Theodicy

[Typhlochactas]

How do you know god allows evil?

God does not allow evil, God is Evil, as explained above.

I'm exploring his worldview, not postulating my own.

[The Darwinian People]

I like the Gnostic, dualist more specifically, answer to the question of evil, personally (but, then, I am biased). The material world is inherently evil in many ways, by Christian standards; the chief process by which life is developed (Natural Selection) favours violence and lust so much more than it favours altruism which, even then, is still motivated by a selfish desire to create a stable environment for your offspring to flourish and, therefore, for your genetic legacy to continue.

It would appear to me that God would be incapable of bringing good to an evil world. But, then again, I don't subscribe to the belief in an omnipotent God; if I did, it would be supremely hard for me to justify his existence when the universe, as a whole, is not subject to any religious law (be it Hebraic, Hindu, Muslim or whatever) and religious groups over ever conceivable flavour have been perescuted at one point or another.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

How do I know what?

How do you know god allows evil?

In apocrypha I have read, God himself speaks of creating Satan/devil/whatever while knowing it was "evil", and I suggest you look it up because I am mangling the description. Taking that as valid scripture, I can say that God not only created an evil being, but was fully aware of it, and let it live for a while since it wasn't kicked out until later.

That same God, once again in apocrypha, talked to Adam and Eve after they were kicked out, and I think I remember him talking about how he knew they would sin but I forgot after that.

That's all for now.

[The Godly Nations]

I like the Gnostic, dualist more specifically, answer to the question of evil, personally (but, then, I am biased). The material world is inherently evil in many ways, by Christian standards; the chief process by which life is developed (Natural Selection) favours violence and lust so much more than it favours altruism which, even then, is still motivated by a selfish desire to create a stable environment for your offspring to flourish and, therefore, for your genetic legacy to continue.

It would appear to me that God would be incapable of bringing good to an evil world. But, then again, I don't subscribe to the belief in an omnipotent God; if I did, it would be supremely hard for me to justify his existence when the universe, as a whole, is not subject to any religious law (be it Hebraic, Hindu, Muslim or whatever) and religious groups over ever conceivable flavour have been perescuted at one point or another.

Didn't the Gnostic postulate that God, being the Monad, brought about the world in a sort of neo-Platonic sort of way, like Plato's Demiurge and Ideals, that is, that the Material World and the Spiritual world are both of God, but that the Material World is Evil, and the Spiritual World is good, so we all should endeavour to transcend the material world?

It seems to me that this does not resolve the question at all.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

God does not allow evil, God is Evil, as explained above.

I'm exploring his worldview, not postulating my own.

If you mean what I actually believe, I said I would be suspending those for this thread.

I have no reason to believe in evil.

[Typhlochactas]

I'm exploring his worldview, not postulating my own.

If you mean what I actually believe, I said I would be suspending those for this thread.

I have no reason to believe in evil.

I repeat: how do you know that god allows evil?

[The Godly Nations]

I'm exploring his worldview, not postulating my own.

If you mean what I actually believe, I said I would be suspending those for this thread.

I have no reason to believe in evil.

So something like, say, Genocide is good?

What is Good but the absence of Evil?

[Typhlochactas]

If you mean what I actually believe, I said I would be suspending those for this thread.

I have no reason to believe in evil.

So something like, say, Genocide is good?

What is Good but the absence of Evil?

You're forgetting amorality.

[The Godly Nations]

So something like, say, Genocide is good?

What is Good but the absence of Evil?

You're forgetting amorality.

I am saying that there is no morality or amorality, but that all things are just degrees of immorality.

[Cill Airne]

The word 'Evil' is generally used in two separate connotations. Firstly, it is used for reference to the bad deeds of people; for instance lying, injustice, oppression etc. Secondly, it is used for circumstances and conditions, which people consider as 'not good'; for instance poverty, earthquakes, natural calamities, drought etc. The above question is generally asked from both perspectives, i.e. 'if God is All-good, then why does He allow people to do evil?' and 'if God is All-good, then why is there is so much suffering in this world?'.

As far as the first question is concerned, evil deeds are, in fact, a result of the freewill that God has bestowed upon man, for the particular purpose of the test, during the life of this world. This 'test' would not have been possible without granting man the freewill to deviate from the right path, if man so desired. Thus, the Qur'an (Al-Maaidah 5: 48) says: And had God so desired, He would have made you a single people [and not given you the freedom to deviate], but for the purpose of testing you in what He has bestowed upon you [He granted you freedom]. Thus, 'evil deeds' are only a product of man's deviation from the right path, which, in turn, is the result of the freewill, which God has bestowed upon man. One may, however, say that when man commits a sin - deviates from the right path - God should restrict his freedom. Even though, it was possible for God to do so, yet doing so would effectively have meant taking away man's freewill and, thereby, terminating his test. Hence, for the purpose of making the test possible, it was necessary to allow man to deviate from the prescribed path, if he so desired, without following such deviation with any immediate punishment: as an immediate punishment for doing 'evil' and an immediate reward for doing 'good' would also have rendered the 'test' ineffective and impossible.


The Qur'an also tells us that the 'good' and 'bad' times for a particular individual or a people is not merely a test for that particular individual or people alone. It is also a test for all others, who directly or indirectly come in contact with those individuals or people. For instance, loss of wealth of an individual is a 'test' of perseverance and steadfastness for that particular individual, on the one hand, while on the other, it is a 'test' for those living around that individual, insofar as how they behave and help out that particular individual in his hard times. Similarly, a famine, for instance, is not merely a 'test' for those directly affected by the calamity; on the contrary, it is also a 'test' for those whom God has bestowed with surplus food.

So, yes, evil is in existence because God has allowed it to exist, as a test to man-kind.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

You're forgetting amorality.

I am saying that there is no morality or amorality, but that all things are just degrees of immorality.

Surely immorality by definition implies morality as a contrast?

[Typhlochactas]

You're forgetting amorality.

I am saying that there is no morality or amorality, but that all things are just degrees of immorality.

Sure, but being absent of evil is not always good.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

If you mean what I actually believe, I said I would be suspending those for this thread.

I have no reason to believe in evil.

I repeat: how do you know that god allows evil?

I responded to that above in a separate post.

So something like, say, Genocide is good?

What is Good but the absence of Evil?

You're forgetting amorality.

Amorality in the sense of absense, yes.

I see no proof of a universal standard of good and evil, if those two words can even be defined themselves.

They may exist, but I've seen no hint.

Russel's Teapot basically.

[The Darwinian People]

I like the Gnostic, dualist more specifically, answer to the question of evil, personally (but, then, I am biased). The material world is inherently evil in many ways, by Christian standards; the chief process by which life is developed (Natural Selection) favours violence and lust so much more than it favours altruism which, even then, is still motivated by a selfish desire to create a stable environment for your offspring to flourish and, therefore, for your genetic legacy to continue.

It would appear to me that God would be incapable of bringing good to an evil world. But, then again, I don't subscribe to the belief in an omnipotent God; if I did, it would be supremely hard for me to justify his existence when the universe, as a whole, is not subject to any religious law (be it Hebraic, Hindu, Muslim or whatever) and religious groups over ever conceivable flavour have been perescuted at one point or another.

Didn't the Gnostic postulate that God, being the Monad, brought about the world in a sort of neo-Platonic sort of way, like Plato's Demiurge and Ideals, that is, that the Material World and the Spiritual world are both of God, but that the Material World is Evil, and the Spiritual World is good, so we all should endeavour to transcend the material world?

It seems to me that this does not resolve the question at all.

Well, there is no universally accepted Gnostic doctrine. Hell, the only Gnostics that aren't re-constructionists reject Christ as a demon. But, I've described the Neo/Platonic view and I'm not sure what kind of resolution you want to the question; whilst to us, the material world is of the utmost importance and we should strive to make it a better place, God (knowing about a higher truth) really doesn't give two shits about it.

[Norsklow]

I am saying that there is no morality or amorality, but that all things are just degrees of immorality.

Surely immorality by definition implies morality as a contrast?

Does it? Only in a limited sense.

[The Godly Nations]

I am saying that there is no morality or amorality, but that all things are just degrees of immorality.

Surely immorality by definition implies morality as a contrast?

Morality, I say, is simply the Good, which, as demonstrated above, is simply a lesser degree of Evil, and what is absolutely Good, that is absolutely Moral, would be an impossibility, given that God is All inclusive and All Evil- thus, what normal men call 'Good' and 'Moral' is simply a lesser degree of evil and immoral.

[Nidaria]

Evil does not have to exist. Evil only came into the world through rebellion against God, first by Lucifer and then by Adam and Eve. There is no evil matter, only evil wills.

[The Godly Nations]

Didn't the Gnostic postulate that God, being the Monad, brought about the world in a sort of neo-Platonic sort of way, like Plato's Demiurge and Ideals, that is, that the Material World and the Spiritual world are both of God, but that the Material World is Evil, and the Spiritual World is good, so we all should endeavour to transcend the material world?

It seems to me that this does not resolve the question at all.

Well, there is no universally accepted Gnostic doctrine. Hell, the only Gnostics that aren't re-constructionists reject Christ as a demon. But, I've described the Neo/Platonic view and I'm not sure what kind of resolution you want to the question; whilst to us, the material world is of the utmost importance and we should strive to make it a better place, God (knowing about a higher truth) really doesn't give two shits about it.

Yes, but, according to the Doctrine of GOd as Monad, God is the Material World, and includes it, and the presence of Evil within the Material World is enough to refute the idea that God is absolutely Good.

[The Godly Nations]

I am saying that there is no morality or amorality, but that all things are just degrees of immorality.

Sure, but being absent of evil is not always good.

There is no absence of Evil.

[Typhlochactas]

How do you know god allows evil?

In apocrypha I have read, God himself speaks of creating Satan/devil/whatever while knowing it was "evil", and I suggest you look it up because I am mangling the description. Taking that as valid scripture, I can say that God not only created an evil being, but was fully aware of it, and let it live for a while since it wasn't kicked out until later.

That same God, once again in apocrypha, talked to Adam and Eve after they were kicked out, and I think I remember him talking about how he knew they would sin but I forgot after that.

That's all for now.

This is an assumption.

[Typhlochactas]

Sure, but being absent of evil is not always good.

There is no absence of Evil.

Only if God exists, which he doesn't .

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

In apocrypha I have read, God himself speaks of creating Satan/devil/whatever while knowing it was "evil", and I suggest you look it up because I am mangling the description. Taking that as valid scripture, I can say that God not only created an evil being, but was fully aware of it, and let it live for a while since it wasn't kicked out until later.

That same God, once again in apocrypha, talked to Adam and Eve after they were kicked out, and I think I remember him talking about how he knew they would sin but I forgot after that.

That's all for now.

This is an assumption.

elaborate

EDIT: If you mean the presence of God, that is an assumption set forth by the OP.

[Typhlochactas]

This is an assumption.

elaborate

We are referring to God preventing evil, which means we only have to talk about deism for this discussion. Bringing in scripture to talk about God and what he does requires you to prove scripture as truth.

[Giroad]

How can evil exist if there is an absolutely Good, absolutely powerful, and allknowing God?

According to the bible, god made all things bad as a punishment for adam and eve for eating the apple of eden. So blame them for all ur problems.

[The Godly Nations]

There is no absence of Evil.

Only if God exists, which he doesn't .

Even without God, it is manifest that there is no Good- as I said, we define Good only as a degree of departure from the natural state of absolute evil, just as we define wealth as a departure of that natural state of poverty, wellness a divergence from the natural state of infirmy- yet, these things do not exist in itself, but are simply degrees of the former- there is no absolute wealth, or absolute health- in fact, in the case of health, one is perpetually unwell, but is measured as well when deemed more well than a standard of unwellness. So it is with Good, which is a degree of evil, but less evil than a certain standard, and so is praised.