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

[yeshuaslavejeff]

You are distracting. It's just a yes or no.

Do you think it right to put all those in a hell, who he never did a serious crime as killing another human.
Why dodging this question?

I did not dodge- you asked about FEELINGS at first, and I answered.
Whatever God does is Right, True, Just, Perfect in Mercy, Wisdom and Knowledge, with NO INIQUITY.

 

[Moral Orel]

Every time someone exits a conversation they are left open to the charge that they are sidestepping the blunders outlined in the most recent post.

That said, I can try to give you a bit more information. The list of five points I gave were criticisms of the example you chose to employ, not your intention in choosing that example, or your description--or lack of description--of the example. Different examples have different intrinsic qualities.

They were criticisms of an example that wasn't made. But when all else fails, just declare that the things you want to be there are "intrinsic", like the goodness of justice for the sake of justice.

In this post I "Challenged the opposition as much as I could." Such a strategy is not a good way of arriving at truth.

Edit: I'm not saying that the example of sophism that I identified in this thread is overwhelmingly egregious. Maybe I am also being somewhat impatient. But what's key is that you randomly fall into that sort of reasoning from time to time and this was the straw that broke the camel's back. Beyond that, I really do hope that you learn to avoid that tactic, because I think it will be genuinely helpful to you.

You sure are proud of that joke you keep pointing back to. I didn't make the argument you claim I did though, so this is all bunk. I did later explain why keeping a promise isn't justice, but you won't address the argument I did actually make. It just doesn't mean anything to me when you sling accusations of sophism at straw men, sorry.

If you've got all this time on your hands to address me and my "modus operandi" instead of addressing my arguments and examples, why don't you just tell me what's so good about justice for the sake of justice? Take away all the good consequences like deterrence and rehabilitation which prevent harm, and explain how serving retribution does anything other than cause harm.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

like the goodness of justice for the sake of justice.

God's justice is always perfect, true and good.

Man's justice is practically non-existent.

Subject to clarification , of course.

Did man's system of justice harm you as it did millions or billions of other people ?

 

[BigV]

No, people (mostly atheists though) don't feel that it is justifiable to put a human to eternal torture no matter what he did on earth! Here we are talking about those who did "nothing" (in terms of the atheists self review) as serious as killing another human, the majority of them are kept in such an eternal torturing.

Do you feel it justifiable?

I do find it ironic, that I will be judged for committing 'evils' that were far less egregious than the deeds committed by my judge!

And here we are, still without an answer to the OP question. I'm of the opinion that the reason Christians have no answer is that whatever evil they can think of, their God either commanded it or has done it.

 

[Silmarien]

And here we are, still without an answer to the OP question. I'm of the opinion that the reason Christians have no answer is that whatever evil they can think of, their God either commanded it or has done it.

Did you read the responses to your thread before making this claim? Because I've answered the initial question twice: double predestination and Ockham's voluntarism would make God a moral monster.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

" Is there anything >< God could do that would make him evil? "
.............................[a]
(the title question edited)

No.

 

[BigV]

Did you read the responses to your thread before making this claim? Because I've answered the initial question twice: double predestination and Ockham's voluntarism would make God a moral monster.

I'm ashamed to say I may have missed a few (or more) replies.

Now, let me clarify your point about double predestination. Do you mean that if God predestines some people to heaven and others to hell, that would make him a moral monster? Because, if Calvinism is right, then people are not able (due to total depravity) to chose to be saved, so by only doing a single predestination, in effect God is defaulting others to Hell. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point and apologies if you've already explained it.

Regarding Ockham's voluntarism, if I'm understanding correctly, it basically means that whatever God wills is automatically good, even he wills genocide and murdering all babies. If my take is right, then I agree with you there.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

What Calvinists or any other group says about God cannot make God evil.
No one can change God's nature , ya' know!

(If you want to get saved, then get saved FIRST, NOW, TODAY; THEN ask the questions)
Waiting might end up being too late , and getting answers to the questions first just isn't worth losing eternal life/ a soul/ is it ?

 

[Silmarien]

Now, let me clarify your point about double predestination. Do you mean that if God predestines some people to heaven and others to hell, that would make him a moral monster? Because, if Calvinism is right, then people are not able (due to total depravity) to chose to be saved, so by only doing a single predestination, in effect God is defaulting others to Hell. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point and apologies if you've already explained it.

Yeah, I thought it was implicit that I was talking about Calvinism when I mentioned double predestination.

Regarding Ockham's voluntarism, if I'm understanding correctly, it basically means that whatever God wills is automatically good, even he wills genocide and murdering all babies. If my take is right, then I agree with you there.

No, not really. Ockham's voluntarism is more about God being able to wipe out all of existence on a whim and renege upon the promise of salvation and still be morally perfect. It's an approach to divinity primarily focused on will and power, with a sort of gleeful nihilism underlying it.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

" Is there anything >< God could do that would make him evil? "
.............................[a]
(the title question edited)

No.

Then good and evil have no meaning.
If you cannot say "God would be evil if He did this," then you are unable to say "God is good".

 

[InterestedAtheist]

What Calvinists or any other group says about God cannot make God evil.
No one can change God's nature , ya' know!

(If you want to get saved, then get saved FIRST, NOW, TODAY; THEN ask the questions)
Waiting might end up being too late , and getting answers to the questions first just isn't worth losing eternal life/ a soul/ is it ?

Blatant appeal to emotion.

 

[trulytheone]

Then good and evil have no meaning.
If you cannot say "God would be evil if He did this," then you are unable to say "God is good".

(Allow me to defend the usage, or at least the ancient usage, of the word "good" or "benevolent" in describing God)

God, in traditional Christian view, sustains everything that exists until now (yes, even the devil and evil creatures exist not merely because he is permitted to, but because he is prevented, until now, by God from becoming nonexistent). Evil is a deprivation in this view (e. g. in the case of murder, what are missing from the murderer are the following: legality of his action; what ought to be his motivation in living his daily life; and more).

It also means that God Himself is the ultimate goal of human beings (i.e. to behold His uncreated glory and to be continuously transformed by Him, which, according to the traditional view, inevitably leads us to happiness and increases it).

This is why human beings must do good; it is because to do so inevitably leads to that goal: God Himself. If one already beholds God's uncreated glory, it is impossible not to be happy. And to be led to Him is to grow closer and attain Him (though, according to Christianity, this had become impossible due to sin, so Christ came to fix this problem).

Now as for God commanding the slaughter of even the most innocent in the Old Testament, I honestly do not have an adequate answer. For now, my answer will be this: God's commands must necessarily lead to the ultimate goal of mankind as mentioned above.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Thank you for that answer, trulytheone. Very interesting. The bit I thought was the most useful, though, was this:

Now as for God commanding the slaughter of even the most innocent in the Old Testament, I honestly do not have an adequate answer. For now, my answer will be this: God's commands must necessarily lead to the ultimate goal of mankind as mentioned above.

Now from this, I infer that your answer to this thread's question "Is there anything God culd do that would make Him evil?" is no, there isn't - because if He did it, you would just assume that He had to have a reason. Is that correct?

 

[trulytheone]

Now from this, I infer that your answer to this thread's question "Is there anything God culd do that would make Him evil?" is no, there isn't - because if He did it, you would just assume that He had to have a reason. Is that correct?

Yes, your understanding is correct. Though I also believe that those passages could be understood in another manner: God giving the Israelites many opportunities to intercede for their own enemies (i. e. they're given the opportunity to ask God to mitigate His commands for the sakes of the innocents in the enemy territories, just as Abraham asked God to cancel His intended punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah for at least 10 innocents). The fact that they didn't indicates their failure to imitate Abraham and to develop morally. This is actually the explanation of some Jews on those passages.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Yes, your understanding is correct. Though I also believe that those passages could be understood in another manner: God giving the Israelites many opportunities to intercede for their own enemies (i. e. they're given the opportunity to ask God to mitigate His commands for the sakes of the innocents in the enemy territories, just as Abraham asked God to cancel His intended punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah for at least 10 innocents). The fact that they didn't indicates their failure to imitate Abraham and to develop morally. This is actually the explanation of some Jews on those passages.

Why bother justifying it? Why not just say that God did evil?
After all, we've already demonstrated that you don't have a problem with saying that God did evil; you'll just say that there must have been a reason for it, and the fact that you don't know that reason doesn't bother you.

 

[BigV]

This is why human beings must do good; it is because to do so inevitably leads to that goal: God Himself. If one already beholds God's uncreated glory, it is impossible not to be happy

But how can you claim that God is good when you rightly acknowledge there was the slaughter of innocents in the Old Testament due to God's command?

Can a human being do what God did and be good?

Now as for God commanding the slaughter of even the most innocent in the Old Testament, I honestly do not have an adequate answer. For now, my answer will be this: God's commands must necessarily lead to the ultimate goal of mankind as mentioned above.

I appreciate the honesty.

 

[trulytheone]

Why bother justifying it? Why not just say that God did evil?
After all, we've already demonstrated that you don't have a problem with saying that God did evil; you'll just say that there must have been a reason for it, and the fact that you don't know that reason doesn't bother you.

I was simply giving what I believe to be a plausible alternative explanation of the passage provided by some Jews. It does not necessarily mitigate His commands' disturbing aspects (I mean, the Israelites still had to obey, unless they suffer His punishments, if they didn't figure out to use those opportunities to ask God to change those commands for the innocents' sakes). And yes, you could say what God had done were evil (besides, an Eastern Orthodox saint had already said something similar, though in an entirely different context).

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

God is Good.

 

[BigV]

God is Good.

And if you think otherwise, he will send you to hell. Can I get an Amen?

 

[zippy2006]

If you've got all this time on your hands to address me and my "modus operandi" instead of addressing my arguments and examples, why don't you just tell me what's so good about justice for the sake of justice? Take away all the good consequences like deterrence and rehabilitation which prevent harm, and explain how serving retribution does anything other than cause harm.

Because I gave you a laughably obvious example of justice and fairness, and, according to your modus operandi, you "Challenged the opposition as much as you could." You're just trying to contradict. I'm tired of playing Sisyphus.