I may sound negative in my posts but I have a lot of respect for these metaphysical ponderings of "world peace." Getting along peacefully and not killing each other is a good thing but, being practical, something like this probably won't happen until the antichrist comes, if then. When I was a child I wondered why people did "stupid" stuff and thought I knew the solution to the problems but my solution would have contented least that which we need the most. This reminds me of a joke I saw recently: Two fellows are talking religion. One says to the other, "Sometimes I'd like to ask God why he allows poverty, famine and injustice when he could do something about it." "What's stopping you?" asks the second. And the first replies, "I'm afraid God might ask me the same question." Vinnie Praise Jesus!!!
Hi Vinnie, For clarification of who created evil, please turn to Isaiah 45:7: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." By the way, I really liked your "joke". It illustrates a very valid point - we all have the power to make good things happen or prevent bad things from happening or to help make things better when bad things do happen. Instead, most of us sit around waiting for God to do something about it, and then blame God when things turn ugly. ------------------ www.indigenousrocks.com
Hi Searcher. I'm well aware of Isaiah 45:7 except it doesn't say "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." It says "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I the Lord, do all these things." niv The 10 plagues God sent to Egypt could be considered disaster. Vinnie Praise Jesus!!!
Vinnie, Perhaps I should have specified that I use the King James version, which indeed says what I typed, exactly as I typed it (whatever other sins I may commit - misquoting the Bible is not among them). ------------------ www.indigenousrocks.com
Hi searcher. My personal favorite Bible is the niv. My problem with the kjv is the language. It uses words like thee, thou, saith, bretheren. I find it a little hard to read. I'd have to think the niv is right here using the word disaster. The niv is not perfect though. It was translated by humans just like the kjv was and, more likely than not, contains errors. But I think the word disaster fits better with our definition of evil. This is a definition of evil from a christin apologetics book written by two philosophy professors. Handbook of Christian Apologetics" written by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli. [Evil (i cut some paragraphs out) If evil were a being, the problem of evil would be insolvable, for then either God made it--and thus he is not all good--or else God did not make it--and thus he is not the all-powerful creator of all things. But evil is not a thing. Things are not evil in themselves. For instance, a sword is not evil. Even the stroke of the sword that chops off your head is not evil in its being--in fact, unless it was a "good" stroke, it will not chop your head off. Where is the evil? It is in the will, the choice, the intent, the movement of the soul, which puts wrong order into the physical world of things and acts: the order between the sword and an innocent's neck rather than a murderer's neck or an innocent's bonds. Evil is real, but it is not a real thing. It is not subjective, but is not a substance. Augustine defines evil as disordered love, disordered will. It is a wrong relationship, a nonconformity between our will and God's will. God did not make it; we did. That is the obvious point of Genesis 1 and 3, the stories of God's good creation and humanity's evil fall.] I'll check out a concordance later and look up some scripture but I have to get ready for work. Have a great weekend! Vinnie Praise Jesus!!!
The problem with KJV is not the language (though that definetly poses a problem), but the mistranslations. It was translated to fit in with King James views of religion, not what was really written. It was also not entirely translated from the original texts-something we (for the most part) have the luxury of today.
I'm well aware of the problems the kjv has but a lot of people use it. I just didn't want to cause others to stumble. Its a widely used version of the bible. I just let it be. If it was the new world translation then we would have a problem. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Some bibles aren't meant for theological study. The first bible I read was the living translation. It broke the Bible down into easy to understand laymen terms. It was definately not a Bible to use for apologetics or theology though. But hey, just like the kjv, it served its purpose. The thing I really like about the niv study bible is the text notes. They didn't take a "religious" stance on the proximity of the flood nor on the genesis account of creation. Vinnie Praise Jesus!!!
Ilgwamh: Let me apologize first for the delay in my response. It's been a weird week. As to evil .... If left to me to set a definitive regard for evil, it would be as follows: There exists a relationship between humans and the universe around them that we have yet to properly perceive. With life, the first order seems to be survival: sustenance and propagation. I find those things which distract humanity from advancing within the universe to be evil. However ... I don't think it really matters what my definition of evil is, as regards the phrase you've quoted. I note that you are an expert in the babblings of pagans? Thank you for your definitive antithesis to unification. So, if I have it correctly, from what you've expressed: * Unity of theology will result ONLY in chaos and discord, except .... * Obliged unity under Christ will result in perfect harmony. If only things were that simple, Vinnie. When you name God--that is, when you make God something--what are those things It is not? If you insist that the only name for God is that accorded by Chrisian wisdom, then there is no union, only dominion. Likewise if that God is named Allah or Buddah, or if that God is a Goddess. Or a bull. Or a tree. Like all things evil must be also of God, so must those names that you would not afford It. At the core of this whole question, I suppose, is that I don't get the use of labels. "God MUST be these things described in this book, but CANNOT be the things described in this book." Or song, or tone, or image, or anything. That kind of thinking does not seem to be productive--it's almost Taliban in its rigidity. ALSO ... I wanted to ask about your 11/21 post in which you quoted a joke about asking God why It allows poverty, etc. .... So, if God asked you what your excuse is, what would your answer be? All else aside, if you had a direct line from your kitchen to God's ear, what would the answer be? Personally, my first reaction would be to tap my foot pointedly and say, "Excuse me? But this was YOUR show from the word go ... how did you expect people to get it right without a better instruction manual?" It almost becomes like a marital fight in which each party makes assumptions about the motivations and responsibilities of the other. thx, Tiassa ------------------ "Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)
