The God of the Bible is Evil

This is why I ask people to quote the verse instead of just the reference.

quote:

---

Pro 5:21 For the ways of man are before the eyes of the LORD, and he pondereth all his goings.
Pro 5:22 His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be holden with the cords of his sins.
Pro 5:23 He shall die without instruction; and in the greatness of his folly he shall go astray.

---

"He" seems to refer to man, not God - i.e. man pondereth all his goings.Nothing to do with God being "all-knowing".

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

The topic is "The God of the Bible is Evil" and in support of that position, several quotations and instance from the Bible have been introduced.So far, I do not believe that they have supported such an assertion, and, as a matter of fact, some actually refute such a position.The question you raise is also irrelevant. Whether or not GOD is All-Knowing or ignorant has nothing to do with either the topic or what has been presented so far. Frankly, there are Bible stories that support either position.The point is, the stories in the Bible were meant to help man understand relationships, GOD's relationship with Man, Man's relationship with God, Man's relationship with his fellowman and with the world we all live in.What this topic addresses is whether the God of the Bible is evil. So far no one has introduced or supported such an assertion.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Ringo asks:

quote:

---

...we read Little Red Riding Hood in the context in which it was written, not in our own context. Why do differently with the Bible?

---

I dunno, maybe because no one worships Little Red Riding Hood?So far as I've seen, anyway. But what do I know? I didn't even realize that God is ignorant until today.

---

W.W.E.D.?

jar writes me:

quote:

---

Whether or not GOD is All-Knowing or ignorant has nothing to do with either the topic or what has been presented so far.

---

Yes it does. It has everything to do with it. If God is ignorant, then perhaps he can be excused for his immoral displays of genocidal revenge, bloodlust and egomania. If he's all-knowing, he can't be excused.

---

W.W.E.D.?

Sorry but you have never shown any supporting evidence for any of those assertions. In fact, so far the examples cited have actually refuted the assertion that the God of the Bible is Evil.We are discussing the "God of the Bible" in this thread.As I have pointed out several times in this thread, there is NO God of the Bible. Instead, there are many different depictions found in the Bible and those tales should be looked at within the context of the full story.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

According to the new international version

quote:

---

21 For a man's ways are in full view of the LORD,
and he examines all his paths.

​

22 The evil deeds of a wicked man ensnare him;
the cords of his sin hold him fast.

​

23 He will die for lack of discipline,
led astray by his own great folly.

---

---

We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.

​

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

What has worship got to do with it? If we approach one piece of literature in the way it was intended, why not do the same with all literature?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

We are looking at how God is portrayed in the Bible. The whole God-is-all-knowing sideshow is off-topic unless you can show that that is how God is portrayed.Your one reference ain't doin' it. Examining man's paths (whether done by God or man himself) doe not imply "all-knowing".Edited by Ringo, : Capitalization.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

The passage implies that God watches what people do and so is aware. It does not imply any foreknowledge.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I thought berberry made it clear. Whether god is all knowing or not has everything to do with the matter.Back to the killing of the egyptian first borns. If god was all knowing, he would have been able to think of other ways to approach the problem without killing the innocents. The fact that he chose not pursue a less evil way at doing things make him evil. Ok, you got me on this one.So, let us assume that the god that killed the egyptian children is not all knowing.The only way for him not to be evil is if he is so ignorant that he wasn't capable of conjuring up other, less evil ways to free his people.If we are willing to admit that the specific god mentioned in exodus is stupid enough to not be able to free his people without killing innocent children, then I'll agree to push back the table and call it a night.

---

We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.

​

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

You're ignoring the context in which Exodus was written. The people who wrote the book didn't consider it evil to kill their enemies - men, women or children. God chose a method that was morally acceptable to the people portraying Him.Your concept of "evil" is irrelevant.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

And as I pointed this out earlier, if you want to take this route, we'd have to admit that Hitler wasn't evil, neither were the crusaders who killed every living soul in Jerusalem during the first crusade, neither was slavery, etc.Simple yes or no. Do you think slavery was evil or not? Do you think Hitler was evil or not?

---

We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.

​

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

jar writes me:

quote:

---

As I have pointed out several times in this thread, there is NO God of the Bible. Instead, there are many different depictions found in the Bible and those tales should be looked at within the context of the full story.

---

As I see it, jar, the phrase "god of the bible" refers to Jehovah, the incubus that impregnated Mary. The Episcopal church I grew up in taught, in no uncertain terms, that God was all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful, thus I usually take that much as a given in discussions of this sort.I'm talking about the god who is presented mostly - but not entirely - in the old testament. The one who ordered the Amalekites slaughtered, including the suckling infants. The one who killed Lot's wife for showing the slightest sign of intellectual curiosity. The one who never got round to telling Lot that he was wrong to offer his daughters to be gang-raped by an angry mob. The one who, for that matter, never bothered to tell anyone that women shouldn't be treated as property, nor that slavery was wrong.This god bears no resemblance to the god I once worshiped, and in fact I was taught that all those horrible stories were false. They were stories told by particular tribes to scare other tribes; barely civilized people trying to manipulate other barely civilized people with tales meant to show that "my god is bigger than your god", more or less. Therefore, they weren't stories about god at all, just early concepts of him.Suppose we were talking about Richard III, as presented by Shakespeare. If we are to judge whether or not Shakespeare's version of Richard is evil or immoral, we can't bring the real Richard III into the picture - except so far as the play itself does (I hope you know something about Richard III - if not, suffice it to say that Shakespeare, for political reasons, depicted him very unfairly). If we do, we're judging the historical Richard, not Shakespeare's creation.But there IS a Richard III in Shakespeare's play, and even though the Bard's Richard is only a character who never existed, we CAN judge his actions as they are presented to us. In the same way, there IS a character called God in the bible, and we can judge his actions too, at least as they are presented to us. This god might be entirely fictional (as I believe God is, anyway), but as a character in a book I believe we are fully entitled to pass judgement on him.Frankly, I don't fully understand your assertion that there is no god of the bible. You seem to refute that yourself right away when you say there are many different depictions of him.

quote:

---

We are discussing the "God of the Bible" in this thread.

---

Yes. And that is why the stories told about god in the bible are relevant. And since they are relevant, it is not only fair but absolutely imperitive to consider these stories and whether or not the actions related can be reconciled with a god who is not evil. And that is why the importance of your assertion that god might be ignorant can't be overstated.Edited by berberry, : Reworded one sentence in the part about Richard III.

---

W.W.E.D.?

You're really funny sometimes, jar. Seriously, I got a good laugh out of that!

---

W.W.E.D.?

But women were property, and were treated as property, somewhat more valuable though than a goat or cow.Again, the stories need to be considered within the context of the peoples that wrote them. Sorry but that is not just my assertion, it is what some of the stories in the Bible say.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion