Religion, Faith, and Spirituality : The question of evil

Through history many have questioned why God allows evil. You may have asked this yourself.

The answer is two parts and you ain't going to like the second part.

First answer is Mercy. He is giving mankind, all of mankind, time to unfuck themselves.

Second answer… your question doesnt matter.

Imagine the devil. He spends 6000 years causing as much havoc as he possibly can goes to all that effort killing, destroying, despising. God snaps His fingers and all that evil is undone even better than brand new. Makes the evil irrelevant. Makes the question irrelevant.

---

I would agree with you but then both of us would be wrong

The devil is so clever that I think he's been pretending to be God for 6000 years, just to **** us up royally. He is the one that inspired the bible, and we all fell for it. Greatest con ever perpetuated!

Free Will creates evil.

"I am good, but not an angel. I do sin, but I am not the devil." -Marolyn Monroe

many have questioned why God allows evil…

First answer is Mercy. He is giving mankind, all of mankind, time to unfuck themselves.

First off, God does not only 'allow' evil, He admits creating it (Isiah 45:7), natural evil at least. The rest of your first answer is unbiblical. For one thing if God is giving us time, then why are dead evildoers supposedly always being punished by eternal fire at once as soon as judged? (Indeed, why does the Bible mention such an infinite punishment at all (Mat 18:8, 25:41, and Jude 7 etc) if it is not to be?

Second answer… your question doesn't matter. Imagine the devil. He spends 6000 years..

Soul_Venom believes the world is only 6,000 years old LOL

…causing as much havoc as he possibly can goes to all that effort killing, destroying, despising. God snaps His fingers and all that evil is undone even better than brand new.

One wonders why, if this is the case, why God just doesn't get on with it. Curing childhood cancer for all, for instance; absolving the sinful etc. 6,000 years means quite a few generations have passed and still we haven't 'unfucked' ourselves. What makes you think things will be different over the next? Or is the idea of 'an-all loving god' which creates an imperfect world and tolerates the inevitable evil ultimately that which just ****s us all up? Or, if the Question of Evil truly is irrelevant since all turn out fine despite it, then why worry about it (as Christian apologists have done incessantly down the years) and argue for the necessity of doing right over wrong in the first place?

Ultimately your claim just seems special pleading for a type of God to side-step the famous Epicurean Paradox.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/readersblog/sauravbanerjeeblogs/the-epicurean-paradox-53130/

---

I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

It is unfortunate that not all english translations are precise. God sometimes allows evil to happen but does not directly create it.

For a more in depth explanation:
https://www.str.org/w/does-isaiah-45-7-teach-that-god-created-evil-

---

I would agree with you but then both of us would be wrong

God sometimes allows evil to happen but does not directly create it.

And so "I am the LORD, and there is no other. 7 I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create evil ; I, the LORD, do all these things"

really means… let's see:

Your link admits that if read straightforwardly it would it would render the Bible incoherent. Yep, so onto it: your link quite rightly points out that here 'evil' is sometimes interpreted as “calamity” (NASB, ESV) or “disaster” (NIV) in other major translations. (Or more precisely seen as any 'natural evil' although as it is still 'evil' nonetheless so, rather conspicuously, this is not mentioned). But they still agree that "He’s [still] responsible for bringing prosperity to those who are faithful and calamity to those who rebel. "

Disasters and calamities such as earthquakes, tsunamis, and hurricanes are considered natural evils. Natural evils are events that cause suffering without a perpetrator to blame. They are different from moral evils, which are the acts of humans that are considered morally wrong, such as murder and theft.

Then they say, that "God didn’t bring evil into existence. It’s the result of sin and our fallen world." But they have just admitted He did! Then they end with "Isaiah 45:7 was a reminder that God blessed those who honored him and brought calamity upon those who disobeyed." It seems this is a poor attempt at Cakeism. Or if one admits that calamities and disasters and all natural evils exist but does not consider them bad events, then this reeks of special pleading. For one thing if they are not so unpleasant, then what sort of punishment do they bring to 'those who rebel'?

---

I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

It is one of those stupidity is its own punishment types of deal. God wished to protect His children but He is unable to do so if they reject His protection. Those not under his protection fall victim to natural evils.

Or in other words if you refuse to stand under the umbrella you will get wet.

---

I would agree with you but then both of us would be wrong

Those not under his protection fall victim to natural evils.

Unfortunately it is simply not the case that clearly good people, let alone Christians per se, suffer less from natural evils than those less deserving. The devastating tsunami of a few years ago did not part and wash around the faithful. Nor did the blessed get advance warning. (As an atheist I suspect one obvious reason for that, but that is for another time)

One notes though that now the pretence that your god does not admit to creating natural evil in the first place is abandoned.

---

I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

Matthew 5:45

One notes

Bull.
Shit.
I abandon nothing. You merely assume. That is your problem.

---

I would agree with you but then both of us would be wrong

So when in Isiah God says that He creates natural evil at least, He does not mean what He says?

Matt 5:45 simply shows that God appears to make no distinction between good and evil when it suits him. No wonder if He created them both.

---

I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

First you misunderstand Matthew. God is Just. He gives all an equal opportunity to repent and be forgiven.

I also challenge your notion of natural evil. I think you are confusing the consequences of evil with evil itself. When God created the world it was good. Sin corrupted it. The consequences of an evil act is not necessarily evil in and of itself even if it causes death and destruction.

---

I would agree with you but then both of us would be wrong

First you misunderstand Matthew. God is Just. He gives all an equal opportunity to repent and be forgiven.

The point still stands that, in that Matthew passage, ["That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust"] good and evil are merely shown as treated equally; there is no mention of 'opportunities to repent', more than God loves sinners and the good alike (even though He pledges to send the former into eternal torment). EG

What does Matthew 5:45 mean?
God loves everyone in the world, both the good people and those who are evil. How do we know that? Jesus offers one bit of evidence: God causes the sun to shine and the rain to fall on everyone, no matter who they are or what they are guilty of.

What it all has to do with your god creating at least one sort of evil only you can say and seems an irrelevant distraction.

I also challenge your notion of natural evil. I think you are confusing the consequences of evil with evil itself. When God created the world it was good. Sin corrupted it.

Actually the words are 'very good'; but whatever, that is not the same as 'perfect', so neither God nor we ought to be surprised when a deliberately imperfect creation inevitably brings imperfect results.

The point still remains that in Isiah your god specifically admits making what is commonly glossed as natural evil, which has been the point made all along. He does not say that He 'just made the consequences', if that is what you are saying - and which sounds like the special pleading of an apologist.

The consequences of an evil act is not necessarily evil in and of itself even if it causes death and destruction.

In the case of your god which instigates or authorises genocide, mass killing, rape, mutilation etc does this mean you are falling back on Command Theory to excuse it? You where that inevitably leads don't you, and its bad rep among many philosophers? And, er, God creates evil acts? Have you thought this through?

---

I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

God does not create evil. I am done trying to explain it to someone who doesn't want to know and will make no effort to comprehend.

Your mockery is noted.

---

I would agree with you but then both of us would be wrong

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

---

I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

You are hung up on a bad translation.

---

I would agree with you but then both of us would be wrong

As already mentioned 'evil' is sometimes glossed as 'disaster' or 'calamity'. But the calamities of childhood cancers and tsunamis are still bad no matter how one translates things and your god made them all. As the link you kindly provided had to admit: " "He’s [still] responsible for bringing prosperity to those who are faithful and calamity to those who rebel. " Thank you for playing.

---

I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

Now you are attempting to side step from tsunamis to cancer? That is some fancy dancing.

Smugness noted.

---

I would agree with you but then both of us would be wrong

In case you haven't realised both are natural evils. You may wish to mug up on this stuff before proceeding.

"Natural evil is evil for which no non-divine agent can be held morally responsible and is chiefly derived from the operation of the laws of nature."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_evil

---

I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

filmflaneur said... In case you haven't realised both are natural evils. You may wish to mug up on this stuff before proceeding.

"Natural evil is evil for which no non-divine agent can be held morally responsible and is chiefly derived from the operation of the laws of nature."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_evil

expand

A human definition. Not a Biblical one.

While you are busy defining things I suggest you study the definition of
Spiritual blindness
An affliction from which you appear to suffer.

---

I would agree with you but then both of us would be wrong

Soul_Venom said... A human definition. Not a Biblical one.

While you are busy defining things I suggest you study the definition of
Spiritual blindness
An affliction from which you appear to suffer.

expand

A human definition. Not a Biblical one.

This sounds a bit desperate. One notes that there are plenty definitions of evil in scripture too.

The only other definition, if this is the case, is that Isiah's words mean all evil, moral and natural. So your deity is still on the hook.

Spiritual blindness An affliction from which you appear to suffer.

ad hominem noted.

---

I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

filmflaneur said...

A human definition. Not a Biblical one.

This sounds a bit desperate. One notes that there are plenty definitions of evil in scripture too.

The only other definition, if this is the case, is that Isiah's words mean all evil, moral and natural. So your deity is still on the hook.

Spiritual blindness An affliction from which you appear to suffer.

ad hominem noted.

expand

That is not and ad hominem. It is a diagnosis.

Your failure is noted.

---

I would agree with you but then both of us would be wrong

Soul_Venom said... That is not and ad hominem. It is a diagnosis.

Your failure is noted.

expand

An ad hominem is when the person is addressed, usually insultingly, rather than their arguments. But thank you anyway.

---

I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

filmflaneur said... An ad hominem is when the person is addressed, usually insultingly, rather than their arguments. But thank you anyway.

expand

Not my problem if you find it insulting. I merely pointed out a fact.

---

I would agree with you but then both of us would be wrong

Soul_Venom said... Not my problem if you find it insulting. I merely pointed out a fact.

expand

Its your problem if you insult rather than take part in an debate. But I guess that is all you have. See you next time.

---

I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

filmflaneur said... Its your problem if you insult rather than take part in an debate. But I guess that is all you have. See you next time.

expand

Pointing out that you suffer from spiritual blindness is no different that pointing out someone has a cold. If you chosen to take offense where none was intended that is your problem.

---

I would agree with you but then both of us would be wrong

Soul_Venom said... Pointing out that you suffer from spiritual blindness is no different that pointing out someone has a cold. If you chosen to take offense where none was intended that is your problem.

expand

And now you just protest too much…

---

I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

filmflaneur said... And now you just protest too much…

expand

^^The reply you can expect when you are forced to slow walk smug people through a concept they find hard to understand.

---

I would agree with you but then both of us would be wrong

Soul_Venom said... ^^The reply you can expect when you are forced to slow walk smug people through a concept they find hard to understand.

expand

you are forced to slow walk smug people through a cocept [sic] they find hard to understand

Too true. But even so, if you want slow walking through what constitutes natural evil again - you know the sort God admits to making in Isiah - just let me know.

---

I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

What is Evil?

---

My password is password

---

My password is password

Sure. But what makes these people evil?

---

My password is password

I've told you Soul, you need to get back on the road with JESUS, are you really gonna let yourself burn in hell!???? and for what??????? lust? haterd? pish posh, pray without ceasing, get on that horse again boy!

Another example of why religion is for retards like you

---

Muh Scalps:
https://i.ibb.co/VwnxQZL/IMG-5517.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/gm1z9QJ/IMG-5555.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/CM60Md8/IMG-5376.jpg

You have a personal religion. Possibly several. How would you make sense of the world without a belief system?

I would argue that having one solid belief system in the modern world might make you seem crazy, but you would feel much less crazy considering they change what they tell you to believe every other day.

---

My password is password

“Belief system” yeah it’s called an education

---

Muh Scalps:
https://i.ibb.co/VwnxQZL/IMG-5517.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/gm1z9QJ/IMG-5555.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/CM60Md8/IMG-5376.jpg

What is "education" then?

---

My password is password

Science, math, philosophy… not supernatural quackery

---

Muh Scalps:
https://i.ibb.co/VwnxQZL/IMG-5517.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/gm1z9QJ/IMG-5555.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/CM60Md8/IMG-5376.jpg