Did God cause evil?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Ceiling Cat

"biblegod" ...

This name calling of the skeptic or atheist is an attempt to trivialize God.
I once knew an atheist who always refered to "godthingy".

Originally posted by jaywill
That does not matter. The revelation of the Bible is progressive. And some things occured to serve as examples for latter generations.

i don't grant you that premise. there is no progressive revelation in the bible, that concept was invented to explain the contradictions introduced by christianity.

the flood is a case of god feeling sorry with himself for creating humanity and he decides to wipe out what he considers wickedness by selecting the most righteous man he could find and killing off everything else.

but it turns out noah was also wicked (ie: human) and all biblegod managed to do was to reboot the same faulty programming without making changes to hardware or software and that is a shining example of his incompetence.

If the examples of the Old Testament are wasted on you, they were not wasted on all of the new covenant church.

they were wasted. the new covenant church learned nothing from those lessons.

It is pure ignorance that you expected Revelation 21,22 to have immediately followed the third chapter of Genesis.

i have made no claims of such expectations.

Both are involved - blessing, curse, and prophetic prediction.

negative. you will not be able to convince me that a curses or blessings are prophetic predictions. they may have the side-effect of prophetic fulfillment if they are made by biblegod's favorite toons and he decides to honor those blessings or curses.

but the concept is irrelevant. what is relevant is that curses are inherently evil things and one of the first things out of noah's mouth post-deluge was a curse.

...was cursed through Adam's fall and it was not the end of everything....

...Israel, God's own chosen elect were cursed and God could still work with them.
A curse may be bad but it is not always the end of the line....

...A curse is bad. The Bible shows that a curse does not have to be the end or last word concerning someone/s. ...

i see you're trying to distort this conversation to curse=end of line. no such suggestion was made by me. the only implication i have made in terms of curses is that curse=evil. so this strawman you have created ends right here.

if you utter a curse, you have done an evil thing. ergo, evil still exists. ergo, biblegod wasn't able to wipe out evil and he had to try again later (presumably with christ, but he failed that time too).

I am not awaiting your approval for anything.
Did you think I was ? Think again.

If there are elements of the account yet to be fully understood by me, I don't trash the whole Bible because of that. I simply place those questions I have on the "back burner" for another time of more clarity.

I definitely don't count that "another time" as any time spent with your opinion.

the amount of time you spend on my opinion is contrary to the claim you make. my "opinions" force you to kick your cognitive dissonance to high gear in order to find new ways to apologize for your biblegod.

[quote]
also irrelevant. all i needed to show was that evil continued to exist and biblegod wiping out the world to clean it of evil was a pointless exercise in genocide.

It is not irrelevant at all.
[/quote]

and this is one of those cases. when biblegod sets out to destroy the world in order to wipe out evil, and he fails to do so, it is completely relevant that he failed since his actions had wide reaching consequences on many people, including innocents and beasts.

You're just mad because a wicked world of violence where people imagined evil continually wasn't allowed to continue until today without God's judging.

what is this absurd collection of words supposed to mean?

You're headed for the lake of fire. There you'll hate yourself forever unless you repent and believe into the real Ark - Christ.
You still have time to repent of being a rebellious sinner. You mock as the people listening to Noah mocked. You reason as they reasoned.
In hell you will only hate yourself for the gracious salvation in Christ that you mocked and scorned.

you're headed for a lake of fire. there you'll hate yourself forever unless you repent and start thinking with reason.
you still have time to repent of being an ignorant buffoon. you claim self-righteous divine authority as noah claimed. you place faith on meaningless myths.
in hell you will only hate yourself for the gracious salvation of reason that you rejected and scorned.

that's an example illustrating the absurdity of your claims, so stay on topic to avoid further absurdities.

And Peter also warns that mockers like this VoidSpirit fellow will mock the coming judgment which is to come upon the whole world:...

the remainder of your preachy post has nothing to do with refuting anything i said. just a series of absurd claims and prattling on about unrelated things.

Originally posted by jaywill
"biblegod" ...

This name calling of the skeptic or atheist is an attempt to trivialize God.
I once knew an atheist who always refered to "godthingy".

nope. i don't want there to be any confusion in that when i'm talking about biblegod, i'm talking about the narcissistic-mad hebrew tribal deity depicted in the bible rather than god.

Originally posted by jaywill
The main failure of VoidSpirit's logic is that a progressive and gradual unfolding of His eternal redemption in Christ is not allowed.

nothing to do with what we've been discussing:

1. biblegod made a mistake in creating humans
2. to correct his mistake, he picks out the only righteous man he could find to save and
3. wipes out every living creature on the face of the world safe for the rabble on the "ark"
4. after the destruction, biblegod's mistake lives on in noah and his descendants.

biblegod utterly failed to correct the mistake he set out to do. destroying all those creatures, the innocent along with the wicked in his mad rage was completely pointless. he even regretted his actions after the fact and promised not to do it again.

now add in the new testament christian narrative and the failure of christ discussed elsewhere and biblegod's failure comes full circle.

Don't buy into VoidSpirit's failed God unbelief.

don't buy into jaywill's strawmen.

Originally posted by jaywill

You failed to address my charge that your stance on predication of moral terms unto God is inconsistent. Just telling me that you have, in your pitiful self-loathing,

Pitiful self loathing ? I am a man. That is a very unique creature, you know? Not at all the accidental meaningless speck of dust your modern culture brain washed you into ...[text shortened]... and eternal judgment is appropriate for every human who has lived.

I'm sorry, but you have STILL failed to address my charge against your position.

You say that God's ways are just way higher than your own. Well, if His ways are not characteristically understandable to you, then no reason at all to think He can serve as your moral exemplar. Something has to give here within your position. You cannot have it both ways.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
nothing to do with what we've been discussing:

1. biblegod made a mistake in creating humans
2. to correct his mistake, he picks out the only righteous man he could find to save and
3. wipes out every living creature on the face of the world safe for the rabble on the "ark"
4. after the destruction, biblegod's mistake lives on in noah and his descen ...[text shortened]... uy into VoidSpirit's failed God unbelief.[/quote]

don't buy into jaywill's strawmen.

God hasn't made any mistakes, He created a universe that was very good and
in due time evil will be dealt with forever.
KJ

Originally posted by LemonJello
I'm sorry, but you have STILL failed to address my charge against your position.

You say that God's ways are just way higher than your own. Well, if His ways are not characteristically understandable to you, then no reason at all to think He can serve as your moral exemplar. Something has to give here within your position. You cannot have it both ways.

You say that God's ways are just way higher than your own. Well, if His ways are not characteristically understandable to you, then no reason at all to think He can serve as your moral exemplar. Something has to give here within your position. You cannot have it both ways.

Nice try I guess, but still nonsense.

Not ALL of God's ways I do not understand.
As a child SOME of my physical father's ways I did not yet have the maturity to understand. Others of his ways I did, even at a very young age.

It is similar with my heavenly Father. You jump to the conclusion that a Christian should throw up hands in utter dispair because NOTHING concerning God is comprehensible. That is not the case at all.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
nope. i don't want there to be any confusion in that when i'm talking about biblegod, i'm talking about the narcissistic-mad hebrew tribal deity depicted in the bible rather than god.

nope. i don't want there to be any confusion in that when i'm talking about biblegod, i'm talking about the narcissistic-mad hebrew tribal deity depicted in the bible rather than god.

There is no confusion on my part because I don't think you have put together two consecutive sentences about the Bible which were worth a tinker's damn since you came to the Forum.

Originally posted by KellyJay
God hasn't made any mistakes, He created a universe that was very good and
in due time evil will be dealt with forever.
KJ

i haven't made any claims that god made mistakes.

what i said was that biblegod has made mistakes, and he confesses to having made them in the bible.

Originally posted by jaywill

nope. i don't want there to be any confusion in that when i'm talking about biblegod, i'm talking about the narcissistic-mad hebrew tribal deity depicted in the bible rather than god.

There is no confusion on my part because I don't think you have put together two consecutive sentences about the Bible which were worth a tinker's damn since you came to the Forum.

hehe. you haven't been able to refute a single thing i've said.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
hehe. you haven't been able to refute a single thing i've said.

Laugh harder and dream on.

Originally posted by jaywill

You say that God's ways are just way higher than your own. Well, if His ways are not characteristically understandable to you, then no reason at all to think He can serve as your moral exemplar. Something has to give here within your position. You cannot have it both ways.

Nice try I guess, but still nonsense.

Not [b]ALL of God utter dispair because NOTHING concerning God is comprehensible. That is not the case at all.[/b]

So, basically you think you can get away with calling God 'good' whenever you want, even when His actions fail, in basic ways, to meet our intuitions regarding predication of that term; moreover, you think others cannot justifiably predicate 'evil' unto Him even when His actions succeed, in basic ways, in meeting our intuitions regarding predication of that term.

I'm sorry, but you are just deluded here. You are simply failing to meet very basic criteria regarding the proper predication of moral terms. You can continue to push this agenda of yours, but nobody is obligated to take you seriously.

If you care to actually address my charge of inconsistency against your position, then I will listen. Otherwise, I have no reason to continue in this discussion.

I never said that you are committed to the idea that NOTHING about God's way are comprehensible to you. Try re-reading what I did in fact say. This is a pretty basic point here, jaywill: you do not get to justifiably hold that God is a moral exemplar when you are bizarrely committed to His undertaking actions that (1) would appear to our very basic intuitions to be morally reprehensible when executed by virtually any moral agent other than God and (2) are still somehow morally excellent when executed by God. That's what is called "bizarro moral exemplarity" on the part of God.

Originally posted by LemonJello
So, basically you think you can get away with calling God 'good' whenever you want, even when His actions fail, in basic ways, to meet our intuitions regarding predication of that term; moreover, you think others cannot justifiably predicate 'evil' unto Him even when His actions succeed, in basic ways, in meeting our intuitions regarding predication of th executed by God. That's what is called "bizarro moral exemplarity" on the part of God.

So, basically you think you can get away with calling God 'good' whenever you want, even when His actions fail, in basic ways, to meet our intuitions regarding predication of that term; moreover, you think others cannot justifiably predicate 'evil' unto Him even when His actions succeed, in basic ways, in meeting our intuitions regarding predication of that term.

That humans have doubts sometimes about what God does is the theme of the whole book of Job. Having doubts is to be expected.

God gave [n]Job[/b] quite a bit of leeway to complain and never REALLY gave him an explanation of his bad experience at that. At least in Job God never apologized for anything.

You can have doubts if you want. Some of us have faith that the jury is still out on some things.

I'm sorry, but you are just deluded here. You are simply failing to meet very basic criteria regarding the proper predication of moral terms. You can continue to push this agenda of yours, but nobody is obligated to take you seriously.

I certainly am not obligated to take your theory seriously - that the Creator of man SOMEHOW created beings superior in morality to Himself.

How He was able to give what He didn't HAVE to give is a unexplained delimma.

And as for the Atheist, I still don't know what his ultimate standard for right, wrong, good, evil is anyway. Beyond personal preference I see no overall standard.

Watch now some atheist chime in that they can be good just like anyone else, which is not the point. There is no real governing moral law only chemicals and colliding atoms.

If you care to actually address my charge of inconsistency against your position, then I will listen. Otherwise, I have no reason to continue in this discussion.

Bye.
I probably addressed it already.

Below I guess you give it one more shot:

I never said that you are committed to the idea that NOTHING about God's way are comprehensible to you. Try re-reading what I did in fact say.

This is a pretty basic point here, jaywill: you do not get to justifiably hold that God is a moral exemplar when you are bizarrely committed to His undertaking actions that (1) would appear to our very basic intuitions to be morally reprehensible when executed by virtually any moral agent other than God and (2) are still somehow morally excellent when executed by God. That's what is called "bizarro moral exemplarity" on the part of God.

Some actions I do not understand fully.
I still trust God.

I like it that there are some things in the Bible that I don't like.
I think that is one of the unique characteristics of the Book.
There is something there for everyone to not like.
I don't care who you are. I bet there is something written in the Bible you don't like.

I still think I am definitely on the right track to trust God.
Genesis 6 was not the last chapter.
I went on to read about other things including the climax of Jesus of Nazareth.

You want to close your heart to Jesus because you think someone died in Noah's flood that shouldn't have died ? Go ahead. Not me.

Originally posted by jaywill
I certainly am not obligated to take your theory seriously - that the Creator of man SOMEHOW created beings superior in morality to Himself.

How He was able to give what He didn't HAVE to give is a unexplained delimma.

it's not an unexplained dilemma.

the explanation is rather simple. he did not create us, we created him, and with that creation we passed all our flaws onto him.

Originally posted by jaywill
Laugh harder and dream on.

if that is the position you want to hold.

i've shown conclusively that biblegod failed and your only response is that you have faith he will somehow set it right in the future. this is your typical response to every argument that breaks your theology.