Do you recognize that God gains pleasure in creating evil?
Revelation 4:11
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
This quote indicates that the creation of evil is an ongoing process by God and that he creates evil for his pleasure. This makes sense in that God would not create something that he did not want in the world or that would displease him.
As a Gnostic Christian, I recognize that the concept of God is all myth.
Literal and historic belief did not generally come about till about the years 80. 50 years after the death of Jesus. In fact, Jesus was not declared divine till the Trinity concept was accepted, by the force of Constantine in 380.
Having said this, I recognize why the ancient thinkers would say that God is pleased when he creates evil in the world.
Do you understand how and why God gains pleasure from creating evil and sin?
If not, why do you think God would create evil and sin for his displeasure?
If God does not do or create evil as some think, then who else has the power to create evil?
We need to let go of our rigid perception(s) that "God" is something rigid and defined and literal ... as we see written in the Bible.
I go with logic as the master key for figuring out the nature of "God". If something is defined and explained, then the explanation has to make logical sense. If it doesn't make logical sense ... then it isn't true. We see that the writer of John's gospel cottoned to this idea as well.
"In the beginning was logical expression and logical expression was with "God" and logical expression WAS "God". Then the logical expression was made flesh (human) and ... "lived" amongst us."
We see from the Pope's little video on fractals that patterns repeat themselves endlessly and are the essence of all shapes and actions we observe happening in our own "real" world. So let's assume that's true for everything ... (as a premise for testing the logic of what I'm going to propose).
In the Lord's prayer we see ... "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" ... or ... "as in heaven, so on earth." There we see an expression of mirroring.
Let's assume then (again, only as a premise and not as a mindless assumption/conclusion) ... that everything occurring on earth in our "real" world ... is a mirror of what is occurring with "God."
It's pretty easy to see what is happening on earth in OUR own world if we look carefully.
How do our own power structures work? Are they good or evil? Is it possible to have all good and no opportunity for evil to express itself? Who decides to "clean up" all the evil -like good housekeeping from time to time- so that it doesn't become so all-pervasive that it destroys everyone?
And then let's look at creation ...
We humans create ourselves some marvelous technology that is far greater than ourselves (in some respects) but totally stupid in comparison to ourselves in other respects. We can worship technology or we can despise it. It can serve good useful purpose but it can also turn into some terrible evil and be used against us. "It" ... is simply our own creation and yet "it" is something that we cannot be ourselves.
So let's think about "God" then ... in the same way. Suppose "God" is just an immense pool of diversified "mind" ... without material substance: pure logical mind/expression...
"God" created the heavens and earth; turned energy into "substance" ... in order to manifest something "greater" than itself ... just as we create technology to do and be something that we cannot do and be ourselves.
Suppose "God" -through agreement of its diversified mind- created human beings as a material expression of itself. Do we have any comparable example in our own "real" world to refer to?
I say that yes ... we do. We have our (relatively very new) ... computer age. Let's think of ourselves as "God" for a minute ... and our computer creation as "man."
It wasn't through an expression of pure love and light that the computer was created; it was thousands of individual -and often adverse- MINDS that created what we have today. They often fought with each other and hated each other and DESTROYED each other ... in their race to become the ultimate "winner".
The computer creators cooperated with each other through love of the system that they were creating and which was emerging. They certainly didn't love each OTHER as a primary starting point; they loved the creation they were serving ... with an "agape" love -- a love of dedication and sacrifice for the reward of achievement. They served selflessly but selfishly too. And then .... through their common servitude and respect for each others' achievements ... they also (often) developed other loves ... intimate and brotherly types of love for each other. (eros and fillio).
But there are definitely ALSO "evil" aspects to this whole creation thing ... and you never know WHO will TURN evil.
Microsoft is currently at the top of the heap with their operating system. They should be proud and benevolent ... but are they? Nope. The MORE power they get, the more intrusive, deceptive and tyrannical they become. Eventually, their consumers will say, "ENOUGH" ... drop the entire Microsoft system and go with something else. At that point, Microsoft will have destroyed ITSELF. Why? Is there any LOGIC to tyrannical behavior? Ultimately, no. There's no logic to explain the behavior and it leads to self-destruction but for some reason ... it always seems to happen regardless. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Perhaps the same phenomenon happens with "God" as well?
So ... summing up this whole premise now ...
"God" is only pure logical mind/expression which created the universe, life and humans as a MATERIAL manifestation of its will and wishes to give itself a capability it never had before. In this case ... "God" needs us every bit as much as we need God. In this case, we are greater than God because of what we can materially do. There is an engineer/computer relation here that's very hard to comprehend unless we look at what has actually happened with us. We create the computer which is greater than ourselves but ... the computer is useless and pointless without our use of it. It could be that the same is true for God and man.
In my premise, there is neither a good or evil "God". It created everything ... true ... but there is evil created as well and ... we can never know for sure if good might turn into evil from getting too much power/control.
God needs us as much as we need God because we are the physical manifestation of something that pure mind can NOT be.
God is keenly interested in what we do ... just as we are keenly interested in what computers can and will do.
And I think my paradigm fits in well with Bible description ... to logically explain the many seeming conflicts and contradictions contained within it. Tell me if/where/when you see that it doesn't.
The Christian movement -(actually called "the way")- was gnostic. They "invented" the concept of Jesus Christ by studying old scripture -(the Greek translation of old Hebrew writings which was called the Septuagint)- and interpreting meanings of perceived prophesies.
This Jesus Christ was to come -to appear- on the scene and fix everything for the Jews.
In anticipation of his arrival, these cell groups PRACTICED what they preached ... acting AS IF they were preparing the way for the arrival of this Jesus Christ. The groups were (likely) the Essenes, Ebionites ... maybe some others still not known.
They WROTE their perceptions and expectations.
Much later -around the middle of the second century- the ESTABLISHED churches had a problem because this Jesus Christ had still not arrived and their members were leaving. They then assigned scribes to go through the written archives and CONSTRUCT the arrival and life of Jesus Christ by compiling the story from the archives. These became known as "the 4 gospels."
The church (or some rabid group inside of the church) ... then DESTROYED the original works so that no one could check, compare and expose. They waged war on gnostics and essentially won.
Once the church was entrenched they -of course- became very corrupt and tyrannical. What they practiced was diabolically opposed to what the gnostics had stood for. This is how it always works: once a spiritual movement has been co-opted, it is turned into an institution for the purpose of enrichment and power. Power psychopaths don't give a fig for logic; they're after confusion and bamboozlement because this gives them advantage.
The key to spiritualism is that it's totally private. It CAN'T be explained by any person to any other person because EVERY person is located in a different place and HAS TO have a different perspective as a result. Spiritualism can never be turned into an organized institution. As soon as you do that ... you kill the spiritual aspect.
I also think that he's too steeped in his own invested interests of propagating Christianity ... to see the writing on the wall.
The interviewer asks him if Jesus ever actually existed and Pong is immediately emphatic that yes of course he existed, there's no doubt about that. What does he offer for proof? That Jesus was "of Nazareth"!
What's interesting about THAT "proof" is that the city of Nazareth DIDN'T exist at the time of the supposed Jesus' existence. Nazareth (today) is a city and it sits on top of an ancient Hebrew burial ground. That was taboo in Jewish tradition -to live or build something on top of burial ground.
Archeological diggings have confirmed that some kind of agrarian community DID live on the site of Nazareth but it was more like a small commune -(likely of outcasts)- and that's ALL. There was no city; the city was built much later.
Everywhere you look then, in the NTestament ... it's either heavily fabled or ... the human Jesus is never recognized (outside of the 4 Gospels and the intro to Acts). They all waited for his "coming" or his "appearance" but never spoke of his "returning" ... or showed any signs of recognition of the Gospels' story. Doesn't it seem awfully strange that ALL the writers of the epistles, Acts and Revelation ... would CONSISTENTLY side-step mentioning the human Jesus depicted in the 4 gospels?
So you might ask, "why does it MATTER weather Jesus actually existed or not? Is it not good enough to refer to and believe in ... his great humane teachings?"
Well that's precisely the problem. If you want to "worship" the human Jesus ... you have to refer ONLY to the good things he ostensibly said and did ... and ignore the questionable parts. That leaves Christian believers who wish to focus on the QUESTIONABLE parts ... as justification for their own attitudes and actions. What do you do about them?
Jesus said, "I come not to bring peace but a sword."
He said, "he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
He said, "those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
He said, "Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them."
There's no getting away from the fact that the gospels' Jesus SAID THOSE THINGS. The manifestation of God would surely find a better solution than the typically human solution of neutralizing enemies ... but Jesus had nothing better to offer than the typically usual answer.
So ...
If you consider the CONCEPTUALIZATION of a Christ figure ... there's no problem. This is always going to be the logical expression of absolute perfection -a perfect model to try to emulate. It will be inspiring and guiding and CAN result in great focus, harmony, cooperation, respect and achievement amongst believers of that who practice in faith.
Once this figure is turned into a human model however, you have to deal with the typically human foibles, mistakes and attitude that the chosen model makes.
I'm not "against" the human Jesus; I'm just saying that the evidence is abundant to show that he was a created figure ... possibly modeled on a human being ... retroactively. Something like us today suddenly "discovering" that Abraham Lincoln actually WAS Jesus Christ returned ... but that he's now going to come back a third time (since everyone missed him the second time around).
displays his disagreements with Catholic Babylonians.
I think he was raised a confused sad young boy.
And I think he is confronting those teachings with true honesty.
However I do not believe John Spong was raised Christian, but rather Babylonian.
John Spong said many things in the video denouncing the Virgin Mary, and he is Biblicaly right. And I think he is torn between what the Bible says and what the Catholic church claims.
John Spong also talks about gospel dates of when they were written. And Pontius Pilate is historical fact in our non biblical records.
When Peter writes the details of global ICBM Nuclear war.
2 Peter 3:9
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 [Seeing] then [that] all these things shall be dissolved, what manner [of persons] ought ye to be in [all] holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
Think about it. "elements shall melt with fervent heat"
I agree that Spong is trying to have his cake and eat it too. He says that the biblical characters are archetypes and then say that Jesus was perhaps real. I see him as being a Gnostic, almost.
Basically a Gnostic is one who constantly seeks even after finding. The finding is only a step up Jacob's ladder.
The Godhead I know in a nutshell.
I was a skeptic till the age of 39.
I then had an apotheosis and later branded myself a Gnostic Christian naturalist.
Gnostic Christian because I exemplify this quote from William Blake.
Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read'st black where I read white.
This refers to how Gnostics tend to reverse, for moral reasons, what Christians see in the Bible. We tend to recognize the evil ways of O T God where literal Christians will see Gods killing as good. Christians are sheeple where Gnostic Christians are goats.
This is perhaps why we see the use of a Jesus scapegoat as immoral, while theists like to make Jesus their beast of burden. An immoral position.
During my apotheosis, something that only lasted 5 or 6 seconds, the only things of note to happen was that my paradigm of reality was confirmed and I was chastised to think more demographically. What I found was what I call a cosmic consciousness. Not a new term but one that is a close but not exact fit.
I recognize that I have no proof. That is always the way with apotheosis.
This is also why I prefer to stick to issues of morality because no one has yet been able to prove that God is real and I have no more proof than they for the cosmic consciousness.
The cosmic consciousness is not a miracle working God. He does not interfere with us save when one of us finds it. Not a common thing from what I can see. It is a part of nature and our next evolutionary step.
I tend to have more in common with atheists who ignore what they see as my delusion because our morals are basically identical. Theist tend not to like me much as I have no respect for literalists and fundamentals and think that most Christians have tribal mentalities and poor morals.
I am rather between a rock and a hard place but this I cannot help.
I am happy to be questioned on what I believe but whether or not God exists is basically irrelevant to this world for all that he does not do, and I prefer to thrash out moral issues that can actually find an end point. The search for God is never ending when you are of the Gnostic persuasion. My apotheosis basically says that I am to discard whatever God I found, God as a set of rules that is, not idol worship it but instead, raise my bar and seek further.
My apotheosis also showed me that God has no need for love, adoration or obedience. He has no needs. Man has dominion here on earth and is to be and is the supreme being.
Imagine, if you will, a realm in which there is no height, width, depth or time - imagine an entity who lives in this realm - an entity called Llixgrijb. Imagine that poor Llixgrijb is trapped by some sort of extradimensional cave-in - there is no escape. But Llixgrijb cannot die. The consciousness will continue, all alone and completely paralyzed for eternity - or whatever the equivalent of eternity is in that realm. How would you deal with this situation? Perhaps you´d choose to create worlds in your mind, worlds within yourself.... Llixgrijb chose to create a universe.
Slowly, Llixgrijb thought about it. It thought of a concept called ´place´, and it chose to set about creating one - then another, then connecting them together. Llixgrijb created a vision in which everything was connected to everything else.
Now, outside of time and space, Llixgrijb started working on its greatest achievement: a universe with height, width, depth and time - a universe with the illusion of chronological history. And then it chose to create imaginary entities for its entertainment - imaginary entities like yourself, gentle reader. But Llixgrijb was afraid. "Suppose my creatures discover they are only phantoms," wondered Llixgrijb - "suppose they learn that I am the only reality...."
Outside of time and space, Llixgrijb was still dissatisfied. "I have created a world full of imaginary creatures," said Llixgrijb "and yet I am alone. How can this be?" Despite the populousness of its illusion, Llixgrijb could only watch its lovely universe from the outside. It had not forgotten its own suffering and loneliness. It was not fully a part of the creation it had made. "I must become part of my illusion," considered Llixgrijb, "and to do that, I must don a costume; I must wear a mask. I must forget myself forever. But what, or who, shall I become?"
To be continued. -- "The Jamais Vu Papers"
.
TCBP
"Genesis 1:1-4"
In the beginning ... was infinite oneness
Then ... consciousness saw the light
Fear followed ... darkness claimed its part
The battle began ...
Credevolution
Infinite Boredom
Through the dimensions we ranged, all powerful, immaculate; multi-dimensional creatures of light. We know all things (and quite a few things besides). We are infinity plus one. It is known to us we lack the very freedom afforded most of the creatures: the power of free will; the freedom to choose.
We existed, we are what we are, we have no other alternative; all powerful and universal, immortal; infinitely immortal - denizens of everywhere and nowhere. We had no substance, how could we? Substance is fixed, immutable. In this we perceived our devolution.
Regress To Impress
We conceived a solution to our infinite boredom. It was decided we could evolve backwards, regress to impress, and in one dimension we found a means to become, to gain substance; a means to forget, a means to know nothing. (Llixgrijb's dilemma)
We had discovered choice. Substance is fallible, it degrades, it ceases. Substance dies. We could choose death, we could even cease to exist.
The Plan
In our boredom we had not become so mad as to will our own extinction, we thus developed a plan. We chose some to stay behind, to be replaced in rotation. We chose masters of substance to hold the lore. We programmed these masters with the knowledge to become light once again so substance would have the means to continue as before, the means to regain infinity. All it would take is the will to relearn and the knowledge of the master.
We, the infinite, could choose to be substantial, the substantial could choose to be infinite, an elegant solution. The substantial could also choose to become ... no-thing; total death. (Llixgrijb's dilemma (re)solved)
The game was born.
Power
Within the light, a stain grew, a place where no light blossomed; darkness. Some had seen the possibility of a different evolution. An end to equality.
As related, linked, matters tend to affect each other, the inequality of substance had taught the light to perceive power. Some saw the chance to rule the light, to create a, never before immagined, universal heirarchy.
The Struggle Began
Darkness spawned knowledge in the substance who were not masters. This substance craved power, they used this knowledge to seek out those who upheld the lore. They seized the lore for themselves, subverted it, hid it, controlled it.
For the light-become-substance there was no way back. No freedom to choose, nothing left but extinction.......
The Light Fought Back
Careful to observe the dictates of our vision; the freedom to choose, we seeded the faithful with the means to return.
Over time, backwards and forwards, the knowledge passed from the darkness to the light, passed from the light to the darkness. Never any equilibrium, never any balance. The universal battle, the one true struggle ...... the fight for the freedom to choose.
'95
- reality as perceived is pre-determined, by the character of those who shape it -
rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability - it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true everything else ... mere BS -
New!! Improved!! Now With CDEH-Formula!!
CD: short for inevitability
This message has been edited by JVH on Jun 12, 2012 6:05 PM
Perhaps, and would depend on what matrix is being referred to.
rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -
Isaiah45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Jonah3:10
And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.
1 Chronicles21:15
And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand.
Do you recognize that God gains pleasure in creating evil?
June 13 2012, 2:25 AM
Ah yes, the ol' evil paradox.
"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. . . . If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. . . . If, as they say, God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" -- Epicurus
Schematic:
If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not. There is evil in the world. Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good god does not exist. See Epicurus
Refinement:
God exists. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence. An omnipotent being has the power to prevent evils from coming into existence. A being that knows every way in which evil can come into existence; able to prevent evil from coming into existence; and wants to do so, would prevent the existence of evil. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being, then no evil exists. Evil exists. Therefore, an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god does not.
As Epicurus put it:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
- propositions which imply their own negation are necessarily false whereas propositions implied by their own negation are necessarily true -
rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -
I find your question interesting and based on Rev 4:11 legitimate.
Since "things" can refer to either a material object or an idea/concept it is thus possible that either everything or exclusively material objects are implied.
Since creation of the material world ends 6 times with the sentence "is good" and since we have plenty of indication that God is pleased with goodness we can safely include material things as things that God is pleased with.
The inclusion of this obvious fact is to lay the foundation for the rest of my comment.
Up to the seventh day there is no mention of evil because it started on the 7th day when Satan suggested that Eve disobey God. He mounted a rebellion against Gods sovereignty, of which the majority of mankind have joined Satan in, and effectively rejecting God as Ruler. Satan has thus become the ruler of the world. John 14:30; Revelation 12:9.
So according to Bible narrative it is at that time when evil started, it is noteworthy that this 7th day did not end with "is good" as with the six preceding days.
It has been put forth that since God allowed evil and is after all is almighty can be considered the indirect creator of it. This is a valid point and one that can be supported by scriptural anecdotal evidence.
Another rational objection is that God created Satan the devil and thus is again credited as being the originator of evil.
James says following (Ja. 1:14, 15) . . .But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin; in turn, sin, when it has been accomplished, brings forth death.
It follows from this that the ability to choose bad is inherent to our personality, this was aptly portrayed by the tree of knowledge of good and bad. Otherwise we would simply be robots or be lead by instinct like the animals, the sentence that we are made in God's image could no longer apply.
The important point and I find the crux of your question is: does God find pleasure in evil?
Scriptural context indicates that this cannot be the implication in Rev 4:11
consider please:
(Hebrews 10:38, 39) . . .But my righteous one will live by reason of faith, and, if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.
(Jeremiah 7:30, 31)And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, in order to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, a thing that I had not commanded and that had not come up into my heart
(Leviticus 20:3) . . .And as for me, I shall set my face against that man, and I will cut him off from among his people, because he has given some of his offspring to Molech for the purpose of defiling my holy place and to profane my holy name.
Previous scripture clearly indicate God's displeasure with unrighteousness, faithlessness,idolatry,profanity. The fact that these things are not pleasurable to God indicates that "all" cannot mean everything in heaven and earth but rather to the things that he created during the 6 days of creation.
These are some things that God hates:
(Proverbs 6:16-19) . . .There are six things that Jehovah does hate; yes, seven are things detestable to his soul: 17 lofty eyes, a false tongue, and hands that are shedding innocent blood, 18 a heart fabricating hurtful schemes, feet that are in a hurry to run to badness, 19 a false witness that launches forth lies, and anyone sending forth contentions among brothers. . .
Another point to keep in mind is that God's main characteristics are Love, Justice, wisdom and power, the understanding that God love's evil contradicts these traits.
(1 Corinthians 13:4-6) 4 Love is long-suffering and kind. Love is not jealous, it does not brag, does not get puffed up, 5 does not behave indecently, does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury. 6 It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth. . .
I do realize that this will not make you a believer in the true God, but I hope I have given you some food for thought about what the Bible teaches on this subject.
Perhaps it is you who should disbelieve the bible and not me believe it.
I did have a couple of thoughts in reading your words.
To say that God is love is to insult love.
If as you say that is Gods first characteristic, then his first self-centered commandment shows that he loves himself first and anything else comes later. If that is not jealousy and bragging I do not know what is.
Further, if God likes truth so much, then why does he lie?
Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.
1Kings 22:23
Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets.
2 Chron 18:22
Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people.
Jer 4:10
O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived. Jer 20:7
And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.
Ezekiel 14:9
For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.
Thessalonians 2:11
To me, Gods worse lie was to Adam and Eve. He told them they could eat of the tree of life and then reneged and in a real sense murdered them by denying them a remedy.
You say Satan created evil. Did God not decide what is evil or not when he wrote the tree of knowledge of good and evil are did Satan?
Now if you would like to learn of out true God and not the genocidal son murderer you follow, I am here for you.
. Jesus Christ counseled: Do not give what is holy to dogs, neither throw your pearls before swine, that they may never trample them under their feet and turn around and rip you open. (Mt 7:6) That is why Jesus on certain occasions refrained from giving full information or direct answers to certain questions when doing so could have brought unnecessary harm. (Mt 15:1-6; 21:23-27; Joh 7:3-10)
Evidently the passages you mentioned as for example the course of Abraham, Isaac, Rahab, and Elisha in misdirecting or in withholding full facts from nonworshipers of Jehovah must be viewed in the same light.Ge 12:10-19; chap 20; 26:1-10; Jos 2:1-6; Jas 2:25; 2Ki 6:11-23.(btw many translations render 1K22:23 and 2 Chr 18:22 as deceptive spirit instead of lying spirit).
Jehovah allows an operation of error to go to persons who prefer falsehood that they may get to believing the lie rather than the good news about Jesus Christ. (2Th 2:9-12)
This principle is illustrated by what happened centuries earlier in the case of Israelite King Ahab. Lying prophets assured Ahab of success in war against Ramoth-gilead, while Jehovahs prophet Micaiah foretold disaster. As revealed in vision to Micaiah, Jehovah allowed a spirit creature to become a deceptive spirit in the mouth of Ahabs prophets. That is to say, this spirit creature exercised his power upon them so that they spoke, not truth, but what they themselves wanted to say and what Ahab wanted to hear from them. Though forewarned, Ahab preferred to be fooled by their lies and paid for it with his life.1Ki 22:1-38; 2Ch 18.
Nonetheless I fail to see where this gives us a basis for accusing God of being a liar or that he finds pleasure in it or that he finds pleasure in evil..
Be it as it may however, I respect your right to have your opinion and wish you all the best.
![[linked image]](http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc319/8-DJ/truth-it-works.jpg)