Joshua Harris leaves Christianity?

[MercyA]

18 minutes ago, katilac said:

In the sense that suffering is or is not caused by Satan inducing evil, deceiving people, and so on. Any percentage of Satan causing directly causing illness or suffering, with no 'weakness' or sin upon the part of man, erodes the case that suffering and evil are due to man's free will. 

Okay, gotcha. I believe free will and Satan's activity and the general fallenness of this world all lead to suffering and evil. I wouldn't even want to speculate about overall percentages. 

[Frances]

3 hours ago, Katy said:

 

I think it's possible, but he would be an exceedingly rare person if he came to reject all his childhood indoctrination solely out of philosophy, or because someone he ministered to called him out on his BS.

It's much more likely either he realized he is gay or someone he deeply loves came out to him.  His wife perhaps.  If it's not him, but someone he loves, he may (correctly) feel that it's not his story to share, and he doesn't want to open everyone he loves up to the pain of speculation so he's keeping his mouth shut. 

From a completely shallow level, some of his fashion choices in the past have made me raise an eyebrow.  The tipped fedora on the cover of that book, for example.  Quirky home school kid?  Maybe.  Something else going on?  He wouldn't be the first or the last person raised in that sort of culture to never admit even to himself what is going on. It also wouldn't be that surprising that a man who didn't want to touch a woman at all before marriage and thought he just needed to pray to bring the woman God intended for him to him would solve all his problems.

 

 

IMO you have to believe in eternity and in free will to be okay with it.  Not the idea that God is causing the evil to happen, but that he's allowing it to happen because of free will.

The only way a good God doesn't interfere is if in the span of eternity that is but a blip, and if that baby's purpose was something else. 

What's really terrible is that's not an isolated incident from 70 years ago.  People abuse and beat children, even infants, every day. I've taken care of babies that were repeatedly shaken until they stopped breathing.

 

But then isn’t it also true that Christ’s suffering and dying on the cross is just a blip in the span of eternity? And if so, then what’s the big deal or the big sacrifice? Plus he knew he was going to spend eternity in heaven. Many people suffer greatly almost their entire lives with no such guarantee. I hope this doesn’t sound disrespectful, I’m sincerely asking.

 

[LarlaB]

1 hour ago, katilac said:

How is genetic mutation a consequence of evil? How is childhood pain that results from genetic mutation a product of evil? 

I can understand saying that child abuse is a product of evil. But genetic mutation? Please explain. 

 

IMHO not a direct consequence (insofar as specific causation)  but a byproduct of imperfection and brokenness occurring in the world because of the existence of evil. 

 I do not believe I miscarried babies  because of my specific sin or evil.  Rather i acknowledge that brokenness and imperfection exists in this world and affects everything- it is all imperfect.  Including my genetic coding (my undiagnosed celiac disease) or chromosomal abnormalities incompatible with life (baby).

My larger point was to how I’ve personally reconciled the “why does $hit happen”.  For me it’s living within tension and the struggle aNd acknowledging that it cannot all be perfect and good.  That’s n unreasonable expectation.  Why would I or anyone be exempt from $hit happening? Its challenging the assumption that life is supposed to be perfection aNd goodness.  As if sin or brokenness or imperfection or evil don't coexist with me. 

It bothers me when any deviation from perfection expectation seems to get dumped on the God figure instead of acknowledging that imperfection, sin and evil simply exist.  But it’s still my default response- to blame God instead of acknowledge how much I have need of Him.

[Junie]

5 hours ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

 

I have a kid with a genetic mutation that is causing enormous suffering.  How does that fit into your idea that free will is what causes suffering?

Hugs to you and your little one.  I have a genetic defect that I have passed to two of my children.  I also am dealing with chronic illnesses and pain.

It is my belief that with The Fall, not only were human souls corrupted, but so were our bodies.  I believe that all illnesses are a result of man's sin.  

1 hour ago, Frances said:

But then isn’t it also true that Christ’s suffering and dying on the cross is just a blip in the span of eternity? And if so, then what’s the big deal or the big sacrifice? Plus he knew he was going to spend eternity in heaven. Many people suffer greatly almost their entire lives with no such guarantee. I hope this doesn’t sound disrespectful, I’m sincerely asking.

 

This is an interesting question and I don't read it as disrespectful.  Yes, Christ dying on the cross was just a blip in the span of eternity.  I think, though, that living 30-plus years on this earth without sin was the greater sacrifice.  He became a human with a sin nature -- yet He resisted! 

[Frances]

43 minutes ago, Junie said:

Hugs to you and your little one.  I have a genetic defect that I have passed to two of my children.  I also am dealing with chronic illnesses and pain.

It is my belief that with The Fall, not only were human souls corrupted, but so were our bodies.  I believe that all illnesses are a result of man's sin.  

This is an interesting question and I don't read it as disrespectful.  Yes, Christ dying on the cross was just a blip in the span of eternity.  I think, though, that living 30-plus years on this earth without sin was the greater sacrifice.  He became a human with a sin nature -- yet He resisted! 

Thanks for your reply. While I can understand the difficulty of living as a human without sin as a very, very difficult task, I’m not sure I understand the sacrificial part of it. Didn’t he know he could rely on God’s help and that this was the master plan because he was the son of God? And wouldn’t sin take him away from God? I might be wrong, but I also thought some Christians believe he was not capable of sin.

[Junie]

30 minutes ago, Frances said:

Thanks for your reply. While I can understand the difficulty of living as a human without sin as a very, very difficult task, I’m not sure I understand the sacrificial part of it. Didn’t he know he could rely on God’s help and that this was the master plan because he was the son of God? And wouldn’t sin take him away from God? I might be wrong, but I also thought some Christians believe he was not capable of sin.

Disclaimer:  I'm not a theologian and it's 3:30 a.m.  I haven't been able to sleep yet.

As for your last statement, there are SO many different Christian beliefs.  I'm not sure that there are two Christians on this planet that are in complete agreement about everything.  I personally believe that Jesus was capable of sin while He was in human form.

Regarding the sacrifice:  I believe that Jesus was 100 percent God and 100 percent man while He lived on this Earth.  In order to accomplish this He had to "suspend" some of His Godly powers in order to become man.  Though not all of it as He performed miracles...   I'm sure my pastor would have a better explanation.  Maybe not, at this hour though. 😉

I am thinking that maybe just as significant as the crucifixion was the trial in the desert when Satan tempted Him to sin.  I believe that if Jesus had caved into sin then, the hope of salvation would have been lost forever.  Jesus was vulnerable during this time, yet He passed the test.  The Scripture indicates that this was a very difficult time for Him.

Also, the passage about the time in the Garden of Gethsemane on the night He was betrayed by Judas indicates that this was not something that Jesus wanted to do.  He begged God to find another way... and yet He was willing.  

When Jesus was hanging on the cross, He asked God "Why have You forsaken me."  It is my understanding that the Father could not look on His Son in that moment because of the stain of the sins of the whole world upon Him.  

[Guest]

5 hours ago, LarlaB said:

 

IMHO not a direct consequence (insofar as specific causation)  but a byproduct of imperfection and brokenness occurring in the world because of the existence of evil. 

 I do not believe I miscarried babies  because of my specific sin or evil.  Rather i acknowledge that brokenness and imperfection exists in this world and affects everything- it is all imperfect.  Including my genetic coding (my undiagnosed celiac disease) or chromosomal abnormalities incompatible with life (baby).

My larger point was to how I’ve personally reconciled the “why does $hit happen”.  For me it’s living within tension and the struggle aNd acknowledging that it cannot all be perfect and good.  That’s n unreasonable expectation.  Why would I or anyone be exempt from $hit happening? Its challenging the assumption that life is supposed to be perfection aNd goodness.  As if sin or brokenness or imperfection or evil don't coexist with me. 

It bothers me when any deviation from perfection expectation seems to get dumped on the God figure instead of acknowledging that imperfection, sin and evil simply exist.  But it’s still my default response- to blame God instead of acknowledge how much I have need of Him.

First, I want to say your post on the previous page was very eloquent; if thats how well you can think through this with a concussion, you’re dang good at this. Let me attempt to be as articulate. 

For me, the bolded sentiment is what I came to think, but that seems an agnostic (at best) concept. Christians petition God constantly for relief from sufferings, big and small. The Bible instructs us to do so. Surely most people who pray for God to intervene in suffering have either an expectation or at least a glimmer of hope that He might. 

I don’t think most people, when they pray, are thinking they and their loves ones must surely live in perfect comfort at all times or else God has flaked out on them. But people of faith don’t want to suffer senseless horrors, right? And if they didn’t think God might or should deliver them from irrational suffering and tragedy, then there’s no point in petitonary prayer. 

In a way, my heart could only heal when I came to accept that I am not special and sh!t can happen to me just as it can happen to anyone else. So that is pretty much like your bolded line above: accepting that imperfection, sin and evil simply exist. But for me, arriving at that conclusion is pretty much atheist or at least agnostic, because I could only arrive at that when I concluded there wasn’t anyone who was going to swoop in and prevent or fix horrors. That the best I could do is take reasonable precautions to try and avert disaster for myself and my family and just be prepared for the fact that sometimes random sh!t happens and sometimes it’s really gonna suck. 

[livetoread]

And again, unless one believes in young life creation where God created all life in a perfect form without suffering and death and then humans messed that up, our world is broken because God specifically created it that way. Didn’t have to (heaven), but did. God decided children would die of cancer long before there was effective pain medication. Animals would suffer with no understanding or purpose. Why should anyone think this creator isn’t perfectly fine with suffering and death? 

 

[PeachyDoodle]

I just happened across this today, and I thought it seemed germane to the discussion. I'm posting not to convince anyone, but to give perhaps another perspective on a Christian theology of suffering for those who are interested: 

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/glory-versus-cross/

[MercyA]

9 hours ago, StellaM said:

I also find the Crucifixion difficult to make sense of. When I was a kid, I knew that Jesus died for my sins, but I wasn't real sure what my sins were, and why Jesus dying made up for them - it seemed to me that the best way for me to make up for sinning was not to sin anymore. I also didn't get why eating the apple was a sin in the first place. I may have a problem with a brain that is way too literal 🙂

LOL, Stella, I love the bolded. Always a good idea. 😉You were a thoughtful kid. 

I think there is a sense in which the crucifixion is not *supposed* to make logical sense. Forgive me for quoting this much Scripture at you, but Paul says it better than I could. From 1 Corinthians 1:

For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.” Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

So while we can talk at length about why and how Jesus "offered for all time one sacrifice for sins," ending the need for Temple sacrifices, I don't know that it will ever seem wise or logical in a worldly sense. 

Edited August 2, 2019 by MercyA

[Bluegoat]

13 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

This is too high brow for me, lol.

I know way less than you do about this stuff...talk to me like you would a third grader 🙂

 

 

One common way to divide different religious traditions is whether they mainly think about things from a philosophical perspective, so a kind of rational discourse, or whether they use a poetic perspective, like a narrative or story.  It's not exclusive usually in either case, but one tends to be dominant.  And a lot of it seems to come down to where the state of that society was when they produced their stories or texts.

So what you see with older religions from societies where philosophy didn't really exist yet, is their religious stories and myths tend to be very poetic.  A lot of these are what we normally think of as polytheistic religions, stories about gods and heroes and such that are meant to help people understand their world, morality, whatever.

Once societies develop philosophy however they typically begin to think about religion in those terms.  Instead of answering a question with a story they might be inclined to answer it with theology, especially if they are educated.

What you notice is that while poetic religion is often polytheistic, once philosophy is added they are generally monotheistic, even if that is overlaid on top of  the older narratives.  So early Greek and Roman religion, or Hinduism, the different indigenous religions of China, have all kinds of inspired poems and stories about gods.  But if you study the philosophers in those same traditions they will give you something that is like monotheistic structure.  

It's because the rational issues are the same for everyone, if you are looking for a First Principle, you can't really have two or more of them, or you then have the question of how they relate to each other.  And whatever related them must be prior to them and then they aren't First Principles any more. It's a parallel question to, what is the cause of the material universe - you don't suggest two separate singularities.

All a long-winded way to say I wouldn't really consider polytheism and monotheism to be on similar footing.

[Bluegoat]

10 hours ago, Frances said:

But then isn’t it also true that Christ’s suffering and dying on the cross is just a blip in the span of eternity? And if so, then what’s the big deal or the big sacrifice? Plus he knew he was going to spend eternity in heaven. Many people suffer greatly almost their entire lives with no such guarantee. I hope this doesn’t sound disrespectful, I’m sincerely asking.

 

 

Usually, no, theologians would say the Crucifixion is not really a blip in eternity (though its not totally straightforward.)  It's a permanent change in the nature of reality.  Christ being the second person of the Trinity is eternal, but after the ascension he goes to Heaven with his body and  the wounds of the cross in him, it's not all wiped away somehow.  Also - from God's perspective, no time is past, all time is present.

I don't personally find considering the sacrifice angle very helpful though some do.  I think maybe what I do find useful along those lines is the idea that suffering is something that goes beyond individuals or even human beings.

I do find it helpful to think of it in terms of what problem is it meant to solve.  The idea is that the Fall represents humans making a choice that is a kind of paradox - they know who and what God is, but they don't do what he tells them is right.  They want knowledge which in itself is a good, but they have rejected Truth in order to try and get it, an immature decision.  This has the effect of cutting them off from the source of being and so you have the beginnings of decay and death.  Not just at the level of human beings, because reality doesn't work that way.  Everything is interrelated - this unravelling of the edges affects all of nature, even the laws off nature.  A lot of the early parts of the OT are a sort of description of this unravelling, the first murder, the passing down of a social ills through family and culture and circumstance, people turning away from their duty, and how impossible it is, as a finite being in such a world, to bridge that gap to the infinite and solve the problem.

The Incarnation then is seen as the bridge, where god acts to unite himself back to that world, including the pain and the problems and imperfections.  The gap is infinite and so only something infinite can cross over.  I often think of it as a sort of patch on a computer system that's been infected with a virus and gone increasingly off kilter.  the program can't fix itself because it doesn't know how, the programmer who knows what it is supposed to look like has to actually fix the code, replace what was damaged with something new.

There is actually argument in traditional Christianity about how to talk about why Christ had the particular death he did, why not just fall into a hole or something, that would unite him to the whole of human experience.  There really isn't a definitive answer to that, but to show us clearly that God is united to us even in our suffering is one answer often given, and perhaps to teach us somethig inportant about the nature of suffering, about God, about what kinds of things to value.  If the incarnate God died victorious in a battle on a fancy horse it would be quite a different sort of story than an incarnate God who dies being tortured and mocked as a criminal.

[Scarlett]

3 hours ago, livetoread said:

And again, unless one believes in young life creation where God created all life in a perfect form without suffering and death and then humans messed that up, our world is broken because God specifically created it that way. Didn’t have to (heaven), but did. God decided children would die of cancer long before there was effective pain medication. Animals would suffer with no understanding or purpose. Why should anyone think this creator isn’t perfectly fine with suffering and death? 

 

I am sorry but I don’t understand what young life creation has to do with whether or not God created things perfect..

[JustEm]

29 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I am sorry but I don’t understand what young life creation has to do with whether or not God created things perfect..

Because with an old earth view the earth is billions of years old and there were billions of years of animal suffering before humans existed, sinned, and caused the fall.

[Bluegoat]

Lots of people think whole history of the universe is post-Fall.

[PrincessMommy]

11 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

I also find the Crucifixion difficult to make sense of. When I was a kid, I knew that Jesus died for my sins, but I wasn't real sure what my sins were, and why Jesus dying made up for them - it seemed to me that the best way for me to make up for sinning was not to sin anymore. I also didn't get why eating the apple was a sin in the first place. I may have a problem with a brain that is way too literal 🙂

I suppose the broader, more Joshua Harris related point, is that for some of us, acceptance of non-belief comes as a relief, and although I'm sure the Harris' world is rocked in some ways, I bet they are going to be OK. 

FWIW, That is not really a universal understanding of why Christ died.  I know it is strongly emphasized in many traditions though.   In the Orthodox tradition we understand his death to be that Christ conquered Death and gave us eternal life.   We see physical death as *somewhat* salvific.   For instance, can you imagine if Hitler lived forever??!!   But physical death can be a way of pointing us to becoming our better selves and taking stock of how we've lived our lives.  This is why we see sayings like "This is the only life we have, make the best of it."    

Its not that our sins aren't forgiven, of course they are!,  But the emphasis in Orthodox theology is Christ's conquering of Death.  And it's not that Protestants don't have the understanding of Christ conquering death. It's a matter of emphasis and it does change how we understand the nature of Man, our understanding of sin, and our relationship to God..      You may have noticed @Patty Joanna siggy that says, "Christ did not come to make bad men good, but to make dead men live." by Fr. Stephen Freeman.   That sums it up pretty well.  

But, all this may be the subject of another thread, since it has nothing to do with Josh Harris .  🙂 

 

Edited August 2, 2019 by PrincessMommy

[AnotherE]

I am a total lurker, but I hope I can participate.

My question has always been: If God created everything, and nothing can exist without God bringing it into being, why create murder and rape and torture? If God is only good, then how is it possible evil can come from him? How was he able to even conjure things like that up and still be only good? Where did those evil ideas come from?

[AnotherE]

And I guess a second thing is: How can free will exist when everything is created by God? If he knows everything about you before you are even created, then wouldn't your life be predetermined? Wouldn't your salvation already be known before you are even born? What is the point of going thtough all the motions when the outcome is already done?

[PrincessMommy]

3 minutes ago, AnotherE said:

I am a total lurker, but I hope I can participate.

My question has always been: If God created everything, and nothing can exist without God bringing it into being, why create murder and rape and torture? If God is only good, then how is it possible evil can come from him? How was he able to even conjure things like that up and still be only good? Where did those evil ideas come from?

God did not create evil.  Evil exists because He gave man free will.    Satan had been one of the angels but he also chose to abandon God.  God, in his love for creation, would not subplant that free will (even though it goes against His own nature of love for all creation and mankind) because it wouldn't be true love without free will - it would be slavery and captivity.  

[AnotherE]

11 minutes ago, PrincessMommy said:

God did not create evil.  Evil exists because He gave man free will.    Satan had been one of the angels but he also chose to abandon God.  God, in his love for creation, would not subplant that free will (even though it goes against His own nature of love for all creation and mankind) because it wouldn't be true love without free will - it would be slavery and captivity.  

I guess I don't understand this. If God didn't create evil, then who did? It was my understanding that God created everything and nothing could exist without him.

[TechWife]

 

32 minutes ago, AnotherE said:

I guess I don't understand this. If God didn't create evil, then who did? It was my understanding that God created everything and nothing could exist without him.

Evil isn't physical, it's spiritual. Evil sometimes has physical consequences or manifestations, but evil itself isn't physical. It was not created by God, it is rebellion against God. People are capable of evil because they aren't God. God, being who He is, doesn't manipulate people, but allows us to decide who we will serve (that's the free will) that Debbi mentioned).

[AnotherE]

6 minutes ago, TechWife said:

 

Evil isn't physical, it's spiritual. Evil sometimes has physical consequences or manifestations, but evil itself isn't physical. It was not created by God, it is rebellion against God. People are capable of evil because they aren't God. God, being who He is, doesn't manipulate people, but allows us to decide who we will serve (that's the free will) that Debbi mentioned).

But even a concept or something spiritual has to have some sort of creation, doesn't it? Even the thought I just wrote had to be created somehow in my brain. If God didn't invent or conceive evil, then who did? Does that make more sense? It had to come from *somewhere* in order to exist.

[TechWife]

15 minutes ago, AnotherE said:

But even a concept or something spiritual has to have some sort of creation, doesn't it? Even the thought I just wrote had to be created somehow in my brain. If God didn't invent or conceive evil, then who did? Does that make more sense? It had to come from *somewhere* in order to exist.

Evil is the absence of good. Satan rebelled against God and man did the same (free will). Because of this rebellion, mankind does not live in automatic communion with God, therefore allowing for evil to take root and flourish. It is propagated by man, not by God.

[AnotherE]

16 minutes ago, TechWife said:

Evil is the absence of good. Satan rebelled against God and man did the same (free will). Because of this rebellion, mankind does not live in automatic communion with God, therefore allowing for evil to take root and flourish. It is propagated by man, not by God.

I have a feeling we will be going round and round. :)

Even if evil is only the absence of good, the fact that we are aware of it and are speaking about it means it exists. Which means the idea of evil had to be created. If God created everything in heaven and on earth, and evil existed in heaven (Lucifer) and on earth (pick up any newspaper), does that not mean God would have to have created evil for it to exist? If God did not, and let's say Lucifer or the fall did, doesn't that mean creation is possible outside God (the creation of evil)? Would he be all powerful if it did?

[WoolC]

16 minutes ago, AnotherE said:

I have a feeling we will be going round and round. 🙂

Even if evil is only the absence of good, the fact that we are aware of it and are speaking about it means it exists. Which means the idea of evil had to be created. If God created everything in heaven and on earth, and evil existed in heaven (Lucifer) and on earth (pick up any newspaper), does that not mean God would have to have created evil for it to exist? If God did not, and let's say Lucifer or the fall did, doesn't that mean creation is possible outside God (the creation of evil)? Would he be all powerful if it did?

 

If evil is the absence of good then it’s not created.  I’ve heard it described as “evil is the corruption of the good.”  Corruption isn’t created.  When fruit decays, the decay isn’t a new creation unto itself, it only exists through the breaking down of the created (the apple).  

[Faith-manor]

2 hours ago, AnotherE said:

But even a concept or something spiritual has to have some sort of creation, doesn't it? Even the thought I just wrote had to be created somehow in my brain. If God didn't invent or conceive evil, then who did? Does that make more sense? It had to come from *somewhere* in order to exist.

Agreed. And I think that this is where the theological concept of god created everything and free will goes off the rails if one is willing to be open to actually following the natural logic.

Isaiah 45:7 - KJV - I formed the light and create darkness: I make peace and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. The context of the passage does not alleviate the conundrum. If anything, it makes it pretty obvious that god creates evil.

If everything had a creator, ie. all things were created and nothing occurred spontaneously, then evil as an idea has a creator. The biblical story is that god made angels, and one of them had the bright idea to fall. Clearly that meant evil as an idea existed at the time of the creation of angels, and it is something angels could choose to do. Who created that? If not god, then clearly there was another entity with the power to create who did this. Thus, if the biblical narrative that god created everything is accepted, then it follows that whatever evil is, as both a spiritual manifestation and the cause of physical deeds that are not "holy", was the brain child of god. The natural outcome then is ultimately all evil both spiritual and physical originates with god. OR the alternative is that there is another god powerful enough to create not only ideas but their ideological manifestation in the physical world. Most christians do not accept satan as a god or the presence of another god with creation power.

If the genesis narrative is supposed to represent the real story of how evil and death came to be on planet earth, then let's examine this and follow the clues to their logical conclusions. God created a tree, he endowed the tree and its fruit with the knowledge of evil, and he allowed another being with this knowledge to provide temptation to potentially open up that knowledge and unleash its effects in the world. God did this, according to theology, in order to have a "willing" band of followers who chose to worship him. But let's explore the choice. These people apparently had no clue what it meant to die. They had no concept of suffering. No knowledge of hell. No knowledge of Badness or what it would be like to suffer badness. They make "the wrong choice", and this is the fate of all people to come who never had a hand in that choice. Death comes into the world. There is going to be eternal damnation, an immortality of agony and torture IF the humans don't choose to worship god and make sacrifices to him. So digest that. Really let that ruminate. Now, exactly how is it a free will choice to worship god and make sacrifices to him when the consequence of not doing so is torture, agony, eternal hell? That's coercion. It's primal self preservation when faced with horror. And that horror, if god created everything, is a result of god's mind and his creation power choosing to make that the way of things in order to get worshippers. It's not exactly benevolent. It most certainly is not a free choice. What he has are a band of followers that are terrified to do otherwise which is a lot like going along with a terrible dictator in the hopes that his terror doesn't fall on your family. In the material world, human kind has a tendency to ultimately call this evil, not a categorical good, unless one of course believes that war is good from an evolutionary perspective - thinning out the herd every time there is a war for resources.

I think the issue with fancy theological mishmashes, and here is where "god's ways are higher" and "the great mystery" and such comes in, is because people associate god's assertion that he is holy with being good or what we perceive as good. So the whole thing has to be "man can't really understand god and should just accept this" because the concept that holy could equal rape, murder, child abuse, etc. is a non starter. And I'm not saying it does equal that. I'm just showing the major problems that come from following the logic given the information contained within the bible. And actually, to be honest, the OT kind of supports this. If you take a look at it, god ordered the Israelites to do things like I Samuel 15:3 in which they are instructed to kill even the children and nursing babies of the Amalekites, and this is just one in a long line of orders to commit genocide. A lot of excuses "they were worshipping false gods" or committing this or that sin or whatever are proffered as the reasoning that a holy god would do such a thing, but either genocide, dashing infants against the rocks, and taking virgins into captivity as sex slaves is holy or it isn't, and if it isn't, then hmmm what does that say about god's holiness/goodness. It definitely means at the very least that the rules of what is and is not acceptable as followers of god do not naturally flow from his own attributes.

And again, I'm not claiming anything. I'm actually kind of relaying the nuts and bolts of a philosophy of religion class discussion I had in college. Interestingly, the professor was a PHD from Notre Dame of Mennonite upraising. He was quite good at challenging everyone's preconceived concepts about god or the existence of a god or multiple gods. One thing to consider is that the words "good, bad, holy, evil" etc. themselves are problematic because terms are 'true" by definition. Humans equate holy with good, and evil with bad or holy with positive attributes, and evil with negative attributes. Potentially, that may not be actually the celestial definition of these terms. This creates another whole bucket of worms.

It also naturally encompasses other concepts such as if an entity creates something is that thing entirely value neutral. Is the creator of the thing responsible for the outcomes of the thing being created. If god created evil, is he responsible for the outcomes of evil. If he created the concept of holy, is he responsible for all "holy" outcomes. If he is responsible only for the latter, than why not the former. And that's the just the tip of the iceberg so to speak.

At one point a classmate ended up in tears. The poor girl somehow managed to end up in a senior level philosophy class without the prerequisites and just wasn't prepared to have her faith challenged so profoundly. I think at some time in the course of the semester when discussing truth by definition, we had her convinced that a circle really could be a square. It wasn't pleasant for her. She and I were  the only persons in the class not headed to grad school for philosophy, history, religion, or divinity studies, and i loved it. She not so much. I think she got really hurt in the process. It's not something to really give much of your brain power to contemplating if you aren't ready to be challenged.

Anyway, I am not promulgating an idea of what god is, who he/she/it is (I have been using the he pronoun out of respect for those on the thread who of abrahamic faith traditions because it just makes it easier to have a common pronoun to use), the attributes this being possesses. But, this type of discussion does highlight some of the problems with reconciling standard christian theology. Ultimately, faith itself can't make total sense. It can't. One would actually have to possess the full knowledge of god/s in order to create a theology that takes into account the fullness of such an entity or entities. It's obvious that the bible is not a full source because there are some pretty important, and basic questions about god that aren't really satisfied by information in the text. So it definitely requires faith to accept the precepts it does outline. I think what tends to be wrong with christian apologetics is the determination to make faith logical, to make faith a nice, neat bundle of theological axioms. But that action works against faith, not for it.

I don't mean disrespect to believers. I'm just pointing out where the logic goes for many folks.

Edited August 2, 2019 by Faith-manor

[WoolC]

I found the quote I was thinking of above, this is from The Orthodox Way by Bishop Kallistos Ware, “What then, are we to say about evil?  Since all created things are intrinsically good, sin or evil as such is not a ‘thing,’ not an existent being or substance...’That which is evil in the strict sense,’ observes Evagrius, ‘is not a substance but the absence of good, just as darkness is nothing else than absence of light.’  And St Gregory of Nyssa states, ‘Sin does not exist in nature apart from free will; it is not a substance in its own right.’  ‘Not even the demons are evil by nature,’ says St Maximus the Confessor, ‘but they become such through the misuse of their natural powers.’  Evil is always parasitic.  It is the twisting and misappropriation of what is in itself good.  Evil resides not in the thing itself but in our attitudes towards the thing- that is to say, in our will.”

I don’t know that all Christian traditions would articulate their view of evil in this way,  but I have always found it a very helpful way to approach the problem of evil.

[Faith-manor]

55 minutes ago, TechWife said:

Evil is the absence of good. Satan rebelled against God and man did the same (free will). Because of this rebellion, mankind does not live in automatic communion with God, therefore allowing for evil to take root and flourish. It is propagated by man, not by God.

You didn't address the issue of who created evil if all things had to be created, and all things are created by god. By fiat, if man created evil, and god is omniscient thus knew man would create evil, then evil does flow directly from god's choice to create man. Otherwise god isn't omniscient.  This is a standard attribute given by christian theology to god. Now if god isn't omniscient, then that's another matter all together.

[Pam in CT]

re evil vs suffering; and human vs natural causes of suffering

1 hour ago, TechWife said:

 

Evil isn't physical, it's spiritual. Evil sometimes has physical consequences or manifestations, but evil itself isn't physical. It was not created by God, it is rebellion against God. People are capable of evil because they aren't God. God, being who He is, doesn't manipulate people, but allows us to decide who we will serve (that's the free will) that Debbi mentioned).

 

There's a point at which distinctions are semantic, I suppose.  But babies born with genetic disorders that cause pain to themselves and their families, kids suffering cancer, the miscarriages and stillborn deaths of deeply longed-for children, family members swept away by tsunamis, earthquakes precipitating landslides that collapse houses and kill thousands: those things are not caused by anyone's rebellion against God or the expression of anyone's free will.  We can define all that away as not-evil, because it is not-humanly-caused: that's a semantic distinction.  

But those things still, indisputably, cause suffering. 

And if we believe God is all-good, and we believe that all things -- even material things -- originate with God, then there's still a reconciliation question.  Cancer and tsunamis are physical, not spiritual.  

 

(That God is all-good premise is of course a premise... which not all religious traditions share.. and one possible resolution to the reconciliation quandary is to accept that EVERYTHING originates with God, the bad with the good, the monsters and demons along with the angels, the human urge to kill and torture and dominate along with the human urge to love and tend, the life-taking tsunamis & earthquakes along with the live-giving sun & rain: all of it comes from God, all.  That is a reasonable reading of Job and it is also the basis of an important strand of teaching within Judaism. God is omnipotent, period, no comment on that all-good business.  I am what I will be. A hard reading, perhaps, but without the reconciliation question.)

[AnotherE]

30 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

Isaiah 45:7 - KJV - I formed the light and create darkness: I make peace and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. The context of the passage does not alleviate the conundrum. If anything, it makes it pretty obvious that god creates evil.

Thank you for this (and everything else you said)!

If Lucifer found evil in heaven, where did it come from? He was there with God and only goodness. Where could he have even come up with the idea to disobey if disobedience didn't exist? Somehow he would have to be exposed to it. If it came just from his nature and not an outside source, then he was created to be able to disobey. Where did the concept or ability come from? Disobeying God is evil.

This is why I don't understand that evil is absence of good. Evil is actions and thoughts and things that have to originate somewhere.

[Heathermomster]

1 hour ago, AnotherE said:

I guess I don't understand this. If God didn't create evil, then who did? It was my understanding that God created everything and nothing could exist without him.

My understanding of God rests on several legs of equal importance.  I'm working off the top of my head here so bear with me.  I'm sorry if this seems like an oversimplification.

1.  God's Attributes - He is 100% of the the following attributes:  immutability, omniscience, omnipresence, mercy, judgement, goodness, holiness, sovereignty, and likely more. You are going to have to look this up. 

2.  Definition of sin- any word or deed done in opposition to God

3.  Sovereignty - He is absolutely in control of His creation.  He does not create sin and cannot because of his holiness; however, He wills it otherwise He would not be sovereign.

4.  Why is there sin in the world?  Because Adam and Eve violated the covenant of works and disobeyed God by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:15-17).  Prior to the Fall, there was no death or dying.  Adam and Eve stained all of humanity by their disobedience.  After the Fall and in His mercy, God spoke to the serpent and promised a savior, "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring^[e] and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”  (Gen 3:15)

5.  Wages of sin - Death and dying are the wages of sin.  Creation fell with Adam.  As a result, a) Creation is a corrupted and dangerous place thanks to lightning, earth quakes, disease, shark bite, childbirth... (insert something horrible here). b) Man is conceived into sin because we are descendants of Adam.  That doesn't mean that man acts as badly as he is able, but we shouldn't be surprised when man does horrible things.  The restraining hand of the LORD prevents us from absolute chaos.  c) Satan and elemental forces are always at work.

6. Why did Christ die on the cross? Christ's death on the cross fulfils the Suzerain Covenant that God made with Abraham back in Gen 15.  Read the chapter in its entirety. 

Quote

"The Suzerain would keep one copy of the treaty and the vassal would keep one copy of the treaty. A number of ratifying ceremonies were used depending upon the era and culture. But the most widely used rite was that of cutting the bodies of animals in halves and placing them in two rows with enough space between for the two parties of the treaty to walk side by side. As they walked between the pieces, they were vowing to each other, "May what has happened to these animals, happen to me if I break this covenant with you."

God initiated the covenant with Abraham, placed Abraham into a deep sleep, and passed through the cut animals.  By doing so, God ensured that when Abraham's offspring violated the covenant, which they did plenty and often, that God himself would pay the penalty which was Christ's death on the cross (see Gen 3:15).  The OT is the story of Abraham's descendants repeatedly violating the covenant that God initiated and traces Christ's earthly bloodline (see Matt 1:1-17)  while the NT testifies to the covenants fulfilment.  The Temple curtain is torn, and now humanity can deal directly with God through Christ and the New Covenant.  God's attributes of judgement and immutability make the crucifixion an absolute certainty.   As Adam represented all of mankind in the Fall, so Jesus represented mankind in its restoration.

7. Why is there suffering?  God uses suffering to magnify His name.  Suffering is for His glory and our good might seem awful were it not for the fact that Jesus felt all of the miseries that humanity feels such as hunger, abuse, loneliness, the sudden death of loved ones...(insert something horrible here) without sinning himself.  If you believe in heaven and hell, you can be assured that God's goodness and judgement will ultimately punish the wicked and glorify the rest.

 

[Faith-manor]

9 minutes ago, Heathermomster said:

My understanding of God rests on several legs of equal importance.  I'm working off the top of my head here so bear with me.  I'm sorry if this seems like an oversimplification.

1.  God's Attributes - He is 100% of the the following attributes:  immutability, omniscience, omnipresence, mercy, judgement, goodness, holiness, sovereignty, and likely more. You are going to have to look this up. 

2.  Definition of sin- any word or deed done in opposition to God

3.  Sovereignty - He is absolutely in control of His creation.  He does not create sin and cannot because of his holiness; however, He wills it otherwise He would not be sovereign.

4.  Why is there sin in the world?  Because Adam and Eve violated the covenant of works and disobeyed God by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:15-17).  Prior to the Fall, there was no death or dying.  Adam and Eve stained all of humanity by their disobedience.  After the Fall and in His mercy, God spoke to the serpent and promised a savior, "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring^[e] and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”  (Gen 3:15)

5.  Wages of sin - Death and dying are the wages of sin.  Creation fell with Adam.  As a result, a) Creation is a corrupted and dangerous place thanks to lightning, earth quakes, disease, shark bite, childbirth... (insert something horrible here). b) Man is conceived into sin because we are descendants of Adam.  That doesn't mean that man acts as badly as he is able, but we shouldn't be surprised when man does horrible things.  The restraining hand of the LORD prevents us from absolute chaos.  c) Satan and elemental forces are always at work.

6. Why did Christ die on the cross? Christ's death on the cross fulfils the Suzerain Covenant that God made with Abraham back in Gen 15.  Read the chapter in its entirety. 

God initiated the covenant with Abraham, placed Abraham into a deep sleep, and passed through the cut animals.  By doing so, God ensured that when Abraham's offspring violated the covenant, which they did plenty and often, that God himself would pay the penalty which was Christ's death on the cross (see Gen 3:15).  The OT is the story of Abraham's descendants repeatedly violating the covenant that God initiated and traces Christ's earthly bloodline (see Matt 1:1-17)  while the NT testifies to the covenants fulfilment.  The Temple curtain is torn, and now humanity can deal directly with God through Christ and the New Covenant.  God's attributes of judgement and immutability make the crucifixion an absolute certainty.   As Adam represented all of mankind in the Fall, so Jesus represented mankind in its restoration.

7. Why is there suffering?  God uses suffering to magnify His name.  Suffering is for His glory and our good might seem awful were it not for the fact that Jesus felt all of the miseries that humanity feels such as hunger, abuse, loneliness, the sudden death of loved ones...(insert something horrible here) without sinning himself.  If you believe in heaven and hell, you can be assured that God's goodness and judgement will ultimately punish the wicked and glorify the rest.

 

None of this actually addresses the issue.

First of all. The premise of christianity is god is the only god and god is eternal. God created ALL things, the bible is his word.

In Isaiah 45:7, the prophet states that god says he creates evil. If the bible is the word of god and not man, than god admits he creates evil.

The only other option is that god isn't the only god, and that some other god in the pantheon created evil.

It is pure semantics to say "god doesn't create evil but he wills it". Seriously. He wills it? This is not substantively different.

God uses suffering to magnify his name? Okay then. So he is willing to allow suffering because it apparently makes him greater or something. God needs children to have cancer so he can be more what? And it begs the question, why does one want to worship such a god who needs to be magnified through rape, murder, genocide, pain, and horror? This is not an effective argument with non believers. It is however an argument that may cause people like Joshua Harris and Shannon Bonne to re-think their faith. It begs the question "what kind of entity is this god, and how could he or she or it be characterized as good if his need is to be magnified through suffering?"

As for Jesus suffered all of the miseries that humans face so its all good, uhm no. I have to admit that made my brain twitch. He didn't suffer genocide, he didn't suffer child birth only to have his baby die, he didn't care for his sick and dying child, there are a host of miseries he did not suffer. On the converse, I have not personally been tortured and crucified. Thus the human experience. We all have different experiences. And I'm not certain where your assertion comes from because the bible doesn't say he suffered every misery of human experience, just that he suffered the temptations. That's rather different.

Directing me to go back and read the bible is rather condescending. I've read it from cover to cover numerous times, and in multiple translations, and with parallel studies of the gospels using multiple commentaries. I know what it says. Just because I do not come to the same conclusions as you does not mean I have failed to read it. The problem is neither of us begin with the same presumptions about it.

 

[TechWife]

2 hours ago, WoolC said:

 

If evil is the absence of good then it’s not created.  I’ve heard it described as “evil is the corruption of the good.”  Corruption isn’t created.  When fruit decays, the decay isn’t a new creation unto itself, it only exists through the breaking down of the created (the apple).  

 

You're onto something here. Evil isn't created. Evil is the equivalent of the decay in the fruit. It exists only because of the breaking down of the created (Lucifer & man not obeying God). This is a much better way to actually put it than the way I was initially trying to explain it.

[TechWife]

2 hours ago, AnotherE said:

I have a feeling we will be going round and round. 🙂

Even if evil is only the absence of good, the fact that we are aware of it and are speaking about it means it exists. Which means the idea of evil had to be created. If God created everything in heaven and on earth, and evil existed in heaven (Lucifer) and on earth (pick up any newspaper), does that not mean God would have to have created evil for it to exist? If God did not, and let's say Lucifer or the fall did, doesn't that mean creation is possible outside God (the creation of evil)? Would he be all powerful if it did?

We may, indeed go round and round :). Evil is hard to grapple with and finding the right words to explain something that is really a matter of faith, is challenging for me!

In the same way that the couch I am sitting on was not created by God, but  man using the talent and skill God gave him as part of his creation, evil was created by Lucifer & perpetuated by man using the free will that God gave them as part of His creation.

 

[Heathermomster]

2 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

None of this actually addresses the issue.

First of all. The premise of christianity is god is the only god and god is eternal. God created ALL things, the bible is his word.

In Isaiah 45:7, the prophet states that god says he creates evil. If the bible is the word of god and not man, than god admits he creates evil.

The only other option is that god isn't the only god, and that some other god in the pantheon created evil.

It is pure semantics to say "god doesn't create evil but he wills it". Seriously. He wills it? This is not substantively different.

God uses suffering to magnify his name? Okay then. So he is willing to allow suffering because it apparently makes him greater or something. God needs children to have cancer so he can be more what? And it begs the question, why does one want to worship such a god who needs to be magnified through rape, murder, genocide, pain, and horror? This is not an effective argument with non believers. It is however an argument that may cause people like Joshua Harris and Shannon Bonne to re-think their faith. It begs the question "what kind of entity is this god, and how could he or she or it be characterized as good if his need is to be magnified through suffering?"

As for Jesus suffered all of the miseries that humans face so its all good, uhm no. I have to admit that made my brain twitch. He didn't suffer genocide, he didn't suffer child birth only to have his baby die, he didn't care for his sick and dying child, there are a host of miseries he did not suffer. On the converse, I have not personally been tortured and crucified. Thus the human experience. We all have different experiences. And I'm not certain where your assertion comes from because the bible doesn't say he suffered every misery of human experience, just that he suffered the temptations. That's rather different.

Directing me to go back and read the bible is rather condescending. I've read it from cover to cover numerous times, and in multiple translations, and with parallel studies of the gospels using multiple commentaries. I know what it says. Just because I do not come to the same conclusions as you does not mean I have failed to read it. The problem is neither of us begin with the same presumptions about it.

 

I’m sorry Faith.  I typed my response while not reading other messages as they flew across.  I quoted the person that I was responding too.  We clearly do not share the same world view but there is absolutely no reason to be offended. I referred back to Gen 15 because I didn’t feel like quoting the entire chapter.

Jesus hung from the cross and for 3 hours a darkness fell. The NT teaches that Jesus bore the punishments for all the sins of humanity.  eta:  He bore the cup of wrath.  He is omniscience and good; therefore, he knows the hearts of men. You don’t share that view, so we are going to have to respectfully disagree. People asked specific questions about basic Christian beliefs, and I sincerely answered based upon my background.

ETA:  I certainly was not intending to minimize the suffering of others.  Please, if I have done that and I offended, please accept my sincere apologies because that was absolutely not my intention.

Edited August 2, 2019 by Heathermomster

[TechWife]

2 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

You didn't address the issue of who created evil if all things had to be created, and all things are created by god. By fiat, if man created evil, and god is omniscient thus knew man would create evil, then evil does flow directly from god's choice to create man. Otherwise god isn't omniscient.  This is a standard attribute given by christian theology to god. Now if god isn't omniscient, then that's another matter all together.

Sort of. God knew how everything would turn out. He did it anyway. But, evil doesn't "flow" from God's choice because of free will. It is man's choice, not God's. Adam & Eve didn't have to disobey God. They chose to do so.

[MercyA]

2 hours ago, Pam in CT said:

(That God is all-good premise is of course a premise... which not all religious traditions share.. and one possible resolution to the reconciliation quandary is to accept that EVERYTHING originates with God, the bad with the good, the monsters and demons along with the angels, the human urge to kill and torture and dominate along with the human urge to love and tend, the life-taking tsunamis & earthquakes along with the live-giving sun & rain: all of it comes from God, all.  That is a reasonable reading of Job and it is also the basis of an important strand of teaching within Judaism. God is omnipotent, period, no comment on that all-good business.  I am what I will be. A hard reading, perhaps, but without the reconciliation question.)

I wouldn't ascribe to these thoughts exactly, but certainly for me some of it comes down to "The Lord does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth."

I can say I don't like it or it doesn't seem fair, but if there is one true God, He is Who He is, not who I would make Him to be. 

[kristin0713]

21 hours ago, Katy said:

It's much more likely either he realized he is gay or someone he deeply loves came out to him.  His wife perhaps. 

 

This was my thought exactly.  I am sad for them and their children.  And I find it odd that according to their posts, they have both shifted away from the Christianity that they knew.  They have been married for so long and seem to be on the same journey--wouldn't that make them closer?  Their posts indicate a commitment to remain friends and raise the children.  They seem so supportive of each other.  Why divorce?  I wouldn't be surprised if his wife comes out at some point in the future.  

(Disclaimer: I have not read every post on this thread.  So many things to ponder, discuss, etc.)

[maize]

Question:

Good, for many here, seems to by definition require an absence of physical or emotional pain.

Why so?

 

[AnotherE]

1 hour ago, maize said:

Question:

Good, for many here, seems to by definition require an absence of physical or emotional pain.

Why so?

 

I think it's for the same reason when people talk about heaven being free from pain and suffering. When someone is sick and passes it is common to say they aren't suffering anymore in heaven. If physical and emotional pain can be considered good, why, in the ultimate Good Place, would they not exist?

[AnotherE]

4 hours ago, TechWife said:

We may, indeed go round and round :). Evil is hard to grapple with and finding the right words to explain something that is really a matter of faith, is challenging for me!

In the same way that the couch I am sitting on was not created by God, but  man using the talent and skill God gave him as part of his creation, evil was created by Lucifer & perpetuated by man using the free will that God gave them as part of His creation.

 

I really appreciate the discussion. As someone who lost faith a while ago, I still keep asking questions hoping that someday something will click for me. I am genuinely looking for answers that make sense to me. Someone once said that I didn't believe and couldn't understand because God hadn't chosen me to. As horrible as it sounded at the time, I now think maybe that does make sense as to why I can't believe. I've prayed so many times for so many years and nothing. It just doesn't work for me. I really envy those who believe with such certainty.

[Heathermomster]

20 minutes ago, AnotherE said:

I really appreciate the discussion. As someone who lost faith a while ago, I still keep asking questions hoping that someday something will click for me. I am genuinely looking for answers that make sense to me. Someone once said that I didn't believe and couldn't understand because God hadn't chosen me to. As horrible as it sounded at the time, I now think maybe that does make sense as to why I can't believe. I've prayed so many times for so many years and nothing. It just doesn't work for me. I really envy those who believe with such certainty.

Well, I emailed two people that I trust today with your questions about satan and the creation of evil, and they both told me that the answer to your questions required a sit down talk.  I’ll be scheduling that talk this weekend.  BTW, your questions are excellent..

Edited August 3, 2019 by Heathermomster

[Faith-manor]

5 hours ago, Heathermomster said:

I’m sorry Faith.  I typed my response while not reading other messages as they flew across.  I quoted the person that I was responding too.  We clearly do not share the same world view but there is absolutely no reason to be offended. I referred back to Gen 15 because I didn’t feel like quoting the entire chapter.

Jesus hung from the cross and for 3 hours a darkness fell. The NT teaches that Jesus bore the punishments for all the sins of humanity.  eta:  He bore the cup of wrath.  He is omniscience and good; therefore, he knows the hearts of men. You don’t share that view, so we are going to have to respectfully disagree. People asked specific questions about basic Christian beliefs, and I sincerely answered based upon my background.

ETA:  I certainly was not intending to minimize the suffering of others.  Please, if I have done that and I offended, please accept my sincere apologies because that was absolutely not my intention.

Hugs. I may have reacted too strongly. I've had people accuse me of simply never reading the bible before so.... 

You and I, we are all okay.

My main concern too was that there are some folks on this thread who have suffered some absolutely horrific things, and I didn't want that pain to be minimized.

[Heathermomster]

Just now, Faith-manor said:

Hugs. I may have reacted too strongly. I've had people accuse me of simply never reading the bible before so.... 

You and I, we are all okay.

My main concern too was that there are some folks on this thread who have suffered some absolutely horrific things, and I didn't want that pain to be minimized.

I’m totally with you.  Thank-you...

[Faith-manor]

As for again the concept of Satan or man bringing evil or moral decay or however it is put into the world.

Here is the issue I take with that. IF god created all things, and Satan and Adam are created things, then they did not create themselves nor did they have any say or any "will" when it comes to whether or not they were created with the ability to sin/make such choices that would bring evil to the whole world, and to every human ever. The concept of disobedience, usurping of power, badness, death, everything is god's concept and creation first by default of the fact that he made creatures with the design to cause such things to occur. There is zero way, if god created all matter, all life, they are his designs, then the design for decay, the design for evil, the design for horror, the concept of gene mutation that would lead to pain and death are necessarily built into the design. Again, this is a Judaic concept about god. 

And if the bible is god's book for defining his attributes, then it can't be escaped that he literally says 

Isaiah 45:7 King James Version (KJV)

⁷ I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

As much as theology doesn't want to lay the problem of evil or decay or suffering or however it is defined at god's feet and desire to shove it off on Satan or Adam, it still rests with the design and by default the designed because they didn't make this plan, and god actually accepts responsibility for it. 

Now its a whole different discussion if indeed there is more than one god, and that god or gods has the ability to create and was the one who brought evil into the world in contravention of the good design or something. There are religious groups who have thought of Satan as a god, potentially maybe not quite as powerful or something, maybe as powerful. Depends on the group. And in psalms the name El Elyon, the most high god, Psalm 82: 1-2 God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: "How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked?  indicates the possibility of a pantheon of gods of which El Elyon is the highest in the hierarchy. 

Genesis 1:1 "in the beginning god". The Hebrew as well as the Aramaic is Elohim which is the plural form of god thus it actually means "gods".  This seems to muddy the waters of the concept of only one god.

Edited August 3, 2019 by Faith-manor

[Faith-manor]

1 hour ago, StellaM said:

 

Same.

Not lately, but previously.  I didn't even have the mustard seed; just nothing. That's why I think it must be a brain thing. And it's why I don't worry about a possible Hell. If there is a God whose child I am, and that God is omnipotent  and the source of Love, He knows how hard I tried, and how impossible it is for me and my brain. If He damns me for that, well, I guess I'll be in good company.

Faith is not a matter of willpower. 

((((((HUGS)))) right there with you. 

[MercyA]

13 minutes ago, AnotherE said:

I really appreciate the discussion. As someone who lost faith a while ago, I still keep asking questions hoping that someday something will click for me. I am genuinely looking for answers that make sense to me. Someone once said that I didn't believe and couldn't understand because God hadn't chosen me to. As horrible as it sounded at the time, I now think maybe that does make sense as to why I can't believe. I've prayed so many times for so many years and nothing. It just doesn't work for me. I really envy those who believe with such certainty.

I used to feel exactly the same way. Believing seemed so easy for everyone else but not for me. I guess I would just say don't give up. It's too important. Keep seeking, keep praying, and be open to whatever the truth might be.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, maize said:

Question:

Good, for many here, seems to by definition require an absence of physical or emotional pain.

Why so?

 

The Bible describes God as “giving good gifts.” There is the illustration (dont remember book and chapter/verse) where it is said, “If your son asks for bread will you give him a snake? How much more does your Father in heaven give good gifts.” Something like that. The Bible, in many places, instructs us to petition God with prayer. One scripture says God is like a judge who finally grants a woman what she asked because she persistently nagged him and He finally just gave it to her. Heaven is described as the place where every tear shall be wiped away and there will be no suffering or death. The Garden, before the Fall, was described as having no pain, suffering or death. 

Anyway, I think for myself, it’s not the expectation that I should be able to live pain free if I have God on my side. I can accept, for example, my son has a virus right now and he will spend a few days feeling crummy before it gets better and he bounces back. If I were still praying to God, I wouldn’t be expecting God to miraculously heal his current virus just because, hey, all unpleasant things should be immediately erradicated by God. No. It’s things that are significantly tragic and that have no rhyme or reason. It’s a wanted child abrupting dying in labor. It’s the toddler who gets struck and killed by a car in his own driveway. It’s the baby who is suffocated by the family’s pet python as she sleeps in her crib one night. It’s the woman who, one morning finds out joyously that she is finally pregnant after trying for years...and then, two weeks later, learns that she has cancer throughout her body and if she wants to carry the baby to term, she will be sacrificing her own life. 

Scenarios like that just disturb me so much. If God can and will do good things, at least for the faithful if not for all of humanity, those scenarios should not happen. Because they are random and nobody’s fault, but they are unbearably tragic. Nobody should have to choose whether to give up their baby or accept the advancing of cancer in their body. Certainly not any of the faithful who prayed to God for that baby to begin with! 

[livetoread]

For those who believe in a Fall that changed something about the world/humans, and who are not YEC/YLC (I understand that view), what exactly do you think happened?

We’ve got a world already designed for suffering and death which was going on for millions of years before humans evolve. Humans slowly evolve and they have to be greedy and selfish as well as cooperative and empathic in order to survive as social creatures. Compete and cooperate - the balance we still struggle with today. There was no time when we weren’t “sinning” so to speak. So what exactly was the Fall that we are so responsible for? We are incapable of ever being perfectly good and compassionate and that has always been the case because we were made that way. We can’t free will our way out of that. If there was a creator, it gave us those greedy, selfish instincts that are so necessary for us to survive in a world created to reward greed and selfishness as well as compassion. Much easier to be fully compassionate in a world that doesn’t require it for survival. 

[maize]

3 hours ago, Quill said:

The Bible describes God as “giving good gifts.” There is the illustration (dont remember book and chapter/verse) where it is said, “If your son asks for bread will you give him a snake? How much more does your Father in heaven give good gifts.” Something like that. The Bible, in many places, instructs us to petition God with prayer. One scripture says God is like a judge who finally grants a woman what she asked because she persistently nagged him and He finally just gave it to her. Heaven is described as the place where every tear shall be wiped away and there will be no suffering or death. The Garden, before the Fall, was described as having no pain, suffering or death. 

Anyway, I think for myself, it’s not the expectation that I should be able to live pain free if I have God on my side. I can accept, for example, my son has a virus right now and he will spend a few days feeling crummy before it gets better and he bounces back. If I were still praying to God, I wouldn’t be expecting God to miraculously heal his current virus just because, hey, all unpleasant things should be immediately erradicated by God. No. It’s things that are significantly tragic and that have no rhyme or reason. It’s a wanted child abrupting dying in labor. It’s the toddler who gets struck and killed by a car in his own driveway. It’s the baby who is suffocated by the family’s pet python as she sleeps in her crib one night. It’s the woman who, one morning finds out joyously that she is finally pregnant after trying for years...and then, two weeks later, learns that she has cancer throughout her body and if she wants to carry the baby to term, she will be sacrificing her own life. 

Scenarios like that just disturb me so much. If God can and will do good things, at least for the faithful if not for all of humanity, those scenarios should not happen. Because they are random and nobody’s fault, but they are unbearably tragic. Nobody should have to choose whether to give up their baby or accept the advancing of cancer in their body. Certainly not any of the faithful who prayed to God for that baby to begin with! 

 

I don't see things this way at all.

But I think that is because my entire perspective on mortality is that this is one small bit of time in eternity and that there are things we can learn from every experience, even the really hard ones.