The Great Debate

according to the official rules, as defined by mr ex. nihilo himself: i cut you some slack, of course, because i missed by a day myself. it's now been more than three weeks since i last replied. if you'd like to continue this at a later date, due to real-life concerns or whathaveyou, that's ok by me. i hope you're ok and everything.anyways. i think you forfeit a turn.the verse we were discussing was:

quote:

---

Isaiah 45:7

​

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

---

i have been arguing that the literal meaning of this verse, aside from anything structural is that god does two things: one at each extreme. an alpha and omega, so to speak.the interpretative meaning, according to context, is that god is picking who wins a battle -- there cannot be two winners. one side must lose. the "evil" here is the defeat, and the "good" the victory. this means that the biblical definition of evil is subjective, because both the good and the evil are technically refering to the very same event: the outcome of the battle. applied to us, this means that "good" and "evil" seem to be relative human terms, and that god is above those particular definitions. do you agree this fits with the verse?so, the point of this verse is that god does some things that some people think are evil some of the time. similar points are made even when the hebrew are on the losing end:

quote:

---

Lamentations 3:38

​

Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?

---

this is somewhat a point about division, as you have said. god divides the good from the evil. but in essence, by choosing to not bestow blessing on a group (especially in favor of another) god is in effect "doing evil" to that group of people. in this case, the evil is done to city of jerusalem. god is righteous in his decisions -- but to the sinning hebrews he is doing evil. god himself even phrases it as such:

quote:

---

Ezekiel 6:10

​

And they shall know that I am the LORD, and that I have not said in vain that I would do this evil unto them.

---

god's evil is his abscence, yes. he forsakes judah and allows them to be captured and exiled in babylon. but the action of withdrawing his favor is called "evil" by god and the people who worship him. and it is phrased as an action god does. similarly, we might call a mother who abandons her baby in a trash dumpster "evil." the evil is not her action, but the lack of it, and it's still phrased an action she does: abuse.anyways, on to the forfeiture part -- because i think we can move on now. i've brought it up before, but here it is again:

quote:

---

Amos 3:6

​

Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid?
Shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

---

this, again, i think is pretty straightforward. but i'm sure you'll object. this might be a war reference too, depending on what a trumpet blowing in the city could mean. it might mean an invading army. either way, it's something the people seem afraid of.what this passage is saying, i think, is that people should not be afraid, because god has the authority. i think, in this respect, it's similar to matthew 6, which says that god takes care of the birds and the flower, why not the ones he loves? either way, the verse is speaking to the ultimate authority of god, who controls even the bad things that might happen to a people.so:

1. god does good and evil, speaks good and evil.
2. evil is subjective, and depends on the recipient not god or objective moral standards
3. god is in control of all things, including (all) evils
4. god is the original source of evil

shall we debate point 3 now?This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 08-23-2005 02:47 AM

---

אָרַח

My apologies arachnophilia. I gave my computer to my mom as a gift -- so I don't have easy access to the internet at home. I tried to go down to the library, but I can only get 1 hour slots -- which isn't enough time for me. With summer working, and family and kids, and everything else, I just haven't been able to reply as soon as I wanted.Anyway, since I don't have as much time as I used to -- let's just cut to the chase:

1. god does good and evil, speaks good and evil.
2. evil is subjective, and depends on the recipient not god or objective moral standards
3. god is in control of all things, including (all) evils
4. god is the original source of evil

Having read through your posts, I think we already agree on #3 as well -- although there are some finer points that we might disagree with. I think ultimately this last point, however, is the point that needs to be addressed: what is the original source of evil according to the Scriptures?If you want me to go back and respond to your previous posts, I will. There were some very important things I'd like to comment on, such as: or this: Actually, I was itching to respond to everything you posted in the last two posts -- especially the Hebrew parallelisms. However, I just know I won't be able to respond as quickly and conscisely as I did before now that I don't have a computer at home.I'd like to get to the heart of the matter as the Spirit leads and and finish this debate -- perhaps even taking off the time-restriction of "one week" if possible.Let me know what you think. If not, then I'll just request for the mods here to start a thread where others can start to judge our debate.By the way, according to the official rules, as defined by me. This didn't mean that a person would lose their turn to respond. This meant that they would lose the debate period due to lack of response. I think I'm actually the one cutting you some slack when you first missed by a day -- at least according to the rules of how I pictured an official debate.I'm not interested in winning a debate by a technicality. Although I have and I will continue to stress using some standards when engaging this debate, I also realize that there is life outside of EvC -- and that we all have things to do with family, work, and all that.Let me know if the time extension beyond one week is ok for you. If not, then AdminJar might as well start a new thread where others are invited to judge the debate -- and that would make our part in this discourse finished since it would then be up to "other people" to debate how well they felt we each did.Where do you want to go from here?

oh, ok. i was starting to get worried. i thought maybe you got like hit by a car or something. this actually really suprised me, but ok. we'll go one from here. this is really the heart of the debate, i think. the point we've been trying to get to. i don't actually know, and i'm open to some debate of course. my position here is relatively weak. if you'd like to, it's up to you. but as you said, they're relatively minor points. it was your rule, not mine. if you want to get rid of it, that's fine by me, especially given the circumstances. probably. but i'm more interested in the debate than "winning." but i think it's fine, we're both understanding people here. exactly. well, let's hash this last point out for a while, and see what we come up with. this is really the interesting point of the debate, and it'd be a shame to miss it because of some silly rule neither of us seem to care that much about anyways.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 08-28-2005 04:18 PM

---

אָרַח

Why did this surprise you? I agree. What exactly is your position? I've gone into lengthy detail about my own view. Could you at least present some idea on what you think might be the case according to the Scriptures?_____________________Note: Alight then. The rule on the one-week time limit is now officially scrapped from this discourse.

because you've disagreed with just about every other step of my logic... surely i expected to have to demonstrate that from scripture, at the very least. to be totally honest, i'm not exactly sure. i think the position of scripture is that there is no real objective moral evil, because nothing can really be against god except by his will. but that all evils (plural) are created to allow us valid choice. so that would lead me to believe that god in essence created Evil capital e, as well as Good, with the intent of allow human free will.this is somewhat analagous to god not being omni-present to allow for things like faith.

---

אָרַח

I have demonstrated from Scripture my own views many times in this thread. We do disagree in some areas. However, we have agreed on a number of key points too.Unfortunately I don't have the time to go into great detail about the finer points, so I'm just moving ahead to the conclusion. Yes, I understand your position. But ultimately where does evil come from, where is its source according to the Scriptures -- God or man?Do you feel that God created the "potential" for evil to happen -- or do feel that he created the universe so that there was "inevitable" that evil would indeed happen?The Scripture do quite plainly state that God is good -- GOD IS GOOD. Yet it never says that God is evil.The Scriptures also say that light dwells in God -- LIGHT DWELLS IN GOD. Yet it never says that darkness dwells in God.Let me put this another way -- when it says that God is "holy", what do you think the Scriptures mean? We both know that "holy" means to be "set apart" -- but what do you think that God is set apart from?Edit for clarificatoin: I believe that the Hebrew's concept of God's holiness was intricately linked with their concept of God being inately good -- that is, that God was "set apart" from evil. I suspect that many of the "holy items" they used were viewed as intimately good by virtue of their ordination from God himself -- they were seen as a visible sign of his holiness.If I'm understanding your position correctly, I think you believe that the Hebrew's concept of God's holiness was intricately linked with a concept of God being above judgement -- that is, that God's actions were "set apart" from human comdemnation. I suspect that, in this sense, you believe that good and evil were used arbitrarilly insomuch that one could relatively define good and evil -- that the concepts were spuriously used in juxtaposition to the whims and fancies of the Israelites themselves.Consequently, I think the later view (your view?) was exactly where many of the Israelites fell "off the mark" in the past. In this sense, as God's chosen people, some would seem to believe themselves as being above reproach simply because they were God's chosen people.This is a problem that is, in my opinion, not singular to the Israelites alone -- I readilly admit that my own Catholic faith often failed this very same temptation, especially during the 400's and Middle Age.However, as many passages of Scripture do indicate, the Israelites themselves were only considered valid representatives of God insofar as they were following God's orders. Their own "holiness" was oftentimes linked with their ability to do good in God's eyes -- therefore staying under his watchful protection. When they collectively failed to do God's will on a large scale, the ramifications were often horrific to behold. This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 10-03-2005 12:49 PM

Ok, just had some extra time to clarify a few things. You seem to be mixing up the concept of measuring "time" with the concept of mixing up "value".The concept of "day" and "night" comprise one 24 hour day -- but "light" and "dark" do not comprise one of anything in the Scriptures.Furthermore, a 24 hour day in certain parts of the world can and do often comprise entirely of daylight or else entirely of evening -- such as in the extreme poles of the earth. A 24 hour day can be solely one or the other -- and neither is required to measure the 24 hour time frame. I requoted this part above because I wasn't sure if you actually understood what I was saying. Alright, for the sake of this discussion, let's go with this logic then. If man if created in the image of God, and man is naive to evil, does this also mean that God is naive to evil?God, for example, is apparently looking for Adam and Eve after they partake in the tree. Certainly, if God indeed knows all things, he shouldn't have been surprised by this, correct?God, likewise, is apparently surprised by Adams' loneliness. Again, certainly, if God indeed knows all things, he shouldn't have been surprised by this, correct?Some would say that God was testing them, giving them the chance to confess so to speak. Others would say that God indeed didn't "know evil" until he discovered it.Which view would you take -- or is there another concept you would like to interject here?For the record, the Scriptures do sometimes make statments which seem to indicate that God can possibly be caught off gaurd.For example, Jeremiah speaks as follows: Admittedly, I suspect that this passsage is more used in a metephorical sense. However, bearing in mind the passages in the earliest chapters of the Genesis account, the Scriptures do seem to indicate that God can indeed be caught off gaurd.If God indeed cannot look upon sin (cf. is naive to evil), then many parts of the Scriptures would make sense. Who said the universe is naturally evil?I think the Scriptures indicate over and over again that the creation, while in pain, is still fundamentally good - just as God ordained it.Again, you seem to be invoking a dualism that, in my opinion, the Scriptures do not actually argue for. They can. If all teams join together and play on the same team, there will be no more opposing teams to be rivals against. In this instance everyone wins and nobody loses.Observe the following passage of Scripture... I certainly think that there were minor strains of Jewish thought which sought to exalt their own Jewish identity above the Lord they worshipped -- but I'm fairly sure that God's ultimate purpose went way above the "primitive" ideas of "good guys" and "bad guys". Yes, but creation can be like a mirror which reflects God's goodness. In all honestly, creation appears to be basically neutral, altough it leans in its Creators direction. Why? I don't think it does. Sure it is. Like a mirror it can reflect it's creators goodness -- which is what God designed it for -- because even creation gives praise to God.It seems to me that it's when something occults the image of God that the reflection of God becomes distorted -- much like viewing the world through a darknened glass. Sure it does.Edit: corrected spelling, added bold for emphasis, clarified various points by adding Scriptural references where appropriate.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 10-03-2005 12:29 PM

Ok, mom decided she didn't want the computer anymore, so she decided to give it back to me. I can now respond faster again. Everything ok there arachnophilia?

No problem. There's no more time restrictions for our debate here. Good. I'd like to hear what your prof has to say on the matter.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 10-03-2005 12:04 PM

yeah, just been really busy with school lately. i'll try to reply shortly, though not tonight -- i've got a class in half an hour, and then an art project to finish and a hebrew assignment to write when i get home.

---

אָרַח

ok, let me just run over those, as i've been a bit out of it lately, busy with school and whatnot.we agree that:

1. god does good and evil, speaks good and evil.
2. evil is subjective, and depends on the recipient not god or objective moral standards
3. god is in control of all things, including (all) evils

but as of right now, we do no agree that:

4. god is the original source of evil

well, this is kind of the debate. and i think we might actually be at the end of it, too. because i think we might agree here too, somewhat. like i said, i don't think the bible presents a view of an objective evil against god, but that it means a more relative kind of evil.but i'd like to point out that this point is fundamentally moot. if the source is man, and god is responsible for man, then the ultimate origin of evil lies with god, doesn't it? now, i don't mean to somehow conflate man's misdeeds with actions of god, i'm simply saying that if god is omniscient, and knew man would be evil in some respect, yet created us anyways, then god bears some responsibility there.so maybe a good question is whether or not the god of the bible is omniscient. i don't suspect he is. but anyways -- according to scriptures, the origin does in fact have to be with god. i won't quote genesis 2 and 3 back at you, i know you've read them. but the tree of knowledge of good and evil was placed in the garden of eden by god (not man) and granted man something godly.so the premise here is that god knows both good and evil, and the first conclusion we must reach is that both good and evil therefor exist at this point. so we have two choices: either there is an objective moral evil that god is not responsible for (say, another god, that god did not create) or evil is merely a condition of creation. we've already ruled out the first option, and the option of man creating evil is not allowed be contraints of the premise. he just hasn't been around long enough.the only remaining option, the one that evil is just a condition of existance, is entirely consistent with the subjectivity we've been discussing. at least, i think so. i'm not sure. does it make a difference, really? does subjective evil rule out objective good? i know we've talked before about subjective evils being used for objective good purposes, in a kind of sacrificial way. the way i believe personally is that god is indeed good, even when doing things we might call "evil." that's sort of it, i think. i think the holiness idea was really about a concept of god being fundamentally not human. genesis seems to be about god's commonality with us, and exodus seems to reflect the idea that god is also very different. in one book, god talks to and wrestles with mankind. in the other, mankind has to be kept at a safe distance.i don't profess to totally understand the hebrew position on holiness. for instance, it's said that holy books make the hands dirty -- the hebrews that were debating over canonization of the tanakh would have to wash their hands in a cleansing ritual after reading the scrolls. the bits that were holy made them dirty, not vice-versa.but i can tell you that "holiness" probably has more to do with ritual cleanliness than anything else. which is evidentally not the case. or at least the position of the bible. it does seem to be an axiom of the jewish faith that they can't, say, screw up "salvation" in their sense. they're god's people, what do they need to be saved from in the first place? but i think the mistake is to translate that as "above reproach." no one is above reproach, except of course god. and god, like any good parent, punishes his children when they need discipline. or at least not break any major rules. i think it's wrong to frame it in terms of good. it's when they do "evil in the sight of the lord." it's when they make an egregious trespass, hurting god in some respect. generally, it's when they forget god, and go off to follow other gods -- almost everytime you see this line of logic, it's basically because israel has been cheating.here's a question though. does a subjective view of evil become objective because the view is that of god's?

---

אָרַח

they are often used ing conjunction, though, as parallels, like day and night. they are also often used as synonyms for day and night, so the application is totally acceptable. as far as i know, the hebrews did not live anywhere close to either pole at the time the bible was written. i don't think it's acceptable to read "in the image of god" as "exactly like god." they evidently are not. (besides, this bit's from the other creation story -- don't expect it to fit perfectly). if god does indeed know all things. i'm not totally sure the god of genesis does -- but i think that's just the way he's presented there: more like us. i think the first is far more likely. it doesn't seem that god is unaware of evil, rather that he creates a tree called "knowledge of good and evil" that makes man like god. knowing evil is part of that. but i think my view of the text as a whole -- that it tries to present god in human terms -- is probably the most accurate. well, let's look at that statement for a second. is god a warrior powerless to save? do you think he was caught off gaurd? well, i've already pointed out numerous occasions where it would not make sense. in fact, i don't think very much of it would make sense at all. how do you explain god punishing people for any sin? how do you explain the exile? how do you explain how every king of israel (as opposed to judah) did "evil in the sight of the lord?" you did.god creates from the deep, symbolic chaos = evil. so prior to god's intervention, and without god's intervention, the universe is naturally evil. it takes the supernatural good to do otherwise. that's what this particular position boils down to. and i don't think that's a strawman, just a logical conclusion.you can probably see why i don't agree. god's creation is fundamentally good, yes. god says so a number of times. but what about before he did anything? i'm not, really. i don't think the bible represents a dualism at all. i was just carrying that particular premise to its logical end. if god is good, and only god is god is good, then all else must have been initially evil, and revert to evil without his presence.i don't feel this is the case, and i suspect you don't either. that's not winning. that's defaulting. i'm sure. that takes us back to the verse that started this. god decides. i agree here. i do not think creation is good, nor do i think it's evil. but to be truly neutral and subjective, both sides must exist, right? well, let's look at this discussion again. you wrote originally that:

quote:

---

In other words, in Maimonides' view, since God is totally "set apart", he also needs to be something "distinct from creation itself".

---

to which i replied that it was inconsistent for maimonides to say god was thoroughly good, and totally unlike his creation, which was also thoroughly good. in your view, abscence of god = evil. so if god were to disappear, creation would be evil, would it not?therefore the natural tendency of creation, according to you, is evil. which makes it not thoroughly good. even if evil merely exists, creation is not thoroughly good.i think we basically agree that the universe is generally neutral, although i suspect we're using the word in different ways.

---

אָרַח

Hmmm...your responses didn't show up as a "YES" in the "Replies Await" box of index page for some reason?Sorry for the delay. I apologize if these reponses throw us backward in this dialogue at all -- but I just needed to clarify a few things. When I placed the strike though those texts before and asked you to move on, it was partially because we'd both explained our views and neither side seemed to be giving any ground. It was more a matter of expediency than agreement.In my view, by focussing on what we thought was the original source of evil according to the Scriptures, I thought we could kind of reverse-engineer this debate to flow from source to man and see where God fits in.Please note: I don't plan on going back to discuss these things. I'm simply planning on continuing with the remainder of your repsonses below in order to see exactly where we do agree.Whoever chooses to critique our debate can inform us what they thought of our ideas later. Whoa...what the heck just happened here? There's a lot of things you noted in here that I haven't actually agreed to. It was almost kind of rambling.If you're really busy right now arach, take a break and let me know when you've got time to come back and realy focus on this debate. I'd rather talk with a very focussed arachnophilia, because I think we can learn a lot more from each other then. Peace in Christ.

i think it's the other way around. it's people ascribing human qualities to god. yes, and no. to say that god sinned is a little more than to say god made a mistake (which god himself will say he did, ala the passage you refered to). saying god sinned is to say that god made some kind of trespass against something or someone. since god is the highest authority, no one has any right to say that god commited a trespass.therefore, god cannot sin, even if he can do things we call evil, and even if he can do things he calls mistakes. sure, it probably is. i agree here. but it's this subjectivity that is the basis for the first point (i really should have put them the other way around). since the language is in question, and what we call evil is subjective, it can besaid that god does evil and speaks evil.this "evil" may well be good from the eyes of god, or someone who speaks for god: the idea being that even when god does something someone might consider evil, there is a good purpose behind it. ok, agreed. sorry, i do that. i'll be ok. the sum of the argument is that evil existed before man, and god knew good and evil before man did. i think this "knowing good and evil" bit is, as holmes put it, divine judgement -- it's us making those specific subjective quality judgements we've been talking about. it's use choosing what to call good, and what to call evil.the other point is that for the things we call evil, or if some objective evil DOES exist, god has to be responsible for it if he's omniscient.shall we proceed from one of these two points?This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 10-13-2005 10:48 PM

---

אָרַח

Ok, but you don't think this is what the Israelites themselves believed, do you?Although we are free to give our own personal thoughts on the matter, we are still ultimately trying to resolve what the ancient Israelites believed about their own Scriptures, correct? Alright, God, in the case of the flood, apparently repents that he had ever made man. Yet, later on, several Scriptural verses also teach that God cannot repent. However, again, in I Samuel 15, God repents that he had made Saul king of Israel (in verses 11, 35 for example) and yet he also declares that he is not a man that he should repent (verse 29 for example).Do you believe the Israelites beleived these things were contradictions in their own Scriptures, or do you believe the Israelites believed these statements were God's way of trying to force the Israelites to see subtle differences in the meanings of a word?Or stating it differently, if you're studying Hebrew, could you take a look at the word for "repent" and see if it is used in more than one way? Are there any cases where the word repent is used in conjunction with someone performing what the Scriptures consider a "good action"?I ask because I'm not sure if I have the proper resources to properly identify this at this time.More specifically, for example, consider the case of a parent giving a child a toy. The toy is good. It is designed to give joy to the child. However, by some tragic mishap, the child ends up choking on the toy.We'll pretend in this case that the child was rescued.However, in real-life these kinds of accidents do unfortunately happen. If, in this hypothetical situation, the child perished due to the toy, would the parent be guilty of sinning -- even if their original intention was good? But doesn't God have the ability to judge his own actions? Well, let's take a look at this statement for a minute.First of all, God is apparently doing something that has a direct effect on humanity, something that he should be able to hold himself accountable for, correct?Is God not aware of his own actions -- or is he simply above condemning himself? Ok, scratch what I asked above. I think we're actually agreeing here very well. wow.Do you agree that this is what the Israelites believed as well? To be honest, I think it's not so much about good and evil. I think it's more probably about shame -- and the laying of blame to others who do not deserve it. It's about figuring out who is responsble for what and what's going to be done in response to each other's actions.More importantly, although many tend to think of the account of the garden as a story of good vs. evil, I think it's more a story of how a loving God was willing to subject himself to the scrunity and judgements of his own creation. As the late Pope John Paul II said, Actually, we can proceed from both if you like. I'd also like to get back to the concept of the "void" which existed prior to God's creation.Is that ok?This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 10-17-2005 12:26 AM