The Potter and His clay & El Elyon

[claypot]

Bottom line is that God is good. We have to believe that. Being that is our foundation then we must align all Scripture with this.

So evil must exist for some ultimate good or God, who is responsible for all, would not have allowed it to be.

Why do we work so hard to figure out Scripture? Doesn't all Scripture say that God is good and that we should love Him and our neighbor? Isn't it that simple?

cp

[chuckt]

Bottom line is that God is good. We have to believe that. Being that is our foundation then we must align all Scripture with this.

So evil must exist for some ultimate good or God, who is responsible for all, would not have allowed it to be.

Why do we work so hard to figure out Scripture? Doesn't all Scripture say that God is good and that we should love Him and our neighbor? Isn't it that simple?

cp

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[bobf]

Hi Bob you and I have been over this before, I respect your view and do think we agree in part, but every point taken from old testament is taken from under a vail and is not seen clearly, they simply did not know the Father because it was Jesus who came to reveal Him.

So for me even though I don't understand all the things that happened in the old testament I take my light from what Jesus revealed of our Father, therefore for me the old testament, even those things that make it look like God did evil things we simply do not understand.

Israel of old could not see to the end of their salvation, thus they wrote in shadow, beleived in shadow, and knew in shadow, but Christ came and did away with the shadow because He is the light and what He said of the Father shows the Father in a different light then what the scribes wrote of the Father. Therefore I stand on the light Christ gave of the Father and any other view then His(Christs) is nothing but a shadow of the truth.

Hi Scott... thanks for your thoughts.

I agree with the gist of what you're saying here though I wouldn't exactly chalk that up to the OT prophets "knowing in part" since what they wrote was every bit as God-breathed as the NT.  I chalk that up to God's deliberate decision to conceal and later unveil the truth.  I believe that the whole types and shadows thing is both a OT and NT phenomenon.

But I agree that what God says in the letter can be in direct opposition to what God is really saying.

For example, when God says:

• Psalms 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.  KJV
• Psalms 137:9 Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks! NLT
• Psalms 137:9 O the happiness of him who doth seize, And hath dashed thy sucklings on the rock! YLT
• Psalms 137:9 Blessed shall he be who shall seize and dash thine infants against the rock. English Translation of the LXX

I reject what the letter says.  God does not delight in killing babies.  I believe this is a shadow or mini-parable of what God really takes delight in.  The "offspring" or "babies" God is concerned with in scripture are the spiritual offspring of the two spiritual seeds.

An exmaple where this phenomenon is not limited to the OT:

• Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

In the letter this says that what Christ is concerned with is executing his enemies.  But is what this verse really means?  I don't think so.  I think this verse is saying essentially the same thing that Psalm 137:9 is saying.

Example: many ET preaches use the old testament about how God did this and that to people to try to prove that as God never changes He will do the same things again. But we know that what seems to many to be ET that the truth actually is different then what the scripture SEEM to say in the new testament, so should we not also look old testament to see what might SEEM like the same?

Bad translations of the scriptures has a lot to do with why people see ET and God doing what seems evil in scripture.
We also know that the scribes changed things in scripture to show forth their own understanding of scripture, Justin Martyr a desciple of John even in his day complained of the scribes changing the scriptures and omitting some scriptures. therefore not everything may be as it SEEMS.

I don't think bad translations have much to do with this particular issue.  If my view were based on a single verse like "I created the waster to destroy" or whatever, you'd have a good point.  But it's based on many many verses both OT and NT.  While the ET argument is also based on many verses, it is 98% based on the mistranslation or misunderstanding of one word.

As far a deliberate altering of scriptures, I don't think that's a good argument either as it pertains to this issue, because mainstream Christianity and Judaism both believe in free will and mostly favor your view, not mine  (i.e. they tend to attribute evil in the world being the result of bad free will choices and not intended by God).  So deliberate alterations would not be in my favor.

I think your other argument is the real crux of the issue.  What does God really mean when He appears to attribute himself to being the one who chooses for evil to be.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As I think about it, my belief arises from two basic things.
1. The law of sowing and reaping on the disobedient which involves bad stuff happening in the physical realm to bad people.
2. The trying of the faith of the obedient which also involves bad stuff happening in the physical realm to good people.

Both of those "laws" have God as their source.  Both can be found in NT and OT.  Both involve the "use" of evil stuff happening.

For example of #2, when God decided to give Paul a thorn in the flesh, how can I escape the conclusion that God intended for evil to occur?
1. God gave Paul the thorn in the flesh.
2. "Gave" is an active word.
3. A reason is stated for God giving Paul's thorn, which shows that God intended it.
4. The thorn was a messenger of Satan.
5. The messenger of Satan was doing evil to Paul.

So I can not escape the conclusion that God preferred for Paul to experience evil instead of not experiencing it.  God could have chosen for the law of sowing and reaping to catch up with all the messengers of evil and wiped them out, leaving Paul to experience only blessings of His obedience.

Maybe you agree with me in the above instance that God intended evil to increase towards Paul when God could have eliminated it.  Maybe our only disagreement revolves around our prior discussion of whether God always intended it to be like this or whether God is only now making the best of a bad situation that God never indended to be.


Blessings,
Bob

[chuckt]

Psalms 137:9 Blessed shall he be who shall seize and dash thine infants against the rock. English Translation of the LXX

first thing that came to my mind was. OUR ROCK.  :thumbsup:

blessings.

chuckt

[bobf]

Psalms 137:9 Blessed shall he be who shall seize and dash thine infants against the rock. English Translation of the LXX

first thing that came to my mind was. OUR ROCK.  :thumbsup:

blessings.

chuckt

Amen chuck!

[claypot]

Psalms 137:9 Blessed shall he be who shall seize and dash thine infants against the rock. English Translation of the LXX

first thing that came to my mind was. OUR ROCK.  :thumbsup:

blessings.

chuckt

The Divine Fox is at it again! Gotta love our God!!!!

cp

[chuckt]

crushed and ground to powder by the ROCK, mixed with living water made a new lump!!

gotta love it.

peace
chuckt

[Doc]

Hi Bob you and I have been over this before, I respect your view and do think we agree in part, but every point taken from old testament is taken from under a vail and is not seen clearly, they simply did not know the Father because it was Jesus who came to reveal Him.

So for me even though I don't understand all the things that happened in the old testament I take my light from what Jesus revealed of our Father, therefore for me the old testament, even those things that make it look like God did evil things we simply do not understand.

Israel of old could not see to the end of their salvation, thus they wrote in shadow, beleived in shadow, and knew in shadow, but Christ came and did away with the shadow because He is the light and what He said of the Father shows the Father in a different light then what the scribes wrote of the Father. Therefore I stand on the light Christ gave of the Father and any other view then His(Christs) is nothing but a shadow of the truth.

Hi Scott... thanks for your thoughts.

I agree with the gist of what you're saying here though I wouldn't exactly chalk that up to the OT prophets "knowing in part" since what they wrote was every bit as God-breathed as the NT.  I chalk that up to God's deliberate decision to conceal and later unveil the truth.  I believe that the whole types and shadows thing is both a OT and NT phenomenon.

But I agree that what God says in the letter can be in direct opposition to what God is really saying.

For example, when God says:

• Psalms 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.  KJV
• Psalms 137:9 Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks! NLT
• Psalms 137:9 O the happiness of him who doth seize, And hath dashed thy sucklings on the rock! YLT
• Psalms 137:9 Blessed shall he be who shall seize and dash thine infants against the rock. English Translation of the LXX

I reject what the letter says.  God does not delight in killing babies.  I believe this is a shadow or mini-parable of what God really takes delight in.  The "offspring" or "babies" God is concerned with in scripture are the spiritual offspring of the two spiritual seeds.

An exmaple where this phenomenon is not limited to the OT:

• Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

In the letter this says that what Christ is concerned with is executing his enemies.  But is what this verse really means?  I don't think so.  I think this verse is saying essentially the same thing that Psalm 137:9 is saying.

Example: many ET preaches use the old testament about how God did this and that to people to try to prove that as God never changes He will do the same things again. But we know that what seems to many to be ET that the truth actually is different then what the scripture SEEM to say in the new testament, so should we not also look old testament to see what might SEEM like the same?

Bad translations of the scriptures has a lot to do with why people see ET and God doing what seems evil in scripture.
We also know that the scribes changed things in scripture to show forth their own understanding of scripture, Justin Martyr a desciple of John even in his day complained of the scribes changing the scriptures and omitting some scriptures. therefore not everything may be as it SEEMS.

I don't think bad translations have much to do with this particular issue.  If my view were based on a single verse like "I created the waster to destroy" or whatever, you'd have a good point.  But it's based on many many verses both OT and NT.  While the ET argument is also based on many verses, it is 98% based on the mistranslation or misunderstanding of one word.

As far a deliberate altering of scriptures, I don't think that's a good argument either as it pertains to this issue, because mainstream Christianity and Judaism both believe in free will and mostly favor your view, not mine  (i.e. they tend to attribute evil in the world being the result of bad free will choices and not intended by God).  So deliberate alterations would not be in my favor.

I think your other argument is the real crux of the issue.  What does God really mean when He appears to attribute himself to being the one who chooses for evil to be.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As I think about it, my belief arises from two basic things.
1. The law of sowing and reaping on the disobedient which involves bad stuff happening in the physical realm to bad people.
2. The trying of the faith of the obedient which also involves bad stuff happening in the physical realm to good people.

Both of those "laws" have God as their source.  Both can be found in NT and OT.  Both involve the "use" of evil stuff happening.

For example of #2, when God decided to give Paul a thorn in the flesh, how can I escape the conclusion that God intended for evil to occur?
1. God gave Paul the thorn in the flesh.
2. "Gave" is an active word.
3. A reason is stated for God giving Paul's thorn, which shows that God intended it.
4. The thorn was a messenger of Satan.
5. The messenger of Satan was doing evil to Paul.

So I can not escape the conclusion that God preferred for Paul to experience evil instead of not experiencing it.  God could have chosen for the law of sowing and reaping to catch up with all the messengers of evil and wiped them out, leaving Paul to experience only blessings of His obedience.

Maybe you agree with me in the above instance that God intended evil to increase towards Paul when God could have eliminated it.  Maybe our only disagreement revolves around our prior discussion of whether God always intended it to be like this or whether God is only now making the best of a bad situation that God never indended to be.


Blessings,
Bob

You know, this last bit of your post reminds me of an author I heard speak once (can't think of his name off the top of my head, Don something. He wrote Blue like Jazz). Anyway, he likened the whole sin/ fall and redemption thing between God and man to God writing a great story. One of the elements of a great story, is that you've got a protagonist and an antagonist, and one of the goals or devices in creating a good story, is that there has to be some tension created that needs to be resolved. The protagonist can't just float through the story without some kind of opposition to drive the plot. You can't have a great story of redemption or otherwise without this.

Anyway, when I heard this, it made perfect sense to me. It addresses in a very easy to understand way, the problem of evil, and why it exists in God's grand plan.

Just thought I'd throw this out there.

[claypot]

You know, this last bit of your post reminds me of an author I heard speak once (can't think of his name off the top of my head, Don something. He wrote Blue like Jazz). Anyway, he likened the whole sin/ fall and redemption thing between God and man to God writing a great story. One of the elements of a great story, is that you've got a protagonist and an antagonist, and one of the goals or devices in creating a good story, is that there has to be some tension created that needs to be resolved. The protagonist can't just float through the story without some kind of opposition to drive the plot. You can't have a great story of redemption or otherwise without this.

Anyway, when I heard this, it made perfect sense to me. It addresses in a very easy to understand way, the problem of evil, and why it exists in God's grand plan.

Just thought I'd throw this out there.

I really like that Doc.

cp

[pneuma]

But I agree that what God says in the letter can be in direct opposition to what God is really saying.

For example, when God says:
•   Psalms 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.  KJV
•   Psalms 137:9 Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks! NLT
•   Psalms 137:9 O the happiness of him who doth seize, And hath dashed thy sucklings on the rock! YLT
•   Psalms 137:9 Blessed shall he be who shall seize and dash thine infants against the rock. English Translation of the LXX

I reject what the letter says.  God does not delight in killing babies.  I believe this is a shadow or mini-parable of what God really takes delight in.  The "offspring" or "babies" God is concerned with in scripture are the spiritual offspring of the two spiritual seeds.

An exmaple where this phenomenon is not limited to the OT:
•   Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

In the letter this says that what Christ is concerned with is executing his enemies.  But is what this verse really means?  I don't think so.  I think this verse is saying essentially the same thing that Psalm 137:9 is saying.

Hi Bob, I agree whole heartedly here, and that is why I said they did not know the Father except in shadow.

What they were told to do by God they took literally and dashed the little ones against the stones, then wrote in the scriptures the reason they did this was because God TOLD THEM TO DO IT.

But that was not what God was really saying to them.

They took what was spiritually spoken then went out and killed in the NAME of God thinking to do God a service.

And people reading the scriptures still do this today, seeing God says something in the scriptures that is contrary to His nature and saying see GOD DID IT or THIS IS OF GOD. Thus attributing any EVIL or SIN to God in any fashion or by way of IMPLICATION as so many do imo is understanding things still after the shadow.

Because implying after any fashion God has something to do with EVIL is saying in effect that in God is the essence of EVIL as well as the essence of GOOD. These scriptures (below) really say it ALL for me Bob.

Matthew 7:17-18
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Matthew 12:33
33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

Like I said brother I cannot explain it all, I can only share the light that is given me, but this I know Bob, God is a GOOD TREE and can ONLY BARE GOOD FRUIT; therefore, if any EVIL is seen anywhere we know that it CANNOT be of GOD.

[Doc]

I also think part of our problem, is that we try to judge what's good and evil, trying to make ourselves like God. The truth though, is that good and evil are both from the same tree. The tree that God told Adam and Eve not to eat from!

We are to eat from the tree of life.

[peacemaker]

So evil must exist for some ultimate good or God, who is responsible for all, would not have allowed it to be.

Why do we work so hard to figure out Scripture?
Doesn't all Scripture say that God is good and that we should love Him and our neighbor?
Isn't it that simple? :gthumbsup:

"Man feels pain when he comes in contact with boiling water, and learns by experience to temper the water he uses."

God already knows good/evil, and the exact temperature!

peacemaker

[claypot]

Doc and PM,

I am swimming in a river of delight as I read your words. Amazing how sometimes a very few words can do some very big things!

God putting a very delectible (irresistable???) tree basically in front of Adam and telling him not to eat of it is one very interesting move on Gods part, to say the least. Again, Divine Fox comes to mind!

cp

[bobf]

Hi Bob, I agree whole heartedly here, and that is why I said they did not know the Father except in shadow.

What they were told to do by God they took literally and dashed the little ones against the stones, then wrote in the scriptures the reason they did this was because God TOLD THEM TO DO IT.

But that was not what God was really saying to them.

They took what was spiritually spoken then went out and killed in the NAME of God thinking to do God a service.

And people reading the scriptures still do this today, seeing God says something in the scriptures that is contrary to His nature and saying see GOD DID IT or THIS IS OF GOD. Thus attributing any EVIL or SIN to God in any fashion or by way of IMPLICATION as so many do imo is understanding things still after the shadow.

Because implying after any fashion God has something to do with EVIL is saying in effect that in God is the essence of EVIL as well as the essence of GOOD. These scriptures (below) really say it ALL for me Bob.

Matthew 7:17-18
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Matthew 12:33
33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

Like I said brother I cannot explain it all, I can only share the light that is given me, but this I know Bob, God is a GOOD TREE and can ONLY BARE GOOD FRUIT; therefore, if any EVIL is seen anywhere we know that it CANNOT be of GOD.

Well stated Scott.  I've never considered the possibility that Israel took literally what God intended for them to take spiritually.   I'll have to ponder that one.  The way I've always looked at it is that God intended us to see the allegory, but not them.

What I see in the second half of your post is a leap of logic (a very natural one) in assuming that a process which is truly good and will yield only good fruit, can not temporarily contain within it the presence of bad fruit.  The murder of Christ was bad fruit.  Yet God deliberately chose for that bad fruit to come to maturity, rather than pruning it off.  But still God did not BARE that bad fruit though He chose for it to mature.  The fruit God is yielding is not the absence of evil (though ultimately that will be).  The fruit God is yielding is the forming of Christ in us, which includes the power to overcome evil with good.

If I stick strictly to your logic regarding good trees and good fruit I'm still led to the same conclusion that I already believe:
1. The good tree God created everything.
2. God brought forth each and every man.
3. Each and every man brought forth bad fruit.
4. Each and every man was a bad tree.

In short: The good tree God brought forth bad trees which brought borth bad fruit.

I see it kind of like this Scott.  If a perfect parent pefectly raises an infant up to adulthood, that process might perfectly include the "terrible twos" where the child by nature is selfish, wants it and wants it now, throws tantrums etc., and receives a rod of discipline.   That child is not a good tree while throwing tantrums, but the process as a whole will bare good fruit and the creator of that process is a good tree.

Another analogy.  Suppose you have a perfect piano teacher.   She starts by actually forming an imperfect student who can't play at all.  And then she trains the student through years of practice.  During training the student makes all kinds of mistakes.  But that's intended, because this struggle towards perfection actually becomes part of the musical interpretation and is needed to form the pefect piano player.  So while the teacher and process are perfect, we could point to the iterim mistakes as bad fruit.

God bless,
Bob

[reFORMer]

Psalm 137:8-9 (Concordant Literal Version) . . .

Daughter of Babylon, the devastator,
Happy is he who shall repay you
With your dealing which you dealt to us.
Happy is he who shall hold and shatter your descendants
Against the crag.

Jerusalem had been razed and they were deported and enslaved.  Verse 1 says:

By the streams of Babylon,
There we sat down and lamented,
While we remembered Zion.

[bobf]

You know, this last bit of your post reminds me of an author I heard speak once (can't think of his name off the top of my head, Don something. He wrote Blue like Jazz). Anyway, he likened the whole sin/ fall and redemption thing between God and man to God writing a great story. One of the elements of a great story, is that you've got a protagonist and an antagonist, and one of the goals or devices in creating a good story, is that there has to be some tension created that needs to be resolved. The protagonist can't just float through the story without some kind of opposition to drive the plot. You can't have a great story of redemption or otherwise without this.

Anyway, when I heard this, it made perfect sense to me. It addresses in a very easy to understand way, the problem of evil, and why it exists in God's grand plan.

Just thought I'd throw this out there.

Thanks Doc... I think that is a great analogy to the way I see it.  I see that description is a common theme running throughout scripture and to me that is astounding evidence that the scriptures are true.

[Doc]

You know, this last bit of your post reminds me of an author I heard speak once (can't think of his name off the top of my head, Don something. He wrote Blue like Jazz). Anyway, he likened the whole sin/ fall and redemption thing between God and man to God writing a great story. One of the elements of a great story, is that you've got a protagonist and an antagonist, and one of the goals or devices in creating a good story, is that there has to be some tension created that needs to be resolved. The protagonist can't just float through the story without some kind of opposition to drive the plot. You can't have a great story of redemption or otherwise without this.

Anyway, when I heard this, it made perfect sense to me. It addresses in a very easy to understand way, the problem of evil, and why it exists in God's grand plan.

Just thought I'd throw this out there.

Thanks Doc... I think that is a great analogy to the way I see it.  I see that description is a common theme running throughout scripture and to me that is astounding evidence that the scriptures are true.

Yes, I also think it's great evidence of that. I also think it's great evidence that God never had a plan B.

[pneuma]

If I stick strictly to your logic regarding good trees and good fruit I'm still led to the same conclusion that I already believe:
1. The good tree God created everything.
2. God brought forth each and every man.
3. Each and every man brought forth bad fruit.
4. Each and every man was a bad tree.

In short: The good tree God brought forth bad trees which brought borth bad fruit.

Hi Bob I know from past convos with you that this is the way you see it, but thats not strickly sticking to my logic of the good trees good fruit.

God created everything and He said it was GOOD; therefore, the trees in their original design could only bare good fruit.

So what happend to these trees that caused them to bring forth evil fruit?

An enemy crept in and sowed tares among the wheat.

God did not sow the evil in man the devil did this, when man had carnal knowledge ( not talking about physical sex, but spiritual sex) with the serpent the fruit they produced was evil.

Thus the evil fruit is not Gods doing or even remotly associated with anything God created.

So lets look at your 4 point again

1. The good tree God created everything.
1. The good tree God created everything GOOD

2. God brought forth each and every man.
2. God brought forth each and every GOOD man, the serpent brought forth the OLD MAN

3. Each and every man brought forth bad fruit.
3  Each and every man brought forth bad fruit, because they cleaved unto the serpent and not unto God.

4. Each and every man was a bad tree.
4  Each and every man BECAME a bad tree.

NONE of the evil that comes forth from man was of God's design, for God created EVERYTHING GOOD and was pleased with His creation.

[claypot]

If I stick strictly to your logic regarding good trees and good fruit I'm still led to the same conclusion that I already believe:
1. The good tree God created everything.
2. God brought forth each and every man.
3. Each and every man brought forth bad fruit.
4. Each and every man was a bad tree.

In short: The good tree God brought forth bad trees which brought borth bad fruit.

Hi Bob I know from past convos with you that this is the way you see it, but thats not strickly sticking to my logic of the good trees good fruit.

God created everything and He said it was GOOD; therefore, the trees in their original design could only bare good fruit.

So what happend to these trees that caused them to bring forth evil fruit?

An enemy crept in and sowed tares among the wheat.

God did not sow the evil in man the devil did this, when man had carnal knowledge ( not talking about physical sex, but spiritual sex) with the serpent the fruit they produced was evil.

Thus the evil fruit is not Gods doing or even remotly associated with anything God created.

So lets look at your 4 point again

1. The good tree God created everything.
1. The good tree God created everything GOOD

2. God brought forth each and every man.
2. God brought forth each and every GOOD man, the serpent brought forth the OLD MAN

3. Each and every man brought forth bad fruit.
3  Each and every man brought forth bad fruit, because they cleaved unto the serpent and not unto God.

4. Each and every man was a bad tree.
4  Each and every man BECAME a bad tree.

NONE of the evil that comes forth from man was of God's design, for God created EVERYTHING GOOD and was pleased with His creation.

Pneuma, I don't want to get off on the topic of God's association with evil but I must comment.............

I, of course, agree that God can't and doesn't do anything bad or wrong. Could it be that evil is not what we think it is? Joseph having all the evil done to him by his brothers and then we are told they meant it for evil, which I take to mean moral badness or selfish gain badness, yet God meant it (the evil?) for good. God's purpose with evil in this case was to do good.

Hmmmmmmm. Just thinking out loud here.

Evil is part of existence. God is responsible for all in existence. I'm not saying God does evil at least how we think of evil. Could it be that evil is amoral? Isn't evil referred to as a smashing or breaking? There is nothing wrong with breaking something unless it is done maliciously.

I think I'll stop and see what you and others think

cp

[bobf]

Hi Bob I know from past convos with you that this is the way you see it, but thats not strickly sticking to my logic of the good trees good fruit.

God created everything and He said it was GOOD; therefore, the trees in their original design could only bare good fruit.

So what happend to these trees that caused them to bring forth evil fruit?

An enemy crept in and sowed tares among the wheat.

God did not sow the evil in man the devil did this, when man had carnal knowledge ( not talking about physical sex, but spiritual sex) with the serpent the fruit they produced was evil.

Thus the evil fruit is not Gods doing or even remotly associated with anything God created.

So lets look at your 4 point again

1. The good tree God created everything.
1. The good tree God created everything GOOD

2. God brought forth each and every man.
2. God brought forth each and every GOOD man, the serpent brought forth the OLD MAN

3. Each and every man brought forth bad fruit.
3  Each and every man brought forth bad fruit, because they cleaved unto the serpent and not unto God.

4. Each and every man was a bad tree.
4  Each and every man BECAME a bad tree.

Ok, then good trees become bad trees.  Then wouldn't you have to say that the good trees God created were corruptible?  So it was VERY GOOD that God deliberately created corruptible trees?

I can't recall if you told me this before.   Do you believe God created Satan?

NONE of the evil that comes forth from man was of God's design, for God created EVERYTHING GOOD and was pleased with His creation.

To this again I would again point out that many of God's very good plans throughout scripture include evil happening, so I see no reason to conclude that an original plan of this variety can not be very good.

[claypot]

Couldn't evil and good have 2 sides to them?

If I help an old lady across the street (a good) but I do it for money then my good is not the same kind of good as if I help her across the street out of love and respect for her.

Same with evil. If I shoot someone because I just don't like this someone then that is evil of the worst sort, immoral, gross and nasty. Now if I am a policeman and shoot someone (an evil) in the line of duty then this is not a bad form of evil.

You might say that a policeman shooting someone in the line of duty is not evil but again I think evil means to break or to smash. It is not automatically something immoral or bad.

The policeman did something good with evil and is totally honorable in doing so.

Again, just thinking here.

cp

[bobf]

God's purpose with evil in this case was to do good.

Hmmmmmmm. Just thinking out loud here.

Evil is part of existence. God is responsible for all in existence. I'm not saying God does evil at least how we think of evil. Could it be that evil is amoral? Isn't evil referred to as a smashing or breaking? There is nothing wrong with breaking something unless it is done maliciously.

I think I'll stop and see what you and others think

That's exactly how I see it.

Paul's thorn in the flesh was a messenger sent with evil intent by Satan, all sent with good intent by God.
Christ's crucifixion was an evil plan of men, all planned by God for good.

These are good plans by God containing within them bad plans of others.

[Doc]

This goes back to my last post #135. Both good and evil are from the same tree that God placed in the middle of the garden. This is the tree that God did not want Adam and Eve to eat from, even though it could be argued that God created that tree, or at least put it in the middle of the garden.

We have to stop judging between good and evil, trying to choose the good over the evil. We have to let God be God and let him decide what is supposed to be, rather than trying to be God. Our responsibility is to shun the tree of good and evil and only eat from the tree of life.

When the serpent tempted Eve, saying 'knowing good and evil you will become like God', She should've said, "but we are already like God, for we are made in His image".

Adam and Eve by their mistake of disobedience, brought evil into the world. But that evil already had to exist somewhere for it to be brought in. If I bring something into my house from outside, do I create that thing I brought in by the act of bringing it in, or did it already exist? When they fell, God said; "the man has become like us, knowing good and evil".

The scripture is clear that God does not do evil, but it is equally clear that He does create it and use it for His purposes.

[claypot]

If we go with the thought that God created good and evil then we could say it is what is done with good and evil that makes the difference. God, of course, did no wrong in creating evil just like He did no wrong in creating good, obviously. It is what we do with these two 'creations' that determine right or wrong.

Bob, I know this question is for Pneuma but I want to play with it if I may. You asked if God created Satan.

I see Satan as representing an adversarial nature. By creating creatures that can have friendly natures God created creatures that can have adversarial natures. I have created the waster to destroy or I form the serpent with an outstretched hand, it is said of God. Indirectly God created Satan, an adversary. This is not doing an immoral evil, it is just an outcome of creating something, like if you construct a house, you will probably end up with a shadow from the house yet you did not create the shadow.

cp

[claypot]

Did someone say here that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life are the same tree? Pneuma?

Anyway, could it be what I am trying to get into focus here........that OK there is a tree......good and evil/life. Now if we eat of the tree of good and evil or do good or evil in our lives but we do them in selfish ways then we die yet if we eat of the tree of good and evil or do good and evil in selfless God fearing ways then we live.

God said don't eat of the tree of good and evil lest you die. Could he have been saying that to eat of it in a wrong manner is death yet to eat of it properly is life?

Then God blocks the way to the tree of life when it is used wrongly because once we do wrong a seed is planted that will corrupt any good we try to do. God protected the tree of life with flaming swords...........It is kept pure, Christlike, it is a Tree we need within yet it is a Tree that will not be corrupted, God will see to that! It can now only be accessed by Divine appointment as it were.

cp