If God is evil...

[jmvizanko]

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?

Like I said, I can't choose what I believe to be true. And quite fittingly, what you say next is why I think it isn't true. I think a god who sets up a plan for salvation that a majority of mankind will not have work for them through no fault of their own, ending in their eternal punishment for unintentionally believing the wrong thing, is yes, very evil and sadistic.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

If theism is to have a belief that at least one deity exists and atheism is to lack a belief in any gods, then they are truly dichotomous.

If you are defining theism differently then of course it could possibly be a false dichotomy, but the way I have defined the terms it is a true dichotomy.

This is why it's important for you to define your terms if you're using them differently. Are you?

If you agree with my terms for theism and atheism, then the statement "Roman Catholics aren't theists or atheists" is irrational.

I have told you before that I accept your terms of atheist and theist. It is your definition of Roman Catholicism that I have a problem with. RC does not equal theism or atheism. By extension, your dichotomy is false, but that is beside the point.

 

[Nothing]

...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?

Isn't it obvious? We made God in OUR image.

 

[averageJOE]

I'm sorry but you don't know what it is like to lose your religion and faith until you are a catholic. Go to church on Sunday, drink the blood of Christ and eat his flesh then see if you walk the same person.

And this isn't evil? God requiring people to canabalize his son?

 

[Meow Mix]

I have told you before that I accept your terms of atheist and theist. It is your definition of Roman Catholicism that I have a problem with. RC does not equal theism or atheism. By extension, your dichotomy is false, but that is beside the point.

...but if you accept my definitions of theism and atheism you would realize that they're a true dichotomy and that not a single sentient being is exempt from the terms.

You keep saying "No it's not" but you never explain why.

Please explain how Roman Catholicism doesn't fulfill the definition of theism.

 

[Gloone]

And this isn't evil? God requiring people to canabalize his son?

It really depends on your definition of evil. You can surely call it that if you think killing the son of god, drinking his blood and devouring his flesh is evil. You could even say that the Catholics are youngblooded vampires in training. Then they sing and give evil praise, and worship over the sacrificial lamb they recieved and are all put in a deep trance while doing it.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

...but if you accept my definitions of theism and atheism you would realize that they're a true dichotomy and that not a single sentient being is exempt from the terms.

You keep saying "No it's not" but you never explain why.

Please explain how Roman Catholicism doesn't fulfill the definition of theism.

As you think of it, it does. As I think of it, it doesn't. There is no need for a belief in God. So it fulfills neither atheism or theism. That is why there is a false dichotomy. You can be both theist and atheist because you are neither.

 

[Meow Mix]

As you think of it, it does. As I think of it, it doesn't. There is no need for a belief in God. So it fulfills neither atheism or theism. That is why there is a false dichotomy. You can be both theist and atheist because you are neither.

The crux of the issue here is that you have a strange definition of the word "belief."

Answering affirmatively to the question "Does a god exist" is a belief statement; it indicates that you believe a god exists. There needn't be anything specific about it other than you hold it as true that at least one god exists -- holding something as true is what "believing" is.

It's not possible to answer "yes" to the question "Does a god exist?" without stating a belief: answering "yes" is the same thing as saying "It is true that a god exists," which is a belief statement.

See?

Now, if you define "belief" differently than the rest of the world, you can clear up this confusion by letting us know how you use the word. An explanation for why you think your use of the word is better than the rest of the world would be helpful for us to understand, too.

 

[Sunstone]

I have no doubt the petty god to the bible is fiction. But even it that god were real, I could not worship such a petty, immoral deity.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

The crux of the issue here is that you have a strange definition of the word "belief."

Yes, I think that is the issue here. You see belief as an assertion of something, be it justified or unjustified. I see it as a cop out for any person who calls themselves religious. Generally, when people say 'I believe this', they don't really believe it at all, except at face value. That, I believe, is an insult to what God actually is.
Now, there are people who do believe and believe wholeheartedly in something that they've found to be true about God. I don't mean to rib on them for using the word.
I've found that more often than not, the people who truly do believe, don't need to use the word anymore. The question is as irrelevant as asking someone if they believe in gravity. (I think I've said that before somewhere).
This is where the difference comes between believing something exists, and something actually existing.
I would use the word knowing that something exists here, because knowing is without doubt. Knowledge gained through the experience of this thing we call God is absolute, because it is not knowledge at all. That is merely our perception of it. Once we start perceiving, absolute truths disappear. That's part of the reason why this is so confusing.

I'll stop before I get too far ahead of myself...but I think I already have.

 

[tarasan]

Who defines what is evil and what isnt? is this a subjective evil that is just your opinion? or objective? and if so how are you gaining this objective morality?

 

[Meow Mix]

Yes, I think that is the issue here. You see belief as an assertion of something, be it justified or unjustified. I see it as a cop out for any person who calls themselves religious. Generally, when people say 'I believe this', they don't really believe it at all, except at face value. That, I believe, is an insult to what God actually is.
Now, there are people who do believe and believe wholeheartedly in something that they've found to be true about God. I don't mean to rib on them for using the word.
I've found that more often than not, the people who truly do believe, don't need to use the word anymore. The question is as irrelevant as asking someone if they believe in gravity. (I think I've said that before somewhere).

But we do believe in gravity. Belief doesn't imply anything about the truth of our convictions -- belief just mean there is a conviction; regardless of truth value. When we start investigating whether a belief is true or not that's when we enter epistemology and determining what we justifiably believe and what we know.

It unnecessarily clouds issues to use a bizarre definition of "belief" that 99.9% of English speakers and particularly philosophers don't use. I don't understand why you'd want to make something simple so obtuse.

This is where the difference comes between believing something exists, and something actually existing.
I would use the word knowing that something exists here, because knowing is without doubt. Knowledge gained through the experience of this thing we call God is absolute, because it is not knowledge at all. That is merely our perception of it. Once we start perceiving, absolute truths disappear. That's part of the reason why this is so confusing.

I'll stop before I get too far ahead of myself...but I think I already have.

You can't have any opinions about something existing without regarding that it's true that it exists -- which is what 'believing' is.

It seems you're also using a bizarre definition of the word "knowledge" because... well, it's hard to explain in terms you'd understand because I'm trying to use normal English but you're using "strikeviper's version of English."

Normally, "belief" is when you regard something as true. It's required to know something: to know is to believe something that's true with justification that it's true. Normally, to regard something as true and not to have any doubt about it is still a belief, and may be knowledge if it's justified and true.

When you make statements like " Knowledge gained through the experience of this thing we call God is absolute, because it is not knowledge at all. That is merely our perception of it," that's terribly confusing. So you call it knowledge (and that it's gained through experience) but then you take it back and say it's not knowledge, and that it's a perception...

What?!

Doesn't make sense at all to me; furthermore, perceiving something and regarding it as true is still a belief. If the perception is a justifier, and it's true as far as you know, it can even be knowledge. Whatever you're trying to say is totally lost on me because your terms are so muddled in my understanding... maybe you just haven't defined your terms clearly enough, but again I'm still just trying to figure out why you avoid the normal English terms in the first place that everyone already understands...?

 

[idea]

(Book of Mormon | Alma42:22)
...if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

God would cease to be God if He were evil.

As others have prob said (I did not read the entire thread)

- God did not ex-Nihlo create everything, He is transforming what eternally exists. Evil is uncreated/untransformed... Good/beautiful has been touched/organized by God's hand.

see: Hebrew Word Studies "The English word "create" is an abstract word and a foriegn concept to the Hebrews. While we see God as one who makes something from nothing (create), the Hebrews saw God like a bird who goes about acquiring and gathering materials to build a nest (qen), the sky and earth."

translation error, "create" is more akin to "transform"... God transforms/refines... God found Himself in the midst of chaos, and put out some laws to transform what He found around Himself, so that everything had the chance to advance like Him...

so God is cleaning up a mess He did not create, but He will not take away anyone's agency.

We are refined in a "fire"... what is better, to be refined (even if it takes a fire), or to be left to wallow in an uncreated/unformed state? God is not evil, He allows hard things to happen so that we can learn, and be refined.

This life is also a test - to reveal who we are to ourselves... Not "I might have thought that, but I would have never done it"... we have to actually do what we will do, to prove to ourselves who we are...

Are we loving/caring/trusting/selfless etc. etc. no matter what? Our true character is revealed only when it is revealed in all possible circumstances. We learn how strong/weak we are, only when we are taken to the edge...

 

[Gloone]

This life is also a test - to reveal who we are to ourselves... Not "I might have thought that, but I would have never done it"... we have to actually do what we will do, to prove to ourselves who we are...

Are we loving/caring/trusting/selfless etc. etc. no matter what? Our true character is revealed only when it is revealed in all possible circumstances. We learn how strong/weak we are, only when we are taken to the edge...

How can life be a nothing more than a test. What is it that god is testing exactly? If this life is nothing more than a test to reveal who we are to ourselves, would you say nothing else in this world really matters? Your family is not important, the people around you not important, the time of day isn't important, having a job isn't important, etc. God could very well be one of the most extreme evils we could ever imagine. The only reason people think god isn't is because that isn't something they want to believe. Even if god is evil and you decided not to worship him, you still have to live in the world god created and there is really no way around that.

 

[idea]

How can life be a nothing more than a test. What is it that god is testing exactly? If this life is nothing more than a test to reveal who we are to ourselves, would you say nothing else in this world really matters? Your family is not important, the people around you not important, the time of day isn't important, having a job isn't important, etc. God could very well be one of the most extreme evils we could ever imagine. The only reason people think god isn't is because that isn't something they want to believe. Even if god is evil and you decided not to worship him, you still have to live in the world god created and there is really no way around that.

There is more to life than just a test, but part of it is a test - those who do well on the test are given more power, are able to be closer to others around them... those who do not do well are geiven less power, and are not able to be as close to one another, so they cannot cause hurt/pain... it's not a good idea to give power/close relashonships to those who cannot handle it...

Above a test, we learn and grow here - we learn to hate evil, and love good. We learn through experience those things that can only be learned through experience.

We are here because we chose to come here. Our Spirits existed with God in heaven before we were born on Earth, everyone who is now on the Earth is here because we chose to come here - at one point, all who are here, decided to follow God.

Our family is what it is all about, all of the commandments - don't steal, don't lie, don't covet - they are all about how to treat one another, that's the whole point of it all, to have strong relashonships, and idealy, family is the closest relashonship you can have. LDS - in our temples, that is the highest thing, being sealed together - heaven is about being together - one heart, one mind, united in all things - that's God's goal, that we are united with one another... it is a glorious beautiful goal.

 

[Gloone]

There is more to life than just a test, but part of it is a test - those who do well on the test are given more power, are able to be closer to others around them... those who do not do well are geiven less power, and are not able to be as close to one another, so they cannot cause hurt/pain... it's not a good idea to give power/close relashonships to those who cannot handle it...

Above a test, we learn and grow here - we learn to hate evil, and love good. We learn through experience those things that can only be learned through experience.

We are here because we chose to come here. Our Spirits existed with God in heaven before we were born on Earth, everyone who is now on the Earth is here because we chose to come here - at one point, all who are here, decided to follow God.

Our family is what it is all about, all of the commandments - don't steal, don't lie, don't covet - they are all about how to treat one another, that's the whole point of it all, to have strong relashonships, and idealy, family is the closest relashonship you can have. LDS - in our temples, that is the highest thing, being sealed together - heaven is about being together - one heart, one mind, united in all things - that's God's goal, that we are united with one another... it is a glorious beautiful goal.

Those are just ambitions everyone has them.

 

[Thesavorofpan]

...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?

Well yes God is a big crybaby. No I don't worship him, but I don't go telling people that he doesn't exst ether. I don't want to be for hm nor do I want to be against him. I want to remain in a netural ground. IF that is all possible.

 

[Meow Mix]

Well yes God is a big crybaby. No I don't worship him, but I don't go telling people that he doesn't exst ether. I don't want to be for hm nor do I want to be against him. I want to remain in a netural ground. IF that is all possible.

Do you not believe that God is omniscient and that He knows you just typed that..?

 

[Midnight Pete]

And this isn't evil? God requiring people to canabalize his son?

No one is *required* to cannibalize the Son of God. But since the Body and Blood are perpetually offered to us, we partake. You have to understand the circumstances in which this ritual is performed. Eating & drinking with others is an act of community. It is a reenactment of the Last Supper.

 

[Gloone]

No one is *required* to cannibalize the Son of God. But since the Body and Blood are perpetually offered to us, we partake. You have to understand the circumstances in which this ritual is performed. Eating & drinking with others is an act of community. It is a reenactment of the Last Supper.

I have had some really crazy thoughts regarding Jesus last super, his resurrection and the partaking in flesh and blood. Even though I know those are just symbols. The wine and bread.