Is there anything a God could do that would make him evil?

[FireDragon76]

If I can arbitrarily punish an innocent person to create a utopia for everybody else wouldn't that be my moral duty as the leader? Let's just say that is the only way to create utopia.

Some Christians think of hell this way. If God lets the rebellious rejecter's of Jesus into heaven then they will quickly turn it into something more like Las Vegas.

Heaven doesn't sound like such a great place, to be honest. I don't mean the heaven of folk religion, of being surrounded by loved ones, I mean the heaven of traditional Christian piety, of worshiping a patriarchal Mesopotamian potentate for all eternity. That sounds downright nihilistic and hopeless.

 

[Moral Orel]

Justice is good in itself, is it not?

That's what I'm questioning. Is there a reason why justice is good in itself?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there's something inherently wrong with punishment, that can serve a good purpose. But if the only purpose is to be just, I don't see a real difference between a desire for justice and a desire for revenge.

Let's say I sock you in the nose. Why would it be good for me to get socked in the nose right back? Maybe it will keep me from doing it again, that would be rehabilitation which is good. Maybe it will show other people the negative consequences of socking people in the nose, that would be a deterrent which is also good. Neither of those things are for the sake of justice itself. We might accomplish the same things by pinching my arm or shooting me in the head, and neither of those responses would be justice.

How is "Because that would be just" a reason that it's good all by itself?

 

[FireDragon76]

That's what I'm questioning. Is there a reason why justice is good in itself?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there's something inherently wrong with punishment, that can serve a good purpose. But if the only purpose is to be just, I don't see a real difference between a desire for justice and a desire for revenge.

Let's say I sock you in the nose. Why would it be good for me to get socked in the nose right back? Maybe it will keep me from doing it again, that would be rehabilitation which is good. Maybe it will show other people the negative consequences of socking people in the nose, that would be a deterrent which is also good. Neither of those things are for the sake of justice itself. We might accomplish the same things by pinching my arm or shooting me in the head, and neither of those responses would be justice.

How is "Because that would be just" a reason that it's good all by itself?

You're getting to the heart of the problem with Christians overly Platonic thinking. Good and bad aren't absolutes, they are relational and therefore relative.

Christian theology tried to shoehorn Platonism into their religion, and it almost worked. But one might as well be a Platonist, then, it would be alot less of a bore to the rest of us. Platonists never conquered Europe at the point of a sword and burned witches at the stake or persecuted homosexuals.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I don't respond to threats. Your god may threaten people with unreasonable punishments, but that's not a reason to believe in him or obey him.

People that generally threaten other people to motivate them are not people worthy of human devotion as they display poor character. That's true of humans or gods.

No threats. No where in Scripture did Yahuweh ever threaten anyone.
No need to.

 

[FireDragon76]

No threats. No where in Scripture did Yahuweh ever threaten anyone.
No need to.

This is demonstrably false to the point I can't believe you say it with a straight face. The Bible is chock full of implicit and explicit threats by your god.

You need to try much better because you're more like an anti-apologist and are contributing nothing to this conversation.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

God sees everything one way.

People of the world He created see it another way.

His rules. Their loss.

When Tarzan saved someone from quicksand, he did not threaten them- he offered them a vine or a branch to hold onto, to be pulled out.

IF they did not grasp that, and sank, it was without any threat.

Tarzan could have told them "you will sink and die if you don't grasp it and hold on"...

That's a warning of what will happen.

Not a threat at all.

The world doesn't like the truth.

So? It is still not a threat.

God does not ever have to threaten anybody. He never did.

He offers a way out.

Most people don't care.

And they say a lot of bad things about God.

He cares.

But if they do not grasp the truth,

... again, without a threat, just because they did not listen and obey to live,

they sink.

 

[FireDragon76]

God sees everything one way.

People of the world He created see it another way.

His rules. Their loss.

When Tarzan saved someone from quicksand, he did not threaten them- he offered them a vine or a branch to hold onto, to be pulled out.

IF they did not grasp that, and sank, it was without any threat.

Tarzan could have told them "you will sink and die if you don't grasp it and hold on"...

All that Orwellian gloss won't change the fact I find the "branch" offered here on these forums to be more like a venomous serpent than a lifeline to salvation, which means to make healthy, to restore to health. So either you are wrong about what you offer, or your god is a deceiver. Either way, I call shenanigans on you and I'm putting you on ignore.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

All that Orwellian gloss won't change the fact I find the "branch" offered here on these forums to be more like a venomous serpent than a lifeline to salvation, which means to make healthy, to restore to health. So either you are wrong about what you offer, or your god is a deceiver. Either way, I call shenanigans on you.

Who ever said the "branch" that you see on these forums would do anyone any good ?

If you want a lifeline to salvation, meaning to make healthy (to heal), to restore to health, and to right standing with the Father in heaven,
this forum is not the place to find it. There's too many conflicts here. (see how many heresies and false gospels are allowed in some sections ? ) That's just one indication.

Would you go to a doctor's office for healing, if the people there got worse ?!? I don't. I don't think you would either, if you knew that ahead of time.

 

[Sanoy]

That quote by CS Lewis makes no sense for anyone not indoctrinated in Christianity. Imagine Zeus telling you that now it's your will that will be done. Would you know what Zeus means by that?

And why would anyone assume they are either fried for all eternity or killed on the spot and, somehow, it happens to be their will too?

Sounds like a setup, if you ask me. You are asked to chose a number between 1 and 2. And by choosing 2 you are choosing torment. Oh well, it's your will after all. Anything wrong with that picture?

"Thy will be done" is a self explanatory statement. So yes, I would understand that statement no matter who said it, because it's meaning refers to "my will". You left Christianity of your own will to become a hater and accuser of it right? That was your will, you get that, and God takes His stuff and fully leaves from your life. To some extent that has already occurred, as one can see who you were before, and what you have become as a consequence of that decision. But that is only a small difference in comparison to what you will become when God fully leaves your life.

There is no theological reason to conclude that anyone is fried for all eternity. Those interpretations are far too literal than the text allows for. In the case of C.S. Lewis's example it is life without God. Heaven is where God is, hell is where He isn't. The people that are there would rather be there, than heaven. The issue in understanding this is your perception of what heaven and hell is, they are not what they are because one has pleasure and one has pain. God is life, not God is death. Those in hell are addicted to a consuming drug, they do not want God, but the lack of God consumes them. It is like one in a fire, that hates water more than fire, but the fire is their own dehydration.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

So, four pages in so far...has any Christian tried to answer the question yet?

 

[BigV]

"Thy will be done" is a self explanatory statement. So yes, I would understand that statement no matter who said it, because it's meaning refers to "my will". You left Christianity of your own will to become a hater and accuser of it right? That was your will, you get that, and God takes His stuff and fully leaves from your life. To some extent that has already occurred, as one can see who you were before, and what you have become as a consequence of that decision. But that is only a small difference in comparison to what you will become when God fully leaves your life.

I'm not a hater of Christianity any more than you are a hater of Islam or Atheism. I realized that Christianity is just another man-made religion.

I did not choose punishment by disbelieving just as you did not choose a punishment for disbelieving Islam. It seems that Christians often assume they are not chosing some other religion's hell.

Guess what. If I'm choosing Christianity's Hell then you are choosing a Muslim one. But why would you choose to suffer for disobeying Allah? Answer that last question and you'll understand the atheist position in regards to Christianity.

There is no theological reason to conclude that anyone is fried for all eternity. Those interpretations are far too literal than the text allows for. In the case of C.S. Lewis's example it is life without God. Heaven is where God is, hell is where He isn't. The people that are there would rather be there, than heaven. The issue in understanding this is your perception of what heaven and hell is, they are not what they are because one has pleasure and one has pain. God is life, not God is death. Those in hell are addicted to a consuming drug, they do not want God, but the lack of God consumes them. It is like one in a fire, that hates water more than fire, but the fire is their own dehydration.

Perhaps you are right about no frying in eternity, but you can't be sure of that. Historically, this is what the mainstream Christianity taught and continues to teach even today. There are fringe positions of Universalism and a larger fringe teaching Annihilationism, but the vast majority of Christians believe that non-Christians will spend eternity in conscious torment.

Please understand that telling me that I don't want God/Christ is the same as telling me I don't want to have a relationship with a real Santa Claus.

Do you want a relationship with Santa? Or would you rather suffer eternally for disobeying and disappointing him? If you think these questions are nonsensical, then you are right. But these are the same questions and claims you are making in regards to Christianity.

 

[Sanoy]

I'm not a hater of Christianity any more than you are a hater of Islam or Atheism. I realized that Christianity is just another man-made religion.

I did not choose punishment by disbelieving just as you did not choose a punishment for disbelieving Islam. It seems that Christians often assume they are not chosing some other religion's hell.

Guess what. If I'm choosing Christianity's Hell then you are choosing a Muslim one. But why would you choose to suffer for disobeying Allah? Answer that last question and you'll understand the atheist position in regards to Christianity.



Perhaps you are right about no frying in eternity, but you can't be sure of that. Historically, this is what the mainstream Christianity thaught and continues to teach even today. There are fringe positions of Universalism and a larger Anihilationism, but the majority Christians. believe that non-Christians will spend eternity in conscious torment.

Please understand that telling me that I don't want God/Christ is the same as telling me I don't want to have a relationship with a real Santa Claus.

Do you want a relationship with Santa? Or would you rather suffer eternally for disobeying and disappointing him? If you think these questions are nonsensical, then you are right. But these are the same questions and claims you are making in regards to Christianity.

You seem to hate Christianity. I get that not from words to the contrary but from your behavior. I'm not saying you chose punishment, I am saying you chose your will and that has a natural consequence which will manifest in part today, and in full at your death.

I have no theological reason to believe that anyone will literally fry in hell. I can't rule out that anymore than I can rule out that it means literally being in a stir fry pan, with onions and carrots. Several people seem to be of the opinion that if you can't disprove something it means it is warranted to believe that thing...no, it's warranted to believe that thing if you have reason to believe that thing.

I agree, the majority of Christian believe in ECT, but that is incidental ECT, not voluntary. We are not allowed to discuss annihilationism.

Whether or not santa exists, you would have a response to him if he did. So there is no issue with speaking hypothetically. If God exists you either want your will to be done in regards to Him, or you want God's will to be done in regards to yourself. You don't want a relationship with God, and that is exactly what you will get in the end. God will leave you entirely. Your sickness cannot be overcome because it is perpetuated by your own desire to be apart from God. The fire is already around because you reject the only source of life, but you are still wet because God will not depart from you while you live. But when you die, He will depart and you will receive what you wished, and then the fire will take hold and consume you. Being fully apart from God is the description of hell, your desire is literally to be in hell, because that is all hell is. In the end we each get exactly what we wanted, a life spent fully with God, and a life spent fully apart from God.

 

[zippy2006]

That's what I'm questioning. Is there a reason why justice is good in itself?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there's something inherently wrong with punishment, that can serve a good purpose. But if the only purpose is to be just, I don't see a real difference between a desire for justice and a desire for revenge.

Let's say I sock you in the nose. Why would it be good for me to get socked in the nose right back? Maybe it will keep me from doing it again, that would be rehabilitation which is good. Maybe it will show other people the negative consequences of socking people in the nose, that would be a deterrent which is also good. Neither of those things are for the sake of justice itself. We might accomplish the same things by pinching my arm or shooting me in the head, and neither of those responses would be justice.

How is "Because that would be just" a reason that it's good all by itself?

This is a rather large topic. First, what is your understanding or definition of justice?

 

[zippy2006]

I did not choose punishment...

No one who commits a punishable offense chooses punishment.

Perhaps you are right about no frying in eternity, but you can't be sure of that.

What you don't seem to understand is that according to Christianity any rational man would leap at the chance of being burned with fire as opposed to being separated from God. ...well you also don't seem to understand metaphor.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

No one who commits a punishable offense chooses punishment.

Except of course God's children; for whoever does not receive scourging is NOT A SON, for every son whom the Father loves, HE scourgeth.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

any rational man

What the natural (rational) man may or may not do, is hardly evidence for what to do.
The natural man (rational) understands nothing spiritual.

 

[Moral Orel]

This is a rather large topic. First, what is your understanding or definition of justice?

I bet it's simpler than you think. Justice is equity, fairness.

 

[zippy2006]

I bet it's simpler than you think. Justice is equity, fairness.

And you don't think equity and fairness have intrinsic value?

Suppose I offer you $30 to mow my lawn. After you mow the lawn consider two of my options: pay you or don't. The first is just, the second is not. It is just--ceteris paribus--to fulfill one's promises.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Suppose I offer you $30 to mow my lawn. After you mow the lawn consider two of my options: pay you or don't. The first is just, the second is not. It is just--ceteris paribus--to fulfill one's promises.

COOL! Pay me up front! I'll get to it as soon as I can! .......

 

[Moral Orel]

And you don't think equity and fairness have intrinsic value?

It's a new thought of mine, but now that I'm thinking about it, no. Not intrinsic value, anyways.

Suppose I offer you $30 to mow my lawn. After you mow the lawn consider two of my options: pay you or don't. The first is just, the second is not. It is just--ceteris paribus--to fulfill one's promises.

Why do you think we need a new example before you address mine at all?

Let's say I sock you in the nose. Why would it be good for me to get socked in the nose right back? Maybe it will keep me from doing it again, that would be rehabilitation which is good. Maybe it will show other people the negative consequences of socking people in the nose, that would be a deterrent which is also good. Neither of those things are for the sake of justice itself. We might accomplish the same things by pinching my arm or shooting me in the head, and neither of those responses would be justice.

How is "Because that would be just" a reason that it's good all by itself?​