I think God made a mistake or he's insane

[Byblos]

The argument of evil's existence against God is an old and tired one that has been refuted many times over. William Lane Craig, among others, has written extensively on the subject and effectively and rightly argues that evil in fact makes a very strong case FOR God. For without God nothing can be said to be evil. It is the objective moral law that allows for things to be called evil. But to say God created evil is a nonsensical statement because it assumes evil is a thing to be created. Evil is not a thing, it is a privation, the complete and total absence of pure love, much the same way darkness is the complete and total absence of light.

[Canuckster1127]

Everything i said in my post was either factual or logical , based on the laws of deductive reasoning or biblical evidence. However your comment was pure conjecture.

The fact that something is "logical" does not make it true. Logic is a measure of internal consistency. However, something can be completely logical and yet still false when the premises a statement i s based upon is itself untrue.

With regard to your statements, you're making some very strong judgments and you're basing them upon statements that in places reflect the assumptions you're making and then too, are inconsistent internall, so no, not everything you're saying is factual or logical. It may feel that way to you based upon your own perspectives and beliefs, and that's a common situation for believers as well that requires some discipline to move through.

For example, in your original statements you're assuming mankind and you personally, have both the perspective and the scope of knowlege to determine what is good and what is evil. That is a fallacy. By definition, God is ominiscient and transcendent and not subject to our judgments. We are the creation, he is the creator and we're not able to understand or know everything that God does. That's a difficult thing to understand and it flies in the face of methodological naturalism and humanism which wants to reduce the universe to that which is material or can be seen and grasped by man. So, when you appeal tot what is logical in your statement, you're not appealing to fact so much as you're assuming as fact your own presuppositions.

I can go further, but that's probably enought for now.

bart

[DannyM]

The argument of evil's existence against God is an old and tired one that has been refuted many times over. William Lane Craig, among others, has written extensively on the subject and effectively and rightly argues that evil in fact makes a very strong case FOR God. For without God nothing can be said to be evil. It is the objective moral law that allows for things to be called evil. But to say God created evil is a nonsensical statement because it assumes evil is a thing to be created. Evil is not a thing, it is a privation, the complete and total absence of pure love, much the same way darkness is the complete and total absence of light.

Craig is pretty damn special. I still find it truly astonishing that some people continue to argue that evil in the world disproves the existence of God. I think it is far more sensible to argue that [evil in the world] actually demonstrates the squalid depths to which humanity, unrestrained by any thought or fear of God, will sink.

[jlay]

-

This may be a moot point but I don't see sanity as being directly linked to the ability to refine precious metals. One can be certified insane and still have the ability to refine precious metals. The ability to refine precious metals does not guarantee clinical sanity - if it did psychiatrists would have refineries in every mental institution instead of consultation rooms. If all it took to avoid the label of insanity was to refine precious metals I'd venture the diagnosis of insanity would drop like a lead balloon.

What?
Pros, I don't mean this to be insulting, but you have one of the most convoluted grasps of analogies I've ever seen.
Do you understand the basics of analogies and their use in the English language?

Just because someone uses the refining of metals as an analogy to explain the human condition, does not mean that these two things have all things in common.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

I'm glad to see someone finally made the point that evil is not required for free choice. Great points by Bart, BW and Danny.

[coldblood]

osirisravanz » You appear to have made the case for it being a serpent; unless you think Satan is a wild beast who crawls on his belly, and all the rest of it. He may be for all I know, but Genesis says only that it was a serpent.

[dayage]

coldblood,

I do not want this to become a debate about the serpent, but since you are claiming him to be a snake, I'll give a reply.

“14. And the LORD God said to the serpent, 'Because you have done this, cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; on your belly shall you go, and dust shall you eat All the days of your life;
15. and I will put enmity between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel. '"

Over the years, snakes have taken the rap as the serpent. But, was a snake really the serpent in the garden? Even if Satan did take the form of an actual snake, the curse was against Satan. All snakes can not be included in the curse just because Satan decided to look like one. That would be like cursing the angels of light, because Satan disguised himself as one (II Cor. 11:14).

First, let's examine verse 14 above. This part of the curse (“on your belly you shall go, and dust shall you eat all the days of your life”) shows that it was against one individual. This is also demonstrated by the fact that the definite article ha (the) always precedes the term serpent. So, this cannot be a story of how snakes lost their legs.

Isaiah 65:25 would seem to contradict this conclusion, but the definite article ha (the) is not found here. So a better translation would be “And dust shall be a serpent's food.” This may be symbolic of the curse put on Satan.

Eating dust and crawling on ones belly were symbolic of being humbled, humiliated and/or unclean (Lev. 11:42; Ps. 72:9; Is. 49:23, 65:25; Lam. 3:29; Mic. 7:17). This was in contrast to the high position Satan had once held as the anointed cherub (Eze. 28:13-17).

Now, in verse 15 there is a lot of content. In the first part of the verse, "and I will put enmity between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed," we see that there would be a struggle between the righteous and the unrighteous. Biblical passages supporting this conclusion as well as the fact that the serpent was Satan (possibly disguised as a snake) and not a natural snake are: We are told this (Rev. 12:9, 13-17, 20:2). He's a liar and murderer (Gen. 3:1, 4, 13; John 8:44; II Cor. 11:3; Rev. 12:9). His seed are unbelievers (Gen. 4:1-24; Matt. 13:38-39; Acts 13:10; I John 3:8-12). He will be crushed by God (Gen. 3:15; Romans 16:20; Rev. 12:12, 20:10).

Cain became the serpent's first seed when he took on his characteristics. He was careless toward God by not giving of his best (Gen 4:3). Then he became a murderer and a liar (Gen. 4:8-9).

The woman's (Eve's) seed are the righteous (Genesis 4:25-26, 5:1-32; Matt. 13:37-38; Rev. 12:13, 17). Seth became the replacement seed, zera, (Gen. 4:25) after Abel's murder.

There is also a hint of the virgin birth when it says "her seed." The man is left out. The second half makes it clearer that ultimately the struggle between Jesus and Satan is in view: "He shall bruise you on the (or crush your) head, And you shall bruise him on the (or crush his) heel." The text uses the singular he and you, showing that the struggle is between two individuals. We also have a picture of what took place on the cross. Jesus delivered a fatal blow to the works and person of Satan, where as Satan could only deliver a temporary injury to Jesus.

[Gman]

Man.. Has this topic turned.. Now snakes..

We've done our best to answer that question here..

Literal snake in the Garden of Eden?

[DannyM]

Man.. Has this topic turned.. Now snakes..

We've done our best to answer that question here..

Literal snake in the Garden of Eden?

"Upon your belly you shall go". So was the 'serpent' initially standing upright?

[Gman]

Gman you think that since you are the board admin, that you have the final word! All you do is give your opinion with no references.

Again we have given plenty of references. Your mind is sealed however.. So it doesn't matter what we say because it will always be wrong..

Its is the God and Science section because the discussion will affect the atheist and all manner of theism, we just have not got to that part of the discussion yet. Remember the core of this sites defense against non Christian beliefs is free will and choice and how it would not be present without evil in the world, everything you believe hinges on that , that is why its in the Science and God section.

You appear to be confused on what science and theology is..

The only reason the atheist have not already broken down this weak foundation of a belief system is because they don't have understanding of scripture. I am not saying that i have understanding of all scripture, but i do have understanding of most of it.

Weak foundation? This is old news... Read more here..

Evidence for God from Science: Christian Apologetics Criticisms of God on the Basis of the Existence of Evil and Suffering

[Gman]

There.. I moved this theology topic to it's rightful place...

[DannyM]

There.. I moved this theology topic to it's rightful place...

Now that's what I call magic...

[Gman]

Man.. Has this topic turned.. Now snakes..

We've done our best to answer that question here..

Literal snake in the Garden of Eden?

"Upon your belly you shall go". So was the 'serpent' initially standing upright?

Yeah I know.. It's more of a figure of speech...

You will find the answer for it in that link...

[Gman]

There.. I moved this theology topic to it's rightful place...

Now that's what I call magic...

Cool huh?

I call it admin power...

[DannyM]

There.. I moved this theology topic to it's rightful place...

Now that's what I call magic...

Cool huh?

I call it admin power...

Since I haven't the first clue as to how you did that (I'm still getting used to light-switches ) I'll call it magic ...

[Gman]

There.. I moved this theology topic to it's rightful place...

Now that's what I call magic...

Cool huh?

I call it admin power...

Since I haven't the first clue as to how you did that (I'm still getting used to light-switches ) I'll call it magic ...

It IS magic..

Actually I would have kept it in the science section if this guy or kid would have asked me politely.. But he didn't, so now I have to play enforcer.. Too bad..