An important question(s) for apologists [Archive]

Blake Reas

April 3rd 2003, 02:50 AM

Today @ 05:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51805#post51805)
La Rubia:

*sigh*'This question keeps coming up in my conversations with some of my agnostic relatives:
If God is so perfect and good, why did He create evil and set Satan up for his rebellion?
And why create the world and man, and even Satan, if you know it will be such a disaster beforehand?

This is not an easy answer to your question but I would say there is no clear cut answer. Then again i am speaking from my Calvinistic view.
Here is my answer in short. God does all things for his glory and he is totally sovereign. We see things from a relatively small vantage point compared to God he sees things in a huge comprehensive picture. He allows for Evil and suffering because in the end it will turn out for the good and HIS Glory which is all that really matters. Probably not the answer you where looking for but then again I do not consider myself a Apologist(atleast not a good one).
I would also tell you to read on Compatibilist freedom.

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake
:dufus:

Rubia Warren

April 3rd 2003, 02:59 AM

Thank you, Blake. This is not something that I have ever really been curious about, or struggled with, I've had my own sets of questions in the past. But my father hates God, and wants an answer to these questions because he knows there really isn't a definite one. *sigh* I don't even know why I bothered to start this thread. If it were a question that presses him so hard, I would think he would search out the answer for himself. Oh well. More power to him. Whatever.

Gavin

April 3rd 2003, 03:05 AM

I think it is a complex and huge question, but we have to understand that God is glorified in redemption. If the fall had not happened, the cross could not have happened. It is a more beautiful, nobler, greater thing for God to be our Saviour as well as our Creater, rather than merely our creater.

The biblical story of God's redemptive plan for mankind - from Adam to Noah, from the calling of Abraham, to Israel's sin and destruction, from Christ's arrival and work on the cross to his glorious return - is the most beautiful and amazing story ever.

Woman

April 3rd 2003, 04:33 AM

La Rubia,

I have heard about these "God-haters." Soc now and then accuses me of being one. But honestly I've never known of anyone who hated God. (maybe for a short while after tragedy) That would be so...either brave or stupid or terrifying or something. I mean atheists don't believe in God so they don't hate. Maybe agnostics...but even they can't really hate God. Are there people who believe in God, hate him and don't fear him?

Socrates

April 3rd 2003, 06:17 AM

Woman writes:I have heard about these "God-haters." Soc now and then accuses me of being one. But honestly I've never known of anyone who hated God. (maybe for a short while after tragedy) That would be so...either brave or stupid or terrifying or something. I mean atheists don't believe in God so they don't hate. Maybe agnostics...but even they can't really hate God. Are there people who believe in God, hate him and don't fear him?I explained "God haters" to you at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=42876#post42876

La Rubia asks:If God is so perfect and good, why did He create evil and set Satan up for his rebellion?That's a leading question. Evil is not a ‘thing’ in itself, even though it is real. Rather, as Augutine said, evil is the privation of some good something ought to have. For example, murder is a removal of a good human life. Adultery is a privation of a good marriage. Good is fundamental and can exist in itself; evil cannot exist in itself. It is always a parasite on good. For example, a wound cannot exist without a body, and the very idea of a wound presupposes the concept of a healthy body. Blindness in a human is a physical evil, because humans are supposed to see (but oysters are not, so blindness is not an evil for oysters). Also, evil actions are done to achieve things like wealth, power, sexual gratification, which the evildoer finds ‘good’ (meaning ‘pleasing’). Evil things are not done as ends in themselves, but good things are. Now, since evil is not a thing, God did not create evil [although He does create calamity as he has a right to do, and this is the correct understanding of Isaiah 45:7].

La Rubia continues:
And why create the world and man, and even Satan, if you know it will be such a disaster beforehand?You could remind the critic, if God didn't create him, he wouldn't be here to ask the question. But more importantly, ask him to justify his belief in evil in the first place. If we are just rearranged pond scum, then where do we get the concept of objective right and wrong from, if there is no objective moral Lawgiver. His opinion about something "evil" is just a personal feeling which is the result of brain chemistry that evolved to give his ape-like ancestors some survival value. A critic's argument collapses if he can't justify his own question under his framework.

JCA

April 3rd 2003, 07:32 AM

Today @ 05:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=52063#post52063)
Socrates:Good is fundamental and can exist in itself; evil cannot exist in itself. It is always a parasite on good. For example, a wound cannot exist without a body, and the very idea of a wound presupposes the concept of a healthy body. Blindness in a human is a physical evil, because humans are supposed to see (but oysters are not, so blindness is not an evil for oysters). Also, evil actions are done to achieve things like wealth, power, sexual gratification, which the evildoer finds ‘good’ (meaning ‘pleasing’). Evil things are not done as ends in themselves, but good things are. Now, since evil is not a thing, God did not create evil [although He does create calamity as he has a right to do, and this is the correct understanding of Isaiah 45:7].

If I may, I find a few things here to be a 'little off'..

First, the idea that Evil cannot exist in itself is only YOUR interpretation of what may be truth.. please supply scriptural support for this assumption.. I have never seen it before :)

Plus, I think that there are many a blind person who would argue that their blindness is a genetic issue, and not because they are "evil".. or are you stating that all people with a sight defeciency should be considered 'suspect', and obviously God is punishing them? :ahem: maybe that's not your stance, but it certainly is what you appear to be saying..

And lastly, even if God did not create evil directly, He certainly created creatures that He knew would.. I fail to see the logic behind what you say, or others who claim that God did not create everything.. even the knowledge of Good and Evil..

As you say, Evil is not a THING, therefore it must be a spiritual aspect that can be produced.. by creatures who are able to do such a thing.. well, Man can do such a thing.. who or what was our Creator?

As for the "pond slime" comment.. and "how did the 'spirit' get into the 'pond scum' reaction..", I have just as much faith that God could plan and supernaturally add the "spirit" to 'pond scum' as it got together, as I can Him picking up totally inanimate dirt, and combining it with His breath to form life..

I see it as being just as possibe that God was there when this 'pond scum' was coming together, and breathed upon that also to create life.. or can God NOT do that, in your eyes? Just a question..

Lastly, how would YOU know what and how Evil operates, unless you are.. please explain what you mean by "evil things are not done as ends in themselves".. How do you come by this knowledge? And exactly what does that mean anyway? A murderer who enjoys murdering, does murder.. was this murderer not doing evil things that where an 'end in themselves'? In other words did not the act of murder be the end result of this persons evil, which is all the murderer wanted? I'm not sure I understand your statement.. obviously :)

I thank you in advance for clearing any of that up for me.

IN Love and Peace

JCA

Captain Ochre

April 3rd 2003, 09:48 AM

I skimmed, but I get the impression that JCA is onto something. It is nonsensical for evil to be "created" afaics. Evil is something that is done or not done. God's sovereignty permitted evil rather than creating it.
The question is a little tougher for Calvinists who see God as the mover even of the good and evil actions of His creatures.

Socrates

April 3rd 2003, 10:20 AM

Socrates:

Good is fundamental and can exist in itself; evil cannot exist in itself. It is always a parasite on good. For example, a wound cannot exist without a body, and the very idea of a wound presupposes the concept of a healthy body. Blindness in a human is a physical evil, because humans are supposed to see (but oysters are not, so blindness is not an evil for oysters). Also, evil actions are done to achieve things like wealth, power, sexual gratification, which the evildoer finds ‘good’ (meaning ‘pleasing’). Evil things are not done as ends in themselves, but good things are. Now, since evil is not a thing, God did not create evil [although He does create calamity as he has a right to do, and this is the correct understanding of Isaiah 45:7].

JCA:
If I may, I find a few things here to be a 'little off'..

First, the idea that Evil cannot exist in itself is only YOUR interpretation of what may be truth... please supply scriptural support for this assumption. Judging by your acceptance of evolution, you have a low view of Scripture, so what do you care? Part of it is the fact that God is totally good, and He is a necessary Being. But evil beings are contingent. It also comes from what "sin" means in the Bible -- Lawlessness, falling short of the glory of God, and the base meaning of the Hebrew chata and Greek hamartano (to sin) of "missing the mark". I have never seen it before :) It's not just MY interpretation, but Augustine's, and that of apologists such as Geisler. So why this post implying that I made all this up? Plus, I think that there are many a blind person who would argue that their blindness is a genetic issue, and not because they are "evil".. or are you stating that all people with a sight defeciency should be considered 'suspect', and obviously God is punishing them?For goodness's sake, I EXPLICITLY said it was a PHYSICAL evil. ... maybe that's not your stance, but it certainly is what you appear to be saying.Only because you didn't read carefully. I am perfectly aware that a particular illness or disability is not always correlated with a particular sin by that individual. E.g. Job suffered intensely although he was the most righteous man on Earth; and a man was born blind, and Jesus refuted the idea that it was due to his own sin or his parents’; rather, it was to demonstrate the power of God (when Jesus healed him—John 9). And lastly, even if God did not create evil directly, He certainly created creatures that He knew would.. I fail to see the logic behind what you say, or others who claim that God did not create everything.. even the knowledge of Good and Evil. It's true -- God did not create evil -- His creatures did when they MISUSED His gift of the power of contrary choice. As you say, Evil is not a THING, therefore it must be a spiritual aspect that can be produced.. by creatures who are able to do such a thing.. well, Man can do such a thing.. who or what was our Creator?This question is incoherent. As for the "pond slime" comment.. and "how did the 'spirit' get into the 'pond scum' reaction..", I have just as much faith that God could plan and supernaturally add the "spirit" to 'pond scum' as it got together, as I can Him picking up totally inanimate dirt, and combining it with His breath to form life. I have faith that God did as He said He did in Genesis, and no faith in chemical evolution (I speak as a chemist). Would you like to present a plausible scenario that I could demolish?

But I wasn't even talking about this. Rather, I was talking about the materialists who raise this argument -- they believe we are nothing BUT rearranged pond scum, and under THEIR perspective, they have no basis for whinging about evil.I see it as being just as possibe that God was there when this 'pond scum' was coming together, and breathed upon that also to create life.. or can God NOT do that, in your eyes? Just a question.More to the point -- God can NOT lie!! And that means, if He said He created as in Genesis, then it is NOT possible that He did anything different.

But YOU were the one who changed the subject to bring up the heterodox theistic evolution stuff. Lastly, how would YOU know what and how Evil operates, unless you are.. please explain what you mean by "evil things are not done as ends in themselves".. How do you come by this knowledge? By actually READING, e.g. C.S. Lewis.And exactly what does that mean anyway? A murderer who enjoys murdering, does murder.. was this murderer not doing evil things that where an 'end in themselves'? Yes, enjoyment is a good thing in itself, but the means to it is totally evil.

The Laughing Man

April 3rd 2003, 11:34 AM

Rubia Warren

April 3rd 2003, 01:05 PM

Wow. There were some really good posts on this thread- thanks, everyone.
After years of him insisting that there was no God at all, and after arguing about it for some time, I finally got him to admit that there is some sort of intelligent design to everything (us, the universe, etc.), and now these are the questions that we are stuck on, and I just did not know how to answer them.
Last night, he kept telling me, "Aw, come on! You expect me to believe that there is a Satan?!?! How could an all- knowing God, who is perfect and flawless, NOT know what was going to come out of all of this... why didn't He just not create all of this in the first place, rather than let all of this crap go on? Is this a sick joke? and if He created all things, then He must have created evil, and he totally set Satan up to do what He does. So, if there is a Satan, he was created by your God to do all of this...":argh:

No matter how much I tried to explain to him the concept of free will, it was like talking to a brick wall, and he automatically insists I am a calvinist, no matter how much I tried to explain otherwise, just because he has had so much experience with churchpeople who are calvinists in the past. Frustrating, I tell you. He always gets me when he brings up these questions, as he knows I have no answer to them- as I said, it's not something I have spent lots of time on... I have had other issues. Then he slammed me for not knowing the answer! I had to just say, "what? I become a christian a little over a year ago, and automatically, I am supposed to be an expert on EVERYTHING, instantly?!?!" and he said "Yep!":argh: Frustrating, I tell you. Interestingly, the conversation was started by him, in which he told me of 4 different occasions in which he has escaped death, because he got some weird "feeling" to do something differently in those situations, and wanted to know my opinion, and got mad because I saw it coming and told him, "Aw, whatever! Those are just freak things that happen. Coincedences, you know?" and he said, "What?!?! You don't think it was some sort of a PLAN, or something, like it wasn't my time to go yet?" and I said, "Well, who would have plans for you? I mean, did not this earth, universe, and everything in it happen spontaneously, according to you? So, why can't freak things happen?" then he starts using all sorts of things against me- things that NO christian believes. I finally just had to say, "You know, it's kind of hard for me to defend something you've conveniently served to me on a platter and decided for me what I believe, but I don't believe the things that you're accusing me of, so tell me, how can I defend it?" Then the converstation shifts to "why are we going through this anyway, if He's so perfect, knows everything, how did Satan rebel without Him making him rebel, or creating him to rebel?" :argh:
So, it looks like I've gotta find the answers to these questions.
But, Socrates, and JCA, you've brought up some really good stuff that I never knew before, and I hope this thread continues and expands, so that I can learn more- and woman, I am glad that you have participated, as your responses are along the lines of what my dad's would be, if he wasn't so hateful about it. LOL So, please keep going, everybody, I appreciate it.

doogieduff

April 3rd 2003, 03:14 PM

Yesterday @ 10:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
La Rubia:

*sigh*'This question keeps coming up in my conversations with some of my agnostic relatives:
If God is so perfect and good, why did He create evil and set Satan up for his rebellion?
And why create the world and man, and even Satan, if you know it will be such a disaster beforehand?

I appreciate your second question, and it's one that I feel is never adequately answered. I will answer your question with a question.

Genesis 6:6 And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the Lord said, 'I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth...for I am sorry that have made them."

Enlight of this verse, I think the question is now rather not why did God make them...knowing this would happen, but instead did God expect this to really happen? Can God really be "sorry to have made them" if indeed He made them knowing with 100% certainty this would already happen?

Act9_12Out

April 3rd 2003, 04:17 PM

doogie,

Great point. God cannot truly "be grieved" that He made man if He already knew they would fall. God cannot make that statement in light of Genesis 1:31...

Genesis 1
1:31
Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

How can God say His creation is "very good," if indeed He already knew it would become bad???

--Jeremy

Snowball

April 3rd 2003, 11:28 PM

La Rubia,

Glenn Miller has a whole series about this question. You can go here first:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gutripper.html

then the series starts here:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gr5part1.html

So if you want someone who put a ton of thought into this question, Glenn's site is the place to go. :thumb:

Another good way to answer the question:
http://www.probe.org/docs/e-flawed.html

Blake Reas

April 4th 2003, 12:15 AM

Yesterday @ 08:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Act9_12Out:

doogie,

Great point. God cannot truly "be grieved" that He made man if He already knew they would fall. God cannot make that statement in light of Genesis 1:31...

How can God say His creation is "very good," if indeed He already knew it would become bad???

--Jeremy

Thats nice, I guess that there is one to one correspondence between us and God! I guess this goes along with your "straight Forward" reading of biblical text ehh..... A god who is emotionally arbitrary, No Thanks!

By His Grace For His Glory,
Blake

bar Jonah

April 4th 2003, 12:26 AM

Today @ 09:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Blake Reas:

Thats nice, I guess that there is one to one correspondence between us and God! I guess this goes along with your "straight Forward" reading of biblical text ehh..... A god who is emotionally arbitrary, No Thanks!

By His Grace For His Glory,
Blake
Emotionally arbitrary? How on earth do you draw that conclusion? Calvinism is the view that portrays God as being emotionally arbitrary.

This man is saved, and that man is left by the wayside to die. No greater or lesser merit. Completely arbitrary. Such infinite love, mercy and grace on God's part...?

The open God is a god of dynamic, emotional relationship, and who (contrary to the Calvinist view) is not arbitrary. God responds to us. He doesn't just throw darts at a dartboard or hold some kind of cosmic lottery to determine the fate of billions of eternal lives.

Arbitrary, indeed.

yxboom

April 4th 2003, 12:31 AM

God created man with the option to reciprocate love. Allowing mankind to actually reciprocate love is hardly arbiturary.

Blake Reas

April 4th 2003, 01:00 AM

Today @ 04:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
RightIdea:

[quote]Emotionally arbitrary? How on earth do you draw that conclusion? Calvinism is the view that portrays God as being emotionally arbitrary.

Lets see....... apparently the God of Open Theism regrets his decisions, forgets things (that is why he needed a rainbow in Genesis to remind himself correct?), He is passionate which means one emotion can take over another. I know that you will claim that God knows all past and future actions but you must give me a hermeneutical reason for saying that God did not forget that is why he instituted the Rainbow So just don't assume the case to be clear cut for you and not for Calvinist you have some fatal flaws in your system.
No Calvinism portrays God as rather stable. He is perfect in His Character I don't think you understand the word arbitrary very well. The God of Calvinism is pretty "Solid".

This man is saved, and that man is left by the wayside to die. No greater or lesser merit. Completely arbitrary. Such infinite love, mercy and grace on God's part...?

How is this arbitrary do you know the mind of God? You seem to claim to know alot about his purposes. Are you God? if you are please reveal your very nature to me!

The open God is a god of dynamic, emotional relationship, and who (contrary to the Calvinist view) is not arbitrary. God responds to us. He doesn't just throw darts at a dartboard or hold some kind of cosmic lottery to determine the fate of billions of eternal lives.

The Calvinist God does not act in history or respond to his creatures? Wow apparentley you have not read Calvin's institutes of course you are to busy reading Clark Pinnock and Greg Boyd to read anything else. I will quote Charles Hodge to show your ignorant statement of the Reformed perspective is nothing but a straw man close to Pinnocks made up Immobility package he refutes in the most moved mover.
Also since you are displaying you ignorance of Calvinism let me just say that God chooses out of His good pleasure and purpose which seems to fly over your head everytime. Also if God did choose arbitrarily, I will just put it in Paul's words "Who are you oh man to talk back to God?"

But nevertheless that He is not a stagnant ocean, but an ever living, ever thinking, ever acting, and ever suiting his action to the exigencies of his creatures and to accomplishment of his infinietley wise designs. Whether we can harmonize these facts or not, is a matter of minor importance. WE are constantly called upon to believe that things are, without being able to tell how they are, or even how they can be. Theologians, in their attempts to state, in philosophical language, the doctrine of the Bible on the unchangableness of God, are apt to confound immutability with immobility. In denying that God can change, they seem to deny that He can act.
Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 1 390-391

Are there anymore strawmen you can throw out?

So what is God's main objective? Is it our free-will is GOd just there to make us happy? Just curious I always thought things where done to his good pleasure? sounds more like the pleasure of Tom, Dick, and Harry!

Arbitrary, indeed.

Ignorance of Calvinism again Indeed. Maybe you should read some of the Princenton Theologians and better yet maybe a little dare I say Calvin.

Again you show your destruction of Metaphor and put God into your tight little box because everything from Election to the very nature of the Holy Triune God must be laid bare by you! You invert what scripture says and claim that you know the mind of the Lord and all of His ways! Who can be God's Counselor? We can because we know everything there is to know about him because we have put him on our procrustrian bed and chopped his head off along with his feet so that we can fit him into a syllogism for the world to see. The Glory!

By His Grace(that I know can save me:Spam:) For His Glory
Blake

Blake Reas

April 4th 2003, 01:05 AM

Today @ 04:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
yxboom:

God created man with the option to reciprocate love. Allowing mankind to actually reciprocate love is hardly arbiturary.
I see what you are saying but what I mean by arbitrary is that he has to guess all the time. Even though he knows everything that "could" happen it still makes him arbitrary because in scripture according to your "straight forward" interpretation God regrets decisions. He just can't seem to get it right sometimes, I almost feel sorry for the God of Open Theism!
By His Grace For His Glory,
Blake

Socrates

April 4th 2003, 02:19 AM

Genesis 1:31:
Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Acts 9 said:How can God say His creation is "very good," if indeed He already knew it would become bad???Because there was no ACTUAL evil. When ACTUAL evil occurred, creation was no longer "very good".

It brings me to another point: what we see now is NOT the world that God originally created, but one marred by sin. So all evil, death and suffering ultimately has its origins in the fall of Adam, the Federal Head of humanity with dominion over the entire creation. See Genesis 2:17, 3:19; Romans 5:12-19, 8:20-22; 1 Corinthians 15:21-22,26,45.

Woman

April 4th 2003, 03:33 AM

Soc:

I explained "God haters" to you at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthrea...42876#post42876

Oops - guess I'd better go review! :argh:

I have problems with this "evil" thing too. No matter hard I try I cannot conceive of evil as a thing. It's an interpretation of some aspect or action. It's a judgement. Even the idea of absolute evil is a tough nut.

Almost any circumstance or action that one might call "evil" can be reframed so that it's not. Like killing...is it evil to take a man's life, causing him untold physical, mental and emotional pain, leaving his wife a widow and his children fatherless? Of course, you say. Ordinarily that could be seen as an evil thing to do, especially if the perpetrator gloated over it. But suppose the man is your mortal enemy in war...or a convicted capital offender? Obviously killing is not evil, in and of itself. I might buy that inflicting unnecessary pain on anyone is an evil thing to do. I don't know.

How about "good?" Would it always be a "good" thing to feed a hungry person? What if that person is a young, starving Hitler? Would withholding food from him be evil? Absolutes are almost never simply that. It would be an easy life if the world were black and white, good and evil, but it's not.

And how come after 2000 years y'all can't agree on all of this? Why isn't it more clear if we were meant to understand God's will?

Blake Reas

April 4th 2003, 03:44 AM

Today @ 07:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Woman:

Soc:

Oops - guess I'd better go review! :argh:

I have problems with this "evil" thing too. No matter hard I try I cannot conceive of evil as a thing. It's an interpretation of some aspect or action. It's a judgement. Even the idea of absolute evil is a tough nut.

I do not know how to say this but I think absolute evil is intuitive. Some how we know that certain things are evil they offend a moral sensitivity that is hard wired into us.

Almost any circumstance or action that one might call "evil" can be reframed so that it's not. Like killing...is it evil to take a man's life, causing him untold physical, mental and emotional pain, leaving his wife a widow and his children fatherless? Of course, you say. Ordinarily that could be seen as an evil thing to do, especially if the perpetrator gloated over it. But suppose the man is your mortal enemy in war...or a convicted capital offender? Obviously killing is not evil, in and of itself. I might buy that inflicting unnecessary pain on anyone is an evil thing to do. I don't know.

I would say that all of these are outside of what the creation is intended for so yes they are evil. For instance I think war is an evil thing not matter how you cut it. It is something that should not be there but it is.

How about "good?" Would it always be a "good" thing to feed a hungry person? What if that person is a young, starving Hitler? Would withholding food from him be evil? Absolutes are almost never simply that. It would be an easy life if the world were black and white, good and evil, but it's not.

Yes, it would be wrong to starve a young Hitler because the ends never justify the means. I also would say that if you lived when Hitler was young you probably would have never thought he would kill 6 million people are you assuming that you would know his future actions? If so I would say it is an act of Mercy, I may have contradicted myself there!:LOL:

And how come after 2000 years y'all can't agree on all of this? Why isn't it more clear if we were meant to understand God's will?
I would say since we are blinded by sin that we inflict evil on each other because we are Totally depraved and the Creation has been thrown into chaos. Oh well enough of my ramblings.

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

:lol:

Rubia Warren

April 4th 2003, 07:34 AM

Socrates

April 6th 2003, 01:45 AM

La Rubia quotes:

John 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

1 John 3:8
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Then she asked:These 2 verses suggest to me that Satan was always evil- since the beginning. Beginning of what? Since God created him? And if so, God created him to be a murderer? Or God created him to be good, and somehow God screwed up, because Lucifer fell and "became" evil?A few points from Scripture that enable a logical deduction to answer this question: God created all things during Creation Week (Ex. 20:8-11).
It was "very good" at the end of Creation Week (Genesis 1:31)
Therefore Satan was created in Creation Week, and unfallen.

When the Earth (erets) was formed, the Sons of God "shouted for joy). Depending on whether erets refers to the planet or the dry land, this means the angels were either created on Day One or in time for the Third Day.

God blessed the 7th Day, because this, and there was no hint of any sin or curse on this day. Therefore Satan's Fall must have occurred after Creation Week.
However, the Fall can’t have been too long afterwards. Adam and Eve were commanded to ‘fill the Earth’, and they would have obeyed in their unfallen state, and their physically perfect bodies would have been capable of conceiving immediately. But the first child they conceived (Cain) was indisputably sinful.
Therefore their Fall must have occurred a few days at most after Creation Week. Since Satan fell before the First Couple, we can also narrow down its occurrence to the narrow window between the blessed 7th Day and the Fall of mankind.
Jesus spoke those words about AD 30, over 4000 years after Creation.So to answer the question:

Whether "from the beginning" referred to the beginning of creation as a whole or beginning of Satan, it's only a few days away from the beginning. If we imagine a time line from Creation to Christ (see diagram below), then a few days would be only a few ten thousandths of a percent from the absolute beginning. Considering that the Bible normally rounds to the nearest whole number, this is a fantastically good approximation.

A similar argument is, Jesus said that God created man male and female "from the beginning of creation" (Mark 10:6), not billions of years after the beginning as long-age compromisers teach.

Woman

April 6th 2003, 02:06 AM

Blake:

I do not know how to say this but I think absolute evil is intuitive. Some how we know that certain things are evil they offend a moral sensitivity that is hard wired into us.

No, you said it very well. I understand exactly what you mean and feel very much the same.

I don't know that God would agree with your "the end never justifies the means." Indeed, the killing and cruelty to so many in the OT is generally justified just that way.

Socrates

April 6th 2003, 03:18 AM

Woman writes:I have problems with this "evil" thing too. No matter hard I try I cannot conceive of evil as a thing. It's an interpretation of some aspect or action. It's a judgement. Even the idea of absolute evil is a tough nut.The Bible talks about a heirarchy of morals, or [i]graded absolutism. Here, if there is a conflict between two absolutes, the duty to obey the higher one exempts one from the duty to the lower one. And the order is duty to God > duty to fellow humans > duty to property.

MarkG discusses this in some detail here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=17126#post17126)

jcurtis

April 7th 2003, 10:00 AM

04-03-2003 @ 06:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Blake Reas:

Here is my answer in short. God does all things for his glory and he is totally sovereign. We see things from a relatively small vantage point compared to God he sees things in a huge comprehensive picture. He allows for Evil and suffering because in the end it will turn out for the good and HIS Glory which is all that really matters. :dufus:

It's rather sick that Yahweh, your God, has an unquenchable thirst for "Glory." How crude, rude, and egotistical.

bar Jonah

April 7th 2003, 10:45 AM

Today @ 08:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
jcurtis:

It's rather sick that Yahweh, your God, has an unquenchable thirst for "Glory." How crude, rude, and egotistical.
How crude, rude and egotistical for someone to think that a supreme being doesn't have an absolute right to unlimited glory...

Rubia Warren

April 7th 2003, 10:50 AM

Today @ 10:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
jcurtis:

It's rather sick that Yahweh, your God, has an unquenchable thirst for "Glory." How crude, rude, and egotistical.

This is what my dad says all the time.

:frown:

yxboom

April 7th 2003, 11:04 PM

amen and amen Acts9 :thumb:

yxboom

April 7th 2003, 11:05 PM

uh what happened to Act9's post :hrm:

Act9_12Out

April 7th 2003, 11:11 PM

blake reas,

Is there a reason you never responded to doogieduff's post on the first page?

Also, you seem to not understand the Open View. God never got anything wrong. Actually it was right AT THE TIME, EVERYTIME. But guess what? Man got it wrong, and God had to fix it. A clear cut example of this is the Genesis story. Are you saying God got it wrong by creating Adam and Eve? Of course not. As God said "Indeed, it was very good." Are you calling God a liar? You see, God had it right, and as you all know, Adam and Eve (aka man) got it wrong. How did God fix this? A wonderful Savior, Jesus Christ. What a wonderful God we have!

Act9_12Out

April 7th 2003, 11:12 PM

Sorry xboom, thought I posted twice, so I was going to delete one of them!

Dee Dee Warren

April 8th 2003, 10:32 PM

Though generally this is not an area for theist/atheist interaction.. Rubia requested that Steven or other similarly minded people post here, and since it does not fit in an atheist/theist debate section, please Steven and others feel free to post in this thread.

Rubia Warren

April 8th 2003, 10:35 PM

Oh, I'm sorry, Dee Dee! I guess I didn't pay any attention when I started the thread. My bad!

Blake Reas

April 14th 2003, 11:19 PM

04-07-2003 @ 03:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=57960#post57960)
jcurtis:

It's rather sick that Yahweh, your God, has an unquenchable thirst for "Glory." How crude, rude, and egotistical.

Hmmm.... lets see God creates the world he is in control and you are going to Judge him? You have a high view of yourself are you God? This is just another example of ignorant Atheism. I do not like ______ therefore God does not exist. I love those type arguments from out rage give me some more they make me laugh.

By His Grace for His Glory
Blake

Blake Reas

April 14th 2003, 11:22 PM

04-03-2003 @ 08:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=52781#post52781)
Act9_12Out:

doogie,

Great point. God cannot truly "be grieved" that He made man if He already knew they would fall. God cannot make that statement in light of Genesis 1:31...

How can God say His creation is "very good," if indeed He already knew it would become bad???

--Jeremy

What about the passages where God ask Adam and Eve where they are at in my "straight forward interpretaion of taht text it means that God does not know the present.

Blake

doogieduff

April 15th 2003, 09:30 AM

blake reas,

You have still failed to answer my post on page one. Oh well. Anyways, the point of my post is that you should really study greek. Your Romans 8:28 passage on your signature is a horrible translation, and in turn, actually sounds calvinistic. But in fact, the verse has nothing to do with calvinism at all. The word "causes" is just plain added (probably by you), and the verse actually reads "And we know that God works with those who love God, with those who are the called according to His purpose all things for good." This is about as literal a translation as you can get in the english. And as you see, God works "with" us, not "causes" us to do everything.

How does God work all things for good of those who love Him? He gives "those who love Him" eternal life in heaven, which turns the "all things" of their life into good, because what's closer to "good" than heaven?

Blake Reas

April 15th 2003, 06:32 PM

Today @ 02:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=67459#post67459)
doogieduff:

blake reas,

You have still failed to answer my post on page one. Oh well. Anyways, the point of my post is that you should really study greek. Your Romans 8:28 passage on your signature is a horrible translation, and in turn, actually sounds calvinistic. But in fact, the verse has nothing to do with calvinism at all. The word "causes" is just plain added (probably by you), and the verse actually reads "And we know that God works with those who love God, with those who are the called according to His purpose all things for good." This is about as literal a translation as you can get in the english. And as you see, God works "with" us, not "causes" us to do everything.

How does God work all things for good of those who love Him? He gives "those who love Him" eternal life in heaven, which turns the "all things" of their life into good, because what's closer to "good" than heaven?

I guess the NASB is a terrible translation of the Bible? Where do you get yours the New Living Translation? Besides I think Jaltus would disagree with you, better yet he is writing his dissertatation on why that passage destroys Open Theism. By the way I am sorry I do not know greek as of yet I am enrolled in a class for next semester. I guess we cannot be all intellectually equipped as you and your GODISNOWHERE crew. Oh yeah your god is nowhere.
By His Grace For HIs Glory,
Blake

Blake Reas

April 15th 2003, 06:35 PM

04-03-2003 @ 07:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=52613#post52613)
doogieduff:

I appreciate your second question, and it's one that I feel is never adequately answered. I will answer your question with a question.

Genesis 6:6 And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the Lord said, 'I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth...for I am sorry that have made them."

Enlight of this verse, I think the question is now rather not why did God make them...knowing this would happen, but instead did God expect this to really happen? Can God really be "sorry to have made them" if indeed He made them knowing with 100% certainty this would already happen?

I have dealt with this elsewhere. But I will ask you a question when God is walking through the cool of the Garden in Gensesis and he asks Adam and eve where they are should we not take that as a straight forward reading? Also the Abraham text does it not undermine God's present knowledge? do not answer with well we know that these passages are not to be interpreted literally that will not cut it I want Biblical grounds for doing so.

Blake

mentis

May 10th 2003, 11:41 PM

La Rubia,

Let me offer two additional essays on this subject that may be of some aid, or at least comfort, to you.

"The Problem of Suffering"
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1998/r&r9807a.htm

and, "The Problem of Suffering: Further Arugments"
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1998/r&r9807b.htm

bar Jonah

May 11th 2003, 10:25 AM

Yesterday @ 09:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93257#post93257)
mentis:

La Rubia,

Let me offer two additional essays on this subject that may be of some aid, or at least comfort, to you.

"The Problem of Suffering"
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1998/r&r9807a.htm

and, "The Problem of Suffering: Further Arugments"
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1998/r&r9807b.htm
Mentis, the general rule here is that you make your argument in your posts, not by just posting links that will lead people away from TheologyWeb. :smile:

Theolog

May 11th 2003, 11:49 AM

04-02-2003 @ 09:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51805#post51805)
La Rubia:

*sigh*'This question keeps coming up in my conversations with some of my agnostic relatives:
If God is so perfect and good, why did He create evil and set Satan up for his rebellion?
And why create the world and man, and even Satan, if you know it will be such a disaster beforehand?

If only one person believes and trusts in God then the whole creation would not be a disaster.

Of course our sense of self worth and our low view of God makes my statement a tough pill to swallow but nonetheless I feel it is true.

We know that many humans, not just one, will be saved.

God created evil to contrast His holiness. Therefore, even evil glorifies God. This seemingly should make it an easy choice for man yet man in his desire for pride somehow confuses good for evil and chooses evil thinking it is good.

If anyone has a problem with evil then let him be holy.

seer

May 11th 2003, 12:33 PM

La Rubia, here are some thoughts form the Christian Universalist camp:

The Purpose of Evil

http://hellbusters.8m.com/purposeofevil.html

Stevewalker

November 9th 2004, 12:49 AM

Hi there Rubia,
I feel that the problem of evil is brought about by the free will God gave to us to choose between his wisdom and our own. When humanity choose to take their own path they inadvertantly let evil into the world by the fact that they were not in the position to make perfect choices. Furthermore the reason why God gave us choice is because God desires a real relationship between himself and his creation and for us to be capable of loving God we also must be able to not love him, otherwise the "love" we have for God is not real love as we never got a choice about it.

Anyways I hope that was of some help.

God bless you and your friends.
Steve.

Ormly

November 9th 2004, 09:38 AM

If only one person believes and trusts in God then the whole creation would not be a disaster.

Of course our sense of self worth and our low view of God makes my statement a tough pill to swallow but nonetheless I feel it is true.

We know that many humans, not just one, will be saved.

God created evil to contrast His holiness. Therefore, even evil glorifies God. This seemingly should make it an easy choice for man yet man in his desire for pride somehow confuses good for evil and chooses evil thinking it is good.

If anyone has a problem with evil then let him be holy.
God didn't create evil. You must remember that there is no "darkness" in God. That's an absolute so there must be another way that evil entered, wouldn't you say?

Sacrificial Ram

November 9th 2004, 09:54 AM

Sacrificial Ram

November 9th 2004, 10:11 AM

La Rubia - Ask your father and any other agnostic (or otherwise) family members if they think it's okay for the police to knowingly allow criminals to commit crimes when the ultimate outcome of doing so greatly helps the police. Police do this sort of thing all the time and few, if any, people complain about it.

Of course, this is a bad analogy. First of all, we know the police exist, they are physically here.

You can not show the equivalent for any diety, including the Christian god.

Dee Dee Warren

November 9th 2004, 10:16 AM

I remind the nonChristian debate participants of this area guideline:

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 This is not the forum area to post items that are not respectful of the presuppositions of the validity of Christianity.

Ormly

November 9th 2004, 10:27 AM

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Sorry, the darkness spoken of here is NOT the darkness of evil.

1 John 1:5 (KJV)
This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Again, evil entered by another way.

Sacrificial Ram

November 9th 2004, 10:30 AM

How crude, rude and egotistical for someone to think that a supreme being doesn't have an absolute right to unlimited glory...

If God is so supreme, how come he let Satan rebel?

For that matter, why would a supreme being NEED to have worship for GLORY? That sounds totally immature. Of course, since the evidence of this 'supreme' being is zero, that is more likely the projection of the believers onto their god concept.

Dee Dee Warren

November 9th 2004, 10:33 AM

Ram, please take this line of argumentation for another thread. This is not the area for these types of posts - please see my prior notice.

Sacrificial Ram

November 9th 2004, 10:33 AM

Sacrificial Ram

November 9th 2004, 10:36 AM

Hmmm.... lets see God creates the world he is in control and you are going to Judge him? You have a high view of yourself are you God? This is just another example of ignorant Atheism. I do not like ______ therefore God does not exist. I love those type arguments from out rage give me some more they make me laugh.

By His Grace for His Glory
Blake
Well, first show there is a god. Next, show that the view of god that is written in the bible is the correct one.

Sounds to me that it isn't GOD that is being judged by the atheist, since god does not exist, but rather the believers concept of god.

Ormly

November 9th 2004, 02:27 PM

If God is so supreme, how come he let Satan rebel?

For that matter, why would a supreme being NEED to have worship for GLORY? That sounds totally immature. Of course, since the evidence of this 'supreme' being is zero, that is more likely the projection of the believers onto their god concept.He didn't. That's what rebelling is all about. Rebelling has a consequence associated with it as does insubordination. In a Monarchy, no king permits rebellion in his kingdom.

God doesn't have a need for anyone to worship Him however to receive from Him one must first acknowledge that He exists and is the rewarder of them that love Him. Fools can't bring themselves to do that.

grubbcm

November 23rd 2004, 12:33 AM

John 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

1 John 3:8
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

These 2 verses suggest to me that Satan was always evil- since the beginning. Beginning of what? Since God created him? And if so, God created him to be a murderer? Or God created him to be good, and somehow God screwed up, because Lucifer fell and "became" evil?

(sorry- just had to play the devil's advocate for a minute, because I get this argument all the time, and I want to hear your responses, because you guys know way more than I do.)
I don't read anywhere in Genesis anything about the creation of Angels, yet there is Satan in the garden of Eden. I think its fair to infer that Satan was around before the world was created. I think its also fair to infer that John was referring to the "beginning" as the beginning of Man.

Its really quite hard to work out where angels fit in the scheme of things from the bible. It is clear however that Satan was an angel at some stage. The fact that he could elect to place himself above God and to be cast out of heaven indicates that angels too get at least some freedom of choice. So God didn't screw up, Satan did, he made a bad choice.