God: The Ultimate Author Of Evil?

[Jason]

Evil is produced by our actions and our thoughts. While good can crowd out evil, evil can also crowd out good. Such is the nature of choice, to choose one way or the other. It is an active choice, by design, which requires that we do something to go in either direction.

If evil were simply the absence of good, then we would need to do nothing in order to be evil. However, evil is always the result of choice and is something tangible and produced - unlike cold or darkness.

Take any evil action that you want to think of - murder, for instance - and you can see that evil is created in its own right, not something left over when all good is extracted.

Hmmm. I'm still not sure I agree with you.

People chose to do evil because they believe (or are fooling themselves) that it will do them good, not because they seek to actively be evil.

Doing no good can be said to be doing evil. Sloth is one of the seven deadly sins, after all, and laziness has often been condemned by the Lord. And sloth could be said to be the "active" choice not to do good when you could have.

Killing is not always wrong, so murder could be described as killing for the wrong reasons - without any good coming from the result while preventing all the good the person killed could have done.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I would suggest letting Chirs make an arguemtn before this htread continues any further. After all we dont like it when critics try to tell us what we believe and how we came to believe them.

CKS

CKS

were are you??

[Jason]

Ok, that sidesteps the argument of evil, however. Could God have avoided the creation of evil? If so, why didn't he? If not, why not?

The possibility of chosing to do evil is necessary in order for free will to exist. God values free agency, therefore he could not completely prevent the possibility of our chosing evil.

[johndoe]

As you are aware, LDS would be more libertarian in this respect.

I am LDS. I don't believe there are many LDS determinists, but we are out there.

While under a stricter compatibilist viewpoint we are responsible, it would appear to me that God would also be jointly responsible for our actions. Hence the inconsistency arises from condemning only one of the responsible parties in that case.

I tend to agree. I have come to a somewhat shaky conclusion that Calvinism is logically coherent, but I still haven't quite been able to wrap my mind around exactly how to define good and evil per that view, and how that definition can be practically applied to ourselves, and to God. My intuition tells me there is a logical inconsistency there, but I haven't been able to put my finger on it yet.

One of the things that LDS have a very hard time understanding is how determinism and freedom of choice are compatible, especially since under determinism our choices would have been pre-constrained for us. If you could provide some additional clarification on how those two seemingly incompatible items can work together, I'd appreciate it.

Libertarianism defines freedom of choice very narrowly, in a way that I don't find compelling. While I believe that our choices are determined, I don't believe they are determined by God, but by our own eternal, uncreated natures. Libertarianism requires for any given individual faced with a choice that is truly free, that the individual be actually able to choose among more than one alternative. This does not mean that one would choose differently if circumstances were different, but that under exactly the same circumstances, different outcomes can result. This seems wrong to me. For example, Joe must choose between eating an apple or an orange. In a million parallel universes, under exactly the same circumstances, Joe sometimes chooses the apple and sometimes chooses the orange. But there is absolutely nothing different about Joe or his environment. So where does the difference in choices come from? This is the Problem of Luck.

I don't think the Problem of Luck is solvable without an appeal to mystery. And appeal to mystery isn't satisfying to me.

I do think that the scriptures can be interpreted either way.

To which I usually respond, which interpretation of the Bible are you referring to? In the end, it's always about interpretation of the passages in question, hence the application of philosophy to the process.

Again, I tend to agree. It seems to me that there are very few teachings in the Bible that are so clear as to make differing but coherent interpretations impossible.

[jwhitlock]

Hmmm. I'm still not sure I agree with you.

People chose to do evil because they believe (or are fooling themselves) that it will do them good, not because they seek to actively be evil.

Doing no good can be said to be doing evil. Sloth is one of the seven deadly sins, after all, and laziness has often been condemned by the Lord. And sloth could be said to be the "active" choice not to do good when you could have.

Killing is not always wrong, so murder could be described as killing for the wrong reasons - without any good coming from the result while preventing all the good the person killed could have done.

I think the point is, that the analogies of light / dark, and hot / cold don't work well for good / evil. While it can be conclusively demonstrated that dark / cold are the absence of their counterparts, it's not so evident with good / evil.

I would disagree that people believe that doing evil will do them good. The motivation is more of a "delight" in evil.

Doing no evil could also be said to be doing good, so the counterpoint - unlike cold / hot - is also valid.

Murder, in the end is still an activity that is evil, designed to produce evil.

[jwhitlock]

I am LDS. I don't believe there are many LDS determinists, but we are out there.

Now that does throw me for a loop. Few, indeed.

Libertarianism defines freedom of choice very narrowly, in a way that I don't find compelling. While I believe that our choices are determined, I don't believe they are determined by God, but by our own eternal, uncreated natures. Libertarianism requires for any given individual faced with a choice that is truly free, that the individual be actually able to choose among more than one alternative. This does not mean that one would choose differently if circumstances were different, but that under exactly the same circumstances, different outcomes can result. This seems wrong to me. For example, Joe must choose between eating an apple or an orange. In a million parallel universes, under exactly the same circumstances, Joe sometimes chooses the apple and sometimes chooses the orange. But there is absolutely nothing different about Joe or his environment. So where does the difference in choices come from? This is the Problem of Luck.

Just some observations on this.

I think that there is some randomness - and bias - involved in most choice. People don't always make the same choices in similar circumstances, and in fact, one person can make widely conflicting choices for now apparent reason. It happens all the time. Hence, in the real world, I think libertarianism is more easily demonstrable. And I'm not sure it has as much to do with luck as it does with some of the randomness that is inherent in our mortal state.

While one can make the point that choice is influenced by personal bias, and that perhaps bias is one of the constraints we as individuals deal with, the reasons for bias are not well understood. To me, at least, there appears to be a demonstrated element of choice, in real life, that is simply random in nature, as far as we can tell. It doesn't make sense to us. We seem to be dealing with a level of real choice, coupled with incomplete information, that is diametrically opposed to determinism.

I don't think the Problem of Luck is solvable without an appeal to mystery. And appeal to mystery isn't satisfying to me.

However, the appeal to "we just don't understand" is often valid, though not necessarily satisfying.

I do think that the scriptures can be interpreted either way.

Such is the nature of written communication.

Again, I tend to agree. It seems to me that there are very few teachings in the Bible that are so clear as to make differing but coherent interpretations impossible.

Especially when we get into the details. Even in the most general concepts (Christ is the Son of God, for instance), there can be disagreement based on how the scriptures are understood.

[Jason]

I think the point is, that the analogies of light / dark, and hot / cold don't work well for good / evil. While it can be conclusively demonstrated that dark / cold are the absence of their counterparts, it's not so evident with good / evil.

That does seem to be the problem here - that it can't be conclusively demonstrated either way.

I would disagree that people believe that doing evil will do them good. The motivation is more of a "delight" in evil.

The "delight" is the "good" they are seeking. Man exists so that he might have joy. Those who do evil are simply pursuing the wrong path to joy, being unable at least initially to tell a counterfeit from the real thing.

Doing no evil could also be said to be doing good, so the counterpoint - unlike cold / hot - is also valid.

"Doing no evil" is generally an expression describing someone who is actively doing good and doesn't do any evil along side it. As I said before, someone not actively doing some good is possibly guilty of slothfulness, which is sinful and therefore evil.

Murder, in the end is still an activity that is evil, designed to produce evil.

Only because it is defined as such. It is by definition "killing with evil inent" or it might be defined just as well as "killing without good intent."

[David Waltz]

Hi guys,

Interesting discussion. I would like to take a step back and ask: who decides what is evil?

The Beachbum

[LDSMusic483]

Evil is something that actively happens, rather than being the residue (like cold) when heat is extracted. If good is extracted from something, the result is not necessarily evil, but could actually be morally neutral.

Well, sins of omission can be considered as such. Evil results from the lack of good.

[LDSMusic483]

Hi guys,

Interesting discussion. I would like to take a step back and ask: who decides what is evil?

The Beachbum

I think the better question is who told God what is evil, as far back as it can go. In the essence of just dealing with us in our universe, God does. But the instance where good and evil were designated as such...well, that takes some pre-dating and...I just don't know.

[William the Conqueror]

"Gaod" is the supreme being as pronounced by Joseph Fielding McConkie.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Change that spelling to Goad and you have what Jesus told Paul on the Damascus road, " It is hard for you to kick against the goads..."

[Jason]

I think the better question is who told God what is evil, as far back as it can go. In the essence of just dealing with us in our universe, God does. But the instance where good and evil were designated as such...well, that takes some pre-dating and...I just don't know.

I would argue that good and evil are uncreated, just as matter and intelligence are according to the scirptures. They are simply inherent in the laws of the universe, like gravity. In this view God gets His power in large part because He understands so much more about how the laws of the universe operate than we do, including good and evil.

[LDSMusic483]

I would argue that good and evil are uncreated, just as matter and intelligence are according to the scirptures. They are simply inherent in the laws of the universe, like gravity. In this view God gets His power in large part because He understands so much more about how the laws of the universe operate than we do, including good and evil.

But is Gravity an uncreated law? Different planets have different types of gravity depending on the materials with which they are created by God. And how did God learn of the laws of good and evil if they are uncreated? Must He have participated in them to learn their ramifications? For one to understand gravity, one must participate in the effect of it's law.

[Jason]

But is Gravity an uncreated law?

If matter is uncreated then it seems likely gravity is as well.

It's only called a "law" because it seems to always be the case, not because it has an author.

Different planets have different types of gravity depending on the materials with which they are created by God.

True, but the gravity of each works according to the same basic principles. It is only the materials that differ.

And how did God learn of the laws of good and evil if they are uncreated? Must He have participated in them to learn their ramifications? For one to understand gravity, one must participate in the effect of it's law.

To understand gravity you must be able to observe it in action. You don't necessarily have to be affected by it yourself.

[jwhitlock]

That does seem to be the problem here - that it can't be conclusively demonstrated either way.The "delight" is the "good" they are seeking. Man exists so that he might have joy. Those who do evil are simply pursuing the wrong path to joy, being unable at least initially to tell a counterfeit from the real thing. "Doing no evil" is generally an expression describing someone who is actively doing good and doesn't do any evil along side it. As I said before, someone not actively doing some good is possibly guilty of slothfulness, which is sinful and therefore evil.Only because it is defined as such. It is by definition "killing with evil inent" or it might be defined just as well as "killing without good intent."

We shouldn't get confused by the fact that good and evil do not coexist well together. When one is, the other cannot be. A person has the choice which one to embrace. I still feel strongly that intent to do evil is very real, and that those who are given to evil pursue evil for the sake of evil - not because they are confused about what is good.I think that malice is a good word to describe the embracing of evil.In any case, the hot/cold, light/dark analogies don't appear to apply well to the concept of good and evil.

Well, sins of omission can be considered as such. Evil results from the lack of good.

As does good from the lack of evil.Omission - or not doing something - can also be good in many cases. Intent and / or malice is important as a determining factor.

[jwhitlock]

Interesting discussion. I would like to take a step back and ask: who decides what is evil?

According to LDS theology, each one of us has the ability to do so.

What's the Catholic perspective?

[Jason]

We shouldn't get confused by the fact that good and evil do not coexist well together. When one is, the other cannot be. A person has the choice which one to embrace.

I'm not sure about that either. I think during mortality at least that we do both, and therefore might be considered to be in the presence of both.

I still feel strongly that intent to do evil is very real, and that those who are given to evil pursue evil for the sake of evil - not because they are confused about what is good.

I'm not sure how we can demonstrate that.

My own feeling is that people never set out to do evil in the absolute sense. If they are performing what they view as an evil act then it is in pursuit of what they view as some greater good that will be its consequence (not greater good in the sense it will do more good to more people - greater good in the sense they feel the reward will be worth the offense).

People do what they think will bring them pleasure, not what they know will disgust them. Pleasure by itself is not bad - as I said, the purpose of man is joy. It's only seeking it in the wrong way that is bad.

Those who do evil are just seeking good in the wrong place with the wrong methods.

[johndoe]

Now that does throw me for a loop. Few, indeed.

Just some observations on this.

I think that there is some randomness - and bias - involved in most choice. People don't always make the same choices in similar circumstances, and in fact, one person can make widely conflicting choices for now apparent reason. It happens all the time. Hence, in the real world, I think libertarianism is more easily demonstrable. And I'm not sure it has as much to do with luck as it does with some of the randomness that is inherent in our mortal state.

While one can make the point that choice is influenced by personal bias, and that perhaps bias is one of the constraints we as individuals deal with, the reasons for bias are not well understood. To me, at least, there appears to be a demonstrated element of choice, in real life, that is simply random in nature, as far as we can tell. It doesn't make sense to us. We seem to be dealing with a level of real choice, coupled with incomplete information, that is diametrically opposed to determinism.

I have highlighted some areas for clarity's sake.

First, the Problem of Luck is called that, but it makes no distinction between randomness and luck. Indeed, one of the key tenets of those who have proposed the problem is that it is difficult to conceive of how randomness could contribute to greater freedom, or moral responsibility.

The reason I have highlighted what I have is that there is a very large difference between making different choices in similar circumstances, and making different choices in exactly the same circumstances. Even when there is no apparent reason why we make different choices in similar circumstances, this does not logically entail that there truly is no reason, simply that there is no reason that it immediately obvious to a casual observer.

It is, in fact, impossible to demonstrate libertarianism in the real world, with the possible but debatable exception of quantum randomness. The reason is because we simply cannot duplicate conditions exactly in the real world. We can try to get close, but there is no way to eliminate the possibility that some difference in the conditions actually caused the difference in outcome.

Regarding our incomplete knowledge of conditions in this world, while that is certainly true, can the same thing be said of God? The debate about free will has traditionally been a philosophical exercise that is not tied to empirical data or evidence. It is not about what we do not know, but rather about what cannot logically be known.

[LDSMusic483]

If matter is uncreated then it seems likely gravity is as well.

It's only called a "law" because it seems to always be the case, not because it has an author.

True, but the gravity of each works according to the same basic principles. It is only the materials that differ.

To understand gravity you must be able to observe it in action. You don't necessarily have to be affected by it yourself.

Observation still causes an effect. And gravity could have been created because of Gods knowledge of putting the elements together. Those elements separate may not induce gravity. If I have peanut butter and bread, they do not constitute a peanut butter sandwich until combined together, and thereby I can say that using already existing materials, I have created the sandwich.

[cksalmon]

Hi LOAP:

An initial note to readers: I find the thread’s subtitle “cksalmon and the evil God” inherently offensive, as I have never once suggested that the God I believe in is evil. This is an unfortunate, but not, to my mind, a malicious misstatement on LOAP’s part. He informed me that he would ask this to be edited by the mods. I’m sure they will comply as they find the time. (johndoe, independent of my input, graciously recognized that LOAP’s subtitle was mistaken. Thanks for that.)

cksalmon once said:

It seems to me a small swipe at Mormons who assert that they are uncomfortable with a God who "for his own glory and good pleasure" allows a small child to be raped and murdered that they do so because such a thing is "unnerving." Thus, somehow, it is their fault for being disgusted by such an act.

"Once said" is better rendered "posted last night on MDB shortly before I now quote him," but no matter.

If you’ll reread the OP to which my quoted response was made, you'll find this: “If God is omnipotent, and created the world from nothing, as most Christians believe, then how is it logical to believe He is the author of good, but not of evil?”

KimberlyAnn is no longer a Mormon, but she knows what Mormons believe. They don’t believe in creation ex nihilo. Yet, the OP frames her question in terms of belief in creation ex nihilo. My response was framed in light of that given context. If you wish to find offense—“a small swipe at Mormons”—in my response, so be it. But, you’d have to be looking a little too closely for some sort of specific slight to find it there.

CK, you almost sound like there is something wrong with finding God abhorrent if this is his doing. But I guess we could claim that we Mormons only think so because God is making us.

I don't have any idea what the phrase "if this is his doing" refers to, but, as for questioning God in light of his all-encompassing sovereignty over all things, I think "there is something wrong" with that precisely because the Bible bids me do so.

See the Book of Job (chapters 38-41) and Romans 9, for example.

ps- I disagree that such a notion is "clearly and repeatedly" taught in the Bible.

God is an active, culpable agent in each and every event that comes to pass

Ephesians 1:11: “In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will….”

”All things” includes:

(1) The landing of sparrows

Matthew 10:29: “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father."

(2) The roll of the dice

Proverbs 16:33: “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.”

(3) The decisions of rulers

Proverbs 21:1: “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will.”

(4) The sickness of children

2 Samuel 12:15: “Then Nathan went to his house. And the LORD afflicted the child that Uriah’s wife bore to David, and he became sick.”

(5) Physical impairments

Exodus 4:11: “Then the LORD said to him, ‘Who has made man’s mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?’”

(6) The suffering of Christians

1 Peter 4:19: “Therefore let those who suffer according to God’s will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good.”

(7) Repentance

2 Timothy 2:25: “God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth…. [and he may not so grant them]”

( The growth of believers to spiritual maturity

Hebrews 6:1-3: “Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits” [he might not permit].

(9) The giving and taking of life

1 Samuel 2:6: “The LORD kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up.”

(10) The evil actions of corrupt despots

Isaiah 10: “Ah, Assyria, the rod of my anger; the staff in their hands is my fury! Against a godless nation I send him, and against the people of my wrath I command him, to take spoil and seize plunder, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets. But he does not so intend, and his heart does not so think; but it is in his heart to destroy, and to cut off nations not a few; for he says: "Are not my commanders all kings? Is not Calno like Carchemish? Is not Hamath like Arpad? Is not Samaria like Damascus?

…

When the Lord has finished all his work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, he will punish the speech of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the boastful look in his eyes. For he says: ‘By the strength of my hand I have done it, and by my wisdom, for I have understanding; I remove the boundaries of peoples, and plunder their treasures; like a bull I bring down those who sit on thrones...’

…

[but ] shall the axe boast over him who hews with it, or the saw magnify itself against him who wields it? As if a rod should wield him who lifts it, or as if a staff should lift him who is not wood!”

(11) The restraining of sin

Genesis 20:6: “Then God said to him in the dream, ‘Yes, I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart, and it was I who kept you from sinning against me. Therefore I did not let you touch her.’”

(12) Disasters

Amos 3:6: “Is a trumpet blown in a city, and the people are not afraid? Does disaster come to a city, unless the LORD has done it?”

Isaiah 45:7: “I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things.”

(13) The most heinous evil in the history of the universe—the murder of God’s Son

Acts 2:23: “…this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.”

(14) All things

Isaiah 46:9-10: “…[F]or I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose….’”

This is, of course, only a partial listing of the verses that convinced me to embrace the theological beliefs I now hold. (This particular listing is drawn primarily, but not fully, from a little article by Rev. John Piper about the 9/11 tragedy entitled "Why I Do Not Say, 'God Did Not Cause the Calamity, but He Can Use It for Good.'" See here, if you're interested.)

With regard to God's being the ultimate author of sin, I would quote Jonathan Edwards:

Jonathan Edwards on God as the “author of sin”

“If by the author of sin, be meant the sinner, the agent, or the actor of sin, or the doer of a wicked thing; so it would be a reproach and blasphemy to suppose God to be the author of sin. In this sense, I utterly deny God to be the author of sin; rejecting such an imputation on the Most High, as what is infinitely to be abhorred; and deny any such thing to be the consequence of what I have laid down. But if, by the author of sin, is meant the permitter, or not a hinderer of sin, and, at the same time, a disposer of the state of events, in such a manner, for wise, holy, and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin, if it be permitted, or not hindered, will most certainly and infallibly follow;—I say, if this be all that is meant by being the author of sin, I do not deny that God is the author of sin, (though I dislike and reject the phrase, as that which by use and custom is apt to carry another sense), it is no reproach for the Most High to be thus the author of sin. This is not to be the actor of sin, but on the contrary, of holiness. What God doth herein is holy, and a glorious exercise of the infinite excellency of his nature” (Jonathan Edwards, “Freedom of the Will,” vol. 1, The Works of Jonathan Edwards [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1957], 399).

I have not come to my present theological commitments lightly. I was not raised in a "Calvinist" home, and, in fact, my father (a pastor) has always rejected and now continues to reject my present theological beliefs (though we have a wonderful relationship nonetheless). I was "converted" to Calvinism in seminary through the systematic study of the biblical texts. In light of my new-found, Bible-driven convictions, the problem of evil became one important foci of my studies in graduate school. In fact, my Masters thesis was entitled, for example: "The Problem of Evil in the Context of Calvinism: A Response to Mackie and Feinberg." The point is that I came to my convictions through studying the Bible, kicking and screaming along the way. Thus, I find your mocking retorts "the Bible says so," "the Bible says so" to be rudely ignorant and, moreover, unbecoming.

Best.

cks

[jwhitlock]

I'm not sure about that either. I think during mortality at least that we do both, and therefore might be considered to be in the presence of both.

I'm not sure how we can demonstrate that.

My own feeling is that people never set out to do evil in the absolute sense. If they are performing what they view as an evil act then it is in pursuit of what they view as some greater good that will be its consequence (not greater good in the sense it will do more good to more people - greater good in the sense they feel the reward will be worth the offense).

People do what they think will bring them pleasure, not what they know will disgust them. Pleasure by itself is not bad - as I said, the purpose of man is joy. It's only seeking it in the wrong way that is bad.

Those who do evil are just seeking good in the wrong place with the wrong methods.

Well, we'll just have to disagree on this one. In reality I find far too many examples of people who are pursuing evil for evil's sake - not for any particular good.

[jwhitlock]

I have highlighted some areas for clarity's sake.

First, the Problem of Luck is called that, but it makes no distinction between randomness and luck. Indeed, one of the key tenets of those who have proposed the problem is that it is difficult to conceive of how randomness could contribute to greater freedom, or moral responsibility.

The reason I have highlighted what I have is that there is a very large difference between making different choices in similar circumstances, and making different choices in exactly the same circumstances. Even when there is no apparent reason why we make different choices in similar circumstances, this does not logically entail that there truly is no reason, simply that there is no reason that it immediately obvious to a casual observer.

It is, in fact, impossible to demonstrate libertarianism in the real world, with the possible but debatable exception of quantum randomness. The reason is because we simply cannot duplicate conditions exactly in the real world. We can try to get close, but there is no way to eliminate the possibility that some difference in the conditions actually caused the difference in outcome.

Regarding our incomplete knowledge of conditions in this world, while that is certainly true, can the same thing be said of God? The debate about free will has traditionally been a philosophical exercise that is not tied to empirical data or evidence. It is not about what we do not know, but rather about what cannot logically be known.

Perhaps in the final analysis, if determinism is really "true", then it doesn't matter. We could philosophize all we wanted, and would never come any closer to understanding the reasons for it.

Actually, I tend to rely quite heavily on what I observe in coming to conclusions on things like this. I think that we're meant to observe the world around us and draw some conclusions about things like free will.

Anyway, I'm not sure we're able to really figure out why things are the way the are, simply using philosophy. However, we're better able to point out the inconsistencies in certain things, and the blending of free will and determinism has never seemed to work well in my mind. Perhaps you can shed some more light on how you think they can be compatible.

[Deborah]

What is "omnipotence" then?

I think this has different meaning to different people. Some believe that God can do anything he sets his mind to, hence ex-nihilo creation. However LDS believe that God works according to Law and organizes what already exists; but within that realm he is omnipotent because he understands all the laws required to accomplish what is needed. Evil obviously existed in the beginning as Lucifer was able to choose that which was counter to God's will. I wonder in fact if that could be the definition of evil: doing what is counter to God's will. So when we see all the suffering in the world it isn't because God created it but because men have chosen to do that which is contrary to what God desires.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Hi LOAP:

An initial note to readers: I find the thread’s subtitle “cksalmon and the evil God” inherently offensive, as I have never once suggested that the God I believe in is evil. This is an unfortunate, but not, to my mind, a malicious misstatement on LOAP’s part. He informed me that he would ask this to be edited by the mods. I’m sure they will comply as they find the time.

Yes. And I responded right away that I would ask that it be changed. I pm'd a mod who apparently didn't have time to read my message. Though I asked for the subtitle to be changed, I am still interested in how you believe God isn't evil. He is the ultimate source of it in your view if I understand you correctly. Please explain how God is not evil if he could prevent evil but doesn't.

"Once said" is better rendered "posted last night on MDB shortly before I now quote him," but no matter.

If it's no matter, than why did you mention it here?

If you’ll reread the OP to which my quoted response was made, you'll find this: “If God is omnipotent, and created the world from nothing, as most Christians believe, then how is it logical to believe He is the author of good, but not of evil?”

KimberlyAnn is no longer a Mormon, but she knows what Mormons believe. They don’t believe in creation ex nihilo. Yet, the OP frames her question in terms of belief in creation ex nihilo. My response was framed in light of that given context. If you wish to find offense—“a small swipe at Mormons”—in my response, so be it. But, you’d have to be looking a little too closely for some sort of specific slight to find it there.

I don't have any idea what the phrase "if this is his doing" refers to, but, as for questioning God in light of his all-encompassing sovereignty over all things, I think "there is something wrong" with that precisely because the Bible bids me do so.

See bold.

I have not come to my present theological commitments lightly. I was not raised in a "Calvinist" home, and, in fact, my father (a pastor) has always rejected and now continues to reject my present theological beliefs (though we have a wonderful relationship nonetheless). I was "converted" to Calvinism in seminary through the systematic study of the biblical texts. In light of my new-found, Bible-driven convictions, the problem of evil became one important foci of my studies in graduate school. In fact, my Masters thesis was entitled, for example: "The Problem of Evil in the Context of Calvinism: A Response to Mackie and Feinberg." The point is that I came to my convictions through studying the Bible, kicking and screaming along the way. Thus, I find your mocking retorts "the Bible says so," "the Bible says so" to be rudely ignorant and, moreover, unbecoming.

Best.

cks

See bold.

I think it is very good that you are quite frank here with your biblical interpretation. You do face your conviction up front, and I can respect that. Your position, of course, I disagree with, but think your willingness to boldly state that God would inflict an infant with AIDS or allow countless folks to starve to death, or die without a knowledge of Christ and be consigned to hell all because he created them for that reason for his own pleasure, is as blasphemous as you apparently find my position.

I appreciate you posting your biblical case for God and evil in your view.

Best.

[LDSMusic483]

I would agree that logically following something, if someone is the author of evil, then they are themselves evil. By their fruits shall ye know them. I do not believe God created evil nor do I believe He is evil. I can not say for certain where evil gets its origins from. But I think God permits evil it's presence in our lives to accomplish the greater good.