@@wonderstorystudio i meant you:) im hindu not christian this thing randomly popped up and i was happy to see someone work so hard to make these videos like the quality
Well if it's true that God created everyone then God created Lucifer a.k.a. Satan & since he was _entirely_ God's responsibility as his creation & no one else's then the ultimate cause of evil is actually God because God is the ultimate cause of everything & everyone that exists if Isaiah 45:7 is to be believed *I form light & create darkness. I make peace & create evil. I the Lord do all these things.* Is it to be believed? If so there's no denying it. If not then the Bible can't be entirely relied upon as an accurate source so which is it then?
1. The Hebrew word translated as "evil" is "ra" (רָע), which can mean evil, calamity, disaster, or adversity. Many scholars believe that in this context, "ra" refers to calamities or disasters rather than moral evil. 2. Isaiah 45 addresses Cyrus, the Persian king, as God's anointed instrument to bring about His purposes. The passage highlights God's power to use various means, including hardships and adversities, to fulfill His plans for His people. Isaiah 45:7 is understood to mean that God is sovereign over all events, including those that bring peace and those that bring calamity or disaster. It does not imply that God creates moral evil, but rather that He allows or brings about difficult circumstances for His purposes. Evil is not some THING that can be measured or quantified. In the same way the darkness isn't a THING it's just an absence of light, or cold an absence of heat etc. God gave us freedom which requires the ability, opportunity, and even desire to choose a path other than away from Him... otherwise we can never truly be in a genuine relationship with Him. Forced love is an impossibility. When we choose to walk our own path instead of His, we inevitably choose selfish options that hurt others and ourselves... That's called sin. That's what evil is.
@@samozeal9466 Thanks for the comment and breaking this down. Similar to our children, if our children break the law then we as parents are not at fault-the parent's are not to blame just because they caused the children to exist. But it's by Jesus Christ that God still chose to die on the cross for us, taking the punishment he did not have to-all we must do is believe in Him and we can be called children of God. Thank you Jesus!
@@samozeal9466 Thanks for your reply samozeal9466. Let's examine your response point by point to see if they make any significant difference to how the Bible can be understood to tell us about God & more specifically God's actions in light of what you say... *1. The Hebrew word translated as "evil" is "ra" (רָע), which can mean evil, calamity, disaster, or adversity. Many scholars believe that in this context, "ra" refers to calamities or disasters rather than moral evil.* Okay let's assume that interpretation is spot on. I'm more than happy to accept that it very well may be as I haven't seen the Hebrew text & can't read it even if I did but that doesn't change a thing because if the Bible is telling us God creates calamities or disasters that's an _extremely_ evil act when there will be _so many_ innocent victims of His decisions to cause them to happen. Take the example of the flood. Even if the world was populated by _entirely_ evil men _&_ women too (except Noah & his wives & kids) why should all of those children & babies or for that matter virtually all _animals_ have been drowned _too?_ Think of it this way, if I had the power to do anything like that you'd be entirely justified in calling my decision to cause such a _calamity_ "evil" so why not God too since "might" doesn't "make" right regardless of whether the might of my own action *or* God's actions were equally immense? Not when the same amount of totally avoidable suffering is caused - or couldn't God think of any way to save them the way he saved innocent babies & children from death by parting the Red Sea for Moses? CONTINUED IN PART 2...
@@samozeal9466 PART 2... *2. Isaiah 45 addresses Cyrus, the Persian king, as God's anointed instrument to bring about His purposes. The passage highlights God's power to use various means, including hardships and adversities, to fulfill His plans for His people.* Okay well let's say your previous point (1) is spot on & the Hebrew word _does_ mean what you say it means: "calamity" or "disaster" that isn't the same as "hardship" or "adversity" is it? Not by a long short. For example let's imagine I had a son & I sent him away to a boarding school which was really tough to toughen him up because I've noticed he's prone to laziness & distraction, it's perfectly plausible that my decision to cause him to experience hardships & adversities at a school known to use a significant degree of hardship with the students so they learn self discipline & focus that's a _defensible_ decision for a loving father to make however what _isn't_ a defensible decision of _any_ loving father is to send their child into a situation where he'll experience a _calamity_ or _disaster_ such as totally flooding an school & the entire planet _too_ without any opportunity to 'toughen up' by swimming to safety. A father who threw his son into the sea to find out if he'll sink or swim could at least make a case for creating a degree of adversity or hardship for their child if there happened to be dry land near enough to reach perhaps but a father who threw the boy into the middle of a massive ocean far far away from _any_ sort of safety would be responsive for causing the kind of calamity / disaster you're saying the Bible speaks of & you can't deny that those are the very words you're saying the Hebrew *should* be interpreted as instead so you really can't have it *both* ways since I'm taking you at your word or at the Bible's word if the preferred translation *is* as you suggest rather than as merely 'hardship' or 'adversity' since _neither_ term means 'calamity' or even 'disaster' does it now? *Isaiah 45:7 is understood to mean that God is sovereign over all events, including those that bring peace and those that bring calamity or disaster. It does not imply that God creates moral evil, but rather that He allows or brings about difficult circumstances for His purposes.* Well again exactly the same problem remains because sovereignty means 'supreme power' / 'authority' but simply having the absolute power to cause innocent children, babies & animals to suffer totally _avoidable_ calamities & disasters in no way, shape or form can make *any* father - heavenly _or_ earthly into a just or loving father. No amount of 'might' makes 'right' even if it their might happens to be _absolute._ Imagine I could wave a magic wand & make myself the ultimate superman which no one could ever overcome in any way, that fact in itself wouldn't make my ability to wreak havoc upon innocent children babies or animals, so how could it grant an all powerful _deity_ that authority either when unnecessary disasters & calamities inflicted upon the innocent can't magically change an avoidable evil into some sort of justified right. It's plausible that it could be if it was the only way to get rid of adults rotten to the core perhaps in which case an all powerful being could simply 'poof' those individuals out of existence because that would be as easy as pie to a being which can split the Red Sea saving Israelite lives, so such a being could _just_ as easily lift all innocent children babies & animals into the sky while the evil ones drown but if the Bible is to be believed that wasn't a solution that occurred to the all knowing God who simply saved _one_ family regardless of the power to do otherwise which begs the same question: Is the Bible to believed then or _isn't_ it & if it is why does that change anything in light of the problems I've highlighted above? CONTINUED IN PART 3...
@@samozeal9466 PART 3... *Evil is not some THING that can be measured or quantified. In the same way the darkness isn't a THING it's just an absence of light, or cold an absence of heat etc.* > Okay I'll grant you that as well so let's say you're also _spot on_ in that observation too but as before it's of _zero_ consequence because if the translation of Biblical Hebrew actually means "calamities" or "disasters" not "evil" then all that confirms is that God has to be responsible for many of the worst *possible* outcomes for innocent children babies & even animals, despite having the option to simply cause _hardships_ or _adversities_ instead where at least children (but clearly not babies or animals) _might_ have the opportunity to escape the horrors of slowly drowning during the flood God clearly *didn't* choose such an option because a global flood is an _unquestionable_ tragedy for every single child or baby or animal not on board Noah's ark, despite God having the kind of superpowers the Bible tells us he can employ to keep Israelites safe when crossing the Red Sea, so there's really no two ways about it: God chose a far _less_ humane option so the Bible is therefore _right_ to say He causes calamities & disasters are as much is work as any kind or loving acts are. But only if the translation of the Hebrew is as you _suggest_ it is but as I said that's only assuming the Bible _is_ to be believed as you tell me it should but in light of that He is no different as a result even by your _own_ perspective of Hebrew terminology. *God gave us freedom which requires the ability, opportunity, and even desire to choose a path other than away from Him... otherwise we can never truly be in a genuine relationship with Him.* But how could that _possibly_ be the case for the _immense_ number of babies or children he saw fit to suffer the slow, terrifying deaths during the flood to say nothing about all of the animals which he made collateral damage as well? Was there _any_ "path" or "opportunity" as you describe it for all of the one & two year olds who can't even understand what you say God offers humanity? Obviously not - no more than any of the animals suffering from the 'calamity' / 'disaster' the Bible tells us God caused. If the Bible is to be believed it never even occurred to God to give them any opportunity to escape the fate he inflicted upon them despite having the power to give the Israelite children an opportunity to avoid a watery grave when crossing the Red Sea thanks to his fickle nature where there clearly _was_ hardship & adversities instead, so it cannot be denied that God couldn't have thought of a less catastrophic option _if_ the Bible is to be believed. Well is it or isn't it? *Forced love is an impossibility.* Yet again I entirely agree & since someone like me doesn't love God because I see no sign of a God _to_ love why would I without any good reason to think there was one I might feel that way about? - Especially if that God is _correctly_ described as one which causes calamities & disasters for innocent babies, children & even animals? It's an _impossibility_ for me to feel love towards such a being if as you say the correct interpretation of his character is as someone who chose to inflict disasters & calamities onto so many innocent babies & children & animals when the Bible also tells us God is also capable of holding back the Red Sea for _equally_ innocent children & babies & animals. so even the threat of eternal damnation won't enable me to see what you say the Bible is _really_ saying as any less sickening even if the interpretations you've suggested happen to be _spot on._ CONTINUED IN PART 4...
seriously underrated
Thank you friend.
Wow, well done! May you grow quickly on RUclips!
Thank you!
man works way tooooo much
Not sure who you mean, but the devil is indeed always working, we must be aware of his schemes.
@@wonderstorystudio i meant you:) im hindu not christian this thing randomly popped up and i was happy to see someone work so hard to make these videos like the quality
@@abaconman8930 Oh I see, well thank you! It's lovely to connect with people of other faiths and it's lovely for you to share your kind words.
Well if it's true that God created everyone then God created Lucifer a.k.a. Satan & since he was _entirely_ God's responsibility as his creation & no one else's then the ultimate cause of evil is actually God because God is the ultimate cause of everything & everyone that exists if Isaiah 45:7 is to be believed *I form light & create darkness. I make peace & create evil. I the Lord do all these things.* Is it to be believed? If so there's no denying it. If not then the Bible can't be entirely relied upon as an accurate source so which is it then?
1. The Hebrew word translated as "evil" is "ra" (רָע), which can mean evil, calamity, disaster, or adversity. Many scholars believe that in this context, "ra" refers to calamities or disasters rather than moral evil.
2. Isaiah 45 addresses Cyrus, the Persian king, as God's anointed instrument to bring about His purposes. The passage highlights God's power to use various means, including hardships and adversities, to fulfill His plans for His people.
Isaiah 45:7 is understood to mean that God is sovereign over all events, including those that bring peace and those that bring calamity or disaster. It does not imply that God creates moral evil, but rather that He allows or brings about difficult circumstances for His purposes.
Evil is not some THING that can be measured or quantified. In the same way the darkness isn't a THING it's just an absence of light, or cold an absence of heat etc.
God gave us freedom which requires the ability, opportunity, and even desire to choose a path other than away from Him... otherwise we can never truly be in a genuine relationship with Him.
Forced love is an impossibility.
When we choose to walk our own path instead of His, we inevitably choose selfish options that hurt others and ourselves... That's called sin. That's what evil is.
@@samozeal9466 Thanks for the comment and breaking this down. Similar to our children, if our children break the law then we as parents are not at fault-the parent's are not to blame just because they caused the children to exist. But it's by Jesus Christ that God still chose to die on the cross for us, taking the punishment he did not have to-all we must do is believe in Him and we can be called children of God. Thank you Jesus!
@@samozeal9466 Thanks for your reply samozeal9466. Let's examine your response point by point to see if they make any significant difference to how the Bible can be understood to tell us about God & more specifically God's actions in light of what you say...
*1. The Hebrew word translated as "evil" is "ra" (רָע), which can mean evil, calamity, disaster, or adversity. Many scholars believe that in this context, "ra" refers to calamities or disasters rather than moral evil.*
Okay let's assume that interpretation is spot on. I'm more than happy to accept that it very well may be as I haven't seen the Hebrew text & can't read it even if I did but that doesn't change a thing because if the Bible is telling us God creates calamities or disasters that's an _extremely_ evil act when there will be _so many_ innocent victims of His decisions to cause them to happen. Take the example of the flood. Even if the world was populated by _entirely_ evil men _&_ women too (except Noah & his wives & kids) why should all of those children & babies or for that matter virtually all _animals_ have been drowned _too?_ Think of it this way, if I had the power to do anything like that you'd be entirely justified in calling my decision to cause such a _calamity_ "evil" so why not God too since "might" doesn't "make" right regardless of whether the might of my own action *or* God's actions were equally immense? Not when the same amount of totally avoidable suffering is caused - or couldn't God think of any way to save them the way he saved innocent babies & children from death by parting the Red Sea for Moses?
CONTINUED IN PART 2...
@@samozeal9466 PART 2...
*2. Isaiah 45 addresses Cyrus, the Persian king, as God's anointed instrument to bring about His purposes. The passage highlights God's power to use various means, including hardships and adversities, to fulfill His plans for His people.*
Okay well let's say your previous point (1) is spot on & the Hebrew word _does_ mean what you say it means: "calamity" or "disaster" that isn't the same as "hardship" or "adversity" is it? Not by a long short. For example let's imagine I had a son & I sent him away to a boarding school which was really tough to toughen him up because I've noticed he's prone to laziness & distraction, it's perfectly plausible that my decision to cause him to experience hardships & adversities at a school known to use a significant degree of hardship with the students so they learn self discipline & focus that's a _defensible_ decision for a loving father to make however what _isn't_ a defensible decision of _any_ loving father is to send their child into a situation where he'll experience a _calamity_ or _disaster_ such as totally flooding an school & the entire planet _too_ without any opportunity to 'toughen up' by swimming to safety. A father who threw his son into the sea to find out if he'll sink or swim could at least make a case for creating a degree of adversity or hardship for their child if there happened to be dry land near enough to reach perhaps but a father who threw the boy into the middle of a massive ocean far far away from _any_ sort of safety would be responsive for causing the kind of calamity / disaster you're saying the Bible speaks of & you can't deny that those are the very words you're saying the Hebrew *should* be interpreted as instead so you really can't have it *both* ways since I'm taking you at your word or at the Bible's word if the preferred translation *is* as you suggest rather than as merely 'hardship' or 'adversity' since _neither_ term means 'calamity' or even 'disaster' does it now?
*Isaiah 45:7 is understood to mean that God is sovereign over all events, including those that bring peace and those that bring calamity or disaster. It does not imply that God creates moral evil, but rather that He allows or brings about difficult circumstances for His purposes.*
Well again exactly the same problem remains because sovereignty means 'supreme power' / 'authority' but simply having the absolute power to cause innocent children, babies & animals to suffer totally _avoidable_ calamities & disasters in no way, shape or form can make *any* father - heavenly _or_ earthly into a just or loving father. No amount of 'might' makes 'right' even if it their might happens to be _absolute._ Imagine I could wave a magic wand & make myself the ultimate superman which no one could ever overcome in any way, that fact in itself wouldn't make my ability to wreak havoc upon innocent children babies or animals, so how could it grant an all powerful _deity_ that authority either when unnecessary disasters & calamities inflicted upon the innocent can't magically change an avoidable evil into some sort of justified right. It's plausible that it could be if it was the only way to get rid of adults rotten to the core perhaps in which case an all powerful being could simply 'poof' those individuals out of existence because that would be as easy as pie to a being which can split the Red Sea saving Israelite lives, so such a being could _just_ as easily lift all innocent children babies & animals into the sky while the evil ones drown but if the Bible is to be believed that wasn't a solution that occurred to the all knowing God who simply saved _one_ family regardless of the power to do otherwise which begs the same question: Is the Bible to believed then or _isn't_ it & if it is why does that change anything in light of the problems I've highlighted above?
CONTINUED IN PART 3...
@@samozeal9466 PART 3...
*Evil is not some THING that can be measured or quantified. In the same way the darkness isn't a THING it's just an absence of light, or cold an absence of heat etc.*
> Okay I'll grant you that as well so let's say you're also _spot on_ in that observation too but as before it's of _zero_ consequence because if the translation of Biblical Hebrew actually means "calamities" or "disasters" not "evil" then all that confirms is that God has to be responsible for many of the worst *possible* outcomes for innocent children babies & even animals, despite having the option to simply cause _hardships_ or _adversities_ instead where at least children (but clearly not babies or animals) _might_ have the opportunity to escape the horrors of slowly drowning during the flood God clearly *didn't* choose such an option because a global flood is an _unquestionable_ tragedy for every single child or baby or animal not on board Noah's ark, despite God having the kind of superpowers the Bible tells us he can employ to keep Israelites safe when crossing the Red Sea, so there's really no two ways about it: God chose a far _less_ humane option so the Bible is therefore _right_ to say He causes calamities & disasters are as much is work as any kind or loving acts are. But only if the translation of the Hebrew is as you _suggest_ it is but as I said that's only assuming the Bible _is_ to be believed as you tell me it should but in light of that He is no different as a result even by your _own_ perspective of Hebrew terminology.
*God gave us freedom which requires the ability, opportunity, and even desire to choose a path other than away from Him... otherwise we can never truly be in a genuine relationship with Him.*
But how could that _possibly_ be the case for the _immense_ number of babies or children he saw fit to suffer the slow, terrifying deaths during the flood to say nothing about all of the animals which he made collateral damage as well? Was there _any_ "path" or "opportunity" as you describe it for all of the one & two year olds who can't even understand what you say God offers humanity? Obviously not - no more than any of the animals suffering from the 'calamity' / 'disaster' the Bible tells us God caused. If the Bible is to be believed it never even occurred to God to give them any opportunity to escape the fate he inflicted upon them despite having the power to give the Israelite children an opportunity to avoid a watery grave when crossing the Red Sea thanks to his fickle nature where there clearly _was_ hardship & adversities instead, so it cannot be denied that God couldn't have thought of a less catastrophic option _if_ the Bible is to be believed. Well is it or isn't it?
*Forced love is an impossibility.*
Yet again I entirely agree & since someone like me doesn't love God because I see no sign of a God _to_ love why would I without any good reason to think there was one I might feel that way about? - Especially if that God is _correctly_ described as one which causes calamities & disasters for innocent babies, children & even animals? It's an _impossibility_ for me to feel love towards such a being if as you say the correct interpretation of his character is as someone who chose to inflict disasters & calamities onto so many innocent babies & children & animals when the Bible also tells us God is also capable of holding back the Red Sea for _equally_ innocent children & babies & animals. so even the threat of eternal damnation won't enable me to see what you say the Bible is _really_ saying as any less sickening even if the interpretations you've suggested happen to be _spot on._
CONTINUED IN PART 4...