NationStates

Lower Nubia wrote:

New Visayan Islands wrote:Are we assuming that Moscow is the Third Rome in this scenario?

Purely for the memes of course.

Auristania wrote:

Dogmeat wrote:I mention this only because it's a subject that interests me, and not as an enforcement of anything:
Virtually everyone in the world has Jewish ancestry. Because Judaism is an old religion.

That thing you've heard about everyone in Europe being descended from Charlemagne - because: math - doesn't just apply to him. Because the number of ancestors you have doubles with each generation you go back, you don't have to go back that many generations before you have just an astronomical number of ancestors.

So by the time of Charlemagne this is enough, that every European ought to be related to him through at least two different lines. And a plurality of non-Europeans are likely to be descended from him as well. Judaism is - very conservatively - at least a thousand years older than that, and there were and are a lot of Jews.

So you have a Jewish ancestor. I can basically guarantee it. You have lots, probably. And there's a pretty good chance you share most of them with most of the other people in this thread. Because: math.

This is a mathematical truth. So the Jews made a rule: it's gotta be descent by mother's mother's mother etc all the way back to count as actually Jewish.

12 apostles, 11 were Jewish, Judas was Canaanite.

Auristania wrote:

Dogmeat wrote:I mention this only because it's a subject that interests me, and not as an enforcement of anything:
Virtually everyone in the world has Jewish ancestry. Because Judaism is an old religion.

That thing you've heard about everyone in Europe being descended from Charlemagne - because: math - doesn't just apply to him. Because the number of ancestors you have doubles with each generation you go back, you don't have to go back that many generations before you have just an astronomical number of ancestors.

So by the time of Charlemagne this is enough, that every European ought to be related to him through at least two different lines. And a plurality of non-Europeans are likely to be descended from him as well. Judaism is - very conservatively - at least a thousand years older than that, and there were and are a lot of Jews.

So you have a Jewish ancestor. I can basically guarantee it. You have lots, probably. And there's a pretty good chance you share most of them with most of the other people in this thread. Because: math.

This is a mathematical truth. So the Jews made a rule: it's gotta be descent by mother's mother's mother etc all the way back to count as actually Jewish.

12 apostles, 11 were Jewish, Judas was Canaanite.

Sundiata wrote:God didn't create evil, he permits it for a greater good.

Menassa wrote:

Sundiata wrote:God didn't create evil, he permits it for a greater good.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7)

Tarsonis wrote:

Menassa wrote: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7)

There's a couple ways of interpreting that.

Tarsonis wrote:

Menassa wrote: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7)

There's a couple ways of interpreting that.

Menassa wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
There's a couple ways of interpreting that.

In a way that shows God does not 'create evil?'

Tarsonis wrote:

Menassa wrote:In a way that shows God does not 'create evil?'

Sure. Take the first phrase right I form the light, and create darkness." But we know that darkness doesn't really exist, rather darkness is the absence of light. In effect the concept of darkness doesn't exist without light. God created darkness by separating night and day:

"And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness."


Technically God didn't create darkness as darkness is absence of light, but in creating light He caused the Darkness to be known.

The same can be understood when reading the second phrase "I make peace and create evil." The theme is the same: by creating the one, the other is defined.

Now the word for peace here is Shalom which you know doesn't really mean martial peace, but the peace/harmony that comes from uniting oneself to God, and God's will. Given the context of Isaiah 45, explaining to the Jews why the Babylonian Diaspora happened, it makes sense that we can understand that the evil here is the wickedness that is the inverse of uniting one's self to God, not evil that is created directly by God.

By defining what shalom is, we also know what anti-shalom is. And ultimately it is defined through the Covenant. By adhering to the covenant, Israel prospered. But when Israel deviated from the Covenant, they suffered. Not because God created that suffering, but rather he pulled back His providence as the Covenant have been violated.

God doesn't directly create evil in the same way that we would say he created the Universe. Rather God defines evil when he makes himself known, evil abounds when God pulls back his providence.

Which is ultimately what Sundiata meant here. God does not directly create evil, he makes no actions that are evil. But neither does he snuff evil out, allowing it to permit for ,which we have faith is, a divine purpose.

New Visayan Islands wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
Sure. Take the first phrase right I form the light, and create darkness." But we know that darkness doesn't really exist, rather darkness is the absence of light. In effect the concept of darkness doesn't exist without light. God created darkness by separating night and day:

"And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness."


Technically God didn't create darkness as darkness is absence of light, but in creating light He caused the Darkness to be known.

The same can be understood when reading the second phrase "I make peace and create evil." The theme is the same: by creating the one, the other is defined.

Now the word for peace here is Shalom which you know doesn't really mean martial peace, but the peace/harmony that comes from uniting oneself to God, and God's will. Given the context of Isaiah 45, explaining to the Jews why the Babylonian Diaspora happened, it makes sense that we can understand that the evil here is the wickedness that is the inverse of uniting one's self to God, not evil that is created directly by God.

By defining what shalom is, we also know what anti-shalom is. And ultimately it is defined through the Covenant. By adhering to the covenant, Israel prospered. But when Israel deviated from the Covenant, they suffered. Not because God created that suffering, but rather he pulled back His providence as the Covenant have been violated.

God doesn't directly create evil in the same way that we would say he created the Universe. Rather God defines evil when he makes himself known, evil abounds when God pulls back his providence.

Which is ultimately what Sundiata meant here. God does not directly create evil, he makes no actions that are evil. But neither does he snuff evil out, allowing it to permit for ,which we have faith is, a divine purpose.

So TL;DR: God does not so much create evil as He unmasks it for all to see.

Did I get that right?

Tarsonis wrote:

Menassa wrote:In a way that shows God does not 'create evil?'

Sure. Take the first phrase right I form the light, and create darkness." But we know that darkness doesn't really exist, rather darkness is the absence of light. In effect the concept of darkness doesn't exist without light. God created darkness by separating night and day:

"And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness."


Technically God didn't create darkness as darkness is absence of light, but in creating light He caused the Darkness to be known.

The same can be understood when reading the second phrase "I make peace and create evil." The theme is the same: by creating the one, the other is defined.

Now the word for peace here is Shalom which you know doesn't really mean martial peace, but the peace/harmony that comes from uniting oneself to God, and God's will. Given the context of Isaiah 45, explaining to the Jews why the Babylonian Diaspora happened, it makes sense that we can understand that the evil here is the wickedness that is the inverse of uniting one's self to God, not evil that is created directly by God.

By defining what shalom is, we also know what anti-shalom is. And ultimately it is defined through the Covenant. By adhering to the covenant, Israel prospered. But when Israel deviated from the Covenant, they suffered. Not because God created that suffering, but rather he pulled back His providence as the Covenant have been violated.

God doesn't directly create evil in the same way that we would say he created the Universe. Rather God defines evil when he makes himself known, evil abounds when God pulls back his providence.

Which is ultimately what Sundiata meant here. God does not directly create evil, he makes no actions that are evil. But neither does he snuff evil out, allowing it to permit for ,which we have faith is, a divine purpose.

Menassa wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
Sure. Take the first phrase right I form the light, and create darkness." But we know that darkness doesn't really exist, rather darkness is the absence of light. In effect the concept of darkness doesn't exist without light. God created darkness by separating night and day:

"And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness."


Technically God didn't create darkness as darkness is absence of light, but in creating light He caused the Darkness to be known.

The same can be understood when reading the second phrase "I make peace and create evil." The theme is the same: by creating the one, the other is defined.

Now the word for peace here is Shalom which you know doesn't really mean martial peace, but the peace/harmony that comes from uniting oneself to God, and God's will. Given the context of Isaiah 45, explaining to the Jews why the Babylonian Diaspora happened, it makes sense that we can understand that the evil here is the wickedness that is the inverse of uniting one's self to God, not evil that is created directly by God.

By defining what shalom is, we also know what anti-shalom is. And ultimately it is defined through the Covenant. By adhering to the covenant, Israel prospered. But when Israel deviated from the Covenant, they suffered. Not because God created that suffering, but rather he pulled back His providence as the Covenant have been violated.

God doesn't directly create evil in the same way that we would say he created the Universe. Rather God defines evil when he makes himself known, evil abounds when God pulls back his providence.

Which is ultimately what Sundiata meant here. God does not directly create evil, he makes no actions that are evil. But neither does he snuff evil out, allowing it to permit for ,which we have faith is, a divine purpose.

It seems that the word being used in Isaiah for 'create' is the exact same word that is used in Genesis to show God's creation of things like, light, animals, and man. As in Isaiah 45 where God is showing Cyrus that he is the master of all things, good and evil are totally in God's control. The same God that will "straighten the crooked paths" (45:2) is the same one who makes peace and creates evil.

You could further argue that Genesis 1: does not specifically say that God 'created' darkness because the darkness was already there when he created light. As 1:1 says "In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth" and 1:2 says "the darkness was on the face of the deep" so then God separates light from the darkness that is already there. I don't believe that Genesis 1 necessarily shows that 'Darkness is the absent of light' and darkness is not a thing to be created.

It seems that in this discussion there are two philosophical points that you can follow. Either Evil is the absence of Good or Evil is a specific thing. Regardless of your philosophical opinion on that, God's point in Isaiah is that whatever 'evil' is. He creates it and he is in control of it.

Now you will say 'God creating an absence is a contradiction!' to which I will posit that it needn't be for all the reasons you have said above. If we assume that evil is the absence of Good, by God creating Good he has shown/created evil. Now obviously this doesn't mean God wants evil, as I am sure you know, just that he controls it.

Further, as I am certain you know, the picture painted by the OT is that God (not a man, angel, devil etc.) is fully in control of everything in the universe, including Evil. Which, whatever it is, he 'created.'

Auristania wrote:

Lower Nubia wrote:
Purely for the memes of course.

No. British Empire is 5th Rome. USA is 6th Rome

The prophecy that Moscow is 3rd Rome defines that 4th Rome shall never be. 4th Rome is Holy Roman Empire which is defined as neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire, This proves that HRE never be-ed

Menassa wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
Sure. Take the first phrase right I form the light, and create darkness." But we know that darkness doesn't really exist, rather darkness is the absence of light. In effect the concept of darkness doesn't exist without light. God created darkness by separating night and day:

"And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness."


Technically God didn't create darkness as darkness is absence of light, but in creating light He caused the Darkness to be known.

The same can be understood when reading the second phrase "I make peace and create evil." The theme is the same: by creating the one, the other is defined.

Now the word for peace here is Shalom which you know doesn't really mean martial peace, but the peace/harmony that comes from uniting oneself to God, and God's will. Given the context of Isaiah 45, explaining to the Jews why the Babylonian Diaspora happened, it makes sense that we can understand that the evil here is the wickedness that is the inverse of uniting one's self to God, not evil that is created directly by God.

By defining what shalom is, we also know what anti-shalom is. And ultimately it is defined through the Covenant. By adhering to the covenant, Israel prospered. But when Israel deviated from the Covenant, they suffered. Not because God created that suffering, but rather he pulled back His providence as the Covenant have been violated.

God doesn't directly create evil in the same way that we would say he created the Universe. Rather God defines evil when he makes himself known, evil abounds when God pulls back his providence.

Which is ultimately what Sundiata meant here. God does not directly create evil, he makes no actions that are evil. But neither does he snuff evil out, allowing it to permit for ,which we have faith is, a divine purpose.

It seems that the word being used in Isaiah for 'create' is the exact same word that is used in Genesis to show God's creation of things like, light, animals, and man. As in Isaiah 45 where God is showing Cyrus that he is the master of all things, good and evil are totally in God's control. The same God that will "straighten the crooked paths" (45:2) is the same one who makes peace and creates evil.

You could further argue that Genesis 1: does not specifically say that God 'created' darkness because the darkness was already there when he created light. As 1:1 says "In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth" and 1:2 says "the darkness was on the face of the deep" so then God separates light from the darkness that is already there. I don't believe that Genesis 1 necessarily shows that 'Darkness is the absent of light' and darkness is not a thing to be created.

It seems that in this discussion there are two philosophical points that you can follow. Either Evil is the absence of Good or Evil is a specific thing. Regardless of your philosophical opinion on that, God's point in Isaiah is that whatever 'evil' is. He creates it and he is in control of it.

Now you will say 'God creating an absence is a contradiction!' to which I will posit that it needn't be for all the reasons you have said above. If we assume that evil is the absence of Good, by God creating Good he has shown/created evil. Now obviously this doesn't mean God wants evil, as I am sure you know, just that he controls it.

Further, as I am certain you know, the picture painted by the OT is that God (not a man, angel, devil etc.) is fully in control of everything in the universe, including Evil. Which, whatever it is, he 'created.'

Menassa wrote:

Sundiata wrote:God didn't create evil, he permits it for a greater good.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7)

Lower Nubia wrote:

Menassa wrote: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7)

Assuming it refers to evil then the antithetical nature of the comparison no longer works, because the opposite of peace is not evil, but adversity. Which is an acceptable, and contextual, use of the term ra.

Tarsonis wrote:It is technically correct to say that God controls evil, but it must be understood how God controls evil. Not by directing it, but by dispelling it. These concepts are very important to understand, because if not its very easy to come to the conclusion that God directs evil. I mean *gestures at all of Calvinism*

Menassa wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:It is technically correct to say that God controls evil, but it must be understood how God controls evil. Not by directing it, but by dispelling it. These concepts are very important to understand, because if not its very easy to come to the conclusion that God directs evil. I mean *gestures at all of Calvinism*

I felt that our other conversations were tertiary when this is the exact point I would like to address. Whether or not evil exists ontologically as a 'created' thing or a 'derived' thing is not entirely important because it is either way under the control of God. I never said that God acts in an evil way or does things that are evil. God 'created' evil for a purpose just as he 'created' light for its purposes and darkness for its purposes. Evil has a very important purposes in God's general schema of the world, that thing which humans must rule over (Genesis 4:6) as God already has plenty of mindless of robots (angels) who worship him.

Luminesa wrote:

Menassa wrote:I felt that our other conversations were tertiary when this is the exact point I would like to address. Whether or not evil exists ontologically as a 'created' thing or a 'derived' thing is not entirely important because it is either way under the control of God. I never said that God acts in an evil way or does things that are evil. God 'created' evil for a purpose just as he 'created' light for its purposes and darkness for its purposes. Evil has a very important purposes in God's general schema of the world, that thing which humans must rule over (Genesis 4:6) as God already has plenty of mindless of robots (angels) who worship him.

Not sure if angels with intelligences high above ours would be considered 'mindless robots'. Unless we're talking about Neon Genesis Evangelion.

Menassa wrote:

Lower Nubia wrote:
Assuming it refers to evil then the antithetical nature of the comparison no longer works, because the opposite of peace is not evil, but adversity. Which is an acceptable, and contextual, use of the term ra.

Ra always means 'evil.'

Menassa wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:It is technically correct to say that God controls evil, but it must be understood how God controls evil. Not by directing it, but by dispelling it. These concepts are very important to understand, because if not its very easy to come to the conclusion that God directs evil. I mean *gestures at all of Calvinism*

I felt that our other conversations were tertiary when this is the exact point I would like to address. Whether or not evil exists ontologically as a 'created' thing or a 'derived' thing is not entirely important because it is either way under the control of God. I never said that God acts in an evil way or does things that are evil. God 'created' evil for a purpose just as he 'created' light for its purposes and darkness for its purposes. Evil has a very important purposes in God's general schema of the world, that thing which humans must rule over (Genesis 4:6) as God already has plenty of mindless of robots (angels) who worship him.

Menassa wrote:

Luminesa wrote:Not sure if angels with intelligences high above ours would be considered 'mindless robots'. Unless we're talking about Neon Genesis Evangelion.

Angles are messengers of God to serve a single purpose with no free will.

Menassa wrote:

Lower Nubia wrote:
Assuming it refers to evil then the antithetical nature of the comparison no longer works, because the opposite of peace is not evil, but adversity. Which is an acceptable, and contextual, use of the term ra.

Ra always means 'evil.'

Tarsonis wrote:

Menassa wrote:Ra always means 'evil.'

Ehhhh, Ra technically means bad. Context dictates on whether it means moral badness, aka evil, or Natural badness, i.e calamity, pain, suffering. Nubia's comment here isn't that ra doesn't ever mean evil, but that the context of the verse leans more toward the "natural badness" interpretation.

Tarsonis wrote:

Menassa wrote:I felt that our other conversations were tertiary when this is the exact point I would like to address. Whether or not evil exists ontologically as a 'created' thing or a 'derived' thing is not entirely important because it is either way under the control of God. I never said that God acts in an evil way or does things that are evil. God 'created' evil for a purpose just as he 'created' light for its purposes and darkness for its purposes. Evil has a very important purposes in God's general schema of the world, that thing which humans must rule over (Genesis 4:6) as God already has plenty of mindless of robots (angels) who worship him.

While I agree with the underlined, the rest I would not. The Ontology of "Good" and "Evil" aren't just things we can side step, they're fundamentally involved in this issue. If we're going to say that God creates both Good and Evil, we have to agree about what Good and Evil are. They're not just terms for positive and negative, they have important mimetic properties that "positive" and "negative" don't. In Judeo/Christian ethics, Good is defined by its positional relation to to God, and evil inversely so. Moral Goodness is dictated by God, and is affixed by God's nature. Evil on the other hand, is the opposite of Godliness, it is immorality, it is Anti-God. For God to create "Evil" would mean that God is capable of immoral action, which would derail the entire system of God's immovable Goodness, as well as invalidate the existence of evil in the first place. If God created evil, it would by definition then be Good as God had created and purposed it. Thus immorality would become morality. So the question of whether or not evil is "Created" verses "derived" is incredibly important. For if evil is created then God commits evil. But if evil is derived then God does not commit evil.

Tarsonis wrote:

Menassa wrote:Angles are messengers of God to serve a single purpose with no free will.

Sure, but at the same time they are also persons. Individuals, with decision making abilities. The difference between us and them, in terms of will, depends on what definition of "free will" we're using. If we're using the libertarian concept of will, then the difference is that our will is free while theirs is bound. We can choose to disobey God, and to reject God entirely. Angels, and by extension demons, cannot. While they are individuals with personality and decision making abilities, their will is subjugated to God's. They cannot defy God. [...]

Tarsonis wrote:Even the Rabbi's acknowledge this. Hell Miltonian lore, which is the "popular" accounting of the Devil's origins, is influenced primarily by Rabbi Eliezer's account of the fall.

Lower Nubia wrote:Shalom does not mean good though. Which makes the statement unbalanced when the earlier statement of contrast is light and darkness - polar opposites. Which means ra cannot be evil. As that is not the logical juxtaposition to shalom, whereas as tov would be a better contextual fit, as per Isaiah 5:20. Assuming it is evil here, rather than calamity, or adversity.

Besides, your statement is false, ra is not only used for moral evil, but also adversity as per Numbers 11:1, Numbers 22:34, Deuteronomy 17:1, Joshua 24:15, 1 Samuel 29:7, 2 Kings 4:41, Psalm 94:13, and Proverbs 25:20.

Menassa wrote:I don't believe this is the case, in every time it appears it can be aptly translated as evil. The plain meaning of the word 'ra' is bad or 'evil' as you say, anything other than that is the translator/interpreter posing what they believe fits onto the text. There are other words in Hebrew for disasters and natural calamities that are not chosen, but the word for 'evil' is. [...]

Menassa wrote:

Lower Nubia wrote:Shalom does not mean good though. Which makes the statement unbalanced when the earlier statement of contrast is light and darkness - polar opposites. Which means ra cannot be evil. As that is not the logical juxtaposition to shalom, whereas as tov would be a better contextual fit, as per Isaiah 5:20. Assuming it is evil here, rather than calamity, or adversity.

Besides, your statement is false, ra is not only used for moral evil, but also adversity as per Numbers 11:1, Numbers 22:34, Deuteronomy 17:1, Joshua 24:15, 1 Samuel 29:7, 2 Kings 4:41, Psalm 94:13, and Proverbs 25:20.

Menassa wrote:I don't believe this is the case, in every time it appears it can be aptly translated as evil. The plain meaning of the word 'ra' is bad or 'evil' as you say, anything other than that is the translator/interpreter posing what they believe fits onto the text. There are other words in Hebrew for disasters and natural calamities that are not chosen, but the word for 'evil' is. [...]