Is God Evil?

Blimey O'Reilly, Iano.I could say exactly the same about you, though, too couldn't I?I could say that your god has duped you to acquiescing to his rule that he can do what ever he likes and you lump it.I could say it's a bit like saying 'thank you' for being fucked up the arse.I could say all of that because that is how it's coming across from you.I'm sure that's not what you mean: could you rephrase what you mean?

Larni and Iano,Please stick to arguing the position presented and not the person presenting the position.Thanks
AdminPD

---

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

Sorry Larni. Wrong words written in a fit of pique.x

No worries, mate I guess I could do with cooling down, too.

Yes, of course there was, the issue I'm having in understanding is an issue of either unclairity or of implied contradiction. Let me explain.. The opening sentence (as I am reading it) either is implying that your view on god is that god is both good and evil, or is an irrelivent question in context to your next statements. Aside from how this statement is irrelivent to my question (as I was asking about your personal views on God and not the Isrealite's views.)it could be read to contradict your opening question's implied point (that god could be good and evil.Now, the most likely interpretations, from my perspective, are that the opposing statements create an implied contradiction (of which, no matter the topic would reasonably create confusion.) Or you made an implied point, and then expanded on that point to include information in the name of intellectual honesty.It is also possible that I am reading it entirely wrong. (Thus an issue of unclairity.) 1. If we accept that god did evil, then we must accept that god commited acts of immorality, thus making God immoral. Things that are immoral are evil, by definition. This is a round about way of pointing out that by doing evil, god is evil. Much like how if you stole something, you are a theif. You don't stop being a theif once you cease to steal things, neither do you stop being a theif as soon as you donate to a cause. Good and evil, in this context, arent absolute values.2. Okay, so the hebrews religion changed with the times. If, over time, the color red starts looking more and more like the color green to me, it doesn't change the fact that the color red is the color red and is not not-the color red, no matter how I view it.This seems to only confuse me further. First, God was evil, then Satan was evil and God was good despite his evil acts. Did Satan influence God to commiting acts of evil? Are you suggesting that the OT is falacious, but the NT is in truth? If so, how do you know which is true.. If not, then what was the purpose of bringing it up in the first place? At what point did God stop being evil? At what point did God not commit the actions that God commited? Is a theif not a theif the moment after they stole something so long as they never steal again?Keep in mind, I'm not saying God isnt good(hypothedicaly). And they wern't when the books of the bible were written? When was genocide ever considered morally good? (the flood) Okay, I get that societys changed their view of God, this says nothing, however, on if god was evil, only that others viewed him as not being so. My argument to this is perception of reality does not make actual reality. If we subscribe to a liniar theory of biblical causality.. all evil.Either we assume God is all knowing, and thusly knew the course of events that would transpire before they were a posibility and started the process anyway, making God responsible.or..We assume God is not all knowing, but then we must allow that evil has occured and has done so out of God's knowledge/ignorance and/or apathy/concern, making God responsible. Irrelivent. Purpose was never a factor in this discussion, but to anwser your question, never-the-less..Intellectual curiosity. What else?

quote:

---

Aside from how this statement is irrelivent to my question (as I was asking about your personal views on God and not the Isrealite's views.)it could be read to contradict your opening question's implied point (that god could be good and evil.

​

Now, the most likely interpretations, from my perspective, are that the opposing statements create an implied contradiction (of which, no matter the topic would reasonably create confusion.) Or you made an implied point, and then expanded on that point to include information in the name of intellectual honesty.

​

It is also possible that I am reading it entirely wrong. (Thus an issue of unclairity.)

---

I have no idea what you trying to say and my personal views are irrelevant.

quote:

---

1. If we accept that god did evil, then we must accept that god commited acts of immorality, thus making God immoral. Things that are immoral are evil, by definition. This is a round about way of pointing out that by doing evil, god is evil. Much like how if you stole something, you are a theif. You don't stop being a theif once you cease to steal things, neither do you stop being a theif as soon as you donate to a cause. Good and evil, in this context, arent absolute values.

---

Wait a minute. If one steals, they are always a thief even if they stop stealing and do good. So if one does good, are they always good even if they steal?

quote:

---

2. Okay, so the hebrews religion changed with the times. If, over time, the color red starts looking more and more like the color green to me, it doesn't change the fact that the color red is the color red and is not not-the color red, no matter how I view it.

---

I don't understand your point with this one either.

quote:

---

This seems to only confuse me further. First, God was evil, then Satan was evil and God was good despite his evil acts. Did Satan influence God to commiting acts of evil? Are you suggesting that the OT is falacious, but the NT is in truth? If so, how do you know which is true.. If not, then what was the purpose of bringing it up in the first place?

---

It isn't confusing if one sticks with reality or fantasy and not try to mix the two. As I stated, other religions influenced the Hebrews.

quote:

---

At what point did God stop being evil? At what point did God not commit the actions that God commited? Is a theif not a theif the moment after they stole something so long as they never steal again?

---

Mankind is capable of good and evil. When one is doing something good, one is good. When one is doing something bad, one is bad. We aren't just one or the other. There are always exceptions of course.

quote:

---

And they wern't when the books of the bible were written? When was genocide ever considered morally good? (the flood)

---

It's a foundational myth. Show me that ancient writings were all sunshine and roses. The violence is part of the story, just like in many books today.

quote:

---

Okay, I get that societys changed their view of God, this says nothing, however, on if god was evil, only that others viewed him as not being so. My argument to this is perception of reality does not make actual reality.

---

All you have is the human view of God in the Bible. If you're going to look at reality, then look at reality.We can assume all we want, but unless there is evidence that these atrocities actually happened as described and by the hand of a god, as opposed to natural disasters or wars, we really don't have anything to judge other than the people of that time.

quote:

---

If we subscribe to a liniar theory of biblical causality.. all evil.

​

Either we assume God is all knowing, and thusly knew the course of events that would transpire before they were a posibility and started the process anyway, making God responsible.

​

or..

​

We assume God is not all knowing, but then we must allow that evil has occured and has done so out of God's knowledge/ignorance and/or apathy/concern, making God responsible.

---

Damned if he does and damned if he don't. Humans aren't the problem at all right? God isn't all knowing and doesn't "see" ahead any further than humans.I don't play the assumption game well. I thought I could, but people keep adding assumptions. Just another brand of fiction.The idea that one is always a sinner even when one has stopped sinning, is a Christian concept I disagree with. Even the people of the OT present the idea that one is no longer considered bad once they start right behavior and vice versa.Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Thank you! =D I'd be happy too.. Actually, typically, murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another human being. This general definition can be found in any legal dictionary as well as any colloquial dictionary. Some cultures, go on to differientiate between unlawful killings with malicous intent (this, then would be murder) and those without (often times classified as manslaughter). Or even differientiate between justified (an example would be killing a person about to murder another person, or a solder killing an enemy combatant in accordance with lawful orders in war) and unjustified.In no source is righteousnes (or its like) mentioned.Law does not morality make.So once again, I have to ask, where do you get your information from? So, am I correct in thinking your view is that God is the source of morality? That good is only good because God says it is so? Irrelivent. The actions transpired on my property, according to your argument, the consequences are a moot point. This is where the issue resides. I know this is not what you are saying, but without a better defined argument, it is a valid interpretation and thus easily subject to misrepresentations.I'm not attacking your argument, I'm attacking how it was presented.

Actualy, your personal views became relivent the moment you stated an opinion on the topic. And once again, once a question was directed at your views and you choose to engage it.As for the point I was making, it was my not-so-subtle way of pointing out your lack of clairification. "There was more to what I said." doesn't say much, so I broke what you said down and pointed out differing ways on how it could be interpreted in an attempt to get you to clairify. Yes, however I feel I must point out, once again, that good is a gradiant value, not an absolute one, in context. If someone is good, they are not good absolutly, necessarily. I'm invoking the law of identity..
ex.
A == A
A =/= notA
..to point out that perception of reality does not imply actual reality. True, it isn't confusing if one sticks with reality or fantasy, however, as you have failed to distinguish which is which in your views and seem hesitant to make that distinction, confusion occures. The questions were aimed at your views after all. I never said we were one or the other, in fact, I've been arguing the opposite. For the sake of the argument, I accepted that God is both good and evil, now, despite if God is good or not, God is evil. So, the statement, "God is evil." in context is a true statement.Good or evil is not a true dichotomy. Red herring. Once again, when was genocide ever considered morally good? Are you going to make this an issue of epistemology? Regardless, this is another red herring. You, yourself, made it clear that we were discussing the God of the bible when you made reference to the OT as a source of information about God, thus making the god of the bible (or mans view of God) the topic.Let alone, the OP clearly does the same to the same effect. Irrelevant. You're trying to avoid the questions. The discussion assumes that for the sake of the argument that God exists, is the god of the bible and that the bible is factual.

quote:

---

Allow me to first state that I am a pretty agnostic fellow. I don't hold a strong belief that there is or isn't a God. I do however believe that if there is a God, he is one very evil being. I base this belief on the Bible itself. I have no strong belief one way or the other that this book is indeed the word of God, or that it isn't. For the sake of this discussion, I will assume that it is and that the overwhelming majority of Christians believe that it is. With that being pretty much an undisputed fact, let's examine the words and work of what I believe to be (if he exists) the most evil being/entity/god that humanity has ever known.
  —wotak(message 1)

---

More like 'damned' because he did.Strawman argument. Humans have problems galore, the topic is God. Quite alright, a lack of imagination is nothing to be ashamed of. Actually, its more of a language issue than anything else. Using the theif analogy, once you have stolen, you are a theif. There is not a mechanic in language (at least in english, as is the relivant language considering it is the language being used for the argument) that determines when an abstract label no longer applies without invoking a false dichotomy.ex.
The moment after a theif has stolen, are they still a theif? How about a minute later? An hour? A day? The truth of the matter is we cease use of a label once it is no longer practical to use, this does not make the label untrue.

Ah, I see what you mean. Thanks for the clarification.Fair enough: strictly speaking, murder is defined as you say. But the law itself is a reflection of the moral sensibility of the society which constructs and enforces that law. So we might say that even the dog in the street defines murder as immoral- I think words like 'morality' and 'good' are too slippery to be talked about simply so. Your idea of morality and mine might differ and we'd end up wondering how God could be the source of both your version and my version (were I to answer 'yes' to your question)I'm saying that God has certain characteristics which carry a label X. I'm also saying that because we are made in his image and likeness we reflect to an extent those characteristics. When we do, God is pleased, when we don't God isn't pleased. God is the source of X in us, we are the source of not-X.To ask whether X is only X because God says so isn't a rational question. X = X because .. well because X = X.If you want to put the label 'good' on X then fire away. In order to circumvent the subjective problems associated with the word 'good' however, you'd be advised to define 'good' both as that which God is and does, + that aspect of God reflected in what we do, say and think by virtue of his installing 'good' in us.I'd put a tentitive toe in the water and state that the shared morality of humanity is sourced from God but that because of mans sin, it's purity and unity is dissolved and somewhat fractured.- You're saying that if I shoot a bullet into a neighbours property and kill my neigbour, it's not my action that kills him but its a consequence of my action that kills him? And that those consequences are a moot point? That's an attack on how I present my argument?

So this all deals with my statement that "God was evil". Here's a clue, I'm not a science speak person. Equations, dichotomy, epistemology, and logic mumbo jumbo means nothing to me.Yes, in the OP for the sake of discussion the originator assumes that God exists and that the Bible is the word of God (although no clarification on what that means for the purposes of this discussion.) That's it. No assumption that God is all knowing, or omnipotent, or unchangeable. The "word of God" doesn't support those characterizations. No assumption that the "word of God" is all factual. The "word of God" doesn't support that position either.

quote:

---

True, it isn't confusing if one sticks with reality or fantasy, however, as you have failed to distinguish which is which in your views and seem hesitant to make that distinction, confusion occures. The questions were aimed at your views after all.

---

So my use of the word reality in Message 12 wasn't a clue? Personally, I look at the reality of the Bible. Unfortunately that is useless in this discussion of many assumptions.

quote:

---

Are you going to make this an issue of epistemology? Regardless, this is another red herring. You, yourself, made it clear that we were discussing the God of the bible when you made reference to the OT as a source of information about God, thus making the god of the bible (or mans view of God) the topic.

​

Let alone, the OP clearly does the same to the same effect.

---

Wait a minute. In Message 80 you said: So if we're going by the "word of God" and you assume it is factual, then the NT writes God to be good and Satan is evil. If you take what the OT writes about God then you have to accept what the NT writes about God, for the sake of this discussion of course. The NT lifted the dual label. They declared he is no longer a "thief".

quote:

---

Quite alright, a lack of imagination is nothing to be ashamed of.

---

The problem is people keep adding assumptions and flipping in and out of reality.You want to know when was genocide ever considered morally good. That's asking about reality, but in reality the events didn't happen. That's my dilemma. Either we are working within the realm of the Bible or reality. In reality, a moral position can be reached that justifies atrocities. So when an answer is given based on the "word of God", a personal question is asked concerning reality.This thread assumes God currently exists, but he is being judged on ancient writings which we are to assume contain his words, not on reality. You've added the assumption that the Bible is all factual. Your assumption changes the reality of the writings. My assumption is the Bible is not all factual.I can say that God exists and that the writers of the Bible exaggerated the trials and tribulations of the people and attributed them to their God to manipulate the people, whether for obedience or inspiration. So God wasn't evil, he was just written that way.While I don't actually lack imagination, I have difficulty with the assumption game because assumptions are added willy nilly and people don't really function within those assumptions. I see no purpose in this exercise.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Hi PD, can you clarify for me whether you believe Yahweh either was or is evil from our Western point of view?I'm not picking a fight; I just can't quite work out where you stand.

quote:

---

Hi PD, can you clarify for me whether you believe Yahweh either was or is evil from our Western point of view?

​

I'm not picking a fight; I just can't quite work out where you stand.

---

I've already agreed several times that from our Western point of view the acts in the OT are morally reprehensible. Personally, I think those acts that probably were inspired by historical events to be atrocious. Of course I think most acts of war and conquest are atrocious. I also think the way women were treated and the way some countries still treat women to be atrocious.Personally, I don't use the word evil. It has been overused and by definition can be applied to any wrongdoing. We're all evil at some point.I don't argue for the sake of arguing. I was attempting to stay within the confines of the OP's assumptions, but the assumptions have too many variables.Christianity is built on the idea that God is good and Satan is evil. There was a change in the void. How that plays into the assumptions I have no idea, since no one allows for change.My forte is battling Christian dogma, not religion-free "dogma". I thought I could, but I see no foundation or point to be resolved. There's nothing to check it against.Just an attempt at something different. Didn't work.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Regarding the "spirit of the law", foundationaly, I agree. However, the more complex societies got, the more complex the laws got to govern them, the more complex the laws got the more dirverse the lines between morality and justice got. A subtle distinction, but with such complexity, the differance became pronounced.In short, I agree, but in degrees. =D I can agree to that so far.. To this I would have to address your views on the nature of God. If the nature of "good" is tied with God, then a clear idea, or conceptual explaination of God (in context with the issue of "good") should be a reasonable place to make connections.What makes you think God is the source of "good" in us?I'll agree X = X.
What I disagree on is;
if God then X
God
Therefore XIf, for the sake of the argument I accept the second premise as true, I wouldn't accept the first premise without a more conclusive explaination. Unless I misunderstood the argument, it isnt a valid argument. In a sense, yes. Your action was shooting the gun, the consequence is the death of your neighbor. The scenario fulfills the requirements of your argument. I promised to commit an action (in this case in a predictable manner) and the actions were commited on and with my property. This is how I'm attacking the presentation, by showing how it can be misrepresented.

It has more to do with your question, "Why can't God be both?" But yes, it does in part. Yes, I figured that out earlier on. I fail to see how your lack of knowledge in logical argumentation has anything to do with the topic at hand. I do find it curious how you feel "logic mumbo jumbo" means nothing to you, yet you try to use logic to argue your point.Then again, if you dont care if your statements are concurant with reality, then why argue the point in the first place? Once again..

quote:

---

Allow me to first state that I am a pretty agnostic fellow. I don't hold a strong belief that there is or isn't a God. I do however believe that if there is a God, he is one very evil being. I base this belief on the Bible itself. I have no strong belief one way or the other that this book is indeed the word of God, or that it isn't. For the sake of this discussion, I will assume that it is and that the overwhelming majority of Christians believe that it is. With that being pretty much an undisputed fact, let's examine the words and work of what I believe to be (if he exists) the most evil being/entity/god that humanity has ever known.

---

Bold added for emphasis.Now, if you'll notice the first bolded area, you'll see that the topic is about the god of the bible. Arguing if there is a god that it may not be the god described from the bible is irrelevant as it is off topic. Once again.. God of the bible. No, you're use of the word reality in message 12 wasn't a clue, as you have still yet to define or establish what you believe to be real.Perhaps a more direct question will result in an anwser instead of another evasion. What is "the reality of the bible?"I fail to see the "many assumptions" your complaining about. Yes, I took the NT into account, but actions in the NT dit not make the actions in the OT never occure in the first place. Cite where in the NT it says God has never commited an evil or immoral act. What assumptions? How can you claim that this discussion is flipping in and out of reality when you refuse to define what you consider what reality is? You're evading the topic. Yes, the question asks about reality, but the anwser pertains to both relaity and the hyhpothetical scenario that it the topic (you know, the one you are trying to dodge?)When is/was genocide considered morally good? The question pertained to your views, it doesn't matter if it was about reality or fantasy. Once again, you attempt to avoid the topic. This thread assumes that the God of the bible exists. Go back and re-read the OP. You could, but yoiu would be off topic and thus your statement would be invalid. So, you don't lack imagination, you just have trouble concieving scenarios that you view as not condusive with reality. Funny that..Assumptions were not added "willy nilly", you entered into the topic with a set of guidelines that you seem to be unable to abide by once your views were questioned. Quit making excueses.

quote:

---

Assumptions were not added "willy nilly", you entered into the topic with a set of guidelines that you seem to be unable to abide by once your views were questioned. Quit making excueses.

---

Honey, I admitted I was trying something different and it didn't work. You'll have to play your logic games with someone else.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz