If god is everything, doesn't that make him evil as well as good?

[hellsapoppin]

That's not what it says in the Bible's New Testament as it is the power of the holy spirit that supposedly makes miracles.

[mazHur]

Okay, if the holy spirit makes miracles happen, then it is only Him that can do it now or in future by virtue of his position and leave of god .

[Nightshade]

Jesus was bestowed with various greatest miracles any prophet ever had.
Jesus is alive and he will return to earth as Imam Mehdi or Saviour of human kinds. It is impossible for any human to show any miracle, whatsoever, at this time or in the future,,,,and if he tries to imitate Jesus he would only be faking and getting himself into trouble like Houdi did.
Actually I dont think the Imam Mehdi is Jesus, I was pretty sure that he is supposed to be the Uniter who is a sign of the Return of Christ , ( and I delibritly use Christ as in the Messiah. As for the mircals I belive that the coorect format for reffering to them is By the will of God, which is important because it reffers too the prophets being, not only part of the mircale but as a tool of Gods Mircale.


*** Actually question what does Christ mean, anyone, I was opperating under the aassumption that it was equivellent to Messiah but it occured to me I might be wrong in which case please excuse.

[Niamh]

English term from the greek word christos meaning the anointed one. (chosen one type of thing)

[Beverly S]

The bible says that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. Only Satan is pure evil and he became that way because he chose to rebel against God.

[Nightshade]

English term from the greek word christos meaning the anointed one. (chosen one type of thing)

So I was right Messiah means that too :nod:

Edit: Ok my sister just gave me the etamological breakdown Im wrong Mesiah ( the arbic one) comes from some arabic root word or other and means the sent one...

[mazHur]

Beverly S
The bible says that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. Only Satan is pure evil and he became that way because he chose to rebel against God.

How beautifully Beverly has stated the gist of the matter! I have but to agree with her completely.

[weepingforloman]

In a plane crash all die but one. We say it was a miracle which saved the survivor. How do you explain that? Why did 99 percent of the passengers die??
All the world is a miracle. If we take exercising of divine power to be a miracle, then the very fact that the world exists is a miracle.
Why did the other passengers die? Probably because they took impact in a different way than the survivor. Sometimes there is no greater "why," just that God made matter in a certain way, and did not intervene to save someone in this case.

[mazHur]

there could atleast be two reasons for the the survivor single after the plane crash:
1. related to matter
2. related to soul or spirit

Ordinarily, only the first comes to the 'science-ridden' mind and that sounds fair enough though arguable.

The second aspect or cause of tragedy or miracle is only believed by those who believe in miracles or the world of the soul or spirit.

It is commonly observed that people (and even animals) don't feel the same way under all circumstances. For example, some people can endure hardships and pain comparatively more than others. Some experience 'fear' more than others; some startle even at the strong beat of their heart or at the gust of wind whereas others don't. What I mean to stress is that more often people die of how poorly they respond or react to matters related to their spirituals or soul and thus suffer accordingly. There have been reports of people dying of hear failure at the news of a loss, (such as the stock market crash,) which fate so many others didn't suffer. Some faint at the sight of a gheko or a rat, others don't bother. All the abstract feelings as they are called are infact unseen and yet un-exploited mysteries of nature that play their vital role in determining the destinies of people, including those who died and the one who came out alive. Matter alone is mere dust.

[Pendragon]

A miracle is a sudden change for which there is no reasonable explanation. For example, I had ulcers very badly, which showed clearly on x-rays with that nasty chalk stuff. I was prayed for and healed. The next x-rays were clean. The Doctor was shocked and said he didn't know what happened, but it must have be a miracle. The evidence was there.

God Bless

Pen

[Niamh]

So I was right Messiah means that too :nod:

Edit: Ok my sister just gave me the etamological breakdown Im wrong Mesiah ( the arbic one) comes from some arabic root word or other and means the sent one...

Maybe he is Jesus christ the Messiah because he was the anointed one sent by god!

[mazHur]

Maybe he is Jesus christ the Messiah because he was the anointed one sent by god!

Messeeh in Arabic means Christian, so Messiah is Saviour of Mankind who is none other than Jesus.

[Nightshade]

Actually Messeh is the word used to indicate christians it means followers of the Messiah or if you were to directly transalte it it means Messiah-ians.

[mazHur]

thanks, that's right

[weepingforloman]

there could atleast be two reasons for the the survivor single after the plane crash:
1. related to matter
2. related to soul or spirit

Ordinarily, only the first comes to the 'science-ridden' mind and that sounds fair enough though arguable.

The second aspect or cause of tragedy or miracle is only believed by those who believe in miracles or the world of the soul or spirit.

It is commonly observed that people (and even animals) don't feel the same way under all circumstances. For example, some people can endure hardships and pain comparatively more than others. Some experience 'fear' more than others; some startle even at the strong beat of their heart or at the gust of wind whereas others don't. What I mean to stress is that more often people die of how poorly they respond or react to matters related to their spirituals or soul and thus suffer accordingly. There have been reports of people dying of hear failure at the news of a loss, (such as the stock market crash,) which fate so many others didn't suffer. Some faint at the sight of a gheko or a rat, others don't bother. All the abstract feelings as they are called are infact unseen and yet un-exploited mysteries of nature that play their vital role in determining the destinies of people, including those who died and the one who came out alive. Matter alone is mere dust.

I have to disagree with you that matter is "mere dust." Did not God create it?
And, of course, we Christians believe that God became matter. Please don't disparage it.
However, I am well aware that people react in different ways to the same stimulus- but that is not grounds for a miracle. The reactions of men are governed to a certain extent by naturally occuring chemicals in the brain, and also by the exercise of will. Miracle means something which is beyond nature, which accelerates, slows, or changes the normal workings of matter- water to wine is a process that occurs in nature at a much slower pace, God caused the sun to hang in the sky (stopped the rotation of the earth) for the Israelites, and He raised Christ from the dead, changing the normal processes of nature.

[hellsapoppin]

god kills:

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/how-many-has-god-killed.html


a great biblical re-cap of all of his killings


Old Testament: the lord kills whomever he pleaseth - I Samuel 2:6

[mazHur]

God is a Giver as well as Taker. It does not mean He kills. It's just like saying that because the government takes taxes from us therefore the govt is evil. No.
Similarly, if a convict is hanged you cant say that the executioner acted evilly.
By your quote it is simple to understand that the one who can give life can also take it away !
there seems to be toooo much dwindling unbelief ,,,,,,,,,!

[Pendragon]

god kills:

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/how-many-has-god-killed.html


a great biblical re-cap of all of his killings


Old Testament: the lord kills whomever he pleaseth - I Samuel 2:6

A common sense look at things, Popeye. from fellow cartoon character Pogp Possum: "Don't take life seriously son, it ain't nohow permanent" In other words life is always fatal. In this world!

God Bless

Pen

[hellsapoppin]

``it is simple to understand that the one who can give life can also take it away ! ``


I suppose that means that parents can commit infanticide without facing consequences.

[mazHur]

``it is simple to understand that the one who can give life can also take it away ! ``


I suppose that means that parents can commit infanticide without facing consequences.

Wrong example! Parents dont give life --they just 'bear' children. It's only God who gives life and we hold it in 'trust' until He takes it back........

Take the example of a moneylender,an employer, tax department, the government,,,,,all of these 'give' you but also 'take ' in return. Give and Take always go together,,,,,:D

[RichardHresko]

How beautifully Beverly has stated the gist of the matter! I have but to agree with her completely.

Satan cannot be pure evil, for if he were pure evil he would cease to exist.

1) All of God's creations were good at the time of their creation.
2) Therefore everything that exists has some goodness.
2b) To have existence is therefore to partake of some good.
3) Evil is the corruption of goodness, and has no independent existence.
4) Anything that has been completely corrupted would cease to exist.
5) Satan exists.
6) Satan can not be purely evil.
QED.

The essence of this argument is based on de libero arbitrio by Augustine.

[Whifflingpin]

Maybe

[liberal viewer]

It is an absurd premise because there is no god, no "invicible man" as George Carlin so aptly put it.

[mazHur]

It is an absurd premise because there is no god, no "invicible man" as George Carlin so aptly put it.

but it's also said

THERE IS NO GOD BUT GOD !

[RichardHresko]

It is an absurd premise because there is no god, no "invicible man" as George Carlin so aptly put it.

The non-existence of God would not make the premise "absurd" since the underlying question of the origin and nature of evil would still remain. This question explores the internal coherence of one possible approach to these questions.

With all due respect to Nietzsche, there is no ultimately convincing argument about the existence of God in either direction.

I would argue (in a different thread, of course) that given the undecidability of the proposition the reasonable thing to do is to acknowledge in one's ontology whether or not God is a part of your set of axioms. Geometers seem to have no problem working with Euclidean and non-Euclidean spaces without having crises of mathematical faith.

[hellsapoppin]

``It's only God who gives life and we hold it in 'trust' until He takes it back``


He also created Satan - if the latter is evil it is because he was made that way by you know who ... ;)

[RichardHresko]

``It's only God who gives life and we hold it in 'trust' until He takes it back``


He also created Satan - if the latter is evil it is because he was made that way by you know who ... ;)

That does not follow. Given that angels have free will, an angel can choose to sin. The evil would be the result of Satan's choice, not God's creation.

This is not to suggest that Satan chose to be evil. He chose to make himself the equal of God, which was contrary to his true happiness. Choosing that which can not make you happy eternally as though it could make you eternally happy is the basis of evil.

[hellsapoppin]

... and who creates that evil ?

[RichardHresko]

... and who creates that evil ?

Evil is created by the action of free will.

Also note that evil does not have substantial existence, so it does not involve a positive act of creation, such as the creation of a penguin or chihuahua.

[hellsapoppin]

``Evil is created by the action of free will.``

By god's free will ;) as per Isaiah 45:7.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Just think, that at this very moment 'God' may be pondering whether man exists.

[mazHur]

Free will is guided by Allah(God), which implies that God saves people from evil only if they ''believe'' (in Truth)

64:11 No calamity befalleth save by Allah's leave. And whosoever believeth in Allah, He guideth his heart. And Allah is Knower of all things.
Al-Quran

[Pendragon]

Just think, that at this very moment 'God' may be pondering whether man exists.Not "whether", mon ami, but "why?" I can see God, head in His hands, thinking about man and wondering "Where did I go wrong?"

[Whifflingpin]

Pen: "I can see God, head in His hands, thinking about man and wondering "Where did I go wrong?""

But God cannot go wrong, therefore man is as God meant him to be, which includes the evil in man, therefore God is responsible for the evil, and so round we go again.

[Adolescent09]

Satan cannot be pure evil, for if he were pure evil he would cease to exist.

1) All of God's creations were good at the time of their creation.
2) Therefore everything that exists has some goodness.
2b) To have existence is therefore to partake of some good.
3) Evil is the corruption of goodness, and has no independent existence.
4) Anything that has been completely corrupted would cease to exist.
5) Satan exists.
6) Satan can not be purely evil.
QED.

The essence of this argument is based on de libero arbitrio by Augustine.

1) Goodness at creation is a consequence of innocence. This ideal has been suggested on several occasions. Since a being of new creation has no prior existence as far as we know it has no experience. Nothing is innately evil; that much is known. Evil must be encountered or thoroughly experienced to circumvent that which is good. Like a virus, vice must have a host (that which is good) in order to transgress and permeate.

2) The extent of sin is virtually unfathomable by man and thus must somehow be determined by a metaphysical phenomenon. As far as human moral is concerned, sin is absolute. But moral is still bound by mere opinion and thus to contend that "Everything that exists has some goodness" is not factually grounded.

2b) Read prior counterargument.

3) This might be true but still isn't absolute.

4) Anything that has been corrupted may inevitably cease to exist. Take tyrants, potentates and dogmatic nationalists as examples.

5) Satan is conveyed in and confined to the Christian faith (although he goes under a variety of titles in other respective religions). Whether he exists or not is strictly opinion.

6) Read prior counterargument.

This is MY opinion. Please don't take offence.

[RichardHresko]

``Evil is created by the action of free will.``

By god's free will ;) as per Isaiah 45:7.

When God refers to creating evil in that verse it is certainly not meant as 'sin' but clearly as natural evil and punishment of those God chooses. Since no one is innocent, there is no question of innocents suffering.

A good example of proper exegesis of this verse is given by John Calvin (granted, he was thoroughly Augustinian, but clearly NOT a Catholic theologian) in his commentary on Isaiah. Specifically on this verse he writes:
"Making peace, and creating evil. By the words “light” and “darkness” he describes metaphorically not only peace and war; but adverse and prosperous events of any kind; and he extends the word peace, according to the custom of Hebrew writers, to all success and prosperity. This is made abundantly clear by the contrast; for he contrasts “peace” not only with war, but with adverse events of every sort. Fanatics torture this word evil, as if God were the author of evil, that is, of sin; but it is very obvious how ridiculously they abuse this passage of the Prophet. This is sufficiently explained by the contrast, the parts of which must agree with each other; for he contrasts “peace” with “evil,” that is, with afflictions, wars, and other adverse occurrences. If he contrasted “righteousness” with “evil,” there would be some plausibility in their reasonings, but this is a manifest contrast of things that are opposite to each other. Consequently, we ought not to reject the ordinary distinction, that God is the author of the “evil” of punishment, but not of the “evil” of guilt."

One of the difficulties we have to face is the question of how to interpret Scripture. Scripture needs interpretation, and the idea that one can just read a verse at random or interpret the "plain" words generally leads to great distortions. This verse is an excellent case in point.

[hellsapoppin]

Taking one quote out of context can lead to a misunderstanding, as you say. That is why it is so necessary to read Romans 9 along with Isaiah 45:7 (along with the other cites I listed previously) to see that, indeed, humanity is not to blame for evil or its consequences.

[RichardHresko]

Taking one quote out of context can lead to a misunderstanding, as you say. That is why it is so necessary to read Romans 9 along with Isaiah 45:7 (along with the other cites I listed previously) to see that, indeed, humanity is not to blame for evil or its consequences.

In your previous post you referred only to Isaiah 45:7.

You do not represent Romans 9 correctly. Romans 9:14 clearly states that there is no injustice on God's part. If man were not responsible for sin and God punished man, then clearly there is injustice on God's part. Romans 9 should be read in conjunction with such verses as 2 Corinthians 3:6, which states that the letter kills while the Spirit gives life.

No one merits anything other than damnation (1 Corinthians 4:7) thus any punishment we receive is just. That God elects some to be saved is by his grace and mercy, but does not affect his justice (Romans 9:20).

You might find Augustine's To Simplician interesting, since he discusses Romans 9 in some detail there.

I will be away for the next several days, but look forward to continuing the discussion on my return next week.

Pax vobiscum!

[Pendragon]

I would say read Ezekiel 18 and 33. But Rich, there is an old saying: Beware of the man with just one book. How about the man who clings to but once source to explain everything? Augustine seems to be your man. Ireneaus and St. Columba and St. Martin also wrote about these things, as later would other men like Martin Luther. How many popes issued doctrinal statements? The Books would fill a room.

Pen

[RichardHresko]

I would say read Ezekiel 18 and 33. But Rich, there is an old saying: Beware of the man with just one book. How about the man who clings to but once source to explain everything? Augustine seems to be your man. Ireneaus and St. Columba and St. Martin also wrote about these things, as later would other men like Martin Luther. How many popes issued doctrinal statements? The Books would fill a room.

Pen

I've also used Aquinas, Boethius, and Calvin in my posts (to start an alphabetical list). On this particular topic I found that Augustine suited, that's all.

I would also include people who use the Bible exclusively in your rubric about those who use just one book.

[mazHur]

Good and Evil are linked to specific spots in the brain. If someone thinks that God possesses brain of a man then surely God is responsible for good and evil otherwise NOT.
If he's only good then he is not a human being because humans have both good and bad spots in their brains. this is proven by science and is also quite near to horse sense !

[RichardHresko]

Good and Evil are linked to specific spots in the brain. If someone thinks that God possesses brain of a man then surely God is responsible for good and evil otherwise NOT.
If he's only good then he is not a human being because humans have both good and bad spots in their brains. this is proven by science and is also quite near to horse sense !

It is not clear what exactly is meant by "linked." It is not exactly clear what is meant by "Good and Evil" in this context, either. Are "Good and Evil" to be regarded as physical substances? Are they predispositions? If so, how are they to be distinguished? If only by the regions of the brain where they are somehow linked, are Good and Evil arbitrary designations, such as positive and negative for the two types of electrical charge?

Since there has thus far been no argument that God is human, or that he has a brain, or is material in any way, the argument here does not seem to work, even if one could verify any part of what was presented as "proven by science." Though a posting of the source of this proof would be interesting in and of itself.

[hellsapoppin]

``I will be away for the next several days, but look forward to continuing the discussion on my return next week.``


I hope you will have a delightful time.

And note that as Alan Watts said many years ago: more people have been killed in the name of the Bible than for any other reason in history. A god who claims to be all about love could not possibly have dictated a book he knew would be used as the greatest instrument of death in history.

[mazHur]

Rich

An interesting article has been published by TIME, issue 3rd Dec 2007,on 'what makes us Good/Evil'' and could be had of [email protected], since it is a new article no link is yet available.

[RichardHresko]

``I will be away for the next several days, but look forward to continuing the discussion on my return next week.``


I hope you will have a delightful time.

And note that as Alan Watts said many years ago: more people have been killed in the name of the Bible than for any other reason in history. A god who claims to be all about love could not possibly have dictated a book he knew would be used as the greatest instrument of death in history.

Yes, I did. Thanks! I hope everyone is doing well.

I'm not sure God dictated the Bible.

I will grant that he of course knows what was done in the name of the Bible. However, there is the important point that these acts were the choices of those acting with free will. God is not the cause of the evil. The evil comes from the turning away from God on pride.

[RichardHresko]

Rich

An interesting article has been published by TIME, issue 3rd Dec 2007,on 'what makes us Good/Evil'' and could be had of [email protected], since it is a new article no link is yet available.

Thank you!
The article is an interesting one. Mr Kluger carefully delineates what science can say, but does not have an answer to what makes us good or evil.
What is in the article is that different areas of the brain are involved in different types of moral choices. The more abstract 'reasonable' situations are handled in one area, the more emotion-laden ones in another. Conflicts can be observed by looking at fMRI's of the brain (replacing, I suppose, the old PET scan approach). This however is far from finding either Good or Evil in the hard-wiring of the brain.

[hellsapoppin]

``God is not the cause of the evil.``

Every biblical scholar whose books I have read disagrees.

[mazHur]

poppin!

Disagreement about a certain thing does not necessarily make it false. Rather it confirms the existence of that very thing which men are unable to comprehend. Not God's fault.:D


Rich !

good you read the article. The point is that science is still trying to find out the reason for good and evil and has no final word to say yet. One of the friends here attributed it to some ''hormones'' such as love being produced by Oxytocin.
I think we should now go to Walmart and 'buy' some love potion whenever we feel lacking in love!!:lol: :D

[hellsapoppin]

``it confirms the existence of that very thing which men are unable to comprehend``


Can't say I agree --- the Bible seems quite clear to me. :)

[mazHur]

if a man cannot comprehend a man how can he comprehend God !

[hellsapoppin]

People rarely write autobiographies. :)

[mazHur]

A man is his own (auto) biography--he speaks for himself !

[hellsapoppin]

Bingo. Which is why it is so difficult to speculate upon or to criticize someone's history or actions based on another's experiences.

But if the Bible is to be believed, there is much basis for criticizing a god who claims to be benevolent while he boasts of his malevolence.

[mazHur]

you are confused and mixing up the acts of Satan with those of God, the merciful, the magnificient, the kind , the loving, the caring, the One and the Supreme!

[weepingforloman]

``I will be away for the next several days, but look forward to continuing the discussion on my return next week.``


I hope you will have a delightful time.

And note that as Alan Watts said many years ago: more people have been killed in the name of the Bible than for any other reason in history. A god who claims to be all about love could not possibly have dictated a book he knew would be used as the greatest instrument of death in history.

I'm afraid Watts was dead wrong. I trust he refers mostly to the Crusades and other religious wars- these are not the product of Scripture. "Turn the other cheek..." "Pray for your enemies..." "If your enemy is hungry, give him something to eat, if he is thirsty, give him something to drink..." That is Scripture. The Crusades and the "Christian" agressor is something else entirely, a being driven by greed, lust, power-hunger, fear, or hate. Do not assume that all who claim the backing of God actually have it. Remember that Christ said that there would be men who preached and drove out demons in His name but would not be recognized on the day of reckoning.

[RichardHresko]

``God is not the cause of the evil.``

Every biblical scholar whose books I have read disagrees.

It would be good if you would cite at least one, with his argument, so we can evaluate it.

I don't know of any author within the Greek or Latin Patristic tradition who would agree that God is the cause of evil. Moving to the Protestant tradition, neither Calvin (who I quoted above in his Commentary on Isaiah), nor Luther (who I did not quote), would agree. I would be shocked were Hans Kueng or Martin Buber to take the position you do.

[RichardHresko]

Rich !

good you read the article. The point is that science is still trying to find out the reason for good and evil and has no final word to say yet. One of the friends here attributed it to some ''hormones'' such as love being produced by Oxytocin.
I think we should now go to Walmart and 'buy' some love potion whenever we feel lacking in love!!:lol: :D

I agree on buying love potion #9. And maybe some Rainy Day Women numbers 19 & 35.

The article was very stimulating. And certainly scientists do and should research these things. But even if they were able to find what regions of the brain are involved in the choosing of particular responses that is not likely to result in reducing Good and Evil to merely biochemical functions.

As a side note, Aquinas (following Aristotle) explicitly ties the soul to the body, as the animating force, and allows the body and soul to interact with each other. Augustine, by the way, does not allow for the influence of the body on the soul, due to his neo-Platonic beliefs. Now I am not claiming that Aquinas was a neurobiologist, however, I will point out that the connection between soul and body is part of Western Christian tradition, as well as Eastern religions. I will also mention in passing that the Eastern Orthodox monastic tradition is extremely rich in this area as well, see especially the work of Gregory Palamas, and Symeon the New Theologian.

You have opened a wonderful area for thought and reflection. Thanks!

[hew2702]

I wouldn't say evil is a thing or something like that. Evil is only the absence of God.

Look at it this way: Is there such thing as heat:flare: ? Yes, you would say, of course there is. We can measure it, see its effects, etc.

Now, is there such a thing as cold:cold:? You might be quick to answer yes but think for a second. Cold is only the absence of heat. You can not measure cold but only heat. Even when it is cold there is still heat, just very little. Heat is only the transference of energy. Cold is only low levels of heat.

Same with light and dark. Darkness is only the absence if light.

[RichardHresko]

I wouldn't say evil is a thing or something like that. Evil is only the absence of God.

Look at it this way: Is there such thing as heat:flare: ? Yes, you would say, of course there is. We can measure it, see its effects, etc.

Now, is there such a thing as cold:cold:? You might be quick to answer yes but think for a second. Cold is only the absence of heat. You can not measure cold but only heat. Even when it is cold there is still heat, just very little. Heat is only the transference of energy. Cold is only low levels of heat.

Same with light and dark. Darkness is only the absence if light.

I agree with you. Evil does not have substantive existence.

[hellsapoppin]

I'm afraid Watts was dead wrong. I trust he refers mostly to the Crusades and other religious wars- these are not the product of Scripture. Do not assume that all who claim the backing of God actually have it.


He was referencing all forms of hate and violence that arose in history. But he was correct in saying that all such violence was done in the name of the Bible and its god.

As for authors who agree that this same god is the cause of all evil, he was the principle writer in this regard. Professor Dan Barker (at one time a preacher, now an atheist who works for Freedom From Religion, Inc) is another. Both are among the most brilliant writers I have ever seen.

[weepingforloman]

He was referencing all forms of hate and violence that arose in history. But he was correct in saying that all such violence was done in the name of the Bible and its god.

As for authors who agree that this same god is the cause of all evil, he was the principle writer in this regard. Professor Dan Barker (at one time a preacher, now an atheist who works for Freedom From Religion, Inc) is another. Both are among the most brilliant writers I have ever seen.

Really? So murder is done in the name of "love your enemies?" So violence is brought about in the name of one who told His disciples to carry not even a walking stick because it could be used as a weapon? So hatred is done in the name of the God who says His own greatest commandments are "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength" and "love your neighbor as yourself?" Make no mistake, violence done "in the name of" God is an affront to God.

[mazHur]

It was (is) human madness which provokes him to kill,,,,like paying Peter to pay Paul ! ugh !

[hellsapoppin]

``Make no mistake, violence done "in the name of" God is an affront to God.``

Obviously, you have not read the Bible very much. For if you did, you would know that it is this same god who kills as in Deuteronomy 32:39. He is so cruel that he even killed a group of children for daring to laugh at a man's baldness!

I can give you many other instances of this god's cruelties but anyone can easily look them up online.

[mazHur]

God is not 'cruel'. It's man who defames HIm through his cruelties and evil actions..

[Niamh]

I wouldn't say evil is a thing or something like that. Evil is only the absence of God.

Look at it this way: Is there such thing as heat:flare: ? Yes, you would say, of course there is. We can measure it, see its effects, etc.

Now, is there such a thing as cold:cold:? You might be quick to answer yes but think for a second. Cold is only the absence of heat. You can not measure cold but only heat. Even when it is cold there is still heat, just very little. Heat is only the transference of energy. Cold is only low levels of heat.

Same with light and dark. Darkness is only the absence if light.

I like your way of thinking. :nod:

[RichardHresko]

``Make no mistake, violence done "in the name of" God is an affront to God.``

Obviously, you have not read the Bible very much. For if you did, you would know that it is this same god who kills as in Deuteronomy 32:39. He is so cruel that he even killed a group of children for daring to laugh at a man's baldness!

I can give you many other instances of this god's cruelties but anyone can easily look them up online.

The problem here is that the standard being used to judge God as "cruel" is inappropriate. Since, as Paul wrote, all we have comes from God, anything that he takes is his own, by definition.

One can, of course, reject the Bible entirely. However, within the Biblical context one cannot prove God unjust.

[Whifflingpin]

"One can, of course, reject the Bible entirely. However, within the Biblical context one cannot prove God unjust."

In which case, since the God of the Bible clearly behaves in a way that could only be considered unjust, one is forced* to reject the Bible, or at least reject the possibility that it is God's description of Himself.

[Edit: not forced, of course, just strongly encouraged, anyone is at liberty to believe what he wants. If one is bound to accept every biblical statement about God as true, then one is continually having to make excuses for Him, and finally opting out of any argument by concluding that as He is God He can do what He wants. If the God of the Bible is just, by definition, then justice has no useful meaning - or, at least, God's justice is not of any use as a model on which to base human justice.]

[hellsapoppin]

God is not 'cruel'. It's man who defames HIm through his cruelties and evil actions..


That's a rather unique answer --- god is not ''cruel'', but he commits cruel and evil actions. Yes, I like that one.;)

``One can, of course, reject the Bible entirely.``


In that same Bible, your god says he is the creator of all evil, kills whomever he pleases, is a jealous god, and visits iniquity (evil) upon the third and fourth generations of those who ''hate'' him (that is, worship idols). When you disregard these truths, it is YOU who reject the Bible.

[RichardHresko]

"One can, of course, reject the Bible entirely. However, within the Biblical context one cannot prove God unjust."

In which case, since the God of the Bible clearly behaves in a way that could only be considered unjust, one is forced* to reject the Bible, or at least reject the possibility that it is God's description of Himself.

[Edit: not forced, of course, just strongly encouraged, anyone is at liberty to believe what he wants. If one is bound to accept every biblical statement about God as true, then one is continually having to make excuses for Him, and finally opting out of any argument by concluding that as He is God He can do what He wants. If the God of the Bible is just, by definition, then justice has no useful meaning - or, at least, God's justice is not of any use as a model on which to base human justice.]

The premise is off. It is not true that God in the Bible behaves in a way that can only be considered unjust.

It is also not an "excuse" to note that the relationship between the Creator and his creation is not analogous to that between creatures of the creation.

There is a confusion that results from this lack of appreciation of the difference in relations. The confusion is to believe that what God can do with justice is, or should be, what creatures can do justly.

The underlying problem is perhaps an unconscious concept of God as being merely a very powerful human being.

[RichardHresko]

``One can, of course, reject the Bible entirely.``


In that same Bible, your god says he is the creator of all evil, kills whomever he pleases, is a jealous god, and visits iniquity (evil) upon the third and fourth generations of those who ''hate'' him (that is, worship idols). When you disregard these truths, it is YOU who reject the Bible.

You keep on going back to Isaiah 45:7 after the verse has been explained to be other than you interpret it, and you do not add anything more than reference the verse. Please either show your analysis, cite your reference material (other than a repetition of the verse again and again), or please try a different tack.

[Whifflingpin]

Whifflingpin: "If the God of the Bible is just, by definition, then justice has no useful meaning - or, at least, God's justice is not of any use as a model on which to base human justice."
RichardHresko: "The confusion is to believe that what God can do with justice is, or should be, what creatures can do justly. "

Unfortunately, the confusion is common, and rulers and parents throughout history have seen themselves as God's vicars, with the right to exercise "justice" as if they were God.

There was, however, no such confusion on my part. As I said, God's justice, if you take Him as portrayed in the Bible, is not of any use as a model on which to base human justice. The misfortune for us arising from this is that we cannot claim any divine basis for any kind of justice that we may attempt. We cannot tell whether God would prefer us to feed cheeky children to the bears, or to forgive up to seventy times seven times.

[hellsapoppin]

``Please either show your analysis``

I have already done so by giving you the notes from blueletterbible.org which is comprised of biblical experts. This may not be what you want to read or understand but it is the way the verse was intended to be interpreted.

[mazHur]

"If you want to make progress on the path and ascend to
the places you have longed for, the important thing is not
to think much but to love much, and so to do whatever best
awakens you to love. If you fall sometimes, do not lose heart.
Keep striving to walk your path with integrity. God will draw
out the good even from your fall, just as the man who sells
antidotes will drink poison to test their effectiveness. "

~Teresa of Avila

[mazHur]

''It is as if a raindrop fell from heaven into
a stream or fountain and became one with the
water in it so that never again can the raindrop
be separated from the water of the stream; or as
if a little brook ran into the sea and there was
thenceforward no means of distinguishing its water
from the ocean; or as if a brilliant light came
into a room through two windows and though it comes
in divided between them, it forms a single light
inside.''

~St. Teresa of Avila Quoted in
'The Virago Book of Spirituality'
Ed. Sarah Anderson

[mazHur]

''... self-knowledge is so important that, even
if you were raised right up to the heavens, I
should like you never to relax your cultivation
of it; so long as we are on this earth, nothing
matters more to us than humility... As I see it,
we shall never succeed in knowing ourselves
unless we seek to know God: let us think of His
greatness and then come back to our own baseness;
by looking at His purity we shall see our foulness;
by meditating upon His humility, we shall see how
far we are from being humble.'''

~Teresa of Avila

[hellsapoppin]

Very nice quotes. :)

[Etienne]

The premise is off. It is not true that God in the Bible behaves in a way that can only be considered unjust.

It is also not an "excuse" to note that the relationship between the Creator and his creation is not analogous to that between creatures of the creation.

There is a confusion that results from this lack of appreciation of the difference in relations. The confusion is to believe that what God can do with justice is, or should be, what creatures can do justly.

The underlying problem is perhaps an unconscious concept of God as being merely a very powerful human being.

The very fact that we have free will doesn't make us His in the sense where anything would be justified by that simple fact. The justification you gave is alright taken separately, but in a whole, it is different. There is already topics on problem of evil and free will, but starting from the premise that "anything is justified by God since it is His", then the problems arise. This is often the problem, people each give a different answer and none coincide in a dogmatic whole, however each answer in itself is dogmatic but it seems as there is no complete thought. How do you want other to find this credible when everyone lives in his own dogmatic conceptual world, different from each other? Where is that link with God? if there was one, wouldn't beliefs be more homogeneous? No in fact everyone create his own God, customized as he likes, inspired by a model.

There is a throughout inconsistency among believers that goes against the notion of belief by inspiration or metaphysical knowledge of God.

[dzebra]

We cannot tell whether God would prefer us to feed cheeky children to the bears, or to forgive up to seventy times seven times.

Vengeance is the Lord's.

"Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's
wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,'
says the Lord." (Romans 12: 19)

God wants humans to forgive, he will worry about the bears.

[Whifflingpin]

Whifflingpin: "We cannot tell whether God would prefer us to feed cheeky children to the bears, or to forgive up to seventy times seven times.

dzebra: "Vengeance is the Lord's.
"Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's
wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,'
says the Lord." (Romans 12: 19)
God wants humans to forgive, he will worry about the bears."

Well that is one biblical text, but there are many others in which humans are commanded to punish in God's name or are commended for acts which, in human terms would be considered grossly unjust.

Purely as an example, chosen because of the similarity of her name and yours, I refer you to Debbora, prophetess and ruler of Israel, and her song of triumph and praise for Jahel. Jahel was the woman who murdrered Sisara her guest (reckoned by all societies to be among the vilest of actions) by banging a tent peg through his head while he slept. Moreover Jahel's people were, at the time, at peace with Sisara's, so there was not even the justification that she might have been slaying an enemy.

So if Debbora was right, then any kind of baseness and murder can be carried out in God's name.

(Judges, chapers 4 & 5)

[RichardHresko]

Whifflingpin: "If the God of the Bible is just, by definition, then justice has no useful meaning - or, at least, God's justice is not of any use as a model on which to base human justice."
RichardHresko: "The confusion is to believe that what God can do with justice is, or should be, what creatures can do justly. "

Unfortunately, the confusion is common, and rulers and parents throughout history have seen themselves as God's vicars, with the right to exercise "justice" as if they were God.

There was, however, no such confusion on my part. As I said, God's justice, if you take Him as portrayed in the Bible, is not of any use as a model on which to base human justice. The misfortune for us arising from this is that we cannot claim any divine basis for any kind of justice that we may attempt. We cannot tell whether God would prefer us to feed cheeky children to the bears, or to forgive up to seventy times seven times.

You are absolutely right that there is confusions. However the confusion comes, I think, more from an assumption that the Bible does not need careful interpretation or no interpretation at all.

I think that it is not impossible to distinguish the actions of God as God (and therefore not to be imitated) in most if not all cases in the Bible. In the very hard cases it may require considering the overall Bible themes to figure things out. In many other cases it is possible to consider what it is that God instructs us to do. Earlier, in this or a related thread, I posted Calvin's analysis of Isaiah 45:7 to show that an apparently troubling verse can be better understood in such a fashion. Many rules are given as explicit commandments. Many of the actions of Jesus can be held as applicable to us. On the other hand, I don't think that most careful readers would need to spend time wondering if they should curse barren fig trees (Mark 11:11-23).

[RichardHresko]

The very fact that we have free will doesn't make us His in the sense where anything would be justified by that simple fact. The justification you gave is alright taken separately, but in a whole, it is different. There is already topics on problem of evil and free will, but starting from the premise that "anything is justified by God since it is His", then the problems arise. This is often the problem, people each give a different answer and none coincide in a dogmatic whole, however each answer in itself is dogmatic but it seems as there is no complete thought. How do you want other to find this credible when everyone lives in his own dogmatic conceptual world, different from each other? Where is that link with God? if there was one, wouldn't beliefs be more homogeneous? No in fact everyone create his own God, customized as he likes, inspired by a model.

There is a throughout inconsistency among believers that goes against the notion of belief by inspiration or metaphysical knowledge of God.

If one considers that one's entire existence, including the possession of free will, is due God's act alone, then there is such justification. (Aquinas even goes so far as to claim that God's continuous act of creation is required for us to exist, and if he did not do so then we would simply "fall out of existence.")

If I understand your argument correctly you are claiming that because there is no homogeneity in belief that therefore the phenomenon does not exist ("How do you want other to find this credible when everyone lives in his own dogmatic conceptual world, different from each other?"). If there are several witnesses to an event and they describe the event differently from each other are we to conclude that the event did not occur? Issues such as capability, culture, perspective, etc. would need to be taken into account. You know that even something as simple as an undergraduate lab experiment is repeated several times and the average of the results is taken because the results even under such a highly controlled environment will vary.

Why would one think that because there is a lack of homogeneity about the idea of God that that tells us something about God rather than something about humans?

[dzebra]

Well that is one biblical text, but there are many others in which humans are commanded to punish in God's name or are commended for acts which, in human terms would be considered grossly unjust.

Purely as an example, chosen because of the similarity of her name and yours, I refer you to Debbora, prophetess and ruler of Israel, and her song of triumph and praise for Jahel. Jahel was the woman who murdrered Sisara her guest (reckoned by all societies to be among the vilest of actions) by banging a tent peg through his head while he slept. Moreover Jahel's people were, at the time, at peace with Sisara's, so there was not even the justification that she might have been slaying an enemy.

So if Debbora was right, then any kind of baseness and murder can be carried out in God's name.

(Judges, chapers 4 & 5)

It is common for people to give praise to people who have killed their enemies. If I'm in a war, and you kill my enemies, I will praise you for it. Even if you are in an alliance with my enemies, and you kill them, it may be considered by many to be bad for you to do that, but I will still thank you. Maybe Jael was shunned by everyone in the world except for Deborah, but what we have here is Deborah's account.

God is being praised in Deborah's circumstance because those actions fulfilled a prophecy of God.

God used Jael to fulfill a prophecy, so Deborah was giving praise to God for being faithful to what he promised, and she was giving praise to Jael for being an instrument of God.

I know you were just giving that as an example, but in all circumstances like that in the Bible that I can recall, I think the case is similar. God gives a promise, and the promise is fulfilled, then God and the people that God used to fulfill his promise are praised.

[Whifflingpin]

Dzebra: "in all circumstances like that in the Bible that I can recall, I think the case is similar. God gives a promise, and the promise is fulfilled, then God and the people that God used to fulfill his promise are praised."

I think you have just confirmed that if you take the Bible for your guide "then any kind of baseness and murder can be carried out in God's name."

[dzebra]

Not any kind of murder. Some murders during the time of the prophets under the old law.

And that's assuming the definition of "murder" is the same as "kill."

[Jane Jane]

I very seldom tread into this type of water.
And I confess that I have acted like Moses, who, though being the meekest man on earth and a friend of God, still was so angry at Him at one point that he stalked away from camp one evening to be alone and he spoke in a less than respectful, to me, tone to God about the people he was put over.He moe or less said that since he didnt' 'beget' them they were God's responsibility. They truly were a stiff necked group, exasperating to anyone
I have always had a problem with Aaron's getting away with building the golden calf for the others to worship instead of God while his brother Moses was up on the mountain 'face to face' with God as it were doing business.
Many of the others were killed upon Moses return but Aaron not only wasn't he was made priest.
But that anger and feeling of injustice only lasts until I realize that God alone knows the heart, the end from the beginning and all the intricasies that are truly mind boggling about the life and destiny and eternal welfare of each human.So for me, I look to the Passion of Christ and see the compassion , forgiveness, unbelievable love of God, and then all that killing stuff that seems so confusing and contradictory fades away in my mind and I just figure that God, who framed the worlds knows pretty much what he is doing.

[Etienne]

If one considers that one's entire existence, including the possession of free will, is due God's act alone, then there is such justification. (Aquinas even goes so far as to claim that God's continuous act of creation is required for us to exist, and if he did not do so then we would simply "fall out of existence.")

But then Augustine's argument about the problem of evil (evil is the absence of God) and the free will answer to the problem of evil, both fall. What is Aquinas answer to the problem of evil? I'm afraid I only got a few extracts from his Super Boetium, where it is not discussed, my field of interest being more on the philosophical side.


If I understand your argument correctly you are claiming that because there is no homogeneity in belief that therefore the phenomenon does not exist ("How do you want other to find this credible when everyone lives in his own dogmatic conceptual world, different from each other?"). If there are several witnesses to an event and they describe the event differently from each other are we to conclude that the event did not occur? Issues such as capability, culture, perspective, etc. would need to be taken into account. You know that even something as simple as an undergraduate lab experiment is repeated several times and the average of the results is taken because the results even under such a highly controlled environment will vary.

Since the belief is dogmatic, relativism is not applicable. So my main point was aimed toward the dogmatic aspect of the belief, but the belief and the dogmatism are indissociable here. I'm not saying that because of the heterogeneity, it doesn't exist, that's non sequitur. But when you consider that the knowledge comes from the same "absolute" source, the Holy Scripture, or Churches, or a special link with God, it finally only shows that in all this there is a big degree of fallibility and so none of this knowledge, and by extension, the very existence of God cannot be taken as dogma or out of blind faith. If it is not taken like that then therefore the belief should not be outside reason and logic, am I wrong?


Why would one think that because there is a lack of homogeneity about the idea of God that that tells us something about God rather than something about humans?

Like I said my point was toward the human belief, not the existence of God itself.

[Whifflingpin]

"Not any kind of murder. Some murders during the time of the prophets under the old law.

And that's assuming the definition of "murder" is the same as "kill.""

I don't know how you would define murder. I would say that inviting a fugitive, with whom you have no quarrel, into your home, promising him safety, feeding him, and then banging a tent peg into his head while he's asleep could reasonably be classed as murder, rather than merely "killing."

Putting witches to death, or those who lie with beasts, might not be murder. That would just be killing in the name of the Lord - if you accept that Biblical commandments (Exodus XXII, vv18,19) are to be obeyed. (It would be considered murder in my country, but I think that in some countries it would be the legal penalty. Even though I am not a beastly sorcerer, I thank God that I don't live in a country that follows biblical law.)

[dzebra]

God has the ability to let every man do what he chooses to do, and still have complete control, and even though murder is not something that God likes, if a person chooses to murder, God can use it for his purposes.


Responding to your last comment: even though it's very strict sounding, you'd have to admit that the people who had to live under the Old Law, if they actually did what the laws say, would be very well behaved people. I am glad I don't live under that law too, though.

[RichardHresko]

But then Augustine's argument about the problem of evil (evil is the absence of God) and the free will answer to the problem of evil, both fall. What is Aquinas answer to the problem of evil? I'm afraid I only got a few extracts from his Super Boetium, where it is not discussed, my field of interest being more on the philosophical side.



Since the belief is dogmatic, relativism is not applicable. So my main point was aimed toward the dogmatic aspect of the belief, but the belief and the dogmatism are indissociable here. I'm not saying that because of the heterogeneity, it doesn't exist, that's non sequitur. But when you consider that the knowledge comes from the same "absolute" source, the Holy Scripture, or Churches, or a special link with God, it finally only shows that in all this there is a big degree of fallibility and so none of this knowledge, and by extension, the very existence of God cannot be taken as dogma or out of blind faith. If it is not taken like that then therefore the belief should not be outside reason and logic, am I wrong?



Like I said my point was toward the human belief, not the existence of God itself.

You are mistaken on Augustine and evil. For Augustine moral evil (we'll leave natural evil out, since it is not relevant here) is the turning of the will away from what makes us truly happy to something that can not make us truly happy. For him only God can make us truly happy because only God is eternal and unchanging. Arguments by Augustine along this line can be found in Confessions I believe in Book VII, and is a major focus of de libero arbitrio. Turning away from God is not the same thing as his absence. In fact in several places in Confessions Augustine notes that God was always present, but it was that Augustine was alienated from himself.

Augustine in several places affirms we have free will, but there is the nettlesome question of reconciling free will to his doctrine of the elect as presented in The Predestination of the Saints. A possible resolution is that God can present Himself so overwhelmingly that we find ourselves unable to resist. An argument in its favor is that grace leads to faith and faith to love, and that love is something that is beyond our power of choice (I think it is a common experience that we fall in and out of love in spite of our intentions. Or, as Woody Allen put it, "The heart wants what the heart wants.")

A nuance often missed in Augustine is that humans do not have true free will unless they receive grace, since without grace they lack the ability to fully choose not to sin. This came out in his anti-Pelagian writings.

Aquinas follows Augustine fairly closely on the nature of evil as being a lack of goodness. Aquinas accepts that we have free will and that therefore we can choose to act sinfully.

Not all belief is dogmatic in the way you portray. Nor is all dogmatic belief religious in nature (materialism, for example). I think that it would be better to drop this particular line and deal with arguments that are reasonable rather than straw men.

There is a distinction between killing and murder. Murder is when the death is brought about by someone who has no right to take the life. God by definition can not commit murder. Aquinas believed that IF a person took a life under God's instruction that too would not be murder. The question then would be how would we know if God gave approval. But that is a different question than whether in such a case, if shown, was there a murder.

[Whifflingpin]

Whiff: "I think you have just confirmed that if you take the Bible for your guide "then any kind of baseness and murder can be carried out in God's name.""
RichardHresko: "Aquinas believed that IF a person took a life under God's instruction that too would not be murder."

There is merely a shift of definition here, so Aquinas too is confirming that any kind of behaviour that would be generally considered morally vile is acceptable if God wishes it. I can accept that as an axiom, but it is totally unhelpful.

There are at least two questions arising out of that, not one.
There is your question of how would we know if God gave approval.
There is also the question of whether God would ever give such approval.

I do not believe that God would ever give that approval, how ever often he is portrayed in the Bible as doing so.

[RichardHresko]

Whiff: "I think you have just confirmed that if you take the Bible for your guide "then any kind of baseness and murder can be carried out in God's name.""
RichardHresko: "Aquinas believed that IF a person took a life under God's instruction that too would not be murder."

There is merely a shift of definition here, so Aquinas too is confirming that any kind of behaviour that would be generally considered morally vile is acceptable if God wishes it. I can accept that as an axiom, but it is totally unhelpful.

There are at least two questions arising out of that, not one.
There is your question of how would we know if God gave approval.
There is also the question of whether God would ever give such approval.

I do not believe that God would ever give that approval, how ever often he is portrayed in the Bible as doing so.


Aquinas does not say that morally vile behaviour is acceptable if God wishes it. He states that if God wishes a thing it is not morally vile. This came up in the discussion of "Abraham's Dilemma". In that thread I pointed out that Aquinas wrote (and I gave the specific reference to the place in the Summa) that Abraham, had he sacrificed his son would not have murdered since God had the right to Isaac's life.

The question of any individual's belief is not for me to comment upon. However, within the framework of the Bible, and also in the patristic tradition, God's behaviour is by definition just. It is no more a dodge to point out that the standards for God and man differ, than to accept that a human should be held to a different standard than a puppy.

It is not clear what "helpful" means in this context.

[Whifflingpin]

"Aquinas does not say that morally vile behaviour is acceptable if God wishes it."
Neither did I.
"He states that if God wishes a thing it is not morally vile."
That's what I said he said - the kind of behaviour that would be generally considered morally vile is acceptable if God wishes it. Feel free to substitute "otherwise" for "generally" if that would make it clearer.

But when Aquinas or anyone states that anything God does is acceptable, that is simply making a definition that is both unarguable and unhelpful.

It is unhelpful because it means that God's behaviour offers no clue whatever to what our behaviour should be, and provides no basis for any kind of morality, or concept of good and evil.

It is possible to distinguish (not, for us, absolutely or infallibly, but at least practically) between a good person and an evil one. If such a distinction has any meaning, it is because (in the context of this discussion) what we call good behaviour is also what God calls good behaviour, and because God's behaviour is in the same direction as what we would call good, even if infinitely far in that direction.

Of course "the standards for God and man differ," but the teachings of Jesus may give a clue as to how they differ. The parable of the labourers in the vineyard or the prodigal son indicate a God who is generous beyond the human standard of generosity. Humans forgive up to seven times, God forgives beyond seventy times seven. Human love may extend to laying down one's life for his friends, divine love includes laying down one's life even for the very people who want to destroy it.

Now I cannot dispute that Jael's actions would have to be deemed morally correct if commanded by God, and I cannot deny that God would have the power and right to issue such a command, and I accept that, even if God had not commanded it He could turn an evil action into a good result. What I do not believe, however, is that God would ever command or condone such treachery and meanness as displayed by Jael, or behave Himself in a way that would be considered vile in humans.

The Bible, particularly the historical books of the Old Testament, shows God exhibiting or encouraging behaviour that would otherwise be considered morally repugnant To that extent, I believe it to provide a very unreliable portrait of God. It makes a wonderful history of man's quest for God, and shows how one nation developed its understanding of Him. The earlier books, I believe, were written by humans in their puppy stage, and show Dog as a champion chewer of carpets - the later ones show him as faithful companion and protector.

[RichardHresko]

"Aquinas does not say that morally vile behaviour is acceptable if God wishes it."
Neither did I.
"He states that if God wishes a thing it is not morally vile."
That's what I said he said - the kind of behaviour that would be generally considered morally vile is acceptable if God wishes it. Feel free to substitute "otherwise" for "generally" if that would make it clearer.

But when Aquinas or anyone states that anything God does is acceptable, that is simply making a definition that is both unarguable and unhelpful.

It is unhelpful because it means that God's behaviour offers no clue whatever to what our behaviour should be, and provides no basis for any kind of morality, or concept of good and evil.

It is possible to distinguish (not, for us, absolutely or infallibly, but at least practically) between a good person and an evil one. If such a distinction has any meaning, it is because (in the context of this discussion) what we call good behaviour is also what God calls good behaviour, and because God's behaviour is in the same direction as what we would call good, even if infinitely far in that direction.

Of course "the standards for God and man differ," but the teachings of Jesus may give a clue as to how they differ. The parable of the labourers in the vineyard or the prodigal son indicate a God who is generous beyond the human standard of generosity. Humans forgive up to seven times, God forgives beyond seventy times seven. Human love may extend to laying down one's life for his friends, divine love includes laying down one's life even for the very people who want to destroy it.

Now I cannot dispute that Jael's actions would have to be deemed morally correct if commanded by God, and I cannot deny that God would have the power and right to issue such a command, and I accept that, even if God had not commanded it He could turn an evil action into a good result. What I do not believe, however, is that God would ever command or condone such treachery and meanness as displayed by Jael, or behave Himself in a way that would be considered vile in humans.

The Bible, particularly the historical books of the Old Testament, shows God exhibiting or encouraging behaviour that would otherwise be considered morally repugnant To that extent, I believe it to provide a very unreliable portrait of God. It makes a wonderful history of man's quest for God, and shows how one nation developed its understanding of Him. The earlier books, I believe, were written by humans in their puppy stage, and show Dog as a champion chewer of carpets - the later ones show him as faithful companion and protector.

It is not disputatable that God's behavior offers no clue whatever to what our behavior should be. It shouldn't. Any more than a human's behavior should offer a clue to a cat how to behave. That does not make the human's behavior "unhelpful" in any way. The problem here is assuming that there somehow ought to be a connection.

You were right that good behavior is what God calls us to do (we won't go into here the various ways God can issue such a statement -- revelation, natural law, etc.). The failure is in the second part, in taking God's actions as necessarily being part of that call. There is no basis for that.

We come now to a point where there is no dispute, given that it is based on premises. The point is this, where is the ultimate reference for us as to the nature of God? Your answer suggests that you hold a reference point outside the Bible as your ultimate reference, since you use that external reference to judge the Biblical account. Others would hold revelation as the ultimate reference point, and should there be a difference between their external (to the Bible) conception and the Bible will assume theirs is wrong. The reason there is no dispute is that the approaches are irreconcilable, and there is no way to successfully indisputably prove which set of premises is more useful.

[Whifflingpin]

RichardHresko: "The point is this, where is the ultimate reference for us as to the nature of God? "
The ultimate reference for each individual as to the nature of God is, and can only be, within each individual. One can only choose the Bible as his reference point by an act of his own will driven by his own mind or conscience, and so it is some point within him that is the ultimate reference.
Only having reached the conclusion that the nature of God is such as to be fully described within the Bible can an individual reject other descriptions.

RichardHresko: "you hold a reference point outside the Bible as your ultimate reference, since you use that external reference to judge the Biblical account. Others would hold revelation as the ultimate reference point, and should there be a difference between their external (to the Bible) conception and the Bible will assume theirs is wrong. The reason there is no dispute is that the approaches are irreconcilable, and there is no way to successfully indisputably prove which set of premises is more useful."

I agree completely with that. The majority of this thread seems to depend on a biblical view of God. I have tried to show that there are other views. Such an exercise would be appear to be trivial, except that many of the posters on both sides of the "Is God Evil?" argument seem to think that the Bible (taken fairly literally) gives the only valid description of God. But there are other starting points, and, as you say, "there is no way to successfully indisputably prove which set of premises is more useful."

RichardHresko: "It is not disputatable that God's behavior offers no clue whatever to what our behavior should be. It shouldn't."
Maybe you are technically correct in this - well, of course you are. That does not stop the supposed connection from being used in many arguments. "God gave this therefore he has a right to do that" for instance, is based entirely on a projection of human morality onto God. Given the truth of your comment, the second part holds irrespectively of the first, but most disputants feel the need to insert or imply that "therefore."

[hellsapoppin]

``that's assuming the definition of "murder" is the same as "kill."``


Jesus said that to hate another person was an act of murder and that the punishment would be eternal death. Since Christians hold the record for killing the most people on earth in the name of the Bible, this means quite a few of them are going to miss out on the promised eternal bliss.

[RichardHresko]

``that's assuming the definition of "murder" is the same as "kill."``


Jesus said that to hate another person was an act of murder and that the punishment would be eternal death. Since Christians hold the record for killing the most people on earth in the name of the Bible, this means quite a few of them are going to miss out on the promised eternal bliss.

One need not hate to kill.

[mazHur]

One need not hate to kill.


yep. one doesn't even need to know one to kill . Killing is governed by many factors, including love and lust, hunger and power.

poppins arguments are merely based on the assumption that whatever is mentioned in the Bible is correct. That all other premises are not related to the subject. This thinking clouds the very image of God and the purpose of killing in His name.........

[RichardHresko]

RichardHresko: "The point is this, where is the ultimate reference for us as to the nature of God? "
The ultimate reference for each individual as to the nature of God is, and can only be, within each individual. One can only choose the Bible as his reference point by an act of his own will driven by his own mind or conscience, and so it is some point within him that is the ultimate reference.
Only having reached the conclusion that the nature of God is such as to be fully described within the Bible can an individual reject other descriptions.

RichardHresko: "you hold a reference point outside the Bible as your ultimate reference, since you use that external reference to judge the Biblical account. Others would hold revelation as the ultimate reference point, and should there be a difference between their external (to the Bible) conception and the Bible will assume theirs is wrong. The reason there is no dispute is that the approaches are irreconcilable, and there is no way to successfully indisputably prove which set of premises is more useful."

I agree completely with that. The majority of this thread seems to depend on a biblical view of God. I have tried to show that there are other views. Such an exercise would be appear to be trivial, except that many of the posters on both sides of the "Is God Evil?" argument seem to think that the Bible (taken fairly literally) gives the only valid description of God. But there are other starting points, and, as you say, "there is no way to successfully indisputably prove which set of premises is more useful."

RichardHresko: "It is not disputatable that God's behavior offers no clue whatever to what our behavior should be. It shouldn't."
Maybe you are technically correct in this - well, of course you are. That does not stop the supposed connection from being used in many arguments. "God gave this therefore he has a right to do that" for instance, is based entirely on a projection of human morality onto God. Given the truth of your comment, the second part holds irrespectively of the first, but most disputants feel the need to insert or imply that "therefore."

I think that you have stated the differences here concisely and well. My one quibble is over whether "only valid" or "ultimate" description is the more accurate for the position of some on the Bible. But that is minor.

Given these differences it is very easy for each side to talk past the other.

[hellsapoppin]

One need not hate to kill.


That may well be true. But my point is that according to that Bible, one need not commit the act in order to be guilty of murder.

It's a good thing most Christian professing people do not take the Bible literally or many more peope would have faced the gallows than have done so throughout history.

[emilylou06]

i agree with Fisherofmen, evil is the absence of God. God create good, and he created man with FREE WILL. Man chose to do evil acts because he would not be struck down on the spot. We will never know why or how God does things, if we did, he would be no greater than man. His logic is so much greater than ours that the closest we have gotten to figuring Him out is still miles away.

[mazHur]

IF God is everything doesn't it mean He is Nothing ??

[dzebra]

Nothing is the opposite of everything, so I don't understand how that could possibly follow.

[RichardHresko]

That may well be true. But my point is that according to that Bible, one need not commit the act in order to be guilty of murder.

It's a good thing most Christian professing people do not take the Bible literally or many more peope would have faced the gallows than have done so throughout history.

However, what is lacking in your point is an understanding of why hatred is equated to murder. And also to the distinction between killing and murder.

There is, of course, a great need to take care in interpreting the Bible. This is why it is insufficient to merely read the book (especially in translation), and also why it is ultimately an exercise in futility to try to fully grasp what is in there without an understanding of the traditions, and yes, a community. It is probebly true (with rare exceptions) that a solitary Christian is, in the final analysis, a contradiction in terms.

[hellsapoppin]

``a solitary Christian is, in the final analysis, a contradiction in terms.``


Not really --- according to that same Bible, Jesus said to his followers: ''know ye not, ye are gods?''

Gods are self contained or can be (in theory).

I don't know why you persist in in your insistance that your interpretation of that book is any better than anyone else's. As always, look up blueletterbible.org for any misunderstandings you have such as those expert comments on this god's creation of all evil.

[RichardHresko]

``a solitary Christian is, in the final analysis, a contradiction in terms.``


Not really --- according to that same Bible, Jesus said to his followers: ''know ye not, ye are gods?''

Gods are self contained or can be (in theory).

I don't know why you persist in in your insistance that your interpretation of that book is any better than anyone else's. As always, look up blueletterbible.org for any misunderstandings you have such as those expert comments on this god's creation of all evil.

Once again, the quote you take is out of context. The doctrine of deification has a long tradition, especially in the Eastern Orthodox. Deification does not, even in theory, imply that we are or can become God Himself.

See, for example, Symeon the New Theologian's Discourses and Palamas' Triads. In both of these works it is made clear that what is involved is not that we become stabd-alone gods as your interpretation would have it, but rather that we participate in the activity energeia of God. We can not participate in the Being of God because we are not of the same substance ousia as God.

[RichardHresko]

``a solitary Christian is, in the final analysis, a contradiction in terms.``


Not really --- according to that same Bible, Jesus said to his followers: ''know ye not, ye are gods?''

Gods are self contained or can be (in theory).

I don't know why you persist in in your insistance that your interpretation of that book is any better than anyone else's. As always, look up blueletterbible.org for any misunderstandings you have such as those expert comments on this god's creation of all evil.

First of all, I list my sources. Second of all, these sources are certainly not fringe commentators of unknown provenance.

Thirdly, you don't even read all the commentaries of your own "source," the blueletterbible.org, as is revealed by looking at the commentaries they list for Isaiah 45:7. Leaving aside the qualifications of Rev Chuck Smith (the first commentator listed), and Rev. Guzick (the second) neither of them agree with your interpretation of that verse.

Further, looking at the list of commentaries on your touted website, it should be noted that there are so many omissions of serious commentaries (Augustine, Aquinas, Jerome, Calvin, Palamas, Chrysostom, just to name a few from a very long list) and the inclusions of, well, Reverend "Chucks" that one would need to approach using this source with extreme caution. It would be folly to rely on it as the sole source of information.

[hellsapoppin]

``We can not participate in the Being of God because we are not of the same substance ousia as God.``


God is suppose to be limitless. Jesus plainly said that any of his ministers can easily duplicate and surpass any of his miracles. Therefore, they can control the weather and alter the chemistry of substances by turning them into food and water. That would certainly make one ''self contained''.

As for blueletter, that is precisely my point: it has all opinions and is authoritative.

[hellsapoppin]

http://members.aol.com/Patriarchy/predestination/sendevil.htm

Interesting article that acknowledges divine creation of evil but suggests that, ultimately, good comes from it.

[RichardHresko]

``We can not participate in the Being of God because we are not of the same substance ousia as God.``


God is suppose to be limitless. Jesus plainly said that any of his ministers can easily duplicate and surpass any of his miracles. Therefore, they can control the weather and alter the chemistry of substances by turning them into food and water. That would certainly make one ''self contained''.

As for blueletter, that is precisely my point: it has all opinions and is authoritative.

No, blueletter lacks most of the most respected sources. Thus it is not even close to having "all" opinions, and many of the ones listed there are hardly authoritative. It is not a particularly good website. CCEL (it is either christian classic ethereal library or classic christian ethereal library, I forget) is a better website in that it has many of the classics.

There is confusion in your post as to what "self-contained" means theologically. Also, there is a basic misunderstanding about what "ousia" and "limitless" mean in the context of a theological discussion. I look forward to continuing this discussion when those issues have been addressed.

[Tuninks]

God cannot be labeled good or evil, the reason is because God himself does not have human morals and ethics. Good and evil is a terminology made by man to label words or actions and their effects on society and the environment. "One man's freedom fighter is another man's Terrorist."

For God, this does not apply for over the eons of existence, we can witness through texts that God himself evolves in his mindset. From quizzical, to curious, to wrathful, then to forgiving. Through all these changes his actions are defined as paradoxical and unearthly. In this, I believe, we cannot label him with a humanly term such as good or evil, and even then to do so would be to judge him.

[RichardHresko]

http://members.aol.com/Patriarchy/predestination/sendevil.htm

Interesting article that acknowledges divine creation of evil but suggests that, ultimately, good comes from it.

Anarcho-Calvinism??? This has to be a joke. But of course this organization has to be in California. Where else?

Once again, the basic problem is that merely stringing together a bunch of verses without careful, thoughtful work at interpretation will lead to things like this. There is no scintilla of evidence that there is any attempt to understand the nature of evil, or of God. No evidence that any thought went into what it means when the Bible says that God sends evil. It's just a cut-and-paste collage.

[hellsapoppin]

So say you.

[RichardHresko]

So say you.

I read the site. It strings together a number of verses without any analysis in order to try to validate a fairly common apocalyptic vision of the world. Res ipsa loquitur.

[hellsapoppin]

That's OK, RH. You are entitled to your opinion. Doesn't mean that anyone else is wrong, though.

For a god to be always present and all knowing, to have determined who is going to be saved even before he creates the world, to stand by and allow people to succumb to a lie, and to then blame people for falling victim to a crime that he created all clearly proves that this same god is evil and the exclusive cause of all evil.

As I wrote before, in some jurisdictions if you know that a crime is going to take place and you fail to stop it or inform the authorities, you would be in big trouble. So how any god can claim to be innocent of the crime he set up has no logic whatsoever. But if you still feel he is ever so innocent, fine and dandy.

[Redzeppelin]

That's OK, RH. You are entitled to your opinion. Doesn't mean that anyone else is wrong, though.

Quite so - I fully agree.


For a god to be always present and all knowing, to have determined who is going to be saved even before he creates the world, to stand by and allow people to succumb to a lie, and to then blame people for falling victim to a crime that he created all clearly proves that this same god is evil and the exclusive cause of all evil.

As I wrote before, in some jurisdictions if you know that a crime is going to take place and you fail to stop it or inform the authorities, you would be in big trouble. So how any god can claim to be innocent of the crime he set up has no logic whatsoever. But if you still feel he is ever so innocent, fine and dandy.

This is true only if your presuppositions about God's relation to Time are correct. How do you know if they are? Who says that God experiences reality as we do - in a linear fashion - where the future lies along a continuum that we've yet to reach. Some theologians make the (correct, in my opinion) assertion that the future does not exist to be known - by anyone, including God, because saying that God has an exhaustive knowledge of what doesn't exist is illogical (like the silly conundrum of "If God is all-powerful, can He create a rock so big He can't lift it?"). As such, I don't believe that God "knows the future" as we conceptualize "knowing the future."

If God exists "in time" like we do, how could He process the millions of prayer request that go up every second?

Seriously - the idea that God "knew" what would happen contradicts the description of Him given in the Bible - in that God as He is described (all-good, "love," compassionate, merciful and just) could not logically "set up" humanity for its own failure. God knew that creating beings with freewill entailed a potential for the rebellion and suffering that resulted, but I contest that idea that He "knew" what hadn't had a chance to happen yet. Yes God can "read" the human heart with incredible accuracy - but we have freewill, and can always choose against our nature or tendency. It's tough, but possible.

As well, if God was evil, then He certainly wouldn't bother to let those who criticize Him exist for long; to think that He would, would be to attribute some form of "fairness" to Him - wouldn't it?

[hellsapoppin]

``Who says that God experiences reality as we do ``

Who says he doesn't?


``freewill ... tough but possible``

Not so for an abortion victim.


``fairness``

This same god laughs at the aggrieved. Perhaps he likes to hear the truth.

[Redzeppelin]

``Who says that God experiences reality as we do ``

Who says he doesn't?

That's not really a response, you know.

Logic says that God doesn't experience reality as we do because we are confined to 3-4 dimensions, whereas God - by very fact of His spiritual and eternal nature, exists in a much different way. The banal examle I gave of God having to attend to the myriad prayers as they are offered in real time is one example of the illogical idea that God experiences reality exactly as we do.



``freewill ... tough but possible``

Not so for an abortion victim.

And God - in His goodness, mercy, and justice, welcomes that child into heaven, no questions asked.



``fairness``

This same god laughs at the aggrieved. Perhaps he likes to hear the truth.

Got a citation for that? Charges are one thing and support for those, quite another.

[hellsapoppin]

``That's not really a response, you know.``

Others have already pointed out that your god is vengeful, that he is jealous, and he kills whomever he pleases. Such attributes are definitely those of humans and of animals. It is a fair inference that he experiences everything as we humans do as well.

BTW, his incessant demand for praise is a (shall we say) highly human fault.


``heaven``

The Kingdom is here on earth. See Revelations Ch 21.


``laughing at the aggrieved``

See Romans 9 for a very haughty comment about mercy upon whom he pleases.

[Redzeppelin]

``That's not really a response, you know.``

Others have already pointed out that your god is vengeful, that he is jealous, and he kills whomever he pleases. Such attributes are definitely those of humans and of animals. It is a fair inference that he experiences everything as we humans do as well.

1. But we were talking about the issue of God's "foreknowledge" and human freewill - issues of time. That is specifically the aspect of God's existence we were discussing - not his attributes or alleged behaviors.
2. Vengeance, "jealousy" and killing are not exclusively human traits - and you speak as if they were things God should not do - why would you suggest such a thing? If we humans can find "just" reasons for enacting vengeance, for experiencing jealousy, and for taking a human life, you don't think the supreme being of the universe also can't have a good reason for doing so?


BTW, his incessant demand for praise is a (shall we say) highly human fault.

What if I suggested to you that God's command (not "demand") for praise is something that the believer benefits from, not God. God is not made better, happier, or more complete because we little clay things say nice statements about Him. Because God created us, He knows what's good for us - and what is good for us is to acknowledge the source of our lives, our blessings,and our salvation. Many Christians will attest to the beneficial results of incorporating praise into ones life - it alters perspective, makes us focus on our blessings, and reminds us that our God is a great God, who is in control of everything. Besides, if God is who the Bible claims Him to be, isn't He justified in expecting praise from those to whom He has given everything?



``heaven``

The Kingdom is here on earth. See Revelations Ch 21.

Clever, but incorrect. Revelation 21 deals with the "made new" earth after the final judgment.



``laughing at the aggrieved``

See Romans 9 for a very haughty comment about mercy upon whom he pleases.

Well, then there's a bit of hyperbole in the term "laughing" because my Bible has nothing of the sort in Romans 9. God may take mercy on whomever He pleases - to what standard of mercy would you like to hold Him? If God is perfect in His justice (He really couldn't be God and be imperfect in any way, could He?), then His taking mercy "on whom He pleases" is just.

[Ozymandias]

Think back on one of the oldest stories of the bible in Eden. What was the sin that was committed by Adam and Eve that separated them from God? It was obtaining the knowledge of the difference between good and evil.

They created the world of duality, or rather the perception of duality which did not exist prior to the eating of the fruit of that tree.

Literally one cannot live in paradise if they accept the judgement of what is good and what is evil. It was this action and knowledge that put distance between them and their creator.

[hellsapoppin]

``issues of time ... not his attributes or alleged behaviors``

Maybe you were restricting the exchange of ideas to these limited circumstances. Nobody else was.


``things God should not do``

This same god calls himself ''love''. Does a loving father commit such atrocities and then pretend to be ever so loving???


``praise is something that the believer benefits from, not God``

That's your belief, not mine.

In the many years I lived in NY, I knew of many people detained in Hitler's death camps. All had previously been devout believers of biblical teaching. most wound up cursing this same god for abandoning them in their time of need. Praise does nothing but flatter this god's ego.


``final judgment``

Precisely. AFTER the Judgment Day takes place, that's when the elect will get their reward. They will not go to heaven as this same god will leave it and live there.


``hyperbole``

Again, so say you. You are entitled to your belief. But it does not mean that anyone else is wrong. In that part of the New Testament your god is exceedingly haughty. And, as always, he is displaying vile attributes that he condemns in humans!

AMAZING!!!:lol:

[Whifflingpin]

hellsapoppin: "Others have already pointed out that your god is vengeful, that he is jealous, and he kills whomever he pleases."

This may be a misinterptretation of some of my posts.
To clarify: in discussing the Old Testament, you seem to be saying that God is described as bad so reject God; whereas I am saying, God is described badly so reject the description.
(Redzeppelin and RichardHresko argue that the description is correct, and God, by definition, is not bad, so we have to accept that what might be bad for a human to do is not bad when God does it.)

[hellsapoppin]

``we have to accept that what might be bad for a human to do is not bad when God does it``


See

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/how-many-has-god-killed.html


according to the Bible, this same god who claims to be ''all loving'' and of unceasing mercy killed over 2 million people

don't know how anyone can claim that this is a good sign but if that is what you wish to believe, so be it

[Redzeppelin]

Think back on one of the oldest stories of the bible in Eden. What was the sin that was committed by Adam and Eve that separated them from God? It was obtaining the knowledge of the difference between good and evil.

They created the world of duality, or rather the perception of duality which did not exist prior to the eating of the fruit of that tree.

Literally one cannot live in paradise if they accept the judgement of what is good and what is evil. It was this action and knowledge that put distance between them and their creator.

The Knowledge of Good and Evil was knowledge that only God could possess because evil is so dangerous, so toxic that only God as Supreme uncreated being could be exposed to evil and not be contaminated by it. Just as we try to protect our children from certain types of knowledge that they are not ready for, God did the same.



``issues of time ... not his attributes or alleged behaviors``

Maybe you were restricting the exchange of ideas to these limited circumstances. Nobody else was.

Perhaps.



``things God should not do``

This same god calls himself ''love''. Does a loving father commit such atrocities and then pretend to be ever so loving???

You are not really dealing with the complexity of what I'm suggesting. A loving father may - at times - have to do things that his children might call "mean." The father who consequences his child does so out of love - the overly permissive father who allows all under the guise of "love" warps his child.

I understand that your response will say there is a big difference between the example I gave and God's actions. Fair enough - but there is also a big difference between a human father and an all-knowing, all-powerful being.

I won't argue that there are some pretty sad, ugly things that happen in the OT. What I'm contending is that those who wish to condemn God for His behavior do so with only a partial command of the facts - PERIOD. Here on earth we accept the truism that justice is blind - ie that justice can never really know the complete truth. God does know the complete truth - His knowledge is the complete register of all reality. If He destroys, He has a reason that will be consistent with His character - whether or not you agree. Putting God on trial is like a child complaining about not being able to go to Disneyland for vacation who doesn't understand the desperate financial position his parents are in. We do not have a command of all the facts.




``praise is something that the believer benefits from, not God``

That's your belief, not mine.

In the many years I lived in NY, I knew of many people detained in Hitler's death camps. All had previously been devout believers of biblical teaching. most wound up cursing this same god for abandoning them in their time of need. Praise does nothing but flatter this god's ego.

Right - but what's the basis of your belief?

God's "ego" (if he has one in the sense that we use it) cannot be "flattered" by mere human beings. God is self-sufficient - He requires nothing. God's sense of His identity cannot be victim to the myriad problems we humans experience in our desire to be loved - God needs nothing from us. He does not ask us for things because He needs them - He asks us for things that He knows are good for us.



``final judgment``

Precisely. AFTER the Judgment Day takes place, that's when the elect will get their reward. They will not go to heaven as this same god will leave it and live there.

Sorry - I'm lost as to how your response rebuts in any way point I made about the salvation of aborted children.



``hyperbole``

Again, so say you. You are entitled to your belief. But it does not mean that anyone else is wrong. In that part of the New Testament your god is exceedingly haughty. And, as always, he is displaying vile attributes that he condemns in humans!

AMAZING!!!:lol:

You're still not really dealing with my argument. Your 2nd and 3rd sentence merely state a matter of reality - but it deals in no way with what I said.

"Haughty" - no. Paul simply tells us that God possesses - as Supreme Being - certain prerogatives in terms of whom He saves and whom He doesn't. What you're ignoring is the issue of character. Even our legal system recognizes the issue of character (hence "character witnesses"). God's character, as the Bible describes, points to the reality that things that may appear very wrong, or inappropriate to us may not necessarily be wrong or inappropriate because God's character vindicates His actions. That he does not always give us the complete rundown of all the facts behind His decisions means that we will - on faith - assume that God is just in all that He does.

[hellsapoppin]

``He requires nothing.``


Then why demand so much praise???

I know you said it benefits people (your opinion but one that has no actual basis, in my opinion). But time can be better spent without such a useless waste of energy.


``we have to accept that what might be bad for a human to do is not bad when God does it``

One last thought on this sentence = in it you have admitted that god is evil.


I'll re-read and post re the rest of your note tomorrow.

[NikolaiI]

Yes, well, Paul is not author of ultimate truth. In fact, his opinion is just that, an opinion. *I* will tell you I have never seen God do anything for humans, good or bad. I do believe he exists as an infinite, but that's an infinite of infinite GOOD. He does not DO anything, if God works you will not know he did anything. And he would not do anything to hurt anyone. Further, Christianity has no more monopoly on aboslute truth than Paul. If Christ is at one with the infinite, good for him. There are many, many, saints, boddhisattvas, gods and demigods, written about in other religions. None of them are greater than the infinite, but absolute truth is universal.........I mean, it is not limited to Christians nor is it limited to not offending their sensibilities......as what good Christian would not be offended by the mentioning of demigods???? Yet what is an angel?????

[dzebra]

``He requires nothing.``


Then why demand so much praise???



``we have to accept that what might be bad for a human to do is not bad when God does it``

One last thought on this sentence = in it you have admitted that god is evil.


He wants the praise of humans because God is the only one who is worthy of that praise. Giving the praise to anyone else is like thanking your brother for your birthday gift when your brother didn't actually get you anything, your parents did.


And I don't understand why you think that sentence says that God is evil. Contrary to that, it sounds like it says God is good no matter what (which is the opposite of evil).

[mazHur]

there is a saying in the East which reflects on the situation,
''God doesn't beat you down with a baton, He simply inverts your senses''!!
Now, you have a reason to say evil is not brought about by God...

[hellsapoppin]

~~ god is not ''haughty'' ~~

His actions in killing all those millions {see link above} clearly prove the point that not only is he haughty, he's a murderer as well!

~~ always give us the complete rundown of all the facts behind His decisions ~~


To the dead abortion victim, no such chance is given.


~~ If He destroys, He has a reason that will be consistent with His character ~~

A point I agree with but for reasons that differ with yours: yes he kills but not out of justice or beneficence. He does so out of vengeance, hate, and malice. You already have several instances of homicidal actions consistent with this from the OT.


~~ there is also a big difference between a human father and an all-knowing, all-powerful being.~~

Jesus spoke of himself as a model. A model based upon his father. He never said ''worship me''. He only said ''follow me'' --- that is, do as I do, imitate me in every way. He made himself quite human didn't he? And he did so because his father is every bit as ''human'' as he. Well, at least in theory both are.

But because this god is greatly ''different'', this means that he is all the more accountable for his actions. In the legal world there is a concept called respondeat superior. This means that the boss is answerable for the misdeeds of his charges. A superior person answers for the weak. As a god he is morally and ethically responsible for all sins and all evils that are undertaken in his name. At least that's the way it is supposed to be. Your god simply has no excuse for the crimes, injustices, and evils that befall this troubled world. None whatsoever.

You can continue to make up every excuse in the world but you will never succeed in proving that this god is moral and just. If he was, then people like Alan Watts would not be pointing out that more people have been killed in the name of the Bible than for any other reason in history.

Just as one last example (and not to get unnecessarily political about it), Bush has invaded an innocent country and killed over one million people in an unjust war with many tens of thousands injured. As you likely recall, this liar said he was ordered by the Bible's god to commit this atrocious act.

If your god is so just and he knows that his name has been so wantonly profaned by this evildoer Bush, why hasn't he stepped up and put a stop to those crimes? According to the Bible which you and others continually use, he is supposed to have stopped it all by now but he does nothing.

How then can belief in the Bible and its god be justified???

[hellsapoppin]

``God is the only one who is worthy of that praise``


I know of Odinists, Buddhists, animists, and others who say that their gods are worthier of that praise. However, none are willing to kill or to have anyone killed in the name of their divinities.

[Redzeppelin]

``He requires nothing.``


Then why demand so much praise???

I know you said it benefits people (your opinion but one that has no actual basis, in my opinion). But time can be better spent without such a useless waste of energy.

First, because you and I are starting from different foundations, of course you'll answer like you do. Nobody who actually believed in a supreme being capable of bringing the universe into existence through His spoken word would talk about "time better spent" doing something else. Here's a couple excerpts from bible-history.com that say it better than I:

The Grounds of Praise.
Sometimes God is praised for His inherent qualities. His majesty (Ps 104:1) or holiness (Isa 6:3) fills the mind, and He is "glorified as God" (Rom 1:21) in view of what He essentially is. More frequently He is praised for His works in creation, providence, and redemption. References may be dispensed with here, for the evidence meets us on almost every page of the sacred literature from Genesis to Revelation, and the Book of Psalms in particular, from beginning to end, is occupied with these themes. When God's operations under these aspects present themselves, not simply as general effects of His power and wisdom, but as expressions of His personal love to the individual, the nation, the church, His works become benefits, and praise passes into blessing and thanksgiving (Pss 34; 103; Eph 1:3; 1 Pet 1:3).

The Duty of Praise.
Praise is everywhere represented in the Bible as a duty no less than a natural impulse and a delight. To fail in this duty is to withhold from God's glory that belongs to Him (Ps 50:23; Rom 1:20 f); it is to shut one's eyes to the signs of His presence (Isa 40:26 ff), to be forgetful of His mercies (Dt 6:12), and unthankful for His kindness (Lk 6:35). If we are not to fall into these sins, but are to give to God the honor and glory and gratitude we owe Him, we must earnestly cultivate the spirit and habit of praise. From holy men of old we learn that this may be done by arousing the soul from its slothfulness and sluggishness (Ps 57:8; 103:1), by fixing the heart upon God (Ps 57:7; 108:1), by meditation on His works and ways (Ps 77:11 ff), by recounting His benefits (Ps 103:2), above all, for those to whom He has spoken in His Son, by dwelling upon His unspeakable gift (2 Cor 9:15; compare Rom 8:31 ff; 1 Jn 3:1).



``we have to accept that what might be bad for a human to do is not bad when God does it``

One last thought on this sentence = in it you have admitted that god is evil.


That would be an incorrect interpretation of my remarks. I admitted nothing - I made it clear that there is a huge moral difference between us and God.


Yes, well, Paul is not author of ultimate truth. In fact, his opinion is just that, an opinion.

Then he's not worth reading. But, if we accept what he says about his relationship with God and the fact that he claims divine inspriation in his writings, well that's a different story: it is not "just" his opinion. You do not found a church on a man's "opinion."



*I* will tell you I have never seen God do anything for humans, good or bad.

This statement proves nothing. I've not seen England either, but I know it exists. Christ makes it clear in the NT that one of the greatest problems he came to free people from was blindness - not the literal kind, the figurative kind.


I do believe he exists as an infinite, but that's an infinite of infinite GOOD.

I have no idea what this statement means.


He does not DO anything, if God works you will not know he did anything.

And the your basis for this belief? What about those of us who flatly disagree with you?


And he would not do anything to hurt anyone.

I do not wish to be insulting, my friend, because I have great respect for you - so please don't be offended by what I'm about to say.

This conception of God is nothing less than a childish demand that God never do anything that cause us discomfort or inconvenience, or do things that may cause us some sort of pain. It is the same logic behind children's claim that a teacher is "mean" or that "my parents hate me" when said teacher or parents possess expectations about behavior/performance or allow the child to experience the natural consequences of his behavior. "Hurt" is a vague term. As a teacher, I occasionally have to "hurt" a child by giving him an "F" in my course; as a parent I occasionally have to "hurt" my child by refusing to bail him out of consequences that his poor choices have brought upon him. Please don't ask God to be the overly-protective, permissive parent that ends up warping His children by always protecting them from "hurt." Most people acknowledge that character is built through struggle and disappointment - and those do "hurt" - but how are we to become adults?



Further, Christianity has no more monopoly on aboslute truth than Paul.

Debatable.


~~ god is not ''haughty'' ~~

His actions in killing all those millions {see link above} clearly prove the point that not only is he haughty, he's a murderer as well!

You're not going to be convincing here, because your usage of the word "haughty" ("arrogant and disdainful") expresses your evaluation of God's words more than it expresses His actual tone.

Second, you seem (like many I've spoken with here) to be in possession of the idea that any loss of human life is wrong. That is not true. The Bible does not forbid all types of killing. As I've said before, the creator of life has as His prerogative to take life away if He sees fit to do so. If you question the justness of God's behavior, what you're really revealing is that you don't see God as the Bible describes Him - all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect in His love, mercy, kindness and justice. Most non-believeres simply conceptualize God as some glorified human being with superpowers and that is absurd. If God were nothing more than that, then yes - we should doubt His sincerity and question His behavior. This simply isn't so. A perfect judge who has perfect love and perfect mercy may elect to give the death sentence to those for whom a continued life might make things even worse. Remember that God is less concerned with our temporary life/happiness here on earth than He is with our eternal existence.



~~ always give us the complete rundown of all the facts behind His decisions ~~


To the dead abortion victim, no such chance is given.

Well what's God supposed to do about that? He gave humans free will and humans often excerise that will by terminating their pregnancies. These children will be in heaven - an existence that will make even the best times on earth seem like playing in a sewage-strewn mud puddle.



~~ If He destroys, He has a reason that will be consistent with His character ~~

A point I agree with but for reasons that differ with yours: yes he kills but not out of justice or beneficence. He does so out of vengeance, hate, and malice. You already have several instances of homicidal actions consistent with this from the OT.

A God as you describe would have killed you the minute you decided to criticize Him. Please provide some texts that support your claims.

Note: "vengeance" is not in and of itself a negative term as "malice" or "hate." When we sentence a criminal to jail, we are enacting vengeance ("punishment inflicted for wrong to oneself or one's cause") on that individual.



~~ there is also a big difference between a human father and an all-knowing, all-powerful being.~~

Jesus spoke of himself as a model. A model based upon his father. He never said ''worship me''. He only said ''follow me'' --- that is, do as I do, imitate me in every way. He made himself quite human didn't he? And he did so because his father is every bit as ''human'' as he. Well, at least in theory both are.

Completely wrong - God is not "human" - it is the other way around: we were designed "in God's image" (Genesis 1) - meaning that we carry attributes reflective of God. Jesus was God incarnated into flesh - but God is not "human" in any sense of the word - to do so is to degrade God. Jesus said "If you have seen me, you have seen the father" but he wasn't talking about his physicality.


But because this god is greatly ''different'', this means that he is all the more accountable for his actions.

Accountable to whom? Us? The things He created? We get to "put God on trial" for His actions? That's like kids putting their parents on trial.



In the legal world there is a concept called respondeat superior. This means that the boss is answerable for the misdeeds of his charges. A superior person answers for the weak. As a god he is morally and ethically responsible for all sins and all evils that are undertaken in his name. At least that's the way it is supposed to be. Your god simply has no excuse for the crimes, injustices, and evils that befall this troubled world. None whatsoever.

"No excuse" to you - you, who possesses a mere sliver of the facts, who possesses a brain that functions only at approximately 10% of its potential, whose existence is limited by 5 highly inadequate senses and 3 dimensions - a creature that God created and sustains on a daily basis. You are going to hold the transcendant being who called the universe into existence with His words accountable for His "crimes"?

Your statements make the assumption that you possess the knowledge and the authority to call God into accounting.


You can continue to make up every excuse in the world but you will never succeed in proving that this god is moral and just. If he was, then people like Alan Watts would not be pointing out that more people have been killed in the name of the Bible than for any other reason in history.

I'm not trying to prove God is just or moral - He doesn't need my help. I'm trying to get you to understand that it is presumption of the highest order for human beings to arrogantly put God on trial for things He did which they barely understand.

All movements, all beliefs, all organizations have "bad" employees, so to speak. I'm not sure Watts actually did any research to make such a claim - but a handful of bad cops doesn't make the institution of law enforcement a thing of evil.


Just as one last example (and not to get unnecessarily political about it), Bush has invaded an innocent country and killed over one million people in an unjust war with many tens of thousands injured. As you likely recall, this liar said he was ordered by the Bible's god to commit this atrocious act.

No comment - Christians are human beings; we are imperfect and make mistakes - the Bible makes that clear. We will be held accountable for the times where we misused the Bible.


If your god is so just and he knows that his name has been so wantonly profaned by this evildoer Bush, why hasn't he stepped up and put a stop to those crimes? According to the Bible which you and others continually use, he is supposed to have stopped it all by now but he does nothing.

Wrong again; God is not some cosmic policeman who exists to interfere in the affairs of the earth. Nothing in the Bible indicates what you claim - have you even read it? More than once? I have, and I don't recall anything in there like you have described. God gave Mr. Bush free will - just like you have. To some of us, what you say and believe is just as bothersome as Bush's activities are to you - but I would never ask God to silence you.




``God is the only one who is worthy of that praise``


I know of Odinists, Buddhists, animists, and others who say that their gods are worthier of that praise. However, none are willing to kill or to have anyone killed in the name of their divinities.

Once again: for whatever reason, you have decided that killing is the acid-test. So be it. God does not will that anybody be killed simply because they don't obey Him or worship Him - if God commissions the death of an individual or culture, it is because "the patient is beyond cure." Once God is utterly and completely rejected, then the human becomes more of a monster than anything else, and the person/community in this condition will suffer far more by being left to its continual degeneration than it will by a merciful death from the God who created them. If my own child had become so twisted and warped that he was determined to kill his own family and I was the only one available to stop him, I would - with immense sadness - be forced perhaps to kill him in order to save others. God takes no pleasure in the death of His creatures - I guarantee that you cannot find anywhere where God takes pleasure in the death of his "children."

Evil is powerful and toxic - like gangrene or cancer, it destroys; if it infects a person/community and the person/community rejects God's numerous invitations to accept His help in escaping that life of sin, then that person/community becomes dangerous in the same way gangrene and cancer are. What are God's choices? Let the "infected limb" start killing the "healthy tissue" surrounding or cut off the infected part to save the rest?

[hellsapoppin]

Excuses, excuses. But if this is what you choose to believe, fine.

Many years ago when I was in law school I came across a very interesting case. In it, a frustrated man stalked a woman and wrote down copious notes of his intentions. He wrote that a relationship with her would be mutually fruitful and rewarding. That it would be her absolute pleasure and privilege to have him as her mate. And that the ordeal that he had subjected her to {repeated threats, importunities, destroyed property, rumor mongering, etc} would in the long run be met with the greatest gratitude on her part.

Naturally, she repeatedly rebuffed him.

Ultimately, his ''patience'' runs out and he declares that he will now kill her if she rebuffs him again.

He again approached her and she rebuffs whereupon he empties his revolver on her.

Police caught him ''red-handed'' as we used to say and establish in court a prima facie case of homicide.

The issue at court, then, was is this a case of premeditated murder?

The prosecutor took the perpetrator's writings to the jury and they determined that, yes, there had been premeditation and convicted him of first degree murder. This, despite the defense attorney's bold assertions that while his client contemplated the commission of the crime, he should not have been convicted of 'capitol one' on the grounds that other circumstances could have or should have intervened.

Naturally, the jury refused to buy his assertions.

The point here is that, if the Bible is to be believed, your god has made his evil intentions clear: he knew that there would be a Fall in the Garden of Eden, he deliberately put a devil or serpent there, he easily could have placed the Tree of Knowledge somewhere else, he could easily have shown what Adam's fate would have been if he listened to the Temptor, he could easily have put angels there to ward off any evil influence, since this same god supposedly created ''generations'' of other humans he could easily have populated the Garden of Eden with them, or he could have formulated beings that were superior in knowledge and wisdom to Adam. Thus, all this trouble that we read of in the Bible and in history could easily have been avoided if this god had chosen to do so.

Same thing with that evil stalker --- he made his intentions clear {as did your god in the Bible} and was held accountable. How then could the great exemplar, if that is what he is, escape the same accountability that everyone else is held to???

To me, I always say, practice what you preach. But if you still insist that you and every one else is ''obligated'' to believe the many excuses that you make, again, fine and dandy.

[Redzeppelin]

Excuses, excuses. But if this is what you choose to believe, fine.

Many years ago when I was in law school I came across a very interesting case. In it, a frustrated man stalked a woman and wrote down copious notes of his intentions. He wrote that a relationship with her would be mutually fruitful and rewarding. That it would be her absolute pleasure and privilege to have him as her mate. And that the ordeal that he had subjected her to {repeated threats, importunities, destroyed property, rumor mongering, etc} would in the long run be met with the greatest gratitude on her part.

Naturally, she repeatedly rebuffed him.

Ultimately, his ''patience'' runs out and he declares that he will now kill her if she rebuffs him again.

He again approached her and she rebuffs whereupon he empties his revolver on her.

Police caught him ''red-handed'' as we used to say and establish in court a prima facie case of homicide.

The issue at court, then, was is this a case of premeditated murder?

The prosecutor took the perpetrator's writings to the jury and they determined that, yes, there had been premeditation and convicted him of first degree murder. This, despite the defense attorney's bold assertions that while his client contemplated the commission of the crime, he should not have been convicted of 'capitol one' on the grounds that other circumstances could have or should have intervened.

Naturally, the jury refused to buy his assertions.

The point here is that, if the Bible is to be believed, your god has made his evil intentions clear: he knew that there would be a Fall in the Garden of Eden, he deliberately put a devil or serpent there, he easily could have placed the Tree of Knowledge somewhere else, he could easily have shown what Adam's fate would have been if he listened to the Temptor, he could easily have put angels there to ward off any evil influence, since this same god supposedly created ''generations'' of other humans he could easily have populated the Garden of Eden with them, or he could have formulated beings that were superior in knowledge and wisdom to Adam. Thus, all this trouble that we read of in the Bible and in history could easily have been avoided if this god had chosen to do so.

Same thing with that evil stalker --- he made his intentions clear {as did your god in the Bible} and was held accountable. How then could the great exemplar, if that is what he is, escape the same accountability that everyone else is held to???

To me, I always say, practice what you preach. But if you still insist that you and every one else is ''obligated'' to believe the many excuses that you make, again, fine and dandy.

From someone who claims law school experience, I expect better responses than calling my detailed answers "excuses." You have rarely actually tried to deal with the implications of my arguments beyond simply dismissing them. Address the components of my position you believe are "excuses" and show me the problem with my logic - show me where I'm in error.

Note: I've not insisted that anybody is "obligated" to believe me and my so-called "excuses." I prefer to call them explanations based upon reasonable inferences conjectured upon evidence contained within the book that claims to give an accurate representation of the character of God. What are yours based on?

If the future is unchanging and exists to be known, then you're right: there is no way around the reality that God is responsible for evil.

However, you assume that the future is unchanging and that it exists to be known: how do you know this to be true? If God "knows" the future, then those two conditions must be true.

But, if the future does not exist to be known, then how can God "know" what does not yet exist to be known by His all-encompassing mind? Granted, there are certain things about what is to come that God knows - He knows the results of His will, and His intimate knowledge of history and humanity allows Him to know certain things that absolutely will happen - but in the realm of personal decision, I don't think this is so. The Bible indicates that humanity was given freewill - freedom requires the existence of at least two valid alternatives - or more specifically, freedom to choose requires that something indefinite become definite at some point. When I wake up, I may wear the red shirt or the blue shirt - before I finally choose, it is undetermined what I'll be wearing. Once I choose, my attire is now determined.

I would conjecture that our decisions do not exist to be known until we make them. As such, God created Satan with the knowledge that Satan could rebel, but until Satan actually made the choice, it did not exist to be known by God. (For the origin of these ideas, see God's Foreknowledge and Man's Free Will by Richard Rice).

[hellsapoppin]

Quite the contrary, it is you who does not answer my questions but respond with excuses. For example, you say ''it did not exist to be known'' even though I have repeatedly shown you where in the Bible he specifically says he knew who was going to be saved all along. Even though I repeat it to you, you continue to ignore this truth.

[NikolaiI]

Then he's not worth reading. But, if we accept what he says about his relationship with God and the fact that he claims divine inspriation in his writings, well that's a different story: it is not "just" his opinion. You do not found a church on a man's "opinion."

Well, let's set aside Paul for a moment, I'd like to address all of your replies, and I'm really glad that you're debating here! My views have changed many times, and particularly because of what they are now I am glad to be discussing these things with you.

Now what you said about my point that God does not hurt people, I would like to make a clarification. God does NOT hurt people. Pain is an illusion in the most extreme case, and in the most liberal case, pain is fleeting and only exists because of our microcosmic perspective. Red, and I'm not saying this TO you so much as to everyone, there is one thing that I cannot express, not love, or philosophy, as those things I seem to be able to, it's just there's one thing higher than everything else, and that is extending the perspective above time, basically----- words don't describe it. I mean, there is a peace to be had.

Now, one way my views have changed since I last spoke to you, is that now I believe in the existence of God as infinite. When I was speaking to you before, I actually would argue both sides of it, atheist with you and Christian in other instances. This is not important. My understanding of it now is more complete-- not complete, mind you-- and of course I am still young, and a year or so ago, when I was an atheist, it was partly because I didn't understand. Yet I would never believe if it weren't true. When I was a younger thinker, less mature I believe, I would have the exact same standard for my belief, and it is because of this in fact I didn't believe. Etc. ... moving on.

So now in my understanding, God is an infinite, which exists. I believe this is according to reason; though neither I understand his existence completely nor the reasons I believe are true and support it completely, I understand several other things a little more completely. Now you said my view was childish, but this you wouldn't think if I had cleared it up a little. I said that pain was illusiory, this I believe is true and will argue; a related point is that our souls are not affected by material phenomena. Material phenomena and spirituality are one and the same, even as all things are interconnected, but there are two parts of the soul to understand to make my next point. One meaning of it is the metaphorical symbol of the soul-- not quite the same as consciousness, this is the individual soul, which is described atomic in the Gita. You know how you can have a conception of yourself, and then you realize since you are the one having this conception of yourself, it no longer includes you, and so on and so forth ad infinitum? This is this part of the soul. It's a metaphor which we cannot explain in words, except perhaps like I have done for you. Nor can we understand the soul in our habitual consciousnesses. We are conditioned by habit to blindness of the soul, whose movements are very subtle, in fact, and require much keen understanding to observe. This part of the soul is what goes to heaven when we die.

The other part of the soul is the visible intimation or understanding of the soul. The first part was the soul learning about itself, asking "What is the soul? It is an animal that cannot be contained by any concept, and by its limitless source of possibility makes it a route to the highest, and to what is true." But the soul doesn't need to ask about itself, it doesn't need to grow. I do not apologize in the least if anyone who has the intelligence to read my posts would have the audacity consider me smaltzy. If they don't realize that the soul--if not true as an atomic soul, is true as a metaphorical symbol-- needs to grow and that there are certain things which nourish it, this is their mistake.

I just meant to say this, I didn't think to go into all of it, but just to say that no, I don't think God hurts people.

Now, I'd just like to say that while I don't have a complete understanding of God, I do not think this is attainable, and have in fact valueless riches which satisfy me. I believe in God because I've seen him, that is, he's revealed himself to me in more than one way and on more than one occasion. God must exist, though I am forgetful of him, sadly, in my meditation always, but I've become aware of his presence other times. I recently wrote an article, Red, about God, which I actually referred to as Gods, I hope you don't mind-- and I desribed an experience which if it was not useful for others, at least when I read over it I could not elude a new value you from it, and usually successfully succeeded in achieving what I had the first time. The value of the repititiousness of this task is very rewarding, I believe, and every time I went over my article I felt a part of the infinite, I felt a clear intimation of the boundless possibility. And I believe it is real and true; I believe in limitless possibility of this world and of time and of our place in it. God revealed himself to me in showing me the temporality of all phenomena, and in the attitude of growth on a path, along the right state of mind, encountering and creating objects which nourish the soul, and attending to peace, always, and good health, that peace can be attained which gives equanimity upon all objects.


This statement proves nothing. I've not seen England either, but I know it exists. Christ makes it clear in the NT that one of the greatest problems he came to free people from was blindness - not the literal kind, the figurative kind.

And he did. But he was up against such an impossible task. It was fifteen centuries before the middle ages even!




I have no idea what this statement means.

God as infinite GOOD. God is infinite, as the source of being, as the source of thought, as the source of goodness. I have seen God revealed as a means of shedding the incorrect views of attachment to material phenomena, as I said above, this is one-- but God is also revealed as giving us strength and guidance and peace in our spiritual relationships, as a spiritual guide. God is the source of goodness and intelligence in all matters.


=And the your basis for this belief? What about those of us who flatly disagree with you?

Perhaps I will clarify to you the statement I made that we are not able to see when God does something. This simply means that he goes unnoticed. Kierkegaard sought to see God in everything, good and bad, that happened to him, and then by living his life in a certain way, to see God in the good that he did for others.

You don't flatly disagree with me anymore, I would imagine. I'm sorry I wasn't clear from the beginning, but if you will make an effort to understand me now, I tell that it will be of value. As follows: we make an effort to learn about God, through reason or through individuals or through scripture or tradition, through our culture or that of others. We cannot have complete knowledge of him, because that would give us complete knowledge of everything, which we do not have the capacity for. Still, we have an understanding that he is the infinite, and we have faith in him as we have seen him working in our lives. Because God as infinite breaks through everything with his love. But these are all words and as they say, words lie-- but please continue reading. The lie of saying we understands him is revealed when we know just how much of a prison we are in. We are all, every one of us, in a prison very subtle, with walls and a ceiling dome so high, that it almost affects us like God. Such a subtle prison we are fortunately given the gift to break out of, but we can only break out of what we can understand. The prison is our understanding, it is our understanding of ourselves. We cannot break out of this dome prison, we can only extend its limit further and further. Except we can break out of it. To truly do so is accept an alternative consciousness which gives us light years of growth. This is the highest thing which has ever happened to me. View our prison dome, how vast it is, how it contains an ecosystem. It is like Earth in a way! Now understand that God is an infinite. God breaks through all barrieres. Once again we are trying to define him, to capture him in the prison of words. The only way we can now make progress is to ACCEPT these things. They are true. We've been shown the truth about the passing of material phenomena, now all we have to do is continue making progress in a positive state of mind, we must only pray, meditate, practice mindfulness and awareness, and practice recollection at all times.

Now let me mention quantum theory again for a moment. This is something that is not understood. I understand it, though. It teaches us humility. It teaches science something which sadly it has lost. Science had all faith in all its theories, because as you know they had been proven beyond 100% probability. Then we get a new theory, which is proved beyond 100% probability, which PROVES ALL OUR OTHERS FALSE. Now if this is viewed with any kind of honesty, curiosity, OPENNESS FOR KNOWLEDGE, then how can anyone not have a headache over these numbers? How true we thought it all was! And then it was all proved wrong-- we were proved wrong! This is why it's a theory that's not understood, we just can't fathom how we were proved wrong. The existence of this, this almost embarassment-- all we had to do was keep true to the humility of the scientific method!!-- it indicates we were wrong about what it means to be sure of something. For me, now, I am sure, positive, that everything is like this-- within the containment of every system are what it acts on, but if there is anything, if anything can be definied, then our definition is a system and there is something outside of this system. We were proven wrong.

We don't see God's actions because there are countless little spirals of clockwork reasoning, that have their value, but at their base express the truth: We are wrong! Red, have you ever felt your brain shift, as if some connection, some mad, perfect, connection had been made? This happened to me a couple minutes ago, reading this-- believe me, I have an elegant view of these matters. The only problem is that we're always having difficulty communicating. But I hope you have understood some of the metahpors in this post? Back to the topic: We don't see or understand God's works due to the elusiveness of his nature, which exists as I have indicated because of our relation to him. Quantum theory, which will not be understood until it's understood fully in relation to all existing theory-- understood in that occurruing once it exists infinitely, and due to the significance of it, actually exists outside of time since moments other than those understanding quantum theory are less important-- this quantum theory tells us there is no deep reality. At the foundations of reality, after we have incised through all science to get to the smallest building block of reality, we find that it is elusive like this and we can't pin it down. Now, this is just one wonder that God has put before us, and it is our most sacred obligation to live up to what this knowledge gives us!!! Heaven on earth, my dear friend. Now you have heard Nietzsche say that what is done in love is beyond good and evil? What is done by God as it pertains to his being we are not able to view with our blinders on, and it is not good or evil-- actually it is a good closer to the source of good, but in that, it is not our understanding of good or evil.

So we cannot comprehend God completely. :D


I do not wish to be insulting, my friend, because I have great respect for you - so please don't be offended by what I'm about to say.

This conception of God is nothing less than a childish demand that God never do anything that cause us discomfort or inconvenience, or do things that may cause us some sort of pain. It is the same logic behind children's claim that a teacher is "mean" or that "my parents hate me" when said teacher or parents possess expectations about behavior/performance or allow the child to experience the natural consequences of his behavior. "Hurt" is a vague term. As a teacher, I occasionally have to "hurt" a child by giving him an "F" in my course; as a parent I occasionally have to "hurt" my child by refusing to bail him out of consequences that his poor choices have brought upon him. Please don't ask God to be the overly-protective, permissive parent that ends up warping His children by always protecting them from "hurt." Most people acknowledge that character is built through struggle and disappointment - and those do "hurt" - but how are we to become adults?

I hope you've read my post-- and I hope it was okay readable-- I want to share things of value, I really do, and like I said at the beginning I am glad you're here to discuss, Richard! (I am grasping, was that correct?)

I hope I've clarified my view a little bit-- look forward to your response!



Debatable.QUOTE]




[Edit: to take an intelligent leap from the example and event of quantum theory; consider that we might first think like this: "Well, our theories which were indicated and proved by countless experiments, which were accepted almost as law, were proven wrong. It has always been theoreticaly or scientificially politically correct to call these still theories, which could be proven wrong at any time; so we should take the event and example as a lesson! We have renewed faith in the correctness of our humility." This might be the way to think. But actually, if we take the event to have all likelihood of indicating a pattern, we should know that it's 100% likely that what we think now WILL be proven wrong! :D]

[Redzeppelin]

Quite the contrary, it is you who does not answer my questions but respond with excuses. For example, you say ''it did not exist to be known'' even though I have repeatedly shown you where in the Bible he specifically says he knew who was going to be saved all along. Even though I repeat it to you, you continue to ignore this truth.

I'm sorry, my friend, you have never quoted anything that suggested the God "knew who was going to be saved all along." Check your posts. If you wish to do so now, I'll be happy to deal with the excerpts - but please, let's be real here: I have responded in detail to each of your charges - and instead of discussing my responses, you glide over them and call them excuses. I ignore some of your statements because they are OPINIONS of yours that I disagree with. You claim the status of "fact" for things that cannot necessarily be established as such. What you call "truth" is your opinion or your understanding of something - but that doesn't qualify it as truth.

Time and again, I have asked you to consider the logic of the god you describe and what that means. Based on the description of Him in the Bible - New and Old Testament - your claims cannot be true. If you wish to invalidate the Bible, then upon what do you base your opinion? If the OT descriptions of Him are satisfactory evidence that He is "capricious" and "cruel," then what how do you respond to the much more numerous descriptions that He is patient, loving, kind, merciful, just, long-suffering, gentle and compassionate? How do you reconcile the two - or do you just pick and choose which parts of the Bible are "true" for you - emphasizing the negative to make your point and ignoring the positive all-together? The difference is is that I don't ignore the negative - I try to interpret it within the context of the entire Bible and the established character of God.

[NikolaiI]

Indeed, positive and negative we only view as so far apart because of the linguistic terminology we have developed to express these terms. To quote "The Joyous Cosmology,"

"The principle is that all dualities and opposites are not disjoined but polar; they do not encounter and confront one another from afar; they exfoliate from a common center. Ordinary thinking conceals polarity and relativity because it employs terms, the terminals or ends, the poles, neglecting what lies between them. The difference of front and back, to be and not to be, hides their unity and mutuality."

But anyway, the implications of this I do not expect to be noticed or considered much less understood! Positive and negative exfoliating from a centere? Nah. (:))

Anyway Red did you read my post yet? Tell me what you think!

[hellsapoppin]

``I have responded in detail to each of your charges``

My 'charges'. Yeah, right. that's a good one.

For a god to be by his own admission, all knowing and ever present, to suddenly be ignorant of the fact that someone will succumb in the Garden of Eden is a total contradiction. One that you still persist in sidestepping. If he hadn't played ignorant at that time there would be need for ''patience'' or other self laudatory nonsense.

Since you do not answer my questions but only respond with convenient excuses, there is no further use in continuing this discussion.

[Redzeppelin]

``I have responded in detail to each of your charges``

My 'charges'. Yeah, right. that's a good one.

For a god to be by his own admission, all knowing and ever present, to suddenly be ignorant of the fact that someone will succumb in the Garden of Eden is a total contradiction. One that you still persist in sidestepping. If he hadn't played ignorant at that time there would be need for ''patience'' or other self laudatory nonsense.

Since you do not answer my questions but only respond with convenient excuses, there is no further use in continuing this discussion.

I'll call this one a forfeit too. Your responses clearly show that you've not even tried to consider the implications or the logic of what I've said. That's a shame because I truly thought you were interested in a discussion of some sort - but your posts have been flippant dismissals of my points. So be it.

I have tried to focus our discussion by providing context for the behaviors of God that you've focused on, as well as trying to point out the illogical nature of accepting certain behaviors "at face value" (the killing of certain tribes in the OT and the issue of creating Satan) without even considering the context of God's character as the Bible states it, the description of God throughout the entire Bible (rather than just the OT), and the reality that your judgments are based on a partial understanding of the circumstances at hand (and little understanding, apparently, about the character of God and how it relates to His actions).

Better luck next time, I suppose.

[hellsapoppin]

Anybody else want to try to ''prove'' that an all loving, merciful, and ever beneficent divine father of unparalleled and unmatchable greatness can, somehow, be all knowing and ever present, yet still not know that a Fall would take place in the Garden of Eden so that he would be helpless to stop such a catastrophic event even though he had forecasted such unhappiness tens of thousands of eons before it took place???

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Redzeppelin]

Anybody else want to try to ''prove'' that an all loving, merciful, and ever beneficent divine father of unparalleled and unmatchable greatness can, somehow, be all knowing and ever present, yet still not know that a Fall would take place in the Garden of Eden so that he would be helpless to stop such a catastrophic event even though he had forecasted such unhappiness tens of thousands of eons before it took place???

:lol: :lol: :lol:

For the last time: your position is based on the PRESUMPTION that the future exists, unchanging, to be "known" by God. You cannot prove that assumption. For freedom to exist (for even your words to have been freely chosen) then the future must be indeterminant; that's what a choice does: it renders determined something that was previously undetermined. The future does not exist to be known. Our free will and God's "foreknowledge" interact in this way - until we render an undetermined decision as determined, it doesn't exist to be known.

God knew that His created beings carried the potential to disobey - but He took the risk anyway (love always involves risk); He was not "helpless" - He could have stopped it, but at the cost of violating His creatures' free will - and that would make Him a tyrant on par with Saddam Hussein - because that's what dictators do: they refuse to allow the exercise of freedom that challenges them. God allows us to challenge and reject Him. Our freedom is worth more to God than our happiness. Sorry.

[hellsapoppin]

``you cannot prove that assumption``

First, my challenge was not directed at you.

Second, if anyone wishes to defy logic and common sense by pretending that an ''all knowing and ever present'' god is incapable of preventing troubles of any kind --- a laughable presumption with no basis in reality, especially in view of his own assertions to the contrary in the Bible --- that's up to them. In all my years of discussing this subject with scholars from every walk of like, I have never seen anyone attempt to defy logic in such an absurd fashion. Let's see if anyone else tries to do so.

[kilted exile]

Some theory in relation to the current discussion:

This is from the introduction to my copy of Paradise Lost (2003 Penguin Classics edition which has an introduction by John Leonard. The part I want to discuss can be found in the intro on pages xxvi & xxvii in this edition.) Due to copyright (not to mention time) I cant obviously re-type the entire pages, however, I think this section gives some further explanation of Red's point:


How can Adam & Eve be free when God foresees their every act and speaks of their Fall as a certainty before it has even happened (iii 93-7)? Milton addresses this in De Doctrina Christiana. He there draws a distinction between certainty & necessity. Because God has foreseen the Fall from all eternity, and because his knowledge is infallible, the Fall was always a certainty. But it was not necessitated by any divine decree. It was a free act in the moment of its occurence. God foresaw the Fall, and permitted it, but he did not make it happen. He therefore has every right to hold Adam & Eve responsible for their disobedience.
/SNIP/
So long as Adam & Eve are free to resist Satan's temptation, his act of tempting them does not necessitate their fall. One might even argue that God aids and abets Satan's arrival into paradise for the benign reason that he respects Adam & Eve's freedom, and does not want to censor their experiences

[hellsapoppin]

And as I wrote previously, in most jurisdictions, if you know a crime is going to be commissioned and you sit by and do nothing, then you will held accountable for your inaction.

GUILTY AS CHARGED.

CASE CLOSED.

[Redzeppelin]

And as I wrote previously, in most jurisdictions, if you know a crime is going to be commissioned and you sit by and do nothing, then you will held accountable for your inaction.

GUILTY AS CHARGED.

CASE CLOSED.

Not so fast, Perry Mason. Your logic ignores several important points (some already made that you have never given a satisfactory answer to):

1. You assume that God exists in time the exact same way in which we do.
2. You assume that the future is defined, unchanging, and already exists
to be "known" by God.
3. You ignore statements the Bible makes about God's character that are
clearly in conflict with your assessment of God's character.
4. Believing that the future is defined, unchanging and exists to be known
means that freewill doesn't exist - an odd idea because I assume that
you think you freely have chosen your beliefs and words.

You cannot "put God on trial" as you have and so easily "win" - your case is based upon incomplete information from a source (the Bible) which does not provide the complete set of facts at God's command and likewise your case is also based on numerous misconceptions about the character of God.

How about actually addressing some of these issues before starting the victory celebration?

[hellsapoppin]

Red,

Clearly, you have not read my posts.

I specifically wrote that your god is ''omniscient'' and ''all knowing''. This means he is and will be ever present unlike we humans. I cannot make this more clear.

Since you will not understand what I write I will not address the rest of your note.

[Scheherazade]

W a r n i n g

Further personal comments will lead to thread closure.

[hellsapoppin]

Thank you Scheherazade.

As you can see from above, I specifically referred to the biblical god as ''omniscient'' in post 390 {''ever present''}, yet was accused of saying this was not so. Moreover, I was asked if this god was not merciful,''why are YOU still here?''.

Indeed, it would be best if such distortions and personalizations were not made here.

:)

[Ydfkdy]

Read your bible,that is what they tell me when I wonder about God.No he is not evil,but that is my opinion,he is a forgiving God.Though I do have alot to answer for when judgement day comes cause when I go down I say things I should not and ask why does God hate me,when I should be saying something else.I don't remember it is in this book I am reading,(When Bad Thing's Happen To Good People).Maybe you should check that book out to if you think that will halp if you are sick like me or curiose about God and his way's(idk).

[hellsapoppin]

If I understand you correctly, you have are suffering from illness. First, my hope is that you will enjoy a quick and full recovery. Second, in the New Testament, every time Yahshuah (commonly called ''Jesus'') healed a sick person he said ''thy sins are forgiven''. This means that healing miracles represent the divine forgiveness of sin.

Yahshuah also taught that his ministers could duplicate and surpass his miracles. He did not put any limit or time frame as to this dispensation. Therefore, you need not do any further reading to avail yourself of healing. All you need do is to have any of his ministers perform a miracle. Since so many people here insist that the Bible is not and cannot be wrong in any way, and that its god is without ceaseless mercy and blessings, such an act should be of no trouble to any of his appointed servants.

And for the record, I have suffered life long illness. Therefore, such a person can undertake such an endeavor on my behalf as well.

Let us see these actions take place in order to confirm the Bible's teachings.

[Scheherazade]

Second, in the New Testament, every time Yahshuah (commonly called ''Jesus'') healed a sick person he said ''thy sins are forgiven''. This means that healing miracles represent the divine forgiveness of sin. Or maybe it suggests that only those who are "sinful" get ill and once their sins are forgiven, they recover.

Disclaimer: I am not of this view; only suggesting another way of intrepreting the text.

[hellsapoppin]

Don't think so because other examples are given of people who were born sick and remained that way for most of their lives despite not having any knowledge or propensity towards sin. But therein lies the ambiguity: these did not sin, yet their ''sins'' were forgiven.

A seeming contradiction but that's the Bible for you.

[Redzeppelin]

Red,

Clearly, you have not read my posts.

I specifically wrote that your god is ''omniscient'' and ''all knowing''. This means he is and will be ever present unlike we humans. I cannot make this more clear.

Since you will not understand what I write I will not address the rest of your note.

I've read them very closely. Your idea about God's omniscience is simply wrong - period. You have constructed an argument that makes sense to you, and I'll accept that. But it is a simplistic view, one that the Bible does not support. Had you - even once - dealt with the points I'd brought up, we might have had a real conversation. I see that that is impossible, and that's too bad.

I'll leave you alone.

[Ydfkdy]

There is no arguement except 4 the question posed.Religion and polotics are the most argued about subjects in the world.The easiest way to answer this question posed is to read your bible.

[hellsapoppin]

``read your Bible``

In college, my humanities term paper and my law school jurisprudence paper was on biblical law. A professor of Jewish law used part of my writing in a book he published a year after I graduated.

I have participated in numerous public debates on biblical teaching and perhaps a couple in Canon law. My opponents have demonstrated that they greatly appreciate my knowledge of the subjects.

When anyone {and I mean anyone} can prove to me that my idea of omniscience is incorrect, I'll be the first to thank them for their success.

[Scarlet'sWalk]

The easiest way to answer this question posed is to read your bible.

It may be the easiest way yet can't say it would be the most credible one. If you resort to merely one source to find the answer, that won't help much. It is best to read the Holy Books that have been sent to people thus far.

[jon1jt]

Holy Book I: Lament for lost love.

[islandclimber]

this is all seeming to assume that there is some kind of creator god that humans can understand and comprehend to some degree... isn't the very idea of being able to understand ideas such as timeless, eternal, infinite, kind of absurd... for even putting names to them gives them definition which they necessarily don't have... timeless means everything is nothing, and nothing is everything... and even that gives definition and form, but I think of it more as just saying it is beyond comprehension, we just have to accept... so all concepts of good and evil, of time, of value, of things, necessarily vanish, at least when put in human terms... if we ever do get to an infinite and timeless existence, it will be something completely foreign and unrecognizable.. god, or the godhead, or whatever you may want to call it, cannot be explained in human terms, cannot be defined by our language or thoughts, god encompasses everything and nothing all at once, all of time, and none of it, for there is no past, present, future for infinite being... it is completely incomprehensible to humans, we can only accept, not understand.. somewhat like the original buddhist ideas of anatta and nirvana...

but humans will never be able to just have faith that there is something that is everything, or is part of and behind everything, they will need to see it proven, or at least find some idea of it... so I would say in accordance with some previous posts that god, or the idea of god, cannot be judged on a human level, or even by human minds, for god is everything and god is nothing (on that note I believe so are we in essence)...

or maybe I'm just talking nonsense, the thoughts of another rambling, ridiculous man... hmmm...

[azulnoel]

Look up the word theodicy

[islandclimber]

Look up the word theodicy

but that is what we are talking about here... why look at others attempts to reconcile good and evil when we can start afresh and solve it here? *smile* no one has really satisfactorily answered the problem that, or resolved, hence the fact new solutions are come up with quite often... I guess each one of us has to either solve it or accept it in our own particular way...

[NikolaiI]

this is all seeming to assume that there is some kind of creator god that humans can understand and comprehend to some degree... isn't the very idea of being able to understand ideas such as timeless, eternal, infinite, kind of absurd... for even putting names to them gives them definition which they necessarily don't have... timeless means everything is nothing, and nothing is everything... and even that gives definition and form, but I think of it more as just saying it is beyond comprehension, we just have to accept... so all concepts of good and evil, of time, of value, of things, necessarily vanish, at least when put in human terms... if we ever do get to an infinite and timeless existence, it will be something completely foreign and unrecognizable.. god, or the godhead, or whatever you may want to call it, cannot be explained in human terms, cannot be defined by our language or thoughts, god encompasses everything and nothing all at once, all of time, and none of it, for there is no past, present, future for infinite being... it is completely incomprehensible to humans, we can only accept, not understand.. somewhat like the original buddhist ideas of anatta and nirvana...

but humans will never be able to just have faith that there is something that is everything, or is part of and behind everything, they will need to see it proven, or at least find some idea of it... so I would say in accordance with some previous posts that god, or the idea of god, cannot be judged on a human level, or even by human minds, for god is everything and god is nothing (on that note I believe so are we in essence)...

or maybe I'm just talking nonsense, the thoughts of another rambling, ridiculous man... hmmm...

nono quite the contrary, sir or madam. i really like the two posts of yours i've read so far! i'm glad to breathe the same air as you. ah, er, hope that didn't come off weird.
i think i have almost the exact same idea of god as you. i've had a couple experiences which, er, convinced me. something almost similar to something i heard about but haven't read yet, Sojourner Truth's description of her meeting with Jesus.

[islandclimber]

nono quite the contrary, sir or madam. i really like the two posts of yours i've read so far! i'm glad to breathe the same air as you. ah, er, hope that didn't come off weird.
i think i have almost the exact same idea of god as you. i've had a couple experiences which, er, convinced me. something almost similar to something i heard about but haven't read yet, Sojourner Truth's description of her meeting with Jesus.

haha... not weird... sir it is... I would be interested in hearing of Sojourner Truth's description... is it in her book? for I was looking at it online a while back, just never actually read it... but I may have to now:)

A movie, called "the man from earth" has quite an interesting twist on the Christ story.. it maybe isn't the best of movies but is quite good nonetheless and the Christ story in context is fascinating, if it was actually true would explain a lot of things, and for that matter make some sense.

[impishmonkey]

God is perfect. He has no evil in Him. I believe you have to ask him into your heart. you don'y have him there already otherwise the whole heaven and hell thing won't work.

[hellsapoppin]

Jesus also said ''be ye perfect''. I know of many Christians but not one is even close to being ''perfect''.

;)

[Redzeppelin]

Jesus also said ''be ye perfect''. I know of many Christians but not one is even close to being ''perfect''.

;)

We are all declared righteous through Christ's atoning sacrifice; the "perfection" you speak of is a lifetime journey for the believer. It is not a "presto-chango" magic trick God performs. Like any good parent, He wishes for His children to develop character. Being a Christian doesn't mean that you have instant character; it means that you're willing to let your Creator start teaching you how to be a man/woman of character.

[hellsapoppin]

See the example of Saul of Tarsus --- that belies your assertion. ;)

[dzebra]

The same Saul that changed his name to Paul? This one?

Acts 7:14+

We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do... For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing...
So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am!

He was not perfect. He tried to be, but he admits his faults.

[NikolaiI]

If you feed on negativity like that, you'll trip on knives and stuff.

[hellsapoppin]

``He was not perfect.``

In his earlier life he murdered possibly tens of thousands of Christians. Frankly, I don't blame him for having a guilty conscience.

[islandclimber]

if there are a heaven and a hell in this universe, and if god or christ can forgive evil for others, which they have no right to do... then there can never be harmony in the universe, as Ivan says in "TBK"... for how can god forgive for the little boy ripped apart by the hunting dogs of the rich landowner in the scenes described by Ivan in "TBK"... because christ sacrificed himself, it is okay to do anything as long as you are genuinely sorry for doing it... what kind of harmony and endless good does that inspire? The answer is none...

harmony can only be found outside of the idea of a personal creator god, beyond good and evil, beyond doubt, with endless faith in love, and the realization that somewhere, on some elementary level we are all the same, and all different, we are all everything and nothing... nothing is everything, and everything is nothing... love is..

[dzebra]

do anything as long as you are genuinely sorry for doing it...

I think this is where your statement is flawed. A person who is genuinely sorry for something is not very likely to repeat it. Maybe he was once purposefully bad, and he was not sorry, then he did lots of bad things. If he ever became genuinely sorry, his bad things would drastically reduce in quantity.

[islandclimber]

I think this is where your statement is flawed. A person who is genuinely sorry for something is not very likely to repeat it. Maybe he was once purposefully bad, and he was not sorry, then he did lots of bad things. If he ever became genuinely sorry, his bad things would drastically reduce in quantity.

you forget the power of addiction... and I'm not just referring to people who do lots of bad things, but even one terrible thing, you can be sorry for doing it, but who has the right to forgive you? Christ? God? That idea is absurd... that Christ can forgive for others.... there can't be harmony in the universe with a creator god, with heaven, with hell, with a god forgiving for others.. if there is I want nothing to do with it...

[dzebra]

Oh, I read your first post with a different twist than I think you intended. I think I understand it better now that I read your second one.

When God forgives people, it's for the offenses that people do against God himself. If I murder someone, it's not only an offense to the person I murdered, it's an offense to God. God forgives me for offending him. The other person must also forgive in order for me to be fully forgiven from all angles. I would need to be reconciled both to God and to that person I murdered (or his friends and relatives, since he'd be dead).

[islandclimber]

Oh, I read your first post with a different twist than I think you intended. I think I understand it better now that I read your second one.

When God forgives people, it's for the offenses that people do against God himself. If I murder someone, it's not only an offense to the person I murdered, it's an offense to God. God forgives me for offending him. The other person must also forgive in order for me to be fully forgiven from all angles. I would need to be reconciled both to God and to that person I murdered (or his friends and relatives, since he'd be dead).

sounds interesting... yes I agree with you here if you think there is some kind of superhuman god, that exists in this universe... that forgives people... but I don't think that... I think one needs to forgive oneself, for each one of us, is part of you could call it the infinite godhead... like in buddhism... only in forgiving ourselves can we truly find harmony, and in forgiving ourselves we then show true remorse, for we must have realized the terrible thing we did, and can be forgiven by others... though forgiving oneself, if one truly is sorry is an almost impossible thing... what do you think?

cheers

[dzebra]

I agree that forgiving oneself is very tough. In my experience, that only way I can forgive myself for things is only after everyone else involved has already forgiven me. I don't know if that's the way it goes with everybody, but it's definitely extremely difficult to forgive oneself. If others have not forgiven, then forgiving oneself is even closer to impossible.

[Ancestor]

I agree forgiving is hard to do but you do not always need another's forgiveness before you can forgive yourself. I had to forgive someone whom did an unforgivable act against me but I did not forgive for him but for myself. In order for there to be balance in life we are all made up of good or evil and we choose which path to take. I believe the same in my Creator too.

[NikolaiI]

Where are sins? Inside or without?
I just now read a story of two monks, one asked for salvation or something similar, of his sins, and the other said, bring your sins to me and I will absolve you. After a while, the first monk said his sins were unattainable to him, and the second monk said he'd finished enlightening him.

[Ancestor]

Isn't sin really in the eye of the beholder? What I consider sinful is not what the Catholic church believe's to be sinful or most people for that fact. I just know that I there is light and dark within me and I chose to walk on the light side.

[islandclimber]

Where are sins? Inside or without?
I just now read a story of two monks, one asked for salvation or something similar, of his sins, and the other said, bring your sins to me and I will absolve you. After a while, the first monk said his sins were unattainable to him, and the second monk said he'd finished enlightening him.

yes, this is exactly it... put so concisely... one can only forgive oneself.. there is no external forgiveness... in forgiving oneself if it is truly meant, one is forgiven by everything, for we all part of the same whole, we are all god, and god is all of us... therefore self forgiveness is the only true forgiveness...
only through it can we be at peace and find harmony in the universe, for as Christ said, echoing Siddhartha before him, "the kingdom of god is within you"....

Nikolai, what is this story? where did you read it?

cheers

[YALASH]

Peace!

According to holy Quran:

He is Allah, the Creator, the Maker, the Fashioner. His are the most beautiful names. All that is in the heaven and in the earth glorifies Him, and He is the Mighty, the Wise. [ chapter 59, verse 25 ]

and one of His name is Al-Quddus (the Holy One) given in verse 24.
regards.

The Quran teaches that by virtue of His excellences:
1- God is One, without associate.
=====================
2- He suffers from no defect.
=====================
3- He comprehends all good qualities and manifests all holy powers.
4- He is the Originator of all creation and is the fountain-head of all grace.

[blazeofglory]

God has nothing to do with goodness and badness. It is nature that does everything.

[Hypercrit Htd]

God alway beyond good and evil.

[hellsapoppin]

"It is nature that does everything"

Is nature a "god" to you? What religious texts (if any) do you use in making this definition?

[Equality72521]

"Is nature a "god" to you? What religious texts (if any) do you use in making this definition?"

Since when were religious "texts" required to have a belief?

[ClementOfRome]

to quote tom waits... 'there ain't no devil, it's only God when he is drunk.'

on one side we have this great point.. if God is all, than God made sin, which means God is bad... thus, God is satan. following that line of reason we could very easily be some wet dream of some deified kid who still wets the bed. Since mankind is not separate from Deity, but everything is enclosed in thus said deity, than we could very easily be some detailed daydream.

however, on the other hand, if God made it, and is outside of it, yet interacts with it, this could pose the option that the antithesis of what God wills being done could exist without God being a part of it.

thus God is not sin/satan....

but what do i know, follow everyone else’s advise.... cause it seemed to me that ALL THEIR ANSWERS LEAD TO THIS SATAN=GOD DIETY!!!



Bravo!

p.s. this 'nature' talk is so humorous. i could 'guess' at the nature of God... even follow the bible... but is it not a bit presumptuous to know what God's 'Nature' is... isn't that what the Pharisees did?

[nasir]

We may have our grievances, but they can never be laid at God's door. Now when I say "door" that's just a figurative sense. I don't intend to give him any location for God is everywhere. Again, that's not easy to explain. When I say "everywhere" I don't want to sound as if God is physical or that He makes movements like us human being. He is as He was and as He will be Always. He is with us in his Knowledge.

Our petty grievances or complaints or the so called intellect or intelligence - all these don't entitle us to call God "evil". God is absolute Goodness. Being judgmental about God is, in my opinion, digging a hellish pit of everlasting suffering and torment. Now, does that make God evil? No! The bottom line is that the God's Mercy precedes His Wrath. He is Ever-Forgiving, Most Merciful, and Most Benevolent. Who knows we might find ourselves in the everlasting Paradise despite our sins - subject to the fact that we first believe in Him as our Creator, be aware of our shortcomings and sins and ask His forgiveness time and again. Surely, that's not tough for gaining the Bliss of Paradise! What say?

[blazeofglory]

We may have our grievances, but they can never be laid at God's door. Now when I say "door" that's just a figurative sense. I don't intend to give him any location for God is everywhere. Again, that's not easy to explain. When I say "everywhere" I don't want to sound as if God is physical or that He makes movements like us human being. He is as He was and as He will be Always. He is with us in his Knowledge.

Our petty grievances or complaints or the so called intellect or intelligence - all these don't entitle us to call God "evil". God is absolute Goodness. Being judgmental about God is, in my opinion, digging a hellish pit of everlasting suffering and torment. Now, does that make God evil? No! The bottom line is that the God's Mercy precedes His Wrath. He is Ever-Forgiving, Most Merciful, and Most Benevolent. Who knows we might find ourselves in the everlasting Paradise despite our sins - subject to the fact that we first believe in Him as our Creator, be aware of our shortcomings and sins and ask His forgiveness time and again. Surely, that's not tough for gaining the Bliss of Paradise! What say?
I agree to a certain extent if not wholly with your views on God. God is to me rather different than what you construed It to be. God is above all these attributes of goodness and badness and what we call good or bad is just our interpretation of phenomena. Even in nature there is no anything good or evil and God is far over and above these worldly attributes of goodness and badness and to liken God to worldly attributes is to misunderstand God totally.

I do not say God is kind and unkind and I do not believe God is just or unjust to us. Moreover I do not say God is pleased with our prayers. God is indifferent to us and our understanding of God is rooted in what we gleaned from the scriptures we have read or from what we have learned from our elders.

I do not subscribe to the Biblical or mythological God and God to me is universal not a personal one.

Karma is a good word that tells us lots of things about worldly affairs and phenomena and things happen to us owing to Karma. If we behave properly with your neighbors you are likely to get similar treatments from your neighbors and if you misbehave you will receive likewise.

Of course God has nothing to do with your actions and your fortunes and what is more you cannot comprehend the nature of God through your three dimensional mind and God is all above and over these dimensions.

[Redzeppelin]

God has nothing to do with goodness and badness. It is nature that does everything.

Respectfully disagree. "Good" and "evil" cannot be completely divorced from God, because then they become merely subjective. "Good" is defined by that which is consistent with the character of God: justice, mercy, compassion, generosity, sacrifice, courage, love. "Evil" is that which is inconsistent with the character of God: betrayal, slander, selfishness, cowardice, malice, injustice.

Nature is amoral. It cannot "do" anything.

[mazHur]

well duh!

Doesnt every one think that?? Well not evil but then God not exactly good either. God is God. Not Good or evil as we understand it, its soooo much more complicated. My 6 year old sister asked me somthing similar this morning what is this the day of religious questions?;)

Anyway my point is as Muslim that is pretty much what I belive for us god has 99 names and some of them are a bit contradictry until you put it in this context like The Giver, The Taker, The Merciful, The Strict, The Forgiving, The Unforgiving, The aparnt, The hidden, The first The Last , just to mention a few that are translateable, I can off the top of my ead only think of a handful that dont have oposites, The Iternal, The One, The all-Knowing, and a few like that.


:D



Those 99 names are infact traits of Allah, the God. Since Man is created in the image of God he is believed to have all those 99 traits as mentioned in the Quran.


Respectfully disagree. "Good" and "evil" cannot be completely divorced from God, because then they become merely subjective. "Good" is defined by that which is consistent with the character of God: justice, mercy, compassion, generosity, sacrifice, courage, love. "Evil" is that which is inconsistent with the character of God: betrayal, slander, selfishness, cowardice, malice, injustice.

Nature is amoral. It cannot "do" anything.

You have a point there!!;)

[Babbalanja]

"Good" and "evil" cannot be completely divorced from God, because then they become merely subjective.
Got that backward, didn't you? It's actually the believer who is making the concept of good and evil meaningless by subordinating them to his definition of God. The binding of Isaac demonstrates that the believer needs to think that whatever God orders is good, regardless of how reprehensible we humans may think it is.

Regards,

Istvan

[Redzeppelin]

Got that backward, didn't you? It's actually the believer who is making the concept of good and evil meaningless by subordinating them to his definition of God. The binding of Isaac demonstrates that the believer needs to think that whatever God orders is good, regardless of how reprehensible we humans may think it is.

Regards,

Istvan

Hardly; because humans are selfish, sinful and self-interested, leaving such definitions up to us leaves them liable to abuses of the worst kind. Only by defining good and evil as something transcendant beyond mere human opinion can it have a stable definition. Nowhere is it indicated that we are to see the binding of Isaac as "good." What we are encouraged to see as "good" was Abraham's faith that God would rescue his son.

[Babbalanja]

Hardly; because humans are selfish, sinful and self-interested, leaving such definitions up to us leaves them liable to abuses of the worst kind.
Well, we made God in our image, so I guess that's what we should expect.


Only by defining good and evil as something transcendant beyond mere human opinion can it have a stable definition.
Oh, that's right. That must be why God exhorts the Israelites to genocide in Deuteronomy 20:16.

However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you.

So even mass murder is just fine as long as the Big Guy orders it?


Nowhere is it indicated that we are to see the binding of Isaac as "good." What we are encouraged to see as "good" was Abraham's faith that God would rescue his son.
Wow! That's quite a rationalization!

But the message that millions upon millions of mainstream Christians take away from the episode is that it was a test of Abraham's faith. To Christians, it was in fact "good" because it indicated that Abraham put his obedience to God above humanistic values and logic. Wouldn't it have spoken volumes about Abraham's regard for God's infinite love if he had refused to kill his son, since his God would never have asked him to do such a thing?

Regards,

Istvan

[Radha Krsna]

Looked as evil but it is not...
God is everything ... (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=813182&postcount=4)

[hellsapoppin]

From an atheist:


Little-Known Bible Verses V: God Creates Evil


The passage that today's edition of "Little-Known Bible Verses" will examine is, if I say so myself, one of the most shocking in the entire Bible. In a book that contains talking snakes and donkeys, a man taking two of every living species to survive a flood in a wooden boat, and a god who hates pillows, shrimp, mixed fabrics, and fig trees for some reason, that is no mean feat, but I believe this verse lives up to that promise.

The problem of evil has vexed Christian theologians for nearly two millennia, burdening them with the impossible task of explaining how so much evil and suffering could exist in a cosmos overseen by an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good deity. A wide variety of answers have been proposed to this problem, all of which are as imaginative as they are insufficient. But all this scholarly ink need not have been spilled: the Bible itself tells Jews and Christians exactly where evil comes from.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

—Isaiah 45:7

There you have it, folks - straight, as it were, from the horse's mouth. Evil exists because God created it. All you theologians can pack it in and go home now.

Of course, the story does not end there. The translators of many modern Bible editions, aware of the unsettling implications this verse holds for their faith, have attempted to soften the blow by translating it in a more palatable way. The New International Version, for example, has this passage say that God creates "disaster", while the English Standard Version has it as "calamity", and the Revised Standard Version says "woe". The Message translation creatively renders this verse as "I make harmonies and create discords".

Although these alternate translations wouldn't seem to solve much, they are still not as faithful to the original Hebrew than the KJV's unflinching translation. The Hebrew word translated by the KJV writers as "evil" in Isaiah 45:7 is "ra", and from textual evidence, it is clear that in the Bible this word does mean evil in a moral sense. Here are some of the other contexts in which it is used:

•In Genesis 2:17, God instructs Adam and Eve not to eat from "the tree of good and ra". The tree of good and disaster? The tree of good and calamity? Clearly not: it is the tree of good and evil.
•In Genesis 6:5, God resolves to destroy humankind in the great flood because "the wickedness (ra) of man was great in the earth".
•In Genesis 13:13, the men of Sodom were "wicked (ra) and sinners before the Lord exceedingly".
•In Deuteronomy 1:35, a furious God threatens the Israelites, "Surely there shall not one of these men of this evil (ra) generation see that good land, which I sware to give unto your fathers."
•In Judges 2:11, "the children of Israel did evil (ra) in the sight of the Lord, and served Baalim".
•In 1 Kings 16:30, the wicked king Ahab (husband of the infamous Jezebel) "did evil (ra) in the sight of the Lord above all that were before him".
These and many other references make it clear that the primary meaning of ra is indeed evil in the sense of wickedness or sin. For believers who hold to the textual inerrancy of the Bible, therefore, there is no choice but to admit that God created evil. And in a way, this makes a great deal of sense. If an all-powerful, all-knowing god created everything, what other explanation for evil could there be, other than that he caused it?

Even the Bible's theology bears this out. The text offers numerous occasions where God could have intervened to turn events to good and chose not to. He could, for example, have obliterated Satan and the rebel angels entirely, or at the very least confined them to Hell and not allowed them to escape, so that they could never have escaped to lead humanity into temptation. And God's behavior in the whole Eden affair, in any case, smacks strongly of either extreme incompetence or deliberate malice - not least, his choice to transmit the curse of original sin to all subsequent generations rather than letting every human start off with a morally clean slate.

Less-literalist believers might say that the imputation of evil to God is just textual corruption in the Bible, the product of fallible humans and not a divine revelation. And while this explanation might help the cause of theodicy, it can only do so at the cost of hugely undermining the Bible itself. After all, if God would allow as basic and fundamental a distortion of his nature as this, for what reason should we believe that the Bible reflects any of his words? If the biography of some great human being contained a distortion as blatantly slanderous as this, by attributing to that person an attitude that is totally contrary to all they believed and stood for, would it be wise or prudent to simply disregard that passage and then continue to trust the rest of the book as accurate?

The attribution of evil to God's handiwork, while it may solve the problem of theodicy, raises an even more difficult question for Jews and Christians in its place. Namely, why would such a deity be worthy of our belief? Why would any believer want to worship a god who accepts responsibility for evil and suffering? Because he's the most powerful and will punish people who don't do what he says? But what assurance would we have that the afterlife is not also a place of torment and sorrow, even for the good?

This is a nightmare of a dilemma for anyone to have to face. Fortunately, there is another way out: the door that opens onto atheism. It is in our power to cast aside these bleak and malevolent fantasies, and to recognize that the specters that menace us are illusions of our own imagination. They have no more reality or substance than shadows, and are just as easily dispelled by the light.

For those who wish to cease the futile obsession with the words of ancient texts and face reality as it truly is, the gate is open and the path is clear. There are no gods, no devils or angels, no heaven or hell. There is only us, human beings, living together in the natural world. Once we recognize this, the next step - a lifelong step - is to forsake fantasy, treat others with kindness and make the most of the one life we are fortunate to have.



http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/01/little-known-bible-verses-v-god-creates-evil.html


Some may not like it or want to agree but if the Bible is to be believed, then it's true.

[Leonidas300]

Also from an atheist:

Faith without secular knowledge is immorality.
The more time one spens reading scripture and the less time one spends studying, the less moral one has the potential to be.
The spreading of religious faith at the expense of formal education is the spreading of evil.
Therefore the spreading of faith is intrinsically evil.

For evidence of this, we need only turn to Socratic Method - kudos to the author. Refute this if you can.
http://www.socraticmethod.net/morality/page1.htm

And please, for those of you that are faithful, consider how far this kind of argument could go. Don't just blindly believe what you believe because you always have; question those beliefs for the sake of your common man.

Consider that for every one Islamic or Christian moderate arguing on this forum, there are hundreds of hard-liners willing and intending to kill 'infidels' and 'heretics'. By the time I have finished typing this message, more humans will have been killed by other humans from other religions.

How many words are in the Bible? How many in the Koran? I don't know how many there are, but I do know that more people have been killed for religion than there are words in both of these books. Is a word worth ten lives?

If there were a God, if he created us in his image, and if he could see what we do to each other in his name, he would weep.

[mazHur]

there are hundreds of hard-liners willing and intending to kill 'infidels' and 'heretics'.

Please define 'Infidels' and 'heretics'.


By the time I have finished typing this message, more humans will have been killed by other humans from other religions.


I think more people are being killed by people of their own religion..
Apart from religion or religious sects most killings have been committed in history on ethnic, sectarian, linguistic, racial divisions and expansionist whims....why then only blame religion??



How many words are in the Bible? How many in the Koran? I don't know how many there are, but I do know that more people have been killed for religion than there are words in both of these books. Is a word worth ten lives?

All that is history...now people die because of 'political reasons' and unfounded treatment of neo-diseases, famine and poverty.....



If there were a God, if he created us in his image, and if he could see what we do to each other in his name, he would weep

Why should he weep and not smile at human follies??

[Neo_Sephiroth]

And please, for those of you that are faithful, consider how far this kind of argument could go. Don't just blindly believe what you believe because you always have; question those beliefs for the sake of your common man.

If there were a God, if he created us in his image, and if he could see what we do to each other in his name, he would weep.

I don't think anyone "blindly" believes. They believe because they know. And, yes, I agree: If there were a God and we were using his name for justification of bloodshed He would weep and has and is.

[BienvenuJDC]

To lump all religions together is foolish. One cannot judge all religions OR any one religion based on the actions that have happened throughout all of history by people of many walks of life. Often there are actions that have multiple reasons and many facets. What may have been done in the name of a god, may also have political and economic reasons behind it. The foundation of your arguments may be more efficiently productive if they were narrowed to one religion at a time, and document your claims with some facts. Otherwise, you comments are just baseless rants.

[mazHur]

I don't think anyone "blindly" believes. They believe because they know. And, yes, I agree: If there were a God and we were using his name for justification of bloodshed He would weep and has and is.

God is the master of Life and Death.
Natural calamities kill millions
Why attribute him to feeble-heartedness?
HE controls life and death
Life after death
There's nothing for him to weep on!:beatdeadhorse5:

[BienvenuJDC]

God is the master of Life and Death.
Natural calamities kill millions
Why attribute him to feeble-heartedness?
HE controls life and death
Life after death
There's nothing for him to weep on!:beatdeadhorse5:

Under my belief system, Jesus Christ is the Son of God...also Deity Himself. Jesus wept.

[mazHur]

Under my belief system, Jesus Christ is the Son of God...also Deity Himself. Jesus wept.

I respect you belief .......
According to my belief Jesus is One of the Greatest Prophets of God....and commands my full and profound respect. True, he must have wept at the human sufferings and surely did his best to alleviate their problems.


But here we are discussing God...as understood by numerous religions in the world and by millions who deny His existence! :)

[Leonidas300]

To mazHur, with respect.


Why should he weep and not smile at human follies??

From the standard of behaviour shown by many followers of organised religion, I would not be surprised at all if their god were to laugh at his children slaughtering one another, if he were not, of course, a figment of their imagination.


'political reasons' and unfounded treatment of neo-diseases, famine and poverty.....

...and car bombs and suicide bombers and missiles and machetes and sanctions ad infinitum. You have a point, but you seem to gloss over much.


I think more people are being killed by people of their own religion..

Agreed: catholics kill more catholics than protestants do; but catholics don't kill other catholics because they are catholics, but for social reasons that have nothing to do with religion.


Apart from religion or religious sects most killings have been committed in history on ethnic, sectarian, linguistic, racial divisions and expansionist whims....why then only blame religion??

I do agree with you, religion is not the root cause of these problems, human nature is. Our nature has evolved over millennia to wipe each other out as a method of population control, as we have no predators our equal but ourselves.
It is in human nature to want to carry out the atrocities you mention, as it is in human nature to invent justification for why they were necessary; religion being so often the fall-guy.
But the people who carry out these crimes, more often than not, do so in the name of religion. Taking that religion away would at least remove the respectability of it all.

You have not made any comment one two things, in my opinion, the two most important things:

one, on the link I posted (http://www.socraticmethod.net/morality/page1.htm), stating that faith itself is morally bankrupt. Do you have one?


and the other, do you think a word is really worth a human life?

[Neo_Sephiroth]

God is the master of Life and Death.
Natural calamities kill millions
Why attribute him to feeble-heartedness?
HE controls life and death
Life after death
There's nothing for him to weep on!:beatdeadhorse5:

He wept.


Under my belief system, Jesus Christ is the Son of God...also Deity Himself. Jesus wept.

Yep.


I respect you belief .......
According to my belief Jesus is One of the Greatest Prophets of God....and commands my full and profound respect. True, he must have wept at the human sufferings and surely did his best to alleviate their problems.


But here we are discussing God...as understood by numerous religions in the world and by millions who deny His existence! :)

With all due respect, according to my knowledge, Jesus is the Son of God and also a prophet.

[Leonidas300]

To BienvenuJDC, with respect.


The foundation of your arguments may be more efficiently productive if they were narrowed to one religion at a time, and document your claims with some facts. Otherwise, you comments are just baseless rants.

Baseless rants? All religion is baseless ranting!

If you can provide me with any physical evidence whatsoever that proves what you believe has any base to it, I will take that back and agree with you that you that religion is not baseless.

And if you cannot, it is baseless, and you are ranting by default.

And don't give me the old "the faithful require no evidence" routine.

[mazHur]

To mazHur, with respect.




From the standard of behaviour shown by many followers of organised religion, I would not be surprised at all if their god were to laugh at his children slaughtering one another, if he were not, of course, a figment of their imagination.

Similarly, a god would not be rightly omnipotent' if he just watched people killed and wept helplessly!




...and car bombs and suicide bombers and missiles and machetes and sanctions ad infinitum. You have a point, but you seem to gloss over much.

No, death is death by whatever method it comes!



Agreed: catholics kill more catholics than protestants do; but catholics don't kill other catholics because they are catholics, but for social reasons that have nothing to do with religion.

this is the same with others.....around! Politics and power game!




I do agree with you, religion is not the root cause of these problems, human nature is. Our nature has evolved over millennia to wipe each other out as a method of population control, as we have no predators our equal but ourselves.
It is in human nature to want to carry out the atrocities you mention, as it is in human nature to invent justification for why they were necessary; religion being so often the fall-guy.
But the people who carry out these crimes, more often than not, do so in the name of religion. Taking that religion away would at least remove the respectability of it all.

partly correct.... was it religion which took its toll on Red Indians and the Aboriginies and the Apartheid etc? Were the Huns and the Mongols led by religion to commit mass killings??




You have not made any comment one two things, in my opinion, the two most important things:

one, on the link I posted (http://www.socraticmethod.net/morality/page1.htm), stating that faith itself is morally bankrupt. Do you have one?


Will read and revert....



and the other, do you think a word is really worth a human life?



any word is bad which leads to killing except in times of war, slef defense or as a legal pertinent.

[NikolaiI]

Religions seem like they are different, but most religions are made by us. In truth, there is One Reality, and we are all part of the same one. Religion is simply a quest for knowledge, and it came upon the answer of God as the Source of Being, the Source of Everything. To attain peace, or union with the source, does not require religion nor is does it preclude it.

Anyway, God, worshipped as the Source of Love, the Source of Being, is the correct form of religion. External ritual doesn't matter at all, all that matters is the feeling of the heart.

The question of this thread is supposed to be a clever question, but it also leads to philosophy.

People fight over these issues and it is really absurd; to fight over it is to attempt to profane the sacred, and the only question is, does it work? Everything has some effect, and so it must be agreed that certain words have some effect...

such as "Delusional."

I have been called delusional here for merely stating that God, as the source, does exist. Merely for stating that "everything has a source"!

That surely has some effect! Just as there would be some effect for a believer calling a non-believer "delusional."

Both sides are human, and the fact that both sides are human doens't mean that for anyone to say they feel the divine exists, they should be considered irrational.

Many of the greatest minds of humanity have had a spiritual life, and asserted that there is some source of existence, some truth, or God; and there is some divinity.

Many say the ultimate goal is to be one with the universe. Many say it is to help others...

So this is my statement... the source of existence is Divine Reality. I have experienced this in different ways, sometimes directly... I cannot say anything else and remain truthful. The source of existence is that truth - indivisble and violable, with divine joy, peace, understanding... that by its existence begs to be known... and its message is just, "Be at peace, for everything is of Me."

[mazHur]

Religions seem like they are different, but most religions are made by us. In truth, there is One Reality, and we are all part of the same one. Religion is simply a quest for knowledge, and it came upon the answer of God as the Source of Being, the Source of Everything. To attain peace, or union with the source, does not require religion nor is does it preclude it.

Anyway, God, worshipped as the Source of Love, the Source of Being, is the correct form of religion. External ritual doesn't matter at all, all that matters is the feeling of the heart.

The question of this thread is supposed to be a clever question, but it also leads to philosophy.

People fight over these issues and it is really absurd; to fight over it is to attempt to profane the sacred, and the only question is, does it work? Everything has some effect, and so it must be agreed that certain words have some effect...

such as "Delusional."

I have been called delusional here for merely stating that God, as the source, does exist. Merely for stating that "everything has a source"!

That surely has some effect! Just as there would be some effect for a believer calling a non-believer "delusional."

Both sides are human, and the fact that both sides are human doens't mean that for anyone to say they feel the divine exists, they should be considered irrational.

Many of the greatest minds of humanity have had a spiritual life, and asserted that there is some source of existence, some truth, or God; and there is some divinity.

Many say the ultimate goal is to be one with the universe. Many say it is to help others...

So this is my statement... the source of existence is Divine Reality. I have experienced this in different ways, sometimes directly... I cannot say anything else and remain truthful. The source of existence is that truth - indivisble and violable, with divine joy, peace, understanding... that by its existence begs to be known... and its message is just, "Be at peace, for everything is of Me."

Bravo! nice thoughts!:santasmil

[Babbalanja]

Religions seem like they are different, but most religions are made by us...Religion is simply a quest for knowledge, and it came upon the answer of God as the Source of Being, the Source of Everything. All religions are made by us. The religious quest for knowledge is completely unlike any other form of inquiry: it starts out with what it calls the "truth" and then affirms it repeatedly until it sinks in.

This is why the God-is-God-ain't debate is so tiresome and irrelevant: what religion is has little to do with any notion of transcendent reality. Religion involves convincing people that they know things that they can't possibly know. It involves making them believe that knowledge comes from within, rather than from a laborious, cumulative process of objective inquiry.


The question of this thread is supposed to be a clever question, but it also leads to philosophy. Why are these two things mutually exclusive? It is indeed a clever question, because it merely takes the believer's definition of God to its logical conclusion. If God, as you say, is the Source of Everything, then He is the creator of not just the nice things, but also suffering, injustice, oppression, and misery.


I have been called delusional here for merely stating that God, as the source, does exist. Merely for stating that "everything has a source"! Merely for that? Could it be because every post you compose is a New Age word salad?

Regards,

Istvan

[NikolaiI]

Bravo! nice thoughts!:santasmil

Thank ya. Salaam. :p

[NikolaiI]

All religions are made by us. The religious quest for knowledge is completely unlike any other form of inquiry: it starts out with what it calls the "truth" and then affirms it repeatedly until it sinks in.

This is why the God-is-God-ain't debate is so tiresome and irrelevant: what religion is has little to do with any notion of transcendent reality. Religion involves convincing people that they know things that they can't possibly know. It involves making them believe that knowledge comes from within, rather than from a laborious, cumulative process of objective inquiry.

Why are these two things mutually exclusive? It is indeed a clever question, because it merely takes the believer's definition of God to its logical conclusion. If God, as you say, is the Source of Everything, then He is the creator of not just the nice things, but also suffering, injustice, oppression, and misery.

Merely for that? Could it be because every post you compose is a New Age word salad?

Regards,

Istvan

Um... peace.

[BienvenuJDC]

To BienvenuJDC, with respect.



Baseless rants? All religion is baseless ranting!

If you can provide me with any physical evidence whatsoever that proves what you believe has any base to it, I will take that back and agree with you that you that religion is not baseless.

And if you cannot, it is baseless, and you are ranting by default.

And don't give me the old "the faithful require no evidence" routine.

There are very well laid out evidential arguments that gives foundation to Christianity. They are divided into three areas: the existence of God, the Deity of Christ, and the inspiration of the Bible. I'm not going to recreate them in this post, but you can search it out under the keyword Christian Apologetics. There are arguments that establish the base, such as: The Teleological Argument, Cosmological Argument, etc. If you choose to reject these arguments and the evidence attached to them, that does not negate the fact that there is a base...it's just not one that you choose to accept.

[Babbalanja]

There are very well laid out evidential arguments that gives foundation to Christianity.
The ones you mentioned are ontological arguments (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/), not evidential proofs.

Regards,

Istvan

[BienvenuJDC]

The ones you mentioned are ontological arguments (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/), not evidential proofs.

Regards,

Istvan

I'm not about to try to prove whether there is, or is not, any evidential proof... all I set out to do is to show that there IS a basis for some religions. I'm not going to make this a thread of back and forth arguments.

I don't know why atheists, skeptics, and agnostics seem to be so dogmatic in stating that religious people are stupid for having faith.

While you can SAY...regards and respects...you don't really show a respectful attitude.

[Neo_Sephiroth]

And don't give me the old "the faithful require no evidence" routine.

I ask, with all due respect, are you asking questions about whether or not God exists or are you just stating that people who believes in God are, for lack of better words here, fools for believing such things?

If you're truly asking about the existence of a God then you must have some doubts of whether God actually exists or not.

If you're just trying to prove or state that there is no God then you shouldn't be because no matter what it is that is said, pertaining to God, there must be faith and from the looks of it, you don't believe in faith.

[mtpspur]

I was highly amused by the ranting religious claim. I have nothing to offer you but simple faith in the claims of the Bible. May I politely point you to the Bible rather then demagogues, fire and brimstoners or avaricious pious types for enlightenment. It is easy to shoot a straw man but the real deal is well worth the knowing and experiencing. I would be more impressed with your search for the truth if oyur judgments weren't obscured by frankly bad examples of 'religious' types. Bottom line I personally am NOT religious in the LEAST BUT I am a SINNER and very acquainted with THAT and the cure.

[Babbalanja]

I'm not about to try to prove whether there is, or is not, any evidential proof... all I set out to do is to show that there IS a basis for some religions.


no matter what it is that is said, pertaining to God, there must be faith and from the looks of it, you don't believe in faith.


May I politely point you to the Bible rather then demagogues, fire and brimstoners or avaricious pious types for enlightenment. It is easy to shoot a straw man but the real deal is well worth the knowing and experiencing.

This thread is all about trying to come to a consistent, coherent definition of what believers affirm, but all it has done is demonstrate the curious philosophical shell game of faith. It seems that any definition of God or belief or faith that nonbelievers use (even if it's in the exact same words that the believers originally used to describe the term) can be dismissed as a straw man if it seems to put the notion of faith in a less-than-flattering light.

If God is, as one believer here said, the Source of Everything, then it logically follows that He is the source of evil as well as good. Believers feel this constitutes disrespect on the part of nonbelievers, even though it's inherent in the way the believers originally defined the term.

If we should go to the Bible, as one believer recommended, then we need to confront all the shameful things that were done at the behest of the Almighty, such as the binding of Isaac or the slaughter of the Canaanites. Believers then tell us we're wrong to take these scriptures at face value, even though that's what they instructed us to do in the first place.

If faith is said to be an inductive method of inquiry, we point out that it lacks the evidence that fuels such inquiry. If it is said to be a deductive process, then we point out the logical flaws in its ontological proofs. In either case, the believers criticize us for expecting their beliefs to conform to human reason, even though they were the ones who initially asserted that faith is a rational pursuit like any other method of inquiry. Yet, if we conclude that faith is merely believing whatever the person wants to believe, the religious object that we are oversimplifying the concept of faith.

Even though it makes dialogue utterly futile, this obfuscation is just what religion needs to survive in the modern day. Faith can't be held to any standard, it can't be subjected to criticism like any other claim in society, and it must be accepted as rational and beneficial even if it seems just the opposite.

Regards,

Istvan

[BienvenuJDC]

If God is, as one believer here said, the Source of Everything, then it logically follows that He is the source of evil as well as good. Believers feel this constitutes disrespect on the part of nonbelievers, even though it's inherent in the way the believers originally defined the term.


Your assumption is flawed.

In the beginning there was no light...that means there was darkness.

Did God create darkness? No...it is the lack of light.
Did God create evil? No...it is the lack of good.


And it is not your questions that constitutes disrespect, it is your manner.

[blazeofglory]

This topic is really moving me. It is really interesting to read and discuss here.

As I understand God is not a person and not impersonal as well.

We cannot say what god and what god is not for we have no thing to compare with or no metaphor to describe God.

With regard to evil all I think is both evil and good are unreal and they are our classifications and are mundane attributes in point of fact. Rise above and over all these worldly attributes there is no good and bad, not devilishness or saintliness as such. Rather I say there is godliness or divinity everywhere no matter where we are.

The way a balloon can be blown out into a bigger size and the same can shrink back into its original shape.

Of course sinners will be also accepted in the kingdom of heaven ultimately.

We are too much conditioned to think the way we do based on what we read in a book.

Let us close our eyes for a while everything will be to us as clear as the day.

[Leonidas300]

This thread is all about trying to come to a consistent, coherent definition of what believers affirm, but all it has done is demonstrate the curious philosophical shell game of faith. It seems that any definition of God or belief or faith that nonbelievers use (even if it's in the exact same words that the believers originally used to describe the term) can be dismissed as a straw man if it seems to put the notion of faith in a less-than-flattering light.

If God is, as one believer here said, the Source of Everything, then it logically follows that He is the source of evil as well as good. Believers feel this constitutes disrespect on the part of nonbelievers, even though it's inherent in the way the believers originally defined the term.

If we should go to the Bible, as one believer recommended, then we need to confront all the shameful things that were done at the behest of the Almighty, such as the binding of Isaac or the slaughter of the Canaanites. Believers then tell us we're wrong to take these scriptures at face value, even though that's what they instructed us to do in the first place.

If faith is said to be an inductive method of inquiry, we point out that it lacks the evidence that fuels such inquiry. If it is said to be a deductive process, then we point out the logical flaws in its ontological proofs. In either case, the believers criticize us for expecting their beliefs to conform to human reason, even though they were the ones who initially asserted that faith is a rational pursuit like any other method of inquiry. Yet, if we conclude that faith is merely believing whatever the person wants to believe, the religious object that we are oversimplifying the concept of faith.

Even though it makes dialogue utterly futile, this obfuscation is just what religion needs to survive in the modern day. Faith can't be held to any standard, it can't be subjected to criticism like any other claim in society, and it must be accepted as rational and beneficial even if it seems just the opposite.

That is a great post.

[Babbalanja]

Your assumption is flawed.

In the beginning there was no light...that means there was darkness.

Did God create darkness? No...it is the lack of light.
Did God create evil? No...it is the lack of good.:rolleyes:

Don't you even know your own Bible?

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. - Isaiah 45:7


And it is not your questions that constitutes disrespect, it is your manner.I never called anyone "stupid," as you claimed in a recent post. I've just been pointing out that there seems to be no consistency in the way believers define God and faith, and no objective way to assess religious claims the way we judge the validity of any other claim in human society.

Regards,

Istvan

[BienvenuJDC]

:rolleyes:

Don't you even know your own Bible?

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. - Isaiah 45:7


Try keeping this in context. The Bible is a piece of literature that uses metaphor, simile, hyperbole, and other literary tools. While I do not claim to know and understand all of the Scriptures, I do know the Bible fairly well. You can search day by day for that version and passage out of context to try to prove your point, but you do not try to understand the intent of the written passages.

If you would like to open up the context of the passage to see what is being written, to whom it is written, and the purpose for the passage, we might truly understand what is being told here. But I would expect that you don't want to honestly understand the Scriptures. Therefore, I do not want to make this forum a contentious battle ground. You do not believe as I do, nor do I believe as you do. You do not have to try to rip my beliefs apart.


I never called anyone "stupid," as you claimed in a recent post.

No...you didn't. However, this is a general statement. Your implications might speak ill of believers though.

[Babbalanja]

Try keeping this in context. The Bible is a piece of literature that uses metaphor, simile, hyperbole, and other literary tools. While I do not claim to know and understand all of the Scriptures, I do know the Bible fairly well. You can search day by day for that version and passage out of context to try to prove your point, but you do not try to understand the intent of the written passages.

If you would like to open up the context of the passage to see what is being written, to whom it is written, and the purpose for the passage, we might truly understand what is being told here. But I would expect that you don't want to honestly understand the Scriptures. Therefore, I do not want to make this forum a contentious battle ground. You do not believe as I do, nor do I believe as you do. You do not have to try to rip my beliefs apart.This is a perfect example of what I'm saying about the religious shell game.

To answer the question in the OP, even a nonbeliever can accept the words of the faithful: if God is the Source of Everything, then God is the source of evil as well as good.

However, you claim that God is no more the creator of evil than He is the creator of darkness. When I point out that in the canonical Scripture itself, God indicates that He is the creator of both darkness and evil, you merely handwave away this scriptural reference, with which I assume you were previously unfamiliar.

So I'm not supposed to take this fairly clear and straightforward verse to mean exactly what it says, simply because it doesn't support the point you're trying to make? What context am I ignoring in the case of Isaiah 45:7 that makes it so irrelevant to this ethical question? And what does it say about the usefulness of scripture itself, if I'm not supposed to read it and interpret it to mean literally what it says?

Regards,

Istvan

[BienvenuJDC]

So I'm not supposed to take this fairly clear and straightforward verse to mean exactly what it says, simply because it doesn't support the point you're trying to make? What context am I ignoring in the case of Isaiah 45:7 that makes it so irrelevant to this ethical question?

Do you take everything in all literature to be literal? If you do, then you don't understand literature.

I'm not extending this argument any further. If it is a shell game to you, then that is your prerogative. But if you cannot look further into literary works than what you are, then your judgments will always be shallow. You don't see me opening other religious works, try to bash and critique them. So I don't expect someone to take the Bible out of its context to try to prove it to be unreliable and wrong. I don't try to convert people to my religion who do not want to be.

You really ought to stop what you are doing...:beatdeadhorse5:
It's not becoming to this forum.

[mazHur]

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC View Post
Your assumption is flawed.


In the beginning there was no light...that means there was darkness.

Did God create darkness? No...it is the lack of light.
Did God create evil? No...it is the lack of good.


This explanation is pretty neat and I agree with it.

Let's all keep the discussion restricted to the topic rather than vehemently criticize scriptures or their interpretation. Remember, God may overlook our talk but not the ever-watchful mods:)

[NikolaiI]

I guess the question only leads into another: is the "everything" good or bad? The only way you can criticize God for creating everything is if you say that the everything is bad -- in other words, the sorrow makes life unnecessary, unjustified, in the face of the idea of balancing opposites, which says that life is valuable both for its "Good" experiences and its "Bad" experiences. Why not an infinite affirmation of life? This is what mystics found. They say that beyond duality, beyond the dualities of right and wrong, self and other, there is a boundless, sole, indivisible reality... they say that is God, or the Source. So in other words, God is beyond the dualities of Good and Bad. But also, God is the Supreme good, being the Source of Being, and the Source of Love.

[Redzeppelin]

:rolleyes:

Don't you even know your own Bible?

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. - Isaiah 45:7

Your assertion a few posts above that God created evil is questionable because not all translations render the verse with the word "evil" - some chose other terms - which suggests that the "evil" of the King James and American Standard versions may well be "evil" as in "bad thing that happens" (which fits with the translations "calamity" and "disaster") as opposed to "metaphysical concept diametrically opposed to good" (which is how you're interpreting it). An important distinction.


From the New International version:
7 I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.

From the New American Standard:
7The One (A)forming light and (B)creating darkness,
Causing well-being and (C)creating calamity;
I am the LORD who does all these.

From the New King James (since your quote is from the original King James):
7 I form the light and create darkness,
I make peace and create calamity;
I, the LORD, do all these things.’

God did not create "evil" (though these texts do suggest that He may well be the author of things that are unfortunate and catastrophic). Evil is the result of our free will. In order for free will to exist, there must be two valid choices for a human to make. As such, if serving/loving God is one, choice, then not serving/not loving God must be the other choice. Since the Bible makes it clear that God is the source of all that is good, then it makes sense that to chose NOT to love/serve Him results in the creation of evil. Evil comes from the human choice to NOT serve God; God did not create evil - He gave us free will which carried with it the potential to create evil.

[Lynne Fees]

I saw Lucifer in starlight standing elegant and grim;
A slim, conceited bastard in his uniform and boots.
And I watched him get excited as he waved his arms and boasted,
“The world’s a prize to seize for those who have the will.”
And would I be inclined to run for office?
I thought it over quietly,
Politely turned him down
And wondered, was he beaten as a child?
The biggest bullies were once victims themselves.
A lot of little Hitlers have grown up beneath the lash.
His is no temptation; I had loving parents.
And I cannot help but pity his disease.

I observed the young seductress flash her long silken legs;
The skin above her stockings so invitingly smooth.
And she broke the breathy silence as she arched her back and whispered,
“Women dress to be undressed, or so they say in France.”
And would I like to stay and do the honors?
I thought it over quietly,
Glanced down to check my watch
And asked her, “Is your mother waiting up?”
If all I cared about was pleasing myself,
The weight of my desires would be more than I could bear.
And this sweet temptation, she’s some father’s daughter,
As I cannot help but be my Father’s son.

Emotion should be molded by reason
Into something that’s designed to do some good.
No need to fashion a hammer
If the only thing to pound is someone’s heart.
And all you’ve got to do is take one more step,
One more step,
One more step.
All you’ve got to do is take one more step
And one more after that.

I’ve been on this train forever, or at least that’s how it seems.
I’ve traced the buckled strap iron from the highlands to the sea.
And I chuckle in agreement when the club car porter mumbles,
“It’s amateurs who brag about how much they dare to drink.”
And would I care to have another double?
I thought it over quietly,
Sat back to light a smoke
And offered, “It’s a tough profession, friend.”
Inherent weakness or just simple fatigue,
A stumble’s still a stumble; makes no difference how you fall.
But I'll fight temptation till the thirst turns brutal,
Then I cannot help but reach for my reward.

You have done an excellent job of a modern-day interpretation of temptation, ala Eve and the apple.

[tailor STATELY]

Another interesting thread.

First, to personalize some tenets from my faith before expounding on the thread's premise: I claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of my own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
I believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; I also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.. ( LDS "Articles of Faith" (http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,106-1-2-1,FF.html) )

Second, God is not evil in any context. No evil may dwell with God.

LDS scripture that help me understand good and evil may be found at The Book of Mormon / 2 Nephi Chapter 2 (http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/2/27). Further insights may be gained by study of other LDS texts, including The Pearl of Great Price (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/pgp/contents), which expound upon our Heavenly Father's Plan of Salvation.

A number of passages from The Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Jesus Christ:
from The Second Book of Nephi Chapter 2:

5 And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever.

8 Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise.

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.

17 And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God.

18 And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.

19 And after Adam and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit they were driven out of the garden of Eden, to till the earth.

20 And they have brought forth children; yea, even the family of all the earth.

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

Humbly,
tailor STATELY

[Leonidas300]

Thank you Mr Stately. However, I have to admit that I feel sorry for you.

[tailor STATELY]

Thank you Mr Stately. However, I have to admit that I feel sorry for you.

LOL. Thank you for your concern.

[blazeofglory]

I guess the question only leads into another: is the "everything" good or bad? The only way you can criticize God for creating everything is if you say that the everything is bad -- in other words, the sorrow makes life unnecessary, unjustified, in the face of the idea of balancing opposites, which says that life is valuable both for its "Good" experiences and its "Bad" experiences. Why not an infinite affirmation of life? This is what mystics found. They say that beyond duality, beyond the dualities of right and wrong, self and other, there is a boundless, sole, indivisible reality... they say that is God, or the Source. So in other words, God is beyond the dualities of Good and Bad. But also, God is the Supreme good, being the Source of Being, and the Source of Love.

Nikolai, a well read philosopher, a thinker, a spiritualist is right in stating that God id beyond the dualities of good and bad. There is godliness beyond the attribute of goodness and badness in point of fact. Both devilishness and godliness merge there or thaw there and there will be no conflict there, not discordance. There will be an endless stretch of evenness. I cannot say what will be and what not there in Godliness but all that I can say is Godliness is not the opposite of evilness or devilishness. When there will be Godliness devilishness will melt into godliness. Devilishness is a state and state is not unchangeable and of course Devil will purge him of the devilishness and once purged all will be once again Godliness. How can you find a shadow of darkness when your room is flooded with light.

I think Nikolai can understand and interpret it better than me.

[ana123love]

Personally I think God is both good and bad. I know it sounds crazy but in order for someone to understand what Bad is, dont they experience it first? Sure some peple have gone to longer lengths in badness, but a good person always has a bad side. There is no such thing as a perfect person. It's an illusion that we make ourselfs believe is real so that when the times comes we can judge ourselves and others. Everyone has a different view on whats good and whats bad.

Which is why I believe that God must have experimented with badness in order to have a more understanding way of it. Otherwise how is he able to pass judgement on us when he's the one who decides wether we go into heaven or not? How can he send you to hell for your wrong deeds when people have drilled into our heads that he is the figure of goodness? In order for someone to understand something you have to experience it otherwise you cant pass judgement on anyone.

So for me, God is neither good or evil. Why? Cause nobody is. If we were good people there wouldnt be problems in the world today. If we were bad people then we wouldnt have feelings or a conscience. Which lives us with one question: What exactly are we?

[blazeofglory]

Everyone imagines God in his own way, and of course a violent man has the reason of his own for acts of violence and every sinner justifies his sin. People think that a particular circumstance compels him to act sinfully.
No sinner blames himself for the sins committed. It is the onlooker who labels him and the onlooker must at the sinner from the sinner's point of view and also thru the circumstance the sinner was while he was committing the sin.

God justifies or is indifferent to all sinful or sacred acts

[Redzeppelin]

Personally I think God is both good and bad. I know it sounds crazy but in order for someone to understand what Bad is, dont they experience it first? Sure some peple have gone to longer lengths in badness, but a good person always has a bad side. There is no such thing as a perfect person. It's an illusion that we make ourselfs believe is real so that when the times comes we can judge ourselves and others. Everyone has a different view on whats good and whats bad.

Which is why I believe that God must have experimented with badness in order to have a more understanding way of it. Otherwise how is he able to pass judgement on us when he's the one who decides wether we go into heaven or not? How can he send you to hell for your wrong deeds when people have drilled into our heads that he is the figure of goodness? In order for someone to understand something you have to experience it otherwise you cant pass judgement on anyone.

So for me, God is neither good or evil. Why? Cause nobody is. If we were good people there wouldnt be problems in the world today. If we were bad people then we wouldnt have feelings or a conscience. Which lives us with one question: What exactly are we?

The problem here, Ana, is that you make good and evil things that are "outside" of God - as if they have existence independent of Him. The Bible makes it clear that God has no traffic with evil - evil cannot touch Him - all that is impure, evil, tainted simply burns away in his presence. Good is defined by things that are consistent with God's character; evil is that which is contrary to his character. God is the basis of reality - as such, good and evil do not exist independently of God - they are definitions given to things that either conform to God's character or contradict it.


Everyone imagines God in his own way, and of course a violent man has the reason of his own for acts of violence and every sinner justifies his sin. People think that a particular circumstance compels him to act sinfully.

Hence the importance of the Bible; without some stable "ground" upon which to base our ideas of God, He becomes whatever we want, and at that point, He becomes meaningless and liable to the wildest flights of fancy.


God justifies or is indifferent to all sinful or sacred acts

I'd be curious what you base this idea of God on - because unless you have some sort of foundation, you are simply saying "this is who I think God to be" but you just as well could say "God is a 7 foot tall smurf" and assume that to be authoritative unless you have a basis for that belief outside your own opinion. I'm not sure which sacred text makes God indifferent to sin or that he justifies it - except that if he justifies it, it is no longer a sin.

[hellsapoppin]

The bible says 'that which is of flesh is flesh, that of spirit is spirit.' In other words, something can only come from its source.

Since this god is the source of evil (Isaiah 45:7; Amos 3:6; Lamentations 3:38) then it shows that he, too, is evil. This assuming the bible is correct.

[BienvenuJDC]

The bible says 'that which is of flesh is flesh, that of spirit is spirit.' In other words, something can only come from its source.

Since this god is the source of evil (Isaiah 45:7; Amos 3:6; Lamentations 3:38) then it shows that he, too, is evil. This assuming the bible is correct.

Or consider that your interpretation might be incorrect...

Isa 45:7
I form the light and create darkness,
I make peace and create calamity;
I, the LORD, do all these things.’

Amos 3:6
If a trumpet is blown in a city, will not the people be afraid?
If there is calamity in a city, will not the LORD have done it?

Lam 3:38
Is it not from the mouth of the Most High
That woe and well-being proceed?

Try looking at the context next time...and use more than just one version.

[mazHur]

Since man was created in God's image, God must be having all those traits before passing them on to Man! Consequently God cannot be said to be evil,,,but a 'bouquet' of all sorts of traits exhibited by men!!


Or consider that your interpretation might be incorrect...

Isa 45:7
I form the light and create darkness,
I make peace and create calamity;
I, the LORD, do all these things.’

Amos 3:6
If a trumpet is blown in a city, will not the people be afraid?
If there is calamity in a city, will not the LORD have done it?

Lam 3:38
Is it not from the mouth of the Most High
That woe and well-being proceed?

Try looking at the context next time...and use more than just one version.


We, the Muslims, are lucky in that we have ONLY ONE version of the holy Quran!:)

[BienvenuJDC]

We, the Muslims, are lucky in that we have ONLY ONE version of the holy Quran!:)

Why do you consider that lucky? That would mean that you cannot consider the different translations to understand more deeply the meaning of the passage. Is the Quran not written in more than just one language?


Since man was created in God's image, God must be having all those traits before passing them on to Man! Consequently God cannot be said to be evil,,,but a 'bouquet' of all sorts of traits exhibited by men!!

God is ALL GOOD, and anything that is not like God is evil. God created light which is opposite of darkness. The two cannot coexist. It is as such with Good and Evil.

[mazHur]

Why do you consider that lucky? That would mean that you cannot consider the different translations to understand more deeply the meaning of the passage. Is the Quran not written in more than just one language?

The holy Quran is read all over the world....by ALL Muslims, regardless of their sect or creed--in Arabic. The Quran in Arabic is the SAME in every Muslims house, mosque or country where ever he lives....Thus there is NO problem in citing an specific verse from the very same source universally!
Moreover many Muslims around the world have memorized whole of the Quran in Arabic word by word! Thus we are lucky in that nobody can fool us by distracting our attention to different versions of the same book!


Translations and interpretations are different things........they may differ and they do but the BASIC Quran is in Arabic and if a serious Muslim wants to check out he can at once make recourse to the Original Arabic text (with literal translation) and cross-check even if he doesn't know Arabic!


This is not the case with the Bible which has been edited by men so many times that the original essence of it is mostly confounded and sorry to use the word 'corrupted'!

Another thing is that we Muslims do not make fun of our holy Book or holy personalities...Muslims are also forbidden by the Quran to speak ill of any other religion, its follower, its books or whatever....for this reason you will note that no Muslim can draw a caricature of Moses, Jesus etc or use filthy words about them even though
so much hate seems to prevail between them especially after 9/11 and due to Palestinian dispute.

[oshima]

The simple answer to the OP is that god is not just good and bad, but everything, period. God is creation, and what you would call bad or good (for simplicity's sake, I'm going to assume you're talking about conventional modernistic western morality) are manifestations of god (the aggregate of energy, matter, and consciousness). Even if one believes that a personal god exists separate from existential life, for that entity to truly be the source and creator of all, it would have to be "beyond good and evil" and in fact be beyond all ideas and human comprehension.

[BienvenuJDC]

The holy Quran is read all over the world....by ALL Muslims, regardless of their sect or creed--in Arabic. The Quran in Arabic is the SAME in every Muslims house, mosque or country where ever he lives....Thus there is NO problem in citing an specific verse from the very same source universally!
Moreover many Muslims around the world have memorized whole of the Quran in Arabic word by word! Thus we are lucky in that nobody can fool us by distracting our attention to different versions of the same book!


Translations and interpretations are different things........they may differ and they do but the BASIC Quran is in Arabic and if a serious Muslim wants to check out he can at once make recourse to the Original Arabic text (with literal translation) and cross-check even if he doesn't know Arabic!


This is not the case with the Bible which has been edited by men so many times that the original essence of it is mostly confounded and sorry to use the word 'corrupted'!

Another thing is that we Muslims do not make fun of our holy Book or holy personalities...Muslims are also forbidden by the Quran to speak ill of any other religion, its follower, its books or whatever....for this reason you will note that no Muslim can draw a caricature of Moses, Jesus etc or use filthy words about them even though
so much hate seems to prevail between them especially after 9/11 and due to Palestinian dispute.

I do not agree with what you are saying, but any example that I might present will most assuredly be censored. The muslim religion does not practice the way that you say. muslims react in an ill manner toward other religions all the time. I'm not saying that all muslims do this, but there are enough that do in fact speak ill of all other religions. More than just speak, they act also.

[Scheherazade]

The OP:
This is a bit of weird one I think. This came to me when I was reading a Philip K. Dick short story about something similer. This is purly hypothetical and I mean no offence.

If god is in everything and everyone, does that not make him as much an evil malevolent as a divine benevolent?

It just seems to me that evil is as much a thing as good; and something claimed to be everything must surely be both?

Thoughts on this random thought?Preaching and championing one particular religion at the expense of others are not allowed on this site.

Off-topic posts will be deleted without further notice.

[hellsapoppin]

''Try looking at the context next time...and use more than just one version. ''

The quotes you use clearly prove that this supposed god creates both good & evil. Again, assuming such a god exists.

[mazHur]

''Try looking at the context next time...and use more than just one version. ''

The quotes you use clearly prove that this supposed god creates both good & evil. Again, assuming such a god exists.

a nice googly by you!:)

[BienvenuJDC]

''Try looking at the context next time...and use more than just one version. ''

The quotes you use clearly prove that this supposed god creates both good & evil. Again, assuming such a god exists.

Calamity is not the same as 'evil'. Calamity can be the destructive results of a storm. Jesus Christ had shown that he had the power over the winds and the waves, which could produce peaceful waters, or such as is...a storm of calamity and destruction. But this is a far cry from the interpretation of creating EVIL. And there is no other assumption based on sound logic than for such a God to exist.

[hellsapoppin]

''Calamity is not the same as 'evil'. Calamity can be the destructive results of a storm.''

We've gone over this before so rather than discuss it further, here's a quote from blueletterbible for the Hebrew word ''ra'' or ''rah'':


1) bad, evil

a) bad, disagreeable, malignant

b) bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)

c) evil, displeasing

d) bad (of its kind - land, water, etc)

e) bad (of value)

f) worse than, worst (comparison)

g) sad, unhappy

h) evil (hurtful)

i) bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)

j) bad, evil, wicked (ethically)

1) in general, of persons, of thoughts

2) deeds, actions

n m

2) evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity

a) evil, distress, adversity

b) evil, injury, wrong

c) evil (ethical)

n f

3) evil, misery, distress, injury

a) evil, misery, distress

b) evil, injury, wrong

c) evil (ethical)

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 663
AV — evil 442, wickedness 59, wicked 25, mischief 21, hurt 20, bad 13, trouble 10, sore 9, affliction 6, ill 5, adversity 4, favoured 3, harm 3, naught 3, noisome 2, grievous 2, sad 2, misc 34
Gesenius's Lexicon (Help)
H7451



http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7451&t=KJV


Interpret it how you will.

[bojangle]

God is within you. God is a power within you. God is courage, strength, happiness, freedom, God is virtue. God is the opposing force to what is bad in this world. Being with God is being in harmony with the good. This is what the Bible says, not what the intellectuals say. Their motive is to be the smartest guys in the room.

[hellsapoppin]

In other words, abortion and war victims lack the proper degree of righteousness to be in harmony with your god?

OK. Makes sense to me.

[bojangle]

In other words, abortion and war victims lack the proper degree of righteousness to be in harmony with your god?

OK. Makes sense to me.

I don't know if that was directed at me or not. The only God I know is the one brought up in the Bible. The God to the intellectuals can be whoever they want him to be. It's just students being silly. The church can lead those who can't lead themselves, can bring up issues that will give food to the intellectuals of the world so they can debate and write meaningless nonsense and call it philosophy. It's not real, just for appearances. "abortion, war, same-sex" <- just quibbling, bumping into each other like headless chickens. people who only read and never write. LONG LIVE THE CHURCH!

[hellsapoppin]

''The God to the intellectuals can be whoever they want him to be. It's just students being silly.''

The same is true for the churches. After all, no institution in history has killed more people in the name of the Bible than the churches.