The Author of Evil

Post Reply New Topic

Okay, this might be an overused argument against the concept of a loving God (paticularly in Abrahamic religions) but here goes:

If God is supposed to be a loving God and the epitome of all that is good then why is there Satan (the embodiment of all that is evil)? Surely, God is the author of evil if he created Satan? Also, how did Satan became evil in the first place if there wasn't the choice to do evil in the first place? Was he just inherently evil? Why would God make him evil? I mean, I know he was supposed to be created with free will, but if you were only exposed to "good" things, then how come Satan had the capacity to choose evil? Was Satan just naive and was unaware that defying God was evil? In that case, is Satan really evil?

Also, lets say for the sake of arguement that Satan was the author of evil and that God was all good and pure; why can't God defeat Satan (seeing as there is still evil in the world)?

I know that the concept of "good" and "evil" would have to be defined before we can ask who (in biblical terms) is the actual author of evil, but often whenever I get into discussions about why God allows suffering, one of the popular answers is that the devil is the source of suffering.

I'm looking forward to what you guys have to say about this.

---

Good storytelling, cops vs robbers, demands the idea of polarity.

Light vs Darkness

Cops vs Robbers

North vs South

Black ink on white paper (contrast) or White ink on black paper (contrast)

The prayer called the Our Father of Jesus Christ is:

God the Father who lives in Jewish heaven vs the Evil One who lives in a place of refuge/a city of thieves

God (often portrayed as a King of all glory) vs the devil (often portrayed as a man/robber/fibber/liar dressed in a red suit carrying a pitchfork)

Good vs Evil

Luke Skywalker vs Darth Vader (Star Wars)

The Good Witch of the North vs the Evil Witch of the West (The Wizard of Oz)

Barack Obama vs George Bush, Jr. (or vice-versa)

Ying-Yang

and so on

In the Bible, Satan is presented as a fallen angel, that is, Satan did not stick with the God franchise but went his own way, opening another religious store called the Den of Evil franchise.

Both kingdoms (heaven vs heck) are often presented as parcels of real estate whose entry is done through gates (the gates of heaven vs the gates of heck). Also, keys are needed.

There are keys to heaven and keys to heck.

Also, both places keep books with peoples' names in them - A to Z.

Either a person's name is written in the Book of Life (heaven) or in the Book of the Den of Evil (heck).

Heaven is presented as a kingdom in the sky above Jerusalem and heck is presented as a kingdom on the earth in or under Jerusalem closer to a garbage dump, a grave, or the underworld under a grave which would extend to the center of the round earth.

Storytelling

Horseshoe magnet attracts, repels

Daylight vs Nighttime

and so on

---

Religious science fiction movie

http://www.pilgrimsprogressthemovie.com/

http://www.bibles.net/

http://www.beliefnet.com/

God is scheduled to defeat the Evil One in the end according to the Book of Revelation, the last book of the Bible.

The God of the Bible has a personality which changes throughout the Bible.

Sometimes God appears rational (my view), other times irrational (my view) such as asking his son called Jesus Christ to die a painful death or when God decided to drown all humans except for eight (Noah and the Ark).

The Flood was a case of mass murder.

The Bible often answers the exact same question differently.

Last edited by pgd on 16 Aug 2010, 1:31 pm, edited 5 times in total.

I thought that God allowed suffering because he was testing us.

I interpreted it that if God just created 'heaven on earth,' we would not be tested to see if we were worthy to be in heaven with him. He has to weed out the evil ones you see(wink).

When I went to church as a boy, it seemed that they interpreted planet Earth as little more than a waiting room for heaven where you had to be good to get in.

the usual arguement to that is, Evil is just the absence of God. All Satan had to do was move away from God to turn bad. As for defeating, God is meant to have given Satan free roam over the earth till the end of the world, when he will chain him up, till then people are free to follow Satan. I can't remember why.

[quote="pgd"][quote="MindBlind"]

The Flood was a case of mass murder.

/quote]

I'm currently reading the bible again and it seems like God was having a massive hissy fit (or rather mental breakdown) at that part. It's kind of reminiscent to Stephenie Meyer's refusal to continue writing "Midnight Sun" because some of it was leaked (which was totally her fault).

Anyway, sorry for that tangent.

Well, for starters, let's assume that God is perfect. Within God's perfection is a perfect capacity for perfect creation (Angels, the universe, human beings in His image, and so on). So if God is perfect, He has to hold His creation to His perfect standard and cannot tolerate anything less than that.

Evil begins (and, well, pretty much ends) with Satan. The question here is if God's creation is perfect, why is Satan corrupt?

That stems from the totality of God's perfect creation, making sentient beings that dwell in His presence that may choose whether they will align their own will or capacity to act with God's will or to act contrary to God's commands.

The Bible reveals that the Adversary was given the highest rank among the angels. His fall from grace was precipitated by his pride and arrogance, a desire to rival God Himself in power. The creation cannot be greater than the Creator, however, and Lucifer/Satan cannot be granted a continued stay in the kingdom of heaven.

Why? Can't Lucifer/Satan repent? Well, I have two hypotheses on this one. First and foremost, Satan enjoyed being in the very presence of God. Denying God, God's power, and God's authority can be forgiven for as long as God is hidden from His created beings. But God was never hidden from Satan, and I think even a momentary act of rebellion is enough to cross that point of no return and thus making Satan unforgivable. Satan's treacherous behavior doomed him to an eternity of it; and even turning away from his sin, because he has seen and interacted with God, is not enough to be acceptable to God.

My second hypotheses, related to the first, is I'm not sure it's even possible for Satan to repent. A corollary to that is that even if Satan COULD repent and become acceptable and reconciled to God, it's not likely that he ever actually would. Biblical prophecies indicate this will never happen. And it also show a glimpse into Satan's nature: He can't be present EVERYWHERE, and he doesn't know everything.

Regardless of why Lucifer cannot return to God, the fact remains that he lost his high standing with God through his sinful actions. He was created a perfect creature, but took on the evil, sinful nature of rebellion. He used his God-given right to choose to choose that which was NOT pleasing to God contrary to God's will. And God, being perfect, cannot interfere. So Satan, through his own actions and by bringing imperfection upon himself, became imperfect and unacceptable. He condemned himself and became responsible for his own eventual fate.

Because God is perfect and seeks to create a perfect creation, any creature He creates in His own image will have not only His creative power but also His ability to make decisions. Because the angels must serve under God's authority in perfect submission, they are not a suitable companion for God. Mankind, therefore, was created as God's eternal companion. Adam and Eve, here symbolic and representative of the entirety of humanity, were given the choice whether to choose death or choose God. Foolishly, they gave into temptation. THEY made a choice. They were not forced by anyone, not even Satan, to take part in sin. Thus they introduced sin and imperfection into the world, eternally separating the creation from the Creator.

Because God is perfect, though, He is perfectly just and perfectly merciful.

Because Adam and Eve were part of a physical creation, they were sheltered against the Spirit form of God. As such, they could do something the angels couldn't: Express remorse and turn away from their sins. And because they did so, they were spared the immediate consequences for their actions. It was THEIR actions that introduced sinful behavior into the human nature that we inherit. And because of THEIR actions and THEIR sins, we are faced with the same choices--to live up to God's perfect standard or die. We know very well that everyone dies eventually, hence are given evidence that human perfection has been made impossible by us.

Again, this happens through OUR actions, not God's.

So, if God is patient, just, and merciful, and perfectly so, why aren't we all condemned to Hell?

Well, initially we all are. But we may be saved through faith.

God instituted sacrifices as a reminder that there is no remission of sins without the shedding of blood. Perfect, unblemished animals were to die in our place because even the very least of our sins condemns us to death. Through the sacrificial system, God set up His ideal system of judgment FOR us--because a perfect creature dies in the place of an imperfect creature, we are spared guilt and our (human) justice may be founded on the principle that the punishment must fit the crime. The Law is established to guide human behavior and to help human beings maintain a relationship with God.

But because of continued human failure, sacrifices aren't enough. God sent His Son, Jesus, as a means through which God can reconcile Himself with us since we are unable to reconcile ourselves with God. All who place their faith in the sacrifice of Jesus' life are saved from the eternal consequences of their sinful life.

God did not CREATE evil--it is only the result of a life of rebellion against God's will and hence is the creation of Satan and any others in opposition to God. But the beauty of the Christ sacrifice is it allows us to put the blame of OUR actions on a blameless God through His Son Jesus. It doesn't make us perfect in this life. It doesn't remove our evil, sinful nature. It only removes our responsibility to God for our actions. Having "new life" in Jesus means we reject our former sinful behavioral patterns and really try our best to live according to what God wants for us. Despite any past failings or future failing as we live in repentance and still slip up from time to time, we are already rescued. And all it takes for God to rescue us is our faith that "it is done."

I think the problem of suffering belongs in another thread. I'd enjoy responding to all your questions, but there's just not enough time in the day to cover everything in a single post. Suffering comes about as the result of a sinful human nature, pure and simple. We have to make our own decisions, guide our own lives in aiding each other in the relief of physical, mental, and emotional suffering. The question is whether we choose to allow God to guide us in our relationships with others or we choose our own self-directed motive. Put suffering in a different thread, ask different questions, and perhaps I (and others) will try to respond.

Why are you folks fixated on nonsense?

ruveyn

I will soon be in way over my head here, but here is this:

Isaiah 45:7 (KJV):
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I 'the LORD' do all these things."

An artist might use a dark canvas or a light one, but there must always be a canvas. Light would not be needed if there were no darkness -- peace would be unnecessary in the complete absence of unrest. Left would not exist if there were no right; north contrasts with south and so on.

Within the debates among "Sacred Name" religious sects, some folks distinguish the names "YHWH" from "YHVH" by saying "YHVH" is the "Destroyer" or "Death Angel" element/part/characteristic of "God" at work just prior to the Hebrew exodus from Egypt.

Beginning point: Both good and evil require the existence of the other in order to exist at all.

So then, and again: The creator of all has created each.

However, that does not make him/her/it the author of evil *acts* any more than any artist is the author of whatever someone else might do later do with (or even because of) his or her art ... and there is where "God" often gets a bad rap. We all appreciate it when gravity holds water in a glass, but then we somehow end up blaming "God" when a slice of buttered bread ends up upside-down on the floor.

At the simplest level: Because evil is possible.



That is where we need to be a bit picky with words if we want to make sense of this and/or to only convey what we actually mean. Being the creator of both good and evil as well as of anyone who does either does not also make "God" the actual author of evil acts.



Who has said there was no choice in the first place?



No. He was the most beautiful and greatest in the host ... or something like that.



He did not.



It is a good thing to be free-and-able to choose.



The speculations I have heard are mostly along the line of his believing he should be equal with "God".



Rather than judging Satan as either good or evil, let us just look at what he did and/or still does ... and those actions seem to go against what "God" calls "good" and do not seem to be making anything any better for anybody.



Who has said he cannot?



Many people speculate as to why suffering is either caused or allowed to continue on, and I only know that is just the way things are for now and that pain is a good thing (letting us know something is wrong) and that healing and peace are at least equally available.

Look up theodicy and the problem of evil.

I'd say you have some good insight here. But I won't hesitate to say I'm not a big fan of King Jimmy.

The phrase "I make peace and create evil" can also be translated "I make success and create disaster." My guess is "peace" and "evil" refer to efforts in war. "Peace" is equated with success, while an unfortunate set of circumstances in war, "evil," would be interpreted by the "losers" as disaster. And it's not limited just to human activity--it can also imply natural peace (good crops, health, increasing population) or divine punishment (famine, disease, low birth rate). Further, think of the historical context in which Jimmy translated the Bible. "Peace" and "evil" might have been understood differently at the time, so the choice of those specific words depends on a combination of how the writers understood the original Hebrew in a literal sense with how contemporary readers would have understood it. It's not "wrong," necessarily, but it's always a good idea to keep historic and linguistic contextual clues in mind.

Anyway... The Hebrew word that Jimmy translates "evil" actually represents natural calamity as well as moral evil. God, in His perfection, does nothing morally evil. But, since all events are subject to His control, He is ultimately responsible for all events in history and nature. Moral evil derives from the choices of human beings and angels.

---

Yes, it looks like God made another mistake, that is, humans didn't turn out the way he wanted so - with The Flood - God was able to start over from scratch again with a few good men and women - the crew of the Ark. The first mistake God made was creating Adam and Eve and finding out they were imperfect creations and had a taste for the fobidden organic apple in the Garden of Paradise and God had to give them a pink slip - booted them out of the Paradise Garden. At least God, with the persistence of a potter, continued his project to try to perfect humans over time. Yes, it does appear the God of the Old Testament had an issue with occasional temper tantrums - however - being God, what can mere mortals do about it but hide and complain so to speak?

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_of_Eden

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah

http://www.bibles.net/

---

The Ark

http://reallyfunnychristiancomedy.com/c ... noah-skit/

Last edited by pgd on 16 Aug 2010, 7:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Me neither, but I do not yet have access to all my resources while here in my Debian OS.



Agreed, and that is one part of the pool where I am almost always in over my head. And if you might allow me to re-arrange your sentences just a bit:



I have always been told the word "but" indicates a reversal of thought:



I have the power or "control" to go out and tape closed the door of my mailbox, but that would not mean I then also become the responsible party if the mail carrier just drops my wife's mail in the gutter.

Parents are not typically jailed for the unlawful or criminal actions of even their juvenile children.

Rich people do not owe me anything just because they have more wealth than I.

Nevertheless, "God" will eventually make all things right once again ... or at least so I happen to believe.

Is the next step to snicker?

The best defense is to invoke free will, but it still ends up being very questionable of a defense, if only because the idea of free willed beings who very much will not perform acts of evil is possible. (Just think about the idea of free will beings who will not willfully violate mathematical truths. This seems reasonable, and most people today will not willfully violate math, so why not ethics? Heck, the idea of heaven seems to require a lack of violation of ethical truths by free will agents at some point of time.

The next question would be: why do we need to be tested?

I think of it this way: Man (in the Garden) only knew of one possible sin, which was consuming the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge (of good and evil, specifically).

The question I have is did Man exist in such a state of ignorance that sin was made (otherwise) impossible? Personally, I doubt it, the reason being that later on in the Bible sins from ignorance are still considered sins and that once a person is made aware of that sin, he MUST atone for it. Logically, arguing "from ignorance" so to speak, it means that Adam was a sinner before the fall. I reject that idea based on the fact that the Bible indicates there was no need for shame or guilt prior to the fall. It can only mean Adam lived perfectly before committing the first sin.

The conclusion I draw from this is that because Man (Adam) was free from sinful nature, it was impossible to sin. Adam knew all he needed to know (don't eat from THAT tree) and instinctively lived a perfect life.

Now, you could argue that Adam "discovered" the sin of nakedness from eating of the tree. But I think that nakedness is ONLY a sin if there is something shameful to hide. Nakedness, which is spiritual as well as physical, exposes the corruption that the spirit imposes upon the body. By covering up those things which are shameful and disgusting in the sight of God, we are allowed to approach the presence of God and maintain the purity of those things which are holy. After all, God sees all things, even those things which are hidden. I think that God wants an ideal state in which His children need not fear hiding anything from Him, that they can be spiritually "naked" before God. By confessing sins, "baring" the heart, the sinner invites God to remove those things which are shameful, returning a child of God to a spiritual Eden.

Adam was free to disobey God, and there could be no true freedom if God didn't provide EVERYTHING, even a greater insight to His own mind. God is perfect to provide the alternative, otherwise man has no real choice to make. The Tree wasn't a trap. The Serpent made it one by twisting the truth. And Man became a victim of his own willing gullibility. If Adam had resisted, human nature wouldn't have inherited sin by default. Others would have made an INFORMED choice guided by experience. If Adam and Eve had born children in the garden, they would only have inherited the choice, and I suspect they'd have dropped dead instantly from partaking of the Tree because it would not have meant that Man in his entirety would have died.

Side note: This came up in another thread once, the logical problem of overpopulating the world with immortals. I'd forgotten that the Bible does give us a few examples (2 that I can think of, perhaps the only ones) of people who never experienced physical death. I think population would be limited by lack of necessity for reproduction. But I also think that if God can "rapture" certain righteous individuals, God would certainly not have had a problem taking immortal men and women into the kingdom of heaven once they'd lived out their purpose.

Back to my original point: I think at one time, specifically in the Garden, it was POSSIBLE for man to will not to sin. But because we DO have a glimpse into God's mind, not understanding it in it's entirety, but only a little bit that we've inherited from Adam, we can't help but sin. It's a choice, but impossible to keep perfectly due to human nature. Only someone born as a man free of a sin nature will actually accomplish that. Adam, as a perfect creation free of sin, COULD have resisted the only possible temptation open to him at the time, but he chose not to. Jesus was born free of sin, COULD have resisted multiple temptations, and succeeded. Jesus escaped the death penalty we inherited from Adam, yet allowed Himself to be put to death at the hands of sinners. He was free from the penalty, yet accepted it anyway. Hence the perfect sacrifice for universal atonement on behalf of all who will believe.

Why do you talk about a myth as though it were a fact?

ruveyn