The Problem of Evil

Hi Tel, and welcome! God "creates evil" by visiting the fruit of evil doings. In the Old Testament, it was an eye for an eye - a tooth for a tooth. The wagers of sin is death.In Isaiah, it says that "oh if thou hast hearkened unto my commandments, thy peace would have been as a river", yet it also say that "the evil of your doings" "Thou hast trusted in thy wickedness.....therefore evil shall come upon thee." If then - God visits the evil of "humans's" doings, he is simply doing that - creating the outcome of sin. What the passage means is that God brings/creates evil FOR the wicked and sinful. It's no big deal like a quote-minor would have you believe.

I thought that was your implication (premise)? Enlighten me as to what your specific premise was.I thought your premise was that evil actions = precursory thoughts.Or is your premise that bad thoughts generate evil acts? Like envy/greed = theft.Either way, these premises are not conditional SD. Bad thoughts don't necessarily lead to evil acts, and evil actions might not have precursory thoughts. For example, If I got angry (emotion) - and simply murdered my friend without thinking about it. I don't see why. I have sinful thoughts that don't generate evil acts, and I do evil acts without thinking sometimes.

Likewise - not everyone who is christian calls people evil. Hhhmmmmmm. "They". Shall I also be a bit skeptical like Jason? I mean - I personally think that you're just saying "they" call you evil to back up your position, but then, please convince me otherwise.This post INDEED clarifies things. Hmmmm.How do I not know that Asgara is infact you, as she is the one who clarifies your story. This is atleast logically possible.

Does that mean that all christians say this?Why ofcourse not. Logic has exited. Jar for example, has never said this to you.So "they" just insults the wizbox.

Thanks Ja'.I think you're right. Nobody has infact decided on the definition.Infact, was it you who said natural calamities were interpreted as evil?This would be consistent with the bible. In the book of Job - they insist Job is sinful because evil has come upon him. Yet a natural occurence of a roof blowing in on his children is obviously an "evil" that's upon him. Again, this agrees with the book of Isaiah - that the evil of people's doings visits them. Yet Job was a rarity - as God knew he was righteouss, but rather satan was involved.Also - there are three "love" in the bible. Always - the bible will say "love" in english. But I think there are three "levels".So infact God creating evil, could simply be that God is visiting the sins of people, through "causing" say - a natural event. Hope that helps. As for evil, it's hard to define.

Fair enough.You see, I'm sure that scientific "they"s are also in existence.Did you know, that there are objective religious scientists?But hey - if you mean "they" as people, then you are making more sense in my book.God bless.

Listen, your side says be logical and objective. An objective logician will not simply assume that she is who she says she is.It is a logical possibility - that Asgara is the newbie. Whether you like it or not.But now I'll return to christian mode (geez - which one d'ya want) - I doubt she isn't who she says she is, but we hardly called her a liar, we were just not assuming, we were trying to be objective. Maybe we are just being defensive me and Jason - as we don't recall calling anyone evil, when we read "they" - but since "they" are now people - I'll get back in my pram.

Have you actually anything to contribute bloke? Other than emotional side-banter when you can't have christians banished from the site?So far I'm a weasel on drugs. How immoral of you, and you call yourself an atheist! Ned puts you to shame! Maybe I should preach hell-bound sermons. Nevertheless, quote ONE that I have made!!!! Hah!!

Okay then - bible unbeliever.Spare me the "how unchristian" rant. I don't care if I'm an inflatable atheist Jew on heat, as long as I believe in Christ and am written in his book.Listen - if it comforts you, I even doubt that she isn't who she says she is. But one must be open-minded.It's easy to "assume" something. If I say "that's my dad" - and point to the man and a pot next to him then naturally you will assume he(my dad) is not the pot right?........But his ashes could be inside the pot!This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 08-11-2004 01:14 PM

It's okay SleepingDragon, no apology is necessary, as you have now clarified your post for me. Thankyou. Fair enough. I will come back to read your post when I have more time. I apologize for not finding time. But I am not really against what I have quickly read from your post, as far as I can see.