God, Satan, Adam and Eve, and origin of evil

[Immanuel Can]

It is said that God created Satan with evil nature (Satan could feel pride) and Satan was first who fell in the sin of pride. Satan then fooled Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge. The question is who is the origin of Evil?

Everything keys on the concept "free will." Materialists and other kinds of Determinists, such as Calvinists, say there's no such thing as a creature free to choose. Voluntarists and libertarians of various kinds say there is such a thing.

If the Determinists were right, then evil would either a) have to come from the Creator, or b) have to be a feature inherent in and ineradicable from material causes. (The first answer would fit the Calvinists, and the second the Materialists and other Causal Determinists of all types.)

If the Voluntarists and libertarian types are right, then evil is defined as a free will decision to depart from harmony with the Creator, and thus it originates with the choosing agent.

Take your pick, then.

[bahman]

Including you.

Not me, please.

Hang on, you stated that the Bible IS the word of God!

I didn't mean that I believe that the Bible is the word of God. I meant that people believe that the Bible is the word of God.

Why do you conclude that the bible was written by man and all man's predisposition to personal biases, while stating, quoting you:- "I consider these things to be literal unless otherwise is declared somewhere in the Bible. The Bible is the word of God."

The Bible could be corrupted. This has nothing against the fact that the Bible has to be literal unless otherwise is declared. As I mentioned people used to believe that creation was done in seven days. Nowadays they don't believe so the only way to escape the truth is to call the Bible a poetic book.

So NOT the direct word of God?

I have no idea. I am not a believer. Whether the Bible is corrupted or not is the subject of another thread.

By the way, you are a Christian. Don't you believe in the Bible and the Church?

I am a Christian only by way of believing in what Christ did and perhaps to a degree - what he is purported to have said. (because a sage told me)

Sage?

I know from the sage, that key words pertaining to life were convoluted into their present form by God.

The interesting thing about the word Bible - is that it is a homophone to Buy Bull. Not only do we get bullshit, we pay for it.

Why did God make this title a homophone to buy bull? Because 'He' 'It' wants us NOT TO JUST ACCEPT IT - BUT QUESTION IT.

It wants us to be intelligent - unlike sheep.

So God lied to us in order to make sure that we become intelligent by asking questions?

How do you know this?

I have many spiritual experiences. He can put thoughts in our minds, He can tempt us (including Jesus), etc.

My only experience of this is God doing it - he doesn't need a 'satan' when 'he' is such a c@nt.

Maybe, that is God who does things to me too. Maybe, that is Satan who does things to you too. We will never know.

I am a Christian, and the most rational answer I have is that there is NO such thing as 'Satan'.

Hah. So the story of fallen Angels is not literal too. What is God's purpose?

Well, it certainly would be rather pathetic for 'God' to give a shit about humans, but create such an adversary.

God's purpose is deciding who gets to reincarnate as what within the confines of entropy - are you man or beast?

I cannot follow you here well. So God created this mess in order to decide about who gets to reincarnate?

Ok, what does this Satan chap want? What is 'his' goal, that this powerful God left him alive to achieve?

To cheat us. To send us to Hell. To show that we don't worth it.

No, apparently (according the the buy bull - for simpletons) it is our big time loving God that sends us to Hell - it is just Satan that rolls out the red carpet.

So Jesus was a lier?

[bahman]

It is said that God created Satan with evil nature (Satan could feel pride) and Satan was first who fell in the sin of pride. Satan then fooled Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge. The question is who is the origin of Evil?

Everything keys on the concept "free will." Materialists and other kinds of Determinists, such as Calvinists, say there's no such thing as a creature free to choose. Voluntarists and libertarians of various kinds say there is such a thing.

If the Determinists were right, then evil would either a) have to come from the Creator, or b) have to be a feature inherent in and ineradicable from material causes. (The first answer would fit the Calvinists, and the second the Materialists and other Causal Determinists of all types.)

If the Voluntarists and libertarian types are right, then evil is defined as a free will decision to depart from harmony with the Creator, and thus it originates with the choosing agent.

Take your pick, then.

There are two questions here: 1) Is creating evil nature is good/evil? and 2) It is for sure that an agent with free will eventually commit evil if s/he has an evil nature so was the act of creating a free agent with evil nature is good/evil?

[Immanuel Can]

There are two questions here: 1) Is creating evil nature is good/evil? and 2) It is for sure that an agent with free will eventually commit evil if s/he has an evil nature so was the act of creating a free agent with evil nature is good/evil?

The two questions aren't in Standard English. The problems are as follows: "Is...is.." in the first one, and the second being worded as a statement, but with a question mark at the end.

I don't want to "read into" what you're trying to ask, so could you please reword so as to make your meaning clear? Thanks.

[bahman]

There are two questions here: 1) Is creating evil nature good/evil? and 2) It is for sure that an agent with free will eventually commit evil if s/he has an evil nature so was the act of creating a free agent with evil nature is good/evil?

The two questions aren't in Standard English. The problems are as follows: "Is...is.." in the first one, and the second being worded as a statement, but with a question mark at the end.

I don't want to "read into" what you're trying to ask, so could you please reword so as to make your meaning clear? Thanks.

Ok. I already correct the first question. I mean God created our nature which is partly evil. Is the act of creation of such nature good or evil?

For the second question, you need to understand the first statement until "so". After "so" there is a question related to the statement before "so".

[Immanuel Can]

I mean God created our nature which is partly evil. Is the act of creation of such nature good or evil?

Well, Biblically, mankind was not created "partly evil." Genesis makes that abundantly clear. It says, "And God saw that it was good," not "God saw it was good and evil."

But it seems human beings were also created as genuine individuals and persons, with moral freedom. And this means that they had the power to choose good, or to reject good. The rejection of the good is what is known as "evil."

So "evil" is not itself a creation: it's the negation, the shadow, the absence of good, the rejection of good, the departure from good, the twisting away from good. It isn't a thing-in-itself, but the negative of a thing-in-itself. It's not-life, not-light, not-truth, not-health, and not-good. But it's not a thing with its own independent existence: it's derivative of the absence or rejection of something truly good.

For the second question, you need to understand the first statement until "so". After "so" there is a question related to the statement before "so".

Well, you wrote: " It is for sure that an agent with free will eventually commit evil if s/he has an evil nature so was the act of creating a free agent with evil nature is good/evil?"

That's not grammatically clear. But it also seems to assume "evil nature" was "created," rather than evil being a product of rejection of the Good by agents with free will.

This is the opposite of what Genesis says was the case, so the question (if I can understand it at all) would be premised on an error.

[Age]

There are several versions of the Bible. What is written in the Bible does not fit the truth, etc.

You seem to be sure that you have not been able to fit them in with the truth, so how about you provide any amount of examples as you like and let us see if we can fit them in with the actual and real truth or not.

For example, Big Bang (creation was not in seven days),

That relatively "sized" bang, which happened a relatively few years ago has NOTHING really to do with Creation at all.

Creation was not in, with, or at the so called "big bang" at all.

That "bang" happened within Creation.

evolution (our ancestors are not Adam and Eve),

Was there ever a point in evolution where a purely not knowing the difference between right and wrong animal evolved into a more thinking and knowing animal?

Are you aware that the story of adam and eve is just a story about evolution, which explains when an animal evolved into and became the what is now known as the 'human animal'?

Or, have you got some other concept of what that story is about?

Why do you have 'your story', where did 'your' story come from? Remember we could be reading the exact same words?

To me, the story of adam and eve is a story about and explanation of how evolution, itself, works.

The story of the flood (you cannot possibly have room for all pair of each species in a boat), etc.

This story is just about rescuing ALL things before they are flooded/suffocated/killed/destroyed to the point of extinction.

To save and help any species of any thing to keep existing, BEFORE they brought to the point of extinction, then at least two are needed, that is; the male and the female of any species.

Maybe you are seeing these things as not just a story about some thing possible, and that is the reason you can not fit in them with the 'truth'?

Or, maybe what you see as 'truth' is really NOT truth at all, and that is some thing which is NOT possible.

But we will NEVER know until you OPEN up fully and explain what the 'truth' IS, and why you can NOT fit these stories in with.

Ah I know, maybe you view these stories as literally happening in truth.

By the way, in case you still have NOT got it; I LOOK AT and SEE things very, very different from 'you' do.

The stories I see, look at, and read in ALL religious (and scientific) texts ALL fit in perfectly with the actual Truth of things.

[Age]

True. But there are people who believe in the Bible and all the stories within.

So what?

You believe in things, which are also obviously false and not true.

Me? Maybe. But I am trying my best to not believe in on something which is obviously false.

Do you know of any one that is not 'trying' their best to believe in/on some thing which is obviously false?

In fact do you know of ANY one believes in/on any thing, which is obviously false, to them?

This is the biggest issue and trouble human beings have with BELIEFS. They obviously would NOT believe some thing, which is obviously false, to them, AND, they would ONLY believe some thing, which is obviously true, to them. But what is obviously FALSE to one, is NOT to "another", and vice-versa, what is obviously TRUE to one, is NOT to "another". But which ONE is Right?

By the way, can you please give an example of what you think that I believe which is obviously wrong?

Sure, provide me with a list of the things that you believe, then I will provide you with examples of the ones, which are obviously wrong, to me.

By the way, thank you for wanting to obtain some clarity on what it is that I am saying.

I don't know. But Satan is very powerful.

And, how do you KNOW this?

Through my personal experiences.

Through your experiences is God very powerful also?

Or, through ALL of your experiences, is it just satan who is very powerful?

By the way, what is this 'satan' thing exactly?

The master of all Devils.

Could you pinpoint it down just a little bit more, so that 'we', who have NOT lived your life experiences, are able to grasp some kind of understanding at least?

What about who or what are ALL the 'devils'?

Christian doesn't have a rational answer for this.

Maybe not, but there IS a very rational answer.

For example?

To understand the answer you would first have to KNOW what all the words in the answer actually mean and how they are defined, and from the examples, meanings, and/or definitions that you have provided so far, then you will probably not yet be able to understand the answer fully. But I will provide my view anyway:

To me, 'satan', is just the wrong thinking, within each human being. If as you say, 'satan' is the "master of the devils", then 'satan' would be BELIEFS, themselves. While 'devils' would just be the wrong thinking. Beliefs, after all, do have control over the thinking, which is usually wrong anyway.

So, the purpose of God, in the spiritual sense, (which is just the KNOWING of right and wrong, in this context) in allowing satan to exist is so eventually human beings will learn from their own mistakes.

ALL human beings learn BEST from, and through, their own personal experiences, and NOT from being told. God is telling ALL 'you', human beings, what is right and wrong ALL the time anyway, from within. But, seriously, how many people really listen to their OWN inner KNOWING of what is ACTUALLY right and wrong and do that, instead of listening to their OWN individual instantly gratifying thinking? This is part of the story of adam and eve. The snake is just a forked tongue, slithering, low-(to the ground)life animal. A slithering (sneaky), forked tongue (split the truth) internal speaking one, telling 'you', human beings (eve first) to do what is KNOWN to be WRONG.

How God, in the physical sense, (the Universe Itself) actually allowed satan to exist is just how creation through evolution produces or Creates ALL things. Eventually an intelligent enough species would come to exist. That species was eventually named human beings who have, within them, a thinking, which is made up of good AND bad thoughts, and a KNOWING, which is ONLY of Good, True, Right, and Correct knowledge.

The bad, wrong, or 'evil' thinking, which has come to exist within ALL adult human beings is what could be called the devils. With many devils, or the many wrong thinking/thoughts within one adult human being or many devils being ALL adult human beings ALL with their own wrong thinking/thoughts.

These devils/wrong thinking are controlled by the master 'satan', which is just the BELIEFS within the BELIEF-system. (and like most "systems", they seem to have control over human beings instead of the other way around. Have you ever phoned a government department to complain about some thing to only be told that that is how the "system" works? I think this human being forget that it is 'you', human beings, who CREATED the "system", and NOT the other way around). But I digress. Now, eve ate what she did because within her was a BELIEF that it was okay to do so, and in doing so she would gain the knowledge of good and evil/wrong. She ALREADY KNEW it was wrong. The inner KNOWING of right and wrong is God, in the spiritual sense, but she listened to the wrong thinking/thoughts instead. And as can be witnessed and evidenced since "then", human beings have not really changed that much at all. adam, being a typical, tried to' blame some thing else, for what was inertly KNOWN to be wrong all along. Just like people blame the "system" for some thing "else", which obviously human beings, themselves, do, adam blamed eve and eve blamed some thing other than herself. She blamed the BELIEF-"system" within.

Now, back to the question that was asked;
What was God's purpose in allowing Satan to exist?

Which instead of you just saying, "I do not know", you answered:
Christian doesn't have a rational answer for this.

To which I replied:
Maybe not, but there IS a very rational answer.

God's purpose in allowing satan to exist IS because when 'you', human beings' accept AND take FULL responsibility for your OWN wrong doings, THEN you will understand FULLY that the purpose 'you' are absolutely FREE to choose to do whatever you want is so that you could and would LEARN what is Truly Right and Wrong from your OWN wrong doings, so THEN the Good in 'you' ALL will wipe out the wrong/evil thinking with you ALL once and for ALL forever more, so that then the following generations of human beings can and will living in peace and harmony forever more.

When 'you', human beings, when this is written, STOP thinking that LIfe revolves around 'you', and START thinking about YOUR children, who are REALLY what IS Truly IMPORTANT, then you can START Creating the Life that you Truly WANT for yourselves, you and YOUR children.

According to Christian, Muslim, etc., he promised to be the enemy of humans.

And so 'satan' IS.

By the way, like God, satan is NOT a "he".

Satan is male according to my personal experience.

Okay, that is fair enough.

And what would make more sense is IF you had had PERFECT past experiences, then you would have PERFECT knowledge of RIGHT and WRONG. Unfortunately you have had neither, so instead of 'trying to' LOOK AT and SEE 'Life' through YOU perspective ONLY, what would be so wrong in just LOOKING AT things, from "another" perspective, and SEEING what can be found and discovered there?

[Age]

Not me, please.

Hang on, you stated that the Bible IS the word of God!

I didn't mean that I believe that the Bible is the word of God. I meant that people believe that the Bible is the word of God.

But what do you believe?

It does NOT matter what "other" people believe.

Most of those beliefs will be just flat out obviously WRONG anyway.

The Bible could be corrupted. This has nothing against the fact that the Bible has to be literal unless otherwise is declared. As I mentioned people used to believe that creation was done in seven days. Nowadays they don't believe so the only way to escape the truth is to call the Bible a poetic book.

So NOT the direct word of God?

I have no idea. I am not a believer. Whether the Bible is corrupted or not is the subject of another thread.

But ANY discussion relating to the bible would be better if whether the bible is corrupted or not was discussed also.

Until that is discussed, then talking about what is in the bible would be a complete waste of time.

By the way, you are a Christian. Don't you believe in the Bible and the Church?

I am a Christian only by way of believing in what Christ did and perhaps to a degree - what he is purported to have said. (because a sage told me)

Sage?

I know from the sage, that key words pertaining to life were convoluted into their present form by God.

The interesting thing about the word Bible - is that it is a homophone to Buy Bull. Not only do we get bullshit, we pay for it.

Why did God make this title a homophone to buy bull? Because 'He' 'It' wants us NOT TO JUST ACCEPT IT - BUT QUESTION IT.

It wants us to be intelligent - unlike sheep.

So God lied to us in order to make sure that we become intelligent by asking questions?

No, God used words that only the Truly intelligent would SEE and recognize. When that time comes about is of NO importance at all.

When human beings got past their dishonest stage, started becoming more Honest and thus more OPEN also, then would start becoming intelligent enough to SEE and recognize what was actually there in front of them ALL THE TIME anyway.

I have many spiritual experiences. He can put thoughts in our minds, He can tempt us (including Jesus), etc.

My only experience of this is God doing it - he doesn't need a 'satan' when 'he' is such a c@nt.

Maybe, that is God who does things to me too. Maybe, that is Satan who does things to you too. We will never know.

But it is ALL ALREADY KNOWN.

Hah. So the story of fallen Angels is not literal too. What is God's purpose?

Well, it certainly would be rather pathetic for 'God' to give a shit about humans, but create such an adversary.

God's purpose is deciding who gets to reincarnate as what within the confines of entropy - are you man or beast?

I cannot follow you here well. So God created this mess in order to decide about who gets to reincarnate?

God createS through evolution ALWAYS, and through that came an animal with intelligence, IF that animal chooses to make "a mess", then so be it.

The ANSWERS to a living a Truly peaceful life are HERE to SEE, but IF human beings choose to otherwise, LOOK AT and SEE things differently, then so be it.

God is NOT going to force any one to do any thing that they do NOT want to do anyway.

Even if the human species wipes themselves out, the Universe is infinite so along, through evolution, will come "another intelligent" species, and if they 'play their cards right', then they get to stay in the game, and enjoy ALL the benefits of what is MEANS to be alive and existing.

To cheat us. To send us to Hell. To show that we don't worth it.

No, apparently (according the the buy bull - for simpletons) it is our big time loving God that sends us to Hell - it is just Satan that rolls out the red carpet.

So Jesus was a lier?

That all depends on how one LOOKS AT, HEARS, and what they SEE in words.

You can either be sent to "hell in a hand basket" by continually doing the wrong that you are doing here ON EARTH, OR, you can go to heaven by just changing for the better. Again, hell or heaven is HOW 'we', human beings, make life for ourselves.

When human beings STOP thinking about and misinterpreting the 'after life' as though it is some thing about some STUPID place that after they themselves die, then that is where they go, THEN they could START LOOKING AT what the actual Truth of things is instead.

[Age]

It is said that God created Satan with evil nature (Satan could feel pride) and Satan was first who fell in the sin of pride. Satan then fooled Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge. The question is who is the origin of Evil?

Everything keys on the concept "free will." Materialists and other kinds of Determinists, such as Calvinists, say there's no such thing as a creature free to choose. Voluntarists and libertarians of various kinds say there is such a thing.

If the Determinists were right, then evil would either a) have to come from the Creator, or b) have to be a feature inherent in and ineradicable from material causes. (The first answer would fit the Calvinists, and the second the Materialists and other Causal Determinists of all types.)

If the Voluntarists and libertarian types are right, then evil is defined as a free will decision to depart from harmony with the Creator, and thus it originates with the choosing agent.

Take your pick, then.

There are two questions here: 1) Is creating evil nature is good/evil?

Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer. So, if you see there is an 'evil nature', then so be it, AND, If creating a so called "evil nature" is good OR evil, then that is solely depended upon YOU.

But, remember, you HAVE TO BE able to define the words you are using, otherwise this is ALL just a complete waste of time.

and 2) It is for sure that an agent with free will eventually commit evil if s/he has an evil nature so was the act of creating a free agent with evil nature is good/evil?

Again, IF you are unwilling to define the words you use, then that is WHY you are unable to answer these questions, and so you ask "others" to answer them for you.

But you do this with an underlying BELIEF and ASSUMPTION ALREADY anyway, so, your ulterior motive here is being DRIVEN by the very things you are putting up for question. You are NOT going to achieve what it is that you would love to achieve.

[Age]

There are two questions here: 1) Is creating evil nature good/evil? and 2) It is for sure that an agent with free will eventually commit evil if s/he has an evil nature so was the act of creating a free agent with evil nature is good/evil?

The two questions aren't in Standard English. The problems are as follows: "Is...is.." in the first one, and the second being worded as a statement, but with a question mark at the end.

I don't want to "read into" what you're trying to ask, so could you please reword so as to make your meaning clear? Thanks.

Ok. I already correct the first question. I mean God created our nature which is partly evil.

But this is what you BELIEVE and NOT actually true at all.

You keep saying; God created this, God created that. But you do NOT even believe there is such a thing as God, so WHY say such idiotic things as this?

Also, human beings ARE Created. Full stop.

Now define what the 'nature' of being human IS EXACTLY?

Then we will SEE if human beings are created with a nature that is partly 'evil'?

And, remember, just because you say some thing, that, in itself, does NOT make it true, right, and/or correct.

Is the act of creation of such nature good or evil?

What an idiotic question; Is the creation of evil nature good or evil?

Break down the question by defining the actual words you use in the question.

Also, how long are you going to persist in 'trying to' formulate some "argument", which you think/believe will convince ALL human beings forever more to STOP believing what you BELIEVE is True, that is; God does NOT exist?

For the second question, you need to understand the first statement until "so". After "so" there is a question related to the statement before "so".

[Age]

I mean God created our nature which is partly evil. Is the act of creation of such nature good or evil?

Well, Biblically, mankind was not created "partly evil." Genesis makes that abundantly clear. It says, "And God saw that it was good," not "God saw it was good and evil."

But it seems human beings were also created as genuine individuals and persons, with moral freedom. And this means that they had the power to choose good, or to reject good. The rejection of the good is what is known as "evil."

So "evil" is not itself a creation: it's the negation, the shadow, the absence of good, the rejection of good, the departure from good, the twisting away from good. It isn't a thing-in-itself, but the negative of a thing-in-itself. It's not-life, not-light, not-truth, not-health, and not-good. But it's not a thing with its own independent existence: it's derivative of the absence or rejection of something truly good.

Now that is the best example I have seen.

evil is just the negation of live.

'evil' is literally the opposite of 'live'.

evil is to depart away from live.

To live is to do what is right and good. To depart away from that what is right and good is just evil.

To live is good. To not live is evil.

For the second question, you need to understand the first statement until "so". After "so" there is a question related to the statement before "so".

Well, you wrote: " It is for sure that an agent with free will eventually commit evil if s/he has an evil nature so was the act of creating a free agent with evil nature is good/evil?"

That's not grammatically clear. But it also seems to assume "evil nature" was "created," rather than evil being a product of rejection of the Good by agents with free will.

This is the opposite of what Genesis says was the case, so the question (if I can understand it at all) would be premised on an error.

Although free agents are free to do wrong, which is what they obviously do do, when looking at adult human beings, but this in no way infers that free agents can also LEARN by their wrong doing, and then ONLY do what keeps CREATING a species that ONLY does what is good and right.

You can call the 'evil nature' created in human beings good IF the very purpose of that so called "evil" nature is so that one day ALL will live in peace and harmony together in a Heaven (like environment here on earth).

As I said earlier, absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer, so you can SEE whatever it is that you want to observe AND SEE.

It would have been so much easier for you IF you had just written down your BELIEFS and 'tried to' formulate it in some sort of argumentative form.

Continually asking these questions in your hope to "trick" us into saying some thing, which you then hope to use against some people, just is NOT working for you. If any thing, what I am noticing here is those who believe God exists are providing far better answers, and thus far more weight than you are gathering and giving.

[attofishpi]

Not me, please.

Hang on, you stated that the Bible IS the word of God!

I didn't mean that I believe that the Bible is the word of God. I meant that people believe that the Bible is the word of God.

Owe.

The Bible could be corrupted. This has nothing against the fact that the Bible has to be literal unless otherwise is declared. As I mentioned people used to believe that creation was done in seven days. Nowadays they don't believe so the only way to escape the truth is to call the Bible a poetic book.

So NOT the direct word of God?

I have no idea. I am not a believer. Whether the Bible is corrupted or not is the subject of another thread.

But you believe in Satan, and that 'he' is manipulating your mind?

By the way, you are a Christian. Don't you believe in the Bible and the Church?

I am a Christian only by way of believing in what Christ did and perhaps to a degree - what he is purported to have said. (because a sage told me)

Sage?

Yes, some chap that introduced himself to me from the aether back in 2005.

I know from the sage, that key words pertaining to life were convoluted into their present form by God.

The interesting thing about the word Bible - is that it is a homophone to Buy Bull. Not only do we get bullshit, we pay for it.

Why did God make this title a homophone to buy bull? Because 'He' 'It' wants us NOT TO JUST ACCEPT IT - BUT QUESTION IT.

It wants us to be intelligent - unlike sheep.

So God lied to us in order to make sure that we become intelligent by asking questions?

No, well probably not, but who gives a shit. He\'IT' probably wants us to real eyes that the buy bull is not literally from 'him'...thus it is full of bull.

I have many spiritual experiences. He can put thoughts in our minds, He can tempt us (including Jesus), etc.

My only experience of this is God doing it - he doesn't need a 'satan' when 'he' is such a c@nt.

Maybe, that is God who does things to me too. Maybe, that is Satan who does things to you too. We will never know.

Ya, wasn't hard for me to work it out, but good luck with that satan fella.

Hah. So the story of fallen Angels is not literal too. What is God's purpose?

Well, it certainly would be rather pathetic for 'God' to give a shit about humans, but create such an adversary.

God's purpose is deciding who gets to reincarnate as what within the confines of entropy - are you man or beast?

I cannot follow you here well. So God created this mess in order to decide about who gets to reincarnate?

Well, it created our reality, man has made the mess, and has to deal with the progression of entropy.

To cheat us. To send us to Hell. To show that we don't worth it.

No, apparently (according the the buy bull - for simpletons) it is our big time loving God that sends us to Hell - it is just Satan that rolls out the red carpet.

So Jesus was a lier?

I think you mean liar. Where did Jesus state that it was satan that makes the final judgement?

Nah, it's the God system - deciding whether you have the right to reincarnate as wo\man or the energy of wo\man - as in the beast 666.
The reason the 'beast' was given a number, was because that bright spark - 'God' knew that we would ALL be eventually identified by numbers. As in - phone numbers, account numbers, registration numbers etc...

Yes - it gets to label us as the beast ready to reincarnate as, rather easily. Men Knew. Menu - didn't want to put you off your dinner..

My mobile after they had me bashed around the time the sage introduced himself - 007666 (in the middle of my mob no) - 007 I have I license to kill - so watch out.

[Immanuel Can]

I mean God created our nature which is partly evil. Is the act of creation of such nature good or evil?

Well, Biblically, mankind was not created "partly evil." Genesis makes that abundantly clear. It says, "And God saw that it was good," not "God saw it was good and evil."

But it seems human beings were also created as genuine individuals and persons, with moral freedom. And this means that they had the power to choose good, or to reject good. The rejection of the good is what is known as "evil."

So "evil" is not itself a creation: it's the negation, the shadow, the absence of good, the rejection of good, the departure from good, the twisting away from good. It isn't a thing-in-itself, but the negative of a thing-in-itself. It's not-life, not-light, not-truth, not-health, and not-good. But it's not a thing with its own independent existence: it's derivative of the absence or rejection of something truly good.

Now that is the best example I have seen.

evil is just the negation of live.

Of "life," you mean?

Yes, that's one of the things of which evil is a negation. But also of truth, light, health and all things that are genuinely good.

"The wages of sin is death," says the Bible. There is a definite connection between being severed from the Good and being morally, spiritually, socially and eventually physically "dead." That's a pretty expansive conception of what not-life means.

Although free agents are free to do wrong, which is what they obviously do do, when looking at adult human beings, but this in no way infers that free agents can also LEARN by their wrong doing, and then ONLY do what keeps CREATING a species that ONLY does what is good and right.

Wrongdoing, I would say, isn't a positive learning experience; it seems only to precipitate more wrongdoing. Rather, reflection on the Good seems to be the thing that produces the turn around...or at least, the longing for the turn around.

You can call the 'evil nature' created in human beings good IF the very purpose of that so called "evil" nature is so that one day ALL will live in peace and harmony together in a Heaven (like environment here on earth).

I don't think that means we're saying evil IS good. But it is perhaps the case that freedom is necessary, and that, at least for a time, having the option to choose BOTH good and evil is necessary to the existence of freedom -- and with it, of individuality, of identity, of volition, of initiative, of creativity, and of love.

Can there be Heaven without creatures capable of freedom?

It would have been so much easier for you IF you had just written down your BELIEFS and 'tried to' formulate it in some sort of argumentative form.

Continually asking these questions in your hope to "trick" us into saying some thing,

This is not my purpose at all.

To ask questions is to respect one's conversation partner. To make argumentative claims only is merely to lecture. To have a real conversation, does one not have to negotiate lines of thought with one's partners? If one does not, is one respecting them?

[Age]

Well, Biblically, mankind was not created "partly evil." Genesis makes that abundantly clear. It says, "And God saw that it was good," not "God saw it was good and evil."

But it seems human beings were also created as genuine individuals and persons, with moral freedom. And this means that they had the power to choose good, or to reject good. The rejection of the good is what is known as "evil."

So "evil" is not itself a creation: it's the negation, the shadow, the absence of good, the rejection of good, the departure from good, the twisting away from good. It isn't a thing-in-itself, but the negative of a thing-in-itself. It's not-life, not-light, not-truth, not-health, and not-good. But it's not a thing with its own independent existence: it's derivative of the absence or rejection of something truly good.

Now that is the best example I have seen.

evil is just the negation of live.

Of "life," you mean?

Yes, that's one of the things of which evil is a negation. But also of truth, light, health and all things that are genuinely good.

"The wages of sin is death," says the Bible.

But who really cares what some thing actually says? What actually matters is what does 'it' actually mean, which makes sense and fits in with EVERY thing else logically and sensibly?

There is a definite connection between being severed from the Good and being morally, spiritually, socially and eventually physically "dead." That's a pretty expansive conception of what not-life means.

And what not-life means is just the opposite of life or live, which is just 'live'-backwards or just plain 'evil'.

Although free agents are free to do wrong, which is what they obviously do do, when looking at adult human beings, but this in no way infers that free agents can also LEARN by their wrong doing, and then ONLY do what keeps CREATING a species that ONLY does what is good and right.

Wrongdoing, I would say, isn't a positive learning experience; it seems only to precipitate more wrongdoing. [/quote]

One of the ways 'you', human beings, blame your wrong doing is to blame in on being just a mistake. This is just an 'attempt' at "minimizing" and/or "justifying" your KNOWING wrong doings.

Obviously, one way of learning in life is to learn by your so called "mistakes". In fact it could be argued that the best way is from your "mistakes", or if we want to be Truly Honest; The best way to learn is from your WRONG DOING.

Rather, reflection on the Good seems to be the thing that produces the turn around...or at least, the longing for the turn around.

Yes, and the best way to reflect on some thing is to put it up against thee OPPOSITE. Therefore, the best way to reflect on the Good, which WILL produce the fastest turn around, is to hold the Wrong that you do up against the Good, which is what you should be doing.

The best way to do this is to NOT 'try to' "minimize" and/or "justify" your Wrong doing and just be Truly OPEN and Honest about ALL the WRONG that ALL of 'you', adult human beings, do do.

You can call the 'evil nature' created in human beings good IF the very purpose of that so called "evil" nature is so that one day ALL will live in peace and harmony together in a Heaven (like environment here on earth).

I don't think that means we're saying evil IS good.

Some one was asking if the so called 'evil nature' within human beings was good or evil?

I was just EXPLAINING and SHOWING a way HOW it could be seen as good, that is; if they want to keep persisting in asking whether a created 'evil nature' is good or not, like they have been persistently doing.

But it is perhaps the case that freedom is necessary, and that, at least for a time, having the option to choose BOTH good and evil is necessary to the existence of freedom -- and with it, of individuality, of identity, of volition, of initiative, of creativity, and of love.[/quote]

Just look at ANY human child, they BEST learn from actual experiences. They do NOT necessarily listen to what they are told. They will copy and follow what "others" are doing instead of listening to and following what they are told not to do.

The NOT listening, learning best from experiences, and just copying and following "others" is just how human beings word and behave. Therefore, WHEN adult human beings STOP 'trying to' minimize and justify the wrong they do, learn by those mistakes/wrong doings, then only start doing what is Good and Right, then their children will NOT have to be told what to do because they ONLY have Good and Right behaviors to follow and copy from. Leading into a Truly peaceful, heavenly world for EVERY one.

Can there be Heaven without creatures capable of freedom?

No.

Can there be heaven with creatures continually choosing to do wrong and minimizing and justifying this behavior?

The answer is also a No.

But can heaven be created here on earth when a Truly FREE creature CHOOSES to STOP doing wrong, and CHOOSES to change, for the better?

Then the answer is a resounding YES.

It would have been so much easier for you IF you had just written down your BELIEFS and 'tried to' formulate it in some sort of argumentative form.

Continually asking these questions in your hope to "trick" us into saying some thing,

This is not my purpose at all.

And it was NOT my purpose at all for 'you', "immanuel can", to think this was directed at you.

It is my fault completely for not making it clear that this part of my reply was directed at when you replied to "bahman" and where you wrote and said:
Well, you wrote: " It is for sure that an agent with free will eventually commit evil if s/he has an evil nature so was the act of creating a free agent with evil nature is good/evil?"

So, this was directed at "bahman" and NOT you. My apologies as what I wrote was obviously NOT clear at all who it was directed at.

To ask questions is to respect one's conversation partner. To make argumentative claims only is merely to lecture. To have a real conversation, does one not have to negotiate lines of thought with one's partners? If one does not, is one respecting them?