Let's settle this once and for all.

Let's settle this once and for all.

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    God allows evil to happen for the greater good.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Could god have achieved this greater good without evil?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, but it would have less meaning.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          So?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Clearly God should have asked you for advice before creating all of existence.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Meaning is subjective, so no.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The meaning of one plus one is two. Is that statement subjective?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            1 + 1 does not mean 2, it equals 2, you esl.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Based and type theory pilled.
            As for this thread - the demiurge is kind of a dumbass and didn't have a lot to work with

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        No, because the greatest good is our free and willing participation with His goodness.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          god could've acheived that without evil

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Not omnipotent.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes. But allowing evil doesn't mean it (God) is not good.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Doesn't that mean we should commit as much evil as possible? Doing that would create a greater good than just doing as much good as possible.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        You know God could make you die any time He wills or put you in the lowest layer of hell right?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          That wouldn't be very benevolent of god.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            God functions like a judge in the afterlife. It's fair to punish sin and just.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >infinite punishment for finite crime

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Problem?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            God is an infinite being and is infinitely offended.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >immortal being is infinitely fragile
            This is why neo-Pagans keep making fun of you.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >punishes creation for doing what he already knew they would do

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            In life you have multiple choices and cannot opt out of the exam. God uses any answer you give for his will ultimately, whether good or bad. There is no such thing as free will, only God's will.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            There is no need for an exam if the teacher knows the results/the examined students cannot learn from it after failing (they spend an eternity in hell)

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Eternal hell is not a Biblical concept.

            (Skip to 1:06:17)

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Whether it’s eternal or not, you get my point. There is no need for such a test

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Of course there is, God did not make us to be robots.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You do not have a desire to rape and murder. Are you a robot because of this?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because I know its good for the society and myself to not do those things. How would I even know what goodness is without evil existing and those who do it? How do you define these things?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            So if evil didn't exist, you would rape and murder?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You didn't answer my questions. How do you know what is good and what is evil? How do you define these things?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The problem of evil doesn't require a definition of evil. It's an internal critique.

            If evil didn't exist, would you rape and murder?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The problem of evil doesn't require a definition of evil.
            So, you can't define it? Gotcha. Like I said, we can't define evil without good existing and vice versa.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you want to talk about the definition of evil, make your own thread. The topic of this thread is about the problem of evil, and currently there is no reason why a god wouldn't be able or willing to create a world with free will and without evil.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Seems like you couldn't extrapolate a sufficient answer from my response then. Evil exists because God uses it ultimately for his will.

            >And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
            Romans 8:28

            So, just because you don't like bad things happening does not mean God lets them for no reason, or that he is in any way malevolent. Evil needs to exist so we can appreciate what is good, and without it reality would not exist. This frustrates the Gnostic and Kabbalist because they believe they could shape reality better than God Himself.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >god is not omnipotent.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            We understand what a straight line and a circle is despite those things technically not existing in the real world. Likewise, we would also be able to understand evil even if there was no evil in the world.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >muh robots
            We basically are if God knows what we will do before we do it.
            >no you choose to do it, it’s not predetermined
            Then God is not omniscient

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >god is not omnipotent.

            You are flabbergasted that God can know, yet also have the will to determine your own destiny. You are just another Gnostic or Kabbalist and think you know better than God. Typical cope, just become Freemasons already.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's a horrible argument
      >Yeah I let your child get raped but it's for the greater good, somehow
      If God was all powerful he would not need to allow that happen in the first place, he could achieve good outcomes without forcing people to suffer like this. That also means all evil in the world (such as genocide, torture, rape, etc ) is actually justified because it's all a part of God's plan

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Allowing evil to happen for the greater good is what I would expect from beings of limited potency, not god.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      1, God is perfect
      2. Evil is imperfect
      3. It is impossible for perfection to contain imperfection
      4. Therefore, God could have not allowed evil for greater good

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Idiot

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      We have, many times.

      Flaws in the scheme:
      >then why is there evil
      Because God gave us freedom to turn away from him. Which is more benevolent than forcing us.
      >Could God have .... [myriad of other copes]
      >Why didn't he?
      Not an argument. No conclusion is validated by this declaration of ignorance.
      >then why didn't he [create a universe without evil]
      Without *potential for evil. See above.
      >Could God have created a universe with free will but without evil?
      Yes. One where humans don't have access to what Genesis describes as the knowledge of good an evil. And if safety was a higher priority than theosis, he for sure would have done that. But as it it happens, safety isn't the highest priority.

      And as for the implication that a world without potential evil would be better, that's an invalid line of reasoning. A world where evil can't even potentially exist operates by completely different set of logical rules than our universe. To judge the two universes you have to step outside the logical frameworks of both, because you need to encompass both. You don't have that framework. Ergo you can't pronounce that judgement.

      /thread

      Could god have achieved this greater good without evil?

      Non-argument.

      Doesn't that mean we should commit as much evil as possible? Doing that would create a greater good than just doing as much good as possible.

      No.

      That's a horrible argument
      >Yeah I let your child get raped but it's for the greater good, somehow
      If God was all powerful he would not need to allow that happen in the first place, he could achieve good outcomes without forcing people to suffer like this. That also means all evil in the world (such as genocide, torture, rape, etc ) is actually justified because it's all a part of God's plan

      "Somehow?" is not an argument.

      1, God is perfect
      2. Evil is imperfect
      3. It is impossible for perfection to contain imperfection
      4. Therefore, God could have not allowed evil for greater good

      >3. It is impossible for perfection to contain imperfection
      Source?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Because God gave us freedom to turn away from him. Which is more benevolent than forcing us.
        It would be more benevolent to put people on the right path instead of letting them go to magic lava

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          He did that in the beginning and does that still every day. You just have to stop refusing his help.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            He's doing a terrible work

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >No.
        Why?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >It is impossible for perfection to contain imperfection
        >Source?
        God has no parts (divine simplicity), therefore he cannot contain imperfections as parts of his perfection.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Nobody argued he contained imperfection in his essence.

          This is basically your dad beating you as a child so you can be tough.

          More like your dad waking you up early. We were b***hing about it back in the day (like you do now) but it was a good thing to do through and through.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Amen.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This is basically your dad beating you as a child so you can be tough.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      So if I murdered someone, that’s actually a good thing, since God clearly allowed that to happen for the greater good?

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Free will.
    INB4 No God can’t create a universe without the possibility to Will evil and still have free will, same as he cannot force people to freely love him, they necessarily imply contradiction.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      god creates people with foreknowledge of all the choices that they will freely make in the future. Why couldn't god make only people that he knows in advance will never freely choose to commit evil?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      God can easily create a world where you can theoretically commit evil if you truly wanted to, but no one actually does it because there's no real incentive to do it. Or, it happens very very rarely

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I cannot shoot lasers out of my eyes or grow wings. Does that mean I don’t have free will

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes it does.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    What even is evil to begin with?
    >Murder
    Its how animals get their matter
    >Rape
    Its how animals reproduce
    >Thief
    Its how animals survive
    >Lying
    Its how animals can avoid conflict nonphysically
    >Envying
    It shows an animal has self awareness

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      You just described some capital sins, the things God considers most evil acord8ng to ten comandments lol

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Its how animals get their matter
      Why did God create a world where murder is necessary to do this?
      >Its how animals reproduce
      Why didn't God just create a world where reproducing is impossible unless both parties consent?
      >Its how animals survive
      Why did God create a world where people and animals need to resort to stealing to survive in the first place?
      >Its how animals can avoid conflict nonphysically
      Why did God create a world where you need to lie to resolve conflict?
      >It shows an animal has self awareness
      Why couldn't God create a world where we have self awareness but where the difference in ability, material wealth, etc isn't so great that envy isn't even a thing in the first place

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Why didn't God just create a world where reproducing is impossible unless both parties consent?

        Not a sin. Women are the temptresses of sin and it is up to men to control and responsibly integrate their chaotic nature into an orderly functioning society. We had it right less than a century ago in first world countries.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The evil is that this depends on the moronic, seemingly unnecessary, first two laws of thermodynamics, rather than something epically deep that says a lot about heckin life.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Be Epicurus
    >Invite women and slaves to learn from you
    >Explain how to lead a fulfilling life of simple contentment
    >Teach people that they should act ethically regardless of whether the gods command it or not
    >Instead of any of this, you will only ever be remembered for some dumbass "Atheist vs. Christian" argument

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Logical doesn’t mean correct and avoiding pain isn’t the point of life.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why is there pain at all?

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
    God is the alpha and the omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Good and evil.

    Obviously there is no all good god, because god is everything and not everything is good.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Seems pretty airtight to me. In the Christian worldview God has prioritized lots of things - i.e., freedom to harm others, opportunity to endure strife, breadth of experience; all things named in these threads by Christians themselves - over good, to wit, preventing horrible suffering. This precludes omnibenevolence.

    There isn't a single defense a believer in triomni God can advance which wouldn't also justify a God that is not only not omnibenevolent, but one which creates a world with ten times more child rape, ten times more torture, and ten times more cancer.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    can't have free-will without evil
    simple as

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      You can though.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        elaborate

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          There's nothing to elaborate on. You just can.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            ok so
            >I wish to kill a person
            >You can't because evil doesn't exist
            sounds about right

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I wish to sprout wings and fly
            >I can't sprout wings and fly
            >therefore, free will doesn't exist

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >"free" means "free from reality"
            Huh?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's your takeaway? Embarrassing.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You think I'm embarrassed for not having a profound takeaway from "free will is when wings appear"? Quit shitting up the thread with your non-arguments.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            nta, but being confused about the definition of free will is pretty embarassing.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >be a bird
            >have no problem achieving such feat
            how does this relate to the notion of being free to choose, including evil

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Choosing between helping an old lady across the street and donating to charity is an expression of free will.

  9. 2 months ago
    Radiochan

    define evil

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Shit like this is why the Romans conquered the Greeks.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The Romans loved greek culture, like Americans love oil.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I fail to see a contradiction.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    How pathetic to think you can understand what "God" is. Define "God". God is not bound by your puny human intellect.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The very Semitic scriptures you refer to state that God made man in their image. Why wouldn't man be able to understand God?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      > How pathetic to think you can understand what "God" is. Define "God". God is not bound by your puny human intellect.
      Rich coming from someone who believes in Abrahamic dogma about God

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Read Brian Davies's "On Aquinas and Evil." God has no moral obligations, so predicating moral properties on the divine nature is a category mistake.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >God has no moral obligations
      That goes into "god is a cosmic entity that doesn't care"

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Caring =/= obligation. He obviously still cares. But he owes us nothing.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          But you can't say he cares and then say bad things happen because god doesn't have moral obbligations

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            so if you're going to say that 'bad things happen' is proof of God "not caring" you're going to need to prove that claim

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The problem of evil is about why a perfectly good God would create a world with evil in it, but there being evil contained in the whole doesn’t mean the whole is itself evil—that is a composition fallacy.

    It could be the case that the evil complements the good, meaning that the proper arrangement of these events and these people are arranged in such and such a way so as to make the whole better, and this isn’t even unintuitive, it is a truth of art.

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Evil does not exist. There, I solved it.

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    it's already been settled
    you don't have free will if you can't choose evil
    see ya at the next repost

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      ability to choose evil =/ existence of evil

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        ok why is that true

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          There exists a person on earth that could freely choose to rape but does not want to rape. Did god mind control that person into not being a rapist?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >ability to choose evil =/ existence of evil
        what does this even suppose to mean

        There exists a person on earth that could freely choose to rape but does not want to rape. Did god mind control that person into not being a rapist?

        >There exists a person on earth that could freely choose to rape but does not want to rape. Did god mind control that person into not being a rapist?
        No. The key point here is "could freely choose", which is the whole point of free will. Whether that person chooses to rape or not is another matter entirely.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          so god could create a world with free will and without evil after all.

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    2/2

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >If God's benevolent, why did he allow his son to die
    Imagine missing the entire thesis of Christianity

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    How would we know about good if there were no bad?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      How did god know the world was good before the fall?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        That question makes no sense. God is Omniscient by definition.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why have a world with evil for the sake of knowing it exists? Why have it exist in the first place?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I like the world the way it is. It could be better, but it could also be much worse.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          You don't know any better.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            False, you can't prove it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I know you dont know, because I don't know.

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    God created the world with the sole intention of bestowing Good to His creations.

    To this end, the reward must actually be earned, not gifted. If the reward was gifted, the recipient would be ashamed for having received that which he did not earn, resulting in the Good being inherently blemished.

    In order to earn Eternal Bliss, there must exist forces that hinder one from serving the Lord (earning the reward).

    This is Evil.

    tl;dr God could have made the world without evil, but that would be counter-productive to His end-goal.

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >evil exists
    that is just untrue, eviil just like money or starsignes are just human konzepts meant to asign value to things
    evil is made up by the human mind so the very first assumption already fails
    there is no evil only shades of stupidity

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
    Explain how the LORD can create evil but evil doesn’t exist

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      He doesn't. Isaiah uses the term as "calamity". And to make this apparent even in this verse alone, he contrasts it with "peace" instead of "good".

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The LORD doesn't "create evil" because evil is just the antithesis of God's creation, the dark, the ex nihilo that God created/creates into. Karl Barth gives a very good explaination of this

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >The LORD doesn't "create evil"

        >Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?
        Amos 3:6

        God is a good god, there is no doubt. But the idea that he can't do evil or wouldn't do evil is preposterous. He is the author of all things, and all things are used for His will in the end.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I didn't say he can't do something. I said he is not the source of evil.

          >God can turn evil into good.
          By torturing babies?

          In any scenario.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I said he is not the source of evil.
            The Bible says otherwise. God is the author of evil things happening. Read Job. Satan or the adversary/accuser has to ask God's permission to do anything to Job, he is completely under God's control.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            God is not evil to Job.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            God allows Satan to ruin Job's life and in affect, God ruins Jobs life. The point being God is in control of everything including bad things. If you don't want to believe Isaiah, Amos, or Job, I don't know what to tell you. God is the author of evil.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            There was no evil inflicted on Job. You can call them relatively "bad" things but God had the right to enact them and eventually turned them into blessings too so they are not evil. Quote Isaiah, Amos or Job on the contrary if you disagree. God is not the source of evil.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >God had the right to enact them and eventually turned them into blessings too so they are not evil.
            You could literally say that about any "evil" or bad thing happening ever. God uses ALL things to his glory and will in the end, despite us perceiving them as evil or pointless.

            >And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
            Romans 8:28

            >Quote Isaiah, Amos or Job on the contrary if you disagree.
            They back up what I said though, that God creates evil, it is directly stated He does.

            >I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
            Isaiah 45:7

            Which part of this don't you agree with?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You could literally say that about any "evil" or bad thing happening ever.
            Nope. If I kill your livestock and family, I'm overstepping my rights and I have no way to turn that into good. Hence I'm being evil.
            >Romans 8:28
            Agreed.
            >God creates evil, it is directly stated He does.
            >Isaiah 45:7
            See

            He doesn't. Isaiah uses the term as "calamity". And to make this apparent even in this verse alone, he contrasts it with "peace" instead of "good".

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If I kill your livestock and family, I'm overstepping my rights and I have no way to turn that into good.
            But you're not God. Remember God gave Job back everything he lost ten fold. So he got even more livestock and even more family than he lost.
            >See
            רָ֑ע (rā‘) means evil Biblically:
            >Adjective - masculine singular
            >Strong's 7451: Bad, EVIL
            He is contrasting it with prosperity [שָׁל֖וֹם (šā·lō·wm)] with bad or "evil" things happening. It could also mean the following:
            >The KJV translates Strong's H7451 in the following manner: evil (442x), wickedness (59x), wicked (25x), mischief (21x), hurt (20x), bad (13x), trouble (10x), sore (9x), affliction (6x), ill (5x), adversity (4x), ill favoured (3x), harm (3x), naught (3x), noisome (2x), grievous (2x), sad (2x), miscellaneous (34x).
            So, it is used to imply evil more often than not like in this verse.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >So he got even more livestock and even more family than he lost.
            I know, that's why I'm saying God can do this and it's not evil for him to strike someone's wealth/health/... down.
            >rā‘
            >contrasting it with prosperity
            That contrasting alone suggests it's not evil. The dichotomy isn't "prosperity or evil". It's "prosperity or disaster" or "peace or calamity". Across the entire Isaiah rā‘ is mostly used in this sense, you can count it up too.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm saying God can do this and it's not evil
            I never claimed God was evil for doing things we deemed as such, merely that the Bible says he is the author of it all.
            >That contrasting alone suggests it's not evil.
            Seeing how the Biblical definition of calamity is bad or evil, it means the same thing. Regardless of how you want to translate the word, both Isaiah, Amos, and Job cite God as the author of bad/"evil" things happening. God is in control of everything.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the author of it all
            Yes, he is the author of an action that isn't evil.
            >Seeing how the Biblical definition of calamity is bad or evil
            It is not. The Hebrew term for bad thigs is ra', and you have to differentiate based on the context. The context in Isaiah is not ontological evil, but disaster.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >he is the author of an action that isn't evil.
            The Bible doesn't say that, I'm afraid. God uses ALL things for his will in the end, not just some things.
            >The context in Isaiah is not ontological evil, but disaster.
            Again, disasters being seen as evil things or not doesn't really matter. The definition is evil, whether you agree with it or not. Some translators use calamity, some correctly use evil.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >God uses ALL things for his will in the end, not just some things.
            Correct. And you have yet to show where God was the source of evil, seeing that the things that happened to Job were not evil.
            >The definition is evil
            False. One of the meanings is evil. You haven't made a sufficient case why it is so here.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >seeing that the things that happened to Job were not evil
            Because you don't want to interpret them as evil, doesn't mean they were. You also have the hindsight of knowing the story when Job had to wait until God explained to him His purpose, which is the point. Things that happen may seem bad and evil to us, and we may even curse God in the moment for them, but he uses them ultimately for his will.
            >One of the meanings is evil.
            Again, if you want to translate it another way, fine, but that's not what it means, and doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Christ being arrested and murdered while being wholly innocent was evil. God was behind that. The serpent tricking Eve and getting her and Adam to sin; God was behind that to. God is not limited to our concepts of good and evil, which is why it being translated to evil makes sense, because he is indeed the creator of "evil".

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >hindsight
            Aka the full picture, yes. With sufficient information in hindsight I can recognize these disasters not to be evil.
            >not what it means
            Most translation methodologies beg to differ.
            >doesn't hold up to scrutiny
            You think prosperity being contrasted with literal evil holds up to scrutiny any better than prosperity contrasted with disaster? Antonyms aren't a matter of mere interpretation, Anon.
            >Christ being arrested and murdered while being wholly innocent was evil.
            Correct.
            >God was behind that
            Not exactly. God used that. Humans were the source.
            >Serpent
            Again, God used that. Serpent was the source.

            You keep arguing that God can utilize evil and I whole-heartedly agree. He just doesn't do or create evil.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >With sufficient information in hindsight I can recognize these disasters not to be evil.
            Well, you're not God, and that is a story meant to show God is in control of everything including bad or evil things.
            >Most translation methodologies beg to differ.
            It means evil any way you slice it.
            >Antonyms aren't a matter of mere interpretation,
            No, because the better translation uses good and evil not prosperity.
            >Not exactly.
            God always intended for Adam to eat of the tree, which is why the serpent was sent into the garden. Christ was the first of all creation. God sent the serpent into the garden to initiate the entire story of Christ. If Adam was a figure of Christ who was to come, and if Christ was the first of all creation, then God sent the serpent into the garden, all of this was planned, and there was no lucifer or satan. It was God.
            >He just doesn't do or create evil.
            Amos, Isaiah, and Job all disagree with you. There is nothing outside God's control including things that happen we perceive as evil.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >God is in control of everything including bad or evil things.
            Agreed.

            >It means evil any way you slice it.
            >the better translation uses good and evil not prosperity.
            False.

            >God intended... God sent... It was God.
            Not how attribution Biblically works.

            >Amos, Isaiah and Job all disagree with you
            False. Their mistranslators do.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >False.
            https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h7451/kjv/wlc/0-1/

            It means evil, I'm afraid.

            >Not how attribution Biblically works.
            If God sent the serpent and Christ to the cross, it was God's plan, just like how everything transpires is.
            >Their mistranslators do.
            While there are mistranslations in the King James Bible, this is not one of them.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It means evil, I'm afraid.
            >His source says:
            >>>evil

            [...]

            [...]

            >>>hurt
            >>>bad

            [...]

            >>>sore

            [...]

            >>>ill-favoured
            >>>harm

            [...]

            [...]

            [...]

            >>>sad

            [...]

            Idk maybe you think I'm being evil when I'm sad but they are actually separate meanings.

            >If God sent the serpent and Christ to the cross, it was God's plan, just like how everything transpires is.
            Correct. But he's not the source of evil.

            >While there are mistranslations in the King James Bible, this is not one of them.
            Make your case. So far your only case is "evil is one of the meanings" and "God can use evil for good" , both of which I agree with, but neither of which force me to accept your position.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Idk maybe you think I'm being evil when I'm sad
            And in the context of the verse, it means evil hence the translators using good and EVIL.
            >he's not the source of evil.
            God creating the evil means he's the source.
            >So far your only case is "evil is one of the meanings"
            Evil is the meaning though, you're the one who said it isn't, despite the overwhelming evidence and definitions saying it means evil.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >in the context of the verse, it means evil
            Proof?
            >God creating the evil means he's the source.
            Good thing he didn't create it.
            >Evil is the meaning though
            Evil is *a* meaning along with 17 other meanings. Again, do you think I am evil when I am sad? Ra' is used for both.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Proof?
            It is being used as a masculine adjective which the definition is evil. Look at Genesis 2:9 doing the same thing:
            >And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
            Ra there is being used the same exact way and that is translated as evil, not calamity.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >masculine adjective
            Can you elaborate on that a little more? Ra' as a masculine adjective means evil and as a feminine adjective means ... ?
            >Ra there is being used the same exact way
            So you claim but I asked for proof of that.

            I am completely fine with Gen 2:9 being translated as "evil" because the opposition here is to "good" (tov). In Isaiah the opposition is to shalom. Not Tov.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >In Isaiah the opposition is to shalom.
            Which means peace exactly how the King James translates it. God makes peace and creates evil (Ra).

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It does mean peace. And peace and evil aren't antonyms. Good and evil are. Peace and disaster are.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Going by the Septuagint, it also says "make peace (shalom) and create evil (ra)" so I believe the King James translation is correct, and it was not meant to be an antonym.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Septuagint uses the equally vague term 'κακά'.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Still means evil.
            https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g2556/lxx/lxx/0-1/

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Along half a dozen other things, correct. We're back at

            >It means evil, I'm afraid.
            >His source says:
            >>>evil
            [...]
            [...]
            >>>hurt
            >>>bad
            [...]
            >>>sore
            [...]
            >>>ill-favoured
            >>>harm
            [...]
            [...]
            [...]
            >>>sad
            [...]
            Idk maybe you think I'm being evil when I'm sad but they are actually separate meanings.

            >If God sent the serpent and Christ to the cross, it was God's plan, just like how everything transpires is.
            Correct. But he's not the source of evil.

            >While there are mistranslations in the King James Bible, this is not one of them.
            Make your case. So far your only case is "evil is one of the meanings" and "God can use evil for good" , both of which I agree with, but neither of which force me to accept your position.

            At the end of the day the only ways to establish this are either revelation or context and the antonym pairing is some of the clearest context indication that I know of so unless the sky is opening up for you, I think the weights are not in favour of God creating evil.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Along half a dozen other things,
            It's being used in other places as evil, just like the Hebrew.
            >the antonym pairing is some of the clearest context indication that I know
            Except the translators probably knew to use earlier uses of the word which definition was evil.
            >I think the weights are not in favour of God creating evil.
            The opposite since God is in control of everything and causes everything to happen, including evil, and the Bible supports this.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >evil
            Read the link you posted.
            >translators probably knew
            See

            >God is in control of everything including bad or evil things.
            Agreed.

            >It means evil any way you slice it.
            >the better translation uses good and evil not prosperity.
            False.

            >God intended... God sent... It was God.
            Not how attribution Biblically works.

            >Amos, Isaiah and Job all disagree with you
            False. Their mistranslators do.

            picrel
            >causes everything to happen
            Not how attribution Biblically works.

            So God does evil. Thanks for clarifying this.

            Wrong. You're welcome!

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Read the link you posted.

            >The KJV translates Strong's G2556 in the following manner: evil (40x), evil things (3x), harm (2x), that which is evil (with G3458) (2x), wicked (1x), ill (1x), bad (1x), noisome (1x).
            Which part are you confused by, again?

            >Not how attribution Biblically works.
            Evil is attributed to God, whether you want to accept it the translations or not. My money is on the Septuagint since it also does not lay it out like an antonym but two separate things. God "makes peace AND creates evil", separately.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Which part are you confused by, again?
            The part where you skip "harm", "wicked", "ill", "bad", "noisome" and just assume everything must be "evil".

            >Evil is attributed to God
            Not a single time.

            >not lay it out like an antonym
            Yes it does. Light and darkness are antonyms laid out exactly the same way.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The part where you skip "harm", "wicked", "ill", "bad", "noisome" and just assume everything must be "evil".
            Those are all part and parcel of "evil" which is why that was the best transliteration used.
            >Not a single time.
            Everything that happened to Job was evil, done by his adversarial satan, but because God allowed it and was in control of it. And there are many other examples.
            >Yes it does.
            Not according to the Septuagint, which is most likely the correct translation.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Wrong. You're welcome!
            Oh so now hell doesn't exist?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Lmaoooo that's what you meant all this time by babies? Any verse that suggests hell? Maybe the babies killed prophets or something, is that what you're reading into the NT?

            >The part where you skip "harm", "wicked", "ill", "bad", "noisome" and just assume everything must be "evil".
            Those are all part and parcel of "evil" which is why that was the best transliteration used.
            >Not a single time.
            Everything that happened to Job was evil, done by his adversarial satan, but because God allowed it and was in control of it. And there are many other examples.
            >Yes it does.
            Not according to the Septuagint, which is most likely the correct translation.

            No, disasters are not evil and nothing that happened to Job was evil.
            >Not according to Septuagint
            >>>>7I am he that prepared light, and formed darkness; who make peace, and create evil; I am the Lord God, that does all these things.
            >>>> ἐγὼ ὁ κατασκευάσας φῶς καὶ ποιήσας σκότος ὁ ποιῶν εἰρήνην καὶ κτίζων κακά ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ ποιῶν ταῦτα πάντ
            If you don't see how light and darkness are set up as antonyms then I think I'm done with this conversation.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >nothing that happened to Job was evil.
            Allowing Job's adversaries to take everything away from him despite being a righteous man is pretty evil. The point is God is in control of it all.
            >If you don't see how light and darkness are set up as antonyms
            You want it to be an antonym but it's not according to the earliest translations. You don't have an argument for this so insist the Septuagint and King James are wrong, despite other examples of the same word being used the exact same way as evil.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You want [light and dark] to be an antonym but it's not
            I'm out. Good discussion but you're seriously trying to punch above your weight.
            God bless.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Good discussion but you're seriously trying to punch above your weight.
            No, you're taking all the later translations above the earliest ones we have because it fits your narrative. You know Ra in this context means evil because it's being used a masculine adjective, the links I provided prove it and show other examples of the same thing. Sorry, but God is in control of everything including things that are evil because he's God.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You want [light and dark] to be an antonym but it's not

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why it is so hard to believe that is translated as an antonym but then the second part isn't? According to the Septuagint and King James, it's a separate thing. Your only answer for this is "well, it makes more sense the other way!" but that isn't what is being said, sorry.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wait so now light and dark are indeed antonyms?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            We are talking about the second part, "make peace and create evil". Sorry if that wasn't clear.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ok so we are indeed in agreement that "light and dark" is an antonym pair, that "rising and setting" (v.6) is an antonym pair, that "heavens and earth" (v.8) is an antonym pair, that "worker and work" (v.9) is an antonym pair and that also "peace and disaster" would be an antonym pair?
            But you disagree with the last bit because in this chapter where Isaiah lists one antonym pair after another, after another, after another, one of the words can be transalted to deviate from this clear pattern?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I never once said they weren't but according to the definitions of the words, earlier uses of them, and the earliest translations a separate clause is being introduced. Your argument is it HAS to follow the pattern, even if the definitions of the words have been explained.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I think it's more likely that v7 follows the pattern of the other verses, yes. And I think it's also more likely that theologians aren't wrong about God not creating evil per se, yes. Textually and theologically it's pretty clear-cut.

            For you to be right the pattern would have to break for no reason, the theologians would have to be consfused for centuries and a bunch of words would shrink from 12 meanings to a single one. Why? Beacuse of a masculine adjective?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Textually and theologically it's pretty clear-cut.
            Theologically it makes more sense the other way and backs up what is said in Job about God being in control of everything. In your mind God is omnipotent except when it comes to this one thing, so evil is outside of God's domain, even though he's God and orchestrates everything. So, either Paul is wrong and whoever wrote Job is wrong, or you are wrong. Theologians being wrong makes sense too, since the idea God creating evil is not a pleasant one and doesn't help their case against arguments like in the OP.
            >theologians would have to be consfused for centuries
            They weren't though since the Septuagint follows my argument and is the oldest version we have.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >God being in control of everything.
            Not the claim I was disputing:
            >>>>>

            [...]

            God not creating evil per se,

            >In your mind God is omnipotent except when it comes to this one thing
            No.

            >whoever wrote Job is wrong
            >Paul is wrong
            Both are right. Job didnt' suffer evil.

            >Septuagint follows my argument
            Let's see:
            >>> pattern of other verses
            Still exists in septuagint.
            >>> theologians aren't wrong
            Still applies to septuagint.
            >>> Bunch of words would shirink in meanings
            Still applies to septuagint.

            You keep claiming Job, Paul, the Septuagint, the dictionaries all confirm you and yet the arguments I listed above don't have a counter besides "masculine adjective" which I still don't understand what this is or implies.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Not the claim I was disputing:
            You're saying God is incapable of evil ie being the author of it, when the Bible says otherwise.
            >which I still don't understand what this is or implies.
            Sounds like a (You) problem then.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You're saying God is incapable of evil
            No. I'm saying God doesn't do evil. What he can or cannot do I'm not addressing. The Bible agrees exactly with this unless you do a bunch of nonsensical moves like special plead for a verse to break a pattern and a word to be restricted in meaning. Sounds like special pleading.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm saying God doesn't do evil.
            Which contradicts the Bible like in Amos. Thanks for playing.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            False. See

            >God being in control of everything.
            Not the claim I was disputing:
            >>>>>[...] God not creating evil per se,

            >In your mind God is omnipotent except when it comes to this one thing
            No.

            >whoever wrote Job is wrong
            >Paul is wrong
            Both are right. Job didnt' suffer evil.

            >Septuagint follows my argument
            Let's see:
            >>> pattern of other verses
            Still exists in septuagint.
            >>> theologians aren't wrong
            Still applies to septuagint.
            >>> Bunch of words would shirink in meanings
            Still applies to septuagint.

            You keep claiming Job, Paul, the Septuagint, the dictionaries all confirm you and yet the arguments I listed above don't have a counter besides "masculine adjective" which I still don't understand what this is or implies.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            But I'll concede to this: if you a-priori assume your conclusion then you're indeed justified in breaking the pattern of Isaiah 45, in ignoring most entries of a dictionary, in conflating disaster and evil, in assigning responsibility to God of what humans do etc.
            It's just a fallacy, that's the problem.

            Nope, in Amos where no pattern of antonym is being laid out, it still says God creates evil. You just don't want to agree with it, and that's fine.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I tend to disagree with circular reasoning, yes.
            If you're talking about Amos 3:6 then that one doesn't even remotely talk about God causing evil. See the last part of

            But I'll concede to this: if you a-priori assume your conclusion then you're indeed justified in breaking the pattern of Isaiah 45, in ignoring most entries of a dictionary, in conflating disaster and evil, in assigning responsibility to God of what humans do etc.
            It's just a fallacy, that's the problem.

            for details on this fallacy.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If you're talking about Amos 3:6 then that one doesn't even remotely talk about God causing evil.

            >Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD HATH NOT DONE IT?
            Amos 3:6

            It directly states God is responsible for the evil being done.

            I'm fine with God having control. He's still not to blame for what you do lol. Nowhere in the Bible is this forwarding of responsibility for sin being used.

            >He's still not to blame for what you do lol.
            I never said he is, I'm saying God is in control of the evil which he is ultimately responsible for. Why is it so hard to imagine that people have control over what they do, but God being omnipotent also has foreseen everything, too?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >LORD HATH NOT DONE IT?
            Ah, my bad.

            Here I can't point out to you that you're special-pleading about a pattern, but you're still special pleading for one (minority) translation to have massive theological ramifications over the others. Picrel.

            >I'm saying God is in control of the evil which he is ultimately responsible for
            That's what I meant. Nowhere in the Bible is God handed this responsibility for human actions.

            What you're saying is not hard to imagine whatsoever, in fact it's the simpler alternative afais. It's just not based on good arguments. "A word sometimes means this" isn't good enough for the variety of passages we are dealing with.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >massive theological ramifications over the others.
            Like with the verse in Isaiah, it was translated correctly imo, which the Septuagint backs up. Ad populum is a fallacy. It doesn't surprise me most other translations are different and don't subscribe God being the one behind the evil.
            >Nowhere in the Bible is God handed this responsibility for human actions.
            Except in Pharaoh's case where God IS in control and is responsible for him rejecting Moses. But in every other occasion, yeah, God is not in control.
            >"A word sometimes means this"
            That's not what I'm saying though. I'm saying based according to the definitions of the words, earlier uses of them, and the earliest translations the word was properly translated to evil, and it states God is the author of it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            theological ramifications over the others.
            >Like with the verse in Isaiah
            Exactly like that - you pick one translation over twenty others.
            >Septuagint backs up
            False. Kakos isn't merely evil.
            >Ad populum is a fallacy
            So is circular reasoning.

            >Except in Pharaoh's case where God IS in control and is responsible for him rejecting Moses.
            False. God harden's Pharaoh's heart but Pharaoh chose himself. Nowhere does the Scripture put the responsibility on God. Post verse if you disagree that says God is responsible.

            >yeah, God is not in control
            Strawman fallacy.

            >I'm saying based according to the definitions of the words
            *definition. You insist on one over the others.
            >earliest translations
            Earliest translations (like KJV) being logically the least reliable one.

            You can only make your argument if you presume your conclusion and force a word to only mean one thing despite all the context, philology and theology. A terrible argument.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            On one side:
            >God produces disasters but not evil
            >Humans produce evil and God's not responsible for that despite being technically in control
            >Conforms to Paul who says God doesn't even tempt people
            >Conforms to Church Fathers who say God doesn't do evil whatsoever

            On the other:
            >"I make sunrise and sunset, earth and heaven, light and dark, prosperity and FOOKIN EVIL, also potter and clay..."
            >Ra' means specifically EVIL (except when it doesn't, but it totally does in Amos & Isaiah, trust me)
            >Septuagint's kakos means EVIL (except when it doesn't, but it totally does here too)
            >God is in control and hence somehow totally responsible for our actions (verse on responsibility missing)

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you pick one translation over twenty others.
            >You insist on one over the others.
            Only because it's based on how it was used in other places being the same. So it's logically consistent.
            >Kakos isn't merely evil.
            In other places it is, look at the link.
            >So is circular reasoning.
            Never did this, though, I'm afraid.
            >God harden's Pharaoh's heart but
            Gotcha.
            >Strawman fallacy.
            Nope, that is literally your argument. Either he is in control of all things like it states or he isn't making him not God.
            >Earliest translations (like KJV) being logically the least reliable one.
            In this case it is though since it is backed up by the Septuagint.

            >A terrible argument.
            Nah, it is backed up by different translations, context, and Biblical definitions.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            But I'll concede to this: if you a-priori assume your conclusion then you're indeed justified in breaking the pattern of Isaiah 45, in ignoring most entries of a dictionary, in conflating disaster and evil, in assigning responsibility to God of what humans do etc.
            It's just a fallacy, that's the problem.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            So, you argument really boils down to God having no control over what humans do? Remember Pharaoh;s heart being hardened? Who was in control of that? Oh, right, God...

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm fine with God having control. He's still not to blame for what you do lol. Nowhere in the Bible is this forwarding of responsibility for sin being used.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Maybe the babies killed prophets or something
            What if they didn't?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            What about torturing babies turns evil into good?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nothing. Torturing babies is the evil.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            So God does evil. Thanks for clarifying this.

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Torturing babies is part of god’s plan and “for the greater good”, but when I do it, it’s “evil” and “reprehensible”?
    Explain.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      God can turn evil into good. You can't.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >God can turn evil into good.
        By torturing babies?

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    So God has free will, right? But he doesn't do evil with it because by his very nature he is all good, right? So he's free and all good. Why didn't God make us like that? Make us as himself who is both free and good. After all, it's pretty easy to imagine God creating a bunch of beings who are naturally very evil and who also have free will. They then go off and do evil things by their own volition because it's the way they are- he made them that way. So couldn't God have done the inverse of that for us? Additionally, if we're here on Earth to learn lessons couldn't God have just made us with the lessons learnt already? Surely he didn't have to struggle on some nasty planet to learn lessons for himself, he already knew them, right?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >inb4 you can’t be perfect only god can

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    total epicurean victory. only homeric-style gods make sense. people who mix their theism with metaphysics are delusional and tie themselves up in countless contradictions.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Frick off, only Platonic monotheism makes sense.

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    god is fake

  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It was settled millennia ago

  27. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Good question. I don't have an answer.

  28. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Literally every Christian rebuttal to the Epicurean problem of evil is a "it just is, OK?" tier answer.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >>Then whence evil??? I don't know so God can't know either, OK?
      Lol you know when someone uses the debunked chariots that you're in for a treat.

  29. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Atheists and other Godless pagans do this all the time.
    >let's discuss this by framing my views as right, prove me wrong or you're a fraud
    Free will is given to all of man. God knows what we are going to do when we decide to do it. Life is not programmed to follow a specific path. That is the beauty of his gift. To live your life freely and meet your maker at the end of it all. I hope you get to see the Lord anon, he wants you to.

  30. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >good and evil exist outside of the human mind

  31. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Bible makes it very clear that God is not all knowing nor is he all powerful. Christians would have a much easier time with this question if they just accepted that and stopped trying to make their god into this super OP perfect deity of

  32. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    In my opinion, it's definitely possible to make a justified counterargument to the Epicurean paradox if we assume a generic classical omni-God. However, it's impossible to reconcile with any Abrahamic holy text, which is probably your request.

  33. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >evil exists
    fails on the first box

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The the problem of evil doesn't apply to you

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *