The God Zoo

[DBT]

You were attempting to add new verses and avoiding to address the reasoning I provided to expose your misinterpretations of the ones you posited already.

You just keep assuming your surface shallow cherry picking assumptions and misinterpretations are correct. Why won’t you address the reasoning I have provided against the verses you presented before attempting to add more to your faulty assumptions?

I make no assumptions. I merely point to verses and what they themselves say. If one verse tells us that God deliberately creates evil, the evildoer, the deaf, dumb, blind, deformed and another tells us that God as Love ALWAYS protects and nurtures, forgives and keeps no record of wrongs....we clearly have a contradiction; S and its denial not-S

Name the event following Ex. 20:5 where God punished the Israelites for generations.

God curses and punishes all the generations (so called original sin) that follow Adam and Eve, the whole world, all generations, all innocent, over a naive minor error of judgement, where they were set up to fail. Which is far more than four generations.

Hence the cherry colored picture you perceive.

No, you conveniently missed ''implicit.'' That, as I said, the bible paints a picture of the nature and character of its God through descriptions of His attitude and actions, cursing the whole world over a trivial mistake by a naive couple, killing innocent and guilty alike, drowning the whole world because He was not happy with people, etc, etc....by their 'fruits ye shall know them.''

It is you who fails to take the whole context into account.

 

[DBT]

Although I don't agree with your scriptural context (if there is one). Can humans teach without having laws in place which is there to stop by punishment some humans doing evil to others?

The bible tells us that God creates evil. Is there a law to stop God creating evil?


''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)

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

 

[Learner]

Although I don't agree with your scriptural context (if there is one). Can humans teach without having laws in place which is there to stop by punishment some humans doing evil to others?

The bible tells us that God creates evil. Is there a law to stop God creating evil?

The bible tells you theres a contradiction as you notice so, hanging on and being limited to the textual (not contextual) contradiction. It won't tell you what is true or false.

In-line with the logic-sense you have of the question ...


God can stop "creating" evil by not doing Good!??

Isaiah 45:7

“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”

context

''Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil/calamity in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?"

 

[remez]

I make no assumptions. I merely point to verses and what they themselves say. If one verse tells us that God deliberately creates evil, …….

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

Ok I addressed this briefly with you before.
We have this issue of “SAY” vs “MEANING”
You desire to cherry pick the KJV for what it “SAYS” in black and white and ignore the more important factor of “MEANING”
Here is why your assumption the God creates evil fails……..
Laid out for you historically, grammatically and theologically……..

1. Historical context Isaiah 45 is part of a much larger piece of scripture Isaiah 40-66. In which Isreal is in captivity to Babylon. God here is promising Israel that He will deliver them from exile in Babylon. God presents a series of messages/prophecies through Isaiah to overcome the doubt and unbelief of His people regarding the future of his covenant with them. Thus he promises them that He will provide the means of his deliverance from Babylon to be returned home. God will use the conquest of Cyrus to both bring calamity to Babylon and peace to Israel by decree of Cyrus to let Israel return home. Notice he brought forth calamity and peace. God is sovereign. Thus don’t mess up again. Also note that it took 70 years (multiple generations) of exile for Israel to learn its lesson. God did not create moral evil. This verse affirms that God is sovereign on several different levels. He can cause wars to end and peace to begin, as he was about to do to Babylon by way of Cyrus and bring peace to Israel.

2. Grammatical context. The largest difficulty of understanding this verse is the word “evil.” The key to understanding the verse from a grammatical perspective is the use of contrasts. Isaiah is using a compare and contrast literary devise to emphasize God’s sovereignty over his entire creation or particularly here, Israel. Notice the contrast of light and darkness. That is crystal clear. Thus when we come to peace and evil (rah). How is one to understand evil? Rah could be translated evil here only in the sense of the opposite of peace. Which is not “moral evil” it is calamity. If you were to determine it to be moral evil the “peace” would have to have been interpreted as righteousness. The grimmer clearly interprets the rah as calamity.

Further note here. Sort of a combo historical/grammatical point. The KJV did not have the much older Alexandrian texts at the time of their translation, hence the loose interpretation evil. Since the discovery of these older texts, modern translations properly translate rah as calamity in this verse. Out of the 640 times rah is translated in the OT is is translated trouble or calamity 275 times. Hence the reason why most translations including the NASB, ESV, and NET Bible even the NKJV translate this verse and many others as trouble, calamity or disaster.

3. The main theological interpretation of Is 45:7 focuses on the character of God. Therefore the main theological issue pertains to God’s character. So what meaning of rah can be attributed to God? The overwhelming teaching of both the Old and New Testaments points to God being the creator of all morally good and perfect things. But it is also abundantly clear in Scriptures that God is the author of judgment in the form of trouble, calamity or disaster, which is are the fruits of sin. Israel’s sin demands God’s justice and punishment…..context the covenant. Thus “peace” meant all the spiritual blessings that God gives those who trust in Him, And “evil” is not moral evil, which comes from the heart of sinful man, but physical evil, which God sends as punishment for sin. Further…….God’s sovereignty. Throughout the OT and particularly in Isaiah, the God of Israel is contrasted with the “gods” and the religion of the rest of the world……between the Israel’s monotheism and the polytheisms of Israel’s neighbors. As I presented earlier Isaiah is contrasting God with the dualism of Persian Zoroastrianism (and likely Cyrus) which taught that there were two competing gods or forces—one good and one bad. Thus Isaiah is trashing dualism strongly by this text. But Isaiah declares that God alone is the ultimate First Cause of every action. So by covenant it was crucial that Israel stay pure purity monotheists and avoid the idol worship of the dualistic Persians.

Name the event following Ex. 20:5 where God punished the Israelites for generations.

God curses and punishes all the generations (so called original sin) that follow Adam and Eve, the whole world, all generations, all innocent, over a naive minor error of judgement, where they were set up to fail. Which is far more than four generations.

Nice try different issue. Adam and Eve were prior to the warning given in Ex 20:5 which was the verse you were complaining about.
So again…….
Name the event FOLLOWING Ex. 20:5 where God punished the Israelites for generations.

 

[DBT]

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

Ok I addressed this briefly with you before.
We have this issue of “SAY” vs “MEANING”
You desire to cherry pick the KJV for what it “SAYS” in black and white and ignore the more important factor of “MEANING”
Here is why your assumption the God creates evil fails……..
Laid out for you historically, grammatically and theologically……..

1. Historical context Isaiah 45 is part of a much larger piece of scripture Isaiah 40-66. In which Isreal is in captivity to Babylon. God here is promising Israel that He will deliver them from exile in Babylon. God presents a series of messages/prophecies through Isaiah to overcome the doubt and unbelief of His people regarding the future of his covenant with them. Thus he promises them that He will provide the means of his deliverance from Babylon to be returned home. God will use the conquest of Cyrus to both bring calamity to Babylon and peace to Israel by decree of Cyrus to let Israel return home. Notice he brought forth calamity and peace. God is sovereign. Thus don’t mess up again. Also note that it took 70 years (multiple generations) of exile for Israel to learn its lesson. God did not create moral evil. This verse affirms that God is sovereign on several different levels. He can cause wars to end and peace to begin, as he was about to do to Babylon by way of Cyrus and bring peace to Israel.

2. Grammatical context. The largest difficulty of understanding this verse is the word “evil.” The key to understanding the verse from a grammatical perspective is the use of contrasts. Isaiah is using a compare and contrast literary devise to emphasize God’s sovereignty over his entire creation or particularly here, Israel. Notice the contrast of light and darkness. That is crystal clear. Thus when we come to peace and evil (rah). How is one to understand evil? Rah could be translated evil here only in the sense of the opposite of peace. Which is not “moral evil” it is calamity. If you were to determine it to be moral evil the “peace” would have to have been interpreted as righteousness. The grimmer clearly interprets the rah as calamity.

Further note here. Sort of a combo historical/grammatical point. The KJV did not have the much older Alexandrian texts at the time of their translation, hence the loose interpretation evil. Since the discovery of these older texts, modern translations properly translate rah as calamity in this verse. Out of the 640 times rah is translated in the OT is is translated trouble or calamity 275 times. Hence the reason why most translations including the NASB, ESV, and NET Bible even the NKJV translate this verse and many others as trouble, calamity or disaster.

3. The main theological interpretation of Is 45:7 focuses on the character of God. Therefore the main theological issue pertains to God’s character. So what meaning of rah can be attributed to God? The overwhelming teaching of both the Old and New Testaments points to God being the creator of all morally good and perfect things. But it is also abundantly clear in Scriptures that God is the author of judgment in the form of trouble, calamity or disaster, which is are the fruits of sin. Israel’s sin demands God’s justice and punishment…..context the covenant. Thus “peace” meant all the spiritual blessings that God gives those who trust in Him, And “evil” is not moral evil, which comes from the heart of sinful man, but physical evil, which God sends as punishment for sin. Further…….God’s sovereignty. Throughout the OT and particularly in Isaiah, the God of Israel is contrasted with the “gods” and the religion of the rest of the world……between the Israel’s monotheism and the polytheisms of Israel’s neighbors. As I presented earlier Isaiah is contrasting God with the dualism of Persian Zoroastrianism (and likely Cyrus) which taught that there were two competing gods or forces—one good and one bad. Thus Isaiah is trashing dualism strongly by this text. But Isaiah declares that God alone is the ultimate First Cause of every action. So by covenant it was crucial that Israel stay pure purity monotheists and avoid the idol worship of the dualistic Persians.

Completely irrelevant. What you say here does nothing to address or alter the statement that God creates both good and evil, which is supported by many other verses and numerous descriptions of the character and nature of God....some of which I have posted several times.

Judaism accepts the proposition that God is the author of evil, and given Omniscience and Omnipotence, it can be no other way, if created, the universe was created with the content of evil. The bible tells us that God actively creates evil.

The Hebrew Scriptures record that the Almighty Himself placed both good and the evil into the world
''Passages in Tanach like Isaiah 45:7 and Deuteronomy 30:15 pose a monumental theological problem for Christians who maintain that God did not create Satan, the angel of evil. According to Christian doctrine, as you state in your question, Satan was the highest-ranking angel who, through his own act of spiritual defiance and outright disobedience, became the chief adversary and slanderer of God, and the embodiment of evil in this world. As you maintained in your question, God never created evil according Christian teachings; He is only the author of righteousness and perfection. Therefore, God could never create something as sinister as the devil himself. Rather, Satan’s unyielding wickedness is the result of his own spiritual rebellion.''

''For the Jewish faith, Satan’s purpose in seducing man away from God poses no problem because Satan is only an agent of God. As a servant of the Almighty, Satan faithfully carries out the divine will of his Creator as he does in all his tasks.''

Nice try different issue. Adam and Eve were prior to the warning given in Ex 20:5 which was the verse you were complaining about.
So again…….

The issue is God punishing the children for the sins or transgressions of their fathers or forbears. Adam and Eve is a prime example of this principle.

Name the event FOLLOWING Ex. 20:5 where God punished the Israelites for generations.

You are clutching at straws, It doesn't have to be the Israelites, this is about the principle of punishing the innocent for the action of their parents or forebears.... if we are talking about the Creator of the Universe, it can as a principle anyone at any time in history. This represents the principle of punishing generations for the transgressions of their fathers or forbears....the first instance of this principle being the whole world punished for the actions of A & E, another example being the murder by God of the innocent first born of Egypt killed for the actions of the Pharaoh.

While we are at it, here is another contradiction to contemplate;

''The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.'' - Psalm 145:9

''While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. 34 They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. 35 And the LORD said to Moses, The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp 36 And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the LORD commanded Moses.'' Numbers 15:32-36:

So we have;

1. The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
2. The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.
3. God is good to all.
4. God was neither good or merciful toward a man gathering sticks on a Sabbath.

A contradiction; S and its denial not-S

God is good to all and his tender mercies are over all his works/God was not good to a man gathering sticks on a Sabbath, showing no mercy had him brutally killed.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Boy, does this seem like a silly game to me. The deity depicted in the Bible is ridiculously violent, malevolent, and malignant, that is, IF you think it's a real being and not a creation of folklore. In chapter 7 of his wonder book he's so distressed with his beautiful creation that he puts to death nearly every creature and plant in it (as if he hadn't seen this necessity coming.) After that, the book is still packed with Godkills. Pick your favorites. Mine include the two sons of Aaron, killed for setting up an unauthorized worship fire for God, Uzzah for trying to steady the Ark of the Covenant by (Zzzap!!) touching it, and the fate of the 250 rebels who contested Moses' leadership....they, along with their 'households', which must mean an uncounted number of women, children, elderly, and slaves, were sent to hell (or Sheol) when they were sucked into the earth. And try and find anyone in the whole book who states that slavery is evil or that wars of extermination are evil. The Bible characters don't think so, and their deity doesn't. (Actually, their deity doesn't because they don't.) Two centuries back, mankind looked squarely at slavery and condemned it. Seventy-five years ago, mankind was forced to look squarely at the systematic extermination of humans, and as a species, we condemned it in horror. Please keep any believers off my doorstep if their faith statement includes the belief that there are situations in which slavery and genocide can be permitted, mandated, or regulated by a 'merciful, loving, holy' god. Okay, now tell me how slavery and genocide must be put in CONTEXT.

 

[Learner]

Completely irrelevant. What you say here does nothing to address or alter the statement that God creates both good and evil, which is supported by many other verses and numerous descriptions of the character and nature of God....some of which I have posted several times.

What IS the nature of God? Is He neither good or bad, is that what you're saying? A metaphor peraps?

Judaism accepts the proposition that God is the author of evil, and given Omniscience and Omnipotence, it can be no other way, if created, the universe was created with the content of evil. The bible tells us that God actively creates evil.

Taking from the previous posts Lion submited "God created adjectives...." and Remez's "moral evil & create evil" explanation trying to explain to you the importance of context. The Potrayal of the authors intent.
(God put the holy Spirit in both of them to encourage other believers )

If you don't wash yourself regularly to be clean, the bio-reaction to this, introduces and encourages harmful germs to the scene, that could get worse - and of course, if you don't eventually become immune and resistant by having the germy experience in the first instance.

Analogeous to regulary keeping your mind and heart clean or in check, so to speak, i.e. evil is nothing more that a By-Product not of any "created" substance material, that only appears effectively accordingly to the actions and moral intent of intelligent beings.

Its strength depends on your free-will capacity... being independent from having GOD doing all YOUR descisions for you. The concept is simple to a lot of theists, and as Jesus sort of said.. to first to understand, be like an innocent child etc. which otherwise, understanding will go right over the heads of those who profess-to-be-wise... because of their reliance on their own understanding with blinkers on, etc. & etc..

 

[DBT]

Boy, does this seem like a silly game to me. The deity depicted in the Bible is ridiculously violent, malevolent, and malignant, that is, IF you think it's a real being and not a creation of folklore. In chapter 7 of his wonder book he's so distressed with his beautiful creation that he puts to death nearly every creature and plant in it (as if he hadn't seen this necessity coming.) After that, the book is still packed with Godkills. Pick your favorites. Mine include the two sons of Aaron, killed for setting up an unauthorized worship fire for God, Uzzah for trying to steady the Ark of the Covenant by (Zzzap!!) touching it, and the fate of the 250 rebels who contested Moses' leadership....they, along with their 'households', which must mean an uncounted number of women, children, elderly, and slaves, were sent to hell (or Sheol) when they were sucked into the earth. And try and find anyone in the whole book who states that slavery is evil or that wars of extermination are evil. The Bible characters don't think so, and their deity doesn't. (Actually, their deity doesn't because they don't.) Two centuries back, mankind looked squarely at slavery and condemned it. Seventy-five years ago, mankind was forced to look squarely at the systematic extermination of humans, and as a species, we condemned it in horror. Please keep any believers off my doorstep if their faith statement includes the belief that there are situations in which slavery and genocide can be permitted, mandated, or regulated by a 'merciful, loving, holy' god. Okay, now tell me how slavery and genocide must be put in CONTEXT.

Clearly so....yet here we are 'debating' with folks who believe and argue that the God of the bible is good and holy and that all the nasty stuff you mention is transformed into 'corrective discipline' as a part of the Divine Plan of Redemption.

 

[DBT]

Its strength depends on your free-will capacity... being independent from having GOD doing all YOUR descisions for you. The concept is simple to a lot of theists, and as Jesus sort of said.. to first to understand, be like an innocent child etc. which otherwise, understanding will go right over the heads of those who profess-to-be-wise... because of their reliance on their own understanding with blinkers on, etc. & etc..

Free will is a cop out as far as the bible, its God, evil and original sin goes, a rationale used in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable. Decision making is only as good as the available information and the decision maker, mental capacity, character, experience, drives, needs, wants, etc.

 

[Learner]

Free will is a cop out as far as the bible, its God, evil and original sin goes, a rationale used in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

Fair enough, you don't agree. I thought that using a rationale is normally asked of theists to give an explanation.

Decision making is only good as the available information and the decision maker, mental capacity, character, experience, drives, needs, wants, etc.

Indeed, there should be enough information available to teach us not to do all the above 'on the detriment' of others.

 

[DBT]

Free will is a cop out as far as the bible, its God, evil and original sin goes, a rationale used in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

Fair enough, you don't agree. I thought that using a rationale is normally asked of theists to give an explanation.

It's not a new claim. But you are right....please explain what you mean by free will and how free will fits into the bible's narrative of sin and evil.

Indeed, there should be enough information available to teach us not to do all the above 'on the detriment' of others.

It's not that simple. We never have complete information about the world, its events or the consequences of our decisions and actions. Not to mention fallibility and flawed thinking and reasoning....which is not a matter of choice. Nobody deliberately chooses to make mistakes, yet mistakes happen all the time.

 

[Learner]

It's not a new claim. But you are right....please explain what you mean by free will and how free will fits into the bible's narrative of sin and evil.

It's been discussed many times, not new. Would need you to understand the concept of context anyway, getting no where as usual.

It's not that simple. We never have complete information about the world, its events or the consequences of our decisions and actions. Not to mention fallibility and flawed thinking and reasoning....which is not a matter of choice. Nobody deliberately chooses to make mistakes, yet mistakes happen all the time.

Mistakes we all do them they are forgivable. How did you manage to refrain from doing atrocious evils?

 

[DBT]

It's not a new claim. But you are right....please explain what you mean by free will and how free will fits into the bible's narrative of sin and evil.

It's been discussed many times, not new. Would need you to understand the concept of context anyway, getting no where as usual.

What makes you think that I'm not aware of the context, or that I don't consider the context?

It seems to me that it is you who is not considering the overall picture of the bible or what it says in the bible about God being responsible for both good and evil in the world.

So until you are prepared to consider what the bible actually says without trying to transform what it says into something opposite, it can only go around in circles.

Mistakes we all do them they are forgivable. How did you manage to refrain from doing atrocious evils?

Some people are psychopaths or sociopaths because they lack empathy, they literally cannot feel empathy and this is not their choice. So its not a matter of 'free will' even if decision making was free will, which it isn't for the given reasons; the architecture and information state of a brain determines a decision in any given moment in time, hence a decision/action may be regretted a moment after it was made.

Besides, as to the issue of evil, it still remains that the bible tells us that God creates both good and evil. And, like it or not, there is a contradiction between God as Love and God as the creator of evil.

 

[remez]

I make no assumptions. I merely point to verses and what they themselves say. If one verse tells us that God deliberately creates evil.......

AND here it is……….

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

Ok I addressed this briefly with you before.
We have this issue of “SAY” vs “MEANING”
You desire to cherry pick the KJV for what it “SAYS” in black and white and ignore the more important factor of “MEANING”
Here is why your assumption the God creates evil fails……..
Laid out for you historically, grammatically and theologically……..

1. Historical context Isaiah 45 is part of a much larger piece of scripture Isaiah 40-66. In which Isreal is in captivity to Babylon. God here is promising Israel that He will deliver them from exile in Babylon. God presents a series of messages/prophecies through Isaiah to overcome the doubt and unbelief of His people regarding the future of his covenant with them. Thus he promises them that He will provide the means of his deliverance from Babylon to be returned home. God will use the conquest of Cyrus to both bring calamity to Babylon and peace to Israel by decree of Cyrus to let Israel return home. Notice he brought forth calamity and peace. God is sovereign. Thus don’t mess up again. Also note that it took 70 years (multiple generations) of exile for Israel to learn its lesson. God did not create moral evil. This verse affirms that God is sovereign on several different levels. He can cause wars to end and peace to begin, as he was about to do to Babylon by way of Cyrus and bring peace to Israel.

2. Grammatical context. The largest difficulty of understanding this verse is the word “evil.” The key to understanding the verse from a grammatical perspective is the use of contrasts. Isaiah is using a compare and contrast literary devise to emphasize God’s sovereignty over his entire creation or particularly here, Israel. Notice the contrast of light and darkness. That is crystal clear. Thus when we come to peace and evil (rah). How is one to understand evil? Rah could be translated evil here only in the sense of the opposite of peace. Which is not “moral evil” it is calamity. If you were to determine it to be moral evil the “peace” would have to have been interpreted as righteousness. The grimmer clearly interprets the rah as calamity.

Further note here. Sort of a combo historical/grammatical point. The KJV did not have the much older Alexandrian texts at the time of their translation, hence the loose interpretation evil. Since the discovery of these older texts, modern translations properly translate rah as calamity in this verse. Out of the 640 times rah is translated in the OT is is translated trouble or calamity 275 times. Hence the reason why most translations including the NASB, ESV, and NET Bible even the NKJV translate this verse and many others as trouble, calamity or disaster.

3. The main theological interpretation of Is 45:7 focuses on the character of God. Therefore the main theological issue pertains to God’s character. So what meaning of rah can be attributed to God? The overwhelming teaching of both the Old and New Testaments points to God being the creator of all morally good and perfect things. But it is also abundantly clear in Scriptures that God is the author of judgment in the form of trouble, calamity or disaster, which is are the fruits of sin. Israel’s sin demands God’s justice and punishment…..context the covenant. Thus “peace” meant all the spiritual blessings that God gives those who trust in Him, And “evil” is not moral evil, which comes from the heart of sinful man, but physical evil, which God sends as punishment for sin. Further…….God’s sovereignty. Throughout the OT and particularly in Isaiah, the God of Israel is contrasted with the “gods” and the religion of the rest of the world……between the Israel’s monotheism and the polytheisms of Israel’s neighbors. As I presented earlier Isaiah is contrasting God with the dualism of Persian Zoroastrianism (and likely Cyrus) which taught that there were two competing gods or forces—one good and one bad. Thus Isaiah is trashing dualism strongly by this text. But Isaiah declares that God alone is the ultimate First Cause of every action. So by covenant it was crucial that Israel stay pure purity monotheists and avoid the idol worship of the dualistic Persians.

Completely irrelevant. What you say here does nothing to address or alter the statement that God creates both good and evil, which is supported by many other verses….

Then you didn’t read it, or worse didn't comprehend it. Because it DIRECTLY redressed your reasoning as stated above..

You simply want to go with a line of reasoning that cherry picks the archaic KJV which allows you utter "Well that is what it “says””, and the meaning is irrelevant." Good luck with that kind of reasoning.
Seriously....
With your line of reasoning Geocentrism must be correct because every meteorologist utters the phraseology of sunrise and sunset. The meaning is irrelevant.

Thanks for playing.

 

[DBT]

Completely irrelevant. What you say here does nothing to address or alter the statement that God creates both good and evil, which is supported by many other verses….

Then you didn’t read it, or worse didn't comprehend it. Because it DIRECTLY redressed your reasoning as stated above..

You simply want to go with a line of reasoning that cherry picks the archaic KJV which allows you utter "Well that is what it “says””, and the meaning is irrelevant." Good luck with that kind of reasoning.
Seriously....
With your line of reasoning Geocentrism must be correct because every meteorologist utters the phraseology of sunrise and sunset. The meaning is irrelevant.

Thanks for playing.

It's not I who fails to understand what the verses say about God creating evil, or how they fit into the overall context of the OT and the NT....and Judaism supports this view which is clearly stated in several verses and relates to the nature of absolute power and knowledge, that God is necessarily responsible for the existence of evil.

Therefore it is your adopted apologetics that fails to grasp the meaning and significance of verses that tell us that God creates both good and evil, and how this fits into the overall context of the bible and the concept of an omnipotent/omniscient creator.

Which, given a strong motive of maintaining a favoured theology, is quite understandable.

Thanks for your effort.

 

[DBT]

Completely irrelevant. What you say here does nothing to address or alter the statement that God creates both good and evil, which is supported by many other verses….

Then you didn’t read it, or worse didn't comprehend it. Because it DIRECTLY redressed your reasoning as stated above..

You simply want to go with a line of reasoning that cherry picks the archaic KJV which allows you utter "Well that is what it “says””, and the meaning is irrelevant." Good luck with that kind of reasoning.
Seriously....
With your line of reasoning Geocentrism must be correct because every meteorologist utters the phraseology of sunrise and sunset. The meaning is irrelevant.

Thanks for playing.

Cursing the whole world over a bad decision made by a naive couple is an act of moral evil that has no ethical relationship to the so called offence (forgivable, understandable)....which was knowingly (omniscience) orchestrated by god.

The blame for the failure A&E and the curse of the world clearly lies with the nature and character of this God, not the fallability of man.

 

[DBT]

1. Historical context Isaiah 45 is part of a much larger piece of scripture Isaiah 40-66. In which Isreal is in captivity to Babylon. God here is promising Israel that He will deliver them from exile in Babylon. God presents a series of messages/prophecies through Isaiah to overcome the doubt and unbelief of His people regarding the future of his covenant with them.

Wrong, the problem of injustice and evil perpetrated by God begins with genesis and set up and condemnation of Adam and Eve and continues throughout the bible.


The Hebrew Scriptures record that the Almighty Himself placed both good and the evil into the world
''Passages in Tanach like Isaiah 45:7 and Deuteronomy 30:15 pose a monumental theological problem for Christians who maintain that God did not create Satan, the angel of evil. According to Christian doctrine, as you state in your question, Satan was the highest-ranking angel who, through his own act of spiritual defiance and outright disobedience, became the chief adversary and slanderer of God, and the embodiment of evil in this world. As you maintained in your question, God never created evil according Christian teachings; He is only the author of righteousness and perfection. Therefore, God could never create something as sinister as the devil himself. Rather, Satan’s unyielding wickedness is the result of his own spiritual rebellion.''

''For the Jewish faith, Satan’s purpose in seducing man away from God poses no problem because Satan is only an agent of God. As a servant of the Almighty, Satan faithfully carries out the divine will of his Creator as he does in all his tasks.''

2. Grammatical context. The largest difficulty of understanding this verse is the word “evil.” The key to understanding the verse from a grammatical perspective is the use of contrasts. Isaiah is using a compare and contrast literary devise to emphasize God’s sovereignty over his entire creation or particularly here, Israel. Notice the contrast of light and darkness.

False for the given reason:
Quote;
''The word “disaster” inserted by the New International Version is misleading and purposely ambiguous so that the uninformed reader could conclude that this word refers to natural disasters, such as typhoons, earthquakes and hurricanes. This dubious translation was deliberately forged to conceal the prophet’s original message. As mentioned above, the King James Version correctly translates this verse, and renders the Hebrew word רָע (rah) as “evil.”

“See, I [God] have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil.” (Deuteronomy 30:15)

3. The main theological interpretation of Is 45:7 focuses on the character of God. Therefore the main theological issue pertains to God’s character. So what meaning of rah can be attributed to God? The overwhelming teaching of both the Old and New Testaments points to God being the creator of all morally good and perfect things. But it is also abundantly clear in Scriptures that God is the author of judgment in the form of trouble, calamity or disaster, which is are the fruits of sin.

Isaiah and other verses certainly are a comment on the nature and character of God, but the picture they paint is of a God that creates both good and evil...where the good certainly does not absolve or balance the evil, but contradicts descriptions of God as Love, which cannot create evil, that always forgives, love your enemies, do good to those who are against you.

Which is why I pointed out that your rationale does not work and is therefore irrelevant.

 

[MxM111]

Is "god is the Universe, or Mother nature" discussed anywhere in this thread?

 

[Tharmas]

Is "god is the Universe, or Mother nature" discussed anywhere in this thread?

Pantheism is mentioned in the list in the OP, but I don't believe it's actually been discussed in this thread. I could be wrong - I haven't followed the thread as closely as I should have. Care to start a discussion?

 

[hyzer]

If (since) God knows the greater good that will result from any event, any uneducated claim about the immorality of His actions is purely subjective.

It would be like an ignorant bystander watching a surgeon amputate a gangrenous limb and accusing the surgeon of torture.

Well, let's just take your little sound bite analogy a little bit further. After the bystander questions the surgeon, the surgeon will explain the purpose behind his action, and can back up his medical judgement with loads of studies, published and peer reviewed. Try that with your God. No explanation. None. No way to check or verify God's purposes. And therefore, no way to verify if God is moral or good or not.