God is Evil - Now What?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

No, you haven't.

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?

So you are talking about God-the-character-in-a-book. You must be. If you were talking about a God that literally exists, then presumably God's purpose would be whatever God wants it to be.

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

I'm not going to answer your loaded question. It's a red herring.

 

[sojourner]

So you are talking about God-the-character-in-a-book. You must be. If you were talking about a God that literally exists, then presumably God's purpose would be whatever God wants it to be.

"God-the character-in-a-book," as I've pointed out, is the only information we have with regard to the Abrahamic God. We have to start somewhere, with some kind of baseline reference. It does no good to speculate out of thin air. We have to use what we've got, and for good or ill, that's the bible where God is concerned. why would you want to waste time speculating on God out of thin air? God is apprehended through the theological constructions we form, based upon how God is presented in the bible, and supplemented with experience of God. That's why exegesis is so important.

 

[sojourner]

I'm not going to answer your loaded question. It's a red herring.

Because you know you can't answer truthfully and maintain your skeptical position. That's not "loaded," it's "truth."

 

[JustWondering]

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.

That's nice, do you have something to actually support your positive claim?

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

I never said I was referring to the god of the bible. Go back and look at my posts, I said I have seen no evidence for ANY god. Again, stop putting words in my mouth.

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?

Are you ever going to present an actual argument or are you going to stick to making unsubstantiated claims and personal attacks?

Now you're conflating science with religion. Either you argue God theologically, or you argue science scientifically.

If any gods have taken part in the goings on of this world then their suspected involvement/actions can argued for or against using science and reason.

If you don't believe in God, why are you arguing God??

I don't know if some kind of god-like creator exists, so I don't make claims that such a being does exist. If some kind of creator does exist then it isn't going to resemble the god's most theists have imagined up from their fantasies and wishful thinking.

 

[sojourner]

I don't know if some kind of god-like creator exists, so I don't make claims that such a being does exist.

Yet, you seem fairly sure that such a god is uninvolved with human beings. How can that be, if you're not even sure one exists?

I never said I was referring to the god of the bible.

Only God of the bible is generally referred to as "God." Since that's the name you used, you inferred that was the God you meant.

If any gods have taken part in the goings on of this world then their suspected involvement/actions can argued for or against using science and reason.

Your'e conflating science with religion.

If some kind of creator does exist then it isn't going to resemble the god's most theists have imagined up from their fantasies and wishful thinking.

How do you know?

 

[JustWondering]

Yet, you seem fairly sure that such a god is uninvolved with human beings. How can that be, if you're not even sure one exists?

So you have no rational arguments or evidence to support YOUR positive claim that a "god" is involved with humanity.

Only God of the bible is generally referred to as "God." Since that's the name you used, you inferred that was the God you meant.

I said "any god" many times over in my posts. You seem to be the one hung up on the god of the bible.

Your'e conflating science with religion.

Your beginning to sound like a broken record.

How do you know?

I have already said that I don't know if "god/s" exist, if they exist they have done a good job of staying hidden and not getting involved in the worlds affairs. No theist has ever produced ANY evidence to support the existence of their "gods". So if "god/s" exist we truly know nothing about them. Hence, current and past god concepts are human fabrications. Simple logic.

 

[Thief]

Working from the title.....God is evil....
then we are all doomed.....DOOMED!

evil defined as willing to do harm....
and scripture has such notation about God....
we are DOOMED!

so let's temper the notion....as scripture makes notation....
God repented the evil He would do.
(a brief line I found in scripture....He is capable of staying His hand)

 

[sojourner]

So you have no rational arguments or evidence to support YOUR positive claim that a "god" is involved with humanity.

The biblical record, which is replete with God's involvement in humanity.

 

[sojourner]

Hence, current and past god concepts are human fabrications.

Of course they are. I've never argued otherwise. But I've also said that arguing an existent God is pointless. We don't argue facts, we can only argue theological stances.
Why do you insist on arguing "facts," when there aren't any? Is it so you can "win" an argument? Are you capable of arguing a theological position? Or are you content to merely pooh-pooh the idea of God, which anyone with a brain stem can do, and remain on the safe side of fact.

 

[JustWondering]

The biblical record, which is replete with God's involvement in humanity.

The bible is a collection of stories that have no more grounding in reality than any other myth or legend from ancient times. The bible is not evidence for an actual "god".

 

[JustWondering]

Of course they are. I've never argued otherwise.

I'm glad we can agree on something.

But I've also said that arguing an existent God is pointless.

Not to me. I have learned some interesting things and had fun discussing/debating the possible existence of a "god".

We don't argue facts, we can only argue theological stances.

Facts cannot be argued because......they are facts. Facts come in very handy for supporting arguments. If you have no facts to support your theological stance then bad day for you. That's like bringing a knife to a gunfight and then complaining to your opponents that they shouldn't use guns because it puts you at a disadvantage.

Why do you insist on arguing "facts," when there aren't any? Is it so you can "win" an argument? Are you capable of arguing a theological position? Or are you content to merely pooh-pooh the idea of God, which anyone with a brain stem can do, and remain on the safe side of fact.

I cannot argue facts, I insist for facts and evidence when someone makes fantastical claims. I am interested in the truth, and the truth will be supported by facts and evidence. I do not believe any god concepts I've heard are supported by reality. That's MY stance. You want me to suspend disbelief to entertain theological arguments? That depends on the argument/thread.

 

[sojourner]

The bible is a collection of stories that have no more grounding in reality than any other myth or legend from ancient times. The bible is not evidence for an actual "god".

Well, to be fair, there is some grounding in history, but you're right -- it's a collection of largely metaphorical and mythic stories.
I never said it was evidence of that. What I said was it is the only information we have regarding the God it describes. IOW, it serves as the foundation for the particular construction of Divinity we call "God."

Facts come in very handy for supporting arguments.

And there are facts that support theological arguments.

If you have no facts to support your theological stance then bad day for you.

All theological stances and constructions make assumptions on the existence of God -- otherwise, there's no point in having theological conversations in the first place. And that's my point: whenever one makes a statement about God, one is (for purposes of the argument, at least) assuming the existence of God. And the only foundational material we have for God's existence is the bible (and its attendant oral Tradition). So, whatever one is going to posit theologically, must be congruent with biblical information, or it's simply baseless, argument, as you say, because the bible is the only source of "facts" about God that we have.

That's like bringing a knife to a gunfight and then complaining to your opponents that they shouldn't use guns because it puts you at a disadvantage.

Yes. It's like bringing a knife to a gunfight and complaining because others are using bullets. In this case, the bible is the gun and bullets.

I cannot argue facts, I insist for facts and evidence when someone makes fantastical claims.

I understand that, but you have to understand that, when one enters a theological discussion or argument, one must begin with a certain set of assumptions that are not facts in evidence (the existence of God, for example). One can't make a theological argument and then play the "trump card," when one is losing, of "Well, it doesn't matter, because God doesn't exist anyway."

That's MY stance. You want me to suspend disbelief to entertain theological arguments?

YES! Because when you talk about God as if God exists, you have to "suspend" your disbelief in order to do that. Otherwise, it's not a theological argument, it's an ontological argument. Here's the rub as far as this thread is concerned: "God-as-good-vs-God-as-evil" is a theological, not an ontological argument.