|
|
Post by orthodon on Aug 21, 2022 12:04:55 GMT -8
I form light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster, I am the LORD, who do all these things / Isaiah 45:7 That verse sure makes it sound like He is. I was wondering what some other posters here views on this may be. A lot of texts flat-out declare that God is not, and could not be, the author of evil. Like, Deuteronomy 32:4 declares that “his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. [He is] a faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.” And Psalm 5:4 notes, “You are not a God who takes pleasure in evil.” So as we read the deeper into Bible it would seem that God is without evil or any pretense of evil. I learned as I was studying this out that Isaiah 45:7 refers to physical evil. As does Lamentations 3:38 "Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?", this verse contrasts prosperity and adversity. So the good is physical goodness and happiness, while the evil is physical distress, misfortune, calamity and natural evil, such as storms, earthquakes and other disasters. Even though a lot of the physical evil in the world often comes through the hand of wicked men and women, ultimately God permits it. Like we see in Genesis 50:20 "As for you, what you intended against me for evil, God intended for good, in order to accomplish a day like this— to preserve the lives of many people". If the evil of the Holocaust had not happened, then the miracle of the Jewish people’s return to Israel in 1948 would not have happened. What we can be sure of, however, is the fact that God is never, ever, the originator and author of evil. It would be contrary to his whole nature and being as consistently revealed in Scripture. Christianity has more than answered the problem of the presence of evil (that's the message of the cross) and the problem of the outcome of evil (for Christ’s resurrection demonstrates that God can beat out even the last enemy and greatest evil, death itself). But Christianity’s most difficult question is the origin of evil. Why did God ever allow “this evil stuff” in the first place? To me this is the most interesting question to try to answer on this topic. Next question is as we look around the world today why is there so much evil? It's in the Bible. |
|
TedT
Junior Member
...gruntled.
Posts: 57
|
Post by TedT on Aug 24, 2022 9:50:18 GMT -8
Who set up this system of inheritance, eh?
By your definitions before my conception there was no person 'me' and sinfulness in this world had a value of x. After my conception there was suddenly a me, and sinfulness in this world rose to x+1. But this is not a creation, sigh.
To claim that GOD did not create me as a sinner because HE only created the system of my being created as a sinful human is irrational - a fully committed example of doublethink.
You can't have it both ways: either GOD creates sinful people by the method of making them human in Adam's sin, (and not by fiat as HE created Adam)
OR
HE created us before the foundation of the world and at that time we chose by our free will to put our faith in HIM (becoming chosen as HIS elect) or rebuked HIM as a liar and a false god (becoming condemned on the spot) and then those who chose to rebuke HIM or to rebel against HIM, were sown into the earth as per Matt 13:36-39.
|
|
TedT
Junior Member
...gruntled.
Posts: 57
|
Post by TedT on Aug 24, 2022 11:00:41 GMT -8
Only in Calvinism is God the author Ummm, not quite: so does Hinduism, Eastern mysticism, paganism and Gnosticism...sigh. |
|
slyzr
Full Member
Posts: 124
|
Post by slyzr on Aug 24, 2022 12:42:44 GMT -8
Sorry but the thread sections were messed up and I'm learning this forum
so I am replying without quoting and only to part of what you said, here, so far
I never said His souls 'do no evil' anywhere, and in fact it never occurred to me
though since you brought it up...
how could they 'do evil' which is not like mistakes but has a coloring of intent to it...
Did the apostles do evil ?
What do you mean by evil..
Of course I am hoping I am of the 144k...
but yes , I sin even not wanting to.. this body IS sin.
If I said something like that, I would have been referring to the 144k once they are 'already
in their resurrection bodies' and, with Christ, in paradise...
how could anyone be free of evil in these corrupt type of fleshbodies ?
Impossible...
this realm we live in IS Death , just as God warned...
these fleshbodies are ruled by the law of sin and death...
Certainly I don't feel I'm intentionally sinning but I certainly see
Im weak and helpless in this current prison earth
Eve,
With all due respect, you said: "our Lovely Sir of us His 144k does no evil.. ever never has…" In this you have directly stated "of us His 144k", which infers that you are a member of the 144k, and that those within the "us His 144k", "does no evil"!
Now, the use of "does", indicates an action, a doing something, by these members of the 144k. Furthermore, they do "no" evil, which is an absolute statement of total abstenence from something. That something, is "evil", which is an adverb describing the "does" action of the 144k, in whom you included yourself as a member who absolutely abstains from these "evil" actions.
And in all of this, you never explain what you meant by "of us His 144k does no evil.. ever never has…"!
Again, and with all due respect an sincerity of motive, it is quite helpful and respectful of your readers to express yourself with proper grammar and syntax of the English language, including proper tenses, capitalization and citations when referencing a direct quote. This may not be a classroom assignment expression, but, at least as far as I am personally concerned, I begin to see in value in the meaning of a post and poster who cannot or will not construct a proper sentence. We may not be presenting a term paper, but neither are we in a freestyle poetry forum.
I want to understand and respect your opinions, regardless of whether I agree with you or not, but I, at least, struggle with presentations such as you have offered above.
Doug
Posssibly a reference to the "other side"? |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Aug 24, 2022 12:47:15 GMT -8
Only in Calvinism is God the author Ummm, not quite: so does Hinduism, Eastern mysticism, paganism and Gnosticism...sigh. Islam too |
|
slyzr
Full Member
Posts: 124
|
Post by slyzr on Aug 24, 2022 12:56:10 GMT -8
Ummm, not quite: so does Hinduism, Eastern mysticism, paganism and Gnosticism...sigh. Islam too It's kind of like that, "don't eat of that tree"? Did YHWH make that tree? Still working on understanding that one. Anyone interested in a thread regarding what the trees in the Garden are? |
|
TedT
Junior Member
...gruntled.
Posts: 57
|
Post by TedT on Aug 24, 2022 13:21:56 GMT -8
So your claim is that Original Sin is incompatible with a maximally good God? If that is correct, the objection logically fails.
Original sin IS SO OBVIOUSLY incompatible with the maximally GOOD GOD'S nature who can do no evil nor create evil by any means so original sin by ordinary definition as inherited sin CAN'T EXIST. We became sinners ONLY by our own free will decision to sin before the creation of the physical universe. |
|
TedT
Junior Member
...gruntled.
Posts: 57
|
Post by TedT on Aug 24, 2022 13:39:31 GMT -8
It's kind of like that, "don't eat of that tree"? Did YHWH make that tree? The tree is the knowledge of / the teaching about good and evil. Eating is proving this knowledge for oneself by experience. Yes, HE made the tree possible when HE created us with a free will and instructed us in righteousness, that is, how to live with HIM without suffering and dying. The warning to NOT EAT of the tree of this knowledge is the warning NOT to indulge in getting the knowledge of the tree for oneself because the only proof that the tree was INDEED about good and evil was to chose to sin. The command not to eat was the command not to put the LORD of the test and indulge in the evil HE forbade. Therefore HIS creation created evil by choosing to experience what HE called evil for themselves though HE was responsible for creating the possibility of evil due to the absolute necessity of our having a true free will so as to be able to fulfill HIS purpose for our creation. |
|
slyzr
Full Member
Posts: 124
|
Post by slyzr on Aug 24, 2022 14:11:40 GMT -8
It's kind of like that, "don't eat of that tree"? Did YHWH make that tree? The tree is the knowledge of / the teaching about good and evil. Eating is proving this knowledge for oneself by experience. Yes, HE made the tree possible when HE created us with a free will and instructed us in righteousness, that is, how to live with HIM without suffering and dying. The warning to NOT EAT of the tree of this knowledge is the warning NOT to indulge in getting the knowledge of the tree for oneself because the only proof that the tree was INDEED about good and evil was to chose to sin. The command not to eat was the command not to put the LORD of the test and indulge in the evil HE forbade. Therefore HIS creation created evil by choosing to experience what HE called evil for themselves though HE was responsible for creating the possibility of evil due to the absolute necessity of our having a true free will so as to be able to fulfill HIS purpose for our creation. Good post ..... I lean towards a two creation theory in the first three chapeters of Genesis. YHWH's being in the second. The Devils the first. |
|
TedT
Junior Member
...gruntled.
Posts: 57
|
Post by TedT on Aug 25, 2022 10:57:45 GMT -8
I lean towards a two creation theory in the first three chapeters of Genesis. YHWH's being in the second. The Devils the first. sang HIS praise when they saw the proof of HIS divinity and power, Romans 1:20, at the creation: Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy! The devil was a created being who can create nothing but evil by his free will. |
|
slyzr
Full Member
Posts: 124
|
Post by slyzr on Aug 25, 2022 16:38:18 GMT -8
I lean towards a two creation theory in the first three chapeters of Genesis. YHWH's being in the second. The Devils the first. sang HIS praise when they saw the proof of HIS divinity and power, Romans 1:20, at the creation: Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy! The devil was a created being who can create nothing but evil by his free will. When did YHWH show up in Genesis? |
|
e v e
Full Member
Posts: 214
|
Post by e v e on Aug 25, 2022 18:46:38 GMT -8
The tree is the knowledge of / the teaching about good and evil. Eating is proving this knowledge for oneself by experience. Yes, HE made the tree possible when HE created us with a free will and instructed us in righteousness, that is, how to live with HIM without suffering and dying. The warning to NOT EAT of the tree of this knowledge is the warning NOT to indulge in getting the knowledge of the tree for oneself because the only proof that the tree was INDEED about good and evil was to chose to sin. The command not to eat was the command not to put the LORD of the test and indulge in the evil HE forbade. Therefore HIS creation created evil by choosing to experience what HE called evil for themselves though HE was responsible for creating the possibility of evil due to the absolute necessity of our having a true free will so as to be able to fulfill HIS purpose for our creation. Good post ..... I lean towards a two creation theory in the first three chapeters of Genesis. YHWH's being in the second. The Devils the first. why ? |
|
slyzr
Full Member
Posts: 124
|
Post by slyzr on Aug 25, 2022 19:27:28 GMT -8
Try google ......
Or wikipedia.
|
|
TedT
Junior Member
...gruntled.
Posts: 57
|
Post by TedT on Aug 27, 2022 10:24:31 GMT -8
When did YHWH show up in Genesis? I do not accept the theory that the different names for GOD must refer to different Gods... In the beginning GOD refers to YHWH though HE is named as ’ĕ·lō·hîm; אֱלֹהִ֑ים |
|
slyzr
Full Member
Posts: 124
|
Post by slyzr on Sept 3, 2022 9:48:49 GMT -8
When did YHWH show up in Genesis? I do not accept the theory that the different names for GOD must refer to different Gods... In the beginning GOD refers to YHWH though HE is named as ’ĕ·lō·hîm; אֱלֹהִ֑ים Good point. Might be something more like el-o-him. Could be wrong though but it does raise the question why the vowel pointer in E-lo-him. Which would be in support of your point. But still a good question. |
|
