RetiredAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Perhaps a better way to phrase my objection is that this is not truth seeking behavior. This is deciding the conclusion then doing whatever necessary to conform the facts to your predetermined conclusion.

---

I disagree. Truth is what I'm seeking. I just believe that that truth must be consistent with the portrait of God revealed through Christ. When it's not, then I seek to find how that distorted portrait testifies to Christ. The only "predetermined conclusion" I approach it with is that the truth must look like Christ crucified because that's what God truly looks like.

---

This is your predetermined truth.

Nothing can ever sway your opinion because all evidence is filtered through this predetermined truth.

This is why your construct is not truth seeking but self reinforcing. If you sought truth there would at least be a path that you may be wrong.

Aggrad08 said:

---

I never considered the evil as a privation of good to be a good explanation for what we see. It seems much more like good and evil are like electrical charges, with a positive negative and neutral. So toward your analogy much more like star wars. Good things happen, bad things happen, and many things happen that don't fit well in either category.

The scriptures don't seem to support this notion:

Isa 45:7 - I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

"Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and evil come?" (Lam. 3:38).

And from a simple experiential point of view this theory lacks explanatory power for suffering. Suffering is an active evil. It's not the absence of "good" things happening. If you look at it as a privation a rapist is doing quite a lot of good, but apparently not enough, since he could be brutally torturing you for days on end, so he's doing good but so little that you still suffer? It seems pretty weak.

This also doesn't seem to do anything for the problem of evil. It simply becomes the "problem of lack of good". It's a name change but has no substantive power.

---

Good and evil as equivalents means Satan (or his equivalent) is basically an antigod and worthy of worship. It means what most of us consider as good morality is not merely subjective but validly rejected. Selfishness has no inherent loss over selflessness; killing is as good as saving "from a certain point of view" /Kenobi.

I'm not sure Isaiah 45:7 is much of commentary on a cosmological nature of whether good and evil are both of equal created real-ness in a metaphysical sense. God says He causes calamity / disaster / bad stuff, all of it happens according to His will. Well, it is His will that humans have free will. So God by necessity tolerates the existence of not-Him.

The rapist argument is pretty weak. God isn't raping us. Without Him, from the cosmological / absolute perspective we don't have merely bad things happen, we simply cease to exist. We have no being or existence or reality whatsoever. A complete snuff.

The though of evil as privation of good is every bit as valid as cold as privation of heat. You say it's not substantive, but I bet you still say your fridge is cold or "man it's cold outside". Just like we might say "wow that is truly evil". Yet cold and hot are both arbitrary points on a convention of temperature around 70ish degrees F...and also not a convention as energy is a real thing and cold is the absence of it. (Versus, say, electronic potential, magnetic polarity, or the right hand rule which really are just a convention and there's no big flipping the sign in the equation).

I should also say I have reaffirming experience that Good is real. I have very little reaffirming experience that evil is an equally valid choice to goodness. I mean, Plato in the voice of Socrates spent a really long time arguing exactly that without appealing to God in the Republic.

Very few people argue that evil is a choice on equal footing as good. It's an interesting place to choose to make a stand.

Quote:

---

I have very little reaffirming experience that evil is an equally valid choice to goodness. I mean, Plato in the voice of Socrates spent a really long time arguing exactly that without appealing to God in the Republic.

---

I have no reaffirming experience that choosing evil is actually a choice to do less good. That it's a passive rather than active deed. I also have experience that tells me some things are not really either good or evil, but neutral.

I would also add that there appears to be no ceiling on evil. Heat can keep increasing, but you can only go down to 0 for cold. This means a complete absence of good sets a "upper" limit on evil. If you can't go negative evil has a hard limit. What does that look like? I have no experience indicting such a limit, and cannot logically see why it would be limited.

I would say this makes no more sense to me and is no more defensible than to argue that good is a privation of evil.

I think you're overlaying good and evil as "hot" and "cold" on an absolute scale.

Actions may move us toward our final intended end (in God) or away from it, or neutral. The existence of irrelevant actions doesn't mean that the scale is invalid any more than a phase change being a constant temperature process invalidates the heat transfer that's occurring (cuz it's not getting hotter or colder).

Anyway, the main reason is to simply say: God did not create evil. He created good because He is Good. Evil doesn't really exist, because everything that exists has Him as its source. So, evil is caused by created beings moving from Good or against Good as a result of free will.

If you are more comfortable relegating to this as a convention rather than an absolute scale, I suppose that's fine. The directionality still works out - bad is still bad, and good is still good - but it brings a host of other problems, unless we just jettison the concepts of good and evil as absolute constructs altogether.

The difficulty of imagining what the limit of evil is doesn't mean it doesn't exist, though, right? Not sure that's much of an argument.

Besides, pure evil is simply Nonbeing on my scale. It's just nothing at all, a complete absence of existence.

Quote:

---

When someone commits murder are they actively doing evil? According to you they are really just out to do "less good" that day.

---

You're applying the sign convention, but it doesn't have meaning in this way.

Cold and hot still give us meaning because they show us directionality. Evil as a comparison to good is just as valid as cold as comparison to hot. So yeah, the murdererous action evil as opposed to good. But we don't need to assign an ontological reality to Evil to say this.

Quote:

---

Actions may move us toward our final intended end (in God) or away from it, or neutral. The existence of irrelevant actions doesn't mean that the scale is invalid any more than a phase change being a constant temperature process invalidates the heat transfer that's occurring (cuz it's not getting hotter or colder).

---

This analogy doesn't seem to work. Phase changes aren't irrelevant it's still energy transfer, it's simply a peculiarity of how energy is contained in our universe. Neutral actions don't appear to be part of the "energy transfer" of evil or good deeds.

Quote:

---

Anyway, the main reason is to simply say: God did not create evil. He created good because He is Good. Evil doesn't really exist, because everything that exists has Him as its source. So, evil is caused by created beings moving from Good or against Good as a result of free will.

---

That's just the thing, it's a post hoc justification of a presupposed truth. That is that god is purely good.

Quote:

---

If you are more comfortable relegating to this as a convention rather than an absolute scale, I suppose that's fine. The directionality still works out - bad is still bad, and good is still good - but it brings a host of other problems, unless we just jettison the concepts of good and evil as absolute constructs altogether.

---

But with this system has it's own host of problems. You have no choice but to use an absolute scale if evil is a privation. And if it is, evil is constrained, it has an upper limit. This doesn't seem to match our universe at all. It's not just that we cannot imagine it. It's that there appears to be no limit whatsoever.

and I can imagine much greater evils than non-being. Traditional hell for example is much more evil than non-being. Non-being in fact is a perfect fit for a neutral position.

Cold and hot don't work as an analogy not because of sign convention, but because evil is an active rather than passive act. Fundamentally cold is still passive.. It's "not heat". A rapist is actively doing good according to this view.

I'm fine with saying that the action of murder is a "good vector" pointed in the 100% negative direction with a big value. The assumed convention is to call that evil. It really doesn't change anything on the qualitative judgment of the act at all. Exact same thing said in different ways.

And again, how have all options been exhausted for an infant?

Jarrel04 said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Perhaps a better way to phrase my objection is that this is not truth seeking behavior. This is deciding the conclusion then doing whatever necessary to conform the facts to your predetermined conclusion.

---

I disagree. Truth is what I'm seeking. I just believe that that truth must be consistent with the portrait of God revealed through Christ. When it's not, then I seek to find how that distorted portrait testifies to Christ. The only "predetermined conclusion" I approach it with is that the truth must look like Christ crucified because that's what God truly looks like.

---

This is your predetermined truth.

Nothing can ever sway your opinion because all evidence is filtered through this predetermined truth.

This is why your construct is not truth seeking but self reinforcing. If you sought truth there would at least be a path that you may be wrong.

---

Okay, I feel we're talking past each other. The part you put in bold is simply a central tenet of the Christian faith. Christ is the exact representation of God and the "radiance of His glory". If we've seen Christ, we've seen the Father. Yes, that acts as a lens through which I try to read the Scripture, because I believe that is a fundamental truth as given to us from Scripture. Christ is what God looks like, more specifically, Christ crucified.

This is faith. Can it be proven? Of course not, but everyone starts with their own preconceptions and filters. That doesn't mean we aren't seeking truth. According to my faith, Christ is Truth. So, seeking how the OT texts testify to Christ is seeking truth. How can I find Him in Scripture if not looking through a cruciform lens, given I'm looking for Christ crucified?

Woody2006 said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

And again, how have all options been exhausted for an infant?

---

This is where we are supposed to accept there was a race of superhuman half-angels who normal humans were able to extinguish, and did so in order to obey the almighty.

---

In all fairness, I believe they were called "inhumans".

Also a show that only ran for 2 seasons on SyFy



Terrible theology, but kinda fun show to watch.

UTExan said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

UTExan said:

---

I used to be a non-literalist, secular person. Then God happened. And that is probably the best way for me to explain it.

---

This is going to sound snarky, but what 'happened' that you now think genocide is okay in certain circumstances?

---

When those to be wiped out are not human, at least as we understand humanity and in fact prey on humanity. It is not an issue of humans vs other humans with honestly differing opinions of acceptable moral practices. It is the same reason I support capital punishment, not as a method of personal revenge or emotional score-settling but rather as a dispassionate means of eliminating an existential threat to society. It was the realization that the justice of God so greatly exceeds our own and His mercy is so great that when God commands a thing, all other options for redemption and turning from sin have been exhausted.

---

How is this ultimately any diff than the islamic claims against infidels?

And I would assume you denounce that?

UTExan said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

UTExan said:

---

I used to be a non-literalist, secular person. Then God happened. And that is probably the best way for me to explain it.

---

This is going to sound snarky, but what 'happened' that you now think genocide is okay in certain circumstances?

---

When those to be wiped out are not human, at least as we understand humanity and in fact prey on humanity. It is not an issue of humans vs other humans with honestly differing opinions of acceptable moral practices. It is the same reason I support capital punishment, not as a method of personal revenge or emotional score-settling but rather as a dispassionate means of eliminating an existential threat to society. It was the realization that the justice of God so greatly exceeds our own and His mercy is so great that when God commands a thing, all other options for redemption and turning from sin have been exhausted.

---

How is this ultimately any diff than the islamic claims against infidels?

And I would assume you denounce that?

---

Yes I would. The presentation of alternative ideas is not the same thing as personal/systemic violence, enslavement or child sacrifice. I would even argue that the sociopathy of ISIS is driven by demonic influence.

---

As others have said (in diff terms), this makes absolutely no sense given the context of this conversation.

So this is the one instance where god decided he didn't love his creation because of actions they might commit?

UTExan said:

---

boboguitar said:

---

So this is the one instance where god decided he didn't love his creation because of actions they might commit?

---

It is one thing to love your children. It is another when they commit such evil acts of their own will that it would be better for them to be dead. Hence, my capital punishment analogy from earlier.

---

Too bad he didn't just make the adults sterile

schmendeler said:

---

UTExan said:

---

boboguitar said:

---

So this is the one instance where god decided he didn't love his creation because of actions they might commit?

---

It is one thing to love your children. It is another when they commit such evil acts of their own will that it would be better for them to be dead. Hence, my capital punishment analogy from earlier.

---

Too bad he didn't just make the adults sterile

---

that would have taken 70-100 years for the last of them to die off. God ain't got time for that.

UTExan said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

UTExan said:

---

I used to be a non-literalist, secular person. Then God happened. And that is probably the best way for me to explain it.

---

This is going to sound snarky, but what 'happened' that you now think genocide is okay in certain circumstances?

---

When those to be wiped out are not human, at least as we understand humanity and in fact prey on humanity. It is not an issue of humans vs other humans with honestly differing opinions of acceptable moral practices. It is the same reason I support capital punishment, not as a method of personal revenge or emotional score-settling but rather as a dispassionate means of eliminating an existential threat to society. It was the realization that the justice of God so greatly exceeds our own and His mercy is so great that when God commands a thing, all other options for redemption and turning from sin have been exhausted.

---

How is this ultimately any diff than the islamic claims against infidels?

And I would assume you denounce that?

---

Yes I would. The presentation of alternative ideas is not the same thing as personal/systemic violence, enslavement or child sacrifice. I would even argue that the sociopathy of ISIS is driven by demonic influence.

---

And yet again, how have all options been eliminated for an infant aside from killing them? Should we kill all infants of ISIS fighters?

---

Do you claim omniscience in knowing the trajectory of these infants' lives? God does. So ask yourself, if being God you could foresee the violence they would do and the damage it would do to their souls, if it would be better to terminate their existence for a better eternity than to accumulate a record of damaging others. I realize your question does not presuppose divine omniscience whereas my epistemology does.

---

Thinking that God commanded genocide and infanticide because of the evil these babies could commit in the future looks nothing like the exact representation of God we see in Christ crucified. I would also argue that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc committed far more evil than the Canaanites, yet God still allowed them to be born, live and commit unspeakable atrocities. It creates a picture of a horribly inconsistent and morally relativistic God.

It's also a dangerous line of thinking because it leads to the lie that a grieving mother may consider, in that God killed her child because that child was going to grow up to be evil. The genocidal portraits of God, again though, look absolutely nothing like Christ. They can't even be reconciled with the exact revelation of God that we only see through Christ, and see most clearly on the cross. The OT's surface portraits are of a God that commands His followers to show no mercy, yet the exact representation of God (Christ) says "blessed are the merciful". The OT's surface portraits are of a God that orders infanticide, yet the exact representation of God (Christ) warns against those who would hinder children coming to Him.

I've heard the "spin" on the OT portraits of God my entire life, especially growing up in fundamentalist cults, but no matter how much one spins, you cannot reconcile the superficial OT portraits of a genocidal God that commands infanticide with the exact "radiance of His glory" and representation of His nature in Christ Jesus.

UTExan said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

UTExan said:

---

I used to be a non-literalist, secular person. Then God happened. And that is probably the best way for me to explain it.

---

This is going to sound snarky, but what 'happened' that you now think genocide is okay in certain circumstances?

---

When those to be wiped out are not human, at least as we understand humanity and in fact prey on humanity. It is not an issue of humans vs other humans with honestly differing opinions of acceptable moral practices. It is the same reason I support capital punishment, not as a method of personal revenge or emotional score-settling but rather as a dispassionate means of eliminating an existential threat to society. It was the realization that the justice of God so greatly exceeds our own and His mercy is so great that when God commands a thing, all other options for redemption and turning from sin have been exhausted.

---

How is this ultimately any diff than the islamic claims against infidels?

And I would assume you denounce that?

---

Yes I would. The presentation of alternative ideas is not the same thing as personal/systemic violence, enslavement or child sacrifice. I would even argue that the sociopathy of ISIS is driven by demonic influence.

---

And yet again, how have all options been eliminated for an infant aside from killing them? Should we kill all infants of ISIS fighters?

---

Do you claim omniscience in knowing the trajectory of these infants' lives? God does. So ask yourself, if being God you could foresee the violence they would do and the damage it would do to their souls, if it would be better to terminate their existence for a better eternity than to accumulate a record of damaging others. I realize your question does not presuppose divine omniscience whereas my epistemology does.

---

So I'll ask this again: where is free will in this equation? You're saying that there is no possible universe in which these children grow up to be decent people, no matter what. You're saying that there is no way at all to prevent these children from being evil and that such evil is so horrendous that they must be murdered. Why were they allowed to be born in the first place? Because this sounds like they are completely evil.

Free will just means God gets to sit back and do nothing when he feels like it.

RetiredAg said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

UTExan said:

---

I used to be a non-literalist, secular person. Then God happened. And that is probably the best way for me to explain it.

---

This is going to sound snarky, but what 'happened' that you now think genocide is okay in certain circumstances?

---

When those to be wiped out are not human, at least as we understand humanity and in fact prey on humanity. It is not an issue of humans vs other humans with honestly differing opinions of acceptable moral practices. It is the same reason I support capital punishment, not as a method of personal revenge or emotional score-settling but rather as a dispassionate means of eliminating an existential threat to society. It was the realization that the justice of God so greatly exceeds our own and His mercy is so great that when God commands a thing, all other options for redemption and turning from sin have been exhausted.

---

How is this ultimately any diff than the islamic claims against infidels?

And I would assume you denounce that?

---

Yes I would. The presentation of alternative ideas is not the same thing as personal/systemic violence, enslavement or child sacrifice. I would even argue that the sociopathy of ISIS is driven by demonic influence.

---

And yet again, how have all options been eliminated for an infant aside from killing them? Should we kill all infants of ISIS fighters?

---

Do you claim omniscience in knowing the trajectory of these infants' lives? God does. So ask yourself, if being God you could foresee the violence they would do and the damage it would do to their souls, if it would be better to terminate their existence for a better eternity than to accumulate a record of damaging others. I realize your question does not presuppose divine omniscience whereas my epistemology does.

---

Thinking that God commanded genocide and infanticide because of the evil these babies could commit in the future looks nothing like the exact representation of God we see in Christ crucified. I would also argue that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc committed far more evil than the Canaanites, yet God still allowed them to be born, live and commit unspeakable atrocities. It creates a picture of a horribly inconsistent and morally relativistic God.

It's also a dangerous line of thinking because it leads to the lie that a grieving mother may consider, in that God killed her child because that child was going to grow up to be evil. The genocidal portraits of God, again though, look absolutely nothing like Christ. They can't even be reconciled with the exact revelation of God that we only see through Christ, and see most clearly on the cross. The OT's surface portraits are of a God that commands His followers to show no mercy, yet the exact representation of God (Christ) says "blessed are the merciful". The OT's surface portraits are of a God that orders infanticide, yet the exact representation of God (Christ) warns against those who would hinder children coming to Him.

I've heard the "spin" on the OT portraits of God my entire life, especially growing up in fundamentalist cults, but no matter how much one spins, you cannot reconcile the superficial OT portraits of a genocidal God that commands infanticide with the exact "radiance of His glory" and representation of His nature in Christ Jesus.

---

Then I suspect you must conclude that the God of the OT is not linked with the God of the NT. Yet, Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law and not one jot nor tittle (Hebrew diacritical marks) would disappear from that law given to Moses. I do not know what to tell you regarding your own struggles with Matthew 5:17. There may be evidence that dietary proscriptions were relaxed in the NT but not the foundational moral law. Humans still need at least one day off work each week and they need to refrain from theft, false witness, covetousness, idolatry, adultery, etc. In fact, David, as you recall, took the showbread (1 Samuel 1:21) but even that was done in accordance with the the law according to the priest Ahimelech. I think you are indeed correct to view the the entirety of scripture through the cross, but imposition of 21st century cultural sensitivities onto the realities of OT civilizations and cultural norms would seem less than helpful. Perhaps it is your reactivity to life in those "fundamentalist cults" which influences your perceptions now?

Quote:

---

Then I suspect you must conclude that the God of the OT is not linked with the God of the NT. Yet, Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law and not one jot nor tittle (Hebrew diacritical marks) would disappear from that law given to Moses. I do not know what to tell you regarding your own struggles with Matthew 5:17.

---

No, you are wrong. I believe all Scripture is "God-breathed". I do not struggle with Matthew 5:17. Not at all. I just believe that Christ crucified is what God looks like, and that the OT portraits of Him as genocidal, petty and ordering the slaughter of infants are irreconcilable with the exact portrait we have in Christ. They are distorted, but I absolutely believe they do testify to Christ. I use the analogy of shadow puppets on the wall. The OT authors had a very limited understanding of God. They saw the shadows and said "Aha! That's clearly a dog!" Christ, however, allowed us to see that it was in fact hands held at the right angle casting a shadow that merely appeared to be a dog.

Quote:

---

There may be evidence that dietary proscriptions were relaxed in the NT but not the foundational moral law. Humans still need at least one day off work each week and they need to refrain from theft, false witness, covetousness, idolatry, adultery, etc. In fact, David, as you recall, took the showbread (1 Samuel 1:21) but even that was done in accordance with the the law according to the priest Ahimelech.

---

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I take exception with your horribly flawed portrayal of God as genocidal and as one who commands infanticide. I said nothing about the "shadow" that is the Law.

Quote:

---

I think you are indeed correct to view the the entirety of scripture through the cross, but imposition of 21st century cultural sensitivities onto the realities of OT civilizations and cultural norms would seem less than helpful. Perhaps it is your reactivity to life in those "fundamentalist cults" which influences your perceptions now?

---

Genocide is always wrong. Infanticide is always wrong. It's not as if condemning those acts as immoral is some new phenomenon. What you are arguing is that God is one of moral relativism. Just because cultures have, in the past, largely embraced horribly immoral practices doesn't make their actions any less immoral.

My perceptions aren't being influenced by being raised in fundamentalist cults. My perception is influenced by Christ on the cross, which is the supreme and authoritative revelation of God that we have. Christ is what God looks like. If the portrait doesn't look like Christ, then it is distorted and we need to dig into how it actually testifies to our nonviolent, self-sacrificial, enemy-loving Messiah.

Quote:

---

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I take exception with your horribly flawed portrayal of God as genocidal and as one who commands infanticide. I said nothing about the "shadow" that is the Law.

---

Deuteronomy 7:
1: "When the LORD your God brings you into the land which you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Gir'ga****es, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Per'izzites, the Hivites, and the Jeb'usites, seven nations greater and mightier than yourselves,
2: and when the LORD your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them.
3: You shall not make marriages with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons.
4: For they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly.
5: But thus shall you deal with them: you shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and hew down their Ashe'rim, and burn their graven images with fire.
6: "For you are a people holy to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his own possession, out of all the peoples that are on the face of the earth.
16: And you shall destroy all the peoples that the LORD your God will give over to you, your eye shall not pity them; neither shall you serve their gods, for that would be a snare to you.




Deuteronomy 20:
16: But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes,
17: but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Per'izzites, the Hivites and the Jeb'usites, as the LORD your God has commanded;
18: that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices which they have done in the service of their gods, and so to sin against the LORD your God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can make no claim to have even an inkling of the justice of God, except that the fullness of the sins of these people had reached the point where God decided to act and Israel was to be the instrument of their destruction. Note that God did not command the destruction of all the peoples of Canaan---just these specific ones.

Also note that if these people fled the land of Canaan, there would be no imperative to destroy them. Leviticus 18:25 notes the land can be defiled by the sin of its people---and it it "vomits" these people out.