Is God Evil?

Hi Wotak and welcome to EvC.Murder is generally considered an 'unrighteous killing'. But on what basis can God killing be deemed unrighteous: he's only taking back something that;a) belongs to himb) he's promised he'll take back..to whit, a human life. Surely you have no objection to God doing what he likes with his own property - especially if it's what he's promised to do with it?Now if God is acting righteously (assuming you can't pose a means whereby he isn't acting so), how can what he does be considered evil?

It wouldn't be you who was giving the life, it would be God. All you did was pull the trigger on the potential for life supplied by God, so to speak. It's still Gods.
- Yes. One thing we have been given that is ours to do with (within boundaries) is a will. If we don't want to praise his name then we don't have to.- Your position, whilst emotive, hasn't much basis in rational reasoning Larni. From whence the notion that you are your own? Is it not logical to suppose that unless you are given ownership rights over yourself, by God, then you have no ownership rights over yourself?

Where did you get the idea that anything belongs to anyone ultimately. I mean, mankind deciding ownership of this or that doesn't alter God's ultimate ownership of it.Quite how anyone could figure out a basis for God not owning everything (other than by him forfeiting ownership of it) I'm not sure. To suppose a person could use God-given intelligence to..a) defeat God in court (philosophical, legal, other) regarding his ownership rightsb) figure themselves to have accomplished a) above..strikes me as the height of bootstrapism. Not to say, breathtaking arrogance.- Good is but a word and we can decide to attach it to what God reckons is the case, or to what we, or some of we, reckon is the case. It's just a word. The more interesting discussion takes place when we look at what we think is good to find out is there harmony with what God thinks is good.Lets take his taking a persons life - (or 15,000 of them by a process of 'genocide'). And lets look to see whether that is a good thing.The first thing to say is that God takes everyones life. In the sense that there isn't anyone who dies without Gods say so (explicit or implicit).The second thing to say is that this life on earth isn't the main event. This life on earth is something which helps decide what our eternal destination will be. And there are only two available: heaven and hell. No one can say for certain where anyone will end up so when God 'takes someone out of the game' they could be headed for eternal bliss or eternal torment. Which presents the first problem: if a person is taken out of the game today and ends up in eternal bliss, wouldn' this be a good thing?The third thing to say is even if a person ends up in eternal torment, this isn't a bad thing. If the purpose of our life on earth is to have our will determine whether we want to spend eternity with Gods love or without Gods love then hell - which is the prize given to those who chose "without God's love" - is still a good thing. It would be a bad thing if a person couldn't have their will expressed regarding the single, most momentous decision they could ever make.The fourth thing to say is things aren't always as they seem. Suffering would be generally considered a bad thing - no one likes pain and we've whole industries dedicated to assuaging same (whether the pain is emotional, psychological, physical or spiritual). But pain is a way of telling us that there is something wrong. Pain is something that cuts through the noise and gets our attention. Pain is used by God to tell us that there is something seriously wrong with us (there is, we're lost sinners as born). Either suffering is going to get our attention and wake us up to the true, eternal resolution of suffering (God). Or it's not - in which case our problems have only begun.- I'm not sure what case you're referring to here Mod.Suffice to say that God is holy and ultimately, all that is unholy will suffer when exposed to it. The extent of the suffering is a function of God's holiness and their unholiness - ie: the 'distance' between them. Just as the severity of a burn is reflected in the temperature difference between the objects.There's little weight in saying "I only touched it for a moment" if what you're touching is white hot. Which is about all your statement above effectively says (ie; the gall to complain shouldn't attract death). If you think God unreasonable for smiting that which is unholy because of seeming-to-you piffle, then it may well just be that you yourself are unholy. Perhaps you're not occupying the neutral position that would entitle you to comment.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Is the dog your property or is it, along with you, God's property?Edited by iano, : No reason given.

It appears you've dodged the answer.- Where does God torture a dog?

Murder an unrighteous killing? Typically, the law of the land would describe one sort of killing as 'in the right' (a soldier kills for his country) and another sort of killing as 'in the wrong (a jealous husband kills his wife. Thus righteous or unrighteous - a particular actions agreement (or no) with the law of that land on that matter.- As above. The overarching land, and thus overarching law of the land, is Gods law. To which we, who live on his land, are subject.- So long as the bullets all land back down on your property and the noise of the discharging gun doesn't spread beyond your property I don't, in principle, see the problem. We might have to talk about who owns the airspace above your property however..- I don't see the problem yet. Perhaps you'd like to clarify your argument?Welcome to EvC by the way..Edited by iano, : No reason given.

You drew a false comparison. You belong to God but the dog doesn't belong to you - it belongs to God.- It wouldn't make him good anymore than flooding the worlds inhabitants makes him good. He is good before he does a thing and because he is good, it follow that his actions are good. Thus flooding the world was good - as would torturing a dog be good were he to do so.It seems strange that you'd chose a hypothetical something God didn't (iirc) do when there is such a wealth of possiblity to chose from regarding property of his and promises he makes.

That's one way to spin it. A more accurate way to state it would be to say they were killed because they refused to repent of their evil. Usually speaking, it's good to resist and punish and destroy evil. Not evil. Indeed he cannot.(Certain)Human standards in this case claiming themselves good and God, by it's measure, evil. In the other corner we have God claiming human standards evil and Gods standards good.The terrifying thing is that unrepentant humans will be allowed to see that their standard was on the loosing side. And they will agree that their standard should be on the loosing side. They will fully agree that their standard, in so far as it disagreed with Gods standard (and very often it doesn't, very often it agrees with Gods standard) it was in fact evil.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Have a look at the thread title. It supposes God existing in order to wonder about his being evil or not. If he does, then you belong to him.If only for the purposes of this discussion. You need to your argument to deal with that fact, not evade it.- The clunky, rather obvious way in which you 'managed' to manoevre things so as the make this skewed point is noted. Beward of demanding yes/no answers - they give the game away to everyone else. If fact, make a rule for yourself right now to never ever ask a yes/no question again.- But God doesn't torture dogs so your hypothetical point means you are talking about a hypothetical morality and a hypothetical God. The reason I can find whatever God does as good is that I've found all that God does to be good and have been convinced that I won't find anything that God does evil.And so far, no one here has managed to come up with something that God has ACTUALLY done which I would (or they could, if their argument doesn't hold together) consider evil.If our sin is actually evil (selfishness, hatred, greed, slander, malice, cowardice..etc, actually evil) then I see no problem in punishing it. And if the trouble which comes to those who do evil is utilised by God in his attempt to save men from his rightful wrath against sin.. then all the good-er.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Could you explain further what's silly about this?Your objection took the form of an attempt to usurp/dilute Gods understandable rights (as undoubted owner) with bootstrap rights plucked from where I don't know. If God-as-per-Bible, then the rights we fight tooth and nail for, are derived from the value He assigns us and the commands He issues us (which are written in our hearts, our consciences bearing witness) to govern our conduct with each other. Whilst they have, and are designed to have, a sense of inalienability about them when it comes to our dealing with each other, their remit cannot be extended so as to bring God down to our level - so that he be subjected to the same rights he assigned to us, for our benefit.This is often seen in peoples applying Gods command that we not kill each other - to God. If you understood that your God-given rights viz-a-viz other men had nothing to do with your God-given rights before God (which are limited) then many aspects of your argument could be laid aside.- Understood. Now my question is: what basis for your objection? There will be two categories: righteous or unrighteous objection. Valid and invalid. Like, the rapist might object to the state (his freedoms owner) locking him up, but we'd see that as an invalid, unrighteous objection.- ?God permitting people to sin doesn't mean God approves of sin. But no one dies unless God permits it: whether by sinful murder or righteous flooding.I don't see someone ending up in eternal torment as a bad thing - given that their ending up there has their own will positioned as primary decider in that affair. God in this case is a 'mere' enabler for the persons heart's desire being met.Our will sits at the centre of who we are and it is the ultimate sign of value and respect that sets a will free to have it's heart desire. The sense of infinite positive and infinite negative associated with heaven and hell only reflecting the magnitude of, and consequences of this freedom.- It's the same kind of rationalisation that has people with sore teeth go to the dentist. I can see you're not up for discussion this morning..- And rounded up...

Not according to your model of things perhaps. But if the mechanism of salvation can transcend the boundary of a person never having heard of Christ I'm sure it can transcend the age of the person involved. Remember that the soul is eternal, it doesn't age.

The point of using an appeal to "doing what you like with your property" would naturally be intended to limit itself to the confines of your own sense of propriety - and wouldn't include that which falls outside the limits of your propriety (such as government control over your treatment of your animals). That there is a difference between your and Gods level of propriety shouldn't render the appeal uninstructive.If you have a sense of doing what you like with what you consider your element of propriety of an object then you should get the point (even if, at the end of the day, God actually owns everything)- Do unto others .. in other words? This governing principle given by God for mans dealings with man. The rational basis for his proclaiming so might involve all men being created of equal value to God?- He kills men for their sin and punishes them for their sin. And died himself for sin and was punished for sin. How so massively against this principle?- And remember I said in response:

quote:

---

Good is but a word and we can decide to attach it to what God reckons is the case, or to what we, (or some of we), reckon is the case. It's just a word. The more interesting discussion takes place when we look at what we think is good to find out is there harmony with what God thinks is good.

---

The current example we are dealing with is whether it is good that we can do what we like with our goods (within the confines of our propriety) - as mentioned above. If we're agreed with that principle then God can do whatever he likes and that is (due to total propriety in his case) good.- This is what I mean about problems occuring when you try to evolve upwards to God what God has devolved downwards to us. If our life is Gods property then how do you arrive at the notion that we have a right to life?God taking back his property (our life) is morally right because of simple ownership issues.- Murder is bad for us to do for the reasons you've already given: God-devolved morality governing human behaviour - which Locke/Rousseau/Hobbe seem to agree with.It's not Gods will that a person be murdered anymore than it is a mothers will that her son become a junkie. But it is Gods will that man be permitted to express his own will - just as it is a mothers will that her son not be tied to her apron strings his whole life through -even if that might result in his becoming a heroin addict.- You'll have heard of the thief on the cross. Facing death is one way in which people are brought face to face with their decision for/against God. We might suppose some of those 15,000 became believers.You'll have heard that God disciplines believers - unto death at times. We might suppose some of those sinners believers at the time of their death.Then there is the termination of the damned - to whom God says "enough!"And if there were none righteous amongst the 15,000 - but God assembled those 15,000 naysayers in one place and one time to serve a secondary purpose (outside the primary purpose of personal punishment and judgement on each)?- I think you're applying the limitations of men and what they can possible achieve with the the boundless possibilities of God and what he can achieve. If you've no problem with God removing one unrepentant sinner from the game then you should have no problem with him doing so to 15,000 of them at the same time.

Here you've separated the 'creator' from the 'moral agent' (let's call that moral agent: society) and unintentionally skewed things. So let's unskew things by supposing society to have created a fully sentient android..Supposing for a moment that this android was promised that certain consequences would follow his own free decisions. Would society have a moral right to impose due consequences attaching to the androids free decisions? Including the inflicting of punishment and removal of life?- That principle (right to life) governs dealings between men on the basis (presumably) that men are assumed to be born equal. I mean, one man can't argue his right to take anothers life in a way that supercedes anothers ability to argue same. And so each has his case cancelled out by the others.How do you debate a mans right to life with the one who owns it, sustains it and reserves the right, on giving it, to take it away again (if only by ceasing to sustain it). What foundation is there for the principle you might invoke in that debate. Outside merely re-asserting the principle I mean.- We'll have seen by now whether you'll have permitted your androids to decide to wreak havoc on earth or whether you'll feel morally authorised to ..er..curb their behaviour.- Fair enough. But I was enquiring into how you suppose someone elses property: supplied and sustained by them to you - under condition, is a right of yours? If I may, you sound like a tenent who quits paying the rent compiaining about your landlords taking you to court to seek your eviction.- Morality devolved from God - which states murder wrong cannot be something God is fine with??Remember, all we're saying with 'good' and 'bad' is whether or not an act conforms with or counters what God would have us do. Your calling what God calls 'good', 'evil' doesn't actually change anything in any material sense - you might as well call an "elephant", a "daisy".What's of interest, like I say, is whether we can align what we (by consensus) think is good-in-principle with what God thinks good. The case of an android facing the consequences of it's decisions being a case in point.- She does permit as soon as she cuts loose the apron strings. And she cuts apron strings (if she is a good mother) at all stages in the childs development into adulthood. And permits at all stages of the childs development, the potential for harm to occur: getting knocked down, hanging with the wrong crew, letting career paths close, letting her 14 year father a child. Freedom brings potential for harm.So when one person is murdered by another, God isn't willing it actively (necessarily) but he permits the murderer his own wills expression. That said, if a persons answer to Gods foundational question regarding where a person wants to spend eternity, isn't answered, then I'd suppose God superimposing his will on anothers desire to murder.The freedom to express ones will (with an eye on the primary purpose of deciding eternal destinations) doesn't require that it be free to express at all times.- Clearly I don't believe concepts such as ownership to be man-made. Perhaps there is more to it but the Bible is confined to using words and concepts that reasonate in man so I'll have to limit myself to that.- Again, I don't see the problem. I've merely shifted "righteous" to mean "what God does" to see if harmony can be found between what God does and mans sense of morality. One such area is proprietry and I think the sense we have instilled in us regarding that area works well enough when considering God, the owner and [i]us (arguably excluding our will but including our earthly life), the possession.So, if we attach the sense "righteousness" to ownership dealings between us and objects we possess and those dealings reflect similarities between God and his dealing with us, then we can say that God to is righteous in his proprietry-based actions at least.- ..for example. Hopefully you'll have explained further on where this right to life comes from.It might help frame the discussion if we took on the analogy of a landlord and tenent: us being mere tenents in what Paul referred to curiously as 'a tent'. God evicting a tenent who won't pay the due rent invokes proprietry rights you might agree with. As would his removing a person from a building which is about to fall down.

The android might be sentient but its not a human being and isn't a 'member' of the moral agency involved in setting up the parameters for it's behaviour and enforcing transgressions of same.- Do you remember the point I made about saying 'I just touched' a white hot substance and the inappropriateness of complaining about the burns received?I'm not sure your getting the wrathful aspect of Gods character Mod. Perhaps you've lulled by the "come to friendly Jesus" brigade and have forgotten why it is he came..------Listen, I've to go out for the evening. I'll try and get to this later or tomorrowCheers.

Goodness gracious. You haven't made the slighest effort to find out what the analogy attempted to convey in it's original context. You've merely shoehorned it into this vacuous 'point'.Edited by iano, : Delete attack on Larni.