Who created evil?

Originally posted by @fmf
Whose definition of "evil" is that?

Google dictionary. And Merriam-Webster has it listed as well.

Not good for you.

Originally posted by @chaney3
"Something that is harmful or undesirable".

This was one of the definitions of evil, it will suffice in this case.

By this definition, was Suzianne's PM "evil"?

Originally posted by @suzianne
All because of gutless moderation here.

There once was a time on this very site when people were warned for making PMs public. Your unrepentant defense of doing so should have received the same warning, if not an expulsion. Clearly, there are, or at least were, people whose morality is questionable involved in the moderation here. Just as clearly, yo ...[text shortened]... it public was not nearly as successful among the forum regulars as it was among your 'friends'.

Let people decide for themselves: Thread 170533 and Thread 171074

Originally posted by @fmf
By this definition, was Suzianne's PM "evil"?

No, it was not.
Her PM was sincere and meant for only you. Not for you AND your friends.

Originally posted by @chaney3
No, it was not.
Her PM was sincere and meant for only you. Not for you AND your friends.

I didn't think Suzianne's PM was "evil" either.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I had little or no interaction with people who were not part of the cult I was part of.

Interesting.

Originally posted by @chaney3
To maintain the spirit of this thread, it was 'evil' to share a PM with friends, when the sender was unaware of that action.

But she wasn't unaware. I told her. I did so in public. I told her that I had passed it on privately to several of my friends. To say she was "unaware of that action" is not true.

Originally posted by @fmf
But she wasn't unaware. I told her. I did so in public. I told her that I had passed it on privately to several of my friends. To say she was "unaware of that action" is not true.

You made her 'aware' of what you did.....AFTER you did it.

It doesn't count.

Originally posted by @chaney3
You made her 'aware' of what you did.....AFTER you did it.

It doesn't count.

But she had no veto over what I told my friends about what I had experienced. There was no onus on me to keep her behaviour secret. She even said at one point, I think, that she hadn't said anything in the PM that she had not already said in public.

The experience of receiving that PM from her belonged to me, not to her. There was no confidentiality issue. She wasn't "evil" in sending it - daft and unpleasant maybe, but not "evil".

And I wasn't "evil" for not keeping what she'd done secret despite whatever benefit she might have thought such secrecy would have brought her.

FMF: [Sharing Suzianne's PM with my friends] was "evil"? Using what definition of the word?

Originally posted by @chaney3
"Something that is harmful or undesirable".

This was one of the definitions of evil, it will suffice in this case.

I would define "evil" as being egregious immorality and sociopathic action that is gravely detrimental and/or damaging to others, and which stems from an abject lack or even absence of empathy and compassion. Do you think your definition is more effective than mine?

Originally posted by @fmf
I would define "evil" as being egregious immorality and sociopathic action that is gravely detrimental and/or damaging to others, and which stems from an abject lack or even absence of empathy and compassion. Do you think your definition is more effective than mine?

There are different levels of evil according to the dictionary definitions. Your evil was of the lower level, however, it was evil nonetheless.

Originally posted by @chaney3
There are different levels of evil according to the dictionary definitions. Your evil was of the lower level, however, it was evil nonetheless.

I would say the definition of "evil" that you have plumped for [so that you can claim that me telling my friends about a bizarre PM I received was an example of "evil"] renders the word "evil" virtually meaningless or, perhaps, just makes it nothing more than a sneering catch-all barb that people can throw at each other.

I think the actions of people being described as doing "right" and "wrong" to varying degrees, is one thing, but to have such a ridiculous hair trigger for the use of the word "evil", and all its connotations, is straight from the psychological domain of the misanthropic religious extremist and the peddlers of manufactured outrage.

Originally posted by @chaney3
I guess I don't quite understand this post, or the negotiation that you are offering.

Because after going through this thread again, it seems that only dj2becker will not admit that God created evil, as it clearly states in Isaiah.

My point is that we need to be careful if we choose to take scripture literally and at face value.
Which of these scenarios, in terms of the overal bible, do you think are more likely accurate:

1) God is fully good and eternal suffering does not exist

2) God created evil and eternal suffering does exist

This is the entire point of this thread.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
God is not evil, neither can He be tempted with it.

And yet you believe he conceived of, created and maintains a place of eternal suffering where he will personally burn billions of unbelievers alive.

Originally posted by @divegeester
My point is that we need to be careful if we choose to take scripture literally and at face value.
Which of these scenarios, in terms of the overal bible, do you think are more likely accurate:

[b]1) God is fully good and eternal suffering does not exist

2) God created evil and eternal suffering does exist

This is the entire point of this thread.[/b]

I once had a pastor tell me that he MUST believe every word of the Bible, or none of it. Because anything in between becomes cherry picking of the scripture that you happen to agree with, and ignoring the rest.

In this case, evil exists, and Isaiah states that God created it.

Does that make God less good?

Does eternal hell and suffering need to exist just because God created evil?