ORIGIN OF EVIL

[LIND]

Originally posted by Kiddo:
I really don't believe in creationists stories but I'll analyze the ideas.
What are the most "evil" things in the world? Molestation? Rape? Genocide? What are these things? My guess would be humans exploiting other humans. They are chosen actions that deny other humans their choice. Substitute said it before, we have choice and freedom. Freedom comes and goes, but choice is eternal, and I believe the action of denying it is the foundation of evil.

Human nature is evil you say because it chose evil, and we need to save ourselves from our own selves..yet I would ask you, what about that which is corrosive to the human kind and is not human such as an earthquake? Did Nature choose to do evil by taking the lives of thousands of people, by destroying everything they have? Not only does it eradicate the gift of life, but it does so in some of the poorest countries in the world! (e.g. Tsunami,etc). How will we save ourselves from the wrath of Nature, and further how did Nature become evil? Did it choose to destroy instead of preserve and thus became EVIL?

 

[substitute]

what about that which is corrosive to the human kind and is not human such as an earthquake? Did Nature choose to do evil by taking the lives of thousands of people, by destroying everything they have?

Natural disasters are not examples of evil. They're no different than the lion killing the zebra. They're just shit happening. They're not even non-beneficial in the long-term, bigger picture, though they cause temporary suffering. They enable the continuation of the ecosystem, on which we all rely. And there are far worse things that can happen to people than sudden death, IMO. And if people put as much effort into sciences of peace as into those of war and money making, the loss of human life by natural disaster could be avoided, if not entirely eradicated.


(sorry, you can see where my Fi is in my signature...)

 

[Kiddo]

Human nature is evil you say because it chose evil, and we need to save ourselves from our own selves..yet I would ask you, what about that which is corrosive to the human kind and is not human such as an earthquake? Did Nature choose to do evil by taking the lives of thousands of people, by destroying everything they have? Not only does it eradicate the gift of life, but it does so in some of the poorest countries in the world! (e.g. Tsunami,etc). How will we save ourselves from the wrath of Nature, and further how did Nature become evil? Did it choose to destroy instead of preserve and thus became EVIL?

I don't believe nature is capable of reason, so how could it possibly do evil? Evil as I came to define it in my analysis only applied to choice. So if nature has no capacity for choice, how could it be evil? I just don't understand how you can define a natural disaster as evil.

I think the biggest flaw in your reasoning is you haven't considered the agreement man has with his environment. Man chooses where he lives and he accepts all the good and bad that comes with it. That is why people will continue to rebuild their homes after they have been destroyed by flood or tornado, or whatever natural force comes their way. Nature is a process, and it is necessary for all of it, including earthquakes, floods, twisters, hurricanes, etc. to continue in order for all life on this planet to survive. Man obviously will willfully put himself in the path of that harm.

By example, if a man were to jump in front of a moving train and get killed, would that make the train evil? If a man were to strap weights to his legs and jump into a lake, would that make the water evil? Nature has no means to make a choice, but man does. And it is man who chooses to put himself in nature's way, and thus in the way of all the potentially harmful things necessary for his survival.

Another point, would God's wrath on Sodom and Gamorrah be considered evil? Or how about God's flooding of the earth? If we have already established that God is a pure being incapable of evil, then that doesn't correlate.

If you think about it, the story of Noah is proof of God allowing man freedom of choice. God warned Noah that a flood was coming and to build an ark. Noah in turn warned man. It was because man chose to ignore Noah and put himself in the way of the coming natural disaster that he died. The same could probably be said of Sodom and Gamorrah.

 

[LIND]

Originally psoted by KIDDO:
Man chooses where he lives and he accepts all the good and bad that comes with it.

This discussion is slowly turning into a topic called "freedom of choice" or "are we really free", yet to reply to your belief in this choice that man makes , I would argue that man has already built in within himself a personality that he has not chosen, but instead that was given to him. For example I never chose to land on this earth, and become part of the family which is now mine, but instead I without my will was placed into something that I didn't know anything about. Given that we receive our personality( one that I never asked for), we have already at that point been bereft of choice (as we would like to choose).

I think the biggest flaw in your reasoning is you haven't considered the agreement man has with his environment.

I would ask you, when did you personally sign that contract with nature? Was it you that chose nature, or was it nature that chose you? Perhaps there are people who do not enjoy making a deal with nature but we know very well that us humans can't just pick up and leave this planet for another!
Once we are aware of this constraint, this box that we're confined to, the environment that we choose, we choose based on financial grounds, our likes and dislikes, our wishes, our job demands,..etc.

If we have already established that God is a pure being incapable of evil, then that doesn't correlate.

Have we? What was the purpose in destroying Sodom and Gamorrah?

 

[LIND]

Originally posted by Substitute:
Natural disasters are not examples of evil

I was merely arguing from the stanpoint of a Higher Being, such as God placing certain laws within the laws of nature which at a fixed time manifest themselves in a corrosive display. This line of reasoning, still aligns with the initial question of this thread.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

You have to distinguish between bad with an intention, a motive, and something that just doesn't happen to please us. A rotten donut? Uncomfortable chair? I was under the impression that this discussion is not about unpleasurable emotions per se.

We have perception and judgement, which we can use to evaluate different situations to say whether they please us or not. Our concept of something "bad" is then just the result of our capability to evaluate situations.

It's impossible to give definitive description of what constitutes evil actions (see my first post), but many people agree that things like rape, genocide, etc may be motivated by evil intentions. By most standards (mine included), they constitute an evil act by themselves, without the need to examine motivations behind them. Evil - it's just a word we attach to some intuitively noticable pattern.

Life ain't entirely fair, but it ain't entirely unfair either. Shit really does happen. We are victims of many situations, and the heros of others. A person can't but to make the most of it.

Edit: I found out a point in how my answer is unsatisfying. I began to think about an innocent person's feelings about everything evil. She might not find the kind of feelings from her heart so as to understand some evil person's motives. Well, it's nice that she doesn't. Some people grow up to be so balanced and benevolent that they maintain their innocence. Of course, environment, genetics, and person's choices affect. Much of that is random. No higher power maintains "fairness" or equality in the world at the moment, so that random things happen. Some behaviour patterns reinforce themselves in the person as well as in the society, so that there may emerge consistently repeating patterns of "evil" behaviour. If such behaviour has developed long enough in an environment unknown to you, it may seem as uncomprehensibly evil. Well, this forum is filled with people who try to understand each other, and still fail sometimes So is it any wonder that a person can't understand how everyone else thinks?

Edit 2: I've developed my world view from both secular and theological elements. I represented my secular views here more, because I know that discussing some bible concepts can become too long a task to conduct online.. and possibly as Substitute so eloquently put it.. hi subs :hi: . After one issue is handled, another one presents itself.. of all the topics I know, it's this that tends to stray off the topic the most. So, PM me for the theological interpretation..

 

[Kiddo]

This discussion is slowly turning into a topic called "freedom of choice" or "are we really free", yet to reply to your belief in this choice that man makes , I would argue that man has already built in within himself a personality that he has not chosen, but instead that was given to him. For example I never chose to land on this earth, and become part of the family which is now mine, but instead I without my will was placed into something that I didn't know anything about. Given that we receive our personality( one that I never asked for), we have already at that point been bereft of choice (as we would like to choose).

For someone who is arguing from a religious standpoint, you are certainly making a lot of assumptions that have absolutely no Biblical support.

1. We never chose where we would end up.
2. We never chose the family we have.
3. We didn't know where we would end up.

Now who is to say that before we are born we are not given all of those choices? Maybe all the soon to be born souls in heaven gather around God and play poker to decide who is going where. What is certain is once we are here, either us or the people who are responsible for us (our parents) are responsible for our well being. Someone, somewhere, makes a choice.

As far as being given our personality, I say bullshit. True, some of our personality is determined by genetics, but a great deal of it is still influenced by our environment and how we choose to live our lives in that environment. Choice will always be the quintessential essence of humanity.

I would ask you, when did you personally sign that contract with nature? Was it you that chose nature, or was it nature that chose you? Perhaps there are people who do not enjoy making a deal with nature but we know very well that us humans can't just pick up and leave this planet for another!
Once we are aware of this constraint, this box that we're confined to, the environment that we choose, we choose based on financial grounds, our likes and dislikes, our wishes, our job demands,..etc.

There was once a man named Socrates who was going to be put to death and he said to his old buddy Crito, "Dude, I've like totally lived in Athens my whole life, allowed this city to nurture and eductate me, lived under its protection, and raised my children here.'

But Crito was like, "Socrates, my main man, these officials are totally gonna deep six you with no good reason."

And Socrates was like, "Crito, it's been a kick ass life, but when I chose to stay in this city and enjoy all the benefits I made an unspoken agreement to follow all its laws and any punishments handed down."

Okay, I mighta fudged those quotes just a bit, but you get the point. We didn't exactly sign any contract when we were born into this country and yet we follow all its laws and regulations. We have the choice to leave if we don't want to. But I don't recall every agreeing to follow all the laws. It's just understood. And that is the concept of an unspoken agreement. If you have kids, then you have an unspoken agreement to provide for them and care for them. Any government has an understood contract to provide for the welfare and security of its citizens. (Although we actually wrote ours up. ) And human beings have many agreements with the natural world, to care for it, maintain it, and to get the hell out of its way when it starts acting up.

Have we? What was the purpose in destroying Sodom and Gamorrah?

You kinda missed the point there. Man made choices that put himself in the path of natural disaster.

 

[LIND]

Originally posted by KIDDO:
For someone who is arguing from a religious standpoint, you are certainly making a lot of assumptions that have absolutely no Biblical support.

I am arguing from a spiritual perspective which is different than a religious/man made perspective. As a matter of fact, the reason why I posted this particular thread is due to a lot of obliquities found in the Bible, obliquities that demand clarification in order for them to be valid.
Yet it seems strange to me that you would point out the fact that my assertion has no biblical support, without providing for me those particular biblical passages that veer from my initial statement. What is the biblical support for your assertion that somewhere, somehow we've made a choice! Oh but perhaps you might say that you are not arguing from a biblical standpoint, yet in most of your comments you surely defend the divine against the human.
You want some biblical support? Here is some': apostle Paul asserts that we should avoid doing anything that might 'seem' as evil-sin, without specifying exactly what shouldn't we do! What does this entail, you say? Paul trusts Reason, as a quality that's been bequeathed to us humans- from above, a quality which allows us to decipher strange circumstances and walk the right path. Reason allows man to fill in the gaps for those situations in which we do not have perhaps a straight answer (since sometimes the Bible posseses an esoteric scent ), or for which we have no answer whatsoever. Once you annex Reason with the Bible as a guide, you might get further than just limiting yourself to a single source.That is why I've made the assertion that I do not remember choosing my family, since the Bible doesn't provide me with a reponse in those matters, Reason has.

We have the choice to leave if we don't want to. But I don't recall every agreeing to follow all the laws. It's just understood

Once again, I want you to look at the bigger picture: John Locke would say that we've tacitly signed a contract with the society that we live in (a position germane to yours) yet what if I said that I don't like this PLANET, and I just wanted to move to a different one. The answer to that is that I can not! Why? Well .....

As far as being given our personality, I say bullshit

You're telling me that a child who enjoys doing numbers/mathematical inclinations and enjoys spending time inside the house in his own little world instead of playing outside with his buddies, has shaped this personality himself or his parents have? Once again I see a Lockian mentality stamped on you, since you assert that child's mind is a tabula rasa/empty slate on which you can just write whatever you desire; unfortunately for that argument, the 21st century data doesn't support it, which means that it is simply nugatory.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Once again, I want you to look at the bigger picture: John Locke would say that we've tacitly signed a contract with the society that we live in (a position germane to yours) yet what if I said that I don't like this PLANET, and I just wanted to move to a different one. The answer to that is that I can not! Why? Well ......

A social contract is a product of convention, not divinely inspired truth.

You're telling me that a child who enjoys doing numbers/mathematical inclinations and enjoys spending time inside the house in his own little world instead of playing outside with his buddies, has shaped this personality himself or his parents have? Once again I see a Lockian mentality stamped on you, since you assert that child's mind is a tabula rasa/empty slate on which you can just write whatever you desire; unfortunately for that argument, the 21st century data doesn't support it, which means that it is simply nugatory.

There is no doubt we were born with predilections to develop certain personality traits, though this does not by any means advance an argument in favor of an intelligent design of a sort. Or in other words, mother nature endowed us with potential talents we have or may have, not your father figure god.

 

[Kiddo]

I am arguing from a spiritual perspective which is different than a religious/man made perspective. As a matter of fact, the reason why I posted this particular thread is due to a lot of obliquities found in the Bible, obliquities that demand clarification in order for them to be valid.
Yet it seems strange to me that you would point out the fact that my assertion has no biblical support, without providing for me those particular biblical passages that veer from my initial statement. What is the biblical support for your assertion that somewhere, somehow we've made a choice! Oh but perhaps you might say that you are not arguing from a biblical standpoint, yet in most of your comments you surely defend the divine against the human.
You want some biblical support? Here is some': apostle Paul asserts that we should avoid doing anything that might 'seem' as evil-sin, without specifying exactly what shouldn't we do! What does this entail, you say? Paul trusts Reason, as a quality that's been bequeathed to us humans- from above, a quality which allows us to decipher strange circumstances and walk the right path. Reason allows man to fill in the gaps for those situations in which we do not have perhaps a straight answer (since sometimes the Bible posseses an esoteric scent ), or for which we have no answer whatsoever. Once you annex Reason with the Bible as a guide, you might get further than just limiting yourself to a single source.That is why I've made the assertion that I do not remember choosing my family, since the Bible doesn't provide me with a reponse in those matters, Reason has.

Well I reasoned that it is possible we did have a choice, therefore it seems that your argument isn't conclusive.

Once again, I want you to look at the bigger picture: John Locke would say that we've tacitly signed a contract with the society that we live in (a position germane to yours) yet what if I said that I don't like this PLANET, and I just wanted to move to a different one. The answer to that is that I can not! Why? Well .....

You do have an option to leave this planet. You could die. The fact is, there will always be a choice. And even when you seemingly don't have a choice, someone will make it for you.

You're telling me that a child who enjoys doing numbers/mathematical inclinations and enjoys spending time inside the house in his own little world instead of playing outside with his buddies, has shaped this personality himself or his parents have? Once again I see a Lockian mentality stamped on you, since you assert that child's mind is a tabula rasa/empty slate on which you can just write whatever you desire; unfortunately for that argument, the 21st century data doesn't support it, which means that it is simply nugatory.

As bluewing said, nature provides our genetics. Your personality has more to do with your earthly father than your heavenly one. As far Lockian mentality, you are thinking too far ahead. My views, like Locke's, are largely shaped by Plato. I don't recalll ever asserting anything about a child's mind being blank. My exact words were "some of our personality is determined by genetics, but a great deal of it is still influenced by our environment and how we choose to live our lives in that environment. Choice will always be the quintessential essence of humanity." I think you will find the evidence supports that assertion quite nicely. I'll cite the developmental psychologists Erickson and Vygotsky as my references to environmental influences on human development.

 

[LIND]

Sadly this discussion has veered in the wrong direction. Initially the topic was the origin of evil, more specifically evaluating the account provided by the Scriptures, and finding inconsistencies, lacunes, and so forth, yet many of the comments seem to focus on the human aspect as the source of evil. Were I to reply to KIDDO and BLUEWING's comments, this would take this discussion even further away from the intended path.
Therefore if anyone can...provide us please with a critique of the Bible account, namely 'how did Lucifer found evil'? Was there a flaw in the being Lucifer? One of the analogies we received here was with the way computers are build (see first & second page) namely that we're programmed, yet not to the extent where we're restricted to the fullest, an analogy which gives us an interesting perspective, yet I would like to further enquire and say, that that analogy still doesn't answer how did evil arrive in the picture, even if a being (divine or human) were to choose doing evil! In a loving, holy atmosphere such as heavens, (biblically speaking) how could evil even be a possible notion? If the account is not plausible, if the Christian Bible is mistaken in asserting and contradictory in affirming such an account, tell us why?

 

[Totenkindly]

Sadly this discussion has veered in the wrong direction. Initially the topic was the origin of evil, more specifically evaluating the account provided by the Scriptures, and finding inconsistencies, lacunes, and so forth, yet many of the comments seem to focus on the human aspect as the source of evil.

Probably because it is easier to discuss. Discussing the Biblical mythology demands a detailed knowledge of archeology, translation issues, ancient culture, and other things that most people are not equipped to deal with.

Were I to reply to KIDDO and BLUEWING's comments, this would take this discussion even further away from the intended path.

That is one of Bluewing's spiritual gifts, you know.

If you want a detail-intensive dialog, you might do better asking an apologetics or academic site. You might also find threads of interest on skeptic/antagonist sites like Ex-Christian.Net Forums. There you just need to filter through the understand that you're hearing all the reasons why something might NOT be true.

Therefore if anyone can...provide us please with a critique of the Bible account, namely 'how did Lucifer found evil'? Was there a flaw in the being Lucifer? One of the analogies we received here was with the way computers are build (see first & second page) namely that we're programmed, yet not to the extent where we're restricted to the fullest, an analogy which gives us an interesting perspective, yet I would like to further enquire and say, that that analogy still doesn't answer how did evil arrive in the picture, even if a being (divine or human) were to choose doing evil! In a loving, holy atmosphere such as heavens, (biblically speaking) how could evil even be a possible notion? If the account is not plausible, if the Christian Bible is mistaken in asserting and contradictory in affirming such an account, tell us why?

Now are you veering back to the philosophical? Any answers to these questions is going to based on speculation, because the Bible does not really provide us many details of the Satan figure. How on earth could anyone provide a conclusive case? It's all just explorations of possibility.

That's why you haven't gotten much along these lines.

From what I understand, much of what is accepted popularly about Lucifer comes from Milton's "Paradise Lost."

You want some biblical support? Here is some': apostle Paul asserts that we should avoid doing anything that might 'seem' as evil-sin, without specifying exactly what shouldn't we do! What does this entail, you say? Paul trusts Reason, as a quality that's been bequeathed to us humans- from above, a quality which allows us to decipher strange circumstances and walk the right path. Reason allows man to fill in the gaps for those situations in which we do not have perhaps a straight answer (since sometimes the Bible posseses an esoteric scent ), or for which we have no answer whatsoever. Once you annex Reason with the Bible as a guide, you might get further than just limiting yourself to a single source.

I agree that most of what Paul offers is an appeal to "Reason" or even "common sense." He often worked that way, and used reason to justify the religious principles. The whole first chapter of Romans is derived from Reason (or what would seem Reasonable to the average gentile).

Despite the argument here, I actually view things more like you suggest -- annexed Reason, with the Bible as a guide. I think it is the reason I have always had issues in a church environment, which is more like "the Bible being justified through reason."

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

LIND, it's nice to hear you liked my analogue.. thank you ! I'm not sure if I expressed myself clearly enough.

Did you read the part that I applied the computer comparison to (spiritual) creatures before earth, too?

Bible paints a picture where God ultimately loves people's ability to choose more than just about anything else. Granted, bible tells of some actions that might constitute coercion from some point of view (repent or die). Do you notice the difference between given a choice and that of taking total control of someone?

My claim was the thing that defining good and evil beforehand is infinetly difficult. According to bible, this is something that the God alone is able to decide - as in the meaning of setting perfect laws. Bible also supports the idea that some creatures may learn to live somewhat along the lines of God's wishes, so that it'll be "good enough".

So in short, God gave his creations the mind that can do evil. This does not consititute an evil act per se, because good and evil is so infinetly difficult to define, so that any restriction on someone's ability to do evil will necessarily restrict their ability to do good, as well. (as proven by computer comparison).

Ok in really really really short version, God of the Bible just wants everyone to choose to do good rather than make it automatic.

Could you break these points down a bit more? I am feeling like I'm writing the things third time, because I haven't received your analysis on my writings.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Who created EVIL? Did God create evil? God is pure, and something fully pure can not create something impure, therefore God did not create evil. But God created Lucifer, and if Lucifer discovered evil within its heart, there must have been some kind of flaw in the construct of the being Lucifer! ...

What do we normally tend to think of as evil? I'd think the epitome of an evil person is one who murders, rapes, steals..and so on...

Why does such a person do this? Because of his wicked motives? Rightly so. Yet, why does he have such motives? Likely because he cannot find peace within himself, like most of us cannot. Yet he treats this personal malady of his by inflicting harm on the world, he thinks that this will somehow make him feel better.

If we all truly were at peace with ourselves, we would not have any negative energy, therefore there would be no evil akin to those described in line 1.

Is Evil a property of the world, just like the law of gravity? Suppose we say that eating a child is an evil. Every morally sound person on Earth should agree with us. Why? Because we feel some kind of a connection with the child and imagine ourselves hurt when we see him hurt.

Yet, if we see an alligator eating a child, do we call him evil? What about a mentally derganed person? I would not think so, because such agents are not capable of making ethical judgments. They simply don't know what they do. Therefore only a clearly reasoning person with intents to hurt should be considered evil. Thus, an evil person is one who is out of tune with his inner nature (lacks inner peace) and derives satisfaction by exerting his negative energy to the outer world. This manifests in his conscious mind in the guise of what we typically refer to as wicked motives, those that can seduce us into behaviors listed in line one. Thus, it follows that evil is necessarily a property of human nature, it is not a property of the external world like gravity is. Therefore anyone who is not a person, or has a sound human mind is not liable to moral judgments.

Suppose we have a personal god. If he is a person, then indeed he does share our nature. Then basically, you'd have to wonder why does he not get upset at the sight of one of us being tortured like we naturally do at the sight of a child being eaten?Lets take this thought experiment further. Suppose God is a person just like we receive him in the Bible. He emotes just like we tend to. Such a person is analogous to Hobbes's Leviathan. Why would he make the kind of a world that he would? Because it benefits him. He, just like us, likely did not think things through and called whatever he liked good, and whatever he disliked evil. Yet, did not consider that many of the things that pleased him would hurt mankind. Thus, by objective assessment of good and evil, such a god is evil. As he derives gratification from observing things that we typically refer to as evil. He is much analogous to the person who does not see a problem having others harmed to meet the end of his own satisfaction. Suppose he truly is good, (closer in tune with his benign side)as good as a person can be. Yet, when he creates things in his own image, his creations could easily inhere his anima side. Why would he create a less than the best of all possible worlds for us? First of all because he himself, being a person, is far from perfect, therefore is likely unable to. And would not go too far out of his way to accomodate us because doing so may undermine his power, retention of which is his ultimate goal.

If he is a creator, than he created all things? If he is a person, than he could not be all good or all wise. As notions like 'all good' and 'all wise' are ideas, they are abstractions. They could not be embodied in a concrete essence. As Jung pointed out God is necessarily good and evil. As we all have an anima, thus, him being a person, he must also have an anima. Therefore the key to being a good person is cultivating your good said and shirking your wicked side.

The most reasonable account for this is God making evil and hell is merely evidence of him carrying out his vendetta against Lucifer and his enemies.

Dont count on God being all good, just make sure you're on his good side by supporting him and not his enemy Lucifer.

It is a mistake to equate Lucifer with evil. The most reasonable notion of an evil person is one who kills, rapes, steals..whatever..

Yet Lucifer's crime was disobedience to authority. He later was demonized as the character who steals, kills and destroys by God. Certainly he may have done so afterwards in his warfare with his enemy, yet there can be no doubt that God engaged in similar acts towards Lucifer. Therefore, killing stealing and destroying on his behalf is not any more or less condemnable than it is on the behalf of God. The reason why we refer to his deeds as evil and to the deeds of God as good is because we think that God will give us what we want in the long run--salvation. Therefore, we do not think about what terms of good or evil truly mean, we just call whatever we like good, and whatever we dont like evil.

Bertrand Russell asserts that Christians can not adequately give an account about the origin of evil, because even if we said 'Lucifer chose' in order for Lucifer to choose the element of evil, the element must've been available so that it can be chosen!...

The Christian perspective does not contemplate what good and evil truly are. It equates doing what God likes with good, and doing what he does not like evil. These two terms are highly misleading. What we have is desired by god and undesired by god. Yet, there is very little correlation between the two and moral soundness.

What do you think?
(p.s. even if you don't believe in the existence of God, you can still analyze the story and even more, this is your chance to prove that the divine dichotomy (God/Devil) that took place prior to this world's existence, is not valid, and therefore we don't even know who came up with the idea of evil...

It is not clear if you're asking about the problem of evil, or the what the Bible calls evil 'undesired by god'.

The answer to the former is that an evil person is one who is out of tune with his inner nature, one who instead of receiving feelings of rerpobation and disgust at the sight of a child being eaten, is 'turned on'.

As for the latter. What we have is a powerful ruler, we do not know anything about his moral soundness, only that he proclaims to be good. There is no reason for us to take his word for this. He had an enemy who was convinced that he could subvert his power, thus the ruler threatens to destroy him and everyone who follows the enemy for good. Thus exhorts us to follow himself and not the enemy. We do not know which of the two is morally superior or whose cause was right, terrified at the notion of being destroyed we side with the ruler. We dont know which of the two is good, we just call the one who we think will make us happy in the long run good. We never bothered to make an impartial evaluation of character of our father figure god.

Therefore, the problem of evil has little to do what the Bible considers evil. For this reason, the two should be kept in seperate accounts.

 

[Kiddo]

Sadly this discussion has veered in the wrong direction. Initially the topic was the origin of evil, more specifically evaluating the account provided by the Scriptures, and finding inconsistencies, lacunes, and so forth, yet many of the comments seem to focus on the human aspect as the source of evil.

God made man in his own image. So either you accept God as imperfect and capable of evil, or you have to decide that man, by itself, created evil. I was working under the premise that god was pure and altruistic by his very nature, so I explored the latter. As you found my thoughts unsatisfactory, I will leave the analysis of scripture to the more qualified.

 

[LIND]

BLUEWING my friend, I think you might've answered my question.