WHAT makes a person saved in Christ Jesus?

[Andy]

...
Would sin (not good) exist without God? Yes or no?

No. Without God there would be nothing which could act in an evil manner.

My point is that evil is not "stuff"; evil is what people do or are.

So what? If it exists then it is included in everything and therefore must be good. How can people do evil if they exist because of good and every single tool they use to do stuff exists because of good? You can't add green to a painting if all the colours available on the palette are red.

And as a side note, you saying it's what people do is inconsistent with the idea that it's what motivates people to do it. If what people did was evil then it wouldn't happen because God would've stopped it as it contravenes the greater good.

But my point is that evil does not exist as a "thing", as an entity. Therefore, I can't see that it makes sense to speak of it coming into being. When a person, say, disobeys God's command to not murder and goes and murders someone, there is no such entity called "evil" which has come into being. He is going against God's command (and causing distress, pain, etc.) and we describe his action as "evil". Nothing got created here. When we say something like "there is great evil in the world", there isn't some entity called "evil", but a bunch of people doing wrong things. Nothing comes into being.

Have beings always existed that can do evil and whose existence isn't dependent on God?

No, but you miss my point again. I am saying that God created beings (however he did it) which, at some point, start to sin. So yes, creatures sin, God having created them. However, you point was that God created evil and, since God created everything which begins to exist, God created evil. I am saying that evil is not created (and neither is "good"). They are not created entities. They are descriptions of how people act and the effect those people have.

Must do some work...

It's you missing my point actually, because I'm saying there is no evil (not good).  If God creates everything which begins to exist then the existence of everything is good. This means our existence is good, the existence of our "free will" is good and the existence of anything we use to act is good. There is nothing we can do that can be considered not good because not good doesn't exist.

[Outrider]

No, for two reasons. There are evil actions, evil thoughts, and so on. Jesus died for our sins. He died for what you and I do/have done/will do.

However, we were created free of evil, and sin entered mankind from outside - otherwise God created us 'flawed' and we'd have nothing to atone for, we'd be as we were made. If that's the case, evil is 'something' external to humanity, which presumably means it's something that god made. Even if it's not a physical thing, as a concept it's part of God's creation - if it's not, then he's no more responsible for, nor an embodiment of, good.

As for him "need(ing) to be sacrificed for mankind bringing sin into the world" it is not bringing sin into the world per se, it is for us sinning.

Which is either part of our nature - and hence not something for which we need to atone - or it's something external which would justify something more significant than just seeking forgiveness (such as the blood sacrifice of Jesus) but would imply that evil is independent of our actions.

No, I'm not. God tells you and me to not murder. That is our duty. We are not omnipotent and cannot see the full results of our actions, so though God may allow such an act since he does know the full results of our actions and everyone else's, we don't and should stick with what he tells us (and which is usually what others, even non-Christians believe to be wrong though coming to that conclusion from a different angle). Thus me murdering someone is an evil action by me, but God may have a morally sufficient reason to allow me to do it. My action is going against what God tells me how to act, it is going against his commands. That is evil (though, such prohibitions usually are prohibitions which yer average atheist would agree with as well).

So, to your mind, the evil is not the murder, it's the disobedience? You don't know whether any given incident of murder is good or evil, you're simply obeying a directive and are therefore good.

What I'd ask is 'If God is all powerful, why are his actions limited such that at any scale they appear evil?'

Please demonstrate that his action "at any scale... appear evil".

Bone cancer in children.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alien,

No, but you miss my point again. I am saying that God created beings (however he did it)…

We’ve not had the reification fallacy for while, so well done. Once you’ve pouffed into existence “God” you can ascribe to it any CV, rules, characteristics etc you wish I suppose but that doesn’t get you over the pouffing bit in the first place.

Did you know that leprechauns disapprove of people who step on the cracks in the pavement?

Easy to do this fallacy innit?

…which, at some point, start to sin.

Presumably you define “sin” as that which contravenes the rules this “God” you think exists has you think set down in a book that you also thinks has been accurately recorded and reproduced (but not the rules in the same book you think suit you less well)?

Well OK, but what then of the behaviours most would think to be immoral about which this god of yours was silent (or about which he positively approved) – child abuse for example?

So yes, creatures sin, God having created them. However, you point was that God created evil and, since God created everything which begins to exist, God created evil. I am saying that evil is not created (and neither is "good"). They are not created entities. They are descriptions of how people act and the effect those people have.

But if this god is the god of the omnis in what sense is he not his “creatures” anyway? Is there some special part of us that does the “sinning” to which “He” does not have access or something?

Must do some work...

You’re not kidding…watching you tie yourself into more knots than a boy scout convention is fun and all, but it’s not doing you any favours at all I’m afraid.

[BashfulAnthony]

Reading all these denunciations yet again today, I'm obliged to say that if I was an atheist and I read about God and the Bible and didn't accept it, I might argue the point with any interested theists, for a while; but I'm sure that after a very short while I would walk away and be done.  I certainly wouldn't go on about it week in and week out, almost daily, for years.  That is not only obsessive, it's weird, spooky!   And lest anyone should ponder why I am here, it is merely to stand up for my beliefs.  If the atheists all, finally, decided to call a halt. then I would gladly be off.

[wigginhall]

Andy wrote:

It's you missing my point actually, because I'm saying there is no evil (not good).  If God creates everything which begins to exist then the existence of everything is good. This means our existence is good, the existence of our "free will" is good and the existence of anything we use to act is good. There is nothing we can do that can be considered not good because not good doesn't exist.

Another terrific post.  This idea was in fact discussed in early Christianity - Augustine for example - and became known as privatio boni - absence of good.   It seems to mean that evil has no substance in itself.   I don't know to what extent this was developed in later Christian thought, but it is certainly still around. 

In some ways, it seems quite sensible, since evil is rather hard to pin down - is it a force, a substance, a psychological drive?   As you say, it also presents problems with a God who is purely good, and creates everything - whence then comes a non-good substance?   It's impossible that humans actually create it, since then they have become creators of a new kind of substance, and also you are in a dualistic system, like Zoroastrianism. 

In some Eastern religions, I think that the whole opposition of good/evil itself starts to collapse, which is quite post-modern in a way. 

Another strange point - if not-good does not exist, then does good?

[floo]

Andy wrote:

It's you missing my point actually, because I'm saying there is no evil (not good).  If God creates everything which begins to exist then the existence of everything is good. This means our existence is good, the existence of our "free will" is good and the existence of anything we use to act is good. There is nothing we can do that can be considered not good because not good doesn't exist.

Another terrific post.  This idea was in fact discussed in early Christianity - Augustine for example - and became known as privatio boni - absence of good.   It seems to mean that evil has no substance in itself.   I don't know to what extent this was developed in later Christian thought, but it is certainly still around. 

In some ways, it seems quite sensible, since evil is rather hard to pin down - is it a force, a substance, a psychological drive?   As you say, it also presents problems with a God who is purely good, and creates everything - whence then comes a non-good substance?   It's impossible that humans actually create it, since then they have become creators of a new kind of substance, and also you are in a dualistic system, like Zoroastrianism. 

In some Eastern religions, I think that the whole opposition of good/evil itself starts to collapse, which is quite post-modern in a way. 

Another strange point - if not-good does not exist, then does good?

Good/bad can't exist outside of the human psyche imo.

[Outrider]

Reading all these denunciations yet again today, I'm obliged to say that if I was an atheist and I read about God and the Bible and didn't accept it, I might argue the point with any interested theists, for a while; but I'm sure that after a very short while I would walk away and be done.  I certainly wouldn't go on about it week in and week out, almost daily, for years.  That is not only obsessive, it's weird, spooky!   And lest anyone should ponder why I am here, it is merely to stand up for my beliefs.  If the atheists all, finally, decided to call a halt. then I would gladly be off.

Some of us are here because it's fun, some of us are here to stand up for reason, some of us are here because the truth needs to be said to ensure that people who follow after know that there's another side to the story - that's as true of the believers as it is of the non-believers.

Personally, I come here because I enjoy debate, because I'm genuinely confounded by the idea that in the 21st century people can still believe in fairy tales, and because religion genuinely scares me, and the more arguments I have in my arsenal against it, the more chance I can do something useful about it should the opportunity ever arise.

O.

[ad_orientem]

Traditionally in Christianity evil is seen merely as an absence of good. Blessed Augustine makes such an argument in City of God.

"Let no one, therefore, look for an efficient cause of the evil will; for it is not efficient, but deficient, as the will itself is not an effecting of something, but a defect. For defection from that which supremely is, to that which has less of being—this is to begin to have an evil will. Now, to seek to discover the causes of these defections,— causes, as I have said, not efficient, but deficient—is as if some one sought to see darkness, or hear silence. Yet both of these are known by us, and the former by means only of the eye, the latter only by the ear; but not by their positive actuality, but by their want of it."

[Outrider]

Traditionally in Christianity evil is seen merely as an absence of good. Blessed Augustine makes such an argument in City of God.

"Let no one, therefore, look for an efficient cause of the evil will; for it is not efficient, but deficient, as the will itself is not an effecting of something, but a defect. For defection from that which supremely is, to that which has less of being—this is to begin to have an evil will. Now, to seek to discover the causes of these defections,— causes, as I have said, not efficient, but deficient—is as if some one sought to see darkness, or hear silence. Yet both of these are known by us, and the former by means only of the eye, the latter only by the ear; but not by their positive actuality, but by their want of it."

Even if we were to accept that concept - evil is the descriptor for 'a lack of good' rather than an active opposite of good - that doesn't remove the burden from God. God still creates a reality in which there is the capacity for 'not good'...

O.

[BashfulAnthony]

Reading all these denunciations yet again today, I'm obliged to say that if I was an atheist and I read about God and the Bible and didn't accept it, I might argue the point with any interested theists, for a while; but I'm sure that after a very short while I would walk away and be done.  I certainly wouldn't go on about it week in and week out, almost daily, for years.  That is not only obsessive, it's weird, spooky!   And lest anyone should ponder why I am here, it is merely to stand up for my beliefs.  If the atheists all, finally, decided to call a halt. then I would gladly be off.

Some of us are here because it's fun, some of us are here to stand up for reason, some of us are here because the truth needs to be said to ensure that people who follow after know that there's another side to the story - that's as true of the believers as it is of the non-believers.

Personally, I come here because I enjoy debate, because I'm genuinely confounded by the idea that in the 21st century people can still believe in fairy tales, and because religion genuinely scares me, and the more arguments I have in my arsenal against it, the more chance I can do something useful about it should the opportunity ever arise.

O.

I take on board what you say.  But it still doesn't really answer my main point:  why keep up your "crusade," If I may call it that, after so long?  Surely there is nothing new to say here.  On here, you are either talking to the converted (to your views), or to a small handful of theists, who by now, you must realise, are not going to be persuaded by you.  Why not seek a wider audience, and perhaps make some headway, or at least find what may be a different set of arguments to contend with.

May I say, that it is not much of an argument to sink to the level of the "fairy tales" approach.  You should be prepared to discuss at a higher intellectual level, if you seriously hope to persuade people of your views.

[floo]

Traditionally in Christianity evil is seen merely as an absence of good. Blessed Augustine makes such an argument in City of God.

"Let no one, therefore, look for an efficient cause of the evil will; for it is not efficient, but deficient, as the will itself is not an effecting of something, but a defect. For defection from that which supremely is, to that which has less of being—this is to begin to have an evil will. Now, to seek to discover the causes of these defections,— causes, as I have said, not efficient, but deficient—is as if some one sought to see darkness, or hear silence. Yet both of these are known by us, and the former by means only of the eye, the latter only by the ear; but not by their positive actuality, but by their want of it."

Even if we were to accept that concept - evil is the descriptor for 'a lack of good' rather than an active opposite of good - that doesn't remove the burden from God. God still creates a reality in which there is the capacity for 'not good'...

O.

You are right.

[ad_orientem]

Traditionally in Christianity evil is seen merely as an absence of good. Blessed Augustine makes such an argument in City of God.

"Let no one, therefore, look for an efficient cause of the evil will; for it is not efficient, but deficient, as the will itself is not an effecting of something, but a defect. For defection from that which supremely is, to that which has less of being—this is to begin to have an evil will. Now, to seek to discover the causes of these defections,— causes, as I have said, not efficient, but deficient—is as if some one sought to see darkness, or hear silence. Yet both of these are known by us, and the former by means only of the eye, the latter only by the ear; but not by their positive actuality, but by their want of it."

Even if we were to accept that concept - evil is the descriptor for 'a lack of good' rather than an active opposite of good - that doesn't remove the burden from God. God still creates a reality in which there is the capacity for 'not good'...
 
O.

Perhaps, but then I don't have a problem with it (or more accurately I merely accept it). God does indeed allow evil to happen, at least for the time being, which is why we give thanks to God for all things (which to the unbeliever is a great scandal but to the believer not so for we know it is only a temporary state of affairs).

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Wiggs,

Another terrific post.  This idea was in fact discussed in early Christianity - Augustine for example - and became known as privatio boni - absence of good.   It seems to mean that evil has no substance in itself.   I don't know to what extent this was developed in later Christian thought, but it is certainly still around. 

In some ways, it seems quite sensible, since evil is rather hard to pin down - is it a force, a substance, a psychological drive?   As you say, it also presents problems with a God who is purely good, and creates everything - whence then comes a non-good substance?   It's impossible that humans actually create it, since then they have become creators of a new kind of substance, and also you are in a dualistic system, like Zoroastrianism. 

In some Eastern religions, I think that the whole opposition of good/evil itself starts to collapse, which is quite post-modern in a way. 

Another strange point - if not-good does not exist, then does good?

Nice post. Aren't "good" and "bad" though merely labels for different value judgements we apply partly innately and partly for cultural reasons to the events we happen to observe or to cause - a bit like we find some paintings to be "beautiful" and others to be "ugly", also partly innately and partly for cultural reasons?

Alien makes sense of it by first asserting into existence objective morality (by using an extreme example of a moral question, but not troubling with any argument to take him from his opinion on that matter to objectivity) as a rationale for "God" and then ascribes various rules and preferences to that god, but that seems to me to be akin to building a house of cards on foundations of sand and topping it out with a roof of Scotch mist.

Concluding that "good" and "bad" are what we intuit/decide them to be seems to me to require so many fewer assumptions than thinking that they're some kind of "stuff" out there that's somehow discoverable with the right holy books that the answer is evident.   

[floo]

Traditionally in Christianity evil is seen merely as an absence of good. Blessed Augustine makes such an argument in City of God.

"Let no one, therefore, look for an efficient cause of the evil will; for it is not efficient, but deficient, as the will itself is not an effecting of something, but a defect. For defection from that which supremely is, to that which has less of being—this is to begin to have an evil will. Now, to seek to discover the causes of these defections,— causes, as I have said, not efficient, but deficient—is as if some one sought to see darkness, or hear silence. Yet both of these are known by us, and the former by means only of the eye, the latter only by the ear; but not by their positive actuality, but by their want of it."

Even if we were to accept that concept - evil is the descriptor for 'a lack of good' rather than an active opposite of good - that doesn't remove the burden from God. God still creates a reality in which there is the capacity for 'not good'...
 
O.

Perhaps, but then I don't have a problem with it (or more accurately I merely accept it). God does indeed allow evil to happen, at least for the time being, which is why we give thanks to God for all things (which to the unbeliever is a great scandal but to the believer not so for we know it is only a temporary state of affairs).

Why on earth would you give thanks to a deity, which created evil?

[Nearly Sane]

Traditionally in Christianity evil is seen merely as an absence of good. Blessed Augustine makes such an argument in City of God.

"Let no one, therefore, look for an efficient cause of the evil will; for it is not efficient, but deficient, as the will itself is not an effecting of something, but a defect. For defection from that which supremely is, to that which has less of being—this is to begin to have an evil will. Now, to seek to discover the causes of these defections,— causes, as I have said, not efficient, but deficient—is as if some one sought to see darkness, or hear silence. Yet both of these are known by us, and the former by means only of the eye, the latter only by the ear; but not by their positive actuality, but by their want of it."

Even if we were to accept that concept - evil is the descriptor for 'a lack of good' rather than an active opposite of good - that doesn't remove the burden from God. God still creates a reality in which there is the capacity for 'not good'...
 
O.

Perhaps, but then I don't have a problem with it (or more accurately I merely accept it). God does indeed allow evil to happen, at least for the time being, which is why we give thanks to God for all things (which to the unbeliever is a great scandal but to the believer not so for we know it is only a temporary state of affairs).

So what about my friend that died an atheist at the age of 16 from leukaemia? Was that all OK? What will happen to them when this temporary phase is over?

[ad_orientem]

Traditionally in Christianity evil is seen merely as an absence of good. Blessed Augustine makes such an argument in City of God.

"Let no one, therefore, look for an efficient cause of the evil will; for it is not efficient, but deficient, as the will itself is not an effecting of something, but a defect. For defection from that which supremely is, to that which has less of being—this is to begin to have an evil will. Now, to seek to discover the causes of these defections,— causes, as I have said, not efficient, but deficient—is as if some one sought to see darkness, or hear silence. Yet both of these are known by us, and the former by means only of the eye, the latter only by the ear; but not by their positive actuality, but by their want of it."

Even if we were to accept that concept - evil is the descriptor for 'a lack of good' rather than an active opposite of good - that doesn't remove the burden from God. God still creates a reality in which there is the capacity for 'not good'...
 
O.

Perhaps, but then I don't have a problem with it (or more accurately I merely accept it). God does indeed allow evil to happen, at least for the time being, which is why we give thanks to God for all things (which to the unbeliever is a great scandal but to the believer not so for we know it is only a temporary state of affairs).

So what about my friend that died an atheist at the age of 16 from leukaemia? Was that all OK? What will happen to them when this temporary phase is over?

I'm not saying that it is good that someones dies, only that the Christian accepts such things with faith, giving thanks to God for all things in hope of something better to come. As for what will happen to your friend, I simply do not know.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AO,

I'm not saying that it is good that someones dies, only that the Christian accepts such things with faith, giving thanks to God for all things in hope of something better to come. As for what will happen to your friend, I simply do not know.

But how then would that world of "some things good and some things bad" be any different from a world in which there was no god?

[ad_orientem]

AO,

I'm not saying that it is good that someones dies, only that the Christian accepts such things with faith, giving thanks to God for all things in hope of something better to come. As for what will happen to your friend, I simply do not know.

But how then would that world of "some things good and some things bad" be any different from a world in which there was no god?

I'm not sure that I quite understand you. As I said, our hope is in things yet to come.

[Andy]

I'm not saying that it is good that someones dies, only that the Christian accepts such things with faith, giving thanks to God for all things in hope of something better to come. As for what will happen to your friend, I simply do not know.

If you thank god for all things and god only does good, which would by definition mean allowing someone to die, then you must conclude that that someone dying is good.

[Nearly Sane]

Actually as covered previously you are saying that death is good. God created the universe as good as it can be surely? In which case my friend dying is part of that plan?

As to not knowing what will happen, fine. But what do the precepts of your religion say will happen? Will an atheist be off to fluffy marshmallow land? Dating you don't know is simply a way of ignoring the depravity ofof the deity you worship.

[ad_orientem]

I'm not saying that it is good that someones dies, only that the Christian accepts such things with faith, giving thanks to God for all things in hope of something better to come. As for what will happen to your friend, I simply do not know.

If you thank god for all things and god only does good, which would by definition mean allowing someone to die, then you must conclude that that someone dying is good.

No, I don't think that follows.

[SweetPea]

Alien, where does part of my signature:

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.  Eph 6:12


.... come into your thinking?

[Andy]

I'm not saying that it is good that someones dies, only that the Christian accepts such things with faith, giving thanks to God for all things in hope of something better to come. As for what will happen to your friend, I simply do not know.

If you thank god for all things and god only does good, which would by definition mean allowing someone to die, then you must conclude that that someone dying is good.

No, I don't think that follows.

Well if that's all you've got without explanation...

[ad_orientem]

Actually as covered previously you are saying that death is good. God created the universe as good as it can be surely? In which case my friend dying is part of that plan?

As to not knowing what will happen, fine. But what do the precepts of your religion say will happen? Will an atheist be off to fluffy marshmallow land? Dating you don't know is simply a way of ignoring the depravity ofof the deity you worship.

The scriptures say that creation was very good. Death entered creation through the sin of Adam, something which we all inherit.

I say I do not know because I do not know, although I might say that anyone outside the visible confines of the Church is certainly in danger of damnation.

[jakswan]

Actually as covered previously you are saying that death is good. God created the universe as good as it can be surely? In which case my friend dying is part of that plan?

As to not knowing what will happen, fine. But what do the precepts of your religion say will happen? Will an atheist be off to fluffy marshmallow land? Dating you don't know is simply a way of ignoring the depravity ofof the deity you worship.

Yes but Ado will be ok.