Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Laplace
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 138

Posted 5/8/2003 11:57 AM (GMT -6)

Hi all. I've been a long time peruser of this board now and have enjoyed many of the topics and discussions (although admittingly don't know a lot of the formal t

Laplace
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 138

Posted 5/8/2003 12:03 PM (GMT -6)

Let's try this again...

Hi all. I've been a long time peruser of this board now and have enjoyed many of the topics and discussions (although admittingly don't know a lot of the formal terminology and argots).

I had one question that stems from my studies of mathematics. Please forgive me if my presentation is not pedagogically clear or complete.

Seems to me that in most cases, proposed conjectures are not often lacking in sound reasoning, but the disputes come from different axioms and postulates. For example, the infamous chain of:

- God created everything
- Evil is something (subset of everything, which in turn is opposite of nothing)
- Therefore, God created evil

Perfectly sound within the realms of logic, but of course, causes us much distress. Wrong conclusion? Perhaps, but not necessarily because of our reasoning. True, it could be just ambiguous semantic definition (define evil), but I believe the deeper problem lies in our assumptions.

I find it surprising that no post that I have stumbled upon yet has brought up Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, which essentially says that everything we reason is built upon nothing more than faith. That since we exist in a "closed box system" so to speak our understanding of what is absolutely true is limited (not relative truth, objective absolute truth). Even the most die hard scientist and mathematician admits that all theorems and equations are based upon some fundamental set of rules which are by definition to be true. This is true even within the realm of philosophy and theology.

And this is where the problem lies in all our controversies. Not so much in our reasoning but in our assumptions of what is true. Our faith so to speak. We have these words that don't have perfect clarity (Biblical text). So we try and make sense of what we read using reasoning, context, other external evidence, but ultimately, what we ALREADY accept as true.

This is why it can be so hard to persuade someone even with reasonable arguments. An atheist who ardently accepts there is no god can quite easily deny or explain away miracles. It is also why when a refute is posted you often see the words, "you are assuming that..."

Of course the million dollar question is how to know which assumptions are the true ones and which ones aren't. We can never truly know, but we can make an educated guess and put our reasonable faith in it. One major test is the implication test. "If this is true then...". This can help us, as it points us towards reasonable conclusions such as the Trinity doctrine. However, that same principle obfuscates other issues like Determinism/Free Will.

So when we encounter something that seems to violate our conclusions, does it mean that our assumptions were absolutely wrong? No, perhaps just wrong in context. Newton's Laws are physics are (absolutely) true up until you deal with objects whose speed are close to the speed of light. I propose therefore, that in these issues of apparent contradictions and unknowns that it's not that the rules "don't work" but we don't know the entire ruleset.

Here's what makes it though a Sisyphean effort to try and explain "Life, Universe, and Everything" (Ans: 42)- We don't know all the rulesets nor can we nor will we. Why? We're not God. And I think that is one main reason why so many (esp of the intellectual type) reject Him. They say in essense, "I want to know what God knows (i.e. Be God)". Gee, does that story sound familiar (See Genesis 3)?

This is why it's so difficult to confidently make an absolutely "true" statement. One exception makes it invalid or at least not true in context.

I concede that our reasoning process itself might itself be flawed, but if it is, we can never know that it is. It's all we have really, so we must accept it as reliable.

I guess it's why I'm often plagued with abulias.

Any feedback is appreciated.

Edited by - Laplace on 05/08/2003 5:16:45 PM

Edited by - Laplace on 05/08/2003 5:17:42 PM

Tiggers
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219

Posted 5/8/2003 12:21 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

Let's try this again...

Hi all. I've been a long time peruser of this board now and have enjoyed many of the topics and discussions (although admittingly don't know a lot of the formal terminology and argots).

I had o

Edited by - Laplace on 05/08/2003 5:15:49 PM

Welcome Laplace, you seem to have been more of reader as I am, but welcome to the discussion. I look foward to reading your posts...so have fun

!

Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers

“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie).

Edited by - Tiggers on 05/08/2003 5:28:54 PM

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 5/8/2003 1:03 PM (GMT -6)

Hi Laplace,

Evil is not a created "thing," it is a wrong moral choice. It is the abuse of free will (or personhood).

God did not create moral evil, Satan perverted the good by his own rebellious moral choice against God. Even still, we must keep in mind that evil is not a "thing" like a rock or a tree or a person, it is simply and only the corruption of the good and right.

"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 5/8/2003 2:12 PM (GMT -6)

Laplace, on the "Gratuitous Evil" thread I posted:

quote:
In the "Not bad reasoning, but bad assumptions?" thread mentioned/LINKED above, Laplace said:

quote:
So when we encounter something that seems to violate our conclusions, does it mean that our assumptions were absolutely wrong? No, perhaps just wrong in context.

That pretty much says what I was trying to say above. EDF is a "context." And that particular context IS NOT THE ONLY context possible for Omniscience.

It also strikes me that the "all knowable things that there are to be known" of Boyd's brand of omniscience is in a subset of the EDF model. (Reminds me of the "null set" in math. Still "foreknowable" even is "un-forewknowable-because.)

The Creator God knows as Creator. And THAT context is BEYOND our context as creatures.

Simply, Free Will for us is PART OF the creation and the purpose of God, and the purpose he has for us. THAT is of the first set of things we need to know. Other things had better find their place behind or along side of that.

I also said:

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------
"if we both accept that Exhaustively-Definite-Foreknowledge Omniscience does contradict free will then doesn't your position also undermine the reality of evil in this world?"
--------------------------------------------------

The "Not bad reasoning, but bad assumptions?" thread, at http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2040 mentioned Godel's "Incompleteness Theorem. NOT bringing 'that' up either (I see a parallel of sorts that makes me mention it.) I just want to point out that in my experiences discussing the topic, and seeing arguements from an EDF battlefield (on either "side") I've concluded that the ruts of that battlefield are not necessarily the path to somewhere desirable.

The snag in the carpet of EDF is that it views from within time. And that is not the only possibility to consider! I'd observe, further, that the "EDF" brand of omniscience DOES feel more in conflict with free will than the other "brand" of omniscience. EDF feels quite mechanical. Not as worthy of a Creator. More like something of a being or force within creation. That's why it always seems to me that "Openness" and "EDF" share much in common.

I probably, then, agree with DLW's statement above. But I might not buy into the total package of the Openness campaign--which I'm sure I do not.

================

I tried to get a hearing for GODEL on this board. I hope that you will try to. But while what I posted seemed very applicable in my eyes, I got the feeling that it was very inconvenient to those I was discussing with.

PoW

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 5/8/2003 2:23 PM (GMT -6)

I think that this post is important:

quote:
John Earp

Evil is not a created "thing," it is a wrong moral choice. It is the abuse of free will (or personhood).

God did not create moral evil, Satan perverted the good by his own rebellious moral choice against God. Even still, we must keep in mind that evil is not a "thing" like a rock or a tree or a person, it is simply and only the corruption of the good and right.

I think that John's post nails this particular part of what Laplace asked.

I still think that Godel needs to be brought onto this board...

But the quandry that Laplace mentioned at the front immediately seemed to me to not be one.

"A" - God created everything

TRUE.

"B" - Evil is something (subset of everything, which in turn is opposite of nothing)

LIKE John Earp said: "Evil is not a created "thing""

Another way to say that is that Evil is paracitical.

YET, evil does exist. The Devil is real. AS a paracitical rality evil does very muchg exist.

But, God did not create it.

And as a result of Evil, and our sin, it is a true statement what one of the Greek Fathers of the Church said: "One of the Trinity Suffered." (Christ suffered in His humanity; not in his divinity. And not all of the Trinity suffered.)

"C" - Therefore, God created evil

SINCE only "A" is true (and "B" is false) "C" is false.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 5/8/2003 2:25 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
SINCE only "A" is true (and "B" is false) "C" is false.

TRUE: Not bad reasoning, but bad assumptions?

It would be a faulty assumption that "evil" is a "thing."

Seesaw
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 70

Posted 5/8/2003 7:54 PM (GMT -6)

I do not necessarily disagree with this comment nor do I necessarily agree with it, but I do question the basis of it. Is it a definite or an assumption? I place much value on Scripture and when reading this comment could not call to mind any Scripture to solidly support this comment. If you can share some Scripture to back this comment, please do share. Thanks!

The comment made was: "Evil is not a created "thing," it is a wrong moral choice. It is the abuse of free will (or personhood".

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 5/9/2003 12:55 AM (GMT -6)

JUST QUICK...

Genesis 1:31

"For God made not death, neither hath He pleasure in the destruction of the living, for he created all things that they might have their being, and the generations of the world were healthful, and there is no poison of destruction in them, nor the kingdom of Hades upon the earth." Wisdom of Solomon 1:13-14. (WAS scripture in Jesus day)

‘For behold, they that remove themselves from Thee shall perish.’" Psalm 72:27.

God ‘did not make death’ (Wisdom 1:13)

‘There shall be no evil in a city which the Lord hath not wrought’ (cf. Amos 3:6)

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 5/9/2003 1:53 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

- God created everything

If I take a blank sheet of paper and create an picture on it, I create the picture. We're made in the image of God; He is a creator, so are we. If you believe we're just puppets manipulated by Him then "God created everything" is true. If you believe we are free agents with some autonymity, then "God created everything" is not true.

Having made us, God has had to set limits on us. Genesis 11:

quote:

5 The LORD came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built.
6 The LORD said, "Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them.

God is no more liable for the evil people commit than you would be liable for any crimes your kids commit.

Even though the skies are blue, don't they let the sunshine through?

Edited by - Laika on 05/09/2003 07:05:12 AM

Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635

Posted 5/9/2003 2:01 AM (GMT -6)

Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

God is Love,

Tim

2Ti 2:19…Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity...

Laplace
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 138

Posted 5/9/2003 5:33 AM (GMT -6)

Thank you for all the responses.

First of all, I agree with John Earp and PotOnWheel with the statement "Evil is something" is a bad assumption as I was trying to illustrate. It's just one objection that is brought up by those opposed to the concept of a purely good God.

The point though was to show that no one disputed the REASONING. IF evil were "something" then we would be in trouble.

Let's take another example.

A - The Bible is absolutely true (infallible)
B - The Bible does not contradict

Therefore, when we encounter seemingly contradictory statements we are left with the logic we know, there are only 4 possibilites to explain it (Maybe there are more). Either:

1. The contradiction is a Fata Morgana (mirage), and the meaning is just unclear to us
2. One of our premises is not true afterall (Gulp!)
3. Our axiom "ruleset" is not complete (supplemented by Koran, Book of Mormon, or whatever Holy Texts you want)
4. The "Law of Non-contradiction" is limited in scope (meaning that yes, you can have 2 mutually exlusive events occur at the same time)

To be honest, I tend to agree with #4 myself (with #1 not mutally exclusive from #4 [ha ha]). Why? Because the Bible contains many -><- statements like:
- God is one, yet three (Elohim)
- Determinism vs Free Will
- Antinomian issues (salvation by faith alone)
- Prayer vs Sovereignty (related to Free Will discussions)

The question I'm trying to wrestle with is, "How do I know what I accept as TRUE is in fact so." Since everyone on this board (I think) agrees with the basic assumption that TRUTH is exclusive (meaning some things are absolutely FALSE), how in our "closed system" can we find it? I like the question posed my Morpheus in "The Matrix". "What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."

I'll tell you right now that I accept the tenents of Christianity as true for a number of reasons, probably the most convincing that Christ said Himself He is the TRUTH (Also because of historical evidence, logical soundness, unique doctrine, etc).

The problem though is most of the world does NOT. Why? Fundamentally because they have a different faith basis (Meaning if you accept the Koran as true you will naturally reject Christianity). More Biblical answers of course can be found in passages in Romans (consequences for worshiping creations rather than the Creator) and the parable of the seeds (Satan steals the seed sown in their heart).

If THAT is true, then the question remains, "Why does God 'allow' most people to be blinded to the truth?" Stated another way, THE BIGGEST doctrine I have accepting in Christianity as "God's goodness" is the following:

A - God created all of us
B - God knows who will accept Him and who will not (debateable I know)
C - Jesus said MOST people will reject Him
D - Theremore, MOST of humanity will spend eternity in Hell

If I created 100 widgets knowing that 90 would be good, and 10 would be bad, it seems perfectly reasonable. But if I made 100 knowing that 90 would be bad and only 10 would be good...Hmmm.

The fact remains that I as well as every other soul on this planet must make a choice of what to accept as true and act upon it. My greatest fear is that I'll be eternally condemned because of a "wrong" choice (If the Atheists are right and there is no afterlife then that doesn't bother me [Pascal's wager]).

So, what sort of convincing evidence or arguments can one use/see/know in order to modify not the reasoning so much, but the assumptions or faith basis???

An informal explanation and proof of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem can be found here: http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html. Again, what's funny is that the theorem itself is constrained by its own assumptions. Yet, I think it eloquently illustrates the point that omnipotence (even the comprehension of the idea) is out of our reach.

"Balance in all things" - Dak'kon, Planescape Torment

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 5/9/2003 6:34 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

God is Love,

Tim

Hi Tim,

Important point you bring up.Certainly evil existed as a possibility when God created mankind. In fact, it would seem that Satan in his fallen state existed prior to the creation of mankind, and so evil even as a reality existed then as well.

That said, the knowledge of good and evil is a very different thing than the actual practice of good and evil, as Adam and Eve so tragically realized. God certainly knew of the possibility that Adam and Eve would sin (do evil) when He created them, though He called them and everything else He created "good." However, knowing something as a possibility is not at all the same thing as knowing something through personally practicing it.

To Seesaw:

God is holy, righteous, good, just, faithful, as many, many Scriptures plainly claim. I am posting this while on my lunch break at work and don't have the time right now to post Scriptures for you, but if after you do a search of the Bible for the positive moral descriptors I listed above you are still unpersuaded of the truth of my statement about evil, I will be very happy to demonstrate this from the Scriptures. But I would most prefer you to find it out for yourself; it's much more persuasive that way.

"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

Edited by - John Earp on 05/09/2003 11:40:13 AM

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 5/9/2003 6:36 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

The point though was to show that no one disputed the REASONING. IF evil were "something" then we would be in trouble.

Hi Laplace,

It seems to me that to demolish a premise (i.e., evil is a created thing) IS very much disputing the reasoning that proceeds from the premise.

"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

S.B.G.
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 143

Posted 5/9/2003 6:55 AM (GMT -6)

"The fact remains that I as well as every other soul on this planet must make a choice of what to accept as true and act upon it. My greatest fear is that I'll be eternally condemned because of a "wrong" choice (If the Atheists are right and there is no afterlife then that doesn't bother me [Pascal's wager])."

Being an annihilist, I believe you would be eternally dead, not tortured, but that is another topic.

Your question is why Jesus calls those blessed who believe without seeing. It has to be a heart choice and a faith choice...it cannot be done JUST with logic and theorization. The only REAL way to know is by the Holy Spirit. No amount of mathematics and conjecture and theological analysis can undoubtedly confirm what only the Spirit can.

This may sound simplistic, but faith is risky business! We cannot succomb to our fears!

S.B.G.

To understand and to be understood is bliss.

Alan Rhoda
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680

Posted 5/9/2003 1:46 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
When we encounter seemingly contradictory statements we are left with the logic we know, there are only 4 possibilites to explain it (Maybe there are more). Either:

1. The contradiction is a Fata Morgana (mirage), and the meaning is just unclear to us
2. One of our premises is not true afterall (Gulp!)
3. Our axiom "ruleset" is not complete (supplemented by Koran, Book of Mormon, or whatever Holy Texts you want)
4. The "Law of Non-contradiction" is limited in scope (meaning that yes, you can have 2 mutually exlusive events occur at the same time)

To be honest, I tend to agree with #4 myself (with #1 not mutally exclusive from #4 [ha ha]). Why? Because the Bible contains many -><- statements like:
- God is one, yet three (Elohim)
- Determinism vs Free Will
- Antinomian issues (salvation by faith alone)
- Prayer vs Sovereignty (related to Free Will discussions)

Welcome, Laplace.

I think your 4 alternatives reduce to 2:
1. The contradiction is only apparent, not genuine. (your options 1 & 3)
2. The contradiction is genuine.

If (2) then we either have to either (a) live with the contradiction (your option 4), or (b) deny one term of the contradiction (your option 2).

I think limiting the scope of the law of non-contradiction as you suggest is incoherent. It's one thing to hold out hope that the contradiction will turn out to be merely apparent even though we don't see how to resolve it at present. It's quite another to affirm that the contradiction is genuine and still hold onto both horns of the dilemma. That way lies insanity because, as you well know from your study of math, contradictory premises imply anything and everything--so there would be no way to keep the contradiction from percolating through one's entire web of beliefs unless one induces a kind of cognitive schizophrenia and never brings the contradictory propositions into contact with each other.

Finally, the theological condrums that you list are not, I would contend, genuine contradictions. At most they are apparent contradictions. If they were genuine then, since contradictions are necessarily false (by definition), Christianity would have to be necessarily false. I don't think you wish to say that. So that leaves us with a conceptual problem, our wits, our Bibles. Perhaps we can dissolve the apparent contradiction, perhaps we try and fail. Should we then conclude that the contradiction is genuine? Only if we are prepared to give up Christianity. The alternative is to maintain the tension until such time, if it ever comes, that we can dissolve the problem. Affirming the genuineness of the contradiction gives up the tension and leads either to incoherence, insanity, or irrationality.

God bless,
Alan

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 5/9/2003 2:56 PM (GMT -6)

Some quick thoughts:
Godel's theorem strikes me as a rehashing of the problem of deduction: I.e., the conclusions of a deductive system follow from its assumptions. So there is a difference between validity and truth.

This also implies that consistency, whether it be by Calvinists or OVTheists, is not the end-all-be-all judgement criteria for Theology.

I think what Laplace was referring to was Tertium Non Datur, the flaw of the excluded middle. I.e., say we postulate that reality is predetermined then we observe evil and, thus, conclude that either reality is not predetermined or the unmoved mover, God, is not good or the evil we see isn't truly evil. So we all become OVTs and affirm the reality of freedom or that Exhaustively Definite Foreknowledge is a false conception of God's Omniscience.

However, the question then might be, "So what/", some aspects of reality are open and others are not and what criteria do we have to discern which is which? My understanding of Philosophical tradition is that it affirms the usefulness of both the concepts of predestination and free-will. However, regarding specifics, one cannot specify a priori what we should accept and what is open for us to change. For this question, deductive systems may be of less use to the Christian Church. Deliberation on past experience may be of more use. For example, I argue in my abortion link that it is futile to seek to reverse Roe-V-Wade and I also argue that one cannot settle when does the human fetus acquire a soul or the imago-dei and become a human life that we are forbidden to kill through scripture either, since the writers of the Bible didn't deal with the problems we currently face regarding abortion.

So deduction require induction, but both have their epistemological failings. I guess that is why we need the Holy Spirit, but I think that avoiding absolutist legitimation for one's view, whether that be through claiming infallibility, inerrancy regarding the will of God, or the Center is also important and I think that the notion of a center is only useful if it is a dynamic one.

dlw

Prayer from Kenya

From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 5/9/2003 3:01 PM (GMT -6)

Laplace, it seems to me that what several of us did with your original list of THREE was more than just to eliminate the second--making the third irrelevant. It seems to me that we only eliminated that second idea ("Evil is something") by referencing beyond "evil" to both what is known about "things" (which we reference from scripture as "good" via. Genesis.) and about God (which we reference through revelation, and the limits we have on our own personal experience.)

What I want to ask is this: Does this relate to what you have in mind of Godel's contributions???

===============================================================

Ever read THIS LINK? It mentions Godel, and faith.

"THE METAPHYSICS OF REASON"

It ends with this:

The new underlying pattern of knowlegde is composed of old elements. How to rearrange these old elements into a new structure, is a question of aesthetics. We have to prove, over and over again that the cosmos is cosmos. Or as Charles Sanders Peirce put it: "the universe as an argument is necessarily a great work of art, a great poem - for every fine argument is a poem and a symphony - just as every true poem is a sound argument …"

(These are only instructions; I am NOT SHOUTING!!!)

DOWNLOADING IT IS TRICKY--BECAUSE OF ALL THE NEAT CHARTS, APPLYING AND GOING BEYOND PIERCE!!! BUT IT IS WORTH IT.

http://diacentro.physics.auth.gr/rtalks/pdfs/nikolaidis01.doc.

YOU HAVE TO DOWNLOAD IT TO THE DESKTOP AS A FILE, AND THEN OPEN IT. THE CHARTS ARE MISSING IF YOU DO THE HTML VERSION.

I TRIED IT, AND IT WORKS!

BE PATIENT. LONG DOWNLOAD.

BUT, GREAT CHARTS.

Here is something else good:

Apophatism is not ignorance or mysticism

refusal to exhaust truth with its expressions

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 05/09/2003 8:42:58 PM

Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635

Posted 5/10/2003 1:59 AM (GMT -6)

…No one disputed the REASONING -Laplace

- God created everything
- Evil is something (subset of everything, which in turn is opposite of nothing)
- Therefore, God created evil

That God created everything is false, because everything is not created; in the list of everything, there is that which is uncreated also, therefore, the first premise might read more correctly this way and so forth…

- God brings into being all, which is uncreated and gives rise to all, from that which is uncreated (for creation) according to His purposes.

- Evil is knowledge (Gen 2:9, rule of first occurrence)
- Knowledge is uncreated
- Therefore, evil is uncreated

Evil is knowledge without understanding, born of desire, finding its only expression in the form of a lie, which in turn, rebels against the truth…

God is Love,

Tim

From here in left field, my Father appears masculine…and the dandelions, I do not mind.

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:40 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual