Did God Create Evil?

[Rescued One]

If not, how does it exist?

Romans 9:22 NKJV
What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,

Proverbs 16:4-5 NKJV
The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.
Everyone proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD; Though they join forces, none will go unpunished.

 

[XrzrX]

Well, here's where I out myself as "non Reformed" But yeah, evil is not a "creation". It is a corruption of a creation that God called "very good". If I take a knife and slash a beautiful painting.. I didn't "create" defaced art.. I defaced art.. nor did the artist "create" defacing art. His art was defaced. God is absolutely Sovereign, and He has sovereignly decreed that man may 'defy' Him. To no avail, as God ultimately effects His plan, period. No matter ANY eventuality. But, to claim otherwise creates untenable contradiction within scripture.

 

[Rescued One]

Thank you. I hope to get more responses but I'm getting off line for now.

 

[ReverendRV]

If not, how does it exist?

Romans 9:22 NKJV
What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,

Proverbs 16:4-5 NKJV
The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.
Everyone proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD; Though they join forces, none will go unpunished.

God Creates Evil Surreptitiously. He Creates Light and Darkness; how? By being Light and by shining. His Light casts Shadows when it encounters Matter; Shadows are Darkness which is Created unsolicited. The same goes for Evil; God Creates Evil by being Peace. Evil is a result of our encountering the God of Perfection, and being evaluated by his Standard of Moral Perfection...

But God DOES Create Evil; he says so. But he does it in a way it's not his fault. No more than it's the Sun's fault by Shining; it's the Tree's fault by creating a shadow. Both the Light and the tree Cast the Shadow...

This speaks of Compatibalism. We create the Evil; and God Creates the Evil. But we Alone create the Sin; God doesn't. God says it never enters his Mind to Cause people to Sin. But he also says that he Means the Evil Acts of Men for Good. God is not the Author of Evil and Sin...


There's a reason God compares Creating Darkness to Creating Evil; the comparison is drawn...

 

[fastfredy0]

Did God Create Evil?​

Short Story
Evil is not a THING that exists like matter or energy. Evil is a description of what is happening IN creation. Evil was not "created" by God nor by us. Evil is a description of the ungodly, unrighteous, unjust actions of human beings.


Long Story
Two Aspects of the Problem Source: https://www.str.org/articles/augustine-on-evil

The problem of evil can be phrased in several ways. One approach addresses the origin of evil, prompting the syllogism:
1) God created all things;
2) evil is a thing;
3) therefore, God created evil. If the first two premises are true, the conclusion is inescapable.
This formulation, if sustained, is devastating for Christianity. God would not be good if He knowingly created evil.

Augustine realized that the solution was tied to the question: What is evil? The argument above depends on the idea that evil is a thing (note the second premise). But what if evil is not a "thing" in that sense? Then evil did not need creating. If so, our search for the source of evil will take us in a another direction.

Augustine approached the problem from a different angle. He asked: Do we have any convincing evidence that a good God exists? If independent evidence leads us to conclude that God exists and is good, then He would be incapable of creating evil. Something else, then, must be its source.

If Augustine's approach is fair, it prompts a pair of syllogisms that lead to a different conclusion.

First:
1) All things that God created are good;
2) evil is not good;
3) therefore, evil was not created by God.

Second:
1) God created everything;
2) God did not create evil;
3) therefore, evil is not a thing.

The key to success here, is the truthfulness of two premises. If Augustine can offer evidence through natural theology that God exists as Creator and also that God is good, making everything He created also good, then the conclusion--evil is not a thing--automatically follows.

This is Augustine's strategy. If evil is not a thing, then the case against Christianity stated in the original syllogism is unsound because one of its premises is false. The critical question is: What is evil?

 

[XrzrX]

Did God Create Evil?​

Short Story
Evil is not a THING that exists like matter or energy. Evil is a description of what is happening IN creation. Evil was not "created" by God nor by us. Evil is a description of the ungodly, unrighteous, unjust actions of human beings.


Long Story
Two Aspects of the Problem Source: https://www.str.org/articles/augustine-on-evil

The problem of evil can be phrased in several ways. One approach addresses the origin of evil, prompting the syllogism:
1) God created all things;
2) evil is a thing;
3) therefore, God created evil. If the first two premises are true, the conclusion is inescapable.
This formulation, if sustained, is devastating for Christianity. God would not be good if He knowingly created evil.

Augustine realized that the solution was tied to the question: What is evil? The argument above depends on the idea that evil is a thing (note the second premise). But what if evil is not a "thing" in that sense? Then evil did not need creating. If so, our search for the source of evil will take us in a another direction.

Augustine approached the problem from a different angle. He asked: Do we have any convincing evidence that a good God exists? If independent evidence leads us to conclude that God exists and is good, then He would be incapable of creating evil. Something else, then, must be its source.

If Augustine's approach is fair, it prompts a pair of syllogisms that lead to a different conclusion.

First:
1) All things that God created are good;
2) evil is not good;
3) therefore, evil was not created by God.

Second:
1) God created everything;
2) God did not create evil;
3) therefore, evil is not a thing.

The key to success here, is the truthfulness of two premises. If Augustine can offer evidence through natural theology that God exists as Creator and also that God is good, making everything He created also good, then the conclusion--evil is not a thing--automatically follows.

This is Augustine's strategy. If evil is not a thing, then the case against Christianity stated in the original syllogism is unsound because one of its premises is false. The critical question is: What is evil?

Excellent answer.

 

[XrzrX]

God Creates Evil Surreptitiously. He Creates Light and Darkness; how? By being Light and by shining. His Light casts Shadows when it encounters Matter; Shadows are Darkness which is Created unsolicited. The same goes for Evil; God Creates Evil by being Peace. Evil is a result of our encountering the God of Perfection, and being evaluated by his Standard of Moral Perfection...

But God DOES Create Evil; he says so. But he does it in a way it's not his fault. No more than it's the Sun's fault by Shining; it's the Tree's fault by creating a shadow. Both the Light and the tree Cast the Shadow...

This speaks of Compatibalism. We create the Evil; and God Creates the Evil. But we Alone create the Sin; God doesn't. God says it never enters his Mind to Cause people to Sin. But he also says that he Means the Evil Acts of Men for Good. God is not the Author of Evil and Sin...


There's a reason God compares Creating Darkness to Creating Evil; the comparison is drawn...

The verse in question states that God "creates calamity.." entirely different than 'moral evil'. God detests wickedness, and explicitly ordains that man chooses righteousness above wickedness, verbatim. No amount of philosophical manipulation can get around that fact.

 

[Rescued One]

Whew! I never heard any of this. I hope John Bauer will respond.

 

[Rescued One]

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

ISAIAH 45:7

 

[Rescued One]

Second, the Hebrew word translated as “evil” in the above King James translation is translated as “calamity” (NASB, ESV) or “disaster” (NIV) in other major translations. Even the updated New King James translation renders it as “calamity.” That’s because, like any word, it can have multiple meanings, and it’s usually the context that determines which meaning was intended by the author. That brings us to the final point.

https://www.str.org/w/does-isaiah-45-7-teach-that-god-created-evil-#:~:text=Even%20the%20updated%20New%20King,punish%20those%20who%20do%20wrong.

This is helpful, I think.

 

[makesends]

If not, how does it exist?

Romans 9:22 NKJV
What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,

Proverbs 16:4-5 NKJV
The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.
Everyone proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD; Though they join forces, none will go unpunished.

Might be worth asking if evil DOES exist. What does "exist" mean?

 

[Rescued One]

Evil is a noun or adverb.

 

[ReverendRV]

The verse in question states that God "creates calamity.." entirely different than 'moral evil'. God detests wickedness, and explicitly ordains that man chooses righteousness above wickedness, verbatim. No amount of philosophical manipulation can get around that fact.

The Verse in question states that God Creates Peace and 'Ra'. God Created the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and 'Ra'. A Physical tree...

There's no need to go there...

 

[XrzrX]

The Verse in question states that God Creates 'Ra'. God Created the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and 'Ra'. A Physical tree...

There's no need to go there...

We need to 'go there', because God's character is impugned constantly by Gnostic philosophical tripe.. and has been since the beginning. Now, I don't presume to "defend God", but we are are called to defend the Hope within us, and as I illustrated, If I paint a masterpiece.. and some demon decides to smear, marr and vandalize it, I certainly don't want people to stand there and claim "Well, the artist 'created' this ugly desecration because he painted it in the first place". It's philosophical inanity.. not Truth.

 

[ReverendRV]

We need to 'go there', because God's character is impugned constantly by Gnostic philosophical tripe.. and has been since the beginning. Now, I don't presume to "defend God", but we are are called to defend the Hope within us, and as I illustrated, If I paint a masterpiece.. and some demon decides to smear, marr and vandalize it, I certainly don't want people to stand there and claim "Well, the artist 'created' this ugly desecration because he painted it in the first place". It's philosophical inanity.. not Truth.

We don't need to go there, because we are Sola Scripturists; not Sola Philosophers. The First use of the word Ra, sets the standard definition of Ra. It is not, "the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Calamity". Not using alternative definitions of the words "Light, Darkness and Good", shows it is a Case of Special Pleading to say that Ra should be translated with an alternate definition...

If someone's Mother was said to have been documented as making something Evil; it makes no sense to say, "No! That impugns that Sainted Mother's character, so we MUST use an alternate definition". That's Eisegesis...

There's no need to go there. Interpret the word Ra as Evil...

 

[XrzrX]

We don't need to go there, because we are Sola Scripturists; not Sola Philosophers. The First use of the word Ra, sets the standard definition of Ra. It is not, "the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Calamity". Not using alternative definitions of the words "Light, Darkness and Good", shows it is a Case of Special Pleading to say that Ra should be translated with an alternate definition...

If someone's Mother was said to have been documented as making something Evil; it makes no sense to say, "No! That impugns that Sainted Mother's character, so we MUST use an alternate definition". That's Eisegesis...

There's no need to go there. Interpret the word Ra as Evil...

But it's clearly NOT 'moral evil'.. that would not be the antithesis of "Peace" it would be of "Good". "Shalom".. peace, well being, security, prosperity.. not "Moral Good". Hebrews had very few words and it's context that defines them. Edited by Moderator: Rule violation 2.1, 2.2, possibly 5.2 Please be respectful, instead of shrilling and contentious.

 

[ReverendRV]

But it's clearly NOT 'moral evil'.. that would not be the antithesis of "Peace" it would be of "Good". "Shalom".. peace, well being, security, prosperity.. not "Moral Good". Hebrews had very few words and it's context that defines them. I mean seriously, this garbage, and it IS Gnostic garbage is one of the poisons that is the foundation of Humanist cancer that has rotted our culture, and every culture for Millenia. God is GOOD... ALL GOOD, ONLY GOOD.. period. And if His children can't unequivocally state that then what a sickening travesty.

Calamity is Evil, it is Ra. God does all this. Evil is the primary definition of the Masculine Noun; Calamity is the last definition of the Masculine Noun. Evil is the overwhelming definition of the word Ra. In all the sub definitions, each of them begin with the word Evil. You end up with 'Evil Calamity'...

There is no need to go there...

 

[makesends]

XrzrX said:
God is GOOD... ALL GOOD, ONLY GOOD.. period. And if His children can't unequivocally state that then (deleted)

@XrzrX , I haven't read the whole exchange here, but it jumps out at me when people speak as you do here. It is a mistake to attribute God with only YOUR notion of good. I won't say you are doing this, but many will get carried away with something that offends them, because they don't see how (in this case, for example) God can do anything difficult (Edit: 'difficult' for us humans to deal with). This is probably the easiest source of "libertarian free will" arguments. People that begin there don't even realize that their claim intimates that God is not after all omnipotent.

(But this thread isn't about free will, so if you want to debate that, we will need to go to another thread.)

Yes, God is only ever good and loving, but that doesn't depend on what we think. Logic and Scripture both say that everything that happens, happens by God's decree (which the Reformed also refer to as God's Sovereign Will, which is not at all the same thing as God's Command, which is what is generally what people think of as God's will, saying such things as, "God's will is what we cooperate with in obedience".)

 

[XrzrX]

XrzrX said:
God is GOOD... ALL GOOD, ONLY GOOD.. period. And if His children can't unequivocally state that then (deleted)

@XrzrX , I haven't read the whole exchange here, but it jumps out at me when people speak as you do here. It is a mistake to attribute God with only YOUR notion of good. I won't say you are doing this, but many will get carried away with something that offends them, because they don't see how (in this case, for example) God can do anything difficult. This is probably the easiest source of "libertarian free will" arguments. People that begin there don't even realize that their claim intimates that God is not after all omnipotent.

(But this thread isn't about free will, so if you want to debate that, we will need to go to another thread.)

Yes, God is only ever good and loving, but that doesn't depend on what we think. Logic and Scripture both say that everything that happens, happens by God's decree (which the Reformed also refer to as God's Sovereign Will, which is not at all the same thing as God's Command, which is what is generally what people think of as God's will, saying such things as, "God's will is what we cooperate with in obedience".)

Yeah, I've had this debate a thousand times and outside of my vent, I don't intend to engage in it here or at all anymore if I can help it. And frankly, because I think its a lost cause. And I apologize for any offence, my desire is absolutely for unity.. but, there is so much pressing heresy in the world, "Torahists" being head of the leaderboard now, the I just don't have the heart for debating this error any longer. It's one of the ones that's so evidently error, that I barely have the patience for it. And again, I won't throw out the "Manichaeism" trope, because of course I'm not 'Arminian", however, if one can't admit the 'Fatalism", elements of Docetism and "Meticulous Determinism" in their philosophy, and recognize it AS philosophy, and know it's roots then we're not having an honest discussion. It's flagrant error. The prooftexts ALL fall. Some make it out, many don't.

 

[XrzrX]

Calamity is Evil, it is Ra. God does all this. Evil is the primary definition of the Masculine Noun; Calamity is the last definition of the Masculine Noun. Evil is the overwhelming definition of the word Ra. In all the sub definitions, each of them begin with the word Evil. You end up with 'Evil Calamity'...

There is no need to go there...

I apologize Rev for setting a contentious tone, not my goal. To me, that verse is simply parsed, and it's frustrating that That one in particular is used incessantly by atheists and other enemies of God, and to have to field it from brothers as well, it gets wearisome. But yeah, that one is one of the perennial "hits".