Insofar as it is part of His "divine plan", "evil" is in accord with His "will". Thus, this "fallen" Earth aka "best of all possible worlds". I think such a "God" is either a sadist or a fiction, and therefore, is not worthy of worship (e.g. as a 'moral ideal').

Thus, does it seem true that God dislikes evil; but, allowed it to exist? — Shawn

I'm still swayed by Augustine's 'evil as a privation of the good'. To put it another way, evil has the kind of existence that holes, fractures, shadows and illness has.

And in the universe, even that which is called evil, when it is regulated and put in its own place, only enhances our admiration of the good; for we enjoy and value the good more when we compare it with the evil. For the Almighty God, who, as even the heathen acknowledge, has supreme power over all things, being Himself supremely good, would never permit the existence of anything evil among His works, if He were not so omnipotent and good that He can bring good even out of evil. For what is that which we call evil but the absence of good? In the bodies of animals, disease and wounds mean nothing but the absence of health; for when a cure is effected, that does not mean that the evils which were present—namely, the diseases and wounds—go away from the body and dwell elsewhere: they altogether cease to exist; for the wound or disease is not a substance, but a defect in the fleshly substance,—the flesh itself being a substance, and therefore something good, of which those evils—that is, privations of the good which we call health—are accidents. Just in the same way, what are called vices in the soul are nothing but privations of natural good. And when they are cured, they are not transferred elsewhere: when they cease to exist in the healthy soul, they cannot exist anywhere else. — St Augustine, The Enchiridion

The classical theological rationale is that living beings such as ourselves live in a 'between' realm ('metaxy') - between the material world which is subject to decay and death, and the higher reality in which there is no lack or privation of any kind.

According to common belief, evil is one of the reasons people abandon faith in God as an omnibenevolent and all good being. — Shawn

Could you have faith in a being who does not make direct contact with you, does not manifest in any way you recognize, is described differently by every cult, each of which has has profound and irreconcilable internal contradictions?
Can you believe in an an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being who not only condones but creates evil? Then, too, as humans have developed a pretty healthy concept of evil themselves, would you continue to have faith in a fabled being whose mythology depicts him as performing and promoting acts that most humans consider evil?

My belief is slightly different. God does not create evil or allow it to exist except when he must to avoid destroying our agency.

God has clearly given us opportunities to make choices, and so the most he can do to alleviate the suffering of the righteous is to offer comfort and blessings despite challenges. Anything more usually limits others’ agency.

What we see as God allowing evil is often just the unavoidable result of putting fallible men in bodies capable of harming others, with those men often having the inclination to do so.

Vanity to suppose to know anything about God! And among the problems with attempts is the attribution of absolute qualities of omni-this and omni-that, failing to note that they can lead to contradiction. Which ultimately does not matter because it's all man-made.

If whatever exists is ultimately God's will and if evil exists, then ultimately evil is God's will. It also follows morally that we have agency to the degree we, like Sisyphus, struggle against, or resist, evil, and therefore oppose God, no?

Some people treat evil as an active agent--the devil at work. Others have characterized evil as an absence--absence from God; absence of love; absence of peace; absence of joy, and so on. Some blame God for the existence of evil, others blame humans. We have lots of evidence for the case against human beings being the source of evil.

I don't know -- I feel -- your idea that "evil is one of the reasons people abandon faith in God as an omnibenevolent and all good being" is not so. I believe that millions abandoned faith in God out of their indifference; secularism; implausible claims by the church; uninspiring preaching and liturgy--stuff like that.

does it seem true that God dislikes evi — Shawn

According to the Bible, God very much dislikes evil in its various forms.

One of my Articles of Faith is that we humans can not help but come off as evil) or bad or damned unreliable or a dozen other negative traits). We descended from the trees with animal drives and simple emotions designed for survival, and over a long time built a big brain on top of that. Our emotions may be primitive, but they still drive us. Rationality and emotionality are mixed together between our ears and therein lies our problem: We have an effective executive intelligence to carry out our crazy wishes and absurd urges.

We do OK when we are not striving to get to the top of the heap Then we are neither very bad nor saintly. We are in the safe middle. However, when we are revved up to get to the top of the heap, whatever that heap consists of, we find ourselves throwing the better angels of our nature under the bus (ambition as a primary source of evil). That's when we create evil.

According to the Bible, God very much dislikes evil in its various forms. — BC

:chin:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. — Isaiah 45:7, KJV

But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? — Job 2:10, KJV

Yes, this is something that is ambiguous about the Bible. Does God hand out evil as punishment or does this whole Satan guy do it instead or for Him, whichever it is?

Edit: I mean Job was conspired against by the devil and God, just to test his faith.

:roll: Dueling Bible verses.

Psalms 52:1
1 Why do you boast of evil, you mighty hero? Why do you boast all day long, you who are a disgrace in the eyes of God?

1 Kings 14:9-10
You have done more evil than all who lived before you. You have made for yourself other gods, idols made of metal; you have aroused my anger and turned your back on me. 1- I'll fix you!

2 Chronicles 29:6-7
Our parents were unfaithful; they did evil in the eyes of the LORD our God and forsook him. They turned their faces away from the LORD’s dwelling place and turned their backs on him. 7 And God smote them, verily, giving them the royal shaft.

Isaiah 5:20-21
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. 21 Get it straight, people.

Matthew 12:34-35
34 You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.

It is difficult for me to imagine any priest or scribe, prophet or psalmist, positioning God in a position favoring evil. Still, an all-good all-powerful creator and the vigor of evil are a circle impossible to square.

My solution is to shift the responsibility for evil from God to the smart-assed apes who, like the people addressed in Isaiah 5:20, couldn't tell shit from shinola. But then, why would a good and omnipotent god allow some smart-assed apes to wreck everything? One solution to that problem is divest God of omnipotence. God might be all knowing, but unable to head off trouble at the pass. This is 'God who suffers with us".

@Shawn: It's stuff like this that drives the faithful, screaming and tearing their hair, out of the churches and into the bars.

Yes, this is something that is ambiguous about the Bible. — Shawn

Remember that the Bible was not, after all, written by the Holy Spirit in one go. It's a collection of diverse narratives for various purposes--NOT a unitary whole.

One solution to that problem is divest God of omnipotence. — BC

If so, then why call it "God"? (Epicurus)

It's a collection of diverse narratives for various purposes--NOT a unitary whole. — BC

Which also tells someone was thinking that just how important the written word would be (in the New Testament). Still, even if we do have this evident way to put things into perspective, people just pick the most convenient part for them.

To the OP, every religion and deity (or group of them) is a solution for our moral and ethical problems on good and evil, which is a problem that we cannot find and objective solution. Hence the monotheistic religion portray God as good. A smart move compared to the troublesome gods of for example of Antiquity, where at least I would be confused just what the message is about.

Thus, does it seem true that God dislikes evil; but, allowed it to exist? — Shawn

Yes, and sometimes by making evil succeed it allows it to be built up to something great and then destroyed all at once. Assyria is described in such a way. As a more modern example, if wasn't for Nazism being so utterly discredited eugenics may very well continue to have a positive reputation. God will raise up evil and that evil will often destroy other evil like what Babylon did to Assyria.

On an individual level, we all have free will and evil is the consequence of that. In the Hebrew Bible righteousness is associated with long life, progeny, and prosperity while evil is associated with death and/or exile and misfortune. Promises of heavenly reward don't make it in until the Jesus Expansion Pack.

It is my opinion that God allowed evil to manifest in the world, according to His divine plan. — Shawn

We all know the story of Adam and Eve. Knowing that they fall but allowing them to commit evil is evil.

I'm still swayed by Augustine's 'evil as a privation of the good'. To put it another way, evil has the kind of existence that holes, fractures, shadows and illness has. — Wayfarer

Augustine mixed Positive (by positive I mean consisting in or characterized by the presence rather than the absence of distinguishing features, such as vision), and negative (such as blindness) with good (such as love) and evil (such as hate).

Knowing that they fall but allowing them to commit evil is evil. — MoK

God didn't allow anything. He just induced Adam and Eve to eat the apple with the aim of tasting if they would resist the greed or not.

God didn't allow anything. — javi2541997

Correct. I should have said God gave them access to eat the fruit.

He just induced Adam and Eve to eat the apple with the aim of tasting if they would resist the greed or not. — javi2541997

God knew that they would fail since He is omniscient. God prohibited them not eating but He gave them access to the tree whether they eat the fruit or not. There was the serpent who intervened as well. The serpent said that you will not die if you eat the fruit. So there was not only the element of greed. There was confusion due to what the serpent said as well.

God didn't allow anything. — javi2541997

According to Genesis, God created Adam and Eve with free will too weak to resist temptation and not disobey. God also created the serpent and the Tree of Knowledge. Adam and Eve are set up to fail by God then, when they do fail, God punishes them for His failure to make their free wills strong enough as well as for His failure to tell them that He, not the forbidden fruit, would cause them to die (i.e. denied access by God to the fruit of the Tree of Life). Adam and Eve didn't Fall, God set the trap for them and all of their descendants; thus, Evil was created – "allowed" – by God in the first book of the Torah. :fire: :eyes: :pray:

:100: :up:

Good points and explanation. :up:

The serpent said that you will not die if you eat the fruit. So there was not only the element of greed. There was confusion due to what the serpent said as well. — MoK

Good points from you, too. But I liked to quote that specific phrase of your text with the aim of analysing the following: I guess we agree with the fact that interpreting Genesis is complex because it is full of metaphors and contradictions. You claim that Adam and Eve acted with confusion, I rather think that they acted doing what a large number of people also do: greed (why did they eat the apple when there were other foods?) and disobedience (why do they listen to the serpent when they should have obeyed God blindly?).

It is a metaphor. People always want more than they need and also disobey the authority when they don't need to in most cases.

Good points from you, too. But I liked to quote that specific phrase of your text with the aim of analysing the following: I guess we agree with the fact that interpreting Genesis is complex because it is full of metaphors and contradictions. You claim that Adam and Eve acted with confusion, I rather think that they acted doing what a large number of people also do: greed (why did they eat the apple when there were other foods?) and disobedience (why do they listen to the serpent when they should have obeyed God blindly?). — javi2541997

I think they were simply in a situation to believe God's or the serpent's words. They wouldn't eat the fruit if they believed in God's words. They ate the fruit therefore they believed in the serpant's words. It is important to notice the passage from Genesis which is about the serpent telling Eve that you certainly will not die after she says that God said that you will die if you eat the fruit. This means that they were resisting their temptation to eat the fruit before the serpent's intervention.

It is a metaphor. People always want more than they need and also disobey the authority when they don't need to in most cases. — javi2541997

If you treat the story of the fall as a metaphor then one could also argue the act of creation is a metaphor. The same applies to the existence of God as an agent so that is a metaphor as well.

Remember that the Bible was not, after all, written by the Holy Spirit in one go. It's a collection of diverse narratives for various purposes--NOT a unitary whole. — BC

From what other sources can we learn the nature and desires of God?

Understood. If we take Adam and Eve failed-temptation in a philosophical approach, it appears an interesting dilemma. The serpent tells Eve that eating the apple will not cause death, but she was previously amended by God to not eat the apple because she would die otherwise. What a dilemma! What is better? Take control of the temptation and resist or pass over the rules and try the apple? Interesting... Interesting...

But, sadly, Genesis is not opened to a philosophical interpretation. God is truth, law, and moral. We should obey him because it is the correct way to act. Why did they listen to the serpent then? Humans are a weak animal and a complete failure. They—Adam and Eve—showed that we can't repress our emotions like greed, lust, ambition, disobedience, etc.

Remember that the Bible was not, after all, written by the Holy Spirit in one go. It's a collection of diverse narratives for various purposes--NOT a unitary whole. — BC

I think this is the biggest thing to remember when approaching "The Bible" (aka the Hebrew Scriptures). That is to say, they were works that were compiled, redacted, and edited from previous/original iterations. Most likely, the original materials were less ethical and more to do with the exhortations to do as the national god, Yahweh asks. The main goal was to keep the Kingdom of Israel and Judah prosperous and secure from foreigners (e.g. Assyria, Egypt, Moab, Edom, and Babylonia). Prophets were a class, perhaps even a "guild" of sorts attached to the kingly court. These original oracular writings written by the prophets and or their scribes were probably elaborated upon, especially after catastrophic events already happened to give more ethical underpinnings to the "why" it happened. These writings were originally only circulated amongst the elites of Israel and Judah, perhaps the priests, the aristocratic/royal lineages, and the scribes themselves. There is no evidence that true "monotheism" even took hold in Jerusalem as late as the Persian period (300s BCE). Look at the letters back and forth between Elaphantine Island, a Jewish outpost guarding Persia's southern flank. Elephantine had a long thriving community of Jews there to serve the Persian king. They were so big they formed their own temple to Yahweh. There were letters back and forth between Jerusalem and Elephantine whereby Elephantine asked questions on holidays and rituals. Jerusalem's experts had no problem with Elephantine's apparent tendency for a polytheistic/henotheistic system with an "Anat-Yahu" consort and child.

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephantine_papyri_and_ostraca#Jewish_temple_at_Elephantine
https://www.biu.ac.il/en/article/11073#:~:text=In%20one%20of%20the%20letters,of%20Nisan%20until%20the%2021st.

It was slowly over time, probably around the time of the Hasmonean/Maccabean dynasty* that "The Bible" (mainly the Torah itself) became "Law of the land", and true monotheism started to take hold through synagogues that spread throughout the land. This gets more complicated between the various sects such as the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes (possibly Dead Sea Scroll Sect), that had their own versions of authority circling around similar themes.

So it is good to keep in mind that the history and development of these writings are often based on contexts of a people during a certain time/place. To cherry-pick any particular passage, even from something like "Psalms" and not understand at which "layer" of scribal addition it comes from, its main context and purpose (usually dealing with events in the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel, or its leaders), and THEN understanding the redactions to put a certain "spin" on it- perhaps Priestly layer added in the Persian/Greek period adding an ethical/ritual spin on a more generic/historical one), would seem highly misleading to its intent and origins.

*The Levite family from the Hannukah story headed by Judas Maccabeaus that led a guerilla war campaign against the Greek forces.

Yet, God could have not liked evil for He is an all good being. — Shawn

Does an all good being like evil?

Did you put much time or effort into this OP?

Does an all good being like evil? — Leontiskos

Did the conspiracy between good and evil against Job make any sense to you?

From what other sources can we learn the nature and desires of God? — Vera Mont

On the one hand, we created God so we can know everything about God. On the other hand, our God character says He is unknowable, and not like us. Thus we can have it both ways: When it is convenient, we know what God wants, doesn't want, what God likes, what God hates, etc. Or, when it is convenient, God can be an unknowable mystery.

When I say "we created God", I do not mean that we cynically, duplicitously, created God as some sort of great scam. The millennia-long dead authors of god-tales were likely in great earnest. They lived in a pre-scientific world where there was a lot of unexplained, unexplainable events that needed some sort of explanation. Not least was the very existence of the authors and all his kin, friends, enemies--the whole world.

We don't have any problem accepting that gods like Zeus or Odin don't have an objective existence, because those gods were officially retired. There are quite a few gods that various peoples still believe exist. In the fulness of time, millennia, these too will be retired or replaced.

Did the conspiracy between good and evil against Job make any sense to you? — Shawn

That's what I mean by 'diverse narratives'. The story of Job is like the story of Adam and Eve or Noah and the ark. It's not an historical narrative, it's a literary narrative which tells the story of one man's unshakable faith in goodness of God.

It's difficult to understand the Bible if it is flattened out into a simple story of conflict between abstract 'good' and 'evil' and frosted with a layer of literalism. I highly doubt that you are a biblical literalist.

Great stuff. Thanks!