That certainly is an interesting reply, but it does nothing in promoting discussions.
El Elvis Rojo,
In our hearts.
Urban Ranger,
Had you been interested in discussion, you would have discussed your point in light of the post I had already made, that dealt with your point in some detail.
So, if we were made “In the image and likeness of God,” what does that say about God?
It says that God makes perfect moral choices. He, too, could choose evil, but doesn’t.
Make evil disappear? Hardly. My ‘assertation’ very much stated that God could cause evil. Predestination is a belief I currently struggle with in my head, and yes…many of those I talk to about it believe that God specifically wills EVERY evil action that takes place in the universe. My point is that we cannot question the motives of God because He is very much above our understanding of good and evil. He created good, He created evil. Because each are His creation, we can never say that what God does is ‘wrong’. You’re more than welcome to refer to something He does as evil, just be fully aware that it can only be ‘evil’ in our perspective.
I’m interested in this statement Libertarian. I agree that God is good because He loves, but I believe God is good in everything he does…including when he shows signs of not loving ‘hardening Pharoah’s heart’ ‘I have hated Esau’.
In light of the post I am about to quote, I will capitalize Good to mean “what god does” and leave it in lower case when I mean “a value man ascribes to situtations, actions, existents, etc.”
Certainly it is subject to our questioning; it simply isn’t subject to our method of valuation.
Well, then, there is nothing to debate here because you attach a meaning of good to Good and then reject that there exists Evil.
All you have said amounts to God is {arbitrary quality that applies only to God}. Anything god does is {arbitrary quality that applies only to God}. This serves to shine no light on the case of good an evil, and only seems to because of your poor choice of wording.
If Good and good are in any way related as a matter of fact or definition then you have a tautology: “God cannot be wrong because He is God.” Well, how am I supposed to respond to that? 
You go on to say, a reply to ambushed,
And again I say, neither can we say what he does is right! See???
Whatever the reason for any misunderstanding about God’s love — whether the author’s ambiguity or your own misguided inference — I must say that what you present to us is perhaps the maddest biblical innerancy position I’ve ever seen, manifested by your willingness to accept that God is the cause of evil rather than that a damn book might be wrong.
Which is it that you worship, God or the book? Why would you worship a demon that condemns men to suffer destinies against their will, that hates its own children, and that leaves the fate of its message strictly in the hands of Nicene politicians? I hereby disassociate myself, in the strongest, most unequivocal terms that I can, from whatever monster it is that you’ve described here. I don’t recognize God in it.
How else can I say this? […searching recesses of mind…] Ah, yes. You are making the baby Jesus cry.
Once again you completely pass over the issue and apply a standard to the ways in which God acts. Disassociate yourself from my ‘monster’ if you will. I see no presented evidence, however, that God only represents love.
Issue? What issue? Do you mean your misunderstanding? The paradox you’ve imagined? I dealt with that already. There is no evil in the universe; there is evil only in the hearts of free moral agents. And they are spirits, not made of atoms. The universe is amoral.
As to God representing only love, God is love. How could He “represent” anything else? As evidence, you can accept either a testimony from scripture, or else a deduction. Or, if you prefer, you can make up your own wild assertion.
Obviously are views are so far distant from each other that nothing will come of this conversation. However, I do find it interesting that you make the statement above and then proceed to send me a verse from that ‘damn book’ to prove that God is love. My answer to that…God is love…that’s not all He is, but yes, He is love.
Please explain how there is something that is not love that is either greater than love or else is a subset of love but is not love. You are attempting to reconcile a perception with an interpretation. The formal term for that is “rationalizing”.
I apologize in advance to the moderators for saying this outside the Pit, but you, sir or madam, are religious!
Please forgive my calling you religious. I said it in the heat of passion, and I’m ashamed for having done it. I will leave you now in peace. It is best for me (and you) that I do not attend this thread.
Personally, I think the OP should be convicted of false advertising. S/he claims in the title of this thread that s/he is offering “A New Opinion From A Christian” when there’s really nothing whatsoever new about what s/he actually wrote.
That said, I have no opinion on the OP’s actual subject matter, as my God/dess is not the OP’s God in any way, shape or form.
I would, however, like to note that it’s a lot easier to reconcile the unexpected tragedies of the world with a deity that’s not purported to be pristine in its morality.
jayjay
Sorry Jayjay…haven’t been here long…I didn’t realize that many people had posed my opinion before. I’m sure the BBB will be all over me for that “false advertising”.
Well, in here, on Usenet, on other message boards, in e-mail lists, in real-life debates, etc.
I don’t want to attack you specifically, but it sometimes seems as if every new wave of “Internet-Active-Defensive-Christians” thinks that they’re the spontaneous first discoverers of arguments that have been used to debate Christianity’s more prickly problems for decades, if not centuries.
For future reference (to all IADCs, not just phil):
Pascal’s Wager is not new.
Nothing God Does Can Be Evil is not new.
And believe it or not, most Americans have indeed heard of Jesus. That means, regardless of how difficult it may be for you to believe, those who aren’t already Christians are not non-Christians because they haven’t heard the Gospels.
jayjay
My understanding is that God gave us free will, and allowed us to make our own choices. He made evil available as a choice, but it’s up to us to embrace or reject it.
We cannot prove the existance of God, but we CAN prove whether or not he responds to prayer - all you have to do is look at the way righteous people live and compare it to non-believers, and see if the righteous are gaining some kind of advantage. And sorry, it’s not the case. If it were, you’d see statistics like this:
Chance of dying from brain tumors: 80% amongst non-believers, 60% amongst believers.
Since there is no statistical difference between those who pray and those who don’t, we have to accept that prayer doesn’t make any difference that is measurable in this world. It might help your mortal soul, but that is an untestable claim. And for damned sure God doesn’t help us make free throws, no matter how many times Wilt Chamberlain wants to say that it was all God’s doing.
So it’s clear that if there is a god, he has a ‘hands-off’ attitude towards us, except for perhaps in extreme situations when he has to come down and blast a city or flood a world or something. But in between, he’s strictly an observer. That’s the way he wants it, and in fact that’s what the Bible says. Genesis doesn’t say that he gave us evil - it’s says that he gave us the knowledge of it.
The Bible basically describes us as a big experiment. God created us, gave us free will, knowledge of Good and Evil, and set us free to see what we would become. Until and if he shows himself again, we’re on our own.
I understand your reasoning, Ranger, and I’m sympathetic and would tend to agree except that all five of my statements really are mandatory.
For if you deny God’s omnipotence, for example, than the evil that actually does exist might be something that God is not responsible for since a non-omnipotent God might not be able to do anything about it. Thus, a weak God can escape responsibility for evil.
Likewise, if one deny’s God’s omniscience, then he can be freed from responsibility on the grounds that he either doesn’t know about the evil that exists or he doesn’t know how to stop it.
Thirdly, if one were to deny God’s omnibenevolence, evil needs no explication since it follows that God himself is at least partly evil and caused evil because He approved of the evil He created.
Thus, I think you can see that all five elements of my list are required for the argument to be escape-proof:
-
God is perfectly good (omnibenevolent)
-
God’s power in unlimited (omnipotent)
-
God is all knowing (omniscient)
-
God is the sole creator of the Universe
-
There is evil in the Universe
Conclusion: If you accept all five statements, God is responsible for evil. There is NO escape! Certainly no mere assertion such as phil’s continuing slight of words can get God off the hook for creating and/or allowing evil.
And as for flawed arguments by the likes of Libertarian and others, who try to blame mankind for evil by saying that evil exists only in the hearts of mankind (clearly based on the ancient and flawed free-will theodicy), such arguments carry very little weight.
For moral evil is just ONE kind of evil! There is also existential evil and, more importantly, natural evil (earthquakes and spina bifida, for examples). None of which are caused in any way by free human action.
Yes, Virginia, there IS evil in the world, and God is to blame for it.
No theodicy in all human history has successfully vanquished the Problem of Evil!
Any evidence at all, really.
Also:
Catholics tell me that the Pope is God’s representative on earth, and Protestants that he isn’t. Christians tell me that Jesus is the son of God, and Jews that he isn’t. Some fundamentalist Christians say the Bible is literally true, and others that it contains parables.
Islam states that Mohammed is His prophet.
Buddhists believe in reincarnation until you attain nothingness.
(Please excuse any mistakes above.) I’m certainly not trying to insult any religion, but it is the case that they contradict each other.
Surely we can agree on ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’? My point is that Jesus was pretty clear about how to behave. Why don’t these standards apply to God?
Accepted by whom?
Certainly. Why can’t you do so?
And some don’t think He exists. But moral behaviour towards our fellow human beings is clear, whether God exists or not.
In any case, if God can be evil, then I don’t want to worship Him.
To philsGT500:
It’s interesting, given your up-front assertion that you are a Christian, how little you actually have to say about Jesus Christ in your posts. Your emphasis on God and his ultimate power could be shared by many Jews, Muslims etc., and seems to me to be more of a Deist world-view than a Christian one.
Of course, i have no desire to tell you what you do or do not believe in. That is totally up to you. It just seems to me that there is nothing in your OP that needs to apply specifically to Christians.
Having said all that, i’ll put my own two-cents’ worth in. Neither good nor evil (whatever they are!) derive from some supreme being, IMHO, but from choices made by human beings.
Mhendo,
Does the post say that it was necessarily just a Christian view point? Nope, not at all. It just so happens I am Christian, and I like to make sure people know that. It also just so happens I like strawberries.
“Strawberries are good”. There’s another opinion FROM a Christian for you…although I have very little biblical text to show for it.