God and the Question of Evil

[Eodnhoj7]

Evil is a deficiency in good, yet is a good in itself.


For example God creating the devil observes the devil as good in the respect he reflects the totality of God's justice where one can do what they will yet consequences result. The devil is an example of God's complete justice and in these respects is good.

All being, as an extension of the Good, reflects different grades of goodness.

[Lacewing]

Evil is a deficiency in good, yet is a good in itself.

For example God creating the devil observes the devil as good in the respect he reflects the totality of God's justice where one can do what they will yet consequences result. The devil is an example of God's complete justice and in these respects is good.

All being, as an extension of the Good, reflects different grades of goodness.

When you're talking about imaginary ideas... such as gods and devils... you can make them mean anything you want. You can come up with any logic... any conclusion... whatever serves you. That's why interpretations and beliefs about such things are all over the map. They are imagined by each individual.

I think an insightful thing to explore is: WHY does that serve you? What is it filling? What is it validating? What is it promising? What is it excusing?

Does that not put it more in the appropriate perspective: a tool that is used to serve whatever the needs/desires are. So you can imagine it any way you want, as other people will do for themselves -- and it would be kind of pointless to argue over who is more accurate with such imaginings.

[Age]

Evil is a deficiency in good, yet is a good in itself.


For example God creating the devil observes the devil as good in the respect he reflects the totality of God's justice where one can do what they will yet consequences result. The devil is an example of God's complete justice and in these respects is good.

All being, as an extension of the Good, reflects different grades of goodness.

Well this is obvious as this is obviously needed in order to create the final goal and outcome correctly and properly.

[Age]

Evil is a deficiency in good, yet is a good in itself.

For example God creating the devil observes the devil as good in the respect he reflects the totality of God's justice where one can do what they will yet consequences result. The devil is an example of God's complete justice and in these respects is good.

All being, as an extension of the Good, reflects different grades of goodness.

When you're talking about imaginary ideas... such as gods and devils... you can make them mean anything you want. You can come up with any logic... any conclusion... whatever serves you. That's why interpretations and beliefs about such things are all over the map. They are imagined by each individual.

I think an insightful thing to explore is: WHY does that serve you? What is it filling? What is it validating? What is it promising? What is it excusing?

Does that not put it more in the appropriate perspective: a tool that is used to serve whatever the needs/desires are. So you can imagine it any way you want, as other people will do for themselves -- and it would be kind of pointless to argue over who is more accurate with such imaginings.

One can imagine that this is an "imaginary idea", but; WHY does that serve you? WHAT is it filling? WHAT is it validating? WHAT is it promising? And, WHAT is it excusing?

[Lacewing]

One can imagine that this is an "imaginary idea".

One can imagine anything.

What I imagine frees me from what others might imagine.

[Eodnhoj7]

Evil is a deficiency in good, yet is a good in itself.

For example God creating the devil observes the devil as good in the respect he reflects the totality of God's justice where one can do what they will yet consequences result. The devil is an example of God's complete justice and in these respects is good.

All being, as an extension of the Good, reflects different grades of goodness.

When you're talking about imaginary ideas... such as gods and devils... you can make them mean anything you want. You can come up with any logic... any conclusion... whatever serves you. That's why interpretations and beliefs about such things are all over the map. They are imagined by each individual.

I think an insightful thing to explore is: WHY does that serve you? What is it filling? What is it validating? What is it promising? What is it excusing?

Does that not put it more in the appropriate perspective: a tool that is used to serve whatever the needs/desires are. So you can imagine it any way you want, as other people will do for themselves -- and it would be kind of pointless to argue over who is more accurate with such imaginings.

An apophatic approach, defining God by what God is not, ceases use of the imagination as the definition of God becomes formless.

[Age]

One can imagine that this is an "imaginary idea".

One can imagine anything.

What I imagine frees me from what others might imagine.

But that freedom you imagine you might have does not seem to allow you to answer the same questions you pose to others.

[Lacewing]

One can imagine that this is an "imaginary idea".

One can imagine anything.

What I imagine frees me from what others might imagine.

But that freedom you imagine you might have does not seem to allow you to answer the same questions you pose to others.

Age, it's foolish and/or deceptive for you to say such a thing after all of the discussions we've shared in which I have answered HUNDREDS of questions.

I ask questions that I am willing to answer (and I have), and indeed, by asking them, I AM considering them myself, and/or they are questions I have already asked myself, and/or I'm considering its the same oneness asking questions of itself.

I'm not interested in engaging with you and your convoluted imaginings right now.

[Age]

One can imagine anything.

What I imagine frees me from what others might imagine.

But that freedom you imagine you might have does not seem to allow you to answer the same questions you pose to others.

Age, it's foolish and/or deceptive for you to say such a thing after all of the discussions we've shared in which I have answered HUNDREDS of questions.

If we were, to say, look back over our discussions and actually counted how many of my actual questions that you have actually answered, then would you still stand by what you allege here now?

Also, I was only referring to the same five questions you asked someone "else" in this short thread.

I ask questions that I am willing to answer (and I have), and indeed, by asking them, I AM considering them myself, and/or they are questions I have already asked myself, and/or I'm considering its the same oneness asking questions of itself.

Okay. If you have answered these clarifying questions and do not like to share those answers with us, then do be it.

I'm not interested in engaging with you and your convoluted imaginings right now.

Fair enough.

But your image that there is convolusion on my part will remain with you while you never ask clarifying questions.

I do not have any convoluted imaginings. That only exists in your imaginings. This can be proven true, or false, by your ability, or inability, to back up and support your claim here.

We will wait and see.