Is god evil

[muhammad_isa]

Of course a merciful God would have known that knowledge isn't bad and not made it an issue to be punished over..

You just can't see it, can you.
We punish ourselves !

There are consequences for our actions, but being naive, we don't realise and have to learn by our mistakes.
[ some never seem to learn ]

 

[Truth in love]

Thank you for those ─ some curious ideas.

It would be rather more believable that believers in Jesus are gods if they occasionally acted like gods. I think it's true of all religions, but not least Christianity, that believers act like humans instead.

There are some major fails.

 

[F1fan]

You just can't see it, can you.
We punish ourselves !

Thatnks for your confession. This is why I'm not a theist.

As to the Adam and Eve myth, they couldn't have punished themselves because they lacked knowledge of consequences. God should have known better, but it was all a set up.

There are consequences for our actions, but being naive, we don't realise and have to learn by our mistakes.
[ some never seem to learn ]

They still think the Bible is true, and that the non-rational beliefs about gods and angels, etc. are true. Actual consequences in life come from our social system, and what we learn. Our personality type has a big impact as well, as does any mental illness that might be part of our genetic or learned state of being.

Being naive? If theists want to know about how humans behave then they should set their religious beliefs aside and learn what the social sciences report.

 

[setarcos]

If I baked a fresh pie and put it on the table in front of you, the smell going straight to your nose making your mouth water, and I told you not to eat it or you'll die, would that make me evil? Not necessarily, but why in the world would I bake that pie in the first place?

So that you may partake of it at the appropriate time. After the main meal.

 

[setarcos]

No, what makes it evil is the punishment of death for eating an apple.

So if I baked an apple pie but told you not to eat it - because it was hot and you'd burn yourself and some of the ingredients, while making the pie taste incredibly delicious, needed time to stabilize to become unlethal - you would call that an act of evil?

 

[setarcos]

Didn't know there was a plan. I must have missed some of the story.

I'd say you missed most of the story. Read the bible through before you attempt to critique a minute portion. As it has been said....drink deep or not at all.

 

[setarcos]

Not the point. The punishment for eating an apple they were told not to was death. That is immoral, unjust and evil.

It wasn't a punishment. It was an inevitableness. If I told you not to jump off the cliff or you would surely die would I be evil for saying so?

 

[setarcos]

So do I, but not for eating an apple. My point is the punishment of death far exceeds the crime of eating an apple an is thus evil.

You do realize these things are analogized right?

 

[setarcos]

Do you think this really happened or just a story?

Both, It is a mythologized story about what really happened.

 

[setarcos]

As to the Adam and Eve myth

That "myth" is truth we simply haven't processed properly yet. Sometimes history is best understood in the future not in its present when it was being made.

they couldn't have punished themselves because they lacked knowledge of consequences.

I agree. Adam and Eve or the earliest of humanity weren't seeking to punish themselves, they were learning what it meant to disobey, or more aptly, distrust God. I imagine Adam and Eve weren't made to be morons. I imagine they were capable of observing cause and effect in Eden and thereby gain some understanding of consequence of action. I'm sure they understood there would be consequence to their action. That consequence that they inevitably "needed" to learn was the difference between truth and falsity. Good - the former, and evil - the latter. And who or what to identify as the source of which. One cannot "know" good unless one knows "evil". In order to elevate the animal to a special level which even the Angels would be jealous of this had to happen.

God should have known better

I think that because you think you know what God must be like and because you think you know that these things are farcical and no God would possibly do it like this in such an imperfect manner if it existed, you consequently believe this is more evidence of God's nonexistence.
I can only say, this is my worldview mind you, that we have no concept of the totality of what God is. We only have what has been given our minds to understand. We "see through a glass darkly" for now and do not yet know the fullness of meaning behind the first actions and consequences of humanity nor the reasoning behind its consequences. Though many, many have theorized, contemplated, and commented about them we still see only what God has given us the capacity to see. If God does exist then necessarily God' knew, knows, and will always know not only better than us, but truly know the thing beyond our own ability to truly know anything at all.

but it was all a set up.

Yeah, and? If you believe in the existence of God then the whole blinking totality of existence was a set up. So what?

They still think the Bible is true,

If you read the bible as its supposed to be read then it contains truths and that which truly happened in history. The two are not always the same thing.

and that the non-rational beliefs about gods and angels, etc. are true.

First of all, how do you define rational? Then you tell me how God and supernatural beings are deemed irrational things?
Is it rational to believe that the millions- and I do mean millions of people across the world who've been witness to inexplicable experiences were all delusional, or mistaken, or lying even though you cannot prove supernatural events cannot happen, have never happened, nor will ever happen? Experiences witnessed by the entire gamut of humanity from Presidents, professionals in all field of endeavors, down to children, who are either to be most believed or most disbelieved depending on whom you talk to simply just didn't happen? What is rational?

If theists want to know about how humans behave then they should set their religious beliefs aside and learn what the social sciences report

And what do the social sciences report? That we're always deluded, diseased, or somehow delirious whenever we claim such experiences? No. That we may be? Yes. That we can be subject to these things yes. That everyone is always subject to these things when they experience some inexplicable event? No. Sometimes people who think their being followed are not delusional but ARE BEING FOLLOWED!
Used to be that anyone who claimed they saw a seemingly intelligently directed flying craft doing impossible aerial maneuvers were deemed deficient or defective or deluded in some manner. Now we have the U.S. government admitting to strange encounters and releasing videos of aerial objects doing impossible, by any known physics, aerial maneuvers by a physical object. The objects are seen by our pilots, their picked up by our most sophisticated radar's doing things no physical object should be able to do. What's it take to get someone to believe that there's a reality beyond our physical one that isn't subject to our physical "laws"?
Social science may be able to predict, somewhat imperfectly mind you, behavior more so collective rather than individual, but it can't predict nor disprove experience.

 

[F1fan]

That "myth" is truth we simply haven't processed properly yet.

Well, 3000+ years and God's children haven't figured it out? Well God shouldn't have made the myth so complicated.

I suggest there's not a lot to understand. It's a story written as a form of creativity that aims to give humans some perspective in their place in a small universe. None of it is factual.

Sometimes history is best understood in the future not in its present when it was being made.

Sure, perspective changes things. Many years ago people thought the Bible was factiual and true, yet today we understand it is a creative set of stories by people who were not writing history.

I agree. Adam and Eve or the earliest of humanity weren't seeking to punish themselves, they were learning what it meant to disobey, or more aptly, distrust God. I imagine Adam and Eve weren't made to be morons. I imagine they were capable of observing cause and effect in Eden and thereby gain some understanding of consequence of action. I'm sure they understood there would be consequence to their action. That consequence that they inevitably "needed" to learn was the difference between truth and falsity. Good - the former, and evil - the latter. And who or what to identify as the source of which. One cannot "know" good unless one knows "evil". In order to elevate the animal to a special level which even the Angels would be jealous of this had to happen.

I suggest it wasn't about obeying God, rather obeying the human middlemen who represented the absent God, and God's rules (that were unlikely written by a God).

I think that because you think you know what God must be like and because you think you know that these things are farcical and no God would possibly do it like this in such an imperfect manner if it existed, you consequently believe this is more evidence of God's nonexistence.

Modern people live lives and experience things that don't suggest a God exists. We hear thunder, we have a natural explanation. We see floods, and it's nature, not God's wrath. We see a rainbow and it's how light refracts in water vapor. Earthquakes, birth defects, locusts, droughts, skin diseases, etc. are not evidence of God any more. So critical thinkers, and everyone else, doesn't assume a God exists any more due to education, and for those who aren't guided by social norms and conform to religious beliefs, like Catholicism, they might be skeptical of religious beliefs and claims. I always have been. Even as a kid I was very suspicious of religious claims made by my family members. So more and more the default isn;t that a God exists, and that is a good evolution of society.

I can only say, this is my worldview mind you, that we have no concept of the totality of what God is.

There are many different opinions, so no one seems to know much of anything. So that's bad for theists who want to argue that a God exists.

We only have what has been given our minds to understand.

Given by society, and believers readily accept it without thinking.

We "see through a glass darkly" for now and do not yet know the fullness of meaning behind the first actions and consequences of humanity nor the reasoning behind its consequences. Though many, many have theorized, contemplated, and commented about them we still see only what God has given us the capacity to see. If God does exist then necessarily God' knew, knows, and will always know not only better than us, but truly know the thing beyond our own ability to truly know anything at all.

I see this sort of thing from believers, that you create a confusion and lack clarity, and in this you revel in mystery. It's mental theater. And I think believers can't find their way out of the murky haze they have created because they can't see the walls that show it's a prison.

Yeah, and? If you believe in the existence of God then the whole blinking totality of existence was a set up. So what?

Then God is corrut and untrustworthy. Of course this is a detail that has zero impact on atheists. It only impacts believers.

If you read the bible as its supposed to be read then it contains truths and that which truly happened in history. The two are not always the same thing.

The Bible needs instructions. There is none. No wonder there are about 44 sects of Christianity, all which claim truth. It's a confused religion that offers anything to anyone like a huge buffet, but without any coherent core truth. Blame Constantine, I guess.

First of all, how do you define rational? Then you tell me how God and supernatural beings are deemed irrational things?

I mean rational is the usual sense. It is not a confusing word or meaning.

And there are no gods or supernatural phenomenon known to exist. Not only is there no evidence, but the ideas are tyically contrary to what we know of reality. So how does any human make a rational decision that a god exists? They can't. No one comes to a rational, factual conclusion that a god exists, they adot belief through social expereince and the need to conform to cultual norms. This is why people tend to adot the religious beliefs of those around them.

Is it rational to believe that the millions- and I do mean millions of people across the world who've been witness to inexplicable experiences were all delusional, or mistaken, or lying even though you cannot prove supernatural events cannot happen, have never happened, nor will ever happen? Experiences witnessed by the entire gamut of humanity from Presidents, professionals in all field of endeavors, down to children, who are either to be most believed or most disbelieved depending on whom you talk to simply just didn't happen? What is rational?

Occam's Razor. The most simple explanation tends to be the right one. If millions believe they saw X and X is not a fcatual thing, then there is likley some other social cause. We know humans will conform to false ideas for the sake of belonging. Look up the Asch experiments. Look up the Milgram experiments. Both demonstrate humans will believe untrue things.

Do you believe in the magic of Hindu gods? If not, why not? Could it be that you have not been exposed to Hindu beliefs? Yes.

Why don't Hindus take the Eucharist? Because it is not part of their religious tradition and new generations don't learn about, or value, it.

And what do the social sciences report? That we're always deluded, diseased, or somehow delirious whenever we claim such experiences? No. That we may be? Yes. That we can be subject to these things yes. That everyone is always subject to these things when they experience some inexplicable event? No. Sometimes people who think their being followed are not delusional but ARE BEING FOLLOWED!
Used to be that anyone who claimed they saw a seemingly intelligently directed flying craft doing impossible aerial maneuvers were deemed deficient or defective or deluded in some manner. Now we have the U.S. government admitting to strange encounters and releasing videos of aerial objects doing impossible, by any known physics, aerial maneuvers by a physical object. The objects are seen by our pilots, their picked up by our most sophisticated radar's doing things no physical object should be able to do. What's it take to get someone to believe that there's a reality beyond our physical one that isn't subject to our physical "laws"?
Social science may be able to predict, somewhat imperfectly mind you, behavior more so collective rather than individual, but it can't predict nor disprove experience.

Wow, well you seem to have some idea that religious belief is not what it seems at face value from a science perspective. That's a start. Keep learning, unless you are afraid of what you will find.

The prison of religion belief is a metaphor, and it means that people are exposed to religious ideas most of their lives, and invest a lot of time, and at some point it defines the ego. To challenge the religious ideas means to challenge the ego, and if that happens it could mean the religious ideas collapse, and then the ego collapes. Then who is the self but an empty void? This is why religious identity has the be defended, and it renders it a prison the self can't escape.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

So if I baked an apple pie but told you not to eat it - because it was hot and you'd burn yourself and some of the ingredients, while making the pie taste incredibly delicious, needed time to stabilize to become unlethal - you would call that an act of evil?

No, if you made a poisoned pie then yes. Why make a poisoned pie and then tell me not to eat it? That seems psychotic.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

It wasn't a punishment. It was an inevitableness. If I told you not to jump off the cliff or you would surely die would I be evil for saying so?

No, but this is not analogous. You did not create the cliff.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

You do realize these things are analogized right?

Depends on which Christian you talk to.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Both, It is a mythologized story about what really happened.

So what really happened?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why make a poisoned pie and then tell me not to eat it? That seems psychotic.

Almighty God knows what you don't know..
I doubt whether you could even create a fly.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Almighty God knows what you don't know..
I doubt whether you could even create a fly.

I cannot create a fly. But I can give you good evidence that I exist.

 

[Brian2]

It says both. It says "בְּי֛וֹם אֲכָלְךָ֥" which means "in the day you eat" and it also says "מ֥וֹת תָּמֽוּת" which means "certainly die".
Now, regarding the serpent and what it said... Understanding it requires a bit of hebrew knowledge. Basically, the way it's written it could be the serpent, as you said, told Eve she wouldn't die, which would be a lie. Or it could have been correcting her saying "No, certainly die" because she misquoted God's instructions, which would be true.

Here's what Eve says:

"But of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, God said, "You shall not eat of it, and you shall not touch it, lest you die." "lest you die" is not what God said. In hebrew "lest you die" is "בּ֑וֹ פֶּן־תְּמֻתֽוּן". But God didn't say "בּ֑וֹ פֶּן־תְּמֻתֽוּן". God said "certainly die" "מ֥וֹת תָּמֽוּת".

With me so far?

Now let's look at what the serpent says. Eve says "You shall not eat of it, and you shall not touch it, lest you die." Then the serpent says ( in hebrew ) "לֹא־מ֖וֹת תְּמֻתֽוּן". This is double-speak deception coming from the serpent. "לֹא־מ֖וֹת תְּמֻתֽוּן" can mean 2 different things, one true one false. This way the serpent can deceive Eve **without lying**. Doesn't this sound like the behavior of the most cunning beast of the field?

So breaking it down: the serpent says "לֹא־מ֖וֹת תְּמֻתֽוּן". The word "לֹא" means "no" or "not". The words "מ֖וֹת תְּמֻתֽוּן"mean "certainly die", this is the same words used by God back in Gen 2:17 when the prohibition from eating from the tree is given. Most people translate "לֹא־מ֖וֹת תְּמֻתֽוּן" as the serpent saying "not certainly die" (which isn't true), but it can also mean "no, certainly die" (which is true because it is correcting the quote from God).

So here it is all together in English showing the serpent never outright lied:

Gen 2:17 - God says - "But of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat of it, for on the day that you eat thereof, you shall certainly die."

Gen 3:1 - The serpent asks - "Did God indeed say, 'You shall not eat of any of the trees of the garden?"

Gen 3:2-3 - Eve answers and attempts to quote God - "Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat. But of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, God said, "You shall not eat of it, and you shall not touch it, lest you die."

Gen 3:4 - The serpent corrects Eve's misquote and says - "לֹא־מ֖וֹת תְּמֻתֽוּן" "No, certainly die".

So, by using double-speak the serpent was able to be completely honest and still trick Eve because the words "לֹא־מ֖וֹת תְּמֻתֽוּן" can mean 2 completely different things depending on inflection. It could be "not certainly die" or "No, certainly die".

Thus, the serpent never lied, but it was still deceptive. Make sense?

Thanks for that.
I suppose if Eve understood what Satan said as a correction then that would be Satan telling Eve that eating the fruit is good if you want to be like God and know good and evil like He does. She had already trusted seen the serpent was honest and trustworthy in correcting her misunderstanding and so would be more willing to believe the rest of what the serpent said.
Genesis 3:4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
If Eve understood it to mean that Eve would not certainly die that would be an outright lie and so not very subtle.
I have in the past gone to the other misquote that Eve made ("You shall not eat of it, and you shall not touch it, lest you die".) and have wondered if the serpent, as part of the scam, was touching the fruit and showing that touching was no problem. But of course it is not in the text.

 

[ppp]

Thanks for that.
I suppose if Eve understood what Satan said as a correction then that would be Satan telling Eve that eating the fruit is good if you want to be like God and know good and evil like He does. She had already trusted seen the serpent was honest and trustworthy in correcting her misunderstanding and so would be more willing to believe the rest of what the serpent said.
Genesis 3:4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
If Eve understood it to mean that Eve would not certainly die that would be an outright lie and so not very subtle.
I have in the past gone to the other misquote that Eve made ("You shall not eat of it, and you shall not touch it, lest you die".) and have wondered if the serpent, as part of the scam, was touching the fruit and showing that touching was no problem. But of course it is not in the text.

Why should Eve believe God?

 

[Brian2]

John 3 does not say only one came down

“13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.”

It is saying that only one person has been to heaven and that one person is He, Jesus, the one who came from heaven.

John 9:
1 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.
2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
Clearly they believed that a person was around before birth.

Clearly the disciples beliefs were wrong and Jesus corrected them about what they asked but Jesus did not take it any further and I suppose that is because there is nothing in the question which tells us they thought that they though the man had been around before his birth. God would have known the sins that man would commit from before he was born. But really are you saying that reincarnation is true and that the man sinned before he was born on earth?

A few other snap shots.
When God laid the foundations of the earth, all the sons of God shouted for joy, Job 38:4–7.
The spirit shall return unto God who gave it, Eccl. 12:7.
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, Jer. 1:4–5.
We are all his offspring, Acts 17:28.
God chose us before the foundation of the world, Eph. 1:3–4.
We are to be in subjection to the Father of spirits, Heb. 12:9.
The angels which kept not their first estate, he hath reserved in everlasting chains, Jude 1:6.


Now this does not paint a complete picture, but it seems a clear that Bible teaches that we the children of God were around before birth.

The sons of God in John 38:4-7 are the angels. This can be seen in other places also in the OT.
I don't know what you are saying about Eccles 12:7.
Jer 1:4-5 shows that God knows the future and knew Jeremiah before God formed He formed him.
Similarly with Eph 1:3-4.
Acts 17:28 is showing that we are not like dead matter but are alive and spiritual like God and so we should not think that God is like dead matter and make idols to worship. (So I guess this is saying the opposite to what you would want)
Heb 12:9 also shows a similar thing to Acts 17:28, and shows also that we have a spirit that is the living part and which lives in the body and animates the body.
Jude 1:6 is talking about the sons of God who mated with humans and says they were angels.
Angels are created to serve humans.