The video is about the concept of original sin. Do any of these verses some how change the doctrine of original sin in the bible? Of course not. And the whole theme of the video makes light of just how ridiculous the doctrine of original sin actually is when taken "literally" and pushed on to small children as literal truth. I was one of those babies given this doctrine from birth. You, unfortunately, fell for it as an adult having never had it impressed on you as a child but falling for it hook, line, and sinker much later for whatever the attraction. Now you're racing around the forum trying to some how apologize for it all when there is no sound apology to be made.
You need to get something straight here Stahrwe. I was brought up believing that God had no beginning and will have no end. Angels were created by God. There was later a war in heaven, Lucifer and a third of the angels were cast out, the plan of salvation was in place before sin entered this world, and everything horrible described in the OT is due to God making the people lie in the bed of sin that they have created for themselves. All of the murder, rape, and atrocities are all excused as God teaching these sinners a lesson on the wages of living in a world of sin and what that entales and how it's the wrong choice to make. And all the while He is setting up for salvation through the messiah yet to come who will bear all of the sins of the world. I know all of these apologies already Stahrwe. And in knowing them I reject them as invalid when taken as a literal history of the universe! You're apologetic posts summarize my starting point in life and your final conclusions are but the very beginning of the path towards truth, not final or absolute at all. It's very obvious to those who are familiar with these age old apologetics. And it's from these apologies that I've since moved on and decided to carefully consider them and move further up the path of truth seeking towards greater knowledge and understanding.
Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
And now the apology you've quoted:
The Hebrew word can refer to moral evil, and often does have this meaning in the Hebrew Scriptures. However, due to the diversity of possible definitions, it is unwise to assume that “I create evil” in Isaiah 45:7 refers to God bringing moral evil into existence.
In other words, this makes the apologist uneasy and so he has to try and point to the possibility of diverse meanings even though it does indeed refer to moral evil in the hebrew scriptures. The "light" and "darkness" reference directly before hand makes the context very clear. "Light" is metaphorical for good while "darkness" is metaphorical for "evil". The apologist is basically saying that it sure would be helpful if this verse meant something else so lets go ahead and pretend that it does. But, when it comes to God's creation the NT writers in the other verses I quoted decided to clarify - in keeping with the very same unity underlying all duality ideas expressed here in Isaiah - on just what God, the "creator", has
created, to be very specific about it in the text:
Ephesians 3:8-10
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Colossians 1:15-17
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
Now Stahrwe, "all things" means what?
Does it mean some things ("light") but not others ("darkness")?
This is an example of why you'll never be able to apologize the contradictions of the bible away. There is a mix of small minded statements along with very deep contemplation and expression all thrown in together. Some verses are short sided focusing on "light" while rejecting "darkness" while others are much deeper seeing through to the unity underlying these dual categories. The particular verses I've posted here touch on the omnipresence of God and they are very deep in that respect compared to the smaller minded "hate your family and own life" attributed to Jesus earlier. Everything - all that is considered good or bad, "light" or "dark" - God the creator has in fact "created" accorded to the depth of it. That's the very definition of an omnipresent creator, or source of everything that is. It's necessarily everywhere and in "all things" except when viewing the world from a more short sided perspective, which is also given out in the bible as well at other times. God is something apart from the world in some verses but "The All" in others.
Have you ever asked yourself where Lucifer came from orginally? Or the earth and Man? At some point it narrows down backwards to having to have come from God at some point, just like "all things". If the plan of salvation was in effect before the fall of man in the garden then that plan dates all the way back to the creation of Lucifer himself, even before that, and God having created this entire scenario of the entrance of evil out of himself in order to play out in such a way that he alone had knowledge of the specifics of the entire playing out of the emergence of evil from the very beginning. That's the definition of being the all knowing and everywhere present creating source of "all things". One could conclude that the entire fall of man theme is being played by but one eternal and infinitely present character who is constantly interacting with himself the entire time through the entire struggle. All of that which is perceived as good ("light") as well as all of that which is perceived as evil ("darkness"), all of it!
And this mysterious eternally ever present story line character actually breaks down to representing the eternal Realm of Existence itself in a very direct way! As they have Paul saying to the Stoic philosophers and others at Athens:
Acts 17:26-28
26And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
The eternal Realm of Existence itself (which can be given no one fixed beginning or end to speak of) is the very source, end, and supporting ground of "all things" which 'exist'. For in the eternal Realm of Existence (him) we live, and move, and have our being. Hint, hint. Yahweh basically means "to be, to exist". That's the great "I am that I am" (I was, am, and will be / past, present, and future) in a nut shell. It's the one thing which is common to "all things" linking everything together as one no matter how diverse or opposite any two given things like "light" and "darkness" may seem. It's the deeper philosophical content which contradicts the smaller minded content and at the same time
consumes all of it because it stands to correct the small mindedness. And therefore the Realm of Existence (him) is mythologized as the all knowing, the ever present, the all powerful, etc. etc., God. This is a primary function of world mythology and I am aware of it. This deeper philosophical content being portrayed as given out to the Stoic philosophers at Athens is a situation where the deeper philosophical realization is being used to try and proselytize the deep thinkers of the pagan elite out there who understand the deeper meaning of God into Pauls message to the gentiles.
The Realm of Existence (him) can seem very harsh and brutal at times, especially to the ancient mind as is described in the OT texts that have been quoted. That's where we find the Realm of Existence (him) being personified as an angry deity bringing war and chaos at times. But the Realm of Existence (him) can also seem very loving at other times despite it's perceived harshness, and so we find a dual nature to the personification of the Realm of Existence - a dual nature to the mythic eternal ever present God with no beginning or end. It's both. How could it be otherwise - one but not the other and at the same time ever present in "all things"? Ultimately, even though the eternal Realm of Existence (him) is responsible for everything we see and experience - whether viewed as good or evil, "light" or "dark" - the Realm of Existence (him) can also seem "all good" regardless of it's dark side features. One can be greatful to exist and grateful that existence can be experienced in the first place, rather than there not being any existence to speak of at all. All of the good and the bad, the "light" and "darkness" both, can be viewed as something that is supposed to be happening for whatever the underlying reason may be. And that's where we find the eternal Realm of Existence personified as an 'eternal deity God' who brings both love and hate, fear and courage,
"light" and "darkness", and who is being promoted as ultimately "all good" in the mythology with it's final analysis about 'mere existence'.
And that basically summarizes any apology you or anyone else can ever make about God being "all good" by simply putting the eternal deity personification of your chosen myth into it's proper mythological context. The whole thing is about the eternal Realm of Existence and when people finally 'get it' the gig is up! The whole apologetic illusion crumbles apart in an instant. All of the trying to excuse the harshness of these verses suddenly back fires on you. The harshness of this eternal God is actually a big part of figuring out that the eternal God represents existence itself. That's why I say that these orthodox type apologies are built up from sand foundations. They're based on "not knowing". When knowing arrives the sand foundation is washed away and the apologetic structure, no matter how high, proud, and whatever boastful exclusivity claims have come with it, falls down to the ground in an instant.
Hopefully some one out there will be following along with this discussion some day and suddenly 'get it' due to what we've outlined here so far. And you're helping that process along by throwing up these orthodox based apologies which are so easily summarized and put into their mythological perspectives. So thank you for your ongoing contributions to the general enlightenment process Stahrwe. It's much appreciated. Some viewers may well take off from the starting point you've outlined here, which represents the fundamentalist view of course, and then eventually move on to proceed up the path from not understanding and not knowing how these contradictive verses meet and merge towards eventually knowing and understanding very clearly. It's a personal journey that no one else can take for any one else. The best help that can be given is a map of point A (Stahrwe) to point Z ("Tat Tvam Asi" / "Thou Art That"). The mythologies were put together by ancient minds to try and serve that function. They are guides for the living of a life and dealing with it's mystery along the way. And I would be wrong for thinking that having someone to represent point A of the journey is unnecessary in the world right now. It's actually still very necessary in the grand scheme of things. And I can honestly accept, affirm, and appreciate you for who and what you are and what you represent here on the internet in this day and age. You merely serve your function to the best of your abilities and I serve mine likewise. Ultimately I understand that we're two aspects of the very same thing - the Realm of Existence itself. Nothing can exist as separate, apart from, or unrelated to the Realm of Existence with is the source of "all things". We're both actually that. You're here to deny it while I'm here to confirm it. And, ultimately, the whole process of the existence of this denial and confirmation of the unity factor underlying all perceived duality is a good thing as I see it. In other words Existence / God is "all good" despite its dark features. We can actually agree on that point even from opposing perspectives of the mythology (literal verses symbolic)...
