Christians, did Yahweh create evil?

My question was simply to gauge one's morality.

Except they were able to discern the difference between good and evil, they were able to see that they were naked, and they were then suddenly susceptible to death. Those appear to be natural consequences.
What you're repeating to me is what is taught through tradition. Even I was taught what you said when I was a child. However, I decided to read the bible for myself and I learned something entirely different.

That doesn't make sense, because God was clearly able to show his glory through others in who he destroyed due to sin. Were the plagues placed on Egypt not due to the sins of one man? Did that not show the glory of God? Did the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah not show the glory of God? Did the flood of Noah's time not show the glory of God? God didn't need Abraham and Sarah to display his glory.

No. Christians believe in the same set of moral values and duties as the next Christian. Atheists do not. That's the difference.

No. Go to any number of Christians and ask them if having sex with multiple partners is morally responsible. The vast majority of them will say no. Now, go to any number of atheists and ask the same question. The answer will differ wildly.

You're still talking about microevolution. You're not talking about macroevolution at all.

For some strange reason, you keep generalizing "evolution" as if there aren't different kinds or levels of evolution. This leads me to believe that you aren't very familiar with what I'm articulating. I'll say this once. If you can't understand, then I will give up: When I refer to macroevolution, I'm talking about the Darwinian Evolutionary Theory. Please research this topic, and I promise you that you'll level up.

 

So God created a tree that would have all the natural consequences that you listed, and then told them not to eat from it because God hates the natural consequences of sin? Why wouldn't he just not create the tree? Then there are no natural consequences.

But, if sin is defined as severing man's relation with God, then the tree makes sense. There can be no true relationship without a choice.

I've read the Bible too. These are the conclusions that I've drawn from it.

 

Free to make a choice that can never ever be changed from the known outcome.

That is wide open. What are the parameters for better?
We have vast improvement in medicine.
We can see, via technology, deep into the universe.
We live in much better shelters.
We have much safer food to consume and store for much longer periods of time.

I mean really, I need to justify that we are better today than 2000 yrs ago?

 

And it was pointed out, there will be 1M or more different versions of one's morality.
Same among christians.

Is your christian morality the same as the quackers, amish, WBC?
I live in an area where drinking, dancing are against the christian religion. Are they more moral than another christian group that allows drinking and dancing?

 

Known to God, not known to us. So it's still free will, and it's still our choice.

Some places.

Not everyone. (In any case, how does this make society better?)

Not everyone.

Not everyone.

Well, when you make a claim that is impossible to prove, it gets pretty hard.

 

Think about it, how was it not going to happen?
1) God knew before hand it would happen
2) For all of eternity, if they managed to not eat the apple, they were going to be tempted by satan to eat the apple. And all they had to fail was 1 time out of eternity.

 

However likely or inevitable the outcome was, the relationship still needed to be a mutual choice. We needed to choose to have a relationship with God, and we chose not to.

If I ask a girl out, and she refuses, we're not in a relationship, are we? But if she is forced to accept (say, by her parents), then it's still not really a relationship, since there is not mutual choice.

 

There are multiple things wrong with these statements, so let's break them out.

1) You aren't comparing apples to apples. Apples to apples would be to compare atheists to theists, not atheists to Christians. Alternatively, you could compare Christians to, say, secular humanists.
2) Theists obviously disagree on these issues.
3) If you believe that all Christians agree on this issue, then clearly you either have a very limited exposure to other Christians (for example, you must not have heard of Christian Reconstructionism, you haven't seen the Christians on this forum who argue that blasphemy should be illegal, and you must not have read what Paul has to say about politics -- Paul says that all earthy governments are appointed by God and that Christians are to obey them without rebellion) or . . .
4) You are going with the whole "ah, but the Christians who disagree with me aren't really Christians. They aren't true Christians" tactic, in which case I get to argue the same thing about humanists.
5) You are switching back and forth between the specific political questions you asked and "moral values and duties" in general.

Again, numerous things wrong.

6) Again, not apples to apples. Either compare atheists to theists or compare a specific group of atheists (such as humanists) to a specific group of theists (such as Christians). Comparing the broad group of atheists to a narrow group of theists is intellectually dishonest. I could tell you that everyone at the Zen center I attend agrees on morality to a far greater degree than global Christianity has throughout its history. Would that be an honest comparison? Of course not.
7) If I point out Christians who are fine with having sex with multiple partners, you are just going to say that they aren't "true" Christians. In fact, nearly all of the Christians I know have had more than one sexual partner. Most have had more partners than I have.
If we are talking about theists, I know many theists who are perfectly fine with having sex with multiple partners. In fact, that seems to be the norm among my neopagan friends.
9) You said "vast majority" . . . which would imply that there is a minority that disagrees. According to your argument, that makes the matter subjective.

You yourself have argued for the morality of the atomic bomb and the moral acceptability of targeting civilians during warfare. Are you really under the impression that all Christians agree with you on this? Have you never heard of Christian pacifists?

 

No it is not.

You can think we are no better today than 2000 yrs ago. I can't stop you from believing that.
It is also why I stated that question is wide open.

 

How so?

Have you heard of Colin Cowherd? He's a sports broadcaster for ESPN, a man who has dedicated his life to sports. Now, for the sake of argument, let's pretend that Colin Cowherd instinctively knows the outcome of every March Madness game, and is never wrong in his predictions. His bracket would be perfect, wouldn't it? So he knew the outcome of the game before the game happened, just like God knows the outcome of our choice before we choose it. The fact remains that the game still happened, just like our choice.

If I were to set in front of a toddler a plate with cake on it or a plate with broccoli, I can almost guarantee you he will choose the cake. But it is still the toddler's choice, even if I do know the outcome.

 

If you ask her out day after day for eternity, odds are 1 day she will say yes 1 time. Just to get you to stop asking.
The odds were stacked against them. And God knew they would fall, when they would fall, how they would fall, why they would fall, etc.
They were set up to fail.

 

There is a distinct difference between omniscience and a gut feeling.

 

Almost guaranteeing isn't the same as knowing the exact choice 100% of the time.

 

Again, the relationship had to be a mutual choice. It doesn't matter how inevitable their choice was. Nothing about their situation was unjust or unfair.

Alright, but my point still stands. If I am omniscient and I know that the child will choose cake, it is still the child's choice.

 

Your questions don't make sense, because:

1) If I bought a knife and put it in a drawer and told my son not to touch it or he'll cut himself, then why put the knife in the drawer in the first place? My guess would be so my son wouldn't go and cut himself. Why can't God have the same reason?

2) Sin can't be defined as severing man's relation with God, because Abraham sinned and his relationship with God was perfectly fine. You're going to have to explain the sins of several of God's prophets and then explain why God didn't leave those people. You're setting yourself up if you believe that sin, by itself, severs man's relationship with God (it doesn't).

Drinking and dancing certainly aren't against the religion. Sounds like man-made tradition to me. Several characters in the bible drunk wine and danced in front of God himself (2 Samuel 6:14).

1) I'm comparing apples to apples, my friend.
2) They don't. I gave you an example. Go to any non-Christian country and review their moral code. For example: if I go to Japan and blow my nose in public, it's considered rude.
3) Your scope is far too wide and unrealistic. All you need to do is a visit a non-Christian country.
4) Nope. I'm not saying that at all.
5) Nope. I'm not.
6) All you need to do is visit a non-Christian country. Until you do, you've got nothing.
7) If I point out atheists who believe in God, you'll say they aren't true atheists.
8 ) So do I, but if you ask them if its wrong, they'll admit it is. The majority of atheists do not believe it's wrong. That's a core difference.
9) I can't speak in absolutes. Nothing is ever 100% certain or 100% uncertain. I believe Abraham Lincoln once said that.

Well, I have to think logically before I can think empathetically. Logically, it made sense to drop bombs on Japan, because the Japanese soldiers were sacrificing themselves to destroy our military, and they were winning. If Japan had won, we'd be living in a completely different world right now.

 

Or maybe he would go and cut himself since he's just a child. The point is that there was no reason for God to include a forbidden fruit tree in a garden that he created. It was set up as a test, a test that he already knew the ending to, and then they were punished for the set up.

 

I've explained this once before. I don't want to explain this again with you.

 

You say that in EVERY post of yours. No, you haven't explained this before. You just make claims and act like that's the do all, end all to a debate. In an actual debate you have to respond to counterpoints of what you say by whoever you're debating.So here, you're saying that there was a reason for God including this test in which he already knew the outcome?

 

Nope. I'm not explaining it to you. I've already explained this with a huge multiple paragraph response. Only one person responded to it. Maybe if I find it, I'll give you the link.

 

You seem to be flustered when it comes to how debates actually work. Do you expect me to read through your entire post history to find a point that you made at some point in the past? You're posting on a ruddy forum, Qchan, you're going to have to make the same argument more than one time to different people because you are talking to numerous people. If you don't want to talk to numerous people, and maybe have to explain yourself fully more than once, then why are you here?

 

Apples to apples would be to compare atheism to theism. You do that sometimes, and other times you substituted Christianity (a specific type of theism) for theism and you don’t do the same (referring to a specific type) for atheism.

Apples to apples
Atheism to theism or
A specific type of atheism to a specific type of theism

You misread #2. #2 was not “all non-theists agree on these issues”, which I’ve repeated several times now that they do not. #2 was “Theists obviously disagree about these views”.

So, some examples that actually apply to this point would be:

Go to any theist country and review their moral code. For example: if my wife goes to Saudi Arabia and tries to drive, it is considered rude (and illegal).

Or (since you switch tracks to theism/atheism to Christian/non-Christian in your example)

Go to any Christian country and review their moral code. For example: if my openly gay friend goes to Uganda, his life is in jeopardy.

This is, once again, full of special pleading. Asking that all Christians agree on politics is “far too wide and unrealistic”, but you go for an even wider scope when you observe that all non-Christians do not all have the same moral views on nose-blowing or on politics in general.

You can’t apply one standard to Christians and another to non-Christians and pretend that this is intellectually honest.

If it is good enough to observe that non-Christians disagree on issues of morality, it is enough to observe that Christians disagree on issues of morality. So which is it?

Good, that’s why I left it as an “or” in #3, just in case. So what do you have to say to Christians who think that homosexuality should be illegal or that blasphemy should be illegal or that so-called “witch children” should be executed (as Pentecostals are doing in Africa)? If you disagree with them, then Christians disagree on issues of morality and government. If you agree with them, then obviously there are plenty of Christians here in the States who disagree with you, and Christians would still disagree on issues of morality and government. If you say that they aren’t real Christians, then you are reversing the answer you have given here. If it doesn't matter that you disagree, then it doesn't matter that atheists disagree.

So which is it? Are you talking about your initial political questions, which is what I had addressed, or any-and-all moral issues . . . which you want to discuss when it comes to non-Christians, but when applied to Christians the “scope is far too wide and unrealistic”.

You missed the point entirely, but if you would like to change the point then okay. I have been to non-Christian countries. So what? They disagree . . . which you and I agree about. Now how about you visit Uganda and tell me that all Christians agree on moral values and duties?

Actually, I’ve met several pantheists who can fit in either camp, depending on the definitions used.

There are plenty of theists who don’t believe it is wrong, and even several Christians who would object to their actions being called sinful. But yes, most atheists wouldn’t believe that it is wrong.

So neither atheists nor theists nor non-Christians nor Christians should be expected to agree among themselves regarding all issues of morality. Good to know. Why does that prove something when observed for atheists, but not when it is observed for Christians?

Please don't bring up the reason/empathy thing again unless you are actually prepared to discuss it. I spent a lot of time reading the research your provided last time and responding to it, to which you never replied. Don't try baiting for it unless you actually plan on addressing it. Though I do have to thank you for sending that research my way, even if you never get around to reading my response. It has come in quite handy.

Moving on . . . you know very little about world history if you think there was any danger of the Japanese somehow winning the war at that time. Germany had already surrendered. Italy had already surrendered. Russia was ready for a land invasion. Japan was doomed. Ask literally any historian. You won’t find a single one that argues Japan was in a position to win WW2 on August 5, 1945. No one in the States at the time was even arguing that they could. No one. No remotely educated person says or said that Japan was “winning” the war.

They were vastly and independently outnumbered by the US and the Soviet Union. Their military allies had surrendered and they were the last major Axis power remaining. Our military’s argument was not that we needed the bomb to end the war. Our military’s argument was that fewer of our boys would die if we used the bomb.

And you missed the point entirely. The point is that there are Christians who disagree with you. In fact, there are Christians who argue that Christians should never use violence for any reason, even for self-defense -- Christian pacifists; they take that whole "turn the other cheek thing" super seriously.

It is part of your double standard: when atheists disagree about morality, that proves something. When Christians disagree about morality, then ignore it. It proves nothing.

 

Nah. I just don't feel like it.

Every time you make a silly statement, I go and research it. I research most of the crazy assertions you make. You, on the other hand, don't research a single word I say. So, I provide sources for you to go over. I make sure my wiki pages are detailed and filled with relevant citations. Some times I'll even provide multiple sources so you're not just taking my word for it. I do a lot of research.

You, I feel, perhaps have gotten to used to me doing the research for you. So, how about you do the research for a change?

 

Well, now you're trying to twist your argument into "theism" vs. "non-theism", and I've never argued this. I argued "Christianity" vs. "Atheism".

My original point still stands.

 

So, you're just trolling. Got it, then you're being reported.

Dude, you don't even understand how citations work. Again, you thought the citation to Bartholomew's article and book was, and again I quote, "A guy named Bartholomew wrote the alphabet as his citation for the claim." So, why would anybody believe that you even know how to do research when you're confused about the basics of a citation?

On what topic? I'm asking you to provide me with an answer to a question I posed to you. You're refusing to do so. This has nothing to do with "researching", so what are you even talking about?

 

Your original point is still hypocritical and contradictory. Atheists don't agree about morality? Neither do Christians. If that proves anything about atheists, then it proves the same thing about Christians. Once again: see the example of morality in warfare. Your views about the targeting of innocents being morally acceptable are not exactly popular with modern Christians here in the U.S.