's where I'm coming from. Again, I refer you to the above-linked essay, to Flanagan's excellent book, to Daniel M. Wegner's The Illusion of Conscious Will, and the resources at naturalism.org for extended discussions of this issue.

Comment by: schemanista | January 29, 2007, 1:31 pm

Tommykey, Matt

Perhaps the truth is has more to do with growing up, making your own decisions and no longer feeling obliged to go along with the beliefs of those around you, with whom you may not necessarily agree.

At some stage in most people's lives they gain the confidence to do what they feel is right and nevermind what anyone else thinks.

Freedom of belief (in whatever direction you take it) is likely to have positive effects on your feelings of well-being and make you a nicer person.

Comment by: James Bradbury | January 29, 2007, 2:01 pm

Schemanista,

Thank you for your ideas and remarks, and for taking the time to reply to me. I did not read "The Ghost in the Machine" in it's entirety. I have a fairly comprehensive understanding of basic neurological functioning and I understand that science has explained many of the phenomena that once were attributed to "the soul".

Let me clarify something that will facilitate positive interactions between us in future posts and comments. I do not intend, by logic or cunning, to force you or trick you into believing something that you do not desire to believe. My purposes here are to discuss my ideas with people who have a radically different perspective on life in order to try and establish a better perspective on live within myself.

I recognize the possibility that my conception of God does not exist. I also recognize the possibility that God of any kind does not exist. Based on my life experience I think God is there and he is good. It is my perogative as a being who can assign meaning to things. It is also your perogative to believe that he is not there or that if he is there, he is bad. I respect that perogative.

With that being said, almost all areas of human behavior can be attributed to physical structures found within the brain. I say "almost" only because science in its current state of knowledge has not fully explained human consciousness. I recognize this and I do not dispute it. I do not care if there is or is not evidence for a "soul". It is very possible for my theoretical explanation of the problem of evil to work in the absence of "souls".

… rather misses my point. One doesn't need to exhaustively disprove (since that's demonstrably impossible) a proposition. On the other hand, if there's no indication that consciousness pre-exists or post-dates biological death, then it's entirely appropriate to dismiss notions such as the "soul" and the "afterlife". That's where I'm coming from.

It misses your point, but makes my point exactly. I do not seek to find the "clincer" to disprove atheism. I WANT people to be able to believe whatever they want. I don't want to force anything on anyone. All I do is talk about ideas and tell people what I have experienced as a result of my ideas and decisions I have made. At that point, feel free to live your life as you see fit. Furthermore, I implore you to ask me whatever questions you want and I will answer them as best I can. Also feel free to offer any information that you feel may be helpful to me. I will read them as time allows.

I view my posts here as more of a conversation than an argument, although many seem to view it the other way.

Again, thank you for your interest and your remarks. I intend to read more from the sources you posted as the matter interests me greatly.

Cheers,

Matt R.

Comment by: Matt R | January 30, 2007, 12:50 pm

James Bradbury,

Well put. I think you are quite right.

Cheers

Matt R

Comment by: Matt R | January 30, 2007, 12:51 pm

Matt: My apologies if I've taken the idea of "spirited debate" to a point which has made you uncomfortable, or offered unintended slight.

Comment by: schemanista | January 30, 2007, 4:06 pm

Schemanista,

No slight whatsoever. I take great pains to make my intentions clear so that I do not appear to be "attacking" the belifs of others and so that others do not misconstrue my intentions. I fear that some of my fellow theists have given atheists good reason to become defensive. I seek to avoid this.

Incidentally, I read more of "The Ghost in the Machine" and found it very interesting. The ideas are interesting and since I was raised in a Christian household I had never actually critically considered the concept of the "soul". What does the soul do indeed.... an interesting question that I had never thought of. I suppose that it may do very similar things as God himself does. Whatever those things are... :)

Cheers,

Matt R.

Comment by: Matt R | January 30, 2007, 5:53 pm

Hi everyone!

First thing first - I'm a norwegian so please excuse my sometimes lack of skills in english. Second, I'm a non believer, I'm not an atheist either, so I'm nothing when it comes to this question.

With that out of the way, I'll just fire off.

I have more than often discussed religion with christians in Norway. Christian is a wide term so accept it for what it is. It amazes me that they all use the same arguments, it's almost like it's some kind of indoctrinated answers they have learned from the pastor or something.

God, if he exists has indeed created both good and evil, since he did create everything. This means that he did create evil for the sole purpose of trying to make humans do evil, I can't see any other reason. It is argued that for free will to exist we need to have the choice of doing evil, and free will is importaint for God to be loved for real. It seems like this is very egocentric, to create humans for him to feel love, tourment people for the sole purpose of his own enjoyment. Is that the act of a truly good God? My though is, no!

It is also strange that christians can argue that their God really is good due to the above mentioned argument but also due to the following. If we agree that God created us for us to choose to love him or burn in hell for all eternity, it's not actually free will, it's brute force. I have often argued like this: "I see myself as a good person. I don't steal, I don't kill people, I don't kick people who's on the ground - I help them up. I actually follow the 10 comandments, except the ones about God - because from my point of wiev there is no God. I actually do as best I can to be good, and treat others with respect. Still I do not qualify to get into heaven but will burn for eternity along with rapists, murderers, active pedophiles and other scum." This makes me feel like God is on an egotrip, and doesn't really care if we are good or not, because if you are religious you will get forgiveness even if you are a really scumbag! This actually leads me to believe that he is evil and not good deep inside.

Did you follow me so far? Great!

It is impossible to disprove the existence of God, since his existence has not been proven yet. It is impossible to disprove a negative, which should be a well known fact. To argue that atheists and other non-believers should disprove Gods existence it is just as crazy as for me to ask someone to disprove the existence of a horde of invisible pink horses that fly around the universe and is the creators of everything. If you want to argue that God does something, you should actually start with proving his existence, right? Because for him to have done something(2), he actually must exist(1). Since him doing something is something that follows his existence, existence is 1 and his actions is 2. This proves that religion is indeed blind faith, as Matt and other christians argue that it's not.

But this is what I find hard about discussing with christians, they do not follow logic and base their truth on a some 2000 year old book(s). They also choose freely from it what they believe and follow, so they actually tamper with God's words.

If you take a look at i.e Jes 36,12. In the Norwegian Bible it says something like this in english(look it up):

12 But the commandor answered: "Do you think my Lord has sendt me to say this only to your master and you? No, it's just as much to the men who's sitting on the wall, they who have to eat their own fecies(directly translated it says shit) and their own water, just like you"

A God who will have me to eat my own fecies and drink my urin is not a God I want to have anything to do with. You may find the same in: 2 King 18,27

I didn't think this was true first, but look it up I tell you!

Sorry if some of these arguments have been mentioned all ready but this is all from the top of my head. Feel free to rip my arguments into pieces, christians and others.

Comment by: Quayle | February 2, 2007, 11:36 am

Quayle,

Your English is better than many Americans I know. I applaud your ability! You bring up many points which are valid. I will address them briefly, then if you like, we can go into more detail as you see fit.

1) Regarding Evil

When God made the universe he made it to work a certain way. He established physical laws that must be followed. For example, if you don't eat, you die. Based on the construction of the universe there is a moral law as well. This moral law is based on the way the universe is made. Moral activity is that which leads to the optimal function of humans, it is based on God in that it is based on how he created the universe. Therefore, when people choose to act in a way contrary with this morality that has been established, then it is evil. By God creating a "good" there necessarily follows that there is "evil" which is defined as that which is not "good". God did not create evil so men could have free will, evil results when men use free will to go against "good". So, since God made people, I suppose you could hold him indirectly responsible for creating "evil", however it would be like blaming a murder on the parent of the murderer, not very fair.

2) Hell

Your concept of hell is highly stylized. This is reasonable because of the creative ideas of hell found throughout church tradition and even the Bible. Here is the bottom line as I see it. Hell describes the opposite of heaven. It could be obliteration after death. It could be a place where those who have not chosen to love God go. Maybe it is very similar to earth. I don't see that it has to be torture. Maybe it is just a big continuation of what we already have here. If people are not obliterated, they go somewhere. I highly doubt it will be the "lake of fire" we hear of so often. Just to head off any "you better read the Bible" arguments, I am well aware of the Biblical teaching of hell. I look at the Bible differently than most people, so do not be surprised when I draw unconventional conclusions from it.

3)Invisible Pink Ponies:

Just for the sake of argument, invisible pink ponies are a logical contradiction, something cannot be invisible and reflect light at the same time. There, that is one less thing atheists have to disprove! (Just a little joke there for you, no harm intended :) )

Do not worry about disproving God. If you do not believe in him, that is fine. If it does not make sense to you, that is also fine. You do not need to disprove something in order to not believe in it, you just have to decide not to believe in it. The main reason I recommend people try believing in Jesus is because it had such a great impact in my life. I realize, as many have pointed out, that this does not PROVE anything. That is fine, I am just passing on a little thing that helped me.

But this is what I find hard about discussing with christians, they do not follow logic and base their truth on a some 2000 year old book(s). They also choose freely from it what they believe and follow, so they actually tamper with God's words.

My beliefs are based on firsthand experience. My conclusions about the experience may be flawed or even wrong, but it is not illogical to base one's life on one's personal experience; everyone does that. I would venture to guess that one reason you do not believe in God is personal experience.

In 2 Kings 18:27, the Israellites are recording the attack of Sennecharib on Jerusalem. The particular verse you cited is a threat from Sennecharib, the invading commander, to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. This is not God saying that he wants anyone to eat their own feces or drink their own urine. It also is not valid to say that Sennecharib was sent to judge the israellites since in the story, God delivers the Israellites.

Quayle, I have replied to show you how believing in God can be done in a logical fashion with reason. I do not intend to "rip your argument into pieces". I think the points you wrote about are valid questions that should be addressed. I have done my best to address them. If you find them intellectually lacking or unsatisfying, tell me and I will try again. If my logic or premises are faulty, bring that to my attention and I will see what we can do.

Respectfully,

Matt R

Comment by: Matt R | February 2, 2007, 3:48 pm

Welcome Quayle,

I believe many of your arguments are discussed in detail in the essays found through this link:

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/index.html

On the subject of Free Will, I am inclined to agree with those who say we have the "illusion of free will", that is free from our own limited perspective. The following comments are also interesting:
"The contemporary philosopher Galen Strawson agrees with Locke that the truth or falsity of determinism is irrelevant to the problem.[4] He argues that the notion of free will leads to an infinite regress and is therefore senseless. According to Strawson, if one is responsible for what one does in a given situation, then one must be responsible for the way one is in certain mental respects. But it is impossible for one to be responsible for the way one is in any respect. This is because in order to be responsible for the way one is in some situation "S", one must have been responsible for the way one was at "S-1". In order to be responsible for the way one was at "S-1", one must have been responsible for the way one was at "S-2", and so on. At some point in the chain, there must have been an act of origination of a new causal chain. But this is impossible. Man cannot create himself or his mental states ex nihilo. This argument entails that free will itself is absurd, but not that it is incompatible with determinism."

Comment by: James Bradbury | February 3, 2007, 4:34 am

Matt,

Thanx for your answer, it seems like you have some intresting thoughts!

The pink horses, or ponies can ofcourse make them selves visible if they want to, if they did they would appear to be pink, if they are invisible they are indeed invisible and not pink so the joke's on you:)

I find your argument to be valid and good - I must say that this is my first time saying that to a christian. You seem to have your own interpretation of the Bible, which is good. This means that you actually think and reason and not following some preachers thoughts and words. This is a good thing. I think it's great if you have found Jesus and that this have made a change in your life, this is only positive.

I don't try to disprove God, because there is nothing to disprove since his existence has not been proven, if you get what I mean. The only thing I try to do is make christians think for them selves and try to reason with them to understand WHY they chose to believe. Their answer is usually that it says so in the Bible or "burn in hell for all I care". If, what the Bible says is true, I will indeed go to hell, no matter how good I am, but a rapist or murderer who starts believing in God and Jesus will infact go to heaven. How is this fair? This does for me disprove Gods goodness and not his existence. I totally agree that he/she/it might exist but that he/she/it is not worthy of our worship, since he rather pardon a murderer that a person thats only sin is not to believe in him. Is not believing in him worse than killing and raping 10000 young girl and boys? In my opinion no, in his it's yes if we should believe the Bible. So he created us for his own enjoyment and for us to worship him. Cool guy:D

It's also strange that christians tend to applaude laws that restricts alcohol and narcotics. If you are a christian you should indeed oppse such laws since it tampers with Gods will. Why you might ask - this is why:

God created us with a free will, laws reagarding alcohol and narcotics only limits our free will. That's their sole purpose, to restrict our choices regarding what and what not to eat, drink og shoot up on. It actually does organized crime a favour, helping cartelles to get an economy. If my neighbour shoots up on heroin, it does not do me any harm, but if he comes over and steals my TV it does. If narcotics was legal and sold by the government, the prices would be lowered and crime would probably go down. Why is it that christians usually(in Norway atleast I don't know how it's over there) don't drink and oppose those who does? Jesus did drink, he also was a big eater. Why is it that christians oppose free will on one hand and applaude it on the other? Double standards you say, it doesn't surprice me, the Bible is full of it:)

Comment by: Quayle | February 3, 2007, 7:22 am

Quayle,

Yes, you certainly have me on the horses/ponies. I did not realize the duality of their visible/invisible nature. Yes, those horse/ponies would be hard to disprove.

If, what the Bible says is true, I will indeed go to hell, no matter how good I am, but a rapist or murderer who starts believing in God and Jesus will infact go to heaven. How is this fair?

You are not the first person to express this sentiment. One thing to consider is if there is a moral "point of no return" past which there is no way the God will accept you because you have been too bad, then it is possible for a truly repentant person who has changed in his or her heart, could come to God and be turned away.

To put it another way, if God sends a murderer to Hell to burn forever, what good does that accomplish? The murdered person is still murdered, the family is still bereaved, and now to make things worse, another person is in hell forever (the murderer). Wouldn't it be better if the murderer realized the evil of murder, turned his life around and started helping people, or better yet, helping people who have a problem with violence? This way, there is improvement and resolution to the problem. So many people focus on the "judgement of God" that they miss the truth. God is more like a rehabilitation specialist than a judge. God knows what your problems are. He does not want to punish you for them, he wants to help you overcome them. One might ask "why doesn't he make us all perfect then?". I will tell you that this question is flawed. If you want me to explain further, I will, but this post is growing very large already. Perhaps in another comment...

So if we draw a line of morality and say, "once you pass this line, you are beyond all hope." then we have surrendered to hoplessness and despair and we are truly lost and have lost.

The other part, about a "good person" going to hell, is a very strange thing for me to talk about. It reaches to the core of what I personally think is necessary for "salvation".

Some say that one has to be a good person. I say "how good?". Some people say "you must be perfect" I say "clearly impossible". Some people point to rituals or sacred beliefs or some special knowledge and I say "Unjust!". The key to salvation must be open to all humans at all times if God is to be good and just. This clearly puts virtually all religions in the uncomfortable position of believing in an unjust God....perhaps. But perhaps not.

Religion always gets into trouble when they speculate on things. A favorite of mine is a question that many ask of the Christian, "What happens to people who never had a chance to hear about Jesus? Do they burn in hell forever?". There was a time when I would look them in the eye and say with all seriousness, "yes". I laugh at myself when I think of it. There are many who say the same thing now. There are others who make up elaborate scenarios involving God's all-knowing nature and all-powerful nature, but these scenarios inevitably boil down to a deterministic or pseudo-deterministic theology in which God chooses some people and damns others regardless of the action of the individual. I am not joking about this. Many people believe this.

I think the key to salvation is an attitude that leads to moral behavior. This is backwards from most religions. Most religions preach that moral behavior will lead to a good attitude. I think this is utterly wrong. As we think and believe, so we act. I also believe that Jesus is involved with this process somehow. I know this seems like it is very unrelated logically, but based on my experience, it is undeniable. I think the appropriate attitude, when confronted with the reality of Jesus will recognize the truth and follow. Now, I know this will ruffle some feathers because many people have heard about Jesus and rejected him. I would say that you have most likely heard a distorted version of Jesus. It seems to be a rite of passage in the intellectual community to take the obligatory stab at Jesus so lots of things have been said. An open evaluation of Jesus, I think, will soften a person's attitude toward him. Try to separate him from the bad feelings associated with the Old Testament, look at him. See what you think. There is much truth in the words of Jesus.

To sum up my view of what is necessary for salvation, I think that one has to have the humility to realize that one is not perfect and needs help in life to stop doing bad things, then one must ask God for help. When I did this, that is when my life began.

Cheers,

Matt R.

Comment by: Matt R | February 3, 2007, 12:24 pm

James Bradbury,

It is interesting for a sentient being to choose to logically prove that choice is an illusion! Very interesting. Truly, from a logical point of view, free will does boggle my mind as well! Why do we choose? Is it nature, is it nurture? We control neither of these things, yet we hold each other accountable for our choices. It just does not seem fair from a logical perspective.

Good comment, it made me think.

Thanks,

Matt R.

Comment by: Matt R | February 3, 2007, 12:27 pm

Matt,

Thanks, but I don't claim I proved it - that's just the way it seems to me! You can tie yourself in knots thinking about free-will, but it's pretty much essential to Christian doctrine. Secondly, if we indeed do have completely free-will, then God must be less than omnipotent as a result. By giving us free-will he must have implicitly endorsed all our "free" choices. Like a wind-up toy let loose by the side of a road.

I imagine free-will as a spider-diagram with some moral decision in the middle and a whole swarm of things (real or imagined) linking to it which influence your decision (you could also indicate some causes of those things, but you have to call a halt at the edge of your paper!). Then think about which of those things you control.

There are good reasons for us to hold each other accountable and (in a local, social sense), to feel accountable for our actions. This encourages people to behave in a decent and socially acceptable way. The problem with this only comes when a society itself has the wrong moral expectations and the encouragements may point in the wrong direction.

The implications this lack of genuine free-will has for justice are not as far-reaching as many theists would suggest. I believe the purpose of justice ought to be to reduce suffering, not to punish. So deterring criminal behaviour (if it worked), or removing a dangerous individual from where they could cause harm would be efficacious in that. I think this is called consequentialist justice.

Comment by: James Bradbury | February 4, 2007, 5:35 am

James,

As far as I can tell, I agree with you. May I assume from your comment that you are against the death penalty?

I particularly identify with your view of free will. It seems impossible that free will exists as non-causal decision making. On the other hand, determinism seems rather dreary and does not feel right to me. Perhaps all free will boils down to a choice between what you think is right and what feels good at the time. It often feels like this to me. Or maybe it is the decision to make the effort to determine the correct course of action instead of simply acting without consideration. I think either case fits with your spider-diagram. Very interesting.

I also identify with your statement regarding the omnipotence of God. I do not subscribe to the belief that God is omnipotent for several reasons, the primary one is that utter omnipotence is contrary to logic. I also think that it would be silly for an omnipotent God to deal with the problem of sin in the way that I believe God did (though Jesus). It seems that if there was another way, God would have done it. Perhaps the problem of sin was so vast and grave that it required God himself to become a man and enter space and time (or something like that) in order to deal with it.

I say this not to take anything away from God, but because this is what I think actually exists based on the evidence I have. Some people may argue against me by saying, "if God is not omnipotent, what guarantee do you have that God will get you to heaven or that he is even able to create a heaven?". To remarks like that, I would reply that I do not have a guarantee of anything in life. I do not even have a guarantee that God exists. I believe that I have overwhelming evidence to suggest to me that God exists but all I have is my ability to interpret what I have experienced and there is always the possibility, however slim, that I am utterly wrong.

Regarding Justice,

I have always supposed that the generally accepted definition of justice was "an individual receiving what he or she deserves". If this is the working definition, then justice is not simply for preventing crime, but also to punish. With that being said, punishing crime really solves no problems. If I kill a killer, have I accomplished anything? No, I have multiplied the bloodshed and sorrow. Perhaps the killer "deserved" death, but in the end, the results are the same, destruction. I think that the better way is to prevent evil as best as possible and correct the consequences as best as possible.

I am curious, James, what is your perspective on God? Is God impossible, improbable, uncertain, probable, or necessary?

I have enjoyed your posts so far and look forward to more.

Cheers,

Matt R.

Comment by: Matt R | February 4, 2007, 2:16 pm

Thanks again for your responses Matt. It's great to hear from open-minded Christians who are willing to listen as well as explain their views.

You certainly have a viewpoint that is unique as far as I know - which I guess is not that far. In any case, I hope you can convince more orthodox believers to listen to your perspective as it is logically as good as any other and morally much better than most!

I think god/gods to be highly improbable (The Christian God as much as any other). To say "impossible" in relation to the existence of anything is daft. We can't actually disprove his existence but that also applies to any number of things we care to invent.

Regarding the death penalty - yes, I am against it. I'm trying to think of an instance when this wouldn't be the case. As it is one of those politically charged topics it's very hard to find unbiased information on the point. However from what I can gather, it seems that:
- it doesn't deter criminals (perhaps those who most often get it aren't all there anyway), and
- it doesn't actually save money (due to the death-row appeals, etc).

Maybe if it was impossible to contain or imprison the criminal such that they couldn't harm others I could sanction it, but I'm having trouble imagining that without resorting to comic book villans.

On the other hand, if there was a guy going into a school with a machine gun and a string of grenades and I happen to be nearby with a sniper rifle then I'd have to shoot him (or at least try) - 'course a high-tech stun gun would be better. Better still would be if he couldn't have got hold of all that weaponry in the first place, but I digress.

I have always supposed that the generally accepted definition of justice was "an individual receiving what he or she deserves".

Yes, but that goes no way towards telling you what someone deserves. If someone is born with (or aquires) a brain aberration(s) that causes them to want to hurt or kill people, that's very unfortunate both for their potential victims and for them, because they won't fit in too well and it is likely to catch up with them. But I still can't say that they are inherently evil and deserve to suffer as a result. They were just doing what came naturally. Thankfully, for most of us what comes naturally is more moral and altruistic.

I think that brings us back to free will. Which, incidentally I no longer believe has anything to do with determinism. Even if the world is non-deterministic, does that make our choices freer? Can we control these "random" events?

Wikipedia seems to have all the angles on this, so it is a long article!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

I know what you mean about determinism seeming dreary, but even if the world is deterministic (I can't tell) that doesn't seem to diminish the wonder we feel, the love of friends and family, the beauty of the wilderness or the fascinating of learning something new. That is exactly as we each experience it.

If at the end of my life I found I'd been living inside an elaborate computer simulation (which again I can't disprove) I don't think I'd feel cheated, I'd probably laugh.

James

Comment by: James Bradbury | February 4, 2007, 4:28 pm

James,

Thank you for the kind words. I do not think it is likely that I will "convert" anyone to my brand of Christianity. It was hard enough for me to come to this point. It really takes something special for someone to get where I am; a perfect combination of logic and experience. I think that had I been less logical, I would have remained a fundamentalist for my entire life, but if I had not had the experiences that I have had, I almost certainly would have stopped believing in God altogether. I marvel at the circumstances of my life. I marvel that there are approximately 4-6 billion other experiences, just as special and unique happening simultaneously on our planet. Life is truly amazing! In any case, I digress...

Yes, but that goes no way towards telling you what someone deserves. If someone is born with (or aquires) a brain aberration(s) that causes them to want to hurt or kill people, that's very unfortunate both for their potential victims and for them, because they won't fit in too well and it is likely to catch up with them. But I still can't say that they are inherently evil and deserve to suffer as a result. They were just doing what came naturally. Thankfully, for most of us what comes naturally is more moral and altruistic.

Absolutely true. Perhaps the generally accepted definition of justice is impractical.

If at the end of my life I found I'd been living inside an elaborate computer simulation (which again I can't disprove) I don't think I'd feel cheated, I'd probably laugh.

This reminded me of a question I asked myself the other day. Here is the background. I wondered if it turned out that there actually is not a God, if I would want to know the truth, or if I would want to continue living in my wonderful hope. The question was hard, so I related it to something familiar, the movie Matrix. I posed the question to myself, If I was actually living in a computer simulation and all of my life was an illusion, would I want to learn the truth, even if the truth was hard and difficult. I decided that the answer was yes. I amazed myself because that is a very irrational answer in my mind. Why would I want to give up a utterly convincinly real world that is good for the actual real world which is hard? I do not have an answer for that except that I feel compelled to face reality no matter how difficult it is.

Thanks for the link on free will. I will try to digest it all.

I think god/gods to be highly improbable

I know. Sometimes I wonder at myself for believing. It seems impossible sometimes, but for me it is undeniable. The funny thing about me is that God sometimes seems improbable, but no God seems improbable as well. I guess answers to something as complicated as the universe, life, and everything else there ever has been or will be are not going to be easy or simple.

Cheers,

Matt R.

Comment by: Matt R | February 4, 2007, 8:57 pm

I read the verse in my own bible that you say shows that God creates evil he could stop it. This is true the sense that God created everything must mean that He created evil. He created the devil. the devil is evil. He created man. Man is tempted by evil and falls into it. God could take away the temptation yes, he could. He could stop bad things from happening. Honestly I don't know why he doesn't stop bad things from happening. I do know in my own life he turns bad things into good. when i was very little I had bad things happen to me in the sexual sense. it screwed me up for awhile. God helped me through it, and because of it i've been able to relate with other people who other wise thought i was a gooody goody and was just judging them. not that I understand what they're going through and love them. You have to think about the fact that he could destroy the devil at anytime and get rid of evil, but why when He saw that man was flawed and couldn't resist temptaion. why didn't he just start over? why didn't he just kill us off, and create something perfect? That's another thing I don't know and I don't understand because the God who created the stars that knows their names, that created an infinite universe knows me and cares about every aspect of my life. He does things for his own reasons and sometimes tough things happen, but He'll help you through them if you let him. I know even more that He will turn them to good even if you don't see the out come of your suffering in your life time good will come from it. If columbine happened at my school and some one put a gun up to my head and asked me if I believed in God and I said yes. if he killed me but the boy next to me heard that and came to God because of that. It would all be worth it. I don't think I would actually have the courage to do that. I don't know. I don't think anyone knows what they'd actually do in that kind of situation. so I can't claim that I would say yes. I do love God and I do know that God loves you personally and completely. and i'll be praying for you. That you'll see the truth in Jesus Christ. That you can let your guard down. You might think i'm crazy for believing in christ. that He's just not logical.. I think it's crazy to but I can't deny what I know to be true in my heart and through truths revieled to me. through the hundreds of miricles i've experienced. and honestly what in this world is logical? what happens to you that seems logical? And no you can't even scientifically prove that jesus lived. But you can't scientifically prove for sure that Nine eleven happened! you might have seen it with your own eyes, there's artifacts there's foot age. but you cannot prove that for sure. there are no for sures in this world except for God. Again I will pray for you. I have to let you know that I dont want you to have a relationship with Jesus because i think that part of me makes me better than you. However that does make me better than I used to be. Please consider what I've told you and dig deeper into Chritianity. Don't stop because you find one hypocryte either because we're human and we mess up. it's sad that there are alot of hypocrytical christians out there but it's the truth i'm sorry for it. I wish we were perfect. Perfection for us isn't possible but joy is grace is! peace is! love is! Thank you if you've read this far.

sincerely
shelbey

Comment by: shelbey | February 4, 2007, 9:38 pm

Hello Shelbey - I'd like to comment on something you said.

God could take away the temptation yes, he could. He could stop bad things from happening. Honestly I don't know why he doesn't stop bad things from happening....

You have to think about the fact that he could destroy the devil at anytime and get rid of evil, but why when He saw that man was flawed and couldn't resist temptaion. why didn't he just start over? why didn't he just kill us off, and create something perfect? That's another thing I don't know and I don't understand...

It's heartening that you recognize these problems with Christian theology. I encourage you now to take the next step - namely, to stop using "faith" as a way to paper over every logical gap in that belief system, stop putting yourself down and disparaging your own intellect, and consider the possibility that maybe these actually are genuine logical problems with Christianity and not just questions whose answers you haven't been told.

Comment by: Ebonmuse | February 5, 2007, 12:06 am

Ok let's see.

1. God created Satan. Satan causes evil. Thus, God created evil. Funny thing, I can get there by the transitive property too. I'm not claiming that that is how you should prove such a thing as this. But it's a small point to make.

2. In the original 'God plan', evil was not to exist on this Earth. We, humans, brought it upon ourselves. And yes, you will ask,"But if God is all powerful then why didn't he make it so Eve was not tempted by Satan?" Because my friends, God gave humans the freedom of choice. We honestly have the option of living a sin-free, evil-free, or ra-free if you prefer, life. Yet only one human in existence has accomplished this great feat, according to the Bible. Funny thing.

3. And God will destroy Satan and his followers when the time comes. He has stated this clearly in the Bible. God does things on his time, not ours. Just as a parent raises their child. They decide when a child gets certain privileges. They decide when a child should be punished. Yet the child still has the choice of good or evil. If they gave the child everything they wanted then it would be a rather spoiled child wouldn't it?

4. It's a difficult thing to understand why the creator of the universe does what He does. If you can't accept that then you are naive in believing that a human can understand God. Humans can't even understand other humans let alone their creator. Oh sure you can at least attempt. But full blown, total understanding? No.

5. For future reference, you should not just pull a verse from the Bible and start talking about it. You need to put it in context of the chapter, book, or whole Bible if need be, to really attempt to understand it. You sort of did this in explaining that God created evil. Yet, you still did not state that God created Satan and God will destroy him in due time, among other things he has done, is doing, and will do.

Thank you for your time. I admit to you that I am not a decent debator. I just wanted to bring these things to attention so you can further study this if you see fit.

Comment by: Elena4 | March 13, 2007, 12:56 am

Elena4:

Thank you for sharing your position; unfortunately, your arguments are standard Christian boilerplate and aren't any more convincing this time than they were the first of many, many, many times we heard them. All of your concerns have been refuted, many of them in the threads on this site, and I'm pretty sure Adam's essays address them as well. May I politely request that you take the time to read some of your opponents' positions before attempting to refute them? (One topic does not qualify).

Comment by: Alex Weaver | March 13, 2007, 1:27 am

Elena4,

I appreciate your polite and methodical approach, it makes it easier for me to understand your points. I have a few questions about free will, however.

I am still confused as to why an all-powerful, all-good god would allow the existance of evil and suffering, when it would seem quite simple for him/her to create a world without such affliction (like heaven, for example). Imagine for a moment that you were God with ultimate power over everything. What kind of universe would you make?

In a world created entired by God, in what way is our will free? All of our influences, our personalities, our experiences, every last neurone in our brains, anything that could possibly influence our decisions all were originally created by God who knew exactly the consequences of doing so. How is that free?

To paraphrase Galen Strawson: To be ultimately responsible for what you do in a given situation, you have to be responsible for your mental state in that situation. But your mental state in any situation is derived from your previous mental state plus any external influences. That previous mental state is derived from a former mental state and so on. How do we exercise ultimate control over our mental states or our influences? Could you decide to believe in Zeus for a day?

When God allegedly gave us free will, surely he knew exactly what we'd do with it in minute and disgusting detail - surely he has therefore endorsed all our decisions? If I let loose I rattlesnake in a kindergarten/children's nursery I would have a fair idea what would happen and could surely be held responsible. Even though I wouldn't be injecting venom into children myself, I'd expect to be thrown in gaol for it. God must have known even better then I would exactly what would happen when he gave us free will.

Like a wind-up toy he lets us go marching into the traffic. Surely with ultimate power and knowledge comes ultimate responsibility?

Lastly, if you didn't have free will, what would that feel like and how would you know?

The problem of evil is also interesting, but is best explored in: All possible worlds by Ebonmuse. I haven't heard any Christian responses that are not adequately addressed in that essay, so I strongly recommend it!

Thanks for reading. :)

Comment by: James Bradbury | March 13, 2007, 8:10 am

Hello Ebonmuse,

I think that it is not illogical to use "faith" in certain instances even when things seem counter-intuitive. Let me give you an example which I think you can agree with.

I have had a very lengthy discussion with someone about God's existence. I brought up the improbability of abiogenesis as a topic of discussion. He stated that although no good theory for abiogenesis has been developed, he felt confident that one would be developed. His faith was based on the fact that natural causes have been found for many phenomena. I respect this answer and think it is a valid basis for faith.

In the same way, someone who has experienced God in many real ways has a rational basis for the faith that there is a rational and sufficient explanation for what we see around us in this world as it pertains to a good God.

Cheers,

Matt

Comment by: Matt R | March 13, 2007, 6:29 pm

James B.

Hello, I hope things are well. Here are some thoughts regarding your comments.

If I let loose I rattlesnake in a kindergarten/children's nursery I would have a fair idea what would happen and could surely be held responsible. Even though I wouldn't be injecting venom into children myself, I'd expect to be thrown in gaol for it. God must have known even better then I would exactly what would happen when he gave us free will.

This example is rather extreme in that there are little to no benefits to be had from a rattlesnake in a kindergarten. Aside from a valuable lesson in differential herptology, it is unlikely the children will glean much more than harm. Our free will is somewhat more beneficial in that humanity is capable of magnificent wonders as well as unspeakable atrocities. I think that there are many who would say that the goodness of humanity outweighs the badness.

Like a wind-up toy he lets us go marching into the traffic. Surely with ultimate power and knowledge comes ultimate responsibility?

I wonder here what that responsibility would look like. I think that it is quite possible that God does take responsibility. For the sake of understanding my point, please humor me by pretending, hypothetically, that there is a God, an afterlife, and that Jesus died on the cross.

If these things actually exist as I believe they do, then I think that God has taken responsibility. First, he will judge between those who have used their free will for good and those who have used it for evil. In this way, God is taking responsibility of punishing the bad and rewarding the good.

Furthermore, Jesus as God experienced a great deal of suffering. Perhaps there are some who have suffered more, but not many. Here, God is experiencing the consequences of his creation firsthand, taking responsibility for what he has made.

I am still confused as to why an all-powerful, all-good god would allow the existance of evil and suffering, when it would seem quite simple for him/her to create a world without such affliction (like heaven, for example). Imagine for a moment that you were God with ultimate power over everything. What kind of universe would you make?

There are several assumptions here that may or may not be true. I think that it is easy to establish the difficulty of postulating that the Creator transcends logic. Perhaps it is not logically possible to have beings such as ourselves exist in a state of bliss without some preparation. Perhaps the only way the blissful existence that you expect from a loving God can exist is with some preparation in our current experience. Of course I cannot prove such a thing, but I offer it as a possible reason for why we experience suffering.

Matt

Comment by: Matt R | March 13, 2007, 6:44 pm

Hi Matt,

Thanks for your response.

First, he will judge between those who have used their free will for good and those who have used it for evil.

But what ultimately is the cause of our choices? Are they uncaused?

I believe in individual responsibility within the context of that person's life and I believe that if state justice can be used as a deterrant, it could be beneficial to all that it is. An individual could make choices which are influenced by the law of the land and the consequences (gaol, fines, etc) of their actions.

Ultimate or divine justice differs in that in many ways we don't have a choice about who we are and the way we're born. We might be able to choose to go to church, but I don't think we could choose to believe - could someone choose to believe in Zeus or Ra, even for a day? The reasons people would need to believe in such gods would vary, but might include: Respected friends/family believing, the god being described alongside a pleasant philosophy, a positive experience in the presence of those who already believe. For me until I discover a convincing religion whose philosophy makes some kind of sense and is at least internally consistent, I have no choice but to disbelieve.

Many people will never have the choice to accept a particular god. Possibly they never hear about him/her/it because they live in the wrong part of the world. Maybe they are like me, born cynical and incredulous and fussy enough that they prefer things to make sense without numerous contrivances.

In this way, God is taking responsibility of punishing the bad and rewarding the good.

But why did he make them bad in the first place?

Agreed, we're into guesswork here. If the creator does transcend logic, then all bets are off. It's about as helpful as saying, "God moves in mysterious ways". Doesn't that make his will unknowable, in which case what hope have we got of pleasing him?

All the best, J

Comment by: James Bradbury | March 16, 2007, 4:16 am

Hi James,

But what ultimately is the cause of our choices? Are they uncaused?

Do you think that a choice could be thought of as a little first cause in and of itself? Surely it is influenced by factors, but perhaps the choice can still go different ways independently of these factors. These factors I refer to are external to the mind, for clarification.

I do not know if the concept of choice can be pushed further back. To me it seems that the two main factors that influence choice are impulse and reason. Impulse encompasses emotion, feeling, biological urges, and things of that nature. Reason encompasses the logical, goal directed thinking. These two appear to modify each other in the decision making process. If you take away impulse, life can become bland and boring, if you take away reason, life becomes wanton and somewhat arbitrary.

Ultimate or divine justice differs in that in many ways we don't have a choice about who we are and the way we're born. We might be able to choose to go to church, but I don't think we could choose to believe - could someone choose to believe in Zeus or Ra, even for a day? The reasons people would need to believe in such gods would vary, but might include: Respected friends/family believing, the god being described alongside a pleasant philosophy, a positive experience in the presence of those who already believe. For me until I discover a convincing religion whose philosophy makes some kind of sense and is at least internally consistent, I have no choice but to disbelieve.

In your above paragraph, the lines between religious belief and moral behavior become somewhat blurred. While moral standards which are based on specific religious systems are clearly tied to religious belief, morality is not necessarily tied to religious belief. I propose that it is possible for the Creator of the universe to judge people based on a moral standard which is external to religious belief. I think that this is so because I think that objective moral concepts can be derived from reality through inference if one starts with the premise that human life is valuable. Clearly this premise is arbitrary, but when one considers that humans are making the assertion, we can overlook this slight shortcoming.

Therefore, our logical minds are capable of elucidating moral laws which are valid, and based on these standards humans can be fairly judged. On this basis even you, a staunch skeptic, could be judged. The creator can observe you and determine your adherence to observable moral law and judge accordingly. Those who are evil are punished, those who are good are rewarded.

Regarding your ability to choose to believe, I have a hard time relating because from my perspective it is quite natural to believe in God. This is compounded by the fact that I see how I could also convince myself that God does not exist. The reason that I retain belief in God is because unbelief would entail too many contrivances. I suppose that is similar to the reason that you do not believe.

I also think that the reasons that you gave to believe are all insufficient. I do not think that any of those experiences would serve to make one aware of the reality of God. They may act as clues, but as foundation I find them wanting.

For me until I discover a convincing religion whose philosophy makes some kind of sense and is at least internally consistent, I have no choice but to disbelieve.

If you present the internal inconsistencies you find in Christianity, I will tell you my perspective on the issue. It will probably be best if you limit the inconsistencies to two per post to keep from creating mega-posts. We can work through the inconsistencies bit by bit and see what we come up with.

Cheers,

Matt

Comment by: Matt R | March 17, 2007, 9:28 am

Hi Matt,

I propose that it is possible for the Creator of the universe to judge people based on a moral standard which is external to religious belief. I think that this is so because I think that objective moral concepts can be derived from reality through inference if one starts with the premise that human life is valuable.

Once again, I wish more Christians held your viewpoint which sounds very close to humanism. I'm worried when I hear about well-educated Christians who believe all that counts for morality is to believe in God. To me that opens a can of potentially vicious worms.

I'm sorry I don't really have the time right now to discuss this further with you. Our morality (which to me is what counts), seems to be pretty much the same.

Cheers,

James

Comment by: James Bradbury | March 23, 2007, 4:11 pm

James,

I am always pleased to have pleasant, constructive discussions.

Have a nice day,

Matt

Comment by: Matt R | March 23, 2007, 5:54 pm

I know that I am enterring this discussion very late so if this doesn't pertain to anything I apologize.

But I justed wanted to add that this verse is a translation, not the original text. The original text's word is not evil--it is calamity, or disaster. You don't think there is any calamity going on in the world? How is this not true?

It is a seeming calamity to those who do not understand the will of God. We often do not know of God's purposes until we discover them later on. For example, some of my friends went down to help the Katrina victims. Initially many of the victims were upset beyond all belief. But after a while they realized just how little value the material things in life have. This is why Colossians 3 says, "Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth." It is amazing how these victims are grateful to God for giving them these "calamity" reminders of the importance of life.

I recommend reading the KJV, NKJV, or NASB. These are more accurate translations.

Comment by: JimHR | March 23, 2007, 6:45 pm

JimHR:

But I justed wanted to add that this verse is a translation, not the original text. The original text's word is not evil–it is calamity, or disaster.

You clearly didn't read my whole post before writing your reply, as it answers this exact point in detail.

I recommend reading the KJV, NKJV, or NASB. These are more accurate translations.

That's good to hear, because I did use the KJV, and it does translate that word as "evil".

Comment by: Ebonmuse | March 23, 2007, 8:06 pm

I wonder if the people who died achieved any greater understanding of the importance of life. In any case, your point is self-defeating: if you're right that a god exists and causes these disasters to teach people the "importance of life," then given the number of people he kills, apparently without compunction, simply to prove a point to those who survive, it's fairly obvious that life is of very little importance to this god. And if the will of god is the arbiter of morality, as Christians generally believe, then life is unimportant from a moral perspective. While this certainly explains the behavior of many, many theists through the ages, something tells me that this isn't the point you imagine him trying to make...

Comment by: Alex Weaver | March 24, 2007, 4:15 am

Hello all,

In the verse, light is contrasted with dark, and peace is contrasted with calamity. The connotation of the word is not moral evil but that which is the opposite of peace.

The passage occurs in a prophecy regarding Cyrus the Great, a King whom God is using to accomplish a purpose. Here God is telling Cyrus that God will give Cyrus success to show that God is the one who forms light and darkness (symbolic of deliverance and justice) and peace and calamity. The idea of the passage is to show the God is in control of political happenings. The passage indicates that God raised up Cyrus for his own purposes. The passage is not a discourse on the origin of evil.

Cheers

Matt

Comment by: Matt R | March 24, 2007, 6:31 am

You have made no new discovery...sorry!
Of course he created everything!
He wanted to create us with a choice. An opportunity to choose. What good are we if we are constantly "rescued" from a bad choice?
He wanted to be chosen to be loved, (not because it was necessarily the easiest thing to do), but because that was our choice. To be chosen to be loved. Not because we HAD to.
Isn't that what all of us want in life as well? To be chosen as a mate/friend/lover? Not because someone HAD to be with us, but because they WANT to. They CHOOSE to.
He already chose us by making us, creating us.
Now it's our turn to make a choice.
That's the point, we are created to have a free will. Otherwise we would be nothing better than robots. He didn't want robots. There has to be good and evil to have a choice. We are free to choose either one.
That is the point. We are FREE to CHOOSE. And like every choice within our world, there are consequences to what we choose. Good, or bad.

Furthermore, if we UNDERSTOOD a God who made everything, including a universe more vast than our infinite minds can even imagine....(un-ending in fact...)..and we are just still discovering things that are in our tiny solar system...
He wouldn't be worth worshipping,

Comment by: Ruthann | April 6, 2007, 9:17 am

Isn't that what all of us want in life as well? To be chosen as a mate/friend/lover? Not because someone HAD to be with us, but because they WANT to. They CHOOSE to.

Yes. If, on the other hand, someone does not choose to love me, I do not desire to see them cast into a lake of fire to experience eternal suffering and torment, nor would any good person desire that.

That is the point. We are FREE to CHOOSE.

Only in the sophistic sense that a person who is accosted in an alleyway and told, "Your money or your life!" is "free" to choose either alternative. A choice coerced under the threat of torture is not legitimately free at all. See my essay "Divine Blackmail".

Comment by: Ebonmuse | April 6, 2007, 10:27 am

I just have an interesting thought:

If there wasn't hate, then how would we understand what love is?
If there wasn't evil, then how would we understand what goodness is?

I don't personally believe that God created evil just so that he could punish us because it was something we brought on ourselves when we decided to go against love, goodness, etc. However, I do believe that God kept the evil in this world so that more people would understand what love and goodness is. Though he said that evil will be destroyed in his time, it still dwells on this earth so that we would come to him (because he epitomizes good, if you will) in times of evil.

That's all. It's short and you may discuss at your pleasure.

Comment by: arcadie27 | April 29, 2007, 12:05 pm

Do you honestly believe it's necessary to have a world with guinea worms, cystic fibrosis, and deadly carbon monoxide in order to know what pleasure is?

Incidentally, doesn't the prospect of God causing people to suffer in order to draw them to him strike you as incredibly selfish and evil? Seriously; who would exonerate a human who behaves this way?

Comment by: Alex Weaver | April 29, 2007, 4:14 pm

Alex Weaver said:

Incidentally, doesn't the prospect of God causing people to suffer in order to draw them to him strike you as incredibly selfish and evil? Seriously; who would exonerate a human who behaves this way?

That's a movie villian cliche. No wonder it's used so much; apparently, it's been around in fictional stories for thousands of years.

Comment by: Reed Ulvestad | April 30, 2007, 10:12 am

I guess you can say in a way that God is selfish. He wants you for His own and not fall into the traps of Satan (if you may permit me to say). To me, there is a difference from being selfish and being evil. I didn't mean that "God caused people to suffer". But as a result of the fall of man, suffering is in this world and God hasn't obliterated such evil yet. If he decided to do get rid of evil now, then he could. But in his plan, it isn't time because once he does, all those who do not believe in him will also be punished. And, if this world was perfect, why would humans ever need to come to God? THis world is far from perfect, and even in its imperfections it's hard enough for many to admit to his presence. One thing that should be noted is that with God, there is also Satan. So, if you may, guinea worms, cystic fibrosis, and deadly carbon monoxide may be the indirect effects of works of Satan that could affect anyone, whether good or bad--(I'm not saying that if you experienced any of these you are of the devil). To clarify, it means that the deeds of one will affect others (which is pretty much universal)and that's how i see it. The deeds of Satan has caused evil. And thus, you may affected by it. But God doesn't counter all of these to regulate your life because through those experiences you can become stronger and realize that there is such thing as God to help you through it.

Comment by: arcadie27 | April 30, 2007, 8:00 pm

But God doesn't counter all of these to regulate your life because through those experiences you can become stronger and realize that there is such thing as God to help you through it.

Arcadie, I politely suggest you make up your mind. You say that Satan causes evil and God doesn't prevent it, and the reason God doesn't prevent evil is so people will realize God will help them when they're affected by evil.

...?! This doesn't make any sense. Why should suffering cause people to turn to God when believing in God offers no respite from suffering? If God wanted to draw people to him, why wouldn't he organize the world so that the happiness of people who turn away from him will inevitably and naturally diminish? The idea that God causes or permits evil and catastrophe to strike believers and nonbelievers alike, randomly and capriciously, and expects us to somehow infer his existence from that is just ridiculous.

Comment by: Ebonmuse | April 30, 2007, 9:19 pm

Let's get away from the minutiae of Xian mythology. There's too much cultural-sociological-political-economic baggage. Limited in history. Ignorant of the past. And of a future which can recapture what was best in our Western religious tradition.

Any god, male or female, worth a damn operates "beyond good and evil" (to use Nietzsche's sparkling phrase). That is, moral categories DO NOT apply to them.

To appeal to a Western sensibility prior to the also ephemeral Xian one consider Sophocles. A few lines from his play "Ajax" exchanged between Odysseus and his great protector Athena illustrate the ancient Western opinion about the gods:

[Seeing Ajax, driven insane by Athena, mutilating sheep as though they were his intended victims, the kings of Sparta and Mycenae]

A: Do you note, Odysseus, the power of the gods?
. . . .

O: . . . yet I pity him against me though he is.
For he is shackled to a dreadful end.
His fate makes me think of my own.
I see that our lives are nothing but illusion: fugitive shades.

Viewed against the immortality, power, and will of the gods, each of us flickers by and disappears.

Now, the traditional Greeks did not hate life on account of its brevity, nor did they put off honoring the gods, not did they fool themselves into the obvious self-delusions explicit in Xian creeds. They faced down death by loving life and rejoicing in it.

Comment by: eye-of-horus | May 2, 2007, 1:21 pm

Never mind the Western sensibility, let's talk Eastern religions. Like, the Hindu god Ganesh. And consider the season, too.

At least at that point your tangent will once again have something to do with elephants in spring...

Comment by: Alex Weaver | May 3, 2007, 5:48 am

Think about this; Jews, Muslims and Christians, the three Children of Abraham," believe that a god, created the universe, made us in his image, gave us dominion over this cute little third planet from this sun, in this lovely galaxy, and then, in just one example of his many personal explicit crimes, he purposely drowned everyone, except for the a few of the "just" that could fit in Noah's boat. The god they believe in, from their own "book," is a self-confessed homicidal mass murderer!

That is not what's so alarming. More alarming is that, not only do these deluded people believe this nonsense, they actually worship the homicidal mass murderer that did this atrocity and countless others. They actually venerate him, and look forward to spending eternity "in his loving embrace."

Unfortunately, it gets even worse. All three religions believe their "Messiah" is going to come and deal with their enemies and save them...the humorous side of this is that each of the three "religions," and their literally thousands of sub-religions and cults, believe the other two religions, and their respective plethora of cults, are whom their "Messiah" is going to save them from...

The older I get the more I think John Lennon had it right in the 60's when he wrote...

"Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky...
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one."

Amusingly, the Children of Abraham I've talked to about this think I'm the one that's a few bricks short of a load.

Comment by: Mylegacy | May 4, 2007, 11:11 pm

I have to correct you, Mylegacy, 'And no religion too' doesn't fit where you have it. The verse is:

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

Comment by: bassmanpete | May 5, 2007, 12:00 am

Mylegacy,

I am not sure I understand you clearly. Are you saying that Jesus as Messiah was intended to rescue the Christians from the Jews and Muslims? If that is indeed what you are proposing then I must say that this is not the crux of Christianity.

In Christian theology, Jesus does not intend to save the Christians from the Jews or Muslims, but anyone who will follow him from the power of sin. Jesus does not come to save "good" people from "evil" people, but to save people from evil.

The Apostle Paul states that humans are not the enemy of Christianity in Ephesians 6:11, therefore it does not logically follow that the Christian Messiah would specifically rescue from a particular people group.

You may be thinking of certain verses in Revelation which deal with the administration of punishment to those who have persecuted Godly people. While these verses exist without a doubt, to infer from them that Jesus as Messiah came to save Christians from the adherents of Islam or Judaism is quite a stretch!

Cheers,

Matt

Comment by: Matt R | May 5, 2007, 12:19 pm

All that we eat are living things (except milk and honey). That's taking life. Evil. Necessary to preserve one's own life. Anything beyond that.......