Did God create sin ?

[aneeshm]

A simple question , applicable mostly to the monotheist religions .

Did God create sin , or the potential for sin , in man ?

[DaShi]

Sin originated with Hindu civilation.

[snoopy369]

If you believe God created all, then he created sin. QED.

I believe Christianity would support that statement, as God created free will, and thus the potential for sin (and the ability to sin). The "Devil" is still subject to God and created by him (as if he weren't, then it wouldn't be a monotheism).

[aneeshm]

This is one of the irresoluble dilemmas of monotheism with a personal creator God .

If you say that both sin and its potential were created , then that contradicts the idea of a just and benevolent God - for which God would create sin ?

If you say that only the potential for sin was created , then there is no justification for punishment of humans by God - he implanted the seeds of sin himself , and this negates the concept of a loving God - for who would implant the seeds of sin in his own creation ?

The last option is impossible - if God created neither sin nor its potential , then from whence comes sin ? If it is not God's creation , then it has to be admitted that a power higher than God exists , by very virtue of the fact that he did not create everything - which violates the basic tenet of monotheism and of one supreme power .




And the old free will argument will not work - that is precisely why I included the "potential" bit . If , in giving man free will , it also involved the giving of the potential of sin , then that potential was created by God itself - and therefore the second option is forced in this case .

[SlowwHand]

Archangels are a point of debate.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Archangels are a point of debate.

But they did a great album.

[SlowwHand]

That's debatable .

[Cort Haus]

This poll sucks. Where's the option for "There is no God, only questions of ethics"?

[SlowwHand]

What is the basis for ethics?

[snoopy369]

The problem is that God clearly values freedom of choice over sin. Creating free will necessarily creates sin, so if God believes that it is more important for man to have free will and to choose to do right, than to have no choice at all, clearly he would create it this way.

Perhaps a Buddhist interpretation of Christianity applies - perhaps God wants humanity to grow to the point that it chooses 'right' every time, but wants them to do it on its own.

[Jon Miller]

So you are saying that a parent should keep their children locked up in a safe environment so that harm may never happen to them?

JM

[MrFun]

No, he's saying that the sheep in New Zealand need to be locked away from, and separated from, the New Zealanders so no more harm comes to the sheep.

[SlowwHand]

Did God Create Sin?

Contributed by Bob Rigsby

A college professor with a reputation for being tough on Christians often berated Christians for their belief in God mocking any statements of faith.

At the beginning of one semester, he asked if there were any professed Christians present. The first young man to raise his hand in response to his challenge was asked by the professor, "Did God make everything?"

"Yes he did, sir," the young man replied.

The professor responded, "If God made everything, then God made evil, and if we can only create from within ourselves, then God is evil."

The student didn't have a response and the professor was happy to have once again proved the Christian faith to be a myth. Another student raised his hand and asked the Professor , "May I ask a question sir?"

"Yes you may," nodded the professor. The young man stood up and asked, "Sir, is there such thing as cold?"

"Of course there is, what kind of a question is that? Haven't you ever been cold?"

The young man replied, "Actually, sir, cold does not exist. What we consider to be cold, is really only the absence of heat. Absolute zero is when there is absolutely no heat, but cold does not really exist. We have only created that term to describe how we feel when heat is not there."

The young man continued, "Sir, is there such thing as dark?" Once again, the professor responded "Of course there is."

Once again, the student replied "Actually, sir, darkness does not exist. Darkness is really only the absence of light. Darkness is only a term man developed to describe what happens when there is no light present."

Finally, the young man asked, "Sir, is there such thing as evil?" The professor responded, "Of course. We have rapes, and murders and violence everywhere in the world, those things are evil."

The student replied, "Actually, sir, evil does not exist. Evil is simply the absence of God. Evil is a term man developed to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. It isn't like truth, or love, which exist as virtues like heat and light. Evil is simply the state where God is not present, like cold without heat or darkness without light."

The members of the class and the Professor became strangely silent.

[Proteus_MST]

But if evil is absence from god,
how so is, that so much evil was done in the name of faith
and how so is it that according to the bible even god himself did things we,
nowadays, would call evil (like, for example, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha)

[Elok]

Originally posted by aneeshm
And the old free will argument will not work - that is precisely why I included the "potential" bit . If , in giving man free will , it also involved the giving of the potential of sin , then that potential was created by God itself - and therefore the second option is forced in this case .

No, that does not follow. Free will means you can do whatever you please. If the government gave you the freedom to drink alcohol, that does not mean the government "made you" drink so much you threw up. They allowed you to do something stupid, but the decision to do so is still your fault. To say otherwise contradicts the general idea of freedom.

Your argument is just screwed up from start to end because you've chosen to treat conceptual entities the same as physical objects. Much like Plato arguing that things are beautiful not because of shape or color, but because they correspond to the Form of Beauty.