Check out the first link I posted. I think there's a middle way between oblivion and continual persons, which is that even in eternity there is the possibility for some kind of movement. I don't call it change, because that implies time. But becoming. The saints become gods by grace what He is by nature. Those who reject it proceed toward nonbeing.

Quote:

---

when you turn off a light, does darkness spontaneously happen?

---

You've got it all backwards. Lightbulbs don't emit light, the suck dark.

http://web.mit.edu/kolya/misc/txt/dark_suckers

PabloSerna said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

What I am trying to say is God is all good, what he creates is good. In Genesis after creation what does he say it is good. Now he gives freedom to man and angel, who both posses intellect and will. If a creation wills something that is in opposition to God who is all good, then what they have willed is evil. When Peter speaks against Jesus' plan of salvation through his death Jesus tells him get behind me Satan. Peter's plan for Jesus not to suffer and die doesn't to our mind seem evil, however being against God's plan it was.

---

Would it be correct to say that God created man that was good, but handed him the keys to do evil if he choose to do so? And since we know that man has done good, we should ask why man choose to do evil and God did not.

God possess freedom, intellect, and will but does not do evil because God is all good. Man possess freedom, intellect, and will, but does sometimes do evil because man is what? Not all good?

If what God creates is good, then why does this creation do bad?

---

In a word - freewill.


What God did create was good. This good creation has the potential to fulfil the plan that God had in mind for him/her. If God made those choices for that creation - it would be a violation of their freewill.

---

When we say that God's creation was good, I assume we mean good as in perfect. Not so-so and not sorta good or good sometimes. Is that fair?

So God has free will and chooses to only do good. Man has free will and chooses to do some good and some evil. Therefore man is not "Good".

Its not that I wish to absolve myself or mankind of our evil. I wish to point out the absurdity of saying that in God's perfect creation, there exists all this evil.

God created us and gave us freewill. Then he gave us narcissm, hate, greed, jealousy, and all this other crap and then called us evil for acting according to these instincts he gave us. Its like building a bomb that has a 99% chance of exploding and setting it in a crowded area and calling it good and then judging it and calling it evil IF it explodes. I know, I know. . . . bomb isn't a moral actor. You get the point though. He created us sick. It wasn't a question of if we would sin, it was a question of when and how. That's not a "Good" creation. It feels like entrapment.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

What I am trying to say is God is all good, what he creates is good. In Genesis after creation what does he say it is good. Now he gives freedom to man and angel, who both posses intellect and will. If a creation wills something that is in opposition to God who is all good, then what they have willed is evil. When Peter speaks against Jesus' plan of salvation through his death Jesus tells him get behind me Satan. Peter's plan for Jesus not to suffer and die doesn't to our mind seem evil, however being against God's plan it was.

---

Would it be correct to say that God created man that was good, but handed him the keys to do evil if he choose to do so? And since we know that man has done good, we should ask why man choose to do evil and God did not.

God possess freedom, intellect, and will but does not do evil because God is all good. Man possess freedom, intellect, and will, but does sometimes do evil because man is what? Not all good?

If what God creates is good, then why does this creation do bad?

---

In a word - freewill.


What God did create was good. This good creation has the potential to fulfil the plan that God had in mind for him/her. If God made those choices for that creation - it would be a violation of their freewill.

---

When we say that God's creation was good, I assume we mean good as in perfect. Not so-so and not sorta good or good sometimes. Is that fair?

So God has free will and chooses to only do good. Man has free will and chooses to do some good and some evil. Therefore man is not "Good".

Its not that I wish to absolve myself or mankind of our evil. I wish to point out the absurdity of saying that in God's perfect creation, there exists all this evil.

God created us and gave us freewill. Then he gave us narcissm, hate, greed, jealousy, and all this other crap and then called us evil for acting according to these instincts he gave us. Its like building a bomb that has a 99% chance of exploding and setting it in a crowded area and calling it good and then judging it and calling it evil IF it explodes. I know, I know. . . . bomb isn't a moral actor. You get the point though. He created us sick. It wasn't a question of if we would sin, it was a question of when and how. That's not a "Good" creation. It feels like entrapment.

---

I agree with the statement that what God creates - is good. Primarily because I understand that God is the source of all that is good.

I highlighted your point about what you argue is an absurdity, "there exists all this evil." As I understand it, you are defining evil as something, whereas I am arguing the point that evil is not a thing per se - but a lack of good. Just as cold is a lack of heat (energy that can be measured). I think when we start to understand evil as its own force, we are not far from selling "evil eye" bracelets that can ward off evil without you even participating in the choice.

I like how you have started a small list of what people in my walk of faith have identified as the seven deadly sins. Indeed these passions, as Aquinas writes, play an important role in the life of man. God has given us seven corresponding virtues to help us in this life because these passions are susceptible to disorder. Aquinas goes on to write that these are like "good habits" that seek to direct our passions toward appropriate objects (the right thing, at the right time and in the right amount).

Given this, I don't agree with you that it feels like a trap. I would say - hopeful.

+pablo

AstroAg17 said:

---

Evil is definitely distinct from neutral. The light metaphor is a bad one. Dark isn't the opposite of light, it's the absence of light. The absence of good is neutral, which is the default. If there's nobody in a room, neither good nor evil are occurring in it. It's not an evil room.

---

The idea of evil as a privation is an old one. I never thought it very accurate. More like positive, negative and neutral charges.

the belief that, as a matter of fact, nothing that exists is evil, is one which no one would advocate except a metaphysician defending a theory. Pain and hatred and envy and cruelty are surely things that exist, and are not merely the absence of their opposites; but the theory should hold that they are indistinguishable from the blank unconsciousness of an oyster. Indeed, it would seem that this whole theory has been advanced solely because of the unconscious bias in favour of optimism, and that its opposite is logically just as tenable. We might urge that evil consists in existence, and good in non-existence; that therefore the sum-total of existence is the worst thing there is, and that only non-existence is good. Indeed, Buddhism does seem to maintain some such view. It is plain that this view is false; but logically it is no more absurd than its opposite
-Bertrand Russell

Could studying the brain be used as a tool to explore this question. If Charity is the virtue that stands opposite to greed or if greed represents a lack of charity, then these two choices and experiences should manifest in similar parts of the brain, maybe?

I'm hardly qualified to answer that and I've had poor results trying to find studies on this online. But, if the seven deadly sins are simply the lack of good or the lack of a corresponding virtue, then perhaps its testable.

Either way, I don't think that the description of evil as absence of good quite puts to bed my other argument - let me rephrase it:

God is good. What God creates is Good. God creates man. Thus, man is good.

God has free will and chooses only to do good. Man has free will and chooses to sometimes abstain from good. Man is not the same as God. Or at least man's goodness is not the same as God's goodness.If we accept that man's level of goodness is not the same as God's, then we need clarification on what it means that man is 'good'.

If man is created with ability to abstain from good and also made with characteristics that make it inevitable that we will sometimes abstain from good, is it not fair to say that this non-good behavior is an intentional trait of mankind? And now we are to be judged for our actions which lack good by the one that created us with this inevitability of non-goodness.

Or is it possible for us to always be good like God? Do we possess the same potential of goodness as God?

Privation of evil is having your cake and eating it too. God created everything. Some things were created with the ability to not be good and with the knowledge that they would sometimes not be good. God is responsible for the existence of this non-good.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Either way, I don't think that the description of evil as absence of good quite puts to bed my other argument - let me rephrase it:

God is good. What God creates is Good. God creates man. Thus, man is good.

God has free will and chooses only to do good. Man has free will and chooses to sometimes abstain from good. Man is not the same as God. Or at least man's goodness is not the same as God's goodness.If we accept that man's level of goodness is not the same as God's, then we need clarification on what it means that man is 'good'.

If man is created with ability to abstain from good and also made with characteristics that make it inevitable that we will sometimes abstain from good, is it not fair to say that this non-good behavior is an intentional trait of mankind? And now we are to be judged for our actions which lack good by the one that created us with this inevitability of non-goodness.

Or is it possible for us to always be good like God? Do we possess the same potential of goodness as God?

Privation of evil is having your cake and eating it too. God created everything. Some things were created with the ability to not be good and with the knowledge that they would sometimes not be good. God is responsible for the existence of this non-good.

---

The trait that you are searching for is immutability. Man was created good, but mutable. Moreover, saying God is responsible for the existence of nothing is nonsense.

When you start a thought with "I don't think God..., I can't believe in a God who..., My God wouldn't..." aren't you creating a God in your image? A God who would do and think like you would? It seems to me that many people want to fully understand all the thoughts, plans, intentions of a Holy God, of the Creator of everything. The Bible says that His thoughts and ways are higher than our thoughts and ways. We can't put Holy God in a box that is limited to human intellect.

The Bible narrative shows a Holy God who created mankind in His image. Everything that God created was good or very good. One of the best and hardest things to understand and comprehend is that God created mankind and the angels with a type of free will. In doing so, God didn't lose control of His creation. It was an act of a loving God. All of mankind has taken this freedom and sinned against God. Some of the angels took their freedom and rebelled against God. These acts of rebellion require consequences from a Holy God. The angels who rebelled received their punishment and will receive further punishment in the future. Mankind has and will receive his punishment - death - physical and potentially spiritual (separation/hell).

This freedom came with a price for God. His only Son, Jesus. A sacrifice for mankind's sin was required in order for mankind's transgressions to be covered. So, Jesus came to earth, lived a sinless life, and was sacrificed on a cross for mankind's sins. This offered mankind an opportunity to avoid punishment for his sin. The remedy was a faith/belief in Jesus. It is a choice. Mankind isn't required to choose Jesus. However, mankind will live in eternity on the basis of this choice they make before they die.

"God is good, but he isn't safe" is a line from a famous movie. How true it is! The old testament is ripe with stories of God unleashing judgment/wrath on sinful mankind. There are countless verses and full books of the Bible that tell of what will happen to a sinful person who doesn't accept God's free gift of eternal life with Him. Whether that's in a place of eternal torment apart from Holy God (hell, which is very easy to argue with scripture), whether that is simply being separated from God for eternity (hell), etc., doesn't seem to really matter in the end. What matters is did you, individually, accept or reject God's offer of Jesus as the sacrifice for your sins and the opportunity of an eternity with Him in a place called heaven? That is the beauty of free will and freedom. If you think it is all a joke, you have made a choice. If you openly reject God/Jesus, you have made a choice. If you accept Jesus and put you faith in Him, you have made a choice. Everyone will make a choice and live for eternity based on that choice. If it isn't with God in heaven, it will be in a place that the Bible calls hell. A place that Jesus talked about in the scriptures more than heaven. It is a real place. The choice is ours to make.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

That leaves a problem though. This system set up to maximize the expression of God's love will necessarily result in the suffering of men. Again from a purely Christian perspective, death and suffering started because a man chose to exercise a will contrary to God's. So while the benefit is God's, the burden of this belongs to humanity. God being omni-good must find a way to take this burden on Himself as well. So Christ is born and suffers as we suffer so that humans are not the only ones bearing the bad effects of this cosmic system. As it happens, while loving those who hate us is a greater love, laying down our lives is the greatest form of love. Through Christ's sacrifice while sharing God's own essence, God's love is both magnified and maximized.

---

To me, this paragraph reads as though God is bound to some 'rules' that are beyond God. Why is there a problem at all? Why does the rejection of God result in an increase of God's love? Didn't he set up the system in question? What if God's love was maximized by human happiness or joy or love or consumption of tacos? Then suffering of men is not necessary to maximizes God's love.

Why does the birth of Christ and his suffering alleviate the burden? What is the physical law of reality that is evoked in this equation? Or what is the metaphysical, supernatural, cosmic law that says that 'x' causes 'y'. And who is responsible for creating these laws of reality. God? Or something beyond God?

Quote:

---

Mankind has and will receive his punishment - death - physical and potentially spiritual (separation/hell).

---

We need to be very careful here. Punishment as a concept is not found in the scriptures like this, as near as I can tell. God does not tell them - if you eat of it you will be punished with death. Or - if you eat of it I will kill you. But, if you eat of it you will die. Punishment implies some kind of retribution or punitive response. It is not God who causes death, therefore God is not punishing. In fact, as far as I know the only people God is said to punish or chastise are the faithful!

Quote:

---

A sacrifice for mankind's sin was required in order for mankind's transgressions to be covered. So, Jesus came to earth, lived a sinless life, and was sacrificed on a cross for mankind's sins. This offered mankind an opportunity to avoid punishment for his sin.

---

This, too, has some problematic presuppositions. Who is punishing mankind? How does the cross avoid punishment? Also, sin and transgression aren't the same thing, in the scriptures. There is a need for precision.

Quote:

---

Jesus as the sacrifice for your sins

---

Again, here. Your understanding on the cross seems to be primarily that of atonement. But, the prevailing view in the scriptures is that of Passover - He is the Paschal lamb who also takes away the sin of the world. Atonement didn't involve a lamb at all, but two goats. And, the goat of atonement that took the sins of the people was not sacrificed, but driven out.

I don't disagree with much of what you wrote, but when in the context of the OP the mechanism, disposition, underlying context of salvation are very important.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

I admit this is unsatisfying, but ultimately any theology or philosophy boils down to some arbritrary set of unprovable axioms. So this view doesn't suffer by comparison

---

Agree completely.

But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.

I'm sorry, but what is your point? We also read and use Isaiah.

Here is the best sermon I have heard on this passage. You can listen or read.

https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/namesofjesus/jesus_-_the_suffering_servant

You said punishment is not found in the scriptures. That says Christ was punished and it was God's will to do it.

I said punishment as a concept "like this". The idea of death as punishment for sin isn't found in the scriptures. And, nowhere in the NT does it explain Christ's Death as punishment for sin, or punishment in lieu of us. That verse is not alone, it is part of a passage.

Seems pretty clear to me that he was punished for our sins.

The word "for" has many meanings. It can indicate purpose, or goal. It can also mean because of, and it can mean with respect to.

The Septuagint was translated by Hebrew speakers around 200 BC. It uses the word "dia" there for "for". Dia means "through". It includes the idea of "proceeding from" as well as the cause by means of which an action passes on to its accomplishment.

Accordingly, my bible renders it

Quote:

---

He bears our sins and suffers for us, yet we considered Him to be in pain, suffering, and ill-treatment. But He was wounded because of our lawlessness, and became sick because of our sins. The chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and by His bruise we are healed.

---

Brenton's Septuagint translates it:

Quote:

---

He bears our sins, and is pained for us: yet we accounted him to be in trouble, and in suffering, and in affliction. But he was wounded on account of our sins, and was bruised because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and by his bruises we were healed.

---

Even further, verse 10-11 which you also quote is completely different in the LXX:

Quote:

---

The Lord wishes to cleanse Him of His wound, and if You give an offering for sin, Your soul shall see a long-lived seed. The Lord wishes to take away the pain of His soul, to show Him light, to form Him with understanding, and to pronounce righteous the Righteous one who serves many well: and He shall bear their sins.

---

Brenton's Septuagint:

Quote:

---

The Lord also is pleased to purge him from his stroke. If ye can give an offering for sin, your soul shall see a long-lived seed: the Lord also is pleased to take away from the travail of his soul, to shew him light, and to form him with understanding; to justify the just one who serves many well; and he shall bear their sins.

---

We have two issues here. One, the English translation from Hebrew Masoretic text differs greatly from the Septuagint. Two, even with the English rendering, you're pre-supposing what the word "for" means - as in, in place of, this for that, a trade. Rather than the equally valid meaning of, "because of".

And, even more, there is still no mention that death is a punishment for sin, which is what I was arguing against to begin with. The person wrote - "Mankind will receive his punishment - death" and I said it is not presented like this in the scriptures. Isaiah 53 does not change this.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Could studying the brain be used as a tool to explore this question. If Charity is the virtue that stands opposite to greed or if greed represents a lack of charity, then these two choices and experiences should manifest in similar parts of the brain, maybe?

I'm hardly qualified to answer that and I've had poor results trying to find studies on this online. But, if the seven deadly sins are simply the lack of good or the lack of a corresponding virtue, then perhaps its testable.

Either way, I don't think that the description of evil as absence of good quite puts to bed my other argument - let me rephrase it:

God is good. What God creates is Good. God creates man. Thus, man is good.

God has free will and chooses only to do good. Man has free will and chooses to sometimes abstain from good. Man is not the same as God. Or at least man's goodness is not the same as God's goodness.If we accept that man's level of goodness is not the same as God's, then we need clarification on what it means that man is 'good'.

If man is created with ability to abstain from good and also made with characteristics that make it inevitable that we will sometimes abstain from good, is it not fair to say that this non-good behavior is an intentional trait of mankind? And now we are to be judged for our actions which lack good by the one that created us with this inevitability of non-goodness.

Or is it possible for us to always be good like God? Do we possess the same potential of goodness as God?

Privation of evil is having your cake and eating it too. God created everything. Some things were created with the ability to not be good and with the knowledge that they would sometimes not be good. God is responsible for the existence of this non-good.

---

In response to your first thought, I see you are seeking some empirical evidence for this struggle of the will. I will say that I agree with thinkers like Aquinas when he writes about the Eternal Law God has imprinted in our hearts when he breathed life into us - phenomenologically changing us from whatever lower animal we came from. You could say - we are hard-wired (a tendency) toward the good.

We agree that God created everything, however, it is not the same that everything created by God will choose good all the time. This goes back to the free will God also imparted upon us and safeguards even from himself. Therefore while God indeed has a plan for you and for me, he does not force this upon us against our will. That is why we pray, "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

You last statement is precisely where one would arrive using your logic that God created good and God created evil - who are we to know how or when to choose against this nature. Moreover, who can be culpable if evil overcomes them? On top of that, you are basically saying there is no absolute truth that can be known. All of that to say - If I subscribed to this reasoning, I would be a most serious sinner! I mean, why not!?

Because this guy is way better at explaining why it appears that "evil" can exist along with "good"... 8 mins!





+++

On a personal note, my wife suffers from a sleep disorder, narcolepsy. This has been very hard on her and could be hard on us as a family, me in particular. What God has shown me, is that this "not so good" time in our lives, is a good time for me to become more charitable. It is also a good time in her life to put down her pride and allow us to help her. If you can believe it - it has brought us closer together! Not unlike that unplanned pregnancy in 1988. I must say again - God is great!

+pablo

+++

The Tale of Two Wolves



ONE EVENING, AN ELDERLY
CHEROKEE BRAVE TOLD HIS
GRANDSON ABOUT A BATTLE THAT
GOES ON INSIDE PEOPLE.

HE SAID "MY SON, THE BATTLE IS
BETWEEN TWO 'WOLVES' INSIDE US ALL.
ONE IS EVIL. IT IS ANGER,
ENVY, JEALOUSY, SORROW,
REGRET, GREED, ARROGANCE,
SELF-PITY, GUILT, RESENTMENT,
INFERIORITY, LIES, FALSE PRIDE,
SUPERIORITY, AND EGO.

THE OTHER IS GOOD.
IT IS JOY, PEACE LOVE, HOPE SERENITY,
HUMILITY, KINDNESS, BENEVOLENCE,
EMPATHY, GENEROSITY,
TRUTH, COMPASSION AND FAITH."

THE GRANDSON THOUGH ABOUT
IT FOR A MINUTE AND THEN ASKED
HIS GRANDFATHER:

"WHICH WOLF WINS?..."

THE OLD CHEROKEE SIMPLY REPLIED,
"THE ONE THAT YOU FEED"