Is "God" the epitome of Evil?

[buddhist]

IMO most people conceive of a personal "God" with such descriptives as "Almighty, Infinite, the Supreme Being, Maker, Creator," etc. The common thread that joins all of those descriptives seems to be the word "action". That is, it is in the nature of such a "God" to act. I suggest that such a being would be infinitely evil (intentionally or not, is another question).

My reason being: all of creation and its associated activity is filled with dukkha (unsatisfactoriness/suffering). In my personal, direct experience, it is actually progressively greater amounts of stillness (non-activity, e.g. in meditation) that brings greater and lasting pleasure, ease, bliss, and peace. Stillness opposes the inhered active qualities associated with "God".

 

[wizanda]

I suggest that such a being would be infinitely evil

We're in the Maya or the top floor of Hell currently, and you're busy calling the ultimate pure consciousness evil... Do you see the problem with that equation?

 

[buddhist]

We're in the Maya or the top floor of Hell currently, and you're busy calling the ultimate pure consciousness evil... Do you see the problem with that equation?

I'm calling the active consciousness "evil". No, I don't see a problem with it.

 

[Neo Deist]

God is not the epitome of evil. That would be the free will actions of some a**hats that don't play well with others.

 

[bobhikes]

IMO most people conceive of a personal "God" with such descriptives as "Almighty, Infinite, the Supreme Being, Maker, Creator," etc. The common thread that joins all of those descriptives seems to be the word "action". That is, it is in the nature of such a "God" to act. I suggest that such a being would be infinitely evil (intentionally or not, is another question).

My reason being: all of creation and its associated activity is filled with dukkha (unsatisfactoriness/suffering). In my personal, direct experience, it is actually progressively greater amounts of stillness (non-activity, e.g. in meditation) that brings greater and lasting pleasure, ease, bliss, and peace. Stillness opposes the inhered active qualities associated with "God".

No God is not the epitome of evil especially if God is the creator. Without gods activity all there would be is stillness. For the self to exist there has to be activity. God in your definition is the stillness. The self is the active state. Evil only exists in the active state. We are evil.

 

[George-ananda]

IMO most people conceive of a personal "God" with such descriptives as "Almighty, Infinite, the Supreme Being, Maker, Creator," etc. The common thread that joins all of those descriptives seems to be the word "action". That is, it is in the nature of such a "God" to act. I suggest that such a being would be infinitely evil (intentionally or not, is another question).

My reason being: all of creation and its associated activity is filled with dukkha (unsatisfactoriness/suffering). In my personal, direct experience, it is actually progressively greater amounts of stillness (non-activity, e.g. in meditation) that brings greater and lasting pleasure, ease, bliss, and peace. Stillness opposes the inhered active qualities associated with "God".

I really like your second paragraph. As for the first paragraph; Is absolute and complete stillness a good thing? Nothing experiencing? I think God/Brahman in his creative aspect desires experience. The overall game is finding the Truth of your second paragraph but for that to happen there has to at least temporarily be the illusion of separateness (Maya in Hinduism).

 

[buddhist]

No God is not the epitome of evil especially if God is the creator. Without gods activity all there would be is stillness. For the self to exist there has to be activity.

Are you stating that the "self" is good? The existence (or attachment to the) "self" causes great suffering, in the Buddhist view.

God in your definition is the stillness. The self is the active state. Evil only exists in the active state. We are evil.

You just stated that "God is the creator"; if it creates, then it can't be still or inactive.

 

[wizanda]

I'm calling the active consciousness "evil". No, I don't see a problem with it.

So the CPU should switch off the Matrix, as it is too busy trying to maintain us doing things...Then it would no longer be evil?

 

[buddhist]

I really like your second paragraph. As for the first paragraph; Is absolute and complete stillness a good thing? Nothing experiencing?

In my personal experience, the more still my consciousness becomes, the more bliss I experience. Therefore, I conclude that complete stillness is the ultimate state.

I think God/Brahman in his creative aspect desires experience. The overall game is finding the Truth of your second paragraph but for that to happen there has to at least temporarily be the illusion of separateness (Maya in Hinduism).

Perhaps so ... I see the Dharmic religions as practicing progressive un-creation, or rolling back creation, through meditative and yogic practices.

 

[allfoak]

IMO most people conceive of a personal "God" with such descriptives as "Almighty, Infinite, the Supreme Being, Maker, Creator," etc. The common thread that joins all of those descriptives seems to be the word "action". That is, it is in the nature of such a "God" to act. I suggest that such a being would be infinitely evil (intentionally or not, is another question).

My reason being: all of creation and its associated activity is filled with dukkha (unsatisfactoriness/suffering). In my personal, direct experience, it is actually progressively greater amounts of stillness (non-activity, e.g. in meditation) that brings greater and lasting pleasure, ease, bliss, and peace. Stillness opposes the inhered active qualities associated with "God".

The All is All and in All.

 

[buddhist]

So the CPU should switch off the Matrix, as it is too busy trying to maintain us doing things...Then it would no longer be evil?

Maybe so.

 

[buddhist]

The All is All and in All.

Perhaps I seek the dissolution of the All.

 

[bobhikes]

Are you stating that the "self" is good? The existence (or attachment to the) "self" causes great suffering, in the Buddhist view.

You just stated that "God is the creator"; if it creates, then it can't be still or inactive.

I am stating the self is active creation of God.
God can very much be just an observer. God created an action and just watches it develop. It is religions which stem from the self that make God active. Our self loves activity. Why is it so hard for us to still the self to reach a deep meditation.

Good and evil come from the self. What is good and evil to you may not be good and evil to me. I can only see Good and Evil as subjective. God would have to be objective. God is one. God is all. God can't be subjective. Religions are many, Religions are specific, Religions must be subjective.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

IMO most people conceive of a personal "God" with such descriptives as "Almighty, Infinite, the Supreme Being, Maker, Creator," etc. The common thread that joins all of those descriptives seems to be the word "action". That is, it is in the nature of such a "God" to act. I suggest that such a being would be infinitely evil (intentionally or not, is another question).

My reason being: all of creation and its associated activity is filled with dukkha (unsatisfactoriness/suffering). In my personal, direct experience, it is actually progressively greater amounts of stillness (non-activity, e.g. in meditation) that brings greater and lasting pleasure, ease, bliss, and peace. Stillness opposes the inhered active qualities associated with "God".

You entertain an interesting speculation.
But stillness only has meaning when in contrast with activity.
Too much stillness brings boredom, and then it is the activity which is pleasurable.

And yes, without evil, their is no good, by the same dualistic philosophy;
but I think you err to consider evil as infinite. It is certainly finite; it ends; there is forgiveness,
and the peace which follows is all the more joyful as a consequence of this.

Try and think of your favorite stories. Is there not an antagonist?

 

[allfoak]

Perhaps I seek the dissolution of the All.

I don't suppose that will happen.

 

[sayak83]

IMO most people conceive of a personal "God" with such descriptives as "Almighty, Infinite, the Supreme Being, Maker, Creator," etc. The common thread that joins all of those descriptives seems to be the word "action". That is, it is in the nature of such a "God" to act. I suggest that such a being would be infinitely evil (intentionally or not, is another question).

My reason being: all of creation and its associated activity is filled with dukkha (unsatisfactoriness/suffering). In my personal, direct experience, it is actually progressively greater amounts of stillness (non-activity, e.g. in meditation) that brings greater and lasting pleasure, ease, bliss, and peace. Stillness opposes the inhered active qualities associated with "God".

Do you want Hindu theism (of Gita variety) to enter the discussion or plan to stick with Abrahamic Gods?

 

[George-ananda]

In my personal experience, the more still my consciousness becomes, the more bliss I experience. Therefore, I conclude that complete stillness is the ultimate state.

Maybe it Is it the achieving of greater stillness that is blissful as there is something to compare against? But what is eternal stillness? Even the thought of feeling bliss requires thought/movement.

It is hard for us to grasp all this with a finite mind. I trust that God/Brahman is beyond me and not the epitome of evil. Nothing we can conceive of is better than this.

 

[buddhist]

I am stating the self is active creation of God.
God can very much be just an observer. God created an action and just watches it develop. It is religions which stem from the self that make God active. Our self loves activity. Why is it so hard for us to still the self to reach a deep meditation.

Good and evil come from the self. What is good and evil to you may not be good and evil to me. I can only see Good and Evil as subjective. God would have to be objective. God is one. God is all. God can't be subjective. Religions are many, Religions are specific, Religions must be subjective.

And if the "self" allegedly originates from "God", the prime source is the originator of evil.

 

[George-ananda]

Perhaps so ... I see the Dharmic religions as practicing progressive un-creation, or rolling back creation, through meditative and yogic practices.

Yes, part of the exhalation and inhalation of Brahman. The return to Oneness/Stillness.

 

[bobhikes]

And if the "self" allegedly originates from "God", the prime source is the originator of evil.

No because the originator did not create evil the self did. You are the one claim activity is evil. God is clearly not active in this world only creations are. If activity equals evil then it is creation that is evil. If peace or stillness equals good then you are seeking god. God is still in this world not active.

It is your definition that is flawed. Yes God created action but evil is defined as acts against that action. If you kill something, destroy something make its cease to exist that is evil. All those things make the item still again. Even meditation which you deem good seeks to still the self. You are not trying to still God.