Is God Evil?

Perhaps it's like witnesses to a car crash. Same crash, different take?When it comes to dire warnings regarding the fate of the wicked, Jesus is the man to go to. When it comes to escaping the wrath of God: promised to be exercised against the wicked, Jesus is the man to go through. What appears inescapable to me, as a consequence of reading the New Testament, is the Bad News which renders the Good News as good at it is.The Bad News (if you're a sinful man) is that there is such thing as a holy God. His being holy renders him furious wrath against evil - wherever and in whomever it is found. I see nothing at all in the God of the Old Testament that conflicts with God as reported in the New Testament: he showed a degree of patience then and he shows a degree of patience now. But a day comes for all men, when God's patience with them is exhausted and God's effort to lead a man to repentance is expended no more.All there is left for a man to do in this case .. is to face God's wrath.Anyone who can read the New Testament and fail to grasp the perilous position of unrepentant men w.r.t. Gods wrath-to-come is, in my view, observing the car crash through closed eyelids.- I don't revel in it. When I stop to think about it, a shiver runs down my spine and I'm driven to warn folk - such as I do now. I speak of God's ruthless wrath because that wrath will finally be unrestrainedly ruthless. He was ruthless in the Old Testament, he is ruthless today and he will be at Judgement ... and for all eternity. The question of this thread isn't whether God is ruthless, it's whether or not that ruthlessnes is righteous.I'm arguing that it is, and reckon that it is only by;a) denying himself utterly sinful - despite all the evidence to the contraryb) failing to begin to comprehend the holiness of God..that a person can conclude God unrighteous in his furious expression of wrath against a man's sin.- The Christian God's love is aimed at at least one central goal - enabling us to evade that same Christian Gods wrath. And without a reported awareness of the Christian Gods wrath, the point of the Christian Gods love might be missed.You could hardly miss Jesus' warnings in the NT about what faces the wicked. Nor could you miss Pauls descriptions of the fate of lost men viz-a-viz Gods wrath and Judgement. This, even though the explicit audience for so much of the NT is the Christian - above whom God's wrath will 'passover'.- The threads OP focuses on areas where God expresses his wrath against sinful man, so it's not surprising that my posts here will deal with that aspect of God. Generally speaking however, I would keep a focus on God's wrathful aspect in order to counter the modern tendency to focus on 'coming into buddy Jesus' arms' which is a travesty of the gospel to my mind.Paul, in his exposition of gospel mechanics (in the book of Romans) begins his treatise with the state of sinful man - whether Jew(lost to God 'believer') or Gentile (lost to God unbeliever). He lays out the Bad News first - so as to give a rationale and reason for the hope that he has, in Christ Jesus.I would tend to follow his lead.- There is no universal forgiveness. Rather, forgiveness has been made universally available. Whether or not men will avail of it is another matter. Nothing, bar the most highly selective reading of a stripped-to-the-bone canon could suppose mankind universally forgiven.Man created with free willMan fallen and subject to wrathGods love wanting mans restorationGods love providing a means of restorationMan chooses which position he'll occupy for eternityMan exposed for all eternity to God: in restored or unrestored state.That's all he wrote.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

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

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?

Understood. Which returns us to the case in point: righteous killings vs. unrighteous killings. And on what basis God killing could be considered unrighteous .. given the (emotive) tendency to shout "genocide" around here.Surely the question: righteous vs. unrighteous need be answered first?- I'm not sure what it is you're asking (in the light of what I have said ). Clearly God has some or other nature - which has been labelled 'X' for the sake of objectivy. We've agreed there's little point in trying to nail down 'good' and 'morality' because they are too slippery.We could perhaps talk about things such as patience and kindness and generosity (things which are X) and things such a selfishness, spite, envy (which are notX)- Utilising the notions:good = Gods will (= X)
evil = contra Gods will (= notX).God expresses his will regarding our behaviour in terms of law (whether written down or delivered to us via conscience). And we experience his express will as a force of sorts - restrained by our conscience from doing evil or compelled by our conscience unto doing good. Restraint/compulsion are both forces exerted. By God.So if good is done, God is the force behind it.- I'm not sure what you're asking. Perhaps something I've said would clarify things for you? Or perhaps you could spell your query out for me a little more?Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Loose. but close enough.- You haven't asked a simple question. And the surest sign of a poor/desperate debater is their demanding 'simple' yes/no answers. But seeing as you insist :Given the problems folk are having coming up with a basis for declaring God killing people unrighteous/evi/wrong, we'd have to conclude their jury still out. But if your post were to represent a time limit for discusson and this particular court operates on the basis of innocent until proven guilty .. then the simple answer would have to be, no: God is not evil.- I'm operating on the basis of the flood having occurred. I also happen to head the post count in this thread. And am a Christian.You haven't entered the debate in order to be painted into a corner .. on this posts showing, you're probably wise not to. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Permitted would probably be a more accurate way to state it. Just as he permitted the serpent to tempt Eve.How on earth you suppose the ability to choose - without a choice presented to you - is beyond me. And if evil is something we can choose for then it stands to reason evil is something we need to be presented with.

That's one way to avoid it making sense..- What evil thing is God supposed to have done (permitting for a moment that permitting evil because of free will... oops!)- Yahweh not permitting evil eliminates free ...oops!- This supposes free will by virtue of Gods permitting evil (contra to every point made thus far in this post). So far so good. All that remains is the evil God has supposed to have carried out. What, specifically was this evil?- Yes, thanks. Just married. Freely at that too.

Answering your first question: nothing that I can think of. I've gotten off at a previous stop though, the one which questions whether God does evil at all. You use the word of his actions as if it's been established his actions are evil. It hasn't been.Clearly, God does things man finds painful, even 'evil' - which is not to say they are evil. God doing so could well be expected to be tied up with free will - if consequences are to be expected to follow our choices. Him the provider of choice, him the ultimate provider of choices consequences.Choice without consequences being no choice at all.- There is a criticism levelled at creos that they are inclinded to insert God into the gaps that Science has yet to fill. The corresponding atheist gambit is to kick objections to the (hoped for) touchline of "The case of Infants and the Mentally Limited" - which gives the impression you do at least assent to the idea of God visiting wrath upon sinners of the age of conscience.Progress indeed!Part of the problem with viewing God is our tendency to suppose him a person like us. But whilst we derive certain characteristics of ours from him, he isn't limited to performing like us.If you're at all familiar with the doctrine of the Trinity you'll see it makes what appears to be irreconcilable and irrational statements about the nature of God: God being three distinct personhoods, yet there isn't three gods...and the like. What's the doctrine-assemblers are doing, it seems to me, it taking clear attributes of God (as they are revealed) and listing them in summary fashion before us - without hoping to reconcile the conflicting/incomprehsible elements.Similarily, two clear attributes of God, as ummistakably revealed, are his wrath against unholiness and his love for those self-same unholy creatures. So on the one hand God can look down on us as consider us utter vermin and would/does, in his wrath against unholiness, exterminate mankind as easily as we ourselves would a nest of disease ridden rats: infant rats, adult rats - elderly and infiorm rats. It makes no difference. On the other hand God is prepared to step down from his glory and suffer at the hands of that same vermin in order that they might be delivered from his wrath.Whilst it might not be easy to hold both aspects of God in your hands at the same time (it's not straighforward even as a believer), you do yourself no credit to plump for the one aspect whilst ignoring the other.- When I said 'just married' I meant a short time. Last June as it happens. Best day of my life - bar one. For our 'oneymoon we went to France/Paris. She'll complete her Masters in Counselling Psychology this year you might be interested to know. Apparently the Lord, in assisting in my choice of wife, felt my progress along the path of sanctification (ie: being made more like Jesus) needed to be accelerated somewhat. I tell you, there's no pulling the wool over her eyes with my little 'character idiosyncracies'.Belated congratulations yourself btw.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Trust the Process - I'm only trying to present you with the same dilemma you'll be faced with a Judgement - at which point it's too late to present a defence. Don't shoot the messenger - okay?Your "husband loves/beats wife" soap opera doesn't take into account one the most basic elements of Christianity.The Cross.Could you do a re-write to take account of a supreme act of self-sacrifice (following on from a life of humility (think of the majesty and glory that would need setting aside in order for Jesus to walk into town creating as little fuss as he frequently did. Like. we're talking the Creator of the Universe here)- It's not without it's challenges. You get inflexible at my age. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Is that how you see Jesus?Can you see how you might find yourself nodding sadly at Judgement?

Progress indeed - And so we shipwreck our discussion against the rock of free will it seems?My position is that God only went so far as engineering a way for free will to express ITself. There endeth the engineering.It would appear that your defence hinges on "no such thing as (effective) free, undetermined, will". If it transpires that God has managed to ensure such a thing exists, would you accept yourself rightfully condemned?- My position is that faith is the evidence that leads to belief in Gods existance. And that faith given to those who firstly come to believe God in the matter of their being 'rotten to the core'. You don't need God to write his name across the sky in order to come to such a conclusion about yourself. Everyday life - and you operating in it - can supply all the evidence necessary to convince you of that. (It remains possible to deny that fact - we've all seen other folk do such a thing despite our being revulsed by their actions.)Belief in God's existance in not necessary in order to satisfy the criterion involved in God deciding to save you. You are saved first, believe in God next.- A core problem is that you haven't got a free will in the classic blue/red pill sense of things. Your will was compromised back at the Fall by way of having a desire to sin injected into it. In other words, your will, if left to it's own devices, would plump for sin as surely as a junkie injects heroin. Countering that, restoring the balance as it were, is conscience: a knowledge of good and evil. Effectively you have a free will: your will infected by sin, balanced by the restraint of God. God is acting as a crutch to your crippled free will.Thus is your will an effective free will. It can hobble from A to B.- I didn't know that God existed until after I was saved. The assumption is that you don't need to know before you are saved either. Which kind of short circuits this point of yours..

It would appear that Satan is permitted into the garden in order to provide the other half of the choice facing them. To put some flesh on it's bones as it were.A&E understood English (). That is to say, they had an idea of the concepts that lay behind words. So we can suppose they were in possession of some or other concept attaching to the word "die". And it would appear that the concept they (rather she) attached to that word had negative connotations. That the concept of her dying acted towards constraining her. Listen to her.

quote:

---

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

​

2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

---

For those tempted to gloss over the restraint signalled by this tiny word 'but' I'd point to the age old equivocation "I love you ...but.."So we have a pull in the one direction: a restraining effect placed on Eve by the promised-by-God consequence of disobedience. That she understood the word ' die' is evidenced by a) her understanding English b) her signalling it's restraining effect on her.And we have a pull in the other direction: the temptation of the serpent - permitted into the garden by God.And so we have a choice. Although it's impossible for us to weigh up the power of the restraint and the power of the temptation the argument is that the choice was balanced. And so the consequences earned are Adam and Eves responsibility alone.

Adam and Eve were the last one's with a free will. In their case, God positioned them on a see-saw of choice and placed his prohibition on one end and Satans temptation on the other, balanced things up and left them at it.Our case is slightly different. Our will is as I say (and as you object to) born addicted to sin. It injects at the very first opportunity: you don't have to teach kids to be selfish or to lie, do you?To counter this skewing of things, God ensured the drug we ingested would contain an ingredient aimed at restoring effective balance to the situation. It was as the very point of ingesting his first piece of evil (by way of disobedience) that Adam ingested it's potential antidote: a knowledge of good and evil. Or a conscience if you prefer. The two were ingested in the one act.So, whilst we now have a nature which is addicted to evil, and an enemy who knows how to stimulate that addiction, we also have a conscience which reveals the beauty of truth and love and kindness and goodness to us. And so the scales of our choice are rebalanced.Our will: different than Adam and Eve in letter, identical in effect. We effectively have a free will in other words. It's a will crippled by addiction to a deadly drug, but it's a will held up on crutches by the effort of God. Held up so that it can decide what it would have: it's own way or God's way.Not all that different to the choice faced by Adam and Eve in fact.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

There's a smilie behind the comment that A&E understood English. It doesn't really matter what the language was. The repercussions of their choice don't affect my choice. Everyone gets to choose where they'll spend eternity.And whilst certain negatives attach to the world their choice resulted in, certain positives attach to it too - I have a knowledge of what's good as well as whats evil. A knowledge of what's good is a nice thing to have.Besides, this life is but 4 score years and 10. Keep an eye on the eternal perspective

I'm not so sure. The choice that they made was made from the position of a kind of proto-person. I mean, they had no knowledge of good and evil - only of consequences. So they weren't human in the sense that we are human. At least not before the fall. After it they were like us and had as much need of salvation from their sin as we do.We can't blame God for the decision of a free will. Nor can we really blame those proto-humans - they didn't know right from wrong at the time of their choosing.So who is your complaint issued against, precisely?