NationStates Jolt Archive

Many sceptics of Christianity and the existance of any kind of higher being in general often point to the existance of evil as they're justification. "How can evil exist if their is a God" they say. Or rather, they claim that their is too much evil in the world and that there is a lack of goodness and so God cannot exist through all the evil natures of the world. But the fact is that if you accept evil you accept good. And I am not talking about evil in general, but the idea that there are universal evils (which skeptics claim exist) which catagorically disprove God's existance. But with the existance of a universal evil comes the logical conclusion that there must be a universal good. Both of these ideas must logically exist in tandum. So where do we get either of these idea's from. The answer must be God. There is no other way to judge what is universally good and universally bad without a God or some other universally high power. Thus it is seen how the existance of evil actually proves God's existance.

bump (I am going to assume continued silence means no one disagrees)

Opposition is natural... one cannot exist without the other. I agree.

Sorry... but no. I'm afraid you don't understand the argument at all.

Many sceptics of Christianity and the existance of any kind of higher being in general often point to the existance of evil as they're justification. "How can evil exist if their is a God" they say. Or rather, they claim that their is too much evil in the world and that there is a lack of goodness and so God cannot exist through all the evil natures of the world. But the fact is that if you accept evil you accept good. And I am not talking about evil in general, but the idea that there are universal evils (which skeptics claim exist) which catagorically disprove God's existance.

First of all, skeptics most certainly do not claim that universal evils exist and that is not in any way a requirement of the argument. Skeptics simply point out that there exist certain actions/behaviour/etc... which if we were to believe the claims of certain theists would be evil according to them... and that the existence of such is directly contradictory to others claims made by those certain theists.

To put it simply, if you are a theist who makes the following claims:

A) That your God created everything in the universe.
B) That your God has never created evil.

Then the existence of anything which by that same theists definition is evil demonstrates their falsity.

And don't start with the free will defense, because it doesn't solve the problem. The deliberate creation of an entity that would freely choose to perform evil acts is the deliberate creation of an evil thing, and no two ways about it.

The argument from evil does not of course have any relevance to any hypothetical Gods who are claimed to quite merrily go about creating evil... or who just don't care about good or evil... etc...

The rest of your statements become irrelevent once it is understood that the argument from evil only conditionally accepts the theists claim that such evil exists in order to demonstrate the logical inconsistency of that claim when weighed against the others listed above.

That established, one of those claims needs to go.

The word 'proof' is bandied about on this forum rather a bit too much. That there is definately not proof, in my opinion its not even evidence.

Many sceptics of Christianity and the existance of any kind of higher being in general often point to the existance of evil as they're justification. "How can evil exist if their is a God" they say. Or rather, they claim that their is too much evil in the world and that there is a lack of goodness and so God cannot exist through all the evil natures of the world. But the fact is that if you accept evil you accept good. And I am not talking about evil in general, but the idea that there are universal evils (which skeptics claim exist) which catagorically disprove God's existance. But with the existance of a universal evil comes the logical conclusion that there must be a universal good. Both of these ideas must logically exist in tandum. So where do we get either of these idea's from. The answer must be God. There is no other way to judge what is universally good and universally bad without a God or some other universally high power. Thus it is seen how the existance of evil actually proves God's existance.

I can see several problems with this line of thinking.

1) How do you define "good". If you accept the Aristotelian definition of "good", when what is good is simply what is in accord with the nature of that thing (e.g. a horse is good when it runs fast, because it is in the nature of a horse to run), then there is no reason why there needs to be an "evil", or abberation from the natural law. Mind you that the Aristotelian definition was the basis for Christian natural law.

2) That doesn't explain why there needs to be so much evil in the world. I can perfectly see why an all-Good, all-Powerful, all-knowing God would make some people short or some people bald: it provides us with obstacles to overcome. I cannot however see why an all-Good, all-Powerful, and all-Knowing God would allow 10 million people to be systematically erased from existence in the Holocaust. There is no good that could come out of the Holocaust that could possibly justify it.

Ergo, an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God doesn't exist. Whether that is a call for complete atheism or a revision of what we mean by "God" is open to dispute.

evil is from God, therefore he is responsible. would you say we are going to have free will in heaven? Heaven is a perfect place with no evil. We have free will in heaven, and cannot corrupt heaven. Therefore a perfect place could exist with us having free will and there would be no evil. God still created this earth, which was not perfect, which contains evil. If it was perfect, it would be heaven.

But with the existance of a universal evil comes the logical conclusion that there must be a universal good.

That's not really self-evident. If your conclusion was reached through logic then could you list the steps you used to reach your conclusion?

You're assuming that 'evil' and 'good' can be universal. I think that's a pretty presumptuous. Ask an American whether attacking an American convoy would be 'good' and which would be 'evil'. Then as an Arab wheter attacking an American convoy would be 'good' or 'evil'. They won't even be able to directly oppose each other. Neither group will not be able to come to a unanimous conclusion amongst itself. I suppose you could argue that 'It's evil (or good) whether they say it is or not!', but you'd basing that argument on your own morals (merely how you choose to conduct yourself) or on ethics (still just a personal opinion, varying from culture to culture, that people of a culture tend to agree with.

Jewish literature states that evil is merely the biproduct of choice, for example if someone has ambition they could with that ambition do evil things or good things depending on what there ambition is aimed at. So from birth god decides everything about us except whether we will be good or evil, that is our choice alone. I think this is probably right, Christianity shouldn't say that Satan is pure evil and the result of all human suffering because both Lucifer's fall from heaven and adam and eve's eating from the tree of knowledge was choice. I think evil is just the result of a wrong decision and the result or God giving angels and man the ability to choose, that is probably why the Devil temps people so much, to use there God given ability of choice against them. Evil is the result of God is just that he wanted his creations to have choice, and to see whether we would be good or evil, personifying evil as an distinct individual is a poor excuse to distance ourselves from the terrible things we do. God is not to blame but our bad choices are.

Many sceptics of Christianity and the existance of any kind of higher being in general often point to the existance of evil as they're justification. "How can evil exist if their is a God" they say. Or rather, they claim that their is too much evil in the world and that there is a lack of goodness and so God cannot exist through all the evil natures of the world. But the fact is that if you accept evil you accept good. And I am not talking about evil in general, but the idea that there are universal evils (which skeptics claim exist) which catagorically disprove God's existance. But with the existance of a universal evil comes the logical conclusion that there must be a universal good. Both of these ideas must logically exist in tandum. So where do we get either of these idea's from. The answer must be God. There is no other way to judge what is universally good and universally bad without a God or some other universally high power. Thus it is seen how the existance of evil actually proves God's existance.

There is another argument buried at the end of this no one has yet ripped up, so I'll tackle that one. At the end you say there is no way to judge what is universally evil or good except a God, and in some ways I agree with you, its one of the reasons I don't believe in morality. But from a secular humanist's perspective, you're dead wrong. Moral law has been said to come from people (man is the sole measure of himself) or just from a source that does not go around flinging thunderbolts and acting suspicioulsy like Jupiter. Moral law can be justified without a God.

Jewish literature states that evil is merely the biproduct of choice, for example if someone has ambition they could with that ambition do evil things or good things depending on what there ambition is aimed at. So from birth god decides everything about us except whether we will be good or evil, that is our choice alone. I think this is probably right, Christianity shouldn't say that Satan is pure evil and the result of all human suffering because both Lucifer's fall from heaven and adam and eve's eating from the tree of knowledge was choice. I think evil is just the result of a wrong decision and the result or God giving angels and man the ability to choose, that is probably why the Devil temps people so much, to use there God given ability of choice against them. Evil is the result of God is just that he wanted his creations to have choice, and to see whether we would be good or evil, personifying evil as an distinct individual is a poor excuse to distance ourselves from the terrible things we do. God is not to blame but our bad choices are.

The only issue with this is that an omniscient God would know that free will begets evil and thus would know not to make things with free will if he wanted to avoid evil. Anyway, doesn't God also define what is evil? Thus by making it something achievable, doesn't he necessitate evil?

Many sceptics of Christianity and the existance of any kind of higher being in general often point to the existance of evil as they're justification. "How can evil exist if their is a God" they say. Or rather, they claim that their is too much evil in the world and that there is a lack of goodness and so God cannot exist through all the evil natures of the world. But the fact is that if you accept evil you accept good. And I am not talking about evil in general, but the idea that there are universal evils (which skeptics claim exist) which catagorically disprove God's existance. But with the existance of a universal evil comes the logical conclusion that there must be a universal good. Both of these ideas must logically exist in tandum. So where do we get either of these idea's from. The answer must be God. There is no other way to judge what is universally good and universally bad without a God or some other universally high power. Thus it is seen how the existance of evil actually proves God's existance.

The bible is fairly clear on the matter. Evil originates in god... thus, there is no dichotomy.

The existence of God and evil can be reconciled, and so can the existence of evil without God. What this really proves is nothing, since these arguments can go on forever. Besides, this kind of debate would also require agreement on the definition of good and evil, which is flexible to many people. I say all this to acknowledge that what I say next will not do anything but simply add my own view to a debate that rages on.

God and evil can coexist, given that a) humans have the free will to choose the means to an end, b) good is defined as that which is desirable, and c)evil is defined as the opposite of good, or that which is undesirable.

Humans act always to what they perceive as something good. Money, power, sex, food, property, etc. They work towards this good in whatever way they choose, trying to acheive that one good. But, in pursuit of that good, a person may decide that it is more desirable, or good, than another thing. For example, a person will rob a bank because the money is more desirable than not breaking the law.

In ignoring one good in pursuit of another, evil is done. Since God is supposed to be completely good, and the source of good, in this way it can be said that God did not create evil. Instead, he gave humans the choice between goods, and let them use what means the could to reach an end.

My two cents of theological philosophy for the day.

i have no problem with the existance of good and evil. after all it is our job to conform to god, not god's job to conform to us.

but what self respecting atheist believes in universal evil? good and evil are as much human contructs as the empire state building is.

The only issue with this is that an omniscient God would know that free will begets evil and thus would know not to make things with free will if he wanted to avoid evil. Anyway, doesn't God also define what is evil? Thus by making it something achievable, doesn't he necessitate evil?
God maybe omniscient and know everything but he may well not understand it, Jesus Christ was sent to earth to save us from our sins but also because God didn't understand us and why we do the wicked things we do. God didn't understand humanity because he wasn't human, so he sent his son as a human to earth to understand us. So that he wouldn't have to damn us for eternity. "Man's attempt to be closer to god is through religion, God's attempt to get closer with man is through Jesus Christ". So the bible clearly states that when God gave the angels and eventually man the ability to choose he did not know we would rebel from him, because he leaves choice on matter of good and evil up to us. God pretty much says that being totally good is impossible, that we will always fall short of the glory of god and sin, which is why we must repent to Jesus. So god does 'necessitate' evil as much as saying that we will always sin, not that's it's good but that we will always do it because our wills' are weak and we usually choose evil over good when making decision. So the devil made me do it isn't a relevent excuse :) .

Well, I see the 'All-knowing All-seeing All-loving Invisable friend' people are back. It's good to know that the idea of the lazy intelligent over 6,000 years ago, that the poor should suffer on Earth so they could recieve bountiful gifts in "The Afterlife" is still around. Amazing that people, in this day and age, can still believe that there is a God-Thing out there, running, or at least watching, your lives. It's just too bad that I'm not a good public speaker, or I'd go to some religious collage, and become a priest, and live off of you weak minded fools. :cool:

Religion in the only industry on the planet without a product to sell, and still it flourishes. :headbang:

But hey, you have the free-will to decide for yourself waht to believe. I hope you enjoy it, and that wasting your time praying to the air gives you some comfort in this highly screwed up world. Just don't try to cram it down my throat.

Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true
rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has
always astounded me. We long for a caring Universe which will save
us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of
evidence to the contrary we will pin all our hopes on the slimmest
of doubts. God has not been proven not to exist, therefore
he must exist.

-- Academician Prokhor Zakharov,
"For I Have Tasted The Fruit"

To put it simply, if you are a theist who makes the following claims:

A) That your God created everything in the universe.
B) That your God has never created evil.

God 'creates' evil in the same way that you 'create' darkness by turning off a light. Only by going the opposite to what God says do you have evil

Well, I see the 'All-knowing All-seeing All-loving Invisable friend' people are back. It's good to know that the idea of the lazy intelligent over 6,000 years ago, that the poor should suffer on Earth so they could recieve bountiful gifts in "The Afterlife" is still around. Amazing that people, in this day and age, can still believe that there is a God-Thing out there, running, or at least watching, your lives. It's just too bad that I'm not a good public speaker, or I'd go to some religious collage, and become a priest, and live off of you weak minded fools. :cool:

Religion in the only industry on the planet without a product to sell, and still it flourishes. :headbang:

But hey, you have the free-will to decide for yourself waht to believe. I hope you enjoy it, and that wasting your time praying to the air gives you some comfort in this highly screwed up world. Just don't try to cram it down my throat.

Are you actually going to retort the idea of God or just insult it?

Moral law has been said to come from people (man is the sole measure of himself) or just from a source that does not go around flinging thunderbolts and acting suspicioulsy like Jupiter. Moral law can be justified without a God.

But with our postmodern logic that means that one persons morality is no more valid than any other. How would we get to moral law that is supiror to anyone elses moral law.

Why not? Is life so "magic" that we need myths? OK -maybe we do, but does the story have to be about EVIL vs GOOD? Give me a break! Nothing worth knowing is black/white...nature abhors it. Where I come from , it is impolite to speak about FAITH, I respect those that EMBRACE ALL MY IDEALS@@!?
*I'm trying to hypnotize the weak minded...* :D

Sorry... but no. I'm afraid you don't understand the argument at all.

First of all, skeptics most certainly do not claim that universal evils exist and that is not in any way a requirement of the argument. Skeptics simply point out that there exist certain actions/behaviour/etc... which if we were to believe the claims of certain theists would be evil according to them... and that the existence of such is directly contradictory to others claims made by those certain theists.

snip.

Ok, the whole arguement hangs on this idea. Evil is not some "force" that was created. Evil is a "word" (semantics) used to describe behavior. And behavior is related to free will.

So, yes, I will give you this crap about free will. :D

Evil is used to describe actions and states of mind that go against God's will. That's what's so amazing. That God can create something, give it free will, let it sin, and die for it so it could avoid the punishment the sin deserved.

God's love, justice, and omnipotence, all shown right there.

All we need do is acknowledge our sin, repent, and receive Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. (had to say it :p )

Religion in the only industry on the planet without a product to sell, and still it flourishes. :headbang:



Actually, religion is the only industry to offer something thats free (eternal life), and still flourish. (John 3:16, Ephesians 2:8-9)

God maybe omniscient and know everything but he may well not understand it, Jesus Christ was sent to earth to save us from our sins but also because God didn't understand us and why we do the wicked things we do. God didn't understand humanity because he wasn't human, so he sent his son as a human to earth to understand us. So that he wouldn't have to damn us for eternity. "Man's attempt to be closer to god is through religion, God's attempt to get closer with man is through Jesus Christ". So the bible clearly states that when God gave the angels and eventually man the ability to choose he did not know we would rebel from him, because he leaves choice on matter of good and evil up to us. God pretty much says that being totally good is impossible, that we will always fall short of the glory of god and sin, which is why we must repent to Jesus. So god does 'necessitate' evil as much as saying that we will always sin, not that's it's good but that we will always do it because our wills' are weak and we usually choose evil over good when making decision. So the devil made me do it isn't a relevent excuse :) .



God's omniscience requires that He would know that we would sin. That's what omniscience is. And that He knew beforehand that He would die for us. Read the Old Testament. Its not just a bunch of laws. Most prophesies of the Messiah are there, starting from right after Adam and Eve sinned !!

The bible is fairly clear on the matter. Evil originates in god... thus, there is no dichotomy.

Maybe if you read if while smoking CRACK. NOWHERE in the bible does it say evil originated in or from God. NOWHERE. :fluffle:

Actually, there's a line, depending on how you translate, where it states that evil comes from the Christian deity.

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

Well then if there wouldn't be evil who would know what right is. Would it be sweet? Everyone does everything so nice that no one get offended or get hurt. But we're animals and you gotta invade other persons private "hunting grounds" and not let just them chill. Maybe this wasn't the point of this thread but hey!

evil is from God, therefore he is responsible. would you say we are going to have free will in heaven? Heaven is a perfect place with no evil. We have free will in heaven, and cannot corrupt heaven. Therefore a perfect place could exist with us having free will and there would be no evil. God still created this earth, which was not perfect, which contains evil. If it was perfect, it would be heaven.

I'd like to see a christian address the issue that we either have no free will in heaven or a place of perfect goodness can exist with free will, thus making the earth an experiment in sadism.

Actually, there's a line, depending on how you translate, where it states that evil comes from the Christian deity.

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

Thats a mistranslation from the outdated King James Version. Here is the same passage in more accurate translations

(NLT)I am the one who creates the light and makes the darkness. I am the one who sends good times and bad times. I, the LORD, am the one who does these things.

(NIV)I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.

(NASB)The One forming light and creating darkness,
Causing well-being and creating calamity;
I am the LORD who does all these.

and the version I use with my third graders:
(NIRV) I cause light to shine. I also create darkness.
I bring good times. I also create hard times.
I do all of those things. I am the Lord.

There is no inconsistency between a God who does no evil and the existence of evil. Evil is a result of actions, God does not do any evil actions but has created people with the capacity to do evil if they choose. Its people who do evil, not God.

I would ask why? But then "Because He wants to test us". But then where those evil people go,does He send His sheeps to hell just to mess with rest of us?Or should I grap my knife and run in the streets because God made me like this. Great defence in court,insanity,insanity.

Ok, the whole arguement hangs on this idea. Evil is not some "force" that was created. Evil is a "word" (semantics) used to describe behavior. And behavior is related to free will.

So, yes, I will give you this crap about free will. :D

Evil is used to describe actions and states of mind that go against God's will. That's what's so amazing. That God can create something, give it free will, let it sin, and die for it so it could avoid the punishment the sin deserved.

God's love, justice, and omnipotence, all shown right there.

All we need do is acknowledge our sin, repent, and receive Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. (had to say it :p )

Actually, "evil" is also used as a noun to describe a thing. the social evils of poverty and injustice

And I believe the argument was that the entire concept of evil, that evil could exist in any way, shape or form is contraindicated by an omnibenevlont deity. Evil is a thing, not an absence. Why do I say this? Because you can be actively evil, i.e. causing suffering, injury or destruction.

I'm basing this on the dictionary.com definition, btw:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evil

And no, I'm not addressing all the definitions, only the ones pertinent to my argument. Evil can be many things, including an absence of "good" or "Godly living", I suppose.

Just like to say, you assume that "god" is the Christian god...

Just like to say, you assume that "god" is the Christian god...

They always do :p.

Many sceptics of Christianity and the existance of any kind of higher being in general often point to the existance of evil as they're justification. "How can evil exist if their is a God" they say. Or rather, they claim that their is too much evil in the world and that there is a lack of goodness and so God cannot exist through all the evil natures of the world. But the fact is that if you accept evil you accept good. And I am not talking about evil in general, but the idea that there are universal evils (which skeptics claim exist) which catagorically disprove God's existance. But with the existance of a universal evil comes the logical conclusion that there must be a universal good. Both of these ideas must logically exist in tandum. So where do we get either of these idea's from. The answer must be God. There is no other way to judge what is universally good and universally bad without a God or some other universally high power. Thus it is seen how the existance of evil actually proves God's existance.

Silly NC, half-assed apologetics are for kids.

1) universal evils do not necessarily exist

2) the existence of a universal evil does not require the existence of a universal good

3) neither the concepts of good and evil nor the concepts universal good and evil must come from God

4) it is not necessary for there to be a higher power for one to judge good and evil (or universal good and evil)

5) as not just one but all of your premises are false, your conclusion is "universally" false

I read the first line and the last line and said to myself, "What the hell? Do I actually care?"

I think we know the answer.

I don't understand what it is with you people. Do you get a chubby every time you prove or disprove what you believe or don't believe in? I don't understand, it's like you think you're changing the world. You really want to do the world good? Join the peace corps, don't harangue people on the internet about God. You're not salvaging anyone, I'm sure.

I was talking to some Christians the other day, who I love and are good friends of mine, and I asked them about some of the things they've done for humanity. They started listing off wonderful humanitarian efforts their church had done. I told them that was great, but what had they done personally? As individual humans?

Nothing.

Being religious, that doesn't impress me. You should know how I feel about that by this point. If you want to impress me, go to a slum in Africa and teach the children or build houses. Then you have my attention.

Meanwhile, you poor excuses for pseudo-intellectuals need to stop making all these God forsaken posts about why you think God is real or why you don't think God is real. News flash: nobody cares.

God 'creates' evil in the same way that you 'create' darkness by turning off a light. Only by going the opposite to what God says do you have evil

Evil is not the absence of good... so your light analogy doesn't work. The absence of good is, at worst, apathy. And as I already pointed out if God deliberately created beings who would do evil then God created evil, and you can try to wriggle out of that all you like it isn't going to change.

Jewish literature states that evil is merely the biproduct of choice, for example if someone has ambition they could with that ambition do evil things or good things depending on what there ambition is aimed at. So from birth god decides everything about us except whether we will be good or evil, that is our choice alone. I think this is probably right, Christianity shouldn't say that Satan is pure evil and the result of all human suffering because both Lucifer's fall from heaven and adam and eve's eating from the tree of knowledge was choice. I think evil is just the result of a wrong decision and the result or God giving angels and man the ability to choose, that is probably why the Devil temps people so much, to use there God given ability of choice against them. Evil is the result of God is just that he wanted his creations to have choice, and to see whether we would be good or evil, personifying evil as an distinct individual is a poor excuse to distance ourselves from the terrible things we do. God is not to blame but our bad choices are.

Ironic that you raise a basic issue with the "good" of a Judeo-Christian God.

Adam and Eve's alleged crime was the eating of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil.

But prior to eating the apple, they had no way of knowing good from evil. So they had no reason to think it was wrong.

Basically, they were framed and punished by jerk.

And as I already pointed out if God deliberately created beings who would do evil then God created evil, and you can try to wriggle out of that all you like it isn't going to change.

So Henry Ford by delibrately creating machines that could kill people is therefore a murderer?

Ironic that you raise a basic issue with the "good" of a Judeo-Christian God.

Adam and Eve's alleged crime was the eating of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil.

But prior to eating the apple, they had no way of knowing good from evil. So they had no reason to think it was wrong.

Basically, they were framed and punished by jerk.

Iv'e explaine this about a 100 times. I could explain it another 100 but it wont change anyone here. The question of eating or not eating the fruit was not one of good or evil. It was one of obedience or disobediance. It was not a moral decision, it was just a choice whether they wanted to obey God or not. By eating the fruit of the tree they were given the ability to know right and wrong, but they are diffrent concepts to obediance and disobediance.

Silly NC, half-assed apologetics are for kids.

1) universal evils do not necessarily exist

2) the existence of a universal evil does not require the existence of a universal good

3) neither the concepts of good and evil nor the concepts universal good and evil must come from God

4) it is not necessary for there to be a higher power for one to judge good and evil (or universal good and evil)

5) as not just one but all of your premises are false, your conclusion is "universally" false

People who claim that God does not exist because of the "evil" in the world, must assume by their very arguement that evil is universal (IE that it exists everywhere). And if any evil exists, you have to accept that good exists else how would you know the diffrence?

Iv'e explaine this about a 100 times. I could explain it another 100 but it wont change anyone here. The question of eating or not eating the fruit was not one of good or evil. It was one of obedience or disobediance. It was not a moral decision, it was just a choice whether they wanted to obey God or not. By eating the fruit of the tree they were given the ability to know right and wrong, but they are diffrent concepts to obediance and disobediance.

Except that they had no way to evaluate whether obediance was right or wrong, correct?

If I get a phone call and a voice says "don't do X," obediance is not necessarily right.

Without any framework of right and wrong, disobediance cannot be wrong.

You skipped points 3 & 4 -- if any one of your premises is invalid, your conclusion is invalid.

I guess you concede the invalidity of your argument.

Nonetheless ...

People who claim that God does not exist because of the "evil" in the world, must assume by their very arguement that evil is universal (IE that it exists everywhere).

No. One instance of evil could be sufficient.

And you are using universal in two different senses now.

And if any evil exists, you have to accept that good exists else how would you know the diffrence?

You could have evil and not-evil. Good is not necessarily the absence of evil or vice versa.

And, again, a single instance of good may be sufficient. Universal good is not required.

See 'theodicy'.

Except that they had no way to evaluate whether obediance was right or wrong, correct?

If I get a phone call and a voice says "don't do X," obediance is not necessarily right.

Without any framework of right and wrong, disobediance cannot be wrong.

I'm not sure in what context you are now talking about right and wrong?

Are you talking in the sense that it is morraly right or correct?

In either case, the decision to eat or not to eat the apple was a decision to obey or disobey God. Now thats a moral one in the sense that they were aware who God was and what he was and so disobeying him would be wrong. They were also aware that eating the tree would bring death into the world. Thats enough infomation to tell you that eating the tree is "wrong".

Iv'e explaine this about a 100 times. I could explain it another 100 but it wont change anyone here. The question of eating or not eating the fruit was not one of good or evil. It was one of obedience or disobediance. It was not a moral decision, it was just a choice whether they wanted to obey God or not. By eating the fruit of the tree they were given the ability to know right and wrong, but they are diffrent concepts to obediance and disobediance.

Every decision is a moral decision, to a greater or lesser extent. If disobeying God was not an wrong thing to do, then why does it deserve a punishment?

So Henry Ford by delibrately creating machines that could kill people is therefore a murderer?

No... Henry Ford deliberately created vehicles that he knew WOULD propel themselves mechanically... therefore Henry Ford created mechanical self-propulsion.

And if God deliberately created beings who WOULD choose to do evil, he created evil.

I'm not sure in what context you are now talking about right and wrong?

Are you talking in the sense that it is morraly right or correct?

In either case, the decision to eat or not to eat the apple was a decision to obey or disobey God. Now thats a moral one in the sense that they were aware who God was and what he was and so disobeying him would be wrong. They were also aware that eating the tree would bring death into the world. Thats enough infomation to tell you that eating the tree is "wrong".

But the whole point of why they were not to eat the apple was it would give them knowledge of good and evil.

Without it, they could not know that obeying God was good or disobeying him was wrong.

We are talking about the Original Sin here. Surely that was more than a failure to mindless obey in the absence of any knowledge that it was right to do so.

My cats are under my control and dependent upon me. But there failure to obey a single command on a single occasion is not a "sin" -- because they lack the understanding of good and evil.

But the whole point of why they were not to eat the apple was it would give them knowledge of good and evil.

Without it, they could not know that obeying God was good or disobeying him was wrong.

We are talking about the Original Sin here. Surely that was more than a failure to mindless obey in the absence of any knowledge that it was right to do so.

My cats are under my control and dependent upon me. But there failure to obey a single command on a single occasion is not a "sin" -- because they lack the understanding of good and evil.

It was'nt a matter of "good" and "evil". It was a matter of obediance and disobediance. They were told to obey, and given who was telling them to do so (God, and they knew who and what he was) and so they knew that they should obey him. It wasn't "wrong" to disobey God in the sense of morality, it was wrong to disobey God because of who and what he is.

No... Henry Ford deliberately created vehicles that he knew WOULD propel themselves mechanically... therefore Henry Ford created mechanical self-propulsion.

And if God deliberately created beings who WOULD choose to do evil, he created evil.

No, he created the capacity, not the evil itsef. In the same way a gun manufacuter creates the capacity to kill, he himself does not kill.

It was'nt a matter of "good" and "evil". It was a matter of obediance and disobediance. They were told to obey, and given who was telling them to do so (God, and they knew who and what he was) and so they knew that they should obey him. It wasn't "wrong" to disobey God in the sense of morality, it was wrong to disobey God because of who and what he is.

But how would they have known whether it was Right or Wrong to disobey God before eating the apple?

No, he created the capacity, not the evil itsef. In the same way a gun manufacuter creates the capacity to kill, he himself does not kill.

If I create an army of murderous killer-robots who have the capacity to go on a bloody rampage, it's my responsibility.

But how would they have known whether it was Right or Wrong to disobey God before eating the apple?

Because they knew God and they knew the commandment.

If I create an army of murderous killer-robots who have the capacity to go on a bloody rampage, it's my responsibility.

If those robots are designed only to kill and are not capable of anyhing else but killing then yes it is your responability. However, if you create a sentient robot with the capacity to chosse itself what it does then it is the robots responablity.

Yet another God paradox. God is the supreme being, yet there is a equal evil for every good. So either God is benevolent and fallible or perfect and neutral, but not benevolent and perfect.

God is everywhere. It is our believe that has come to this conclusion. (obviously)

It was'nt a matter of "good" and "evil". It was a matter of obediance and disobediance. They were told to obey, and given who was telling them to do so (God, and they knew who and what he was) and so they knew that they should obey him. It wasn't "wrong" to disobey God in the sense of morality, it was wrong to disobey God because of who and what he is.

Gotcha.

So sin has nothing to do with good or evil.

Nor does obeying or disobeying God.

People should be punished for disobedience whether or not it is wrong.

Right and wrong are not about good or evil. Or knowledge of right and wrong.

There goes reason, morality, and your little attempt to prove God via good & evil!

EDIT: Also, how were they to know obeying God was good and listening to the serpent was evil?

Which reminds me, didn't God lie and the serpent tell the truth about the "you will surely die" part?

Wasn't putting the tree of knowledge of good and evil in Eden and making it "good for food and pleasing to the eye" and putting a lying serpent there to convince Eve to partake entrapment?

Because they knew God and they knew the commandment.

But how did they know disobeying Him was wrong, before eating the apple?

Because they knew God and they knew the commandment.

Commandment?

Would this be commandment 1A or 11?

If those robots are designed only to kill and are not capable of anyhing else but killing then yes it is your responability. However, if you create a sentient robot with the capacity to chosse itself what it does then it is the robots responablity.

So if they do go on a bloody rampage, I can just shrug and say "I didn't make them to do this *perse*." people wouldn't blame me?

So sin has nothing to do with good or evil.

Nor does obeying or disobeying God.

People should be punished for disobedience whether or not it is wrong.


No. In that instance sin was nothing to do with "good" and "evil". But since we have the knowledge of good and evil we have a responablity with it. You are correct in saying that at that time they had no knowlege of good and evil. But in every other case since then, we do and that knowledge has responablitys.

So if they do go on a bloody rampage, I can just shrug and say "I didn't make them to do this *perse*." people wouldn't blame me?

If they were sentient and could make a choice about it and with full understanding of what they were doing then you are not responable. In the same way that Hitlers mother is not responable for the holocaust

No. In that instance sin was nothing to do with "good" and "evil". But since we have the knowledge of good and evil we have a responablity with it. You are correct in saying that at that time they had no knowlege of good and evil. But in every other case since then, we do and that knowledge has responablitys.

But you think they were justly held responsible without that knowledge.

They knew not even that they were naked, but they -- and all mankind -- can be punished because they did not obey a rule they did not know was wrong to violate.

Also, how were they to know obeying God was good and listening to the serpent was evil?

Which reminds me, didn't God lie and the serpent tell the truth about the "you will surely die" part?

Wasn't putting the tree of knowledge of good and evil in Eden and making it "good for food and pleasing to the eye" and putting a lying serpent there to convince Eve to partake entrapment?

If they were sentient and could make a choice about it and with full understanding of what they were doing then you are not responable. In the same way that Hitlers mother is not responable for the holocaust

God has no more power or responsibility than Hilter's mother?

Curious God you worship.

If they were sentient and could make a choice about it and with full understanding of what they were doing then you are not responable. In the same way that Hitlers mother is not responable for the holocaust

Still, wouldn't people go like "Hakar, good buddy of ours, if you created these killer robots from scratch, why'd you not make them cute and fluffy instead of giving them chainsaws for teeth?"

And Hitler's mother was not an omnipotent and omniscient divine being.

No, he created the capacity, not the evil itsef. In the same way a gun manufacuter creates the capacity to kill, he himself does not kill.

Look, you're not getting this are you? An omnipotent and omniscient supposed creator of ALL THAT EXISTS is not the equivalent of some human toolmaker.

Creating an being that WILL do evil IS creating an evil being which IS creating evil and you can try to twist and wriggle and do all the rationalization gymnastic exercises you like that isn't changing.

Creating an being that WILL do evil IS creating an evil being which IS creating evil and you can try to twist and wriggle and do all the rationalization gymnastic exercises you like that isn't changing.

God did not create beings that WILL do evil, but only have the capacity to do evil with their own choice, free will. They can choose to do evil or not. It is not God's responablity if they do or do not.

God did not create beings that WILL do evil, but only have the capacity to do evil with their own choice, free will. They can choose to do evil or not. It is not God's responablity if they do or do not.

With all due respect, your explanation is inconsistent even with Christian Theology, let alone common sense.

God is supposed to know future events. That means he did not create people knowing they MIGHT choose to do evil, or knowing that they were merely CAPABLE of choosing to do evil... he created them knowing they WOULD choose to do evil.

He therefore created evil. Deliberately.

And if you try to adopt the position that he didn't know, then he created evil through either accident or ignorance... but he STILL DID IT.

God is supposed to know future events. That means he did not create people knowing they MIGHT choose to do evil, or knowing that they were merely CAPABLE of choosing to do evil... he created them knowing they WOULD choose to do evil.

He therefore created evil. Deliberately.


No, he created that which choose to do evil. By your logic he should of created mindless drones that had no choice or power for fear of "creating" evil. He created evil as far as awareness of light creates awareness of darkness and he is not responable for our evil. We are responseable for our evil. Are you unwilling to accpet personal responablity and feel better blaming God for everything. I fail to see why you do since your case is that he does not exist.

If god is the ultimate source of everything he is the ultimate source of evil
But the traditional belief is nothing god does or makes is inharently evil

He setup the process and he created evil ultimatly
There are no issues with god and evil just an omni everything deity (including all loving) and evil

No, he created that which choose to do evil. By your logic he should of created mindless drones that had no choice or power for fear of "creating" evil.

1. Unless you are arguing that either it is possible for there to be evil in heaven or that heaven is populated by mindless drones your explanation fails again on that count.

2. Additionally, the ability to freely choose to do any non-evil thing you like also would not make you a mindless drone... so you strike out in more ways than one.

1. Unless you are arguing that either it is possible for there to be evil in heaven or that heaven is populated by mindless drones your explanation fails again on that count.

2. Additionally, the ability to freely choose to do any non-evil thing you like also would not make you a mindless drone... so you strike out in more ways than one.

Careful.

Continue to make good arguments to which he has no response and NC will start just running away from your points as well. ;)

But you think they were justly held responsible without that knowledge.

They knew not even that they were naked, but they -- and all mankind -- can be punished because they did not obey a rule they did not know was wrong to violate.

I would ask you to stop playing with the cemantic of "wrong" and "right" and "good" and "evil". They did not know anything about morallity, but they were intellenget. They knew God, who he was and what he was better than we do today (God walked with them in the Garden). They knew that they should obey God and not eat the fruit, not because they knew it was "good" or "evil" or "right" or "wrong" but because God had told them too. God only gave them the burden of obediance, not understanding.


Also, how were they to know obeying God was good and listening to the serpent was evil?

They knew God and who he was. See above


Which reminds me, didn't God lie and the serpent tell the truth about the "you will surely die" part?

Had they not eaten the fruit they would have had continuous access to the fruit of life (there were two trees) and so would have been imortal and not died. But they were banished and so they would now die eventually.


Wasn't putting the tree of knowledge of good and evil in Eden and making it "good for food and pleasing to the eye" and putting a lying serpent there to convince Eve to partake entrapment?

Without a way of getting "out" so to speek, Eden would have been no better than a prision. If they had no option but to obey God, they would be in a prison. God did not "put" the serpent in as you say, he allowed it to be there but he did not want it to be there. See the diffrence between God's will and God's plan.

1. Unless you are arguing that either it is possible for there to be evil in heaven or that heaven is populated by mindless drones your explanation fails again on that count.

Heaven is beyond our understanding so I cant comment on it with any significent degree of accuracy. I do know that we will not be of our bodies here when we do enter heven. I dont know enough about heaven to know wheter or not we will have free will as we know it here or what it will be like at all. All I do know is that it will be beyond our wildest dreams, in the presence of God.


2. Additionally, the ability to freely choose to do any non-evil thing you like also would not make you a mindless drone... so you strike out in more ways than one.

I dont disagree with that. The fact that we can freely choose to do evil or good makes us free willed individuals and not mindless drones. We can choose what to do in this world. God gave us free will.

Note;
Response.....Responsibility.....Responsible ;)

All this talk about God and good and evil, but didn't God Himself do things that could be considered evil, by our standards? I'm no theologan or anything, so maybe you would rather listen to these guys. I think that this Religious Tolerance website is great.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/imm_bibl1.htm

"In Genesis 22:1-18, God decided to test the depth of Abraham's faith. God ordered Abraham to travel to the top of a mountain in the land of Moriah, and there murder his own son, Isaac, as a human sacrifice. At the last minute, as Abraham was about to stab his son to death, an angel appeared and ordered Abraham to stop. A ram which was caught in a thicket was used as a substitute for Isaac. The passage assumes that God is not omniscient, because he did not know the depth of faith of Abraham without testing him in this way. The immorality of this story is the massive traumatic stress that both Isaac and his father experienced during this event. Compounding this is the willingness of a father to murder his own son. It is doubtful that either would have been able to be fully normal afterwards."

Seems pretty darn evil to me... and God didn't actually kill anybody in THIS story. I will not worship such a God, sorry.

For starters, evil and good is a way relative concept.
If communists had won the cold war, the exactly same people that today protects christianity would be protecting atheism, because it is the kind of people that protects the status quo and not so much the ideology. Heck, I could even believe in god...

God did not create beings that WILL do evil, but only have the capacity to do evil with their own choice, free will. They can choose to do evil or not. It is not God's responablity if they do or do not.

Weighing in on sin.GOD created sin when HE gave a commandment for someone to obey.It was HIS choice and HE could have simply let them live without a commandment to obey/disobey. :confused:
So the bible GOD got angry when gravity made the blocks fall down and HE kicked them out of HIS room and banished them to eternal darkness in the toy box. :mp5:
But if sin is not evil then we have an out clause. :D

Weighing in on sin.GOD created sin when HE gave a commandment for someone to obey.It was HIS choice and HE could have simply let them live without a commandment to obey/disobey. :confused:
So the bible GOD got angry when gravity made the blocks fall down and HE kicked them out of HIS room and banished them to eternal darkness in the toy box. :mp5:
But if sin is not evil then we have an out clause. :DGod created sin when he gave a commandment...

Not when man choose to disobey the commandment given by God....

interesting theory...

I would ask you to stop playing with the cemantic of "wrong" and "right" and "good" and "evil". They did not know anything about morallity, but they were intellenget. They knew God, who he was and what he was better than we do today (God walked with them in the Garden). They knew that they should obey God and not eat the fruit, not because they knew it was "good" or "evil" or "right" or "wrong" but because God had told them too. God only gave them the burden of obediance, not understanding.

You are the one that keeps playing semantics.

They were punished -- rather severely -- for something you admit they did not know was "evil" or "wrong."

For that they got this:

16 To the woman he said, ‘I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.’

17 And to the man he said, ‘Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree about which I commanded you, “You shall not eat of it,” cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; 18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return.’

...

22 And the Lord God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever. 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

Tad disporportionate for doing something you did not know was wrong.

They knew God and who he was. See above

You beg the quesiton of why they deserved punishment. They did not know it was wrong. Heck, they didn't even know they were naked!



Had they not eaten the fruit they would have had continuous access to the fruit of life (there were two trees) and so would have been imortal and not died. But they were banished and so they would now die eventually.

Not quite what they were told though, was it?



Without a way of getting "out" so to speek, Eden would have been no better than a prision. If they had no option but to obey God, they would be in a prison. God did not "put" the serpent in as you say, he allowed it to be there but he did not want it to be there. See the diffrence between God's will and God's plan.

God had no control over the serpent?

The more you backpedal the less potent (let alone omnipotent) God becomes.

God didn't create the serpent in the Garden? Didn't put the tree there? Didn't make the apple "good for food and pleasing to the eye"?

What kind of heretic are you?

Are you implying God planned for Adam and Eve to sin -- God deliberately set it up -- because if God didn't do that "Eden would have been no better than a prison"?

And no. Please explain this alleged difference between an omnipotent & omniscient God's will and plan. That should be good for some kicks and giggles.

God created sin when he gave a commandment...

Not when man choose to disobey the commandment given by God....

interesting theory...

You missed the point, what the guy said is that there is only evil because god created good.
I mean, for those who believe in god, for me it´s humans who created good and evil, therefore, I will keep having sex while you go to church.
Matter of fact, I will go to church with you and have sex there.

Heaven is beyond our understanding so I cant comment on it with any significent degree of accuracy. I do know that we will not be of our bodies here when we do enter heven. I dont know enough about heaven to know wheter or not we will have free will as we know it here or what it will be like at all. All I do know is that it will be beyond our wildest dreams, in the presence of God.

So in other words as long as you're trying to make excuses for God's creation of evil then evil is a definite necessary consequence of free will but as soon as that stance starts directly conflicting with other aspects of your own theology all of a sudden you really don't know enough about it to say if free will could exist without evil or not... so let's not get too hasty about those logical consequences of your own statements when applied to the concept of heaven?

I dont disagree with that. The fact that we can freely choose to do evil or good makes us free willed individuals and not mindless drones. We can choose what to do in this world. God gave us free will.

I don't think you were paying attention to what you responded to. The ability to freely choose to do anything EXCEPT something that is evil still leaves you rather decidedly NOT a mindless drone lacking free will.

And in every scenario discussed so far, God still created evil whatever excuses you want to make for it.

For starters, evil and good is a way relative concept.
If communists had won the cold war, the exactly same people that today protects christianity would be protecting atheism, because it is the kind of people that protects the status quo and not so much the ideology. Heck, I could even believe in god...

Evil might be relative, but there are standards that practically any decent person would agree are right or wrong. There are some shades of grey, but it isn't all shades of grey. This is even covered in the same link I posted previously. :) They also cover the 'hard passages', and how liberal vs conservative Christians are likely to view the hard passages. I already posted my oppinion. :)

Anyway good and evil might be abstract, but sometimes it pays to treat good and evil like they are not. And sometimes it causes a great deal of trouble. Hmm... Perhaps I should concern myself with justice instead?

All this talk about God and good and evil, but didn't God Himself do things that could be considered evil, by our standards? I'm no theologan or anything, so maybe you would rather listen to these guys. I think that this Religious Tolerance website is great.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/imm_bibl1.htm

"In Genesis 22:1-18, God decided to test the depth of Abraham's faith. God ordered Abraham to travel to the top of a mountain in the land of Moriah, and there murder his own son, Isaac, as a human sacrifice. At the last minute, as Abraham was about to stab his son to death, an angel appeared and ordered Abraham to stop. A ram which was caught in a thicket was used as a substitute for Isaac. The passage assumes that God is not omniscient, because he did not know the depth of faith of Abraham without testing him in this way. The immorality of this story is the massive traumatic stress that both Isaac and his father experienced during this event. Compounding this is the willingness of a father to murder his own son. It is doubtful that either would have been able to be fully normal afterwards."

Seems pretty darn evil to me... and God didn't actually kill anybody in THIS story. I will not worship such a God, sorry.

Lots of evil commited by God in the Bible.

My favorites are the torture of Job and this one:

Murder of 42 little children:
2 Kings 2:23-24: "And he [Elisha] went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."

Elisha, a Prophet, was ridiculed by some little children who called him a name like "old baldy". Elisha laid a curse on them in God's name. God appears to have responded to the curse by sending two bears out of the woods who tare (tore up, killed) 42 of the little children.

Almost all civilized countries prohibit capital punishment for youth offenders - no matter what their crime is. In this passage, God is seen to arrange the murder of dozens of small children for simply pointing fun at adult.

As a Roman Catholic Theologian of high standing, I believe it is my duty to inform you that ‘existence’ does not have an ‘a’ in it.

I just don't understand how Christians can reconcile their beliefs in their good, all powerful God with some of the passages in the Bible. I just don't get it. Anybody have any thoughts on this? Perhaps a separate thread is in order?

Maybe I should bring the topic up with my roommate.

Lots of evil commited by God in the Bible.

My favorites are the torture of Job and this one:

Murder of 42 little children:
2 Kings 2:23-24: "And he [Elisha] went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."

Elisha, a Prophet, was ridiculed by some little children who called him a name like "old baldy". Elisha laid a curse on them in God's name. God appears to have responded to the curse by sending two bears out of the woods who tare (tore up, killed) 42 of the little children.

All countries, with the exception of the United States and a very few other states, prohibit capital punishment for youth offenders - no matter what their crime is. The U.S. at least waits until the convicted child is 18 before executing him or her. In this passage, God is seen to arrange the murder of dozens of small children for simply pointing fun at adult.

:) Best post in this thread yet.

As a Roman Catholic Theologian of high standing, I believe it is my duty to inform you that ‘existence’ does not have an ‘a’ in it.

I just don't understand how Christians can reconcile their beliefs in their good, all powerful God with some of the passages in the Bible. I just don't get it. Anybody have any thoughts on this? Perhaps a separate thread is in order?

Maybe I should bring the topic up with my roommate.

A separate thread might well be in order. NC's about to expode as is.

Of course, both your roomate and the Xians on these forums will go apeshit. They really don't like you pointing out the flaws in their mythology.

I can't help but suspect 'doublethink,' but it may be a case of ignorance and misunderstanding on my part. Anyway, I'll start the new thread regarding the 'hard passages' and retire for now. Maybe I will check in again later.

A separate thread might well be in order. NC's about to expode as is.

Of course, both your roomate and the Xians on these forums will go apeshit. They really don't like you pointing out the flaws in their mythology.

But how would they have known whether it was Right or Wrong to disobey God before eating the apple?

Because He told them ! Please read the passage ! ;)

EDIT: Also, how were they to know obeying God was good and listening to the serpent was evil?

Let's see. God had created them. God "walked" with them in the garden. Ie., there was a spiritual communion, or relationship. So a comand from their God and Creator would carry significant weight and moral authority.

Which reminds me, didn't God lie and the serpent tell the truth about the "you will surely die" part?

"You wil surely die" refers to man's spiritual death, and fall from grace. Hence the death of Christ to provide the sacrifice needed to restore the spiritual communion between God and man.

Wasn't putting the tree of knowledge of good and evil in Eden and making it "good for food and pleasing to the eye" and putting a lying serpent there to convince Eve to partake entrapment?

1) God did not "put" the lying serpent there. The serpent was the deceiver know as Satan.
2) God commanding them not to eat, and then trying to "entrap" them is a serious error in logic, as well as unsupported by the text.
3) There are lots of things in the world that are "good for food" and "pleasing to the eye." Doesnt mean they're benificial.

Because He told them ! Please read the passage ! ;)

I've read the freakin' passage.

It clearly says they had no knowledge of right and wrong before eating the apple.

So "[b]ecause He told them" doesn't explain how they would know it was wrong!

And he didn't tell them it was wrong, he simply told ADAM (before Eve was even created at least in this passage) "you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Did He say they would be punished? No.

Did He say it would be wrong? No.

Yet, when they did it, he punished them. A punishement they did not deserve. (And exceeded the only consequence of which he warned them.)

All this talk about God and good and evil, but didn't God Himself do things that could be considered evil, by our standards? I'm no theologan or anything, so maybe you would rather listen to these guys. I think that this Religious Tolerance website is great.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/imm_bibl1.htm

"In Genesis 22:1-18, God decided to test the depth of Abraham's faith. God ordered Abraham to travel to the top of a mountain in the land of Moriah, and there murder his own son, Isaac, as a human sacrifice. At the last minute, as Abraham was about to stab his son to death, an angel appeared and ordered Abraham to stop. A ram which was caught in a thicket was used as a substitute for Isaac. The passage assumes that God is not omniscient, because he did not know the depth of faith of Abraham without testing him in this way. The immorality of this story is the massive traumatic stress that both Isaac and his father experienced during this event. Compounding this is the willingness of a father to murder his own son. It is doubtful that either would have been able to be fully normal afterwards."

Seems pretty darn evil to me... and God didn't actually kill anybody in THIS story. I will not worship such a God, sorry.

This is a perfect example of someone using one passage of the bible to make a point, without reading ANYTHING ELSE that might give answers to the meaning or context.

The same God who commanded that Abraham sacrifice his son Isaac, was the same God who had ALREADY promised that Abraham's descendants would be "as numerous as the stars." God made a covenant with Abraham, a promise, and it explicitly states that the covenant would continue through Isaac. (Genesis Cpater 17)

So Abraham knew that his God and Creator, who already made a covenant with him, which woulld follow through Isaace, would either provide a substitute for the sacrifice, or else raise Isaac back from the dead.

Let's see. God had created them. God "walked" with them in the garden. Ie., there was a spiritual communion, or relationship. So a comand from their God and Creator would carry significant weight and moral authority.

How could it convey "moral authority" to one that had no knowledge of good and evil?

Moreover, pray tell where it says there was "spiritual communion" between God and Adam and Eve.

"You wil surely die" refers to man's spiritual death, and fall from grace. Hence the death of Christ to provide the sacrifice needed to restore the spiritual communion between God and man.

Nice exegis. Not what God said though, is it?

Is it reasonable for those without the knowledge of good and evil, who did not even know they were naked, and haven't had thousands of years to study the question in hindsight to have taken God literally?

If you want to get into the sacrifice absurdity, we can go there ....


1) God did not "put" the lying serpent there. The serpent was the deceiver know as Satan.

Really? Care to point to the passage that says that?

My Bible -- Genesis 3:1 says" Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made ..."

Not a darn thing about the serpent being Satan. Or sneaking into the Garden.

In fact, Genesis 2:19 says: "Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name."

Seems rather clear the serpent was made by God and put in (or brought to) the Garden by God.


2) God commanding them not to eat, and then trying to "entrap" them is a serious error in logic, as well as unsupported by the text.

Care to explain. Or do you think bald assertions prove a "serious error in logic."

Let us see. Created Adam and Eve. Put them in the Garden with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Told them not to eat it because "when you eat it you will surely die." But deprived them of the knowledge of good and evil, right from wrong. Created the serpent. It lobbied for them to eat the apple. (Do snakes have free will? I don't think they do, so the serpent must have been acting on God's behalf in lobbying for them to eat the apple.) God made the apple "good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom." Not exactly a shocker they ate it.

3) There are lots of things in the world that are "good for food" and "pleasing to the eye." Doesnt mean they're benificial.

Many fruits are not "good for food" or "pleasing to the eye." Why was the apple? To make it more tempting?

And there aren't many things that are "good for food" and "pleasing to the eye" that are sins to eat. Are there?

I've read the freakin' passage.

It clearly says they had no knowledge of right and wrong before eating the apple.

So "[b]ecause He told them" doesn't explain how they would know it was wrong!

And he didn't tell them it was wrong, he simply told ADAM (before Eve was even created at least in this passage) "you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Did He say they would be punished? No.

Did He say it would be wrong? No.

Yet, when they did it, he punished them. A punishement they did not deserve. (And exceeded the only consequence of which he warned them.)

Cat-Tribe you disappoint me.

What's so hard to understand about "you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil"? This is a direct command from God ! The "right" thing to do in obvious, and inferred!

And yes, Eve DID receive the commandment. Care to read like 3 extra paragraphs? Genesis chapter 3:

The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'

So: Did he say it was wrong? Well, he commmanded it, and it not that great of a logical leap to infer "rightness:.

and: Did He say they would be punished? Yes ! : "for when you eat of it you will surely die"

Cat-Tribe you disappoint me.

What's so hard to understand about "you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil"? This is a direct command from God ! The "right" thing to do in obvious, and inferred!


Way to clip the quote.

If someone says "you must not smoke cigarettes for when you do you will surely die," is that a direct command?

"You must not smoke cigarettes in my car" is a command.

The "right" thing to do may be obvious to you. But you have the knowledge of good and evil -- don't you? You, for example, are likely aware if you are naked.

But without the knowledge of right from wrong then you couldn't "infer" right or wrong, could you?

I can tell my cats that that they shouldn't do something. That does not make it a sin if they do it. They lack the knowledge of good and evil.

And yes, Eve DID receive the commandment. Care to read like 3 extra paragraphs? Genesis chapter 3:

The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'

I didn't deny it. I noted the inconsistency. The account jumps around and is rather inconsistent in many respects.

Between the paragraph you cite and the warning to Adam, the creation of Eve is described.

So: Did he say it was wrong? Well, he commmanded it, and it not that great of a logical leap to infer "rightness:.

Unless you have no concept of good or evil .....

and: Did He say they would be punished? Yes ! : "for when you eat of it you will surely die"

Um. No.

Did God say "for when you eat of it I will punish you" or "for when you eat of it I will kill you"? No.

If someone says "you must not smoke cigarettes for when you do you will surely die," is that saying you will be punished if you smoke? Or a health warning?

Nor did God warn of the many punishments God inflicted not just on Adam and Eve but on all mankind.

You continue to fail to explain how they deserved the punishment they received. Let alone how all mankind deserved punishment.

Is it reasonable for those without the knowledge of good and evil, who did not even know they were naked, and haven't had thousands of years to study the question in hindsight to have taken God literally?

Very reasonable, considering God directly commanded them not to eat it. *sigh*

If you want to get into the sacrifice absurdity, we can go there ....

Ok, but maybe in another thread :D


Really? Care to point to the passage that says that?

Seems rather clear the serpent was made by God and put in (or brought to) the Garden by God.

Also, not a darn thing about snakes being able to talk. Obviously, a higher power was in control, or the snake is simply an "analogy" (but that is another topic). There are many new testament passages that refer to satan as a snake and a deceiver. Read Revelation 12:9 (that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray), and Romans 5.

Also read Romans 16:20: "The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet." Strange, this sounds like the prophesy made after Adam and Eve ate the fruit.

Care to explain. Or do you think bald(sp) assertions prove a "serious error in logic."

Your bold assumption didnt prove a serious error in logic. It just exemplified one. It assumes that God would contradict Himself, by first commanding not to eat the fruit, and then trying to persuade them to do it. Illogical and unsupported.

Very reasonable, considering God directly commanded them not to eat it. *sigh*

Way to move the goalposts. The point I was addressing was whether "when you eat of it you will surely die" could reasonably be taken literally.

And the "command" was not particularly direct -- unless you clip the quote again.

You continue to ignore that, prior to eating the fruit, Adam and Eve had no concept of good or evil, right or wrong. You keep applying a standard that does not apply.



Also, not a darn thing about snakes being able to talk. Obviously, a higher power was in control, or the snake is simply an "analogy" (but that is another topic). There are many new testament passages that refer to satan as a snake and a deceiver. Read Revelation 12:9 (that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray), and Romans 5.

Also read Romans 16:20: "The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet." Strange, this sounds like the prophesy made after Adam and Eve ate the fruit.

So, because satan is sometimes referred to as a snake and a deciever, the serpent must be satan -- even though the text never says so.

An the "analogy" gets a little odd given the literal text.

Regardless, make it Satan. Who created him and made him evil? Hmmmm?

Your bold assumption didnt prove a serious error in logic. It just exemplified one. It assumes that God would contradict Himself, by first commanding not to eat the fruit, and then trying to persuade them to do it. Illogical and unsupported.

You assume it is impossible for God to contradict Himself -- despite evidence to the contrary in the Bible itself.

If you assume that God could not ever have done something wrong or contradicted Himself, then obviously He couldn't.

But the evidence -- in God's own Bible -- is what I have cited. God created the temptation -- including making the apple particularly tempting. He created beings without knowledge that yeilding to the temptation was wrong. And then He severely punished them for yeilding to the temptation. Not a particularly stellar example of justice.

Way to clip the quote.

If someone says "you must not smoke cigarettes for when you do you will surely die," is that a direct command?

"You must not smoke cigarettes in my car" is a command.

Ok, direct quote: 'And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." '

1) it was a command
2) made my their LORD God
3) with the result of disobedience given

I'm not likely to argue this further (unless I get bored tonight, we'll see) :D


I didn't deny it. I noted the inconsistency. The account jumps around and is rather inconsistent in many respects.

Not really. Right there in chapter 3. Plain and simple.


Um. No.

Um. Yes. See above.

You continue to fail to explain how they deserved the punishment they received. Let alone how all mankind deserved punishment.

If you read Romans 5, it describes Adam as a representative as the human race. Sin, punishment, and death came about throught him...but it is clear from the bible that all have sinned.

That same pasage also describes Christ as a second "Adam", another representative. Those who turn to God and accept Christ as their Savior will be justified through their faith, and have life.

And the "command" was not particularly direct -- unless you clip the quote again.

Yes, in fact, the command was VERY direct.

So, because satan is sometimes referred to as a snake and a deciever, the serpent must be satan -- even though the text never says so.

So, I should accept your "theory" that the snake was driven by God -- even thought the text never says so?



You assume it is impossible for God to contradict Himself --

Yes. But it's not an assumption. God is the Alpha, and the Omega, and always the same.

despite evidence to the contrary in the Bible itself.

There is no evidence. And you havent provided any.


But the evidence -- in God's own Bible -- is what I have cited. God created the temptation -- including making the apple particularly tempting. He created beings without knowledge that yeilding to the temptation was wrong. And then He severely punished them for yeilding to the temptation. Not a particularly stellar example of justice.

God created the tree, not the temptation. Nowhere does it way the tree was "particularly" tempting. They had the knowledge that they weren't supposed to do it! As for justice, start thinking on a larger scale. For a just God, a single act of disobediance would be enough to warrant the punishment. Good thing God is also a God of love, and died Himself, to bear the punishment.

Take care. :D

Yes, in fact, the command was VERY direct.


No more direct than the serpent. They had no reason to trust one over the other. They lacked the ability to analyze the situation. They lacked knowledge of good and evil.



So, I should accept your "theory" that the snake was driven by God -- even thought the text never says so?



The serpent was created by the deity. It appearantly had free will, and the deity had no desire to stop it.



Yes. But it's not an assumption. God is the Alpha, and the Omega, and always the same.



Still plenty of contradictions. It's always the same. The same bullshit hypocracy.




There is no evidence. And you havent provided any.



The fact that the deity breaks its own rules constantly.



God created the tree, not the temptation.



Where did temptation come from if not from the deity that created everything in existance?



Nowhere does it way the tree was "particularly" tempting.



It had a snake saying that the tree will make you totally kickass, and that the deity doesn't want you having it because he's a selfish prick. Oh, wait, the snake was RIGHT. They just needed the second tree to be uberkickass, and good ol' Mr. Jealous stopped them.



They had the knowledge that they weren't supposed to do it!



They had no reason to believe one over the other.

The snake was right, after all.

Is it wrong to want to be the same as the Christian deity, since he's supposed to be so great?



As for justice, start thinking on a larger scale. For a just God, a single act of disobediance would be enough to warrant the punishment.


Um. Eye for an eye does not mean eternal damnation for you and all of your offspring for the one and only moment of disobedience you made when you lacked knowledge of what was good and bad.


Good thing God is also a God of love, and died Himself, to bear the punishment.

Take care. :D

Which is absolutely meaningless because Jew Jerky on a Stick does not equate to eternal damnation for billions. It's an injustice for another to pay for one's own crimes.

The existence of a supreme good seems to necessitate a supreme evil. If God is the supreme good, then where's the supreme evil? Satan? Surely you are mistaken, a fallen creation of God to rival his powers until the end of time? And where did this fallen creation get the idea to rebel against God's plan? There must have been something to urge Lucifer into it, no?

To say that a supreme evil is evident in Satan's urgings here in the material world, actions performed by men become a great evil, to rival the power of God? Utterly ridiculous.

What of the final judgement? To be cast into the lake of eternal fire and brimstone for some finite crime during life?

Ok, direct quote: 'And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." '

1) it was a command
2) made my their LORD God
3) with the result of disobedience given

I'm not likely to argue this further (unless I get bored tonight, we'll see) :D

But, once again, they did not know it was wrong to disobey Him.

No more direct than the serpent. They had no reason to trust one over the other. They lacked the ability to analyze the situation. They lacked knowledge of good and evil.

Much more direct than the serpent! How many times can I say it? And you say they lacked the ability to analyze the situation? Were they just mindless drones? No, they were made in the image of God with the ability to reason.

When Eve responded to the snake's temptations, she replied, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

She knew the commandment, but succumbed to the temptation. They lacked knowlege of good and evil, but I contend that they knew right from wrong. They had dominion over all of God's creation, yet they fell to the temptation for more, to "be like God."

The serpent was created by the deity. It appearantly had free will, and the deity had no desire to stop it.

Agreed, but the snake was "driven" by God.

Still plenty of contradictions. It's always the same. The same bullshit hypocracy.

(I sense some bitterness in that statement)

Hypocrasy? Where? Contradictions? Where?

The fact that the deity breaks its own rules constantly.

Fact? You still haven't sprovided any.

Where did temptation come from if not from the deity that created everything in existance?

How can temptation be "created?" It's not a physical thing. Responsibility lies with the one doing the tempting (the snake, or Satan if you belive that...I'll try to find more verses that support it), and the one who lets himself be tempted.

It had a snake saying that the tree will make you totally kickass, and that the deity doesn't want you having it because he's a selfish prick. Oh, wait, the snake was RIGHT. They just needed the second tree to be uberkickass, and good ol' Mr. Jealous stopped them.

The tree didn't "have" a snake. LOL. Anyways, Genesis 2 states that God made "all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food."

So it wasn't the physical appeal, it was the desire for power, wisdom....to be like God. ANd you say God was selfish and jealous? He gave them dominion over all of creation, and made them in His own image!! They had it made!! But they wanted more !!

They had no reason to believe one over the other.

Yes, they did. Hmm. A commandment vs. a temptation. They knew that they were not to eat from the tree. Nuf said.

The snake was right, after all.

Of course he was right. The tree of "knowledge of good and evil" will actually give you the "knowledge of good and evil." What a concept.

Is it wrong to want to be the same as the Christian deity, since he's supposed to be so great?

Is it wrong to want to be the same as God? I'll give that an emphatic YES.
He does not share glory and power. He alone is God.

Um. Eye for an eye does not mean eternal damnation for you and all of your offspring for the one and only moment of disobedience you made when you lacked knowledge of what was good and bad.

Sin entered the world through Adam, but the Bible is clear that ALL have sinned. (Read Romans chapters 3-5). And eternal damnation is not given for one act of disobedience, but for those whose hearts are set against God. Luckily, he provided a way out, that is through Christ. If we acknowledge our sin, turn away fro mit and to God, and receive Christ as our savior, there is no eternal damnation, but eternal life !

Which is absolutely meaningless because Jew Jerky on a Stick does not equate to eternal damnation for billions. It's an injustice for another to pay for one's own crimes.

Was that a reference to the crucifixion? Never heard that phrase before.

Anyways, it's not unjust if the prosecutor, the one giving out the punishment decides to bear the punishment Himself. That's called mercy!

Take care. :D

Maybe if you read if while smoking CRACK. NOWHERE in the bible does it say evil originated in or from God. NOWHERE. :fluffle:

Perhaps you have read a different 'bible' to me...

I don't doubt that I could find you a half-dozen references that talked about God 'sending evil', or 'doing evil acts'....

Many sceptics of Christianity and the existance of any kind of higher being in general often point to the existance of evil as they're justification. "How can evil exist if their is a God" they say. Or rather, they claim that their is too much evil in the world and that there is a lack of goodness and so God cannot exist through all the evil natures of the world. But the fact is that if you accept evil you accept good. And I am not talking about evil in general, but the idea that there are universal evils (which skeptics claim exist) which catagorically disprove God's existance. But with the existance of a universal evil comes the logical conclusion that there must be a universal good. Both of these ideas must logically exist in tandum. So where do we get either of these idea's from. The answer must be God. There is no other way to judge what is universally good and universally bad without a God or some other universally high power. Thus it is seen how the existance of evil actually proves God's existance.

but there is no universal evil or univsal goo. good and bad are only relative to the situation.

*snip* Yes. But it's not an assumption. God is the Alpha, and the Omega, and always the same.

Prove it.

Should be easy -- unless that is an assumption.


God created the tree, not the temptation. Nowhere does it way the tree was "particularly" tempting. They had the knowledge that they weren't supposed to do it!

To repeat myself:
Let us see. Created Adam and Eve. Put them in the Garden with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Told them not to eat it because "when you eat it you will surely die." But deprived them of the knowledge of good and evil, right from wrong. Created the serpent. It lobbied for them to eat the apple. (Do snakes have free will? I don't think they do, so the serpent must have been acting on God's behalf in lobbying for them to eat the apple. Even if the snake was Satan -- who created Satan? Do angels have free will? I did not think they did.) God made the apple "good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom." Not exactly a shocker they ate it.

God created everything according to your little book -- so where did the tempation come from if not from God?



As for justice, start thinking on a larger scale. For a just God, a single act of disobediance would be enough to warrant the punishment.

That is not "justice on a larger scale" that is begging the question.

As is saying God is "a just God." The evidence is otherwise.

He punished Adam and Eve and thousands of years of their descedents extremely harshly -- and more harshly than he said he would -- for "a single act of disobedience" that they did not know was wrong.

Good thing God is also a God of love, and died Himself, to bear the punishment.

Take care. :D

Killing oneself is a sin, right?

And saying God bore the punishment isn't quite accurate, is it. Adam and Eve and all of there descendents are still banished from the Garden of Eden.

In fact, here is the punishment described:

16 To the woman he said, ‘I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.’

17 And to the man he said, ‘Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree about which I commanded you, “You shall not eat of it,” cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; 18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return.’

...

22 And the Lord God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever. 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

None of that was changed by the cruxifiction, was it?

Certainly not all of it was.

Not. Just. At. All.

Much more direct than the serpent! How many times can I say it?

[QUOTE=Bicipital Groove]And you say they lacked the ability to analyze the situation? Were they just mindless drones? No, they were made in the image of God with the ability to reason.

But lacked the knowledge of good and evil.

You like to forget that part -- as it the key flaw in the story and your apologetics.

So much so that they even did not know they were naked!

When Eve responded to the snake's temptations, she replied, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

Curious that. As that is not what God said, according to the rest of the text.

Of course, you see no contradictions because there couldn't be any because God cannot contradict himself .... and you've never learned assuming the conclusion is not argument.

She knew the commandment, but succumbed to the temptation. They lacked knowlege of good and evil, but I contend that they knew right from wrong. They had dominion over all of God's creation, yet they fell to the temptation for more, to "be like God."

They lacked knowledge of good and evil, but I contend that they knew right from wrong.

Repeat that until you see why it is inane.

Agreed, but the snake was "driven" by God.

Snakes have free will?

Pray tell, where does it say that in the Bible.

And I assume you made some typo, rather than admit that God was behind the snake's actions.

How can temptation be "created?" It's not a physical thing. Responsibility lies with the one doing the tempting (the snake, or Satan if you belive that...I'll try to find more verses that support it), and the one who lets himself be tempted.

Responsibility lies with the one doing the tempting ....

That would be the one that created the whole situation: the tree, the apples that were "good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom," the victims who did not know good from evil, the snake (or Satan).

Responsibility lies with the one doing the tempting ... that would be that "God" S.O.B.

The tree didn't "have" a snake. LOL. Anyways, Genesis 2 states that God made "all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food."

God created the snake. And he brought it and all the animals into the garden, right?

So it wasn't the physical appeal, it was the desire for power, wisdom....to be like God. ANd you say God was selfish and jealous? He gave them dominion over all of creation, and made them in His own image!! They had it made!! But they wanted more !!

Nice job of making crap up.

"When the woman say that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it." Genesis 3:6

Specifically mentions physical appeal.

Doesn't say anything about wanting power.

Wanting wisdom is wrong?

And -- again -- they did not know good or evil.

Yes, they did. Hmm. A commandment vs. a temptation. They knew that they were not to eat from the tree. Nuf said.

A "commandment"?

We went from the actual language to a direct commandment.

Next thing you are going to be saying they slipped God a mikey and used his entrails as a chaser for the apple.

Is it wrong to want to be the same as God? I'll give that an emphatic YES.
He does not share glory and power. He alone is God.

Again, the "want to be the same of God" stuff isn't mentioned as a motive.

And that would be wrong why? And you would know this because? Even without knowledge of good and evil?

Yes. He is a jealous selfish bastard. Thanks for the concession.

Sin entered the world through Adam, but the Bible is clear that ALL have sinned. (Read Romans chapters 3-5). And eternal damnation is not given for one act of disobedience, but for those whose hearts are set against God.

Again, a host of rather severe punishments -- in addition to damnation -- were visited upon all mankind for a single act of disobediance.

Darn, that text is so inconvenient to apologetics, ain't it?

Luckily, he provided a way out, that is through Christ. If we acknowledge our sin, turn away fro mit and to God, and receive Christ as our savior, there is no eternal damnation, but eternal life !

Came a little late for those that lived before Christ, didn't it?

Even if you believe they were automatically redeemed through the cruxifiction those thousands of years of unbearable pain and suffering were a tad inconvenient.

And this doesn't fix the actual punishment meted out in Genesis 3:16-23, does it?

Anyways, it's not unjust if the prosecutor, the one giving out the punishment decides to bear the punishment Himself. That's called mercy!

No its called sado-masochism. A particularly twisted form.

And, you continue to ignore that Adam and Eve and all mankind suffered the punishment actually stated in Genesis 3:16-23.