Is god evil

[Wildswanderer]

Never said it was good or bad. That is not a reliable way to determine truth. The evidence points to people determine good and bad not a god.

And people are inherently unreliable... So why would you trust their truth instead of God's truth?

 

[Wildswanderer]

As I mentioned to another poster, take a look at Gen 2:19. " ... whatever the man called each living thing, that was its name." One way of interpreting this is that Adam deduced the name of each creature based on its nature. If so, Adam would have known that the serpent was cunning and dangerous.

That seems like a stretch to me.

 

[dybmh]

Really? Is that part of Jewish Talmudic interpretation or something?

No, it's my own interpretation

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

And people are inherently unreliable... So why would you trust their truth instead of God's truth?

Because people can be demonstrated to exist. God cannot be demonstrated to exist. I don't trust in anyone's truth. But I will evaluate a persons truth who exists over a gods truth that I cannot know exists.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Because people can be demonstrated to exist. God cannot be demonstrated to exist. I don't trust in anyone's truth. But I will evaluate a persons truth who exists over a gods truth that I cannot know exists.

God can be demonstrated to exist. Life didn't come out of nowhere.

 

[ppp]

God can be demonstrated to exist. Life didn't come out of nowhere.

That doesn't demonstrate a that any god of any description exists.

 

[osgart]

The Adam & Eve story is a matter of interpretation. One could set up the story in a truthful sense, or set it up under false conditions. If it's interpreted truthfully then it has relevant validity to moral questions.

First you have to see the character of God as being morally perfect. Second you have to see Adam& Eve as fearfully and wonderfully made. Third you would see from that the test of character was an honest test. Adam and Eve were created perfect with full free will responsibility, and they at one time could have eaten from the tree of life before they violated God's command and ate from the knowledge of good and evil. Had they both trusted God, and not felt temptation to disobey God they would have passed the test. The desire of Adam and Eve was tested, and not their intellect. Had Adam and Eve been in perfect agreement with God they would have been righteous with God instead of needing redemption. They were created for the purpose of life. In order to have life and not be cursed, they were created to choose freely of their own desire between life and death.

So the story on its own has merit according to the interpretation you choose. That's not to say it isn't a human story, it is humanly created.

I don't think the story accords well with human realities. Yet their is the Adam & Eve choice we all make; whether consciously, or unconsciously. It's impossible to be a born reprobate; we all choose our own path according to desire and with enough understanding from experience.

 

[setarcos]

Why does God have to be good?

God has to be good because that is the logical progression from a finite awareness of good and evil to an abstraction of infinite good and evil.
In other words the way we define good and evil necessitates a good God because of the way monotheism has defined God. But perhaps I get ahead of myself here. How are you defining that which is good and that which is evil?

Our experience demonstrates that God does not will the most just path for reality.

Do you think humans are qualified to know "the MOST just path" for reality to take? Or is it perhaps that humans deal with the most just path they CAN TAKE or even CAN RECOGNIZE to take among injustices?

We know injustices happen everyday.

Yes, unfortunately. Do you suppose injustices have to happen for reality to exist? In other words, if a wholly "natural" undirected reality came into existence what are the odds that that reality would not include what we consider to be injustices? And, if a directed reality (by God) came into existence what are the odds that that reality would NOT contain any injustices? How do we quantify such things?

If you are going to just say that they are just because God willed them then I am going to disagree with you about what just means.

I don't believe God wills injustice. What God does is sustain reality. Again...how do you define what is just and what is not?

 

[setarcos]

The only correction I would make there is that rights are taken

If you are speaking about a right you've been given being taken away again then I'd say you have to have been given a right before it can be taken.
What innate rights do you have that haven't been given you by agreed upon definitions?

Me too. I just am.

Yes, you are what you are and God is what it is. According to a Christian the difference between you and God is that you are what you are due to external circumstances and influences but God is what it is because of its own "internal" influences and circumstances. God IS, while you were made to be.

If by theory, you mean position. I agree. I assume you are using the colloquial definition, and not the scientific. Please correct me is you are using the scientific definition - in which case I do not agree.

If we are strictly speaking of the Christian God then yes we can use position. If we are speaking of an intelligence that created this universe then I believe we can use theory as a scientific term since science deals in probabilities and probabilities have been calculated for certain phenomena found in this universe which indicates the possibility, even probability of intelligent design using scientific criteria.

I dont think you are using the words absolute and relative correctly, but interpreting what you seem to mean, you don't have anything close to absolute morality. You literally have a book that prescribes not killing in one situation, and killing in other situations.

What I mean is that absolute morality is impossible for humankind because it would take a near infinite amount of data to determine whereas relative morality is subject to limited situational awareness and is the only morality humans can deal with without some external instruction. I say external instruction because it would be beyond the entire human capacity to calculate without it.
I believe whether or not it is moral to lie, to kill, to steal, etc. are calculated to be moral or immoral by humans with finite data sets and limited situational awareness which effectively renders the answer to be imperfectly relative at best. Sometimes close to true sometimes flat out wrong. With God it is always absolutely moral.
Do you sacrifice the one for the many or the many for the one? Do you lie to save yourself or lie to save another? Do you steal to keep your family alive or refuse and have them suffer starvation?
Having an innate sense of right and wrong does not always translate that sense into the correct right action. For the absolutely correct action by which we actualize absolute morality we would need to consider a nearly infinite data set. For that to happen man needs a guiding light and that light according to Christianity is its God.

Exodus 32:27 somewhat demonstrates my point in that humans haven't the capacity to calculate the nearly infinite data set needed to consider an action absolutely moral or immoral. You've quoted one verse in Exodus easily taken out of context when the entire book is not considered. Scripture is mostly written as a historical narrative and its historical context must be taken into consideration when it is being studied.
It is Christian belief that God's wrath is righteous. His actions absolutely moral. Moses people were surrounded by their enemies at the time. They were just out of Egypt and vulnerable. Those same people had personally witnessed the miracles God created in order for their exodus out of Egypt to succeed. When Moses returned from the mount and saw that they were out of control and running amok he gave them a choice. Whoever was for the same lord that aided their exodus out of Egypt should stand with him. The others who did not stand with him were lost, evil, and a liability to the success of Israel.
Moses needed a people fully focused on trust in God from which they would draw their strength to succeed as a nation among their enemies. For the righteous to live the rotten must be cut out. So, is it moral to kill evil to save the good?
As for the other reference to the ten commandments, the proper reading is Thou Shalt Not Murder. Murder being an unrighteous or immoral killing of another human being. For instance self defense against unwarranted aggression which results in the attackers death is considered to be a permissibly moral action.

What you have is a code of behavior. And you call adherence to your particular interpretation of that behavorial code "absolute morality".

What we have is access to a historical narrative which ties together why any one particular action in scripture is moral or immoral.
Everyone has a code of behavior they follow. That code for Christians is historically referenced in scripture.
Please forgive any typos or syntactical errors, I'm in a hurry right now.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

God can be demonstrated to exist. Life didn't come out of nowhere.

Then please demonstrate God exists?

 

[Brian2]

God allowed evil to be unleased or was he an innocent bystander unable to stop it?

I prefer that God allowed it.

It is evil to allow a child to be raped when you have the ability to stop it without any consequences to himself.

That is probably right for us humans.
God is not a human however and should not be judged the same way. Putting aside your emotive case of a child being raped, you seem to be saying that because there is any evil, God is evil and to blame because He does not step in and stop us doing anything that is evil. This in spite of the fact that God does nothing wrong Himself.
So forcing external compliance with a set of standards forever is better than allowing us to be humans, good at times and evil at times, and bringing history to a point where He sets up His Kingdom in which everyone knows God and what He wants and wants to do what is right and is able to do what is right. And having a judgement in which people are judged justly and comforted for evils done against them.

 

[ppp]

If you are speaking about a right you've been given being taken away again then I'd say you have to have been given a right before it can be taken.

No. I mean that rights arent given. They are taken. We get our rights by taking themamd defending them. Not by beng given them by others. The only rights I have are the rights that I can defend.

Yes, you are what you are and God is what it is.

Of course, I can readily and easily demonstrate that I am without caveats, excuses, or arduous contortions. God, if he exists, cannot.

What I mean is that absolute morality is impossible for humankind because it would take a near infinite amount of data to determine whereas relative morality is subject to limited situational awareness and is the only morality humans can deal with without some external instruction.

That is not a definition of anything. Everything after the "is" is an attempt to explain why something undefined is not possible, or something. Perhaps you can define morality, absolute and relative succinctly. Leave off the attempts to explain why one is impossible or whatnot.

What we have is access to a historical narrative which ties together why any one particular action in scripture is moral or immoral.

Whether it is a historical narrative, or (more likely) a collection of myths and legends with some historical basis, it is still just a moral code. A moral code that is based on the interpretation of whichever Christian or Jewish or Muslim, or Sikh, or Baha'i sect to which you happen to belong.

Everyone has a code of behavior they follow. That code for Christians is historically referenced in scripture.

I agree.

Please forgive any typos or syntactical errors, I'm in a hurry right now.

I try to be as generous as possible regarding syntax and typos. And when I say that I cannot understand a sentence, I really mean it. It is not snark.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

God has to be good because that is the logical progression from a finite awareness of good and evil to an abstraction of infinite good and evil.
In other words the way we define good and evil necessitates a good God because of the way monotheism has defined God. But perhaps I get ahead of myself here. How are you defining that which is good and that which is evil?

In summary, I base my morality on the concept of well being. That which increases the well being is good. That which decreases the well being in bad. Now there is a larger discussion here but when you talk about well being most people agree on specific situations on what is good.

Do you think humans are qualified to know "the MOST just path" for reality to take? Or is it perhaps that humans deal with the most just path they CAN TAKE or even CAN RECOGNIZE to take among injustices?

I cannot know all of the ramifications of my actions. All I can do is do what I reason is the most just path.

Yes, unfortunately. Do you suppose injustices have to happen for reality to exist? In other words, if a wholly "natural" undirected reality came into existence what are the odds that that reality would not include what we consider to be injustices? And, if a directed reality (by God) came into existence what are the odds that that reality would NOT contain any injustices? How do we quantify such things?

I do not know if injustices are required for existence. But if God does exist and is all knowing and powerful then I would think he could create a reality where severe injustices do not happen.

I don't believe God wills injustice. What God does is sustain reality. Again...how do you define what is just and what is not?

Can God stop injustices? If He can then he is responsible for them since he created the world.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I prefer that God allowed it.



That is probably right for us humans.
God is not a human however and should not be judged the same way. Putting aside your emotive case of a child being raped, you seem to be saying that because there is any evil, God is evil and to blame because He does not step in and stop us doing anything that is evil. This in spite of the fact that God does nothing wrong Himself.
So forcing external compliance with a set of standards forever is better than allowing us to be humans, good at times and evil at times, and bringing history to a point where He sets up His Kingdom in which everyone knows God and what He wants and wants to do what is right and is able to do what is right. And having a judgement in which people are judged justly and comforted for evils done against them.

God has the ability to stop terrible evils with no harm to himself that harm people for life. He chooses not to stop it. That is doing wrong.

 

[Brian2]

God has the ability to stop terrible evils with no harm to himself that harm people for life. He chooses not to stop it. That is doing wrong.

If God did that then He should stop all evil, or He is the one who is doing evil.
Some people say that because there is evil in the world than God is evil and/or incompetent.
I can understand someone thinking that, but any judgement of God is judgement from ignorance.

 

[ppp]

If God did that then He should stop all evil, or He is the one who is doing evil.
Some people say that because there is evil in the world than God is evil and/or incompetent.
I can understand someone thinking that, but any judgement of God is judgement from ignorance.

You realize that you are judging God every time you claim that God is good, right?

 

[Brian2]

God has the ability to stop terrible evils with no harm to himself that harm people for life. He chooses not to stop it. That is doing wrong.

If the US and Europe and the rest of the world sees Russian attack Ukraine and does not step straight in and stop Russia does that make the US etc evil? No it just means that they want the best outcome for the world and Ukraine, without nuclear war etc.
To say it is evil is an argument from ignorance.

 

[Brian2]

You realize that you are judging God every time you claim that God is good, right?

I'm just agreeing with the Bible because I am a Christian and pointing out that the arguments that deny what the Bible tells us about God are not good arguments.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

If God did that then He should stop all evil, or He is the one who is doing evil.
Some people say that because there is evil in the world than God is evil and/or incompetent.
I can understand someone thinking that, but any judgement of God is judgement from ignorance.

Then why does god not explain himself?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

If the US and Europe and the rest of the world sees Russian attack Ukraine and does not step straight in and stop Russia does that make the US etc evil? No it just means that they want the best outcome for the world and Ukraine, without nuclear war etc.
To say it is evil is an argument from ignorance.

The US cannot stop the war without more destruction and death. God could stop the war in Ukraine without any more bloodshed or destruction. God's actions are evil in my opinion. It is based on my morals and ethics. Is what Putin is doing evil or is he just carrying out God's will? If God has a master plan for good to come out of this then he is not an evil person, just the means to an end for God.