God is Evil - Now What?

[sojourner]

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?

Since when does: A) "interference" = "loving involvement?" B) Your perception/experience become the only litmus test?

If we're assuming, for purposes of this thread, God's existence, then we assume God-as-Creator, for that's what God is. And if we're assuming that God created, how can you say that God is uninvolved with us? God created us as objects of love, and provided for our needs. How is that non-involvement?

 

[sojourner]

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

"Wishful thinking" and "delusion" aren't "hope." And you know it. You're either being intentionally provocative or you're wholly ignorant on the matter of hope.

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

And you base this "conclusion" on what learned and studied evidence?




I didn't think so.

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

Thanks for showing that you don't understand the theological grounding of the bible. You don't have a dog in this hunt, and more's the pity: you don't realize you don't have a dog in this hunt.

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?

Yes. It does. The concepts are related from the perspective of writers with a wholly different world view from ours. for us, the concepts of life, love, compassion, are universal. For the writers, these things were only deserved by their kin-group. Whatever kept them from having those things needed to be destroyed; they had God destroy that "enemy." We've simply taken that concept and expanded it to include all human beings, because we now understand that all human beings are our kin-group.

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.

How does that scenario speak to human hope? Answer: it doesn't. Since that's the purpose of theology, this makes no sense and we need waste no more time on it.

Wishful thinking is NOT a sufficient argument that particular interpretation of theology is correct.

God! I wish you were using a wrench to tighten the nut, rather than a pencil. Where did "wishful thinking" enter the conversation?

You are literally arguing "This claim is nicer, so therefore I think it is more worth believing".

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that hope is the deepest of human endeavors. Therefore, God is the highest thing toward which we can look. That's simply how theology works. That's what theology is. You don't get to just come along and change a discipline because you think it's "stoopid."

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

Why not? Why can't humanity see the evidence of its plight, hope for something better, take steps to make it better, and call that vision "God?"

Genocide, deception and torture are not "speaking primarily through the hopes of humanity". Those are the actions of an evil being with evil intentions.

Those are actions of evil people.

Again, your naivety and wishful thinking do not make a convincing argument.

Since when is hope either "naivete," or "wishful thinking?"

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

No, I see that their expressions of hope included the vanquishing of their mortal enemies.

According to you.

According to me and everyone else who believes in God. And since we're the ones who determine how to envision our God, I'd say that how we envision God is how we envision God -- call it what you want; no one's twisting your arm to believe. Believe in an evil god, if you wish, but such a belief isn't going to do anything to lift humanity. Which is the whole purpose of belief in Deity -- to lift humanity.

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

I don't believe God commits those acts. The bible stories aren't record of actual events. Most are metaphors. The meaning of the metaphors is "God loves us, so God saves us from what destroys us."

Since you cannot demonstrate that your understanding is the correct one,

Define "correct" here. What constitutes "correct?" You do realize that what we read in the bible aren't largely factual accounts, right? They're metaphors. Designed to communicate that God takes care of God's people. Bringing ancient metaphors into the present and treating them with a modern mind set is wholly irresponsible.

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.

Yah, but that's not what I'm saying. If you understood either theology or the exegetical process, you'd know that. As it stands, you're merely pi$$ing into the wind.
I believe this position, because that's what is exegeted from the texts, that's what the community of faith has always conceptualized and propagated, and that's what the theological endeavor is designed to do with and for humanity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yah, but that's not what I'm saying. If you understood either theology or the exegetical process, you'd know that. As it stands, you're merely pi$$ing into the wind.

You know, if you said "MY theology" and "MY exegetical process", you'd be a lot clearer and not create needless misunderstanding.

It's fine if you have a view that you want other people to adopt - make your case for it, and if it's convincing, people will adopt it. But this stuff where you treat your personal view as not only generally accepted but as the only game in town just gets in the way of reasonable discussion.

 

[JustWondering]

Since when does: A) "interference" = "loving involvement?" B) Your perception/experience become the only litmus test?

If we're assuming, for purposes of this thread, God's existence, then we assume God-as-Creator, for that's what God is. And if we're assuming that God created, how can you say that God is uninvolved with us? God created us as objects of love, and provided for our needs. How is that non-involvement?

First, I never said interference = loving involvement, don't put words in my mouth. Second, who CAN make decisions/observations based on ANOTHERS perception/experience? That's just absurd. Third, YOU are assuming that if a creator exists that it intended our existence and also assume that it loves us. I don't make those assumptions. There are no reasons I should. Can you give even one? Substantial evidence shows life on this planet evolved from lower forms of life over millions of years, we did not spring into existence as we are now. Life could simply be a by-product of this universes creation, not it's end desired result. Species go extinct all the time and there is no evidence of any god attempting to stop it's loved creations from dying or even alleviating any of its suffering. Nor is there evidence of any god inflicting suffering and death. Gods seem to be absent from our daily affairs. So instead of providing your assumptions and wishful thinking, please provide a rational argument. Thank you.

 

[sojourner]

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?

No, I'm saying it because that's what it is. What makes you think religion is "about moral control?" Don't you get it?? Don't you see that, for the ancients, moral control was what it took to lift humanity out of its mire of degradation? We've moved beyond the need for control, which is the whole point of Xy -- the Law has been fulfilled. Morality is now, not a matter of exterior control, but a matter of interior discipline. Morality, to be sure, is part of religion, but it is not the basis for religion.

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.

'K. Perhaps you could enlighten us all as to what other Deity is referred to as "God?"

Your argument that my argument is baseless because they don't foster hope is baseless.

Oh? Really?!
This amounts to nothing more than the "Pee-Wee Herman" fallacy: "I know you are, but what am I?"

Reality isn't contingent upon the arbitrary distinction that you have a preference for.

It's hardly arbitrary.

if you're admitting that God is a "concept" why can an evil God not ALSO be a concept?

It can -- and it is. But that's not the concept of the God we believe in. And, as you so eloquently stated above, "reality isn't contingent upon the arbitrary distinction that you have a preference for." Reality, in this case, is determined by the community who believe in the Deity, and, therefore, establish the parameters for what the Deity is.

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.

The correct understanding of the literature entails employment of the exegetical process, which includes several different kinds of critical reading, among them cultural, historic, and form criticism. If we read the texts in such a fashion, we'll find that the texts in question are largely metaphorical, and based upon an ancient and culturally-dependent idea of what constitutes a good God caring for God's people, who constitute those people, and what constitutes danger to those people.

What you've managed to do is simply take the texts at face value, as if they were news reports of modern incidents: "God killed children in Exodus, therefore, God is evil." But that's an incorrect reading yielding incorrect interpretations. The children represent longevity. The Egyptians represent oppression. So, having God do away with Egyptian children represents God doing away with eternal oppression. For a people who are constantly getting beat up on and enslaved, do you see how such a metaphorical story fosters hope that their world will not always be so? The story isn't "about an evil God." The story is about hope that oppression will not always be visited upon the community who told and later wrote the story. As it turns out, Israel is no longer oppressed, so "hope" has turned out to be more than simply "wishful thinking."

I have confidence that this is correct, because it agrees with the work of most eminent, peer-reviewed scholars on the subject.

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.

No. It's not "theoretically possible." Because that's not the way it is.

In other words, there is no basis.

Wait... how is hope not a basis? The first, prehistoric believers saw a volcano erupt, or lightning strike a tree, and hoped to understand what was happening. they hoped to gain control over the event by understanding it. They hoped to alleviate the effects by somehow appeasing it. Of course hope is a valid basis.

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

Asked and answered.

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.

Wait... how are life and love not part of what we deeply hope for, again? God created herpes. God also created us with minds to manipulate creation to either eradicate it or alleviate its effects. That, also, constitutes 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.

And can you demonstrate realistically 1) why creating such a God would be advantageous to those who believe in it, 2) ways in which the bible portrays God as such a deceiver, 3) What would lead you to believe that the biblical God is such a God?

There is no requirement, in any definition or description of God, for God's entire existence to predicated on the idea of "hope".

What else might it be predicated upon?
“For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience” -- Rom. 8:24-25. “If God is for us, who can be against us?" -- Rom. 8:31
There's your description of hope of salvation in God.

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

7 “Ask, and it will be given you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. 9 Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for bread, will give a stone? 10 Or if the child asks for a fish, will give a snake? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!" -- Matt. 7:7-11
This is a definition that God is good and not evil.

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

In what way is "giving good things" understood as "actually being evil?" it simply doesn't fit the literature that we're presented with.
Additionally, (again) to what advantage would it be for the believing community to actually couch God as "evil" toward them?

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".

Asked and answered. Responsible. Exegesis.

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.

But what is the truth we're looking for? The truth here is that hope is a theme that has absolute continuity within the belief system, and informs how we envision God. We hope to be saved. We hope to have life. We hope to love and be loved. We hope to increase in wisdom and power. All of these things are part and parcel of the religion we have formed. Why do Jews keep the Law? Because they hope that doing so will make them better people, and that doing so will perpetuate the Covenants between God and themselves. Why do Christians receive communion? Because we hope that doing so will form us into the Body of Christ, and free us from the power of sin. We all hope that there is goodness in the world, and it is through that hope that we conceptualize a God who takes care of us.

Is God actually, physically those things? I don't know. But that's immaterial, since God cannot be physically apprehended. All we have is theology, and theology that deals with the biblical God is predicated upon hope. It is that basis that forms the truth of how we define God.

Your personal interpretation is irrelevant to reality.

This has nothing to do with "[my] personal interpretation." It has everything to do with the sense of the community.

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.

Again, you're reading ancient texts through a modern concept. People are only capable of understanding what they're capable of understanding. The ancient, Middle-Eastern people had a particular understanding of 1) who constituted "God's people" and 2) the ways in which God cared for God's people. We modern Westerners have completely different concepts of those things. Therefore, we no longer conceptualize a God who visits evil upon people who are "not like us."
Because such an interpretation no longer serves our concept of hope.

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.

What does "hope" have to do with the exegetical process (which is highly reasonable), except that engaging the texts exegetically shows us that hope lies at the foundation of the theological concepts presented therein?

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.

The texts, themselves, do present a God of hope, if exegeted correctly, as I've shown above.

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.

Once again: asked and answered. Don't you dare to try to lecture one who has studied the texts, the theological constructs and processes, and the beliefs of the gathered community in depth, on the graduate level, when you clearly don't have any basis for claiming that God "could be evil." The fact is, God. Is. Not. Presented. That. Way. That's fact -- unless one is too ignorant of the exegetical process to give the texts anything other than an irresponsible, surface glance. Anything else is baseless flight of fancy. and that's just not what theology is all about.

 

[sojourner]

You know, if you said "MY theology" and "MY exegetical process", you'd be a lot clearer and not create needless misunderstanding.

It's fine if you have a view that you want other people to adopt - make your case for it, and if it's convincing, people will adopt it. But this stuff where you treat your personal view as not only generally accepted but as the only game in town just gets in the way of reasonable discussion.

There is no "my" exegetical process. There's the exegetical process, just as there's the scientific method.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is no "my" exegetical process. There's the exegetical process, just as there's the scientific method.

There you go again. This isn't helping.

 

[sojourner]

I never said interference = loving involvement, don't put words in my mouth.

You said that you didn't see evidence that God interfered in human affairs. I'm saying that "interference" and "loving involvement" are two different things and shouldn't be conflated. I'm saying that I do see God's loving involvement with humanity, but not God's interference with humanity. Your statement juxtaposes evil and interference. I'm saying that evil and interference are the same thing. Evil and loving involvement are juxtaposed.

Third, YOU are assuming that if a creator exists that it intended our existence and also assume that it loves us.

No. I'm saying that's what the bible says. Since we're discussing the God of the bible.

I don't make those assumptions.

Bully for you. Do you ground your statements about the biblical God in what the bible actually says about God, or do you simply engage of flights of fancy?

There are no reasons I should. Can you give even one? Substantial evidence shows life on this planet evolved from lower forms of life over millions of years, we did not spring into existence as we are now. Life could simply be a by-product of this universes creation, not it's end desired result. Species go extinct all the time and there is no evidence of any god attempting to stop it's loved creations from dying or even alleviating any of its suffering. Nor is there evidence of any god inflicting suffering and death. Gods seem to be absent from our daily affairs. So instead of providing your assumptions and wishful thinking, please provide a rational argument. Thank you.

Now you're conflating science with religion. Either you argue God theologically, or you argue science scientifically. If you don't believe in God, why are you arguing God??

 

[sojourner]

There you go again. This isn't helping.

It is what it is. It's not of my doing, but of the doing of the community of peer-reviewed biblical scholars.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is what it is. It's not of my doing, but of the doing of the community of peer-reviewed biblical scholars.

And there you go again. YOU are not a community of peer-reviewed Biblical scholars.

The question of whether you agree with some community of scholars and how much weight such a community's opinion should carry is something we need to be convinced of, not something you should just take as given and expect us to accept.

 

[sojourner]

And there you go again. YOU are not a community of peer-reviewed Biblical scholars.

The question of whether you agree with some community of scholars and how much weight such a community's opinion should carry is something we need to be convinced of, not something you should just take as given and expect us to accept.

Just as YOU are not a community of peer-reviewed scientists.

You see, the exegetical process is a recognized, orderly process like the scientific method. The scientific method is reasonable, and it works as far as it is able to work. The exegetical method is, likewise, reasonable, and it works as far as it is able to work. Like the scientific method, it doesn't claim to reveal what it cannot reveal.

You are not a community of peer-reviewed scientists. Yet you seem to accept their findings that the earth revolves around the sun as fact, even though you, yourself have not personally either observed the earth do this, nor have you overseen the process that has allowed us to come to the conclusion that the earth does, indeed, revolve around the sun. In fact, by all surface observations, the reverse appears to be true, and was taken as truth for a long time.

No, I'm not a community of peer-reviewed bible scholars. But I accept that the exegetical process works, just as you accept that the scientific method works. I have used the exegetical process, myself, with results acceptable to such scholars. You have, doubtless also used the scientific method with some success.

Why is the question of whether you agree with some community of scientists and how much weight that community's opinion should carry not something we need to be convinced of, and not something that you should just take as given and expect us to accept, but I'm being held to a different standard? Because, for this forum, the scientific method seems to be taken as prima facie incontrovertible. My question is: why is the exegetical process not being afforded the same courtesy? Is it because you aren't familiar enough with the process to trust it? And, if so, is this not a personal issue that need not concern those of us who are familiar and comfortable with it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just as YOU are not a community of peer-reviewed scientists.

You see, the exegetical process is a recognized, orderly process like the scientific method. The scientific method is reasonable, and it works as far as it is able to work. The exegetical method is, likewise, reasonable, and it works as far as it is able to work. Like the scientific method, it doesn't claim to reveal what it cannot reveal.

You are not a community of peer-reviewed scientists. Yet you seem to accept their findings that the earth revolves around the sun as fact, even though you, yourself have not personally either observed the earth do this, nor have you overseen the process that has allowed us to come to the conclusion that the earth does, indeed, revolve around the sun. In fact, by all surface observations, the reverse appears to be true, and was taken as truth for a long time.

No, I'm not a community of peer-reviewed bible scholars. But I accept that the exegetical process works, just as you accept that the scientific method works. I have used the exegetical process, myself, with results acceptable to such scholars. You have, doubtless also used the scientific method with some success.

Why is the question of whether you agree with some community of scientists and how much weight that community's opinion should carry not something we need to be convinced of, and not something that you should just take as given and expect us to accept, but I'm being held to a different standard? Because, for this forum, the scientific method seems to be taken as prima facie incontrovertible. My question is: why is the exegetical process not being afforded the same courtesy? Is it because you aren't familiar enough with the process to trust it? And, if so, is this not a personal issue that need not concern those of us who are familiar and comfortable with it?

- There isn't one single recognized "exegetical process."

- To the extent that any exegetical process is "recognized", it can only lead to what people ought to believe. This is different from what people do believe... i.e. actual religion.

You're free to tut-tut at all the people whose beliefs you think are wrong, but they ARE a part of the religious spectrum.

 

[sojourner]

There isn't one single recognized "exegetical process."

Uh huh. I suppose, having seriously studied the issue for the last, oh, 20 years, I should know less about the process than you?

To the extent that any exegetical process is "recognized", it can only lead to what people ought to believe.

This ^^^ right here shows that you don't understand the exegetical process. The exegetical process only leads to what a text says -- not what "people ought to believe."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Uh huh. I suppose, having seriously studied the issue for the last, oh, 20 years, I should know less about the process than you?

If you've studied it for 20 years, then you should know better.

 

[sojourner]

If you've studied it for 20 years, then you should know better.

Bollocks.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This ^^^ right here shows that you don't understand the exegetical process. The exegetical process only leads to what a text says -- not what "people ought to believe."

It's a fair restatement of your argument in this thread:

- The Bible says _____.
- ("exegesis")
- Therefore, the Bible says God can't be evil.
- Therefore, we can't consider God to be evil.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Bollocks.

Shouting "exegesis!" does not turn a crappy argument into a good one.

 

[sojourner]

It's a fair restatement of your argument in this thread:

- The Bible says _____.
- ("exegesis")
- Therefore, the Bible says God can't be evil.
- Therefore, we can't consider God to be evil.

Shouting "exegesis!" does not turn a crappy argument into a good one.

I've already shown how exegeting texts shows the grounding of the biblical concept of God is hope. I'm not going to go into it again.
I never said "the bible says God can't be evil." I have said that the bible doesn't present God as evil. There's a difference.
Since the bible and its attendant oral Tradition is the only information we have of the biblical God, and the bible doesn't present God as evil, how in the world can we consider the biblical God to be evil??


Perhaps, O Learned One, you can answer the question that Eternal Flame can't seem to be able to answer: in what reasonable way does the concept of an evil God foster hope in humanity?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've already shown how exegeting texts shows the grounding of the biblical concept of God is hope. I'm not going to go into it again.
I never said "the bible says God can't be evil." I have said that the bible doesn't present God as evil. There's a difference.
Since the bible and its attendant oral Tradition is the only information we have of the biblical God, and the bible doesn't present God as evil, how in the world can we consider the biblical God to be evil??

"The Biblical God"... either you're narrowing the conversation to God-the-character-in-a-book or you're question-begging.

Perhaps, O Learned One, you can answer the question that Eternal Flame can't seem to be able to answer: in what reasonable way does the concept of an evil God foster hope in humanity?

Why would you expect God to necessarily "foster hope in humanity"?

 

[sojourner]

"The Biblical God"... either you're narrowing the conversation to God-the-character-in-a-book or you're question-begging.

I've been clear all along with regard to what I mean by "God."

Why would you expect God to necessarily "foster hope in humanity"?

Because that's what the purpose of the God-construct is. The biblical God gives life, saves, shows compassion, offers happiness, brings wisdom. Those things are all part and parcel of humanity's deepest hopes for being more than we now are. Is there any way these objectives can realistically be thought of as "evil" within the milieu in which this belief is fostered and practiced?

Do you have an adequate answer for that question, or are you going to evade, as well?