Luke 6:29-30: Be a Door Mat

[Learner]

In the context that Evil came into the World and exists in the World because in the OT God is said to be the source of evil.

Ah ok. The OT says it was Gods adversaries (Fallen angels) that heavily influenced and persuaded man to do (moral) evil. God didn't supply it in a manner of speaking.

Whatever the Lord pleases, He does, In heaven and in earth, in the

seas and in all deeps. (Psalm 135:6)

As a Lord / Creator would do.

"And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? Or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? Have not I the Lord?" Exodus 4:11

The previous verse Exodus 4:10

And Moses said unto the LORD, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore*, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue.

The context seen here is God expaining to Moses in a nervous state who was to speak to the crowd and that if He/God has the power to do these things with the eyes, mouth and ears described in Exodus 4:11 then Moses should have NO doubt trusting the Lord God to make him do so.

The following verse Moses is encouraged by God:

Exodus 4:12 Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say.

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

Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?" (Amos 3:6, KJV)

Both of these verses from KJV can be confusing and rightly so to be questionable.Here the word "evil" is not used but instead the word "disaster" is used with these particular two verses in "other versions of the bible as the contextual meaning is understood.

There are those that are KJV only - but I think the crucial understanding (for believers) who read this version is that ; God is always righteous and the word evil ( relating to disaster) is again understood. Looking at the verse Amos 3:6 KJV imo shows peace and evil are mismatched as opposite pairings unlike peace and war or the regularly mentioned "good and evil" which is written in quite a few various verses.

"Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? "
(Lamentations 3:38)

So if we are talking about evil as a 'choice,' it appears that it was the god of the bible who chose evil.

Like the two verses above , Lamentations 3:38 would contradict the behaviour of a righteous God unless it is shown by;

Lamentations 3:38 Septuagint.
Out of the mouth of the Most High there shall not come forth evil and good.

There is No ending question mark here, which paints a different picture to the meaning.

I say then, God did not choose evil of course.
(the discussion goes on ).


(oops not sure what I pressed ...the smiley went to the heading )

 

[DBT]

Ah ok. The OT says it was Gods adversaries (Fallen angels) that heavily influenced and persuaded man to do (moral) evil. God didn't supply it in a manner of speaking.

The OT doesn't say that. The OT has God as being the Author of Evil, not fallen angels, not Satan or anything else. In fact there is nothing about fallen angels in the OT, that comes from the book of Enoch.

As a Lord / Creator would do.

Creating Evil, as described in the other verses. God being said to be the source of both good and evil.

The following verse Moses is encouraged by God:

Exodus 4:12 Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say.


[
Both of these verses from KJV can be confusing and rightly so to be questionable.Here the word "evil" is not used but instead the word "disaster" is used with these particular two verses in "other versions of the bible as the contextual meaning is understood.

There are those that are KJV only - but I think the crucial understanding (for believers) who read this version is that ; God is always righteous and the word evil ( relating to disaster) is again understood. Looking at the verse Amos 3:6 KJV imo shows peace and evil are mismatched as opposite pairings unlike peace and war or the regularly mentioned "good and evil" which is written in quite a few various verses.

"Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? "
(Lamentations 3:38)

So if we are talking about evil as a 'choice,' it appears that it was the god of the bible who chose evil.

Like the two verses above , Lamentations 3:38 would contradict the behaviour of a righteous God unless it is shown by;

Lamentations 3:38 Septuagint.
Out of the mouth of the Most High there shall not come forth evil and good.

There is No ending question mark here, which paints a different picture to the meaning.

I say then, God did not choose evil of course.
(the discussion goes on ).

I quote;
37Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, Unless the Lord has commanded it? 38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High That both good and ill go forth?


To say 'disaster' instead of evil is a poor rationale when it is quite clear that when taken in the overall context of the OT it is clear that God is said to be the Author of everything that exists, both good and evil.

Therefore God is the author of good and the author of evil.

Evil cannot be an accident in relation to the proposition of a Omniscient/Omnipotent Creator.

~The Riddle of Epicurus~
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

 

[sharon45]

I quote;
37Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, Unless the Lord has commanded it? 38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High That both good and ill go forth?


To say 'disaster' instead of evil is a poor rationale when it is quite clear that when taken in the overall context of the OT it is clear that God is said to be the Author of everything that exists, both good and evil.

Therefore God is the author of good and the author of evil.

Evil cannot be an accident in relation to the proposition of a Omniscient/Omnipotent Creator.

~The Riddle of Epicurus~
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Yes, because God supposedly created and is in total control over everything.

 

[Learner]

The OT doesn't say that. The OT has God as being the Author of Evil, not fallen angels, not Satan or anything else. In fact there is nothing about fallen angels in the OT, that comes from the book of Enoch.

Sons of God are the fallen angels. The OT takes that part from the book of Enoch. I could have said instead (sons of the sons) nephilim.

Creating Evil, as described in the other verses. God being said to be the source of both good and evil.

Well yes ... but the true sense with God being the Author of the Gospel as we (theists) read it- where evil is potentially able to manifest in Gods "physical creation" when man realises - after persuaded with the influencial knowledge, affecting the temptations of the flesh / mind , that greatly overcomes certain individual's emotional sensibilty.

God does says in Genesis ; He regreted making man after much wickedness in the world.

I quote;
37Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, Unless the Lord has commanded it? 38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High That both good and ill go forth?

To say 'disaster' instead of evil is a poor rationale when it is quite clear that when taken in the overall context of the OT it is clear that God is said to be the Author of everything that exists, both good and evil.

The overall context is as I mentioned above.

Evil cannot be an accident in relation to the proposition of a Omniscient/Omnipotent Creator.

~The Riddle of Epicurus~
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Evil is (for lack of better words) a by-product, manifesting in free willed intelligent (to some degree) self-gratifying physical beings.


.. and if Epicurus thought there was no God.

Is Man willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not potent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is made violent.
Is he both able and willing? Then Hence cometh evil!
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him Good!

 

[DBT]

Sons of God are the fallen angels. The OT takes that part from the book of Enoch. I could have said instead (sons of the sons) nephilim.

There are several interpretations of so called fallen angels. Orthodox Judaism took Satan to be playing the role of adversary and always under to control and orders of God....as expressed in the book of Job. Nor does the the fall of 'Lucifer' in Isaiah refer to Satan.

Ultimately, under the given terms and references, an Omniscient. Omnipotent Creator must be responsible for the state of Creation.

God does says in Genesis ; He regreted making man after much wickedness in the world.

That is an example of the contradiction in the bible. As God is said to know the end from the beginning, being Omniscient, it cannot come as a surprise that things are the way they are. Being Omnipotent means having the absolute ability to create the most perfects of worlds. If evil comes into it, it had the seeds of evil at the start, so given Omniscience/Omniscience, it must have been designed that way. The buck stops with the Creator. If Evil exists, it must have been included in the design, which makes the Creator the Author of evil.

Evil is (for lack of better words) a by-product, manifesting in free willed intelligent (to some degree) self-gratifying physical beings.

Not at all. How a person thinks and acts rests entirely on the development of character, personality and conditions under which people live. Not only that, genetics determines behaviour to a large degree. Including genetics, the brain of a Psychopath, for example, is literally wired differently to the average human being. A psychopath literally has no empathy.

The free will defense is bogus.

.. and if Epicurus thought there was no God.

Which makes not the slightest difference to the terms and principles expressed in the riddle.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

Sons of God are the fallen angels. The OT takes that part from the book of Enoch.

I wouldn't have thought that - the scholarly consensus being that the book of Enoch was written in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE, by which time the rest of the OT was (mostly) already getting on for a few centuries old - the OT took anything at all from it. Rather, I would say, the book of Enoch takes that as its interpretation of the OT.

 

[DBT]

More;

Quote;
''The well known 'Lucifer' passage in Isaiah 14 is another relevant passage, as we consider in section 5-5. This passage is about the rise and fall of the King of Babylon- the words satan, Angel and devil don't occur there at all. But the likening of Babylon's king to the morning star suggests parallels with the Canaanite myths about Athtar, the "shining one, Son of Dawn", who goes up to "the reaches of Zaphon" to challenge king Baal, and is hurled down. Surely Isaiah's point was that Israel and Judah should worry more about the King of Babylon, keep their eyes on realities here on earth, rather than be involved with such cosmic speculations which were obviously familiar to them. It was the King of Babylon, and not a bunch of cosmic rebels, who were tyrannizing God's people. The Babylonian power invaded Israel from the north, down the fertile crescent. And yet "the north" was associated in pagan thinking with the origin of the gods of evil (9). The prophets were attempting to steer Israel away from such a fear by emphasizing that the literal, human enemy and judge of Israel for their sin was to come from the literal north. They were to quit their cosmic myths and get real, facing up to actual realities in human life on earth. This is why Ezekiel speaks of the Kings of Tyre and Egypt in language very reminiscent of the myths about Tiamat, Mot etc.- they were to be caught like a dragon [tannin, cp. Tiamat], cut up and bled to death (Ez. 29:3-5; 32:2-31). Again, the point is to refocus Israel away from the mythical beings and onto actual realities here on earth.

Situated as it is at the crossroads of so many cultures, Israel inevitably was a state open to influence by the surrounding nations and their beliefs. Despite so many prophetic calls to keep their faith pure, they were influenced by the beliefs of those around them, especially with regard to other gods and the common idea of a god of evil.''

 

[Learner]

There are several interpretations of so called fallen angels. Orthodox Judaism took Satan to be playing the role of adversary and always under to control and orders of God....as expressed in the book of Job. Nor does the the fall of 'Lucifer' in Isaiah refer to Satan.

Satan hadn't fallen or fallen out with God yet, during Job's time but yes an adversary, an accuser liken to one that argues for the prosecution in a court. Lucifer in Isaiah is an interesting one as you've mentioned in your latest post. Honestly, I would have to read more in depth and get a more better pic than than the gist of this particular verse(s).

Ultimately, under the given terms and references, an Omniscient. Omnipotent Creator must be responsible for the state of Creation.

For the "state of the creation" - the "Bio make-up of man" having the ability to choose between good and evil ... then yes.

The "state" of creation (state its in) how the world has been "running" via the darkest periods in history caused by free will .. then no.

That is an example of the contradiction in the bible. As God is said to know the end from the beginning, being Omniscient, it cannot come as a surprise that things are the way they are. Being Omnipotent means having the absolute ability to create the most perfects of worlds. If evil comes into it, it had the seeds of evil at the start, so given Omniscience/Omniscience, it must have been designed that way. The buck stops with the Creator. If Evil exists, it must have been included in the design, which makes the Creator the Author of evil.

As God does take responsibilty as mentioned above but not in the way you are suggesting. Like for example; there are no seeds of evil, just as there is no evil or good genes in human DNA.. "its all in the mind" to use and old phrase.

Not at all. How a person thinks and acts rests entirely on the development of character, personality and conditions under which people live. Not only that, genetics determines behaviour to a large degree. Including genetics, the brain of a Psychopath, for example, is literally wired differently to the average human being. A psychopath literally has no empathy.

The free will defense is bogus.

I agree with people's behaviors are developed by how they are "influenced" , by how they live / have been raised. Indeed .. there are psycopaths without empathy, being wired differently. The average human being can gradually get desensitize, (easier perhaps the younger the age) to be "Less empahethic" even to extremes (Nazis and their sympathisers) depending on what they absorb from the surroundings and who's around to guide them.

We'll just have to disagree on free will.

Which makes not the slightest difference to the terms and principles expressed in the riddle.

Not a fan but each to his own.

 

[DBT]

Satan hadn't fallen or fallen out with God yet, during Job's time but yes an adversary, an accuser liken to one that argues for the prosecution in a court. Lucifer in Isaiah is an interesting one as you've mentioned in your latest post. Honestly, I would have to read more in depth and get a more better pic than than the gist of this particular verse(s).

Not so. If the serpent is taken to be Satan, as some Christians believe, the revolt happened then. Not that this is supported by the OT. The revolt in Heaven is a late development. It was not a part of Orthodox Judaism.

Nor does the idea of the fall explain Evil in relation to an Omniscient,Omnipotent Creator.

For the "state of the creation" - the "Bio make-up of man" having the ability to choose between good and evil ... then yes.

Psychopaths cannot feel empathy. Their idea of good relates to what is good for them and their interest.

Much of how we think, decide and act comes from the environment that shapes us, which is not a matter of choice. Hitler, for example, was a product of his own times, circumstances and social conditions. He did not rise to power in a vacuum.

The "state" of creation (state its in) how the world has been "running" via the darkest periods in history caused by free will .. then no.
We'll just have to disagree on free will.

Whether we agree or not, the reality of biological needs and social pressures have nothing to do with 'free will' - people decide according to their position in life, genes, social structure, needs and wants.

As God does take responsibilty as mentioned above but not in the way you are suggesting. Like for example; there are no seeds of evil, just as there is no evil or good genes in human DNA.. "its all in the mind" to use and old phrase.

The drive of life is to survive. It is in the interest of a species, the group and the individual to maintain their position or improve it. Given competition for resources, that is achieved at the expense of something or someone else. The animals waiting in line at the slaughter house may not see humans as their benefactors, acting for their welfare, but the consumer enjoys his steak regardless.

Not a fan but each to his own.

The logic of the riddle of Epicurus is quite sound whether you are a fan or not.

 

[DBT]

More on the concept of Satan in the OT.

Hebrew Bible

''The original Hebrew term satan is a noun from a verb meaning primarily "to obstruct, oppose", as it is found in Numbers 22:22, 1 Samuel 29:4, Psalms 109:6.[6] Ha-Satan is traditionally translated as "the accuser" or "the adversary". The definite article ha- (English: "the") is used to show that this is a title bestowed on a being, versus the name of a being. Thus, this being would be referred to as "the satan".[7]''

Second Temple period

''Some scholars see contact with religious dualism in Babylon, and early Zoroastrianism in particular, as influencing Second Temple Judaism, and consequently early Christianity.[15][16] Subsequent development of Satan as a "deceiver" has parallels with the evil spirit in Zoroastrianism, known as the Lie, who directs forces of darkness.[17]

Septuagint

In the Septuagint, the Hebrew ha-Satan in Job and Zechariah is translated by the Greek word diabolos (slanderer), the same word in the Greek New Testament from which the English word devil is derived. Where satan is used to refer to human enemies in the Hebrew Bible, such as Hadad the Edomite and Rezon the Syrian, the word is left untranslated but transliterated in the Greek as satan, a neologism in Greek.[18]''

 

[Kharakov]

The drive of life is to survive.

Whoa. It's to be as comfortable as possible while leaving behind a framework for future life so that the future life has the maximal possible sustainable comfort, and the least amount of suffering.

And convince someone to take over TFT. Bilby.... you don't work too much already, do you?

 

[bilby]

The drive of life is to survive.

Whoa. It's to be as comfortable as possible while leaving behind a framework for future life so that the future life has the maximal possible sustainable comfort, and the least amount of suffering.

And convince someone to take over TFT. Bilby.... you don't work too much already, do you?

Unfortunately, despite my best efforts to do as little as possible for my employers and their customers*, my to do list does not have room on it for 'own an Internet Discussion Board' right now.










*They prefer me to phrase this as 'Work smarter, not harder', but I prefer to say that laziness is a virtue.