God created evil for his pleasure. Do you recognize the pleasure of creating and doing evil?

[ding]

The early Gnostics were communists?

Yes. Read the first 10 pages or so of Chapter 2 of part 1 of the socialist phenomenon by Shafarevich.

The Socialist Phenomenon

Or so?

Yeah, or so.

 

[Newtonian]

The early Gnostics were communists?

The contrast between what Gnostics taught and what the Bible teaches is discussed in this article:

The Bible—Do We Have All of It? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"“These are the secret words which the Living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas wrote.” So begins The Gospel According to Thomas,....

The mystical Gnostics flourished during the first two centuries C.E. and claimed secret divine knowledge, or gnosis. They challenged genuine Christians about who had the true teachings and writings of Jesus and his disciples. Do the Gnostic books reveal pertinent information to strengthen a Christian’s faith? No.....

A great chasm exists between the teachings of the Gnostic gospels and the Bible Gospels. This gap is especially noted when you compare Gnostic and Bible teachings regarding God, the resurrection, and salvation. Yet, a similarity can be seen between Gnosticism and ancient Greek philosophy, Buddhism, and Hinduism.

Gnostic writers depict a Jesus shockingly different from the one portrayed by Bible writers. The Gnostic Gospel of Philip characterizes Mary Magdalene as the most intimate of Jesus’ companions and states that he “used to kiss her [often] on her [mouth].” No wonder the Encyclopædia Britannica states: “Gnostic ethics ran the gamut from compulsive promiscuity to extreme asceticism.”

“Let No Man Deprive You of the Prize” — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Says scholar R. E. O. White: “Gnosticism was a climate of thought as widespread as evolutionary theory is today. It probably came into prominence in the first century or earlier and reached its zenith in the second. It combined philosophic speculation, superstition, semi-magical rites, and sometimes a fanatical and even obscene cultus.”"

‘Quietly Bringing in Destructive Sects’ — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Some Bible scholars are of the opinion that in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians and, more particularly, in his letter to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, he purposely used certain Greek words (such as gnoʹsis, knowledge, and pleʹro.ma, fullness) in order to refute gnosticism. However that may be, Paul was certainly combating apostate ideas that were later developed by the Gnostic sects. The Gnostics, who flourished during the second century C.E., were dualists, believing that all matter is evil and that spirit is good. They held that salvation comes through mystical “knowledge” (gnoʹsis). Their belief that the fleshly body is evil led them to either of two extremes: asceticism or fleshly indulgence. So-called Christian gnosticism did much to cause “the way of the truth” to be “spoken of abusively.”"

Christendom’s God-Man — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Docetists, a sect of Jewish Christians that flourished in the second century, believed that Jesus’ body was merely apparent, a vision, a delusion, not material. Gnosticism was a fusion of independent “Christian” beliefs. Its contention was that evil is inherent in matter and that for that reason Jesus’ body could not have been material. Valentinus, the most prominent leader of the Gnostic movement, taught that Jesus’ ethereal body passed through Mary but was not born of her. Others said Jesus had two wills, one human, the other divine, and so forth."

 

[Mindful]

The early Gnostics were communists?

The contrast between what Gnostics taught and what the Bible teaches is discussed in this article:

The Bible—Do We Have All of It? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"“These are the secret words which the Living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas wrote.” So begins The Gospel According to Thomas,....

The mystical Gnostics flourished during the first two centuries C.E. and claimed secret divine knowledge, or gnosis. They challenged genuine Christians about who had the true teachings and writings of Jesus and his disciples. Do the Gnostic books reveal pertinent information to strengthen a Christian’s faith? No.....

A great chasm exists between the teachings of the Gnostic gospels and the Bible Gospels. This gap is especially noted when you compare Gnostic and Bible teachings regarding God, the resurrection, and salvation. Yet, a similarity can be seen between Gnosticism and ancient Greek philosophy, Buddhism, and Hinduism.

Gnostic writers depict a Jesus shockingly different from the one portrayed by Bible writers. The Gnostic Gospel of Philip characterizes Mary Magdalene as the most intimate of Jesus’ companions and states that he “used to kiss her [often] on her [mouth].” No wonder the Encyclopædia Britannica states: “Gnostic ethics ran the gamut from compulsive promiscuity to extreme asceticism.”

“Let No Man Deprive You of the Prize” — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Says scholar R. E. O. White: “Gnosticism was a climate of thought as widespread as evolutionary theory is today. It probably came into prominence in the first century or earlier and reached its zenith in the second. It combined philosophic speculation, superstition, semi-magical rites, and sometimes a fanatical and even obscene cultus.”"

‘Quietly Bringing in Destructive Sects’ — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Some Bible scholars are of the opinion that in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians and, more particularly, in his letter to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, he purposely used certain Greek words (such as gnoʹsis, knowledge, and pleʹro.ma, fullness) in order to refute gnosticism. However that may be, Paul was certainly combating apostate ideas that were later developed by the Gnostic sects. The Gnostics, who flourished during the second century C.E., were dualists, believing that all matter is evil and that spirit is good. They held that salvation comes through mystical “knowledge” (gnoʹsis). Their belief that the fleshly body is evil led them to either of two extremes: asceticism or fleshly indulgence. So-called Christian gnosticism did much to cause “the way of the truth” to be “spoken of abusively.”"

Christendom’s God-Man — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Docetists, a sect of Jewish Christians that flourished in the second century, believed that Jesus’ body was merely apparent, a vision, a delusion, not material. Gnosticism was a fusion of independent “Christian” beliefs. Its contention was that evil is inherent in matter and that for that reason Jesus’ body could not have been material. Valentinus, the most prominent leader of the Gnostic movement, taught that Jesus’ ethereal body passed through Mary but was not born of her. Others said Jesus had two wills, one human, the other divine, and so forth."

I've read some stuff about Mary Magdalene.

How did she end up in the South of France, with the other two Mary's ?

 

[Newtonian]

The early Gnostics were communists?

The contrast between what Gnostics taught and what the Bible teaches is discussed in this article:

The Bible—Do We Have All of It? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"“These are the secret words which the Living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas wrote.” So begins The Gospel According to Thomas,....

The mystical Gnostics flourished during the first two centuries C.E. and claimed secret divine knowledge, or gnosis. They challenged genuine Christians about who had the true teachings and writings of Jesus and his disciples. Do the Gnostic books reveal pertinent information to strengthen a Christian’s faith? No.....

A great chasm exists between the teachings of the Gnostic gospels and the Bible Gospels. This gap is especially noted when you compare Gnostic and Bible teachings regarding God, the resurrection, and salvation. Yet, a similarity can be seen between Gnosticism and ancient Greek philosophy, Buddhism, and Hinduism.

Gnostic writers depict a Jesus shockingly different from the one portrayed by Bible writers. The Gnostic Gospel of Philip characterizes Mary Magdalene as the most intimate of Jesus’ companions and states that he “used to kiss her [often] on her [mouth].” No wonder the Encyclopædia Britannica states: “Gnostic ethics ran the gamut from compulsive promiscuity to extreme asceticism.”

“Let No Man Deprive You of the Prize” — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Says scholar R. E. O. White: “Gnosticism was a climate of thought as widespread as evolutionary theory is today. It probably came into prominence in the first century or earlier and reached its zenith in the second. It combined philosophic speculation, superstition, semi-magical rites, and sometimes a fanatical and even obscene cultus.”"

‘Quietly Bringing in Destructive Sects’ — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Some Bible scholars are of the opinion that in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians and, more particularly, in his letter to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, he purposely used certain Greek words (such as gnoʹsis, knowledge, and pleʹro.ma, fullness) in order to refute gnosticism. However that may be, Paul was certainly combating apostate ideas that were later developed by the Gnostic sects. The Gnostics, who flourished during the second century C.E., were dualists, believing that all matter is evil and that spirit is good. They held that salvation comes through mystical “knowledge” (gnoʹsis). Their belief that the fleshly body is evil led them to either of two extremes: asceticism or fleshly indulgence. So-called Christian gnosticism did much to cause “the way of the truth” to be “spoken of abusively.”"

Christendom’s God-Man — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Docetists, a sect of Jewish Christians that flourished in the second century, believed that Jesus’ body was merely apparent, a vision, a delusion, not material. Gnosticism was a fusion of independent “Christian” beliefs. Its contention was that evil is inherent in matter and that for that reason Jesus’ body could not have been material. Valentinus, the most prominent leader of the Gnostic movement, taught that Jesus’ ethereal body passed through Mary but was not born of her. Others said Jesus had two wills, one human, the other divine, and so forth."

I've read some stuff about Mary Magdalene.

How did she end up in the South of France, with the other two Mary's ?

That is a leading question. What is the basis for that question?

 

[ESay]

It's like calling rape and murder both "lack of good" and "personal good" in the same breath, trying to hold the stick by both ends - to rationalize immorality.

Nowhere in this discussion am I rationalizing immorality. I am defending God.

If you claim that people can do no bad, no evil,
then you're not defending G-d, rather excusing every human immorality.

Wrong. Because it not that man can do no bad or evil. It’s that man chooses not to do good. That’s on man. It’s man’s choice not to do good. It isn’t because God created evil. It’s not God’s fault man chooses not to do good. It’s man’s fault.

and yes, I am totally defending God here. Your saying God created evil is wrong and leads to the logical conclusion that the bad acts of man are God’s fault because logically if God had not created evil man could do no bad acts.

I have to admit that your logic has significant flaws.

First of all, I agree with that that it is unimportant
how you call a crime - 'evil' or 'absence of good'. In either cae a crime will be a crime.

Next. You say that God didn't create evil. Okay, but nonetheless there is existence of 'absence of good'. And there should be someone, who created this mode or allowed this to happen.

If God didn't want to create the 'absence of good' but nonetheless it exists, then it means that He isn't omnipotent.

If He wanted to create this but didn't foresee the consequences, then it means that He isn't omniscient.

 

[ding]

If God didn't want to create the 'absence of good' but nonetheless it exists, then it means that He isn't omnipotent.

We are never to think of God's power in terms of what he could conceivably do by the exercise of what we may call sheer omnipotence which crushes all obstacles in its path. We are always to think of God's power in terms of his purpose. If what he did by sheer omnipotence defeated his purpose, then, however startling and impressive, it would be an expression of weakness, not of power. Indeed, a good definition of power is "ability to achieve purpose. Does it fulfill its purpose?

And lastly, the ultimate expression of power is choosing not to exercise it.

 

[ding]

Next. You say that God didn't create evil. Okay, but nonetheless there is existence of 'absence of good'. And there should be someone, who created this mode or allowed this to happen.

Why would God allow bad things to happen to good people. No one really knows but if we assume God is infinite in his knowledge, intelligence and goodness we can use reason and experience to venture a guess. Maybe he is seeking certain outcomes under certain conditions. Or maybe the certain outcomes he is seeking can only be achieved through certain conditions. Or maybe good has no meaning if one is forced to be good. Or maybe he couldn't figure out how to make a one sided coin. Or maybe he is testing us to see who is smart enough to recognize that the good far outweighs the bad. Or maybe he wants us to love him for who he is and not what he can do for us.

But whatever the reason, one thing is certain, we lack complete knowledge and he doesn't. So rather than expect him to do magical things so that bad things don't happen to good people, maybe we should ask ourselves what it was we were supposed to learn from our tragedies.

 

[ding]

If He wanted to create this but didn't foresee the consequences, then it means that He isn't omniscient.

What is it that you think God was trying to create or produce exactly?

Because if you don't know that then how can you know he didn't get exactly what he wanted? And if he got what he set out to do, then he is omniscient.

 

[Newtonian]

It's like calling rape and murder both "lack of good" and "personal good" in the same breath, trying to hold the stick by both ends - to rationalize immorality.

Nowhere in this discussion am I rationalizing immorality. I am defending God.

If you claim that people can do no bad, no evil,
then you're not defending G-d, rather excusing every human immorality.

Wrong. Because it not that man can do no bad or evil. It’s that man chooses not to do good. That’s on man. It’s man’s choice not to do good. It isn’t because God created evil. It’s not God’s fault man chooses not to do good. It’s man’s fault.

and yes, I am totally defending God here. Your saying God created evil is wrong and leads to the logical conclusion that the bad acts of man are God’s fault because logically if God had not created evil man could do no bad acts.

I have to admit that your logic has significant flaws.

First of all, I agree with that that it is unimportant
how you call a crime - 'evil' or 'absence of good'. In either cae a crime will be a crime.

Next. You say that God didn't create evil. Okay, but nonetheless there is existence of 'absence of good'. And there should be someone, who created this mode or allowed this to happen.

If God didn't want to create the 'absence of good' but nonetheless it exists, then it means that He isn't omnipotent.

If He wanted to create this but didn't foresee the consequences, then it means that He isn't omniscient.

Jehovah is not omniscient - his power of foreknowledge is selective - he never uses this power to interfere with free will or in an unloving manner. Genesis 6:6 is an example of that.

A good discussion of Jehovah's selective use of foreknowledge is in our Bible dictionary here:

Foreknowledge, Foreordination — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

This is also a science question. Before going into detail on that, a simple question to ponder on:

Does the future already exist for anyone to see?

 

[ding]

I agree with that it is unimportant how you call a crime - 'evil' or 'absence of good'. In either case a crime will be a crime.

For a man to know a line is crooked he first has to have an idea of what straight is. So your very statement that a crime will be a crime tells me that you have an idea of what good is and you believe it is universal.

So the question then becomes where did you get your understanding of what good is and why do you expect everyone to know it?

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

 

[ding]

It's like calling rape and murder both "lack of good" and "personal good" in the same breath, trying to hold the stick by both ends - to rationalize immorality.

Nowhere in this discussion am I rationalizing immorality. I am defending God.

If you claim that people can do no bad, no evil,
then you're not defending G-d, rather excusing every human immorality.

Wrong. Because it not that man can do no bad or evil. It’s that man chooses not to do good. That’s on man. It’s man’s choice not to do good. It isn’t because God created evil. It’s not God’s fault man chooses not to do good. It’s man’s fault.

and yes, I am totally defending God here. Your saying God created evil is wrong and leads to the logical conclusion that the bad acts of man are God’s fault because logically if God had not created evil man could do no bad acts.

I have to admit that your logic has significant flaws.

First of all, I agree with that that it is unimportant
how you call a crime - 'evil' or 'absence of good'. In either cae a crime will be a crime.

Next. You say that God didn't create evil. Okay, but nonetheless there is existence of 'absence of good'. And there should be someone, who created this mode or allowed this to happen.

If God didn't want to create the 'absence of good' but nonetheless it exists, then it means that He isn't omnipotent.

If He wanted to create this but didn't foresee the consequences, then it means that He isn't omniscient.

Jehovah is not omniscient - his power of foreknowledge is selective - he never uses this power to interfere with free will or in an unloving manner. Genesis 6:6 is an example of that.

A good discussion of Jehovah's selective use of foreknowledge is in our Bible dictionary here:

Foreknowledge, Foreordination — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

This is also a science question. Before going into detail on that, a simple question to ponder on:

Does the future already exist for anyone to see?

God exists outside of space and time. As such God experiences our time all at once. Which means God is omniscient and has an infinite amount of time to experience everything inside of time.

 

[ESay]

But whatever the reason, one thing is certain, we lack complete knowledge and he doesn't. So rather than expect him to do magical things so that bad things don't happen to good people, maybe we should ask ourselves what it was we were supposed to learn from our tragedies.

Exactly. God gave people everything they need to organize a perfect world. But in order to do that, they should at least try themselves rather than expect that someone will do that for them. To help someone do something doesn't mean to do something on behalf of someone.

 

[ESay]

If He wanted to create this but didn't foresee the consequences, then it means that He isn't omniscient.

What is it that you think God was trying to create or produce exactly?

Because if you don't know that then how can you know he didn't get exactly what he wanted? And if he got what he set out to do, then he is omniscient.

Of course he got what he wanted. He wanted to create a human being with freedom of will and choice, with consciousness and reason. If all people should have been all 'good' what is the use of these features?

 

[ESay]

Does the future already exist for anyone to see?

I think that yes, God knows the future (as a human understands this term).

I don't think that we should understand God's feelings literally. As well as his 'bodily' features. The book was written in the 'human language' so as people can understand it based on what is common for them.

 

[ESay]

So the question then becomes where did you get your understanding of what good is and why do you expect everyone to know it?

First of all, every human was gifted with consciousness. Buy I agree, not everything depends on it. Because what is acceptable in a certain time in a certain society may be unacceptable in some other time and place.

Basically, the word of God should be a beacon to universal morality.

 

[rylah]

So are rape and murder good or evil?

There is nothing good about them. Do you blame God for it?

You don’t have perfect knowledge so you can’t see how good can come from bad. God has perfect knowledge. God has created a creation where everything works for good. I accept this on faith.

I suggest you read Job Chapter 40.

But you've just claimed that people do evil things for personal good.
Blame has nothing to do with it.

Don't sidestep the question.

Yes, that is correct. People don’t do evil for the sake of evil. They do evil for their own selfish good. That doesn’t mean that God created evil as you have suggested.

and don’t forget that when I use the term evil it means absence of good. I only use the term evil for literary convenience.

God did not create evil. Everything God created is good. So yes, when you say God created evil you are literally blaming God for the bad acts of man. The logical conclusion of your belief is that if God had not created evil there would be no bad acts of men. Hence you ARE blaming God for the bad acts of men.

First by denying there's evil, to make way for it to be further equated with personal good.
That cognitive dissonance wouldn't be needed if you didn't recognize vengeance/greed as evil in the first place.

I am not denying that bad things happen to good people. I am denying that evil is extant. I am denying that God created evil. It isn’t possible for God to create evil because evil is against God’s nature and God cannot oppose himself. God cannot oppose his nature. Which is exactly the reason God never destroys what he creates because what he creates is good. Destroying what he created would be opposing his nature.

G-d cannot?
Now to excuse your confusion you're confining G-d?

You're only saying there's no evil, but the conclusion of every argument you make excuses human immorality and places G-d as the only source of all evil. By saying "bad things happen", you're contradicting your claim by both recognizing bad exists, and excusing that evil doings of a human are "personal good", therefore concluding all that is bad comes solely from G-d.

How do you come to terms with this self-contradiction?

Yes, God cannot oppose himself. I am not confining God. It is a logical fallacy to believe God not opposing himself is a limitation on God.

Again, it is not my conclusion that man is blameless. That is literally the logical conclusion of your argument that God created evil.

if man chooses to not do good - which is the proper way of stating it - then that is on man and it’s man’s fault that he didn’t do good.

if it is as you say - which is God created evil - then man is blameless when he does evil because if God hadn’t created evil then man couldn’t have done evil.

Dude you're just going in circles repeating the same thing instead of actually addressing what's being said. That's called circular reasoning i.e. your only source for confirming what you say is your own words. It's like you talk to yourself in an echo chamber.

All that is logically flawed.

 

[rylah]

If He wanted to create this but didn't foresee the consequences, then it means that He isn't omniscient.

What is it that you think God was trying to create or produce exactly?

Because if you don't know that then how can you know he didn't get exactly what he wanted? And if he got what he set out to do, then he is omniscient.

Of course he got what he wanted. He wanted to create a human being with freedom of will and choice, with consciousness and reason. If all people should have been all 'good' what is the use of these features?

There's a joke Rabbi Mannis Friedman once told to sum it up, and I'll paraphrase-

G-d wanted to communicate with someone, have a relationship. So he went to the angels, they all went as if paralyzed - " oh You Holy, Holy One, Holy You Are"...how can You have a conversation like that? So G-d went to people, said "Let's have a relationship", they said "What's on Your mind?", G-d said "here I have 10 commandments", "what's in them?" one nation asked, "Don't steal", "Nay, not interested". So G-d went to another nation, they asked "what's in there?" "There's only one G-d, Me, no other", they said "nah what will the idols say, not interested".

Then G-d went to Israel, they said "Ok let's do it, then we see how it goes", G-d went "Here You are" and gave them His Torah, and Israel immediately made the calf thing...you know just to see how it goes... G-d said "Oh finally, these folks I can talk to".

Only a joke, but in every joke there's some truth.
If G-d wanted creation to be totally obedient, He wouldn't create humanity and stay with the robotic-like beings who won't dare, or simply can't step right or left, and stop creation at angels.

 

[ding]

But whatever the reason, one thing is certain, we lack complete knowledge and he doesn't. So rather than expect him to do magical things so that bad things don't happen to good people, maybe we should ask ourselves what it was we were supposed to learn from our tragedies.

Exactly. God gave people everything they need to organize a perfect world. But in order to do that, they should at least try themselves rather than expect that someone will do that for them. To help someone do something doesn't mean to do something on behalf of someone.

Right. The problem is though that man tends to be subjective rather than objective so it’s hard to learn from mistakes when mistakes aren’t acknowledged.

Adam did you eat the apple?

The woman you made gave it to me?

Ancient man understood what the moral of that story was but that meaning was lost through time.

 

[ding]

If He wanted to create this but didn't foresee the consequences, then it means that He isn't omniscient.

What is it that you think God was trying to create or produce exactly?

Because if you don't know that then how can you know he didn't get exactly what he wanted? And if he got what he set out to do, then he is omniscient.

Of course he got what he wanted. He wanted to create a human being with freedom of will and choice, with consciousness and reason. If all people should have been all 'good' what is the use of these features?

I’m pretty sure there is more to it than that.

But I have faith that he got what he intended just as I have faith that all things work for good.

 

[ding]

So are rape and murder good or evil?

There is nothing good about them. Do you blame God for it?

You don’t have perfect knowledge so you can’t see how good can come from bad. God has perfect knowledge. God has created a creation where everything works for good. I accept this on faith.

I suggest you read Job Chapter 40.

But you've just claimed that people do evil things for personal good.
Blame has nothing to do with it.

Don't sidestep the question.

Yes, that is correct. People don’t do evil for the sake of evil. They do evil for their own selfish good. That doesn’t mean that God created evil as you have suggested.

and don’t forget that when I use the term evil it means absence of good. I only use the term evil for literary convenience.

God did not create evil. Everything God created is good. So yes, when you say God created evil you are literally blaming God for the bad acts of man. The logical conclusion of your belief is that if God had not created evil there would be no bad acts of men. Hence you ARE blaming God for the bad acts of men.

First by denying there's evil, to make way for it to be further equated with personal good.
That cognitive dissonance wouldn't be needed if you didn't recognize vengeance/greed as evil in the first place.

I am not denying that bad things happen to good people. I am denying that evil is extant. I am denying that God created evil. It isn’t possible for God to create evil because evil is against God’s nature and God cannot oppose himself. God cannot oppose his nature. Which is exactly the reason God never destroys what he creates because what he creates is good. Destroying what he created would be opposing his nature.

G-d cannot?
Now to excuse your confusion you're confining G-d?

You're only saying there's no evil, but the conclusion of every argument you make excuses human immorality and places G-d as the only source of all evil. By saying "bad things happen", you're contradicting your claim by both recognizing bad exists, and excusing that evil doings of a human are "personal good", therefore concluding all that is bad comes solely from G-d.

How do you come to terms with this self-contradiction?

Yes, God cannot oppose himself. I am not confining God. It is a logical fallacy to believe God not opposing himself is a limitation on God.

Again, it is not my conclusion that man is blameless. That is literally the logical conclusion of your argument that God created evil.

if man chooses to not do good - which is the proper way of stating it - then that is on man and it’s man’s fault that he didn’t do good.

if it is as you say - which is God created evil - then man is blameless when he does evil because if God hadn’t created evil then man couldn’t have done evil.

Dude you're just going in circles repeating the same thing instead of actually addressing what's being said. That's called circular reasoning i.e. your only source for confirming what you say is your own words. It's like you talk to yourself in an echo chamber.

All that is logically flawed.

That’s your opinion. My opinion is you have no good response. So instead you attack me instead.