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

[SPF]

Why not just say that God did evil?

Because God is by definition a Maximally Great Being. An MGB, literally could not do evil. It's non-sensical in the same way that God cannot create a square-circle, or create another eternal being, or make a pool so deep He can't swim to the bottom.

God possesses both communicable and incommunicable attributes. Not only should we not be surprised that we, as finite, limited, created beings don't understand the full nature, depth, and reasoning behind God's plan,

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

Everyone either receives justice or grace.

 

[zippy2006]

What the heck. Let's roll some more stones:

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.

I disagree that your example is about justice though. Keeping a promise isn't justice. Paying a fair wage is. What if your property is 100 acres? Thirty dollars isn't a fair wage for a yard that size, so you keeping your promise isn't justice. What if I do a terrible job? It isn't fair for you to have to pay me the full thirty dollars. Being a liar is bad, sure, but it isn't about fairness or equity.

1. The employee is offered a fair wage, does a satisfactory job, and is payed the promised $30.
2. The employee is offered a fair wage, does a satisfactory job, and is refused the promised payment of $30.
   
3. The employee is offered a fair wage, does an unsatisfactory job, and is payed the promised $30.
4. The employee is offered a fair wage, does an unsatisfactory job, and is refused the promised payment of $30.
5. The employee is offered an unfair wage, does a satisfactory job, and is payed the promised $30.
6. The employee is offered an unfair wage, does a satisfactory job, and is refused the promised payment of $30.
   
7. The employee is offered an unfair wage, does an unsatisfactory job, and is payed the promised $30.
8. The employee is offered an unfair wage, does an unsatisfactory job, and is refused the promised payment of $30.

A. It is just to offer a fair wage.
B. It is just to provide satisfactory work.
C. It is just to fulfill one's promises and contractual obligations.​

• Example 1 is just.
• Example 2 is unjust on account of C.
• Example 3 is unjust on account of B.
  
• Example 4 is unjust on account of B (but not C assuming a just contract).
  
• Example 5 is unjust on account of A.
  
• Example 6 is unjust on account of A and C.
  
• Example 7 is unjust on account of A and B.
  
• Example 8 is unjust on account of A, B, and C.

Introducing random and needless variables, such as you did here and I satirized here, is a form of sophism that leads exponentially away from focused discourse and truth. When someone gives an example or assertion, responding in a way that assumes wild discrepancies which are in no way discernible from the text and inserts those discrepancies into the intentions of the speaker is a form of sophism and unfair play. Anyone who is not trying to be difficult can see that in this post I was attempting to illustrate the difference between (1) and (2).

(And no, I am not going to enter into a debate with you on minutia such as whether 8.C is just. That's the whole problem. Principles need to be established before minutia can be addressed. A sophist is liable to take issue with each of the assignments I made, thus taking us to a whole new exponential level of complication.)

 

[BigV]

Everyone either receives justice or grace.

Killing someone for going 1 mile over the speed limit is not justice, and neither is an eternity in Hell for finite sins.

 

[SPF]

Killing someone for going 1 mile over the speed limit is not justice

I agree.

and neither is an eternity in Hell for finite sins.

Punishment often has more to do with who the crime is against than anything else.

If you were walking your dog down the street and someone walked up and put two bullets in your dogs head, he would receive a different punishment than if he put those two bullets in your head.

God is eternal, all sin is ultimately against God.

 

[BigV]

God is eternal, all sin is ultimately against God.

It doesn't follow that since God is eternal, finite beings deserve eternal punishment for sinning against him.

That's like saying if one kills Bill Gates they deserve a higher punishment vs killing Joe the Plumber.

 

[Tinker Grey]

It doesn't follow that since God is eternal, finite beings deserve eternal punishment for sinning against him.

That's like saying if one kills Bill Gates they deserve a higher punishment vs killing Joe the Plumber.

Or like saying a spider bite is more significant to an elephant than to a mouse.

 

[Moral Orel]

A. It is just to offer a fair wage.
B. It is just to provide satisfactory work.
C. It is just to fulfill one's promises and contractual obligations.

In order for something to be just, fair, or equitable, you have to weigh it against something else.
It's just to offer a fair wage because you're weighing the wage against the work performed.

What are you weighing to determine "satisfactory" work? Effort commensurate with pay, that works. "Satisfactory" is a vague, subjective term, though.

It's just to fulfill one's contractual obligations after the other party has, but you can't conflate that with keeping a promise. Fulfilling your end of a contract is fulfilling a promise, but fulfilling a promise isn't necessarily fulfilling your end of a contract. If I make an unsolicited promise to you that I'm going to wash your car, it isn't "just" to keep that promise because it isn't compared with anything.

It feels like you're trying to conflate "just" with anything "good". But lots of things are good that are unjust. Being generous, for one. It's good to give people more than you owe them, like tipping well, right? But that isn't just. How can being just be intrinsically good when it's good to be unjust? If I offer you more than a fair wage, am I being bad because I am acting unjustly?

Now like you said, we're talking about retributive justice, so why is your example the opposite of that? If a sock in the nose doesn't deserve a sock in the nose, give me an example of retributive justice.

 

[Moral Orel]

God is eternal, all sin is ultimately against God.

Can I harm God?

 

[Moral Orel]

Introducing random and needless variables, such as you did here and I satirized here, is a form of sophism that leads exponentially away from focused discourse and truth. When someone gives an example or assertion, responding in a way that assumes wild discrepancies which are in no way discernible from the text and inserts those discrepancies into the intentions of the speaker is a form of sophism and unfair play.

You mean like this:

It is simple, but it is also particularly bad. Here's a few reasons:

1. There is no significant consensus that such an act would be just.
2. It involves a kind of vigilante justice, which is commonly perceived to be problematic.
3. It badly conflates retribution with revenge.
4. It intentionally conflates three distinct things: retribution, rehabilitation, and deterrence.
5. Opinions on the example are (therefore) highly unlikely to yield any progress or common ground regarding the idea of justice.

Remember, this is what you were responding to:

My example is very simple. If I sock you in the nose, then I deserve to be socked in the nose. Do you disagree that is justice, fairness, equity?

You added vigilante justice, revenge, rehabilitation, and deterrence as concepts. I didn't even say there was going to be a socking in response, let alone who would be doing the socking if it occurred, just that it was deserved, so how are any of those things "inherent"?

Side note, vigilante justice isn't inherently unjust, though I agree it is problematic, so even if my example contained it, which it doesn't, it wouldn't disqualify it as an example of "justice".

 

[InterestedAtheist]

That's like saying if one kills Bill Gates they deserve a higher punishment vs killing Joe the Plumber.

Or like saying a spider bite is more significant to an elephant than to a mouse.

Both good points.

God is eternal, all sin is ultimately against God.

I agree with BigV and Tinker Grey, but would also like to add that what you are saying leads to the logically ridiculous situation that a person can be given a punishment of infinite severity for an infinitely small sin. And "infinitely small" logically means nonexistent.

So it turns out I was saying the same thing as BigV and Tinker after all: to God, sin does not exist. Logically, it's too small to bother Him.

 

[Larniavc]

If someone does not get on the ARK, what happens to them? (Anyone and Everyo

What about the people on other continents?

 

[Larniavc]

it's clear from the Crucifixion that this operation had to involve serious suffering on God's part as well.

No more than any other person who was crucified. And he knew for an absolute fact that he would be fine afterwards.

 

[Larniavc]

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

Really?

When was the last time you read the Bible?

Leviticus 26: 14-20

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Because God is by definition a Maximally Great Being. An MGB, literally could not do evil. It's non-sensical in the same way that God cannot create a square-circle, or create another eternal being, or make a pool so deep He can't swim to the bottom.

God possesses both communicable and incommunicable attributes. Not only should we not be surprised that we, as finite, limited, created beings don't understand the full nature, depth, and reasoning behind God's plan,

Everyone either receives justice or grace.

And by what method do you demonstrate that maximally great means maximally morally good?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Here's an alliterative rhetorical question: Is a buck bigger to a billionaire or a beggar?

(To non-native US-English speakers, a buck is a dollar.)

 

[Silmarien]

No more than any other person who was crucified. And he knew for an absolute fact that he would be fine afterwards.

Not sure why the first would be relevant to anything, or how we would even know the second is true. The picture painted in Gethsemane is pretty dark.

In any case, "knowing" that you're going to be fine afterwards and how that transfigures (but doesn't eliminate) suffering is one of the major themes in Christian theology--look at the traditional focus on martyrdom.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If God can torture people in Hell for eternity, and still be the epitome of goodness and love, what would make this God a moral monster?

Sometimes, I'm glad atheists ask questions that I'm just not allowed to participate in.

 

[SPF]

It doesn't follow that since God is eternal, finite beings deserve eternal punishment for sinning against him.

That's like saying if one kills Bill Gates they deserve a higher punishment vs killing Joe the Plumber.

No, it’s like the analogy that I provided.

Can I harm God?

Define Harm.

to God, sin does not exist. Logically, it's too small to bother Him.

Jesus would disagree.

And by what method do you demonstrate that maximally great means maximally morally good?

Unless you’re a psychopath, it should actually be fairly obvious why a MGB would be good as opposed to evil. In fact, the primary argument against MGB in the past has been the problem of evil.

 

[Moral Orel]

Define Harm.

verb : to damage or injure physically or mentally

 

[SPF]

verb : to damage or injure physically or mentally

I think Scripture shows that Jesus was certainly hurt physically. I don’t think he was damage or injured mentally, though I do think the sin of those around Him did make Him sad for them.

God the Father isn’t a physical being, so He obviously can’t be harmed physically.

God as a Trinitarian being is relational by nature. He created us as relational beings. Sin hinders our relationship with God. So I would think that my sin does matter to God and on some level affects Him. But harms Him? Probably not.

However, there are many crimes people commit where the only person they harm is either nobody or themselves and they are still punished.