The most difficult reality to explain/justify about God, "why is there so much evil?"

[alang1216]

I'm curious how those 75% view the story of David and the census. I'm also wondering what in the Bible should be taken literally and what is allegory, metaphor, etc. How does one know which is which?

When I first began an in depth study of the Old Testament, I was advised to keep in mind two things: First, Knowledge we have gained. If we know that natural disasters and illnesses are not caused by God today, then we know they were not caused by Him in Biblical times. Second, if there are not talking donkeys and snakes today or trees where one plucked and ate a fruit to know what was good and what was evil, then we can be relatively certain that is not what took place then, either. We are being alerted that we are entering the Lands of Allegory and Symbolism.

The Book of Samuel (and Chronicles) were not written in diary form, but story form. In those days they believed disasters did not come about naturally, but were sent by God because the people were misbehaving (and like today, we always were). So, when the plague struck, people naturally wanted to know what they did wrong. Looking back they noted that King David had taken a improper census (bad enough to begin with) improperly (doubling the offense). The story was written to explain the plague that killed 70,000.

There are beautiful reasons why Jews took censuses the way Moses commanded. They were one people, they were not divided. (The way we understand Team and Teamwork today.) This was not an outlook only the Jews kept, but is often found in tribal communities. One tribe, not many individuals living together. This is most likely why we don't see Old Testament authors addressing why babies were not spared in floods and plagues. They were tribe. The tribe was being punished. Today, when we cut down a tree or prune a bush, we don't spare the innocent leaves. People then thought of their tribe in the same way--as a whole. When a tribe was being punished, it meant that whole, and it was taken for granted the young "leaves" could not be spared. Today, we are very individualistically minded, but not so then.

Anyway, to keep that sense of unity first and foremost in everyone's mind, Moses did not count individuals. He counted the shekels that each individual gave. He counted shekels, not individuals, because he would not divide his tribe. They were one together.

Thanks, very well put.

Jesus is credited with all sorts of miracles, including walking on water, loaves and fishes, rising from the dead, etc. Are these also in the Lands of Allegory and Symbolism?

 

[Meriweather]

Jesus is credited with all sorts of miracles, including walking on water, loaves and fishes, rising from the dead, etc. Are these also in the Lands of Allegory and Symbolism?

Leaving aside the Resurrection for a moment, as well as calming the storm, raising of Lazarus and the little girl, etc.

That Jesus walked on water and fed a crowd...happened such a long time ago it makes no difference to my life. Reading the stories, I am not finding anything allegorical or symbolic, so they don't quite fit that venue. However, I do still tend to seek out possible natural explanation. One that I heard about walking on water is that in dim light, with waves lapping around him, Jesus may have been walking on a shelf near a shoreline. It would have given the illusion of walking on water, and also explained Peter's misstep. Feeding five thousand: Once people saw that a little boy (after hearing Jesus speak about such things) was willing to share what little he had with everyone, and that prompted others to do the same. (Those who had brought something were more than willing to share with others.)

In both these cases, I.do.not.know. They could be miracles, sometimes I think they are. Or, maybe not. Sometimes I'm of that mind as well.

What I do believe about Jesus is that he did indeed rise from the dead. As such, he would also have power to raise others from the dead--which he had already demonstrated. Again, the stories do not fit allegory or symbolism. Another odd thing about the resurrection accounts are the first witnesses...women.

Remember, if we are going to argue "allegory" we must be prepared to clearly define the abstract and how and why the physical form accurately portrays it. We can't just say, "I don't believe it, therefore it is allegory." We must prove allegory. And, when we don't know, we say that! There have been enough miracles in my life that I am not going to doubt that they occur in other people's lives, even as I seek out possible natural explanations.

 

[Unkotare]

Animals killing animals isn't evil. As for the rest, free will isn't so hard to understand.

 

[BreezeWood]

The point is that God's moral code allowed him to punish or kill innocent men, women, children, and animals.

Actually, that was man's moral code. The Law was the moral code of a people among whom "none was righteous, not even one," as David laments and as Paul recites. Can edicts come from a God to a people who do not honor Him or give thanks to Him? Who have exchanged Him for idols? (Rom 1:21-23)

After a proper exegesis, we should conclude that that is what evil is - it's idolatry. When God is absent, men, women, children, and animals suffer for it. All the drama of the Old Testament - the violence, incest, drunkenness, and all the rest - that's the drama of a people before their Messiah came, before the divine glory was revealed once again on the earth.

Not according to the Bible. Noah's flood killed the guilty and innocent alike. Joshua put every man, woman, and child in Jericho to the sword on God's command. Then he killed all the animals for good measure.

.

Not according to the Bible. Noah's flood killed the guilty and innocent alike.

that may be correct but that is not the event that occurred, the parable would have ended with noah's death, the Almighty preempted the inevitable and gave humanity a second chance - the event was the reaffirmation of the religion of antiquity. only the evil perished.

The evil clearly did not perish.

.

The evil clearly did not perish.

the evil were put to death, not evil - noah and those others that survived were still capable of the goal to triumph over evil with their chances for success left less impeded by the event. the opposite was true otherwise to the point of certain failure for all humanity. the outcome will not be altered again.

 

[diver52]

The point is that God's moral code allowed him to punish or kill innocent men, women, children, and animals.

Actually, that was man's moral code. The Law was the moral code of a people among whom "none was righteous, not even one," as David laments and as Paul recites. Can edicts come from a God to a people who do not honor Him or give thanks to Him? Who have exchanged Him for idols? (Rom 1:21-23)

After a proper exegesis, we should conclude that that is what evil is - it's idolatry. When God is absent, men, women, children, and animals suffer for it. All the drama of the Old Testament - the violence, incest, drunkenness, and all the rest - that's the drama of a people before their Messiah came, before the divine glory was revealed once again on the earth.

Not according to the Bible. Noah's flood killed the guilty and innocent alike. Joshua put every man, woman, and child in Jericho to the sword on God's command. Then he killed all the animals for good measure.

.

Not according to the Bible. Noah's flood killed the guilty and innocent alike.

that may be correct but that is not the event that occurred, the parable would have ended with noah's death, the Almighty preempted the inevitable and gave humanity a second chance - the event was the reaffirmation of the religion of antiquity. only the evil perished.

The evil clearly did not perish.

.

The evil clearly did not perish.

the evil were put to death, not evil - noah and those others that survived were still capable of the goal to triumph over evil with their chances for success left less impeded by the event. the opposite was true otherwise to the point of certain failure for all humanity. the outcome will not be altered again.

You understand that in an agrarian society, the tendency would be to die relatively young and have large families. Which means a significant percentage of the population would have been children. The children were evil?

 

[BreezeWood]

Actually, that was man's moral code. The Law was the moral code of a people among whom "none was righteous, not even one," as David laments and as Paul recites. Can edicts come from a God to a people who do not honor Him or give thanks to Him? Who have exchanged Him for idols? (Rom 1:21-23)

After a proper exegesis, we should conclude that that is what evil is - it's idolatry. When God is absent, men, women, children, and animals suffer for it. All the drama of the Old Testament - the violence, incest, drunkenness, and all the rest - that's the drama of a people before their Messiah came, before the divine glory was revealed once again on the earth.

Not according to the Bible. Noah's flood killed the guilty and innocent alike. Joshua put every man, woman, and child in Jericho to the sword on God's command. Then he killed all the animals for good measure.

.

Not according to the Bible. Noah's flood killed the guilty and innocent alike.

that may be correct but that is not the event that occurred, the parable would have ended with noah's death, the Almighty preempted the inevitable and gave humanity a second chance - the event was the reaffirmation of the religion of antiquity. only the evil perished.

The evil clearly did not perish.

.

The evil clearly did not perish.

the evil were put to death, not evil - noah and those others that survived were still capable of the goal to triumph over evil with their chances for success left less impeded by the event. the opposite was true otherwise to the point of certain failure for all humanity. the outcome will not be altered again.

You understand that in an agrarian society, the tendency would be to die relatively young and have large families. Which means a significant percentage of the population would have been children. The children were evil?

.

You understand that in an agrarian society, the tendency would be to die relatively young and have large families. Which means a significant percentage of the population would have been children. The children were evil?

if they perished they were evil -

.

excuses have their limits.

 

[diver52]

Not according to the Bible. Noah's flood killed the guilty and innocent alike. Joshua put every man, woman, and child in Jericho to the sword on God's command. Then he killed all the animals for good measure.

.

Not according to the Bible. Noah's flood killed the guilty and innocent alike.

that may be correct but that is not the event that occurred, the parable would have ended with noah's death, the Almighty preempted the inevitable and gave humanity a second chance - the event was the reaffirmation of the religion of antiquity. only the evil perished.

The evil clearly did not perish.

.

The evil clearly did not perish.

the evil were put to death, not evil - noah and those others that survived were still capable of the goal to triumph over evil with their chances for success left less impeded by the event. the opposite was true otherwise to the point of certain failure for all humanity. the outcome will not be altered again.

You understand that in an agrarian society, the tendency would be to die relatively young and have large families. Which means a significant percentage of the population would have been children. The children were evil?

.

You understand that in an agrarian society, the tendency would be to die relatively young and have large families. Which means a significant percentage of the population would have been children. The children were evil?

if they perished they were evil -

View attachment 270657 .

excuses have their limits.

Children aren't evil. However, the idea that it is ok to slaughter children based upon that excuse is.

 

[Hawkins]

I'm not just referring to humans, we are certainly the most sadistic of creatures, far too often deliberately, often taking pleasure in others pain. I also think about the Animal Kingdom in which instinctive responses or need to sustain oneself requires hunting and eating other creatures.

I've heard some strong explanations such as "we need evil to know what good is" etc. However, the abundance of suffering, just the physiological system of nerves and sensors that elicit pain, it's always been difficult for me to understand why God created earths creatures this way.

In fairness, I don't even know why this makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint either when I think are probably better ways to have been built (even as the human body and brain is the most complex on earth).

It's not difficult to figure it out. It only says that humans are created with a relatively low intelligence that they are not capable of figuring simple things out through the past thousand years of humanity.

They choose to eat from the tree of knowledge to think that they can be as wise as God, but the day they choose to eat of it the same day they shall surely die!