The God of the Bible is Evil

There are a number of standard responses to this question.

Yep God is harsh so you better obey

​

The people that God ordered murdered in the Bible were really very very evil people and deserved what was coming to them.

​

God has the view of eternity you do not. Therefore what looks evil from your limited perspective is not from a much wider perspective.

​

Why is that silly? Do you believe atheist are necessarily required to be moral relativist?Atheist and agnostics can and do believe in absolute morality and purpose in life, they just do not base it on some imaginary (and typically anthropomorphic) deity.Not to hijack this thread but Atheist and Agnostics can make a better argument for absolute morality than Christians.

As an example, many atheists are Humanist. Looking up one definition of Humanism from the American Humanist website: From "aspire to the greater good of humanity" one can resolve moral problems from an absolute moral perspective. Humanism comes closer to being an absolute morality than Christianity does.Please note I am not a Humanist, just responding the implied assumption that Atheist are necessarily moral relativist.

Of course, the definition of "evil" is key here and that is a different topic.Nevertheless I would offer this example from Deuteronomy as a depiction of evil... This compact example features murder, slavery, theft and rape. This example should fit well within the bounds of most definitions of evil. Edited by iceage, : spelling

Leviticus 19:18 "love your neighbor as yourself"The ethic of reciprocity forms one of the bedrock principles of Christianity and is stressed and amplified several places within the Bible. The various commands and the alleged nature of God described in the OT violate this principle in a most dramatic way. Hence the contradiction that Jon was alluding to, does indeed exist.Jon did not ask if it was considered good to kill your enemy and rape his female children in the bronze age. He is obviously using a more evolved sense of good/evil. He even provided his definition of evil in the topic I didn't feel it was necessary to delve into to the definition of evil since one was provided, or at least a specific case of what is evil.While his definition of evil maybe imprecise, I don't believed it is flawed. Evil is almost always defined within terms of life, since without life there is no evil, therefore I do not see it as necessary, within the scope of this topic, to debate the definition of evil.

It does pertain to your assertion... This ethic of reciprocity, aka the golden rule, is one of those working principles that transcends culture and ages, and can be used to determine good/evil. The bible values this principle and it is quoted, amplified and cross referenced numerous times (most people even believe this principle originates from the Bible).Killing your enemy and raping his female children can never be accommodated within this principle. Hence there is a major inconsistency of philosophy. The historical authenticity of the various passages are not important. The attributing to God, commands to humans to commit murder, genocide and rape are important.I certainly do not buy that there is some other allegorical pied piper style message being conveyed by these various passages.

Yes those passages certainly do not include any shred of the notion of reciprocity and that is my point! The principle of reciprocity is one of those ideas that Bible promotes as a bedrock ethical principle. The principle is valued because it transcends culture and time. The passages cited do violence to that principle. Ya so they were inline with the mores of the day. They are writings of humans about humans and not anything beyond that. The attribution to God are purely ethnocentric fantasies.The point is they are in conflict with, not just the mores of today, but the moral standards as taught elsewhere in the Bible.BTW the depiction of the raping of women is not "simply an unsupported assertion" based on today's moral system. The conclusion is unavoidably still rape - maybe it was more generally accepted in the bronze age - but it was still rape. You are the one making the assertions, albeit unsupported. Keeping the scope to Deuteronomy 20 what social norms or morals are being taught?

Maybe because they were raised and indoctrinated on the OT stories. Yes, certainly true. Neighbor in OT context was implied as a fellow Hebrew Male. This merely confirms that the OT was race and gender centric in its depiction of God and creation. Any spiritual outlook that is based, however loosely, on this source is poisoned.That is why people like Jon come to the realization that the "God of the Bible is evil".The point is that the Bible promotes this ethical principle but also violates this principle: so there is contradiction. The folks that come from a Christian perspective and make statements that God is Good and God is Love are just ignorant of the book that forms the foundation of their religion.

Yes, that really is Jon's original point. "Goodness" as taught and implied in the NT is in direct conflict with the messages and stories in the OT. Instead you enslave them! Sounds like pirate logic Arrrr matey!I would say the message is more along the lines that God has given manifest destiny and anyone who stands in the way can be killed or enslaved all with godly justification. That message is evil.

Yes some have that view, but your view of God is even further misguided. God is just, right, perfect and without sin, because God made the rules? I anticipated this response way back in Message 3The god describe in the OT reflects the prevailing culture and times. Read any other literary works from the era and you will find similar mores, standards, ideas and misunderstandings of the nature of the world.There really is nothing inspirational or anything that transcends the culture or times. The image of God is naive and unsophisticated. The god described is essentially an alpha-male warrior god. This a smallish view of God. God will "prevail against His enemies"? Yes,and so did Zeus.Further god is described frequently in human terms and with anthropomorphic language. God is attributed to have bodily parts, human-like actions, and human emotions: he rejoices, loves, hates, is jealous, grows angry, and wine even gladdens his heart!Clearly the god described in the Bible is human-inspired and human-centered. The tell tale sign that this warped view of god is human-centered, is that each time science expands our paradigm of the universe and reduces the role of the earth and man, the religious minded fight with tooth and nail to keep to the view that man is exalted within the context of creation and the apple of god's eye.I simply find it amazing that someone can really believe in this bronze-age vision of god and make statements like you made in your last post.

Softer side? There were not offering peace in terms we think of, but enslavement. The omitted text in the verse you quoted is important.The critical insight is that the passage is not offering peace as an outreach of empathy or concern for the foreigners, but the cold practical logic that if they are useful enslave them, but if they are threat kill them.Compare this and other "hard" commands of the "lord" in the OT and compare to, for example, Alexander the Great. Alexander's speech at Opis, would be considered nothing but extremely liberal in its day (maybe even inspired). The historicity of the events are not as important as the message.What is important, is the issue that people actually believe that the bronze-age trash talk is somehow the work of god, the creator of the universe large and small.The issue is that these are stories where men feel empowered by some deity and justified to commit atrocities. We see this message still empowering and infecting the minds today. People don't ask the obvious question; as to why would the creator of galaxies need to have his "children" do his dirty work.

No it was not improvement at all! The enslavement was not in any way out of the concern or empathy for people outside the in-group. It was the cruel logic. If their enemies capitulate and are useful, enslave them, but if they are threat kill them.I mentioned Alexander to show that improvement and progression was accompanying the growth and maturation of mankind, external of the dark vision of god in the OT. The god of the OT was very much viewed as a person, although a stern patriarch, a warrior, a megalomaniac ruler. To this I am complete agreement with you. The god of the OT is a mirage created by a people living in harsh times, not any more. They transferred the standards of their rules and warriors to what they envisioned as the next level of hierarchy. The god of the OT does not reflect the being that created the universe anymore than Zeus or the god the Aztecs. Agreed. Hence the great error with attributing the Bible to God. Agreed again. My whole thesis is that the bible marks the progression of human thought concerning the divine. In that respect, the bible has value in understanding the mind of humans not the mind of God. However, as soon as someone starts to believing that the stories and myths are of divine origin or are inspired the error begins.

Granted that is true. My only point is to show that the progressive move of humanity to extend empathy and to affirm a commonwealth beyond the tribe is not unique. To this I disagree. The motivation of commanding slavery versus death was with respect to what was advantageous to the Hebrews, and did not spring from some empathy for the lives of the "enemy". It was a practical matter.Consider the recent kidnapping of the two GI's by Islamic fundamentalist in Iraq. Do you consider that their stance is "softening" because they kidnapped these soldiers instead of killing them immediately. They are kept alive because they are useful. The vision of god of the OT is evil for two reasons:

It teaches and justifies genocide, rape, slavery and pillaging based on the idea that a god has ordained these actions. The notion that some deity would instruct and require humans to kill other humans is evil IMHO.

​

This is the exact same evil working in minds of today's suicide bomber. This is exact same fuel that powers Islamic terrorism.

​

It debases and blasphemes God, by attributing to god, deplorable and banal acts of tribal warfare and regional conquest.

​

PD writes:

​

Understanding is necessary to battle illogical claims from either side.

​

Understanding is key. The writings in the OT chronicle the development of a people. Their writing reflect the norms of the age and they weave a vision of god within their own national identity.

​

This vantage point is useful to understand the mind of humans and the development of civilization - useless for understanding the mind of God.

Cool. I maybe a block head at times. Sometimes (especially in this environment) it is easy to assume positions or leanings in other people.

I think it is more accurate to say that the depiction of God in the Bible is not a nice fellow, neither is the depiction of Zeus.Religious ideology of a culture is simply the reflection of the collective social conscience and environment. Harsh cultures and times have harsh religious ideals. The depiction of god in the OT is a stern judgmental patriarch warrior because that reflects the surrounding culture and an era of conflict.The great error people make is when they actually believe this depiction accurately describes God.