If God Turned Evil Would You Still Follow?

[Kilgore Trout]

Does goodness exist?

Does it exist in some kind of isolated, idealized state, apart from acts, behaviors, thoughts, etc. that are defined as "good?" No, not really. Why?

 

[Nakosis]

Simple question I think.

But I'm expecting people to break it down into What is God? What is Evil? What does it mean to follow? I know I would've

But to answer those questions up front; plug in your own understandings to those words.

I already see God as evil. God created this imperfection.

Good or evil, I don't think God wants us to follow. Otherwise we wouldn't have been given freewill.

 

[savagewind]

Does it exist in some kind of isolated, idealized state, apart from acts, behaviors, thoughts, etc. that are defined as "good?" No, not really. Why?

Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things. Philipians 4:8

Goodness does not exist apart from what it does and can do. That is correct. I believe you. The reason why I asked is that goodness is a fine thing to get right but it can only get right by believing it. You reap what you sow. Sow goodness reap goodness. But it's not a crap shoot. You have to know what goodness is. God is good. So..... Good is God.

 

[Thana]

Sorry if my sympathy for your shortcoming sounds condescending. But when one makes asinine statement like yours I'm at a loss as to how better address them. Would you prefer that people simply ignore you so that you can better live in the comfort of your ignorance?

You do realize that was even more condescending than your last post? You're not sympathetic, You're arrogant.

The majority translation is something other than evil, So if anyone here is ignorant it's the one who thinks evil is the better translation.

 

[Skwim]

You do realize that was even more condescending than your last post? You're not sympathetic, You're arrogant.

Sorry, but you're mistaking confidence for arrogance. And while I am indeed sympathetic to your plight, I'm not about to hold your hand through this discussion. This is a DEBATE forum, not a social tea. If you think my characterization of one of your remarks is wrong, then stand up to it and E X P L A I N why I'm wrong. Show me where in any dictionary all three "mean the same thing." For your convenience I've provided definitions of the three.

Disaster
a sudden event, such as an accident or a natural catastrophe, that causes great damage or loss of life.

Calamity
an event causing great and often sudden damage or distress; a disaster

Doom
fate or destiny, especially adverse fate; unavoidable ill fortune: In exile and poverty, he met his doom.


​

Now it's obvious that "disaster" and "calamity" are almost synonyms, and I wouldn't dispute their commonality but "doom" certainly isn't a good fit at all, nor are "discord," "woe," and "hard times," some of the other interpretations of the Hebrew "ra." So when you say things like "Disaster, Calamity, Doom, They all mean the same thing." you're cherry picking, and not all that well, having included "doom."

Then we come to your infamous "And even one can interpret evil to mean those things, Calamity, disaster, Doom etc and not moral evil."
Taking the definition of "evil" as

e·vil
ˈēvəl/
adjective
adjective: evil

1.
profoundly immoral and malevolent.
"his evil deeds"
synonyms: wicked, bad, wrong, immoral, sinful, foul, vile, dishonorable, corrupt, iniquitous, depraved, reprobate, villainous, nefarious, vicious, malicious; More
​

It's obvious that evil is a circumstance wrought not by nature or pure happenstance, but by the deliberations of a thinking being. This being the case, how can it equate with an act of nature or pure happenstance? It can't. Of course, evil intentions may cause a disaster or calamity, but causing something is hardly the same as being that thing in of itself. See why your remark is asinine? It makes no sense.

Now excusing such incidents as evil but not "not moral evil" is interesting. From the brief definition of "evil" I've presented here it seems that evil is inextricably wedded to morality. So I have to ask, just what kind of evil do you envision that has no moral component---keeping the definition above in mind?

The majority translation is something other than evil, So if anyone here is ignorant it's the one who thinks evil is the better translation.

Yup,and I believe I already agreed with you, and if I haven't stated as much it's all too obvious from the stats I provided. However, it is the mod of the sample, the translation that appears most often, in case you're wondering what a mod is. In fact, it's almost three times more common than your vaunted "disaster." So, not being a Biblical scholar or anything close to one, I think the prudent, unbiased, choice is to pick the most popular: "evil." If these very same statistics alluded to the best way to surmount some obstacle which would you choose, the one that only 3%, or 6%, or even 16% chose, or the one that 47% chose?

And, in as much as you don't think "evil is the better translation," which do you think is, and why?

 

[savagewind]

Young's Literal Translation
Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I am Jehovah, doing all these things Isaiah 45:7

One rendering of ra (evil) is ugly. 20 and the lean and ugly cows ate up the first seven fat cows. 21"Yet when they had devoured them, it could not be detected that they had devoured them, for they were just as ugly as before. Then I awoke.
In verse 20 it is rendered "ill favored".

God creating evil means crime is God's fault. Is it?

 

[Willamena]

Sorry, but you're mistaking confidence for arrogance. And while I am indeed sympathetic to your plight, I'm not about to hold your hand through this discussion. This is a DEBATE forum, not a social tea. If you think my characterization of one of your remarks is wrong, then stand up to it and E X P L A I N why I'm wrong. Show me where in any dictionary all three "mean the same thing." For your convenience I've provided definitions of the three.

Disaster
a sudden event, such as an accident or a natural catastrophe, that causes great damage or loss of life.

Calamity
an event causing great and often sudden damage or distress; a disaster

Doom
fate or destiny, especially adverse fate; unavoidable ill fortune: In exile and poverty, he met his doom.


​

Now it's obvious that "disaster" and "calamity" are almost synonyms, and I wouldn't dispute their commonality but "doom" certainly isn't a good fit at all, nor are "discord," "woe," and "hard times," some of the other interpretations of the Hebrew "ra." So when you say things like "Disaster, Calamity, Doom, They all mean the same thing." you're cherry picking, and not all that well, having included "doom."

Then we come to your infamous "And even one can interpret evil to mean those things, Calamity, disaster, Doom etc and not moral evil."
Taking the definition of "evil" as

e·vil
ˈēvəl/
adjective
adjective: evil

1.
profoundly immoral and malevolent.
"his evil deeds"
synonyms: wicked, bad, wrong, immoral, sinful, foul, vile, dishonorable, corrupt, iniquitous, depraved, reprobate, villainous, nefarious, vicious, malicious; More
​

It's obvious that evil is a circumstance wrought not by nature or pure happenstance, but by the deliberations of a thinking being. This being the case, how can it equate with an act of nature or pure happenstance? It can't. Of course, evil intentions may cause a disaster or calamity, but causing something is hardly the same as being that thing in of itself. See why your remark is asinine? It makes no sense.

Now excusing such incidents as evil but not "not moral evil" is interesting. From the brief definition of "evil" I've presented here it seems that evil is inextricably wedded to morality. So I have to ask, just what kind of evil do you envision that has no moral component---keeping the definition above in mind?

Yup,and I believe I already agreed with you, and if I haven't stated as much it's all too obvious from the stats I provided. However, it is the mod of the sample, the translation that appears most often, in case you're wondering what a mod is. In fact, it's almost three times more common than your vaunted "disaster." So, not being a Biblical scholar or anything close to one, I think the prudent, unbiased, choice is to pick the most popular: "evil." If these very same statistics alluded to the best way to surmount some obstacle which would you choose, the one that only 3%, or 6%, or even 16% chose, or the one that 47% chose?

And, in as much as you don't think "evil is the better translation," which do you think is, and why?

...And is it still raining, back in November?

 

[Thana]

Sorry, but you're mistaking confidence for arrogance. And while I am indeed sympathetic to your plight, I'm not about to hold your hand through this discussion. This is a DEBATE forum, not a social tea. If you think my characterization of one of your remarks is wrong, then stand up to it and E X P L A I N why I'm wrong. Show me where in any dictionary all three "mean the same thing." For your convenience I've provided definitions of the three.

Disaster
a sudden event, such as an accident or a natural catastrophe, that causes great damage or loss of life.

Calamity
an event causing great and often sudden damage or distress; a disaster

Doom
fate or destiny, especially adverse fate; unavoidable ill fortune: In exile and poverty, he met his doom.


​

Now it's obvious that "disaster" and "calamity" are almost synonyms, and I wouldn't dispute their commonality but "doom" certainly isn't a good fit at all, nor are "discord," "woe," and "hard times," some of the other interpretations of the Hebrew "ra." So when you say things like "Disaster, Calamity, Doom, They all mean the same thing." you're cherry picking, and not all that well, having included "doom."

I don't expect you to coddle me, I feel plenty capable of handling you. And I've explained why you're wrong, twice before.

For example,

""I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things,"

So light and darkness works, It fits. Peace and evil does not fit. If it meant Ethical Evil, Wouldn't it say "I create good and evil" ? Doesn't it make more sense that it is Peace and Disaster? Peace and Calamity? And what has peace got to do with morality? If it was specifically referring to morality, Why wouldn't it say Good instead of Peace? I've brought this up before but I don't remember you having any reasonable rebuttal for it.

As for disaster, Calamity and doom meaning the same thing, I still stand by that. Would you ever say something was a doomed disaster? No, Because that's redundant. Doom can mean something similar to disaster. They both mean something bad, I don't see why that isn't good enough for you?

Then we come to your infamous "And even one can interpret evil to mean those things, Calamity, disaster, Doom etc and not moral evil."
Taking the definition of "evil" as

e·vil
ˈēvəl/
adjective
adjective: evil

1.
profoundly immoral and malevolent.
"his evil deeds"
synonyms: wicked, bad, wrong, immoral, sinful, foul, vile, dishonorable, corrupt, iniquitous, depraved, reprobate, villainous, nefarious, vicious, malicious; More
​

It's obvious that evil is a circumstance wrought not by nature or pure happenstance, but by the deliberations of a thinking being. This being the case, how can it equate with an act of nature or pure happenstance? It can't. Of course, evil intentions may cause a disaster or calamity, but causing something is hardly the same as being that thing in of itself. See why your remark is asinine? It makes no sense.

Now excusing such incidents as evil but not "not moral evil" is interesting. From the brief definition of "evil" I've presented here it seems that evil is inextricably wedded to morality. So I have to ask, just what kind of evil do you envision that has no moral component---keeping the definition above in mind?

You're conveniently leaving out the other definitions of Evil,

adjective
adjective: evil
- something which is harmful or undesirable.
- (of a smell or sight) extremely unpleasant.
- a manifestation of this, especially in people's actions.

That can include Ethical Evil, But it doesn't have too. Therefore, A disaster can be percieved as Evil. Heck, A smell can be percieved as Evil (ie - An Evil Smell). Morality doesn't have to come into it.

 

[Skwim]

And I've explained why you're wrong, twice before.

For example,

""I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things,"

So light and darkness works, It fits. Peace and evil does not fit. If it meant Ethical Evil, Wouldn't it say "I create good and evil" ? Doesn't it make more sense that it is Peace and Disaster? Peace and Calamity? And what has peace got to do with morality? If it was specifically referring to morality, Why wouldn't it say Good instead of Peace? I've brought this up before but I don't remember you having any reasonable rebuttal for it.

I'm not arguing why one interpretation is better than another, only that "evil" is singularly the most common. More translations use "evil" than any other single term.

As for disaster, Calamity and doom meaning the same thing, I still stand by that.

Okay

Would you ever say something was a doomed disaster? No, Because that's redundant.

Not because its redundant, but that it's senseless. It means that the disaster is doomed. Modifying disaster with doom is like modifying "speed" with "hard."

Doom can mean something similar to disaster. They both mean something bad, I don't see why that isn't good enough for you?

Because, as the definition says, disaster is an event. Doom is more of an inevitability, it may or may not involve a disaster or calamity. Once the object of dome comes to fruition it is no longer considered to be doomed. However, once a disaster or calamity takes place it can easily remain a disaster or calamity. And, doom could involve the fate of a group of poker players, a fate hardly considered a disaster or calamity by anyone involved.

 

[Thana]

I'm not arguing why one interpretation is better than another, only that "evil" is singularly the most common. More translations use "evil" than any other single term.

You're the one who's going around saying God is evil, Here look at this scripture saying God does Evil. I refer you to your first post on this thread.

To say now that you're just arguing translation is nonsense.

Not because its redundant, but that it's senseless. It means that the disaster is doomed. Modifying disaster with doom is like modifying "speed" with "hard."

Senseless or redundant, You still don't say something is a doomed disaster.

Because, as the definition says, disaster is an event. Doom is more of an inevitability, it may or may not involve a disaster or calamity. Once the object of dome comes to fruition it is no longer considered to be doomed. However, once a disaster or calamity takes place it can easily remain a disaster or calamity. And, doom could involve the fate of a group of poker players, a fate hardly considered a disaster or calamity by anyone involved.

Yes, I understand that doomed is a word that can mean something other than a disaster, But it can also mean something similar to a disaster, That's my point.

These semantics are really irrelevant to the debate anyway.

I'm kinda disappointed, You haven't really refuted anything I've said as of yet.
Perhaps you might be conceding that Disaster/Calamity is a more appropriate translation than moral Evil?

 

[Skwim]

You're the one who's going around saying God is evil, Here look at this scripture saying God does Evil. I refer you to your first post on this thread.

To say now that you're just arguing translation is nonsense.

Oh my, oh my *sigh* Yes, on the basis of its wide appearance in the various versions I examined, it's reasonable to conclude that 47% of these versions lend credibility to the proposition that god is evil. Of course my conclusion may be open to question, but just as I would say that anybody who spreads good throughout the world is a good person, I assert that anybody who spreads evil throughout the world would be an evil person. Now you may think that someone who created disasters, calamity, woe, or doom for the world is a good guy, but I don't. Just as I call any god who created evil, evil, I would also call any god who brought disasters, calamity, woe, or doom into the world evil as well. What's convenient about the 47%, however, is that there's not the problem of debating whether or not creating disasters and doom amount to evil. With evil being the most popular interpretation of "ra" it almost begs to be the interpretation of choice, and in turn eliminating any need of speculation as to what "ra" indicates about god's character. It comes down to, evil is as evil does.

But go ahead and dismiss the 47% as a gross interpretation, and stick with your "disaster's" 16%, but then how do you characterize a being that specifically created disaster throughout the world? What would you say of the do-gooder down the street who rapes his children, forget about the rape part and focus on all the good deeds he does? I understand why it's necessary to do this with your god, set all his bad deeds aside and concentrate on the good stuff he does, but is this really being honest to yourself? For myself, I value my self integrity too much to purposely adhere to such a deceit.

 

[Thana]

Oh my, oh my *sigh* Yes, on the basis of its wide appearance in the various versions I examined, it's reasonable to conclude that 47% of these versions lend credibility to the proposition that god is evil. Of course my conclusion may be open to question, but just as I would say that anybody who spreads good throughout the world is a good person, I assert that anybody who spreads evil throughout the world would be an evil person. Now you may think that someone who created disasters, calamity, woe, or doom for the world is a good guy, but I don't. Just as I call any god who created evil, evil, I would also call any god who brought disasters, calamity, woe, or doom into the world evil as well. What's convenient about the 47%, however, is that there's not the problem of debating whether or not creating disasters and doom amount to evil. With evil being the most popular interpretation of "ra" it almost begs to be the interpretation of choice, and in turn eliminating any need of speculation as to what "ra" indicates about god's character. It comes down to, evil is as evil does.

But go ahead and dismiss the 47% as a gross interpretation, and stick with your "disaster's" 16%, but then how do you characterize a being that specifically created disaster throughout the world? What would you say of the do-gooder down the street who rapes his children, forget about the rape part and focus on all the good deeds he does? I understand why it's necessary to do this with your god, set all his bad deeds aside and concentrate on the good stuff he does, but is this really being honest to yourself? For myself, I value my self integrity too much to purposely adhere to such a deceit.

I've already given you two reasons why that verse does not mean Ethical Evil, But you clearly don't want to hear it so I won't bother to repeat myself. 47% isn't the majority, I don't know why you keep bringing up that number when you know that you are going with the minority translation but I digress.

As to a God that creates and allows disaster, I say that isn't evil, That it is good. Disaster, Pain, Calamity, Fear, All these things make us grow into better more empthatic and understanding people. It gives us strength and knowledge. Now you can discount that, But personally I wouldn't. Your past and all the bad things that happened to you have made you the person you are, And assuming you like the person you are now, You'd have to then thank God for all the things you went through to get here, That is, If you believed in Him.

And besides, As fallible creatures, We've lied and stolen and cheated most likely more than once in our lives and we're likely to do it again in the future. Valuing your own integrity is the bigger deceit in my opinion.

 

[Orbit]

Simple question I think.

But I'm expecting people to break it down into What is God? What is Evil? What does it mean to follow? I know I would've

But to answer those questions up front; plug in your own understandings to those words.

Well, if you're leaving it up to my understanding, I assume you are referring to the God of the Bible, who indeed does evil (genocide, slavery). I worshipped that God for a long time, but do no longer because of that and its polytheistic Canaanite origins. However as a panentheist I'm still working out exactly what my God concept actually is...

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Well, if you're leaving it up to my understanding, I assume you are referring to the God of the Bible, who indeed does evil (genocide, slavery). I worshipped that God for a long time, but do longer because of that and its polytheistic Canaanite origins. However as a panentheist I'm still working out exactly what my God concept actually is...

I am not referring to any specific God, or any specific evil. Like I said, you place your own understanding of God and evil into them.

 

[Orbit]

I am not referring to any specific God, or any specific evil. Like I said, you place your own understanding of God and evil into them.

Well then, I would say that I don't "follow" any God; I experience God. If that experience were evil, I would no longer seek it.

 

[Sleeppy]

I'd continue to do whatever was best for me, and others around me.. And if I couldn't do that, I'd probably just pull a Robin Williams (rather, a Kurt Cobain).

 

[morphesium]

what religious people are following Devil, not God

 

[Willamena]

Well then, I would say that I don't "follow" any God; I experience God. If that experience were evil, I would no longer seek it.

Then that's the answer.

 

[Renji]

Simple question I think.

Well, I simply don't believe in any so what should I do?

What is God?

'God' in a christian point of view is someone who created everything or something that you put in priority in your life, like money, etc (giving that 'God' a small letter g or additional letter s on that word).

What is Evil?

'Evil' is a person or something (an event, etc) that caused harm to someone as an effect.

What does it mean to follow?

To 'follow' in a christian point of view is tantamount to obedience, doing whatever that pleases god. According to the standards of the particular christian group at least.

 

[Harikrish]

God is portrayed in all religions as judge and executioner. His forgiveness is conditional accept it or die. Obedience to God is demanded. God is the ultimate dictator and has gone on record destroying the world (the great flood), scattering people (Babylon) and destroying cities Sodom and Gomorrah. So even though God is portrayed as a benevolent despot, he is the personification of evil.

A quote from Jesus.

Matthew 10:35 For I have come to turn " 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--
36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'
37 "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;