If God is evil...

[Gloone]

God being capable of making mistakes does solve the Problem of Evil; and a God that makes mistakes can still be a good God worthy of respect and worship in my opinion.

Can you be more clear with what you mean by god being capable of making mistakes. Are you going to the extreme and saying life and everything about it is a mistake including the very planets, solar systems, galaxies, etc. and everything you like and enjoy about it.

 

[ellenjanuary]

According to Jesus it is because you are looking at someone for lust not love. It is not a crime though it is just considered sin.

What if it's both? I mean, I definitely love Gwyneth Paltrow, but there is also a natural response element. I got away from the "covet" issue 'cause Chris ain't my neighbor (thank goodness) but... I'm confuseled.

 

[Gloone]

What if it's both? I mean, I definitely love Gwyneth Paltrow, but there is also a natural response element. I got away from the "covet" issue 'cause Chris ain't my neighbor (thank goodness) but... I'm confuseled.

If you want to call it a crime to love or lust then go ahead. I don't think it is very reasonable to say that though seeing how the opposite sex does exist for that very reason. The only reason lust might be considered bad is because you end up building an emotional attachment to someone which in that case it is better to love than look after someone for lust. That is all it is saying. It doesn't say if you see some lusty couple on the street throw them and jail and beat them for 40 days and nights over it. I wish I had a sense of humor to go along with this post right now, but I really don't lol.

 

[Storm]

Not evil, but necessary. Where but a prison would you store your most dangerous citizens?

Prison is one thing, torture quite another.

 

[jmvizanko]

Because salvation is always consensual, and not everyone will consent to being saved. There is always the choice to be made. The problem is choice.

What we do in life echoes in eternity .............

The words of the Accuser mouthed by human beings.

This is very much derailing the thread, but I believe nobody can choose what they believe. They just believe whatever makes the most sense to them based on their mind and what they have been presented by their experiences. I have never chosen to reject your god or his salvation, no matter how much you think I have.

Sure what we do in life echoes in eternity, much like ripples on a pond. But just like echoes and ripples, they diminish. Not so for thr infinitude of torture that is hell.

What the hell are you getting at with the words of the accuser? I'm simply stating a very simple concept to grasp. Any being that creates an eternal hell is, in my and many other peoples opinion, by definition sadistic and evil.

 

[ellenjanuary]

If you want to call it a crime to love or lust then go ahead. I don't think it is very reasonable to say that though seeing how the opposite sex does exist for that very reason. The only reason lust might be considered bad is because you end up building an emotional attachment to someone which in that case it is better to love than look after someone for lust. That is all it is saying. It doesn't say if you see some lusty couple on the street throw them and jail and beat them for 40 days and nights over it. I wish I had a sense of humor to go along with this post right now, but I really don't lol.

I agree. I don't really lust over her (but I ain't going anywhere near her to find out ); it's just one of those things. Every time I run across a different version of the Bible, it seems to indicate something different; since I'm absurdly obsessed with that girl, I'm always wondering something... For the most part, though; love is love.

 

[Midnight Pete]

This is very much derailing the thread, but I believe nobody can choose what they believe. They just believe whatever makes the most sense to them based on their mind and what they have been presented by their experiences. I have never chosen to reject your god or his salvation, no matter how much you think I have.

Sure what we do in life echoes in eternity, much like ripples on a pond. But just like echoes and ripples, they diminish. Not so for thr infinitude of torture that is hell.

What the hell are you getting at with the words of the accuser? I'm simply stating a very simple concept to grasp. Any being that creates an eternal hell is, in my and many other peoples opinion, by definition sadistic and evil.

It is not your inevitable fate to spend eternity in hell. Did you realize that? Did you realize there is a much much better option? Do you really think God would have sent His Son to die on the cross to show how much He loved us if He were sadistic or evil?

 

[Gloone]

I agree. I don't really lust over her (but I ain't going anywhere near her to find out ); it's just one of those things. Every time I run across a different version of the Bible, it seems to indicate something different; since I'm absurdly obsessed with that girl, I'm always wondering something... For the most part, though; love is love.

I mean there is a big difference between the two and I am not expert on love / lust either. Sometimes I wish I was it would make life so much easier.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

All Roman Catholics are theists. It's implicit in Roman Catholicism.

Hehe. If you say so.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

God being capable of making mistakes does solve the Problem of Evil; and a God that makes mistakes can still be a good God worthy of respect and worship in my opinion.

The problem of Evil is only a problem when you make it a problem.

 

[Meow Mix]

The problem of Evil is only a problem when you make it a problem.

That's correct -- when you hold contradictory attributes for a being that certainly is a problem.

As for Roman Catholics being theists, yes... 100% of Roman Catholics are theists by definition.

Unless atheists can call themselves "Catholics" in the same sense that atheists can call themselves Jews if they're of Jewish descent... but as far as I know Catholics aren't a culture/"race"/whatever you want to call it.

 

[Gloone]

That's correct -- when you hold contradictory attributes for a being that certainly is a problem.

As for Roman Catholics being theists, yes... 100% of Roman Catholics are theists by definition.

Unless atheists can call themselves "Catholics" in the same sense that atheists can call themselves Jews if they're of Jewish descent... but as far as I know Catholics aren't a culture/"race"/whatever you want to call it.

I don't find it reasonably possible for someone to call themselves an atheist "insert name of religion here". You either believe in god or you don't. There is no in-between. If anything that is broken down terminology at best.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

That's correct -- when you hold contradictory attributes for a being that certainly is a problem.

False dichotomy number one.

As for Roman Catholics being theists, yes... 100% of Roman Catholics are theists by definition.

False dichotomy number two.

Unless atheists can call themselves "Catholics" in the same sense that atheists can call themselves Jews if they're of Jewish descent... but as far as I know Catholics aren't a culture/"race"/whatever you want to call it.

There could be if you want to think of it that way.

 

[Penumbra]

...would you still worship him/her/them to try to get to heaven/paradise?

Or would you reject them as an evil being(s)?

The reason I ask is because every now and then I talk to theists who -- upon being asked about genocides and wicked, terrible things in some holy text or another -- basically just shrug and basically say "Yeah, God is wrathful. So?"

It always throws me for a loop because I want to say, "And you worship this guy? Why?!"

So, if God is evil -- if God is a vindictive, petty tyrant crybaby of a god that murders people to show the world how awesome he/she is like apparently some people believe he is -- would you still worship him?

For those of you who DO think God is wrathful and vindictive (and what I would call petty), why do you worship such a wicked being? If you believe God is wrathful and all that and DON'T worship him, do you ever worry he's going to lay the smack down on you?

I would reject such a monster, because heaven or paradise would not be heaven or paradise for anyone other than those who are evil (and maybe not even for them). If the "reward" is getting to exist with this evil being and those that follow evil, then no thanks. That's a hell if there ever was one.

Not evil, but necessary. Where but a prison would you store your most dangerous citizens?

As Goddess, I wouldn't create immortal citizens. (Why wake someone up after death to bring them to a place of unhappiness?)

This kind of question is only relevant in a flawed worldview with a god that doesn't know what he's doing.

 

[Penumbra]

So let me get this right, you are asserting that there are atheists who don't believe in certain versions of God based on the argument from the existence of evil? Well, as you say, we may have vastly different experiences with atheists, however, the formulation I most hear from many atheists is "I cannot believe in a God that would allow evil." Perhaps I just happen to experience the minority of them the majority of the time.

Only a fool, theist or atheist or whatever else, would disbelieve something based on the reason that they do not like it.

A reasonable person rejects worldviews because they don't make sense, they don't have any validity or evidence, etc. The problem of evil is not a problem for god's existence. It's a problem when it comes to the existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent separate, personal, deity. It's an argument against skillful and benevolent design.

Your response would pretty much confirm that you misunderstood, but lets see if I can help you along. By what would an atheist use to determine what is "evil" apart from at least a theistic basis? Also, any argument against the God of the bible presupposes a certain reading of the Judeo-Christian scriptures, would you not determine that would constitute an importing of at least some elements of the specific viewpoint? The Judeo-Christian worldview carries a commitment that the scriptures communicates a truth about God. What I most often find is that atheists must import the most fundamentalist viewpoints into their discussions about God to prop up their own straw man arguments.

"Evil" is a useful word for convenience but lacks detail. Words like "malevolent", "sadistic", "violent" and so forth are more appropriate.

Reason and other tools can be used to sort out actions that are either good/evil, skillful/not skillful, intelligent/ignorant, benevolent/malevolent, etc.

A self-absorbed, violent, wrathful, sadistic, jealous deity would fall under the category of evil for the same reason any human would.

 

[Penumbra]

To me, everything I perceive is the product of my mind - so for me there is only my understanding of God.

I recall that in another thread, I asked you if you believed I was a figment of your imagination rather than a conscious entity. You replied that you did not, but you cannot prove otherwise.

Have you changed your view? Do you now believe that me and other people in the world are in your head rather than separate and conscious entities?

 

[Meow Mix]

False dichotomy number one.



False dichotomy number two.



There could be if you want to think of it that way.

It's not a false dichotomy given the definitions of "theist" as one who believes in at least one god and "atheist" as one who doesn't believe in any god(s).

This in fact creates a true dichotomy, not a false one. Of course people are free to form different semantics but I'm using these semantics, so it's a true statement that all people are either theists or atheists.

This is sort of like saying "All people are either blondes or non-blondes." That is also a true dichotomy given a sufficient definition of what constitutes a blonde.

As for there being a "race" of Roman Catholics, I really doubt it. I'm already hesitant to accept there is a "race" of Jews; though admittedly there are distinct genetics to groups of Jews such as the Ashkenazi Jews that have high rates of things like Tay-Sachs compared to other people -- but I don't really believe in the term "race" anyway, hence the quotations.

 

[Storm]

It's not a false dichotomy given the definitions of "theist" as one who believes in at least one god and "atheist" as one who doesn't believe in any god(s).

This in fact creates a true dichotomy, not a false one. Of course people are free to form different semantics but I'm using these semantics, so it's a true statement that all people are either theists or atheists.

This is sort of like saying "All people are either blondes or non-blondes." That is also a true dichotomy given a sufficient definition of what constitutes a blonde.

As an aside, I dislike the practice of referring to all believers as "theists." It implies that theistic God-concepts are somehow more authoritative.

 

[Meow Mix]

As an aside, I dislike the practice of referring to all believers as "theists." It implies that theistic God-concepts are somehow more authoritative.

All God-concepts are "theistic" in that they involve gods... that's all the term means. Abrahamic theists are not more "theistic" than deists; they're equally theistic because it simply means they believe in gods. Theism as a term says nothing about what gods are entailed; just that at least one god is believed in by the theist. (Else they would be an atheist).

Theism just denotes the presence of a belief in some sort of deity or deities.

 

[Storm]

All God-concepts are "theistic" in that they involve gods... that's all the term means. Abrahamic theists are not more "theistic" than deists; they're equally theistic because it simply means they believe in gods. Theism as a term says nothing about what gods are entailed; just that at least one god is believed in by the theist. (Else they would be an atheist).

Theism just denotes the presence of a belief in some sort of deity or deities.

You're quite wrong about that. Wiki: Classical theism.

In my book, theism implies supernaturalism and a personal God, at minimum. I am not a theist, anymore than an atheist.