Why does God permit evil????

@Amperage,

Amperage;122797 wrote:

what have we established so far?

First we are presupposing that God exists

second we determined that evil is an objectively morally unjustifiable intent or desire

Third, we determined that pain and suffering are not evil.

It then follows that the only reason evil exists is because we are free moral agents

It also follows that God allows pain and suffering because they are not bad for us.

So the real question then becomes is free will worth the evil we can commit?

To which I emphatically say YES! Keep in mind that for all the evil we are capable of, we are capable of even greater good. In the same way that darkness cannot overcome light....no matter how dark the room may be it cannot extinguish a light source.
Next consider a toy robot that can walk and talk and ask yourself if you'd rather be that. I think the answer is no.
Next consider your concept of perfection. Consider a glove that fits my hand perfectly. Is that glove any less perfect because it cannot bake me a cake? No. We can still say the glove is perfect because it is exhibiting it's nature. In a similar way, it is in our nature to experience pain and suffering. We cannot say we aren't perfect because we cannot live a pain free and suffering free life because it is in our nature to do so. The only reason we are not perfect is because we are free moral agents who do not always do what is right.

Sorry but who has determined these facts? we assume god exists for this question to be valid. We also assume god is good...we also assume god is all powerful..If anyone disagrees, then the question is not valid. WE agree that evil exists. Now putting those together we have to ask why god allows evil. We have not got any further forward.

Im not interested in analogies about life and the concept of god they are not relevant. God is all powerful, any reasons you may give to say evil is essential can be overcome by an all powerful god. He could if he wished make our existence totally free of evil. If you say he cant ,for any reason you would like to invent, that diminishes his all powerful will. Its that simple.

1 Reply

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;122800 wrote:

Because if Evil is from Man, then he would be preventing Man from exercising free will.

.

I have to ask again, I am afraid. And what of the pain and suffering of disease, and great natural disasters? How does that come from man, and how would preventing the pain and suffering that comes from multiple sclerosis prevent man from exercising his free will? Remember, I am not calling that "evil". I have given you that word as a gift from the generosity of my heart. So, I am not asking why God does not prevent evil. I am asking why God does not prevent the pain and suffering of innocents. Can you remember that?

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;122804 wrote:

Sorry but who has determined these facts? we assume god exists for this question to be valid. We also assume god is good...we also assume god is all powerful..If anyone disagrees, then the question is not valid. WE agree that evil exists. Now putting those together we have to ask why god allows evil. We have not got any further forward.

Im not interested in analogies about life and the concept of god they are not relevant. God is all powerful, any reasons you may give to say evil is essential can be overcome by an all powerful god. He could if he wished make our existence totally free of evil. If you say he cant ,for any reason you would like to invent, that diminishes his all powerful will. Its that simple.

I would suggest that God has a chain of priorities. God can be all powerful but have a priority that requires Him not to use it.

In the same way that a father has power to keep a child learning to walk from falling. However because the father's priority is allowing the child to learn to walk, he knows that he will have to fall a time or two.

To which you will invariably reply that God could simply impart the knowledge upon the child to which I will invariably reply that is an imposition upon free will and ultimately robs the child of the joys of learning to walk. In the words of Thomas Paine "the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph." Without something to overcome there is no joy

1 Reply

@Amperage,

Amperage;122812 wrote:

I would suggest that God has a chain of priorities. God can be all powerful but have a priority that requires Him not to use it.

In the same way that a father has power to keep a child learning to walk from falling. However because the father's priority is allowing the child to learn to walk, he knows that he will have to fall a time or two.

To which you will invariably reply that God could simply impart the knowledge upon the child to which I will invariably reply that is an imposition upon free will and ultimately robs the child of the joys of learning to walk. In the words of Thomas Paine "the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph." Without something to overcome there is no joy

Have you read anything i have written?

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;122820 wrote:

Have you read anything i have written?

I thought I had read almost everything you'd written. To what are you referring? That you are not interested in analogies? To which I can only say that is the best way I know how to get you to see the point. Analogies often serve as a tool in debate to express points in terms that are more easily understood. Or are you referring to why God allows evil which I expressly showed in post #938 yet you quoted it, obviously disregarded it and asked the question again?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;122805 wrote:

I have to ask again, I am afraid. And what of the pain and suffering of disease, and great natural disasters?

Well, what of it? It is what you just said it is. It's "pain and suffering of disease, and great natural disasters"... what more do you need than that? We already agreed that it's not inherently Evil, or from God. If it's not, then why associate "pain and suffering of disease, and great natural disasters" with "Evil" or "God" whatsoever? You're beating a dead horse.

We agree that disease and natural disasters are not from God... Right?

We agree that disease and natural disaster can lead to human pain and suffering... Right?

We agree that pain and suffering are not inherently Evil, and actually have the capacity to bring forth great Good... Right?

We agree that Evil does not come from Good... Right?

The only thing we conclude from our agreements is "Not inherently Evil" and "Not from God". We agree on this completely. So if it's not, then why should we involve ourselves trying to answer the very question that presupposes it is. The Question is Flawed! It is a Strawman Q presupposing that God has the volitional Will to interfere with the Will of Mankind.

This Q devolves simply into "Why does Evil exist"? The reason we avoid that Q is because we will not like the answers.

kennethamy;122805 wrote:

...I am not asking why God does not prevent evil. I am asking why God does not prevent the pain and suffering of innocents. Can you remember that?

I can remember answering this question earlier.

Originally Posted by kennethamy
...why does not God prevent the pain and suffering of (say) an innocent child?

"Oh dear friend there are so many reasons why. They hail from schools of ancient philosophy as well as world wide religious doctrines. The key is finding one of those many answers that you will accept. The answers will not make you accept the reasons, it can only offer reasons.

Reasons that I found somewhat lacking, and thus sending me to find my own reasons. The reasons I found beg us to define and agree upon what is a God, what is Evil, and even challenges notions of "permit" and "why". We've spent the past three pages just trying to isolate what Evil is... something we can agree upon in order to communicate better.

That's why my personal reasons for "why God" questions are modeled from Information Theory. I try to break God down to Truth... or Signal, Intentions... and then look at the whole Evil, Satan, Deception as forms of Information Entropy that prevents the Truth/God/Signal from being received.

The suffering child from Birth Defect is suffering a transcription error to her genetic code (Truth), because of Entropy (Evil) produced by heredity, alcohol, drugs, legacy disease mutations. These mutations are Noise on the Line preventing the correct mutations to manifest.

As to the suffering child at the hands of a Molester. It is the Molester that suffers first. The Molester is not getting the True signal from what his humanity was intended for. It has been compromised in some whay that Noise of Life (Entropy) has altered his essence as a person. Perhaps his Entropy comes in the form of his own child abuse, drugs, television, the occult, too much sugar... something, some Entropy is preventing the True/God/Info/Signal from being received.

The resulting suffering of the molested child is fallout from a previous sickness. We are wise to not let it become a further sickness by not addressing the first cause. As well, here is where an opportunity to "Do Good" in the face of Evil arises. That molested child is a child of True/God/Info/Signal... Would we not be "Doing Good" to acknowledge that signal, and in love, compassion and selflessness, recognizing that "Doing Good" means "Receiving Good" to the one it is "Done" to? To the degree that child endured the Evil (Entropy) of another, shall we not shower her with tenfold opportunities for us to do good and for her to know good (from many others) in a way she may never have realized. In a way that none of us could realize unless we had suffered the very tragedy that she endured.

And lastly, the biggest reason that God could allow the innocent child to suffer, is that perhaps he knows more about reality and what living is than we give him credit for. If indeed, it is an innocent child, where is that child more comforted, in the realm of chaos and flesh, or in the realm of eternal comfort and love?

There is a good argument to claim that this very physical realm is the actual hell of religious proportions. Shall you call it Evil if someone leaves it?"

---------- Post added 01-26-2010 at 04:17 PM ----------

I propose an answer to this original Question. We have reached a point where Xris and Kennethamy are repeating questions that have already been answered by Amerage and QuinticNon.

I propose the following resolve:

OP - "Why does God permit evil???"

Answer: Because God does not interfere with the Will of Man.

Vote on it and lets settle this.

Agreed? Yes?

Disagreed? Then kindly present a new argument and make your case.

1 Reply

@Amperage,

Amperage;122823 wrote:

I thought I had read almost everything you'd written. To what are you referring? That you are not interested in analogies? To which I can only say that is the best way I know how to get you to see the point. Analogies often serve as a tool in debate to express points in terms that are more easily understood. Or are you referring to why God allows evil which I expressly showed in post #938 yet you quoted it, obviously disregarded it and asked the question again?

There was two gods one was very much the novice and had a lot of trouble with his creation. He never really got it right. His creation kept doing nasty things so he decided to send his friend with a book of rules but do you know what those pesky humans kept doing nasty things. Whatever he did, no matter how much he threatened them they kept on being naughty.

Now the other god said" why have you been so stupid and created these horrid humans?"" why dont you create perfect humans and they will be happy and you will be satisfied". "O, I know, but its been so much fun watching these fools believe that one day I will put it alright". It dont mean a damned thing but it shows analogies of gods and humans are always just a bit silly.

0 Replies

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;122833 wrote:

Well, what of it? It is what you just said it is. It's "pain and suffering of disease, and great natural disasters"... what more do you need than that? We already agreed that it's not inherently Evil, or from God. If it's not, then why associate "pain and suffering of disease, and great natural disasters" with "Evil" or "God" whatsoever? You're beating a dead horse.

We agree that disease and natural disasters are not from God... Right?

We agree that disease and natural disaster can lead to human pain and suffering... Right?

We agree that pain and suffering are not inherently Evil, and actually have the capacity to bring forth great Good... Right?

We agree that Evil does not come from Good... Right?

The only thing we conclude from our agreements is "Not inherently Evil" and "Not from God". We agree on this completely. So if it's not, then why should we involve ourselves trying to answer the very question that presupposes it is. The Question is Flawed! It is a Strawman Q presupposing that God has the volitional Will to interfere with the Will of Mankind.

This Q devolves simply into "Why does Evil exist"? The reason we avoid that Q is because we will not like the answers.

I can remember answering this question earlier.

Originally Posted by kennethamy
...why does not God prevent the pain and suffering of (say) an innocent child?

"Oh dear friend there are so many reasons why. They hail from schools of ancient philosophy as well as world wide religious doctrines. The key is finding one of those many answers that you will accept. The answers will not make you accept the reasons, it can only offer reasons.

Reasons that I found somewhat lacking, and thus sending me to find my own reasons. The reasons I found beg us to define and agree upon what is a God, what is Evil, and even challenges notions of "permit" and "why". We've spent the past three pages just trying to isolate what Evil is... something we can agree upon in order to communicate better.

That's why my personal reasons for "why God" questions are modeled from Information Theory. I try to break God down to Truth... or Signal, Intentions... and then look at the whole Evil, Satan, Deception as forms of Information Entropy that prevents the Truth/God/Signal from being received.

The suffering child from Birth Defect is suffering a transcription error to her genetic code (Truth), because of Entropy (Evil) produced by heredity, alcohol, drugs, legacy disease mutations. These mutations are Noise on the Line preventing the correct mutations to manifest.

As to the suffering child at the hands of a Molester. It is the Molester that suffers first. The Molester is not getting the True signal from what his humanity was intended for. It has been compromised in some whay that Noise of Life (Entropy) has altered his essence as a person. Perhaps his Entropy comes in the form of his own child abuse, drugs, television, the occult, too much sugar... something, some Entropy is preventing the True/God/Info/Signal from being received.

The resulting suffering of the molested child is fallout from a previous sickness. We are wise to not let it become a further sickness by not addressing the first cause. As well, here is where an opportunity to "Do Good" in the face of Evil arises. That molested child is a child of True/God/Info/Signal... Would we not be "Doing Good" to acknowledge that signal, and in love, compassion and selflessness, recognizing that "Doing Good" means "Receiving Good" to the one it is "Done" to? To the degree that child endured the Evil (Entropy) of another, shall we not shower her with tenfold opportunities for us to do good and for her to know good (from many others) in a way she may never have realized. In a way that none of us could realize unless we had suffered the very tragedy that she endured.

And lastly, the biggest reason that God could allow the innocent child to suffer, is that perhaps he knows more about reality and what living is than we give him credit for. If indeed, it is an innocent child, where is that child more comforted, in the realm of chaos and flesh, or in the realm of eternal comfort and love?

There is a good argument to claim that this very physical realm is the actual hell of religious proportions. Shall you call it Evil if someone leaves it?"

---------- Post added 01-26-2010 at 04:17 PM ----------

I propose an answer to this original Question. We have reached a point where Xris and Kennethamy are repeating questions that have already been answered by Amerage and QuinticNon.

I propose the following resolve:

OP - "Why does God permit evil???"

Answer: Because God does not interfere with the Will of Man.

Vote on it and lets settle this.

Agreed? Yes?

Disagreed? Then kindly present a new argument and make your case.

So, God does not prevent evil because he does not want to interfere with Man's free will. All right. And God does not prevent the pain and suffering of innocent children (say from the disasterous earthquake in Hait) because..........? I did not quite get that answer. Could you summarize it for me?

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;122918 wrote:

And God does not prevent the pain and suffering of innocent children (say from the disasterous earthquake in Hait) because..........? I did not quite get that answer. Could you summarize it for me?

We've been over this Kenneth. Because pain and suffering can also lead to Good. Why would God not allow Good to manifest? We already know he allows Evil. Why not Good too? You suppose that the same Good could come without the same pain and suffering? It wouldn't be the same Good. I know that pain and suffering can make you strong, in many ways beyond the physical. Strength in Character is Good. How much more Good is the Character Strength that endured and overcame tragedy?

There is no Goodness produced from an earthquake that didn't happen. Not that Good requires the earthquake and the pain/suffering, but it does offer a different kind of Good that we would otherwise be unaware of if the earthquake had not happened.

An opportunity to show compassion, build stronger structures, draw world attention to the impoverished, encourage humility... all good things that may not have been possible without the earthquake.

I've provided other examples as well, about the molester and the child, and what God knows about eternity and life/afterlife that we do not. As well, who is to say that this physical realm is the best for the suffering child anyway?

___________________________

In fact, I'm not so sure that Compassion and Empathy could even exist without Tragic Pain and Suffering.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

Enigma of the existence of evil and the Garden of Eden and "GOD" the Benevolent

I know the story of the Garden and Eden and the fall of man is most likely a mythical account of a people long past in the mists of time

I will try in my own humble way to answer this most difficult question.

How can we ever reconcile the fact of evil, suffering and pain, existing side by side with a benevolent holy "GOD" of light?

Let us go back to the story of the Garden of Eden "GOD" says to Adam in Gen,Chap 2 Verse 17 that he may eat of any tree except the "TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL"

Note; The tree of knowledge of Good and evil, so Evil existed before Adam. "Adam" representing an entire people and how they related to "GOD"

However, "GOD" being all-knowing knows before hand that Adam is going to fail the test so why did he give it in the first place? I hear a loud reply from the forum, "because he wanted us to have a free will and not be robots".

I don't buy this, completely, as "GOD" could easily given Adam absolute free rain and said to him "Adam your can do anything you want without any reservations"

Surely, the above would still have been free will without the "necessity of any test".

Nevertheless, "GOD" in his infinite wisdom goes ahead and gives Adam (and Eve) a test he "knows they are going to fail, Why? Was this fair seeing the awful consequences for humanity down through the age?

Yes absolutely as I will describe later in this essay

Let us go back to the origin of evil, where did it come from
Isaiah Chapter. 45 Verse 7 "GOD" says "I form the light and create darkness: I make peace and create "evil" I "GOD" do all these things. "GOD" made everything so he must have made evil but why?

Let us go back to Adam and the pampered environment of the Garden of Eden. If Adam and Eve had remained and by obeying God ( as God knew the would not) they would have existed in forever a paradise setting of beauty warmth, comfort, never ever have to toil work just reach out and eat do any thing they want .

This would be wonderful for say a hundred years or a thousand years, but having never ever experienced cold they could not appreciate warmth, never being hungry never appreciate food never being thirsty they would not appreciate the taste and satisfaction of sparking water , never knowing hate the would not know what love was.

They would have existed in a one-sided reality never knowing the opposite. But "GOD" knew that they must know evil, pain and sorrow to become fully functional free thinking beings similar to him in consciousness and indeed co- creators of their own domain and reality

Therefore, after countless years what is paradise to us would become a boring hell to them. Therefore, "GOD" simply had to banish them into the world or toil sorrow and hardship.

So "GOD" being fair and just gave them the test, which they failed and drove them out into the present reality world of thorns, cold, dark, pain, evil etc, etc. This reality is based on a duality we know evil so we know the beauty of goodness; we know truth so we can hate the lie, and we experience the light so that we know dark.

Humanity can look back on a "paradise lost with a longing to for the eternal wonder and beauty of the original Eden, which they would love and rejoice as paradise regained
There is an eternal battle between "GOD" and the Satan and that this being is almost Almighty "GOD"s equal. Satan can only do what God permits him to do as we read in the book of Job.

Good and evil
Light and dark
Truth and lie
Deception and honesty
Love and hate
War and Peace
Positive and negative
Faith and despair
Holiness and depravity
Warm and hot
Life and death

Alan
McDougall

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

I think the discussion is limited to a christian God. What about earlier gods, later prophets etc. The words In God we Trust is on $ and Euro. Not very much acoording to Jezus believes who kicked the bankers out of the temple.

1 Reply

@Pepijn Sweep,

Delete by Alan not appicable

0 Replies

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;122940 wrote:

We've been over this Kenneth. Because pain and suffering can also lead to Good.

Yes. it sometimes does. And, of course, it sometimes also leads to more pain and suffering. But, even if it leads to good, the question is raised whether the good the pain and suffering led to compensates for the bad. Is the world better off with the good and the pain and suffering necessary for the good to occur; or, would it be better if there were no good the pain and suffering led to, as long as the pain and suffering did not exist too. If it is a package deal, maybe the whole package is not worth having. If you read Dostoievsky's novel, The Brothers Karamazov, (the chapter called, "The Grand Inquisitor") you will find one of the "brothers" saying of that question that, if the tears of a suffering child are necessary to create good, then "I give back my entrance ticket". I reject the package.

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

Exactamundo...One child's suffering is never worth the pleasure of heaven.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;122991 wrote:

Exactamundo...One child's suffering is never worth the pleasure of heaven.

Well, that's the issue, isn't it? Leibniz says that although evil may be necessary for good, it is a matter of faith whether the good is worth the evil. Now, that is a matter of value. And if God is omniscient, then God would know the consequences of what happens better than we do, and would be able to make the judgment based on all the information, and not only on limited information.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;122988 wrote:

...would it be better if there were no good the pain and suffering led to, as long as the pain and suffering did not exist too?

That's the essence behind the Biblical Fall... Supposedly, all was perfect until Eve tasted the fruit. The fruit from The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

At that point, humans had knowledge of Evil... And God warned them in advance, that "Surely you will Die".

This can go into so many directions from here... I think it's the birth of Dualism, and the mechanism it was born upon was Written Language. Spoken Language is about 30,000 years old. But Written Language is only about 6,500 years old... About the same age as Adam and Eve.

Yes, I think the Biblical Fall is the very moment when Written Language was invented, and Dualism of Image/Object relationships began. Human Knowledge of a concept called "Evil" came from Written Language.

As well...

You may say, "See! Evil was before Mankind, therefor Man could not have created it."... And you would be correct. Yet that does not suppose that Evil was created by God either. You see, the Serpent (Satan) tempted Eve to taste the fruit. Satan already existed. Actual Evil was born into existence when Satan rebelled against God in the heavenly kingdom. Satan's rebellion was one of pride, ego, arrogance... And worshiping his Image.

That's when the concept of Image was born. And thus, Satan has a vested interest in giving Eve Knowledge of Image/Object relationships. Language, is an Image/Object relationship. Before that, it was only Spoken Language for Humanity. No Image is created from Spoken Language.

The BIG DEAL!!! What's the big deal about Spoken vs Written Language? It is Monumental...

Spoken Language is only capable of sharing Thought with those around you. It is a process limited in both Space and Time. There is NO RECORD of it. It does not exist until it is "said", and it has no physical body once it does exists. It is only applicable to the very Moment it is Created, yet it will seed thoughts in others, allowing them to Express Thought.

Written Language changes the game completely. Manuscripts are beyond fixed locality... the Thought Meme can spread far beyond the Time and Place it was created. THAT WAS THE LAST EVOLUTION OF MAN! The moment when our thoughts could travel beyond our fixed locality.

That was the moment when Dualism was born. Image/Object association had been established. The word "Cat" is a physical Image representing a four legged furry feline Object. And that Dualism eventually lead to Knowledge of Good and Evil.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;122965 wrote:

However, "GOD" being all-knowing knows before hand that Adam is going to fail the test so why did he give it in the first place? I hear a loud reply from the forum, "because he wanted us to have a free will and not be robots".

When you consider that chimpanzees share 99+% of our genome, I would say that they may be closer to what we would be without having "eaten the fruit of that tree."

Alan McDougall;122965 wrote:

Isaiah Chapter. 45 Verse 7 "GOD" says "I form the light and create darkness: I make peace and create "evil" I "GOD" do all these things. "GOD" made everything so he must have made evil but why?

Thanks for bringing that passage to our attention. So, it is now clear that the Bible asserts that God created evil.

I have a different take on "why": He gave us the ability to think creatively and act outside of the confines of the slowly evolving norms that animals such as chimps have. Once individuals are able to act in ways that are counter to our evolutionary advantage, it became possible for us to really mess things up on a local, and now a global level. I suggest that those acts that we consider evil are evil partly because they are against the evolutionary advantage of the species. (See Kant's Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals)

2 Replies

@1CellOfMany,

1CellOfMany;123212 wrote:

When you consider that chimpanzees share 99+% of our genome, I would say that they may be closer to what we would be without having "eaten the fruit of that tree."

Thanks for bringing that passage to our attention. So, it is now clear that the Bible asserts that God created evil.

I have a different take on "why": He gave us the ability to think creatively and act outside of the confines of the slowly evolving norms that animals such as chimps have. Once individuals are able to act in ways that are counter to our evolutionary advantage, it became possible for us to really mess things up on a local, and now a global level. I suggest that those acts that we consider evil are evil partly because they are against the evolutionary advantage of the species. (See Kant's Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals)

Ive read this three times and I'm sorry but I have no idea what you are trying to say..are you agreeing its gods fault?

1 Reply

@1CellOfMany,

1CellOfMany;123212 wrote:

When you consider that chimpanzees share 99+% of our genome, I would say that they may be closer to what we would be without having "eaten the fruit of that tree."

That could very well be... yet, let us consider (actually 95%-98% shared) is still a monumental difference. The human genome is 650mb in size. A 2% difference is 13,631,488 bytes of Information difference between the two. That's 5,452,595,200 bits of difference between the two species.

Heh... we could say, "The Devil is in the Details"... for much can be said with 13 million bytes of Info. It's not the similarities that count... It's the differences.

Also, size doesn't matter whatsoever... Human Genome could fill 90 volumes of Encyclopedia Britannica, whereas a mere Lilly Seed could fill 1,800 volumes. Human Genome is but half the binary equivalent of Windows XP.

1CellOfMany;123212 wrote:

So, it is now clear that the Bible asserts that God created evil.

There are other considerations... The word "Evil" has changed meanings many times over the centuries, and the Biblical use of the word is different than our modern interpretation.

According to the Dictionary of Word Origins by John Ayto, the original meaning of the English word "evil" has changed considerably over the last few hundred years. Not surprising. It seems theologians have had considerable influence upon shaping words to cause us to see according to their doctrines rather than what is plainly written.

Mr. Ayto writes:
"Evil" has gotten distinctly worse over the millenia. Originally it seems to have signified nothing more sinister than "uppity,"
Etymology of the Word "Evil"

Compare this meaning of "Uppity" to the Biblical verse of Isaiah "I make peace and create evil (Pride)..."

The changing definition for Evil is the entire reason that all Biblical translations do not use the word Evil when quoting Isaiah.

"...the Hebrew word for evil "rah" is used in many different ways in the Bible. In the KJV Bible, it occurs 663 times. 431 times it is translated as "evil." The other 232 times it is translated as "wicked", "bad", "hurt", "harm", "ill", "sorrow", "mischief", "displeased", "adversity", "affliction", "trouble", "calamity", "grievous", "misery", and "trouble." So we can see that the word does not require that it be translated as "evil." This is why different Bibles translate this verse differently. It is translated as "calamity" by the NASB and NKJV; "disaster" by the NIV; and "woe" by the RSV"
Does God create evil? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

I'll stick with the original meaning of "Uppity" or "Pride".
Follow closely and you'll understand my reasoning behind this and how it fits perfectly to my satisfaction.

If we consider the Big Bang as the beginning of all Physical Existence, then before the Big Bang there was absolutely no physicality to speak of. It was a realm without Energy and Matter. It was a purely Immaterial realm.

If there be Sentient Entities within that realm, they must be without physical form... I say, they are pure Information, beyond the confines of needing to express themselves with Spoken or Written language. It is a realm beyond the notion of Pride and the need to worship a Physical Image. Yet the story goes that Satan embraced Pride, and that was an unacceptable characteristic for a Immaterial realm without Energy and Matter.

So, if God were to kick Satan out of the Immaterial Realm, where would he kick him out to? The God of the Immaterial Realm (Heaven?) could not allow Pride to exist within his perfect realm, yet he allowed his angels to express free will and rebel if they so desired. The only solution was to create another realm, to have a place to put the rebellious, and thus, the Big Bang created a physical realm where Pride could exist.

I don't think it's so much a matter that God created Evil, as much as God created a realm where Pride could exist independently from the Immaterial perfect realm of Pure Information, or (Truth Signal) as I call it.

God provided the perfect solution. He now has a realm where only the Purity may exist (Heaven?), and another realm of physical structure (Materialism) where Purity and Pride could exist side by side. God can enter this realm but Satan cannot enter Gods realm.

There are many Biblical references that suggest This World as the dominion of Satan. Biblical teaching is one that encourages us to reject the physicality of This World and embrace the Immaterial Realm of Purity beyond Pride. I mean really, if Satan tempted Jesus in the desert, offering him all the Kingdoms of This World, then This World belongs to Satan.

This is the physical Realm where "Uppity" can exist, and God created it at the Big Bang so that Pride-full Angels could have a place to be Pride-full.

My only question is: Are we Humans, nothing more than Pride-full Angels in a physical form? Or are we God's caveat, allowing acts of Humility to exist alongside acts of Pride?

_____________________________________

This is why I suggest that Evil is Entropy, and Entropy is Matter. The Material Realm is one of "Noise on the Line". It is the great veil... It clouds the Truth.

The Immaterial Realm is one of Pure Thought (Information). We Humans have learned to harness the Noise, and assemble it into a physical Language structure. In doing so, we express our own divinity, and invite the realm of Pure Thought to be expressed into our physical realm. Language is the only mechanism that allows thought to be expressed. This fits nicely with Bhartrihari's Sphota Theory of Language, , where Brahman is invited into our realm with every word we speak.

1 Reply

@QuinticNon,

I leave you two alone for ten minutes and you have reconfirmed your certainties. I like the way you widen the debate, complicate it and attempt at confirmation through scriptures. Are you both preaching to the converted or are you capable of reasoned debate? Its not about scriptures , its about logic. I see that Satan is beyond gods will, I would be happy if you could just confirm that. It would mean that you think the question posed is not relevant, it would indicate you think god is not all powerful.....interesting....

1 Reply

Why does God permit evil????

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know