God is not evil

[Jane_the_Bane]

I am sure you are familiar with the parable of the twelve policemen, which basically sums up all of the different rationalisations of evil and God's inaction in the face of suffering that *clearly* could be prevented by such a powerful, benevolent being.

Believers can explain this away by saying that God is not a man, and that the same rules do not apply to both.
To which I say: fine. So don't call that deity "good", either. If the divine modes of behaviour are not recognisably good, but instead adhere to some alien, unfathomable standard that differs greatly from the one we apply to each other, then all of that talk about a supposedly benevolent deity is just as meaningless as calling Him evil. You cannot have it both ways.

 

[now faith]

Because I believe in multiple deities, none of which are omnipotent or omniscient or omianything. I reject the Jesus narrative and the concepts of heaven and hell



I don't know they exist (I tend not to think so; certainly not ghosts, anyway) so I don't see how I can abide by them.



I'm sure you believe there is a god, but that doesn't make it so.

Well I see I have been presumptuous in my thoughts.
I have spoken , without out truly knowing your belief.

I am no better than the Pastor who denies entrance to the Church ,based on what he doesent know about a person.
It is profound that myself have been kicked out due to a lack of understanding.
God Bless you all , as much who will recieve.
Good by for now.

 

[now faith]

How do you define evil (and good)?
I've seen theists argue that "good" is whatever the deity they believe in wants, thinks, and does, thereby opening the door for all sorts of atrocities like: "If my god says to slay children and drink their blood, I will obey without question, for whatever He commands is good."

Personally, I'd say the terms only make sense in a relational context:
Hyper-intelligent aliens who considered us a tasty food source (because we are about as intelligent as their pets) would certainly be evil-to-us, and our struggles would aim at saving ourselves from their horrible appetites.
This is also why these moral qualities only apply to sapient, social beings. A falling rock is not evil or guilty of murder, even if it kills me. Nor would a person who runs me over with a car because he didn't see me be guilty in the same fashion as a person who plots my demise and sets out specifically to end my life.

With that in mind, is the Biblical deity as described in that anthology good-to-us, or evil-to-us?
First off, I'd say it depends on what particular book we are looking at. The canon does not paint a singular picture, but a multi-faceted one. Which is why each Christian can rationalise their own version of the deity, based on whatever verses speak the most to them and fit their personal vision of what a good-to-them god would look like.
Thus, we get Biblegods who are like the most awesome parents you could ever imagine, side by side with bloodthirsty tyrants who just so happen to hate the very same people the believers in question can't stand (be they unkind neighbours or some minority group these people just hate as a matter of principle).

However, considering the Big Picture, I'd say that theodicy cannot be resolved in a satisfying manner. No matter how many rationalisations you produce, at the end of the day we are still living in a world that is in many ways evil-to-us, through no fault of our own, and that reality is simply incompatible with the all-good, all-powerful divine being believers postulate.
IF there was a deity like the one described in the Bible, it would be very clearly evil-to-us, no matter how many post-mortem recompensations He offers for those who wave the right membership card.

2 Peter 2:19 - While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

 

[keith99]

I am sure you are familiar with the parable of the twelve policemen, which basically sums up all of the different rationalisations of evil and God's inaction in the face of suffering that *clearly* could be prevented by such a powerful, benevolent being.

Believers can explain this away by saying that God is not a man, and that the same rules do not apply to both.
To which I say: fine. So don't call that deity "good", either. If the divine modes of behaviour are not recognisably good, but instead adhere to some alien, unfathomable standard that differs greatly from the one we apply to each other, then all of that talk about a supposedly benevolent deity is just as meaningless as calling Him evil. You cannot have it both ways.

Does the 'K' in Ms. K stand for Kitty? Were these New York cops? Would ordinary citizens then be justified in not even calling the police either because they wanted to give God or the police a chance to show they were good and powerful or because the police would do nothing anyway so they did not want to embarrass the police?

Has this post given enough clues that at least some people recognize the case I'm referring to?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

2 Peter 2:19 - While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

Ecclesiastes 10: As dead flies give perfume a bad smell, so a little folly outweighs wisdom and honor.

See? Two can play that game.

 

[CherubRam]

Ecclesiastes 10: As dead flies give perfume a bad smell, so a little folly outweighs wisdom and honor.

See? Two can play that game.

Isaiah 5:20
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

Truth is narrowly defined, no matter what some people may say.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Isaiah 5:20
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

Truth is narrowly defined, no matter what some people may say.

Define them, then.
We may all be able to agree that nursing a sick person is "good" and torturing a kitten is "evil", but if we apply even this most basic standard of empathy and reciprocity to the deity you believe in, the very Bible condemns Him: genocide, condoning and regulating slavery, executing people for minor misdemeanours, more genocide, telling rape victims to marry their tormentors because "damaged goods don't sell", etc.

 

[now faith]

Define them, then.
We may all be able to agree that nursing a sick person is "good" and torturing a kitten is "evil", but if we apply even this most basic standard of empathy and reciprocity to the deity you believe in, the very Bible condemns Him: genocide, condoning and regulating slavery, executing people for minor misdemeanours, more genocide, telling rape victims to marry their tormentors because "damaged goods don't sell", etc.

Why apply your logic on a dichotomy of Biblical history, and not to society today?
Do we as a society punishment those who commit crimes?

The question you posted was how you define evil and good.
What I was trying to convey was a parallel of the mindset in the political arena today, being equated to the enviroment in Peters time.
I guess there is no new thing under the Sun.

 

[now faith]

Once again good by ,I'm just not up for a banter over a meaningless onslaught of one upmanship

 

[Bobber]

Your analogy fails because you have neither the power to create your children the way you want, nor the foreknowledge to know how they will turn out. It's a huge difference.

Hypothetically, an OMNI-god COULD create the world where Satan doesn't rebel, humans don't fall, etc. But he didn't. He chose to create the world in which he knew beforehand that those things would occur. Therefore, he chose to have evil enter the world.

Nope. He chose to demonstrate he was love. Love doesn't force people into compliance.

 

[46AND2]

Nope. He chose to demonstrate he was love. Love doesn't force people into compliance.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Why apply your logic on a dichotomy of Biblical history, and not to society today?

Because this discussion is about the biblical god, not society today.
Doesn't it strike you as curious that in spite of all the faults we can (and should) find with the world today, all but the most savage or abhorrent places tend to be more humane than the historical society personally instructed by the LORD?
Who outside of some Islamic hellhole would think of stoning prisoners to death? Even societies that still embrace the death penalty usually aim to reduce the pain and suffering, and the practice in itself has been disappearing rapidly.
How is it possible that mere fallible mortals such as ourselves do better than YHVH, despite all our considerable shortcomings?

 

[CherubRam]

Why apply your logic on a dichotomy of Biblical history, and not to society today?
Do we as a society punishment those who commit crimes?

The question you posted was how you define evil and good.
What I was trying to convey was a parallel of the mindset in the political arena today, being equated to the enviroment in Peters time.
I guess there is no new thing under the Sun.

Bingo!

 

[CherubRam]

Define them, then.
We may all be able to agree that nursing a sick person is "good" and torturing a kitten is "evil", but if we apply even this most basic standard of empathy and reciprocity to the deity you believe in, the very Bible condemns Him: genocide, condoning and regulating slavery, executing people for minor misdemeanours, more genocide, telling rape victims to marry their tormentors because "damaged goods don't sell", etc.

Pagan's and Atheist have their own view of right and wrong. Any argument on the subject is pointless.

 

[CherubRam]

Because this discussion is about the biblical god, not society today.
Doesn't it strike you as curious that in spite of all the faults we can (and should) find with the world today, all but the most savage or abhorrent places tend to be more humane than the historical society personally instructed by the LORD?
Who outside of some Islamic hellhole would think of stoning prisoners to death? Even societies that still embrace the death penalty usually aim to reduce the pain and suffering, and the practice in itself has been disappearing rapidly.
How is it possible that mere fallible mortals such as ourselves do better than YHVH, despite all our considerable shortcomings?

Here is something to think about. Homosexuality is very destructive to society, and we are commanded to kill such people.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Here is something to think about. Homosexuality is very destructive to society, and we are commanded to kill such people.

How is it very destructive to society?
Saying "my religion treats it as a taboo" is one thing. Asserting harm like you do would necessitate some solid evidence.

 

[46AND2]

Here is something to think about. Homosexuality is very destructive to society, and we are commanded to kill such people.

Here's something else to think about: if god is going to punish their "sin" anyway by sending them to hell, ordering their earthly death is infinitely pointless. And don't give me that "destructive to society" mularky, isn't ALL sin destructive to society? Yet, supposedly we have free will...hmmm.

 

[awitch]

Here is something to think about. Homosexuality is very destructive to society, and we are commanded to kill such people.

How many have you killed?
How many would you kill?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Here is something to think about. Homosexuality is very destructive to society, and we are commanded to kill such people.

Aside from the inherent falsehood of the claim itself, Christ my God has instructed me to love without condition and to harm none. So I don't know who you think this "we" is.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Zoness]

Here is something to think about. Homosexuality is very destructive to society, and we are commanded to kill such people.

No doubt your god has a problem with homosexuality, I'm curious now your political affiliation and opinion on what to do about that subject.