• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What is God responsible for?

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
How would it implicate God?
If God's creation is the cause of evil, and God designed his creation knowing its effects, then God is implicated.

If God didn't create the world around us but proclaims sovereignty over it, then God claims responsibility for the state of the world and is still implicated.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
The two senses that I think are most relevant:

- God is the ultimate cause of the evil in the world, and
- God is culpable for the evil in the world.
What do you mean by evil?
Why do you think that God is the ultimate cause of the evil in the world?
Why do you think that God is culpable for the evil in the world?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
What do you mean by evil?
I'm not sure the exact definition matters as long as we all agree that the term "evil" describes things that actually exist.

Why do you think that God is the ultimate cause of the evil in the world?
Why do you think that God is culpable for the evil in the world?
I don't. I don't believe God exists. I don't think God is responsible for anything.

I'm saying that one implication of the claim that God is responsible for everything in the universe is that God is responsible for all of the evil in the universe.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
It says they would die if they ate the fruit, but it does not say that otherwise they would live forever.

I find that contradictory. If they were going to die anyways... why the word of caution? The understanding is if "they will not die if they don't eat it" as the other side of the coin.

We know that that could live forever by the Tree of Life, and we know that which is physical is created by what is spiritual... so it is just a natural progression, IMV.

So your spiritual viewpoint, as I see it, is correct but it just doesn't cover that reality that the natural is a reflection of the spiritual.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
If God's creation is the cause of evil, and God designed his creation knowing its effects, then God is implicated.

If God didn't create the world around us but proclaims sovereignty over it, then God claims responsibility for the state of the world and is still implicated.
The caveat is that God has sovereignty but God gave man free will to choose between good and evil....

As I just said, I do not know what you mean by evil. If you mean evil acts that are caused by the moral depravity of man, I do not believe God is to blame because man has free will to choose good or evil. Moreover, God reveals laws that would prevent all evil of obeyed.

If by evil you mean suffering, God has some responsibility for that because God created a world in which humans would suffer, and not always because of free will decisions they would make, as some suffering is unavoidable because it is built into the world God created.

“Some things are subject to the free will of man, such as justice, equity, tyranny and injustice, in other words, good and evil actions; it is evident and clear that these actions are, for the most part, left to the will of man. But there are certain things to which man is forced and compelled, such as sleep, death, sickness, decline of power, injuries and misfortunes; these are not subject to the will of man, and he is not responsible for them, for he is compelled to endure them. But in the choice of good and bad actions he is free, and he commits them according to his own will.” Some Answered Questions, p. 248

And WHY is man forced and compelled to endure them? Because God set it up that way.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I'm saying that one implication of the claim that God is responsible for everything in the universe is that God is responsible for all of the evil in the universe.
But as I just said, God is not responsible for what He does not cause.
God does not cause the evil actions of man, so God is not responsible for those.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
The caveat is that God has sovereignty but God gave man free will to choose between good and evil....
... so God gave up some of his sovereignty?

As I just said, I do not know what you mean by evil. If you mean evil acts that are caused by the moral depravity of man, I do not believe God is to blame because man has free will to choose good or evil. Moreover, God reveals laws that would prevent all evil of obeyed.
Rather than get hung up on the word "evil," maybe look at it this way:

If God created a world that has things he disapproves of, then God fell short of his own standard.

If by evil you mean suffering, God has some responsibility for that because God created a world in which humans would suffer, and not always because of free will decisions they would make, as some suffering is unavoidable because it is built into the world God created.
So then God would be culpable for that suffering.


And WHY is man forced and compelled to endure them? Because God set it up that way.
"God set it up that way" seems to me to imply that God is entirely responsible.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
But as I just said, God is not responsible for what He does not cause.
God does not cause the evil actions of man, so God is not responsible for those.
How could it possibly be that the God who created humanity and everything that influences humanity not be responsible for the evil actions of humanity?
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
Right: it's not innate; it's a result of influences from other things in God's creation.

... but how would that absolve God?
Great question!

If God is any good, he'd need to make an effort to help us out, we'd think!


And look at what happened, though, big picture, over time:
A believer was chosen (Abram/Abraham, who had an unusually strong willingness to trust, aka 'faith')) and then Abram was helped, and then when the time was right (due to changing situations) then basic law given (through Moses, the 10 commandments)...

And when of course the chosen people to lift through the Rule of Law then (inevitably) failed and then failed and then failed and then failed again and again and again to follow both the basic law -- like learning to walk for a toddler sort of: involving a lot of effort and falling....

And then later also the detailed step by step laws (giving a lot of instruction), most of the people most of the time still failed. Over and over....

Then, finally, as culture then evolved, and when the time was right, He came Himself (in a sense) to directly encounter and suffer our wrongdoing, and respond to it in a perfect way (without violence).

In this way, He changes our hearts: He defeated the attractive power of wrongdoing ('sin') in a profound way, that makes a new freedom possible for those that will listen to Him, look to Him, learn from Him.

Analogy: like Mahatma Gandhi: the people in power can beat and imprison, but they cannot overcome what is right and good in the end. The good slowly wins over time....

So, God did aid for us, and then more aid for us, and then more aid for us.

And then more aid, and then came to directly suffer our evils himself even, just to help us.

And He continues to aid those that will accept his help.
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
He'd need to help us out.

Which is why a believer was chosen (Abram/Abraham) and then helped, and then when the time was right (do to changing situations) then basic law given (through Moses, the 10 commandments), and then when of course they failed and then failed and then failed and then failed again and again and again to follow both the basic law, and then later also the detailed step by step laws, most of the people most of the time.... Then, finally, as things evolved, and when the time was right, He came Himself (in a sense) to directly encounter and suffer our wrongdoing, and respond to it in a perfect way (without violence), and thus defeat the attractive power of wrongdoing ('sin') in a profound way, that makes a new freedom possible for those that will listen to Him, look to Him, learn from Him.

So, God did aid, and then more aid, and then more aid, and then more aid, and then came to directly suffer our evils himself even, just to help us.
So...

- God created a faulty creation.
- God tried to fix his creation many times, failing each time.
- God tried one last fix that worked partially, but only for "those that listen to Him."


So... God isn't evil, he's just incompetent?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I find that contradictory. If they were going to die anyways... why the word of caution? The understanding is if "they will not die if they don't eat it" as the other side of the coin.
Let's just say it means they would die physically right after they ate the fruit; that still does not mean that they would never have died eventually of old age if they had not eaten the fruit. Nowhere does any Bible verse say that Adam and Eve would have lived forever in the physical body had they not eaten that fruit.
We know that that could live forever by the Tree of Life, and we know that which is physical is created by what is spiritual... so it is just a natural progression, IMV.
We do not know that they could have lived forever in a physical body by eating from the Tree of Life.
Eternal life has nothing to do with the life of the physical body.

When Jesus referred to eternal life, He was not referring to physical life of the body. He was referring a quality of life, loving God and being close to God, and we can have eternal life both in this world and in the next world (afterlife).

John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

1 John 5:13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

So your spiritual viewpoint, as I see it, is correct but it just doesn't cover that reality that the natural is a reflection of the spiritual.
I am not sure what you mean by that, but the natural is not the same as the spiritual. Jesus clearly differentiated the flesh from the spirit.

John 3:5-7 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
So...

- God created a faulty creation.
- God tried to fix his creation many times, failing each time.
- God tried one last fix that worked partially, but only for "those that listen to Him."


So... God isn't evil, he's just incompetent?
ah, is genuine freedom 'faulty' though?

I'm not so sure it is. Genuine freedom of course definitely entails (allows, leads to) both good and evil -- intentional actions to help or to harm others.

As soon as real agency (ability to act) and freedom exist , then Good and Evil will inevitably happen.

And Love becomes possible too. Because of that same freedom. (i.e. -- without agency/freedom, love isn't possible, since love is a response/choice/action/and so on)
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
ah, is genuine freedom 'faulty' though?

I'm not so sure it is. Genuine freedom of course definitely entails (allows, leads to) both good and evil -- intentional actions to help or to harm others.
This is nonsense, and we're talking in circles.

"Genuine freedom" doesn't mean the desire to do anything and everything.
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
This is nonsense, and we're talking in circles.

"Genuine freedom" doesn't mean the desire to do anything and everything.
heh heh.

Yep, it surely does for me. Being able to do both good and bad actions -- to intentionally do good or harm to others at times -- I've gone right ahead and done both good and bad actions in my life.

With full freedom of choice and awareness at plenty of moments.

Put in other wording: I'm alive and able to do things.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
heh heh.

Yep, it surely does for me.
So you can honestly say that you have the desire to:

- cover a Dodge Durango in chocolate sauce and lick it off
- kill the Gerber baby
- shuffle Dustin Hoffman's playing cards by telekinesis
- burrow to the centre of the Earth by hand
- hum the Internationale on the surface of the Sun
- buy all of the lentils at the Ralphs near the LA airport
- play 8 pianos at once
- stab everyone who lives on your block
- dump vanilla ice cream in the water supply of Spokane
- dump arsenic in the water supply of Boise
- make Taco Bell to bring back potatoes
- make Taco Bell never serve potatoes ever again

I don't believe you.

For the rest of us, we only want certain things. Like Penn Jillette said: "I do kill as many people as I want; the number of people I want to kill is zero."
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
So you can honestly say that you have the desire to:

- cover a Dodge Durango in chocolate sauce and lick it off
- kill the Gerber baby
- shuffle Dustin Hoffman's playing cards by telekinesis
- burrow to the centre of the Earth by hand
- hum the Internationale on the surface of the Sun
- buy all of the lentils at the Ralphs near the LA airport
- play 8 pianos at once
- stab everyone who lives on your block
- dump vanilla ice cream in the water supply of Spokane
- dump arsenic in the water supply of Boise
- make Taco Bell to bring back potatoes
- make Taco Bell never serve potatoes ever again

I don't believe you.

For the rest of us, we only want certain things. Like Penn Jillette said: "I do kill as many people as I want; the number of people I want to kill is zero."

Funny stuff. :)
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Funny stuff. :)
You get my point, though: we may choose between our desires, but we don't choose our desires.

For most people, the reason that they don't go on a killing spree is because a killing spree holds no appeal for them. It's only the people who want to go on a killing spree who would use "free will" to decide to do it or not.
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
You get my point, though: we may choose between our desires, but we don't choose our desires.

For most people, the reason that they don't go on a killing spree is because a killing spree holds no appeal for them. It's only the people who want to go on a killing spree who would use "free will" to decide to do it or not.

We choose how to act on our thoughts and feelings.

Choices.

If I'm angry about something, I have dozens of possibles ways to then take action. Some good and some bad.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
We choose how to act on our thoughts and feelings.

Choices.

If I'm angry about something, I have dozens of possibles ways to then take action. Some good and some bad.
Yes, but some people choose whether to react to anger by burning down the house of the person who angered them; others don't have to make that choice because the idea of burning down the person's house never occurs to them.

Do you understand what I'm saying? It doesn't seem like you do.
 
Top