|
Post by Admin on Sept 10, 2023 2:38:49 GMT
Something that does not exist can't be the 'absence' of anything. That statement hurts my brain.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Sept 12, 2023 11:42:22 GMT
Something that does not exist can't be the 'absence' of anything. That statement hurts my brain. I love that meta stuff .
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Sept 12, 2023 20:30:34 GMT
Something that struck me recently is that you don't tend to get people who a) believe in God and b) consider God evil. You get people who say "God is the biggest villain in fiction!" but they don't believe there is a God. You get polytheists who might believe in evil gods, but there are generally good gods who cancel them out. You did get odd Christian cults who reject the God of the OT as evil but they still considered the NT good and more powerful. You might get deists who don't believe God is good, but they don't consider him evil either.
I think there are two ways to look at this. You could say that it shows the wishful thinking of believers - they invent an all powerful good God to save them from the evils of the world. Alternatively you could say that those who see only evil in God are not capable of believing in such an entity because the idea is just too repulsive.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Sept 13, 2023 12:00:12 GMT
Something that struck me recently is that you don't tend to get people who a) believe in God and b) consider God evil. You get people who say "God is the biggest villain in fiction!" but they don't believe there is a God. You get polytheists who might believe in evil gods, but there are generally good gods who cancel them out. You did get odd Christian cults who reject the God of the OT as evil but they still considered the NT good and more powerful. You might get deists who don't believe God is good, but they don't consider him evil either. I think there are two ways to look at this. You could say that it shows the wishful thinking of believers - they invent an all powerful good God to save them from the evils of the world. Alternatively you could say that those who see only evil in God are not capable of believing in such an entity because the idea is just too repulsive. I will admit that I tend to think the vengeful, jealous god of the OT is a lot more credible (i.e. accurately reflective of the humans who dreamed him up) than the 'sunshine and rainbows, he loves you so much' god the NT lays the groundwork for. I'm not sure even Jesus could completely swallow that one.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Sept 13, 2023 12:05:26 GMT
Temperature, speed, and light have absolute zeros: zero degrees Kelvin, stopped, and the complete absence of light. Evil, OTOH, does not. This makes your response a non sequitur. Cold does not exist. It is not a thing. Cold is merely the absence of heat. Her response made about as much sense as saying “heat doesn’t exist either then” Which makes about as much sense as your initial postulation that 'good' somehow exists as a tangible because God created it, but 'evil' does not exist because he supposedly (and according to your holy book, wrongly asserted by you) did not.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Sept 13, 2023 13:21:07 GMT
Something that struck me recently is that you don't tend to get people who a) believe in God and b) consider God evil. You get people who say "God is the biggest villain in fiction!" but they don't believe there is a God. You get polytheists who might believe in evil gods, but there are generally good gods who cancel them out. You did get odd Christian cults who reject the God of the OT as evil but they still considered the NT good and more powerful. You might get deists who don't believe God is good, but they don't consider him evil either. I think there are two ways to look at this. You could say that it shows the wishful thinking of believers - they invent an all powerful good God to save them from the evils of the world. Alternatively you could say that those who see only evil in God are not capable of believing in such an entity because the idea is just too repulsive. I will admit that I tend to think the vengeful, jealous god of the OT is a lot more credible (i.e. accurately reflective of the humans who dreamed him up) than the 'sunshine and rainbows, he loves you so much' god the NT lays the groundwork for. I'm not sure even Jesus could completely swallow that one. The 'sunshine and rainbows' one probably is more incredible though he's also much more appealing so I suppose that cancels out the incredulity - at least for some.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Sept 19, 2023 0:21:57 GMT
The original Hebrew for evil there is “ra” which can also mean sorrow, calamity, disaster, afflictions, and adversity. Genesis teaches God created everything good. Evil is not a thing. Evil is merely a lack of good, in a similar way that theres no such “thing” as darkness, it’s simply just a lack of light. The Hebrew word indeed translates as “evil” (ra‘) in the King James Version of Isaiah 45:7 although apologists prefer to translate as you say. But it has two applications in the Bible. It can, yes, refer to harmful natural events, calamity, misfortune, adversity, affliction, or disaster. But it can be used in the sense of moral evil, such as wickedness and sin (Matthew 12:35; Judges 3:12; Proverbs 8:13; 3 John 1:11). Just sayin'. That’s why context is important because it helps us determine the meaning of words. “Ra” can be compared to the English word “dark”. If I were to say “It’s dark outside”, I’m using the word dark to mean that it’s nighttime. Whereas if say “These are dark times” I’m using dark to mean evil. The same logic applies in Isaiah 45:7. If you look at Genesis 2:9 for example the word “Ra” is contrasted with the Hebrew word “tov” which means “good”. This lets us know it’s capturing the antithesis of that, which would be evil(ra). But then notice in Isaiah 45:7 “ra” is paired with “shalom” which refers to “peace” or “prosperity”, which means it would be carrying the meaning of the antithesis of that which would be misery or calamity. So this is not about God creating “evil” but natural disasters or calamities. Natural disasters and calamities were used by God in the OT as a punishment for sin or even to wipe away evil.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Sept 19, 2023 0:27:27 GMT
Cold does not exist. It is not a thing. Cold is merely the absence of heat. Her response made about as much sense as saying “heat doesn’t exist either then” Which makes about as much sense as your initial postulation that 'good' somehow exists as a tangible because God created it, but 'evil' does not exist because he supposedly (and according to your holy book, wrongly asserted by you) did not. The reason evil doesn’t exist as opposed to good is because there is no source or principle of evil as there is for good. So evil although real, is really non-existent as a substance.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Sept 19, 2023 2:09:01 GMT
Which makes about as much sense as your initial postulation that 'good' somehow exists as a tangible because God created it, but 'evil' does not exist because he supposedly (and according to your holy book, wrongly asserted by you) did not. The reason evil doesn’t exist as opposed to good is because there is no source or principle of evil as there is for good. So evil although real, is really non-existent as a substance. Oh, so apparently Satan doesn't exist either. According to your scriptures, he is the source of evil and is an actual and substantial being who is supposedly responsible for evil according to many believers (although, once again, Isaiah contradicts this). The more you try to make the nonsensical claim that good is a tangible substance while evil is not the more ludicrous your arguments sound. BTW, scholarly consensus falls on the side of 'ra' as meaning deliberate, malignant evil, not simply natural disasters: www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/H7451/ra%60.htm#:~:text=ra%E2%80%9B%20%2F%20r%C3%A2%E2%80%9B%C3%A2h,1c)%20evil%2C%20displeasing
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Sept 19, 2023 10:23:58 GMT
The reason evil doesn’t exist as opposed to good is because there is no source or principle of evil as there is for good. So evil although real, is really non-existent as a substance. Oh, so apparently Satan doesn't exist either. According to your scriptures, he is the source of evil and is an actual and substantial being who is supposedly responsible for evil according to many believers (although, once again, Isaiah contradicts this). The more you try to make the nonsensical claim that good is a tangible substance while evil is not the more ludicrous your arguments sound. BTW, scholarly consensus falls on the side of 'ra' as meaning deliberate, malignant evil, not simply natural disasters: www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/H7451/ra%60.htm#:~:text=ra%E2%80%9B%20%2F%20r%C3%A2%E2%80%9B%C3%A2h,1c)%20evil%2C%20displeasing But the difference is when the Bible teaches Satan is the “source” of evil or sins it’s used in an informal sense. In other words it’s describing Satan as the originator or instigator. Satan kicked it all off, got the ball rolling so to speak. There is only one ultimate power and that is God who is good. Also don’t forget God originally created satan good. Regarding the Hebrew word “ra” no one is denying that the word’s primary definition means moral bad. The point is it’s not the only definition and its usage in scripture, like all words, depends on the context of the passage. Isaiah 45:7 is simply contrasting “ra” with “shalom” which means peace. And what is the opposite of peace? That’s right…calamity, disaster or chaos. There’s a reason every Bible translation renders the word calamity or disaster except the KJV.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Sept 19, 2023 16:36:12 GMT
Oh, so apparently Satan doesn't exist either. According to your scriptures, he is the source of evil and is an actual and substantial being who is supposedly responsible for evil according to many believers (although, once again, Isaiah contradicts this). The more you try to make the nonsensical claim that good is a tangible substance while evil is not the more ludicrous your arguments sound. BTW, scholarly consensus falls on the side of 'ra' as meaning deliberate, malignant evil, not simply natural disasters: www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/H7451/ra%60.htm#:~:text=ra%E2%80%9B%20%2F%20r%C3%A2%E2%80%9B%C3%A2h,1c)%20evil%2C%20displeasing But the difference is when the Bible teaches Satan is the “source” of evil or sins it’s used in an informal sense. In other words it’s describing Satan as the originator or instigator. Satan kicked it all off, got the ball rolling so to speak. There is only one ultimate power and that is God who is good. Also don’t forget God originally created satan good. Regarding the Hebrew word “ra” no one is denying that the word’s primary definition means moral bad. The point is it’s not the only definition and its usage in scripture, like all words, depends on the context of the passage. Isaiah 45:7 is simply contrasting “ra” with “shalom” which means peace. And what is the opposite of peace? That’s right…calamity, disaster or chaos. There’s a reason every Bible translation renders the word calamity or disaster except the KJV. And why, one may ask, did God who presumably 'created' Satan (technically incorrect, I might add--God created Lucifer who became Satan after his resistance to God's authority according to OT lore) and therefore in a position to uncreate or stop his actions, allow him the level of dominion he currently enjoys over God's creation? Doesn't the bible say that if one witnesses evil and does nothing to prevent it, one is as guilty as those who actually committed the evil? Puts God in a pretty awkward position if that's the case. And your claim of context is meaningless here. All words do not depend on 'context' for their meaning, for openers; and it is evident that ra is not simply meant as the opposite of shalom, itself a complex word that delineates rather more than you allow it to. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalom#:~:text=Shalom%20(Hebrew%3A%20%D7%A9%D6%B8%D7%81%D7%9C%D7%95%D6%B9%D7%9D%20%C5%A1%C4%81l%C5%8Dm%3B,mean%20both%20hello%20and%20goodbye.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 19, 2023 19:19:00 GMT
in Isaiah 45:7 “ra” is paired with “shalom” which refers to “peace” or “prosperity”, which means it would be carrying the meaning of the antithesis of that which would be misery or calamity. So this is not about God creating “evil” but natural disasters or calamities. Indeed. Which is why I said "But let's go with the usual apologist's exegesis: amongst sorrows, calamities, disasters, afflictions, and adversities one might include childhood cancers, tidal waves and all forms of natural evil (which one notes, afflict the faithful and atheist alike)." Of course all of the above is best described (and is, by theologians) still as evil ... Natural Evil. First off, I was earlier assured that evil "does not exist" So, er, how can it be "wiped away"?. Second, are you saying here that the recent "misfortune" experienced in Morocco and Libya were really "punishments for sin"? Which ones do you have in mind? Collecting firewood on Sundays perhaps? Homosexuality? People with tattoos? Adultery? Eating shellfish? It would help if your deity was a little more specific.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Sept 20, 2023 9:51:44 GMT
Second, are you saying here that the recent "misfortune" experienced in Morocco and Libya were really "punishments for sin"? I agree with the point you're making here though I think Libya is probably a poor example of natural evil as the floods could have been prevented if warnings had been heeded. And warnings would have been heeded if there wasn't a civil war raging. And the civil war wouldn't have been raging if not for the 2011 intervention and so on and so forth. So an apologist could quite easily argue that the current disaster is a result of human choices, not God's will.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 20, 2023 11:16:57 GMT
Second, are you saying here that the recent "misfortune" experienced in Morocco and Libya were really "punishments for sin"? I agree with the point you're making here though I think Libya is probably a poor example of natural evil as the floods could have been prevented if warnings had been heeded. And warnings would have been heeded if there wasn't a civil war raging. And the civil war wouldn't have been waging if not for the 2011 intervention and so on and so forth. So an apologist could quite easily argue that the current disaster is a result of human choices, not God's will. This is true, but then again to achieve His purpose perhaps God once again hardened the hearts of those who were otherwise more likely to make peace, heed warnings, or indeed to maintain the dams...
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Sept 21, 2023 11:57:51 GMT
Gold-digging huss...oh.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Sept 26, 2023 11:07:03 GMT
But the difference is when the Bible teaches Satan is the “source” of evil or sins it’s used in an informal sense. In other words it’s describing Satan as the originator or instigator. Satan kicked it all off, got the ball rolling so to speak. There is only one ultimate power and that is God who is good. Also don’t forget God originally created satan good. Regarding the Hebrew word “ra” no one is denying that the word’s primary definition means moral bad. The point is it’s not the only definition and its usage in scripture, like all words, depends on the context of the passage. Isaiah 45:7 is simply contrasting “ra” with “shalom” which means peace. And what is the opposite of peace? That’s right…calamity, disaster or chaos. There’s a reason every Bible translation renders the word calamity or disaster except the KJV. And why, one may ask, did God who presumably 'created' Satan (technically incorrect, I might add--God created Lucifer who became Satan after his resistance to God's authority according to OT lore) and therefore in a position to uncreate or stop his actions, allow him the level of dominion he currently enjoys over God's creation? Good question. The simple answer is that it serves God’s purpose. It’s a part of his overall plan and Satan can do nothing contrary to that plan. Ultimately Satan will be done way with eventually when he’s cast into the lake of fire. He has done something about it. That’s why He sent Jesus. Also there will be no sin in heaven. How can context possibly be ”meaningless” to understanding a passage? Just read the passage carefully, it’s speaking of natural phenomena. It mentions (sun, light & dark). Notice light is being contrasted with dark and peace is being contrasted with calamity. It’s about God causing “well-being”(peace) as well as its opposite ie calamity. This is consistent with other passages in the OT. “The Lord said to him, “Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes him mute or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?” Exodus 4:11 “If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble? If a calamity occurs in a city has not the Lord done it?” Amos 3:6 Again “Ra” primary definition means moral bad but it’s not the only definition. This is evidenced by the fact the word is used a number of different ways throughout the OT. It actually occurs 663 times. 431 times it is translated as evil. The other 232 times it’s translated as either wicked, bad, hurt, harm, ill, sorrow, mischief, displeased, adversity, affliction, trouble, calamity, grievous, misery, and trouble. The word does not require that it be translated as evil(ontological evil).
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 26, 2023 19:18:31 GMT
The simple answer is that it serves God’s purpose. It’s a part of his overall plan and Satan can do nothing contrary to that plan... One notes here that as here, when it suits them, the faithful can claim to know God's mind and plan. But when what their alleged deity does does not seem logical or is perverse, then suddenly it seems "God moves in mysterious ways". Funny that. This still leaves your supposed deity deliberately creating natural evil, such as childhood cancers. Not a good look. I can imagine an all-good deity which would not design or allow pain and suffering like this.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Sept 27, 2023 2:47:30 GMT
And why, one may ask, did God who presumably 'created' Satan (technically incorrect, I might add--God created Lucifer who became Satan after his resistance to God's authority according to OT lore) and therefore in a position to uncreate or stop his actions, allow him the level of dominion he currently enjoys over God's creation? Good question. The simple answer is that it serves God’s purpose. It’s a part of his overall plan and Satan can do nothing contrary to that plan. Hmmmnnn...so God didn't create evil, per se--but created a plan that would allow for an outside agent (whom God did initially create, and who apparently has no volition outside of God's plan) to step in and introduce evil instead. That takes the blame squarely off God's shoulders, I gotta hand it to you.Ultimately Satan will be done way with eventually when he’s cast into the lake of fire. We won't even get into the question of why that happens 'ultimately', as opposed to now, or better yet not have occurred at all...since it's all part of that mysterious plan.He has done something about it. That’s why He sent Jesus. Also there will be no sin in heaven. Your point being? Jesus didn't eliminate evil from the world; it still exists, and now you've got God and Jesus looking on and doing nothing about it. How can context possibly be ”meaningless” to understanding a passage? Just read the passage carefully, it’s speaking of natural phenomena. It mentions (sun, light & dark). Notice light is being contrasted with dark and peace is being contrasted with calamity. It’s about God causing “well-being”(peace) as well as its opposite ie calamity. This is consistent with other passages in the OT. “The Lord said to him, “Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes him mute or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?” Exodus 4:11 “If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble? If a calamity occurs in a city has not the Lord done it?” Amos 3:6 Again “Ra” primary definition means moral bad but it’s not the only definition. This is evidenced by the fact the word is used a number of different ways throughout the OT. It actually occurs 663 times. 431 times it is translated as evil. The other 232 times it’s translated as either wicked, bad, hurt, harm, ill, sorrow, mischief, displeased, adversity, affliction, trouble, calamity, grievous, misery, and trouble. The word does not require that it be translated as evil(ontological evil). All of that boils down to your misuse of the idea of context to play humpty-dumpty games where a word means what you want it to mean, other than what it clearly does mean. Nice try, but--fail.
-
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Sept 27, 2023 2:54:46 GMT
Which makes about as much sense as your initial postulation that 'good' somehow exists as a tangible because God created it, but 'evil' does not exist because he supposedly (and according to your holy book, wrongly asserted by you) did not. The reason evil doesn’t exist as opposed to good is because there is no source or principle of evil as there is for good. So evil although real, is really non-existent as a substance. That makes absolutely no sense.
|
|