God is Evil - Now What?

[sojourner]

Aren't all observations with relation to theology superficial and incomplete? I mean, the very concept of God has long been said to be beyond mortal comprehension.

There's a vast difference between missing some pieces of the puzzle, and not comprehending what to do with the puzzle in the first place.

 

[viole]

Not really. I'm considering the possibility that a malign, supernatural agency could well be responsible for the creation of life in order to serve some nefarious purpose, and therefore any supposed "good" indicated to be a result of that God, or that anyone attributes to that God, is a deliberate attempt to mislead. It makes perfect sense that an evil entity such as that WOULD convince people that it is good, and establishing itself as, as you put it, "the ideal of good" is precisely the best way to mask its true intentions.

Just saying.

Absolutely. That God must be good is a premise without fundament, an unproven, and probably unprovable, axiom suspiciously close to wishful thinking.

All defenses of God being good despite evil, can be easily transformed into a defense of God being evil despite good.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There's a vast difference between missing some pieces of the puzzle, and not comprehending what to do with the puzzle in the first place.

And how do you determine which is which? How do you determine that an assessment that concludes that God is most likely indifferent is a result of total incomprehension while the view that God is necessarily good is a result of merely "missing some pieces"? The fact is that any conclusion on this subject is going to come from an uninformed and incomplete perspective of the issues involved, so I do not think it is fair to dismiss someone else's conclusion entirely on those grounds.

 

[sojourner]

If you don't understand what I wrote, you're free to re-read it.

I'm not making any claims about a person's exegesis. I don't approach this discussion with the assumption that an interpretation of a religion's scriptures that casts its god(s) in a bad light is necessarily wrong.

Yes, you are making those claims. You're making exactly those claims. Because part of exegesis is coming to an understanding that, even though God may be conceptualized as "perfect," what has been written about God is not objectively so. If a person has poor exegetical skills, they will determine that the writings, themselves are perfect, flawless communicators of God's actions in an empirical way. So, when you comment on whether someone thinks "X or Y are good," you are commenting only on their poor exegetical skills. No one with good exegetical skills understands that "committing genocide against one's enemies" is good, simply because "that's what the bible 'says.'"

 

[sojourner]

And how do you determine which is which? How do you determine that an assessment that concludes that God is most likely indifferent is a result of total incomprehension while the view that God is necessarily good is a result of merely "missing some pieces"? The fact is that any conclusion on this subject is going to come from an uninformed and incomplete perspective of the issues involved, so I do not think it is fair to dismiss someone else's conclusion entirely on those grounds.

<sigh> We can only talk about God in theological terms -- that is, within the confines of some theological construction. We can't talk about God in empirical terms. All theological constructs about God begin with the written and oral Traditions about God, and that's the framework within which we must talk about God. There simply are no written or oral Traditions about God that frame God as "indifferent toward human beings."

 

[sojourner]

I've spent a whole lot of time speculating about things that I did not believe were real, such as how a movie monster might function if it was real. Then again, I'm a nerd, so you've got to expect that kind of thing from me.

But that flight of fancy has no bearing or impact on the real world.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

<sigh> We can only talk about God in theological terms -- that is, within the confines of some theological construction. We can't talk about God in empirical terms. All theological constructs about God begin with the written and oral Traditions about God, and that's the framework within which we must talk about God. There simply are no written or oral Traditions about God that frame God as "indifferent toward human beings."

But why do you not dismiss any of those written or oral accounts as coming from a "superficial and incomplete understanding of theology"? I mean, by definition they must be superficial and incomplete, since they are humans writing about subjects that are widely considered to be beyond the scope of human comprehension. We now have at least one statement, "God is indifferent", that we can assess and add to their claims. Why can this statement, which can now be said to be part of the theological discussion, be dismissed while others are not? How do you identify a qualified claim about God from a claim you can just dismiss as "superficial"?

 

[Donmax]

True. I do believe that so-called "gods " are evil; such as dictators, kings, emporers, presidents, governments, mega corporations, oligarchies, illumanati, and angels (not all of course).

I find it interesting how people (and society in general) relate and appease their evil human rulers in comparison to the God:

1. They kiss the feet of their evil employers & dictators; they curse God
2. They obey the evil and contradictory orders of their evil governments and president; they ignore the laws of God
3. They take part in pillaging, holocausts, and genocide with their evil regime and emporers; they ignore Gods laws of helping the poor and needy.

It seems that millions would survive by giving in to these evil organizations and rulers so as long as they can see them eye-to-eye. It seems kind of hypocritical to me the way mankind behaves in the world.

What do you guys and gals think about this blatant observation?

I suppose if we take countries like north Korea for example (apologies to any North Korean people who might disagree with this) but the people of that beautiful country are brought up from an very early age with wonderful stories of their so call supreme leader, a so call human god if everything those poor people of that beautiful country is brought up to believe in is true, but then they probably have no other choice but to believe.

Alessandro Ford is reported to be the first western student to study at Kim Il Sung university in North Korea and what he has to say just confirms to me how easy the human mind can be control and mostly with the fear of the unknown, he spent four months there in a country that is without a doubt close off from the rest of the world in a very strict control environment, all 24+ million of them and all control by what.

Well i guess one is they don't have a right to question the ruling of their so call supreme leader and of course those who put him there in the first place, punishable by ?, but to me what Alessandro says at the end is not just sad but very true when he talks about the feeling of isolation and that's only after he spent four months there but as he says "these people are isolated there for 60 odd years"

60 years of mind control but actually more than likely a lot longer than that, hard to believe but then again not really when you think they're brought up from an early age with all those wonderful stories of their so call supreme leaders, so call demigods with great powers.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, you are making those claims. You're making exactly those claims. Because part of exegesis is coming to an understanding that, even though God may be conceptualized as "perfect," what has been written about God is not objectively so. If a person has poor exegetical skills, they will determine that the writings, themselves are perfect, flawless communicators of God's actions in an empirical way. So, when you comment on whether someone thinks "X or Y are good," you are commenting only on their poor exegetical skills. No one with good exegetical skills understands that "committing genocide against one's enemies" is good, simply because "that's what the bible 'says.'"

For the purposes of this discussion, I don't give a fig where a person got their beliefs about God from as long as those beliefs are sincere.

I'm sure there's plenty for you to disagree with in my actual position, so why not try arguing against something I'm actually saying?

 

[sojourner]

But, theoretically, could God actually still be an evil entity that is convincing the world that it is good?

No. Because the "theoretically" part has to be based in the theology -- and the theology is based in "what we know about God," which is the written and oral Tradition of those who believe in God: the bible and its attendant oral Tradition.

Isn't that precisely what an evil entity would do? It's perfectly possible to build a religious paradigm which paints God as a malevolent dictator, and values human will and ingenuity over deference to God as it would be an expression of our capability, independence and determination to resist God's malign influence?

See above. There is no written or oral Tradition that paints God in such a light. We can only realistically work with what we have.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No. Because the "theoretically" part has to be based in the theology -- and the theology is based in "what we know about God," which is the written and oral Tradition of those who believe in God: the bible and its attendant oral Tradition.

No, I'm talking theoretically is it not possible that all of those things that we THINK we know about God are a deliberate attempt to mislead us? Is that not theoretically possible?

See above. There is no written or oral Tradition that paints God in such a light. We can only realistically work with what we have.

So there is zero possibility that God is a malicious entity that has CONVINCED us that they are good, and we should just assume God is good because the writings of many religions say it? Question: What if God is actually the devil? Isn't that PRECISELY what they would do?

 

[Parsimony]

But that flight of fancy has no bearing or impact on the real world.

Exactly. If a person can speculate on matters with no impact on the real world, then what isn't up for speculation?

 

[Desert Snake]

Exactly. If a person can speculate on matters with no impact on the real world, then what isn't up for speculation?

I think that what he means, is, contextually, you don't have the material to make a sensible speculation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. Because the "theoretically" part has to be based in the theology -- and the theology is based in "what we know about God," which is the written and oral Tradition of those who believe in God: the bible and its attendant oral Tradition.

Seems like you're confusing "what we know" with "what we believe".

There was a recent TED Talk that identified that as the hallmark of dogmatism:

 

[Parsimony]

I think that what he means, is, contextually, you don't have the material to make a sensible speculation.

I think that depends on the specifics, but the same argument could be made for religious speculation. In both cases you have a lack of proof in the specific matter (which is what promotes speculation in the first place). Even if one accepted God as proven, it doesn't mean that everything about God is known or provable. Again, you'd have to speculate.

 

[Desert Snake]

I think that depends on the specifics, but the same argument could be made for religious speculation. In both cases you have a lack of proof in the specific matter (which is what promotes speculation in the first place). Even if one accepted God as proven, it doesn't mean that everything about God is known or provable. Again, you'd have to speculate.

I didn't say that I agreed with the idea.

 

[Parsimony]

I didn't say that I agreed with the idea.

~shrugs~ Okee dokee then.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

<sigh> We can only talk about God in theological terms -- that is, within the confines of some theological construction. We can't talk about God in empirical terms. All theological constructs about God begin with the written and oral Traditions about God, and that's the framework within which we must talk about God. There simply are no written or oral Traditions about God that frame God as "indifferent toward human beings."

"In our system, there are many gods, spirits. Part of one big family, with all the virtues, all the vices. . . . Voodoo says there's God, sure, Gran Met, but he's big, too big, and too far away to worry himself if your *** is poor, or you can't get laid."
- William Gibson, Count Zero

http://project.cyberpunk.ru/idb/voodoo_in_neuromancer.html

 

[Desert Snake]

No. Because the "theoretically" part has to be based in the theology -- and the theology is based in "what we know about God," which is the written and oral Tradition of those who believe in God: the bible and its attendant oral Tradition.

See above. There is no written or oral Tradition that paints God in such a light. We can only realistically work with what we have.

Although I agree with this in the context of believers, and how they utilize the Scripture, etc., it does not preclude a complete contextual situation where no speculation is logically possible. I believe that your view, though fine, in general, can lead to a very materialistic type of legalism within religion.

 

[sojourner]

Not really. I'm considering the possibility that a malign, supernatural agency could well be responsible for the creation of life in order to serve some nefarious purpose, and therefore any supposed "good" indicated to be a result of that God, or that anyone attributes to that God, is a deliberate attempt to mislead.

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