Yes, and you're interpreting them in the most literal sense possible in order to force the conclusion.
and you're ignoring what it says in place of what you'd like it to say.
Yes, the lord has allowed it to happen. But he hasn't done evil.
and the lord did not blow the trumpet, either. the point of the verse is that god is in control. the second line (it's two lines) is the answer to the first. the question, rhetorically, is "when someone's attcking you, aren't you afraid?" the answer is "god sends all evil, why should i be afraid of something from god?"
but seriously. it says that god sends evil. so did a ton of the other verses i cited.
Do you actually think the Lord is both good and evil?
yes. and no. i think god is above "good" and "evil." those are terms we use, and somewhat subjectively. a lot of times, the things those verses i cited were talking about were wars. the definition of "evil" is definitally subjective, whether or not the authors realized it. the opponents obviously didn't think the war was evil. and i'm sure the canaanites sure thought israel was evil -- they only committed mass genocide.
similarly, i don't think hitler would have thought himself evil. but we do. my point is that god is above those petty differences. god defines what is good and evil for us. god is not held accountable to himself. or us, for that matter.
Actually, it's a good example if you can actually read the words "JESUS" in-between the black lines.
now, it's a bad example, because i'm an art major. (yes, btw, i picked out the other ones too)
my father once went to a school open house when i was very young, and they gave out a pamphlet designed to make parents udnerstand how hard reading is to kindergarteners. it was in a greek font. most parents were perplexed, but my father wasn't impressed. he could have written it in the actual greek language. so it was a bad example for him.
in other words: you're speaking my language. being cryptic is gonna be tricky. although, i will admit that the first time i saw this, i only saw the black. of course, i was also 8 years old.
You are reading more into my own words than I've actually said.
isn't it ironic? dontcha think?
anyways. from the quote:
it may very well be likely did God did NOT know what the adversary was up to
this makes god out to be one of a few options: stupid, blind, or just plain not there. what do you suppose god was doing when the serpent said "god's wrong, if you eat it, you'll be like god" ? closing his eyes and humming to himself? sticking his fingers in his ears? the garden can't be very big, and god certainly could have heard him.
you're basically arguing that god is incapable of perceiving and understanding evil. so that means he can't see evil acts. which means that he's not seeing evil people when they do evil things. how is that a misrepresentation of what you said?
Then what about a passage like this one, "For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil."
howabout it? god is pretty clearly capable of seeing even the HIDDEN evil things, isn't he? this "only in contrast" bit doesn't really factor in anywhere in the bible, does it?
Futhermore, if God is both good and evil, then why are there passages which indicate the following:
The LORD is good,
did i say the lord was not good?
look, if you say to your kids "how was school?" and they say "good" what do you suppose they mean? do they mean there is not one element of it they don't like?
The LORD is gracious and compassionate,
slow to anger and rich in love.
The LORD is good to all;
he has compassion on all he has made.
where is god's compassion for sodom? for egypt? did god not make sodom or egypt? do you think these psalms are the literal word of god, or people singing their praises of something? is everything they say 100% correct about everything, down to finest detail? is it incompatible with god saying "go into the promised land and kill everything that moves?"
Surely one of these passages could have said, "The Lord is evil..." or something to that effect. If I sat down and went through the entire Scriptures I could copy and paste a GARGANTUAN pile of Scripture verses which testify that the Lord is good.
the lord is clearly more good than evil -- i never said otherwise. i just said he uses both. citing one doesn't prove the opposite is not true. this is a false dichotomy. there are clearly verses that say that god does things that are called evil, and examples where outside readers could read god's actions as evil. but, as i said, i believe god does everything for good, even evil.
Since I don't feel like copying nad pasting 1/3 of the Scriptures here at EvC, at the very least I will demonstrate a few passages passages here which show how God uses evil to bring about greater good.
i'm not arguing against that. i'm arguing for that.
Furthermore, if God is both evil and good, then why would various Scriptures say the following?
are those directed at god? or are they directed at us? god favors the people here are good. but that doesn't mean he doesn't use evil to accomplish his will. and it doesn't ment he didn't create evil, so that we would have a choice between the two. you're even citings the same book i did, by the same prophet. you think his views are discordant?
look, i ran through this with riverat: if the crucifixion was part of god's will, god must have used evil for it, because it was evil we needed to be redeemed from, and evil that unjustly killed christ. god's plan involved evil people, doing evil things, for the greater good.
If Amos is saying to hate evil, is he not also saying to hate God -- because God is apparently also evil by your definition?
amos is speaking of principles and morality. not god. he's saying "do this, and don't do that, and god will like you."
i heard a rumor about a tribe in africa that was evangelized to by missionaries. and they believed. but they decided that because god would forgive you for your sins, but the devil was capable of only punishment, it was better to not piss of the devil.
But don't the Scriptures say to love God -- how can one be commanded to both love and hate God at the same time?
when's the last time you lived with your parents?
If God is both good and evil, then why would Isaiah warn so strenuously about calling evil good and calling good evil? By your definition, statements like this apparently make very little sense.
isaiah, again, is speaking of morality and actions. or rather, sides in a war. he's talking about the captivity and the decadence of babylonian society. and, i think, integration.
When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed.
so says james. note also that this is about personal responsibility: it denies the role of satan in temptation. he says "each one is tempted [...] by his own evil desire." no devil. no satan. nope, just you, yourself.
so that tree in the garden? not god tempting. not the serpent tempting. nope. it's adam's fault. and eve's fault, each for their own evil desires. is he right? yes, i think so: god does punish adam and eve. it does seem to be their fault for doing what they did.
but.... the serpent did tempt them, didn't he? so what does the verse mean? it means, don't say "god's testing me!" because the test is really with yourself. and your actions are not god's fault. god just writes the tests and grades them, you fail on your own merit.
On the contrary:
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
on the contrary: love your enemy. but not out of spite, and not to annoy him.
Now that I think of it, isn't this passage actually quoting Proverbs 25: 21-22?
*sigh*
yes. does it sound like a teaching of jesus? coals on the head and such?
All's that you've shown is that you don't agree with it. The part about it being erroneous is for God to decide.
no, i've shown pretty clearly that evil operates at BEST within the constraints god sets on it, and clearly in the presence of god. the entire exile (you know, most of the prophetic books) is described as god visiting an evil on israel and judah, because they have done evil themselves. you're arguing that evil and god are exclusive to the extent that lack of one defines the other. and this is just not the case in the bible. as i've shown, there are verse that clearly indicate god in the presence of evil, using evil, and manipulating evil.
therefor, evil cannot be the absence of god, in the views of the authors of most of the bible.
However, you're also refusing to get involved in the idea of free-will in connection with sin -- and the whole concept of whether man even has a free-will or not. Please address these questions too while you're busy copying and pasting all the Scriptural passages from KJV that you can find.
i use the kjv because i can search it. it's much easier than looking the old fashioned way. and uh, i did discuss free will. back before you asked me to, i might point out: a said that god holds use accountable for our choices, even if he rigs the game a little. even though god manipulated pharoah, pharoah still had a choice.
As I said to Ifen, making a choice doesn't seem so much about making a choice, but rather about selecting which pre-set facet of life one will experience in the future. Certainly a choice still exists, but the final destination is certainly limited to a finte set of possibilities which were already predetermined by God.
i imagine god like a sort of giant quantum computer, computing every possibility and alternate universe with every choice, and picking which directions go further before any of them every happened.
it's sort of the donnie-darko-in-reverse view of the universe.
Sometimes, such as in Exodus 8:15, it says that Pharaoh "hardened his heart" -- implying that Pharoah hardened his own heart.
However, sometimes, such as in Exodus 10:1, it says that God "hardened his heart" -- implying that God did it to Pharaoh whether Pharaoh agreed or not.
it does appear god has a role in it, doesn't he? do you deny that god is manipulating pharoah?
Yet oddly back in Exodus 7:13, it says that "Pharaoh's heart became hard" -- implying in this instance that Pharoah's heart hardened notwithstanding any involvment from God or Pharoah himself (or perhaps hardening via the conflicting wills pressed against it: God v. Pharaoh).
you forgot part of it: "as god had said." jump back a few verses, and what did god say? "I will harden..."
it appears to be using them interchangeably. why do you suppose that is?
It seems to me that this is consistent with the Israelite view: that all of history was an act of God. Beyond that, the writers did not appear to make a clear distinction on the matter of who exactly caused what
so according to the bible, at least the bits of it older than 200 bc, does free will exist?
By rejecting God's will, it seems as though Pharaoh's heart was hardened. In other words, if Pharoah resisted God, he would have no choice but to have his heart hardened by his rejection of God's will.
doesn't follow, and contradicted by the text. god clearly indicates that it is his will that pharoah's heart will be hardened, whoever is doing it. so pharoah is in compliance with god's will. (just like jesus's executioners)
In this sense, Pharaoh still had a choice up until he chose to resist God
i doubt pharoah ever once took Yahweh seriously until moses came along. i like the way "prince of egypt" tells the story, if you've ever seen it. pharoah gets more and more convinced with each passing plague. but there's not really any indication of that in the bible, iirc. the bible seems to have pharoah not taking moses and his god seriously ever, until the passover. and at that point, it might even be that they're just causing far too much trouble.
egypt, clearly, does not convert.
Edit: by the way, are you into Kabbalah? I ask this because some of your ideas seem more Kabbalistic than specifically Judaic.
they are, somewhat. but no, i'm not especially into the qabala. but most of my views are rather consistent with modern reform (progressive?) judaism:
http://www.faqs.org/...m/FAQ/06-Jewish-Thought/preamble.html
i will admit to be vaguely curious about the qabala, but only about as much as i am about the quran.
Likewise, in the Zohar it is told that when the holy snake, Mashiach, will kill the evil snake
see exodus.
quote:
Exd 7:12 For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods.
certain snakes are viewed as good, and certain ones bad. in numbers, god sends some bad ones. so moses makes a good one.
אָרַח
™ Version 4.2
