Again "HOW DARE YOU USE LOGIC!?"

if i weren't agnostic, maybe...

Sounds to me like an exercise in egotistical sadism.

I'm not Him so I can't say why he didn't do more than just cast him down.

With that answer, I would circle back to "Evil Exists" with or without Satan.

God didn't cast Satan down, in fact he sat with Him at the Divince Council with the rest of the Gods and also functioned as an adversary/accuser (basically a prosecutor) on God's behalf.

It doesn't specify how many Gods sit at the Divine Council, which is the "our" and "we" references the Christians claim are about the Trinity but which is bs.

This reminds me of a book I read by this woman who died for 30 mins or something and said she went to heaven and met Jesus. She said there was a "council of men." Seemed like some type of governing body. She asked Jesus why there were no women on the council and He told her women were too emotional. She didn't say they were gods, though.

Maybe evil is an abstract concept that only exists in people’s minds and not in the real world.

Well, if so, we manage to manifest it in the real world often enough.

If I call a horse a chicken that doesn’t change the horse.

Well, this is my evil of the day.

Even if it is, Evil exists.

Anything I can imagine exists? Do to a minimum number of people need to imagine it before it exists?

I was speaking philosophically, not theoretically. Philosophy teaches us that "good" and "evil" are, as you said, abstract constructs - here is where I expanded on your definition - that we define that are in opposition (or in favor) to our needs/wants. When defining a communal evil in which people agree, you have to consider what the "greater good" is, then we start dipping into hedonism, utilitarianism, etc.

Hell, even psychological or ethical egoism has their own definitions of "evil" and "good." Ergo, abstract constructs subjective to the ethical/moral compass of the viewer.

If evil is subjective to the moral compass of the viewer there could be two opposing concepts of evil. In such a case both concepts can’t be true. Someone is wasting their time. Maybe it is everyone.

So, who is the third party that is viewing the original two parties as evil?

Say the two parties are viewing each other and both are doing something the other thinks is evil.

that's where absolute truth comes in

"I can interpret "do not murder" pretty well I'd say. lmk if you want to get my interpretation on something more gray"
There is the cherry-picking I was talking about.

what cherry picking? give me something I'm cherry picking, like I said

"we can interpret it, but we can't understand His exact meaning until we meet Him face to face. and just as He said man is created in His image, He has given us rules for life."

I can interpret "do not murder" pretty well I'd say. lmk if you want to get my interpretation on something more gray

The only absolute truth is God’s truth. How are we to understand what that is? Is it is even possible for for us to understand?

A lot of people seem to know and understand his will/intention/plan.

we can interpret it, but we can't understand His exact meaning until we meet Him face to face. and just as He said man is created in His image, He has given us rules for life.

Agreed. So if you have two Christian factions facing each other in warfare, how do you know whether you have God on your side or not?

Wait and see who wins I guess

wat?

How is that a good answer?

I mean, historically that’s how humanity has always figured it out.

I thought that was *your* answer.

I just noticed the top of the flow chart starts with “evil exists.” That is the only statement without a yes/no dichotomy. Maybe the truth is evil does not exist.

Evil exists whether or not it has a name or definition as no one can view something and be completely neutral to the effects it has on them. But then, I'm sticking to the philosophy of evil and therein our comprehension of it.
If evil does not exist, how are we able to commit it? Because it is manmade? A lot of interesting debate points spread from that. You see the paradox? I'm sure there's a verse or something like that which says God gave us the tools to live life/be successful. But then also, God gave us the capacity to *be* evil in our ways. You cannot create the capacity without first having something in mind to fill said capacity.

Whether or not God created evil directly, he flipped the switch to permit evil to exist. (cue topic about all things through God and his likeness, his plan, he knew what we would do; which means he knew beforehand it would happen and thus evil exists etc.)

Regardless, whether or not it exists or who created it is irrelevant. The fact remains that it exists, and we do perceive it. So if it exists, why cannot God prevent it?

The Bible does say that god created evil

I have a horrid habit of discussing topics on people's terms.

Source?

The Bible.

Thanks

You're welcome

XD

couldn't resist.

Here's the quote (and one source):

Bible Gateway
https://www.biblegateway.com › p...

Isaiah 45:7 KJV - I form the light, and create darkness - Bible Gateway

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

The Bible says that it was the Serpent God who gifted humanity free agency and the capacity to know good and evil.

Serpent God? I don’t think the serpent is considered a god.

Which is an excellent point. If there is a tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, how could we have defined it when God created a fruit that contains the knowledge within it? This means that the blueprints were literally in the fruit. The concept, the idea. God put it there. We realized the definitions after we ate it.

The serpent and the tree and allegorical. The knowledge of good and evil was a lie we told ourselves.

I didn't see the second and until you pointed it out. I filled in the blanks.

That's the other thing that bothers me about Christianity and their bible. It seems to me that people pick and choose what is allegorical and what isn't. There's no consistency.

I think I should mention again, I have no problem with Christians that work toward "the greater good." My issue is with the fringe right Christians who have declared their intent to establish themselves as the national religion. There's a whole pledge ceremony with hundreds, maybe thousands of people. It is quite terrifying. Like a five minute speech.

That second and should be an are, damn phone keyboard

He was. That story is way older than the Hebrews.
In fact some say in the original telling, the Serpent was the good God, and other God was the baddie. In fact that's exactly how it spells out in Genesis too, only people chose the perspective of 'the other side'

well you surely know that the serpent in the garden of Eden was satan.

False.
There is no mention of Satan in Genesis whatsover, hence why he's not called "Satan." Satan is another God, another story.

quote the passage from Genesis?

the book of revelation was written by the apostle John. yes, the translation of Hebrew to Greek to English may have dropped some things, but at some point I could go look at the Greek or Hebrew (preferably hebrew, even though I studied Greek) and investigate that passage further. for now, I'll accept it. I know the story of job; that's one of my favorite books actually. and I also know that several times in the Bible it mentions how Satan has been cast down. Isaiah 14:12-15, I believe, is one. and in case you couldn't tell, I'm a Christian and I follow Christ. and people that dedicate their lives to Him, despite not having perfect knowledge about His teachings, aren't anti-Christ either. so don't get too fired up just yet.

The Book of Revelation was written nearly a century later most likely by John the Elder, not John the Apostle.

As for the Isaiah, Lucifer is not Satan either.

Still waiting on that Genesis. How about finally quoting that so we can call this a wrap, the suspense is drilling me!

Oh, and look up the Heavenly Court, curious place for someone to be seated at when he was supposedly cast out. They tend to skip that one over in Sunday school for some strange reason,,,

he saw a challenge in Job: could he take down one of the most righteous men on earth? also, Lucifer is generally taken to mean Satan's name before he fell, but it's still satan. so yeah. anyway, I'll grab that passage from Genesis so you won't get drill. Genesis 3:

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”

10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”

12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”

13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”

The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,

“Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.”

16 To the woman he said,

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”
All can fit. See re

well there is this:

"And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him." that's revelation 12:9. fairly solid, I'd say

Another false image, lest anyone tries to make a fuss about that.

That's not Genesis or the Torah, that's Roman Paganism, you know, written by Son of Jackal seated in Rome who would steal the Word of the Chosen and call it their own but not before corrupting it beyond recognition. Christianity is, ironically, the anti-Christ.
Try again. Oh wait, you can't, hence why you didn't/

Incidentally, the concept of Satan you're referring to is Zoroastrian, just like your concept of God, spirit/soul, afterlife, the Apocalypse, and Jesus himself (well that's actually Mithraism, which existed before Zoroastrianism and wended its way though).

Satan, according to THE Word, sits at the Divine/Heavenly Court/Council with the rest of the GodS, and acts as an agent of Yahweh as an adversary, an accuser, or even as a temptor in the case of Job on behalf of Yahweh and at His request. THAT'S were the tempting thing came from, tied later by Roman pagans to the Serpent who gifted humanity with free agency and intelligence, and the knowledge of good and evil.

actually there is a mention of a certain serpent..that is satan. ever heard of Satan? tempts people? is the root of evil essentially? guess who was the first to tempt somebody, and the first to cause somebody to sin and bring evil into the world? that serpent again! weird huh...satan and a serpent...they act so similarly...one would think they were the same. I have a wild theory about that but idk if you wanna hear it

Quote it.
Oh, and everything you added is not only total nonsense, but more quite the opposite. But you can try to quote Scripture on that too. Try. I know, I did once too. Once.

great well I'm not a Satanist

Where did I say anything about Satan?

“Evil exists whether or not it has a name or definition”
Except evil is a definition with no physical substance; it can only exist as a definition.

“If evil does not exist, how are we able to commit it?”
We don’t. We commit actions a subset of which are labeled evil by a subset of people a subset of the time.

If evil exists “why cannot God prevent it?”
God is most likely prevented from doing so.

Let me ask you this,
if a tree falls and no one is there to hear it does it still make a sound?

That depends… does the universe outside the room I am in cease to exist when I close the door? Does the world flash in and out of oblivion when I blink my eyes? Likely not, but because my viewpoint is the only one I have access to and even that is flawed, I cannot entirely exclude the possibility that the universe was created to trick me to believe in objective permanency. Assuming objective permanency is truly present in the cosmos, I would have stay say it depends. If the tree fell on a celestial body lacking an atmosphere there would be no physical way for sound to propagate. If you meant a tree on the planet earth, one could imagine a scenario where a tree of sufficiently small size falls on a substrate with sound deadening properties, say a bed of moss, so as to not create perceptible sounds. Which brings me to another point. It depends on your definition of the word sound. If you define sound as the physical oscillation of molecules creating a changing pressure wave that travels thought that medium, a tree falling when no one is around could potentially produce sound. But if you define sound as the experience of a vibration perceived by the human ear, interpreted by the human brain causing an emotional and psychological response in a human consciousness (e.g. the sound of thunder, the sound of laughter, the sound of music) then a tree can only make a sound if someone is there to hear it. So my answer to your question is: it is most likely possible that a tree falling in a forrest, that is subject to the laws of physics as we currently understand them on the planet earth, and no one is around, it could produce vibrations that, if perceived by a human observer, would be interpreted as sound.

100%. sound is a natural, physical law.

What bearying said.

It was meant as a parallel to the discussion of evil.

Also, we didn't invent the philosophical concept of evil, we defined it. There *is* a difference. We didn't invent the animal kingdom, we defined it. We didn't invent mammals, we defined them.

We didn’t invent animals but we invented the concept of categorizing them by phyla, class, order etc. like we invented the concept of categorizing some types of killing as evil and some types of killing as morally justified.

Yeah, just look at Brahman cattle from India where they are sacred to Hindus and to whom it is a sin to kill and eat them. Not even people of other faiths there are allowed to do so.

Here in America they're eaten or crossbred with beef cattle for greater resistance to heat and pests.

Correct.