God is Evil - Now What?

[sojourner]

Your personal whims are not "established rules".

This has nothing to do with my "personal whims."

Just because you aren't paying attention to what I'm saying doesn't mean I'm not saying anything.

I am paying attention. You're not saying anything meaningful.

 

[Desert Snake]

But that's not what the theological constructs are -- and that's what we're dealing with.

Ironically, I'm arguing with theists at least half the time, and disagree with many of them, even more. Technically, I agree with you.

 

[sojourner]

I think there's absolutely zero basis for making any kind of assumption whatsoever about God, so to me it's just as valid as any assertion that God is necessarily good.

Of course there is! There's the basis of the millions of people who have believed in God across millennia. And it's that God that we're talking about -- not some ineffable, academic "god" that is the whim of one individual's baseless imagination.

So you can only talk about God theoretically, but you can categorically state that God must be good because most of the oldest and most established theological ideas say so?

No, I'm saying that we can only talk about this particular God in the terms of how this particular God is understood. If you want to talk about some different understanding of a god, then that's fine, but you're no longer talking about the God who is understood as "good" and "caring toward humanity." You're, at that point, talking about some other god.

If we can only talk about God in theoretical terms, then the idea that God is evil is just as viable and worth consideration than any other claim.

Only if you can provided a basis for making that claim. And even then, you'd be talking about a completely different god. But sure! Lots of people believe in evil gods -- and I respect that belief. But they're not talking about the God of the bible and the religions of which it is the basis.

all theoretical models are possible.

Only if there's an actual, legitimate theory. Where's the basis for the theory that God is evil?

It seems wholly naive to me for people to trust one set of baseless claims and not even consider another.

"Trust" has nothing to do with it. The "trust" is the Tradition. Either you buy it or you don't. If you don't, then you have no business trying to change it.

 

[sojourner]

You've never heard of Marcionism?

Marcionism is a heresy, without solid basis in biblical theology.

 

[Desert Snake]

But it's the believers who establish the constructs. That's the point: if you don't believe in God, then you don't believe in God -- or you believe in some God other than the one pained in Tradition. Therefore, if you're talking about a God that's evil, you're talking about some other God than the established God of Tradition.

Agreed, that is also why I put almost no stock in the theories of non-believers concerning my theism, or my position, as a believer. That is my main point of contention, on the forums.

 

[sojourner]

Sorry - I just can't do this. I can't take you seriously long enough to pretend that you're arguing in good faith.

If you can't take off your religious blinders, I'm not going to be able to do it for you.

I can't take you seriously long enough to pretend that you're arguing in good faith. It appears as though you're arguing just to hear your head rattle, because none of your arguments have a basis in good theological understanding.
If you can't take off your atheistic blinders, I'm not going to be able to do it for you.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Of course there is! There's the basis of the millions of people who have believed in God across millennia. And it's that God that we're talking about -- not some ineffable, academic "god" that is the whim of one individual's baseless imagination.

And what is the basis for that belief, then?

No, I'm saying that we can only talk about this particular God in the terms of how this particular God is understood.

I was never addressing a particular God, I was always addressing a general concept of God. In any case, you still have no basis in which to assert anything about any supposed God, only address speculations about what that particular God may be like.

If you want to talk about some different understanding of a god, then that's fine, but you're no longer talking about the God who is understood as "good" and "caring toward humanity."

Yes I am. A God who is "understood to be" good and caring towards humanity can still fit my theoretical model of an evil God. In fact, it makes even more sense for a God to be apparently good, or to influence people into thinking it is good, if it is genuinely an evil being.

You're, at that point, talking about some other god.

No I'm not. My description can just as easily be applied to the God of the Bible than almost any other God.

Only if you can provided a basis for making that claim.

My basis is that I'm suggesting it. Do you have a basis for the claim that God is good, other than suggestions?

And even then, you'd be talking about a completely different god.

No I'm not. I'll state it explicitly to avoid confusion: It is theoretically possible that the God described and depicted in the Bible is in fact an evil entity that is manipulating its followers to worship it and believe that it is good.

But sure! Lots of people believe in evil gods -- and I respect that belief. But they're not talking about the God of the bible and the religions of which it is the basis.

I am, theoretically.

Only if there's an actual, legitimate theory. Where's the basis for the theory that God is evil?

The existence of evil and the multitude of clearly evil actions that God explicitly sanctions and partakes in within the pages of the Bible. Also, conjecture, which according to you is sufficient enough to form a basis that can be assumed true until demonstrated otherwise.

Now, where's the basis for the theory that God is good?

"Trust" has nothing to do with it. The "trust" is the Tradition.

So it's not trust, it's just blind credulity. That's much worse.

Either you buy it or you don't. If you don't, then you have no business trying to change it.

That would be true if religious groups weren't constantly using their beliefs as justification for all sorts of laws, social stigmas, societal imbalances, prejudice, waging war, and institutional acts of evil like the concealment of thousands of dead babies and protecting paedophiles. I'd say as soon as it starts doing those things, then it most definitely IS "my business" and "the business" of any moral person.

 

[sojourner]

That fact that some people say it.

Some people say that God is a flying spaghetti monster. Shall we take them seriously? What's the basis for their claim? What's the basis for saying what they say? Most of the drivel I've come across stems from a very poor understanding of what the bible says about God. Poor understanding is a poor foundation for making a claim.

Why?

Because the bible is the traditional collection of certain theological claims about this particular deity. And, remember, it's those particular claims we're dealing with. If you want to claim that God is evil, then you're not talking about the idea of God that's presented in the bible.

Why?

Where else would you suggest? It's the most ancient, continuous source for this particular theology.

That goes without saying, but I'm addressing all God concepts. The God of the Bible is just as capable of turning out to be a malicious, evil entity as any other God - in fact, moreso than many based on some of the thing they do in the Bible.

Only if you misunderstand what's actually being said, why it's being said, and in what context it's being said.

No, the God is DESCRIBED in the Bible as being an entity that cares about us. What reason to we have to believe that account, and how do we know God isn't intentionally misleading you?

What reason do we have to disbelieve it, and how do we know that God is intentionally misleading? As I say, either believe it or don't. But since there is no valid ontological argument for God, we're all sort of at a loss to make any sort of completely objective assessment. The God of the bible is life and love. And I believe those are good things.

Okay then, let's start from the book that depicts God as a genocidal, slavery apologetic and rape and public murder advocate and use that as basis for determining whether or not God is more probably evil than good.

I don't think the bible depicts God in that way. I think that ancient, Mediterranean people had cultural ideas about what constituted "good," "care," and "compassion," and that's what they wrote about. Our concepts of "good," "care," and "compassion" are different. But we still have hope in God as embodying these concepts.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Some people say that God is a flying spaghetti monster. Shall we take them seriously? What's the basis for their claim? What's the basis for saying what they say? Most of the drivel I've come across stems from a very poor understanding of what the bible says about God. Poor understanding is a poor foundation for making a claim.

I agree, it is. So what is the correct understanding of the Bible, how do you know it, how do you know the Bible is accurate?

Because the bible is the traditional collection of certain theological claims about this particular deity.

I've never addressed a "particular" deity.

And, remember, it's those particular claims we're dealing with.

No we're not. We're dealing with the claim that God is evil or God is indifferent. Why are we suddenly dealing with entirely unrelated claims?

If you want to claim that God is evil, then you're not talking about the idea of God that's presented in the bible.

Yes I am. "The God presented in the Bible is evil". There, now there's no ambiguity.

Where else would you suggest? It's the most ancient, continuous source for this particular theology.

One of the countless other theological texts? Not that it matters, since none of them have any basis anyway. Being old and well read doesn't make its claims any less spurious and baseless.

Only if you misunderstand what's actually being said, why it's being said, and in what context it's being said.

Then please explain how exactly you determined the correct understanding of what is being said. Do you have God's phone number?

What reason do we have to disbelieve it, and how do we know that God is intentionally misleading?

The reason we have to disbelieve it is the same reason you disbelieve the claim that God is indifferent - insufficient support of claims. I never said that God IS intentionally misleading, just that we have just as much basis for assuming that's true than any of the Bible's unsupported claims are true.

As I say, either believe it or don't. But since there is no valid ontological argument for God, we're all sort of at a loss to make any sort of completely objective assessment.

Which is exactly why you can't simply dismiss a claim about God as being baseless, since you have no objective standard by which to judge a claim about God that is accurate against a claim that is inaccurate.

The God of the bible is life and love. And I believe those are good things.

Unless he isn't.

I don't think the bible depicts God in that way.

So you skipped the parts where God is clearly all of those things?

I think that ancient, Mediterranean people had cultural ideas about what constituted "good," "care," and "compassion," and that's what they wrote about.

So how do you differentiate things that are written about God that are accurate from things that are just the opinion of "Ancient Mediterranean people"? Provide your working.

[QUOTE="sojourner, post: 4391719, member: 5010"Our concepts of "good," "care," and "compassion" are different. But we still have hope in God as embodying these concepts.[/QUOTE]
Hope isn't reason.

 

[sojourner]

And what is the basis for that belief, then?

Hope. The human trait of hoping for life, love, a higher understanding, and a deeper meaning.

I was never addressing a particular God, I was always addressing a general concept of God. In any case, you still have no basis in which to assert anything about any supposed God, only address speculations about what that particular God may be like.

In what way does evil address the highest hopes of humanity? You see, that's the whole purpose of constructing theologies.

Yes I am. A God who is "understood to be" good and caring towards humanity can still fit my theoretical model of an evil God. In fact, it makes even more sense for a God to be apparently good, or to influence people into thinking it is good, if it is genuinely an evil being.

Deception doesn't further the cause of human hope.

No I'm not. My description can just as easily be applied to the God of the Bible than almost any other God.

How? God is depicted in the bible as life, love, and compassion. In what way does "evil" address any of that?

My basis is that I'm suggesting it. Do you have a basis for the claim that God is good, other than suggestions?

Again: hope. Human beings hope for life, love and happiness. Therefore, God embodies those things.

No I'm not. I'll state it explicitly to avoid confusion: It is theoretically possible that the God described and depicted in the Bible is in fact an evil entity that is manipulating its followers to worship it and believe that it is good.

Anything is "theoretically possible." But the "theoretical" scenario you suggest doesn't speak at all to the deepest hopes of humanity.

I am, theoretically.

No. You're not. For the reasons I've stated above. The God constructs in the bible speak primarily to and through the hopes of humanity. Evil simply isn't part of that.

The existence of evil and the multitude of clearly evil actions that God explicitly sanctions and partakes in within the pages of the Bible.

Context, please. Why is God depicted in that way? Could it be that that's how those writers and storytellers conceptualized a God who cared for them -- that triumph over their enemies was how they expressed hope?

Now, where's the basis for the theory that God is good?

Asked and answered.

So it's not trust, it's just blind credulity. That's much worse.

You're misunderstanding. God is expressed as our deepest hope. Those people expressed that hope in one way. We express it another. But hope is hope, and that's the important thing. You can't tell me that death, deception and mistrust are part and parcel of the deepest human hope.

That would be true if religious groups weren't constantly using their beliefs as justification for all sorts of laws, social stigmas, societal imbalances, prejudice, waging war, and institutional acts of evil like the concealment of thousands of dead babies and protecting paedophiles. I'd say as soon as it starts doing those things, then it most definitely IS "my business" and "the business" of any moral person.

The expression of misunderstanding certainly is your business. And it is primarily misunderstanding that produces these acts.

 

[sojourner]

I agree, it is. So what is the correct understanding of the Bible, how do you know it, how do you know the Bible is accurate?

It has little to do with accuracy, since we're not really dealing with an ontological argument. It is what it is -- and the particulars have to be taken with a grain of salt, understanding that there are myriad cultural and linguistic differences that have to be overcome in reaching an understanding. Again, I think we have to proceed from the litmus test of what is it that produces and fosters hope? Because that, really, is the impetus for all religion.

I've never addressed a "particular" deity.

You said "God." "God" implies, here, the Abrahamic God as described in the bible.

No we're not. We're dealing with the claim that God is evil or God is indifferent. Why are we suddenly dealing with entirely unrelated claims?

Those claims are baseless, so far as God is concerned. Because "evil" and "indifference" don't foster hope. And that's the whole purpose for the God concept.

Yes I am. "The God presented in the Bible is evil". There, now there's no ambiguity.

What's the basis for making that claim? I opine that the "basis" is a gross misunderstanding of the literature.

One of the countless other theological texts?

"God" isn't addressed in "countless other theological texts." Other deities are addressed, however.

Not that it matters, since none of them have any basis anyway. Being old and well read doesn't make its claims any less spurious and baseless.

It's the continuity of human hope that provides the basis.

Then please explain how exactly you determined the correct understanding of what is being said.

Responsible exegesis.

The reason we have to disbelieve it is the same reason you disbelieve the claim that God is indifferent - insufficient support of claims.

So, life and love are not part of the deepest hopes of humanity?

I never said that God IS intentionally misleading, just that we have just as much basis for assuming that's true than any of the Bible's unsupported claims are true.

"Misleading" simply isn't in the world of any theology about the biblical God. Because "misleading" doesn't foster hope.

Which is exactly why you can't simply dismiss a claim about God as being baseless, since you have no objective standard by which to judge a claim about God that is accurate against a claim that is inaccurate.

If the God-concept doesn't inspire hope, it's an inaccurate concept. God-as-deceiver doesn't foster hope, therefore, it's a baseless concept, because inspiring hope is the impetus for the God-concept.

Unless he isn't.

But God is. That's what the bible says, and "what the bible says" is what's being ultimately argued.

So you skipped the parts where God is clearly all of those things?

So, you failed to adequately exegete the texts where you believe God is "clearly" all of those things, preferring, instead, to proceed on a misunderstanding?

So how do you differentiate things that are written about God that are accurate from things that are just the opinion of "Ancient Mediterranean people"? Provide your working.

Hope, hope, hope, hope! Dear God! How many times do I have to say it??!! H.O.P.E. is what provides the accuracy! Throughout human history, human beings have held deep hope. And that hope translates into "God," in the biblical tradition. Primarily, the deepest hopes of humanity are life, love, and happiness. Therefore, the "God-concept" -- that is, "the way those hopes are embodied in a metaphoric 'personality'," is a God of life, love, and happiness -- not a God of evil and deception.

Hope isn't reason.

I never implied that it was. Neither is faith.

 

[JustWondering]

"From [your] observations" is the operative term here. "Your observations" are based in a superficial and incomplete understanding of theology.

Your observation of my understanding of theology is based on a superficial and incomplete understanding of what I understand. I can play this game too.

 

[sojourner]

Your observation of my understanding of theology is based on a superficial and incomplete understanding of what I understand. I can play this game too.

Yah, except that, if your understanding of theology weren't superficial and incomplete, you wouldn't have written what you did. My observation is based on what you wrote -- unless, of course, you really do understand and are just choosing to jerk us around for your own cheap entertainment.

So, which do you prefer? Theological ignorance, or boorishness?

 

[JustWondering]

Yah, except that, if your understanding of theology weren't superficial and incomplete, you wouldn't have written what you did. My observation is based on what you wrote -- unless, of course, you really do understand and are just choosing to jerk us around for your own cheap entertainment.

So, which do you prefer? Theological ignorance, or boorishness?

I prefer civilized discourse, which you seem incapable of.

 

[sojourner]

I prefer civilized discourse, which you seem incapable of.

Civilized discourse doesn't begin with baseless statements. So, if you prefer, you can start again with a relevant statement and we can proceed from there.

 

[JustWondering]

Civilized discourse doesn't begin with baseless statements. So, if you prefer, you can start again with a relevant statement and we can proceed from there.

My post (which you took personal offense to for some reason) was directed at the OP and refuted the idea that god (if one exists) is evil. If you feel strongly that god is in fact, evil, as the OP suggests, please provide a relevant statement/rebuttal instead of a needless personal attack. Thank you.

 

[sojourner]

My post (which you took personal offense to for some reason) was directed at the OP and refuted the idea that god (if one exists) is evil. If you feel strongly that god is in fact, evil, as the OP suggests, please provide a relevant statement/rebuttal instead of a needless personal attack. Thank you.

I didn't take "personal offense" to your statement. But it was rather insipid and seems baseless. Prove me wrong: what is the basis for your statement that God is "apathetic toward human beings?"

 

[JustWondering]

I didn't take "personal offense" to your statement. But it was rather insipid and seems baseless. Prove me wrong: what is the basis for your statement that God is "apathetic toward human beings?"

I have never seen a god interfere in man's affairs for good or ill. I can see no evidence that shows any god has interfered in man's affairs for good or ill. Since a god (if it exists) seems uninterested in our affairs, what else would it be than apathetic?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Hope. The human trait of hoping for life, love, a higher understanding, and a deeper meaning.

In other words: it's based on nothing but wishful thinking and delusion. So what makes their arguments any better than mine?

In what way does evil address the highest hopes of humanity? You see, that's the whole purpose of constructing theologies.

Nope. The purpose of theologies is a form of moral control and collusion. Hope has naff all to do with it.

Deception doesn't further the cause of human hope.

An evil God wouldn't be interested in furthering the cause of human hope. Also, God deceives people according to the Bible.

How? God is depicted in the bible as life, love, and compassion. In what way does "evil" address any of that?

Because the God of the Bible is only DESCRIBED as life, love and compassion. Since God is capable, according to the Bible, of acts of genocide, deception and torture, that hardly makes a case that those statements are entirely accurate, does it?

Again: hope. Human beings hope for life, love and happiness. Therefore, God embodies those things.

Or takes advantage of those things in order to manipulate people. Again, God is evil, so of course he's going to feed you hope in order to deceive and manipulate you. Wishful thinking is NOT a sufficient argument that particular interpretation of theology is correct. You are literally arguing "This claim is nicer, so therefore I think it is more worth believing". That is the definition of naivety.

Anything is "theoretically possible." But the "theoretical" scenario you suggest doesn't speak at all to the deepest hopes of humanity.

So? Why does that matter? You seem to think "hope" is a sufficient argument in place of "actual evidence". It isn't.

No. You're not. For the reasons I've stated above. The God constructs in the bible speak primarily to and through the hopes of humanity. Evil simply isn't part of that.

Genocide, deception and torture are not "speaking primarily through the hopes of humanity". Those are the actions of an evil being with evil intentions. Again, your naivety and wishful thinking do not make a convincing argument.

Context, please. Why is God depicted in that way? Could it be that that's how those writers and storytellers conceptualized a God who cared for them -- that triumph over their enemies was how they expressed hope?

So you see genocide, deception and torture as expressions of hope carried out by an unstoppable, omnipotent entity? Are you serious?

You're misunderstanding. God is expressed as our deepest hope.

According to you. And since you've now already admitted that your interpretation is based on nothing but wishful thinking, I can freely dismiss it. God is just as likely to be an evil entity than a good one, by your own logic.

Those people expressed that hope in one way. We express it another. But hope is hope, and that's the important thing. You can't tell me that death, deception and mistrust are part and parcel of the deepest human hope.

According to you they are, since God commits those acts.

The expression of misunderstanding certainly is your business. And it is primarily misunderstanding that produces these acts.

Since you cannot demonstrate that your understanding is the correct one, you have no basis on which to tell me, or anyone else, that we "misunderstand" anything. If your only argument is "I believe this interpretation is correct because it's nicer" - which is basically all your argument boils down to - then you are definitely in no position to tell ANYONE that their interpretation, or even theorising, is based on any "misunderstanding" whatsoever. You have no good reason to believe what you believe, so you can't differentiate the truth of your interpretation from any other. That's the whole point.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It has little to do with accuracy, since we're not really dealing with an ontological argument. It is what it is -- and the particulars have to be taken with a grain of salt, understanding that there are myriad cultural and linguistic differences that have to be overcome in reaching an understanding. Again, I think we have to proceed from the litmus test of what is it that produces and fosters hope? Because that, really, is the impetus for all religion.

False. Religion is about moral control. As I said before, hope has naff all to do with it. This is another lame duck argument with no basis. You are literally saying "We should assume this interpretation is correct because it is nicer to believe it". Do you honestly think that's a good argument?

You said "God." "God" implies, here, the Abrahamic God as described in the bible.

No it doesn't. If I addressed the Biblical God specifically, I would have said so. We are not in the "Christian" section of the forum, and I did not (until it was brought up to me) address the Bible. Don't move goalposts.

Those claims are baseless, so far as God is concerned. Because "evil" and "indifference" don't foster hope. And that's the whole purpose for the God concept.

Your argument that my argument is baseless because they don't foster hope is baseless. Reality isn't contingent upon the arbitrary distinction that you have a preference for. Also, if you're admitting that God is a "concept" why can an evil God not ALSO be a concept?

What's the basis for making that claim? I opine that the "basis" is a gross misunderstanding of the literature.

If it is a misunderstanding, then please indicate to me the CORRECT understanding of the literature and clearly demonstrate how you know that this understanding is correct. If you cannot, then your dismissal is baseless.

"God" isn't addressed in "countless other theological texts." Other deities are addressed, however.

I said before, stop moving goalposts. Is it not theoretically possible that the God addressed in other theological texts IS the same God addressed in the Bible? It is.

It's the continuity of human hope that provides the basis.

In other words, there is no basis. Stop making this argument, it makes you seem really naive.

Responsible exegesis.

Please demonstrate a correct interpretation of scripture is and how you reached that conclusion, then.

So, life and love are not part of the deepest hopes of humanity?

Strawman. And irrelevant. God also created herpes, according to your theology. But I doubt you'd indicate that is part of the deepest hopes of humanity.

"Misleading" simply isn't in the world of any theology about the biblical God. Because "misleading" doesn't foster hope.

Of course it wouldn't be. If God were evil, he wouldn't tell people he was misleading. That's pretty much the first rule of being evil: don't let anyone know you're a dishonest, manipulative monster.

If the God-concept doesn't inspire hope, it's an inaccurate concept. God-as-deceiver doesn't foster hope, therefore, it's a baseless concept, because inspiring hope is the impetus for the God-concept

.

This argument of yours is getting tiresome. There is no requirement, in any definition or description of God, for God's entire existence to predicated on the idea of "hope". This is childish nonsense and you have no basis for asserting it other than wishful thinking.

But God is.

Prove it, without wishful thinking or baseless interpretation of scripture.

That's what the bible says, and "what the bible says" is what's being ultimately argued.

Second rule of being evil: convince people you're actually good.

So, you failed to adequately exegete the texts where you believe God is "clearly" all of those things, preferring, instead, to proceed on a misunderstanding?

Where is the misunderstanding? Demonstrate how your interpretation of the text is accurate and how you known this to be the case and you might actually have an argument. At the moment, your argument boils down to "I interpret it this way because it's nice, and if anyone interprets it differently it's because they don't understand it despite the fact I have no basis to assume that even I understand it".

Hope, hope, hope, hope! Dear God! How many times do I have to say it??!! H.O.P.E. is what provides the accuracy!

That's the lamest argument I ever heard. "Hope" is not a measuring stick of truth. You can't determine what is true and accurate by "hoping" for it. Please stop acting like a child.

Throughout human history, human beings have held deep hope. And that hope translates into "God," in the biblical tradition.

Your personal interpretation is irrelevant to reality.

Primarily, the deepest hopes of humanity are life, love, and happiness. Therefore, the "God-concept" -- that is, "the way those hopes are embodied in a metaphoric 'personality'," is a God of life, love, and happiness -- not a God of evil and deception.

And so they decided to express this manifestation of hope, life, love and happiness and a genocidal, manipulative, sexist, torturing, war-mongering, rape apologist and slavery advocate? Great theory.

I never implied that it was. Neither is faith.

Then you must admit that your ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS BASELESS and as such you have NO BASIS ON WHICH TO ASSERT THAT ALMOST ANY INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE (much less of the general concept of God) IS "LESS ACCURATE" THAN YOUR OWN. You haven't provided a single scrap of evidence that demonstrates that your interpretation of God or scripture is any more likely to be accurate than anyone else's, and that was the entire point that I was getting it. Your belief is baseless, your interpretation is baseless, and your arguments supporting your positions are just pure wishful thinking. You have no truth to offer to differentiate your interpretation from anyone else's, and the God you believe is the personification of hope is just as likely in truth a personification of evil, and your inability to tell the difference is not a sufficient argument that it is not theoretically possible.

If you have no basis for your beliefs or your understanding of scripture, then don't you dare try to lecture anyone else that their interpretation is inaccurate, or dismiss any interpretation of God based on nothing but your internal prejudice and a childish desire for "hope". Your interpretation is no better than any other until you can clearly demonstrate how and why it is accurate.