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

[Bookworm4Him]

That is, the created world is the doing of a lesser god.

What is a lesser god? If there isn't a greater, how can there be a lesser?

I came across an essay by St. Augustine (345-430) called "The City of God," in which the writer explains how humankind was prideful even before the fall, the eating of the apple, otherwise Adam and Eve would not have been charmed by the serpent.

"For the fact that the woman sinned on the serpent's persuasion, and the man at the woman's offer," wrote Augustine.

In his essay, Augustine claims that nature is not intrinsically prideful or evil. As seems to be endemic to his time, St. Augustine separates man from nature and seems to believe that humankind are necessarily wicked.

"...yet their pride seeks to refer its wickedness to another--the woman's pride to the serpent, the man's to the woman," wrote Augustine, and I can see the tendency to shift blame continued into his own time, as well. For all this blaming of each other, could it be that we can't pinpoint blame precisely because it is God who is to blame for the malady of his own creation?

Perhaps man wasn't prideful in the wicked sort of pride, but simply ambitious?? They wanted to be like their Creator, in the same way that a child wants to be just like his parents.

Consider the often stated, but hardly satisfactory remedy that "God gave man free will." Well? So what? If homo sapiens were faultlessly created, and given free will, don't you think he would tend to employ unselfish judgment in his decision making? Given that there is an equal likelihood that a man or woman, with a free will, would decide to take the course of action that would reflect the command of God as there is to make the decision to disobey the command, what other explanation can exist but that God's manufacture was flawed? That must also mean that the Creator is flawed, as he is unable to make a perfect creation in his own image.

Does this mean if a parent lets his child choose btw. a good and a bad choice without FORCING him to do the good, and the child chooses wrong, the parent is at fault??? That's preposterous!

[jon1jt]

"jack london was such a god."

Interesting choice - a good writer, but couldn't build a boat - wherein is/was he divine?

read London's Martin Eden. of course, his other stuff also has the power of revelation in it. the divinity is in his prose, Whiff. biblical prose pales in comparison. it's as if his words run on water, kindly asking jesus to move out of the way.

[weepingforloman]

read London's Martin Eden. of course, his other stuff also has the power of revelation in it. the divinity is in his prose, Whiff. biblical prose pales in comparison. it's as if his words run on water, kindly asking jesus to move out of the way.

The fact that, though he waxed poetic on the virtues of the wild, he was a fat, lazy slob doesn't bother you? He was a hypocrite.

Besides which, the Bible is not meant to be read as prose for the modern reader. It is translated at least once, most of it twice, and written thousands of years ago. The latest of it came before English existed as a language. And if you use prose as a basis for divinity, wouldn't you be better served by worshiping Shakespeare?

[Smooth Operator]

Just because God is in everything doesnt mean that he controls everything. Everyone has some good in them, but everyone also controls their life and God cannot stop them, only show them the way.

[joshka]

Some people are saying that God could be both evil and good. But I have to say I think this is simply impossible. Although I may be wrong, I believe that God simply uses "evil" to test people in ways.

[NikolaiI]

Well, according to Hollywood, God can't interfere with free will. Hahahahahahahaha.
Um, so he can't change a person's mind, but he can kill them as he pleases? But isn't it true he hardened Herod's heart a few times? So I would say he can influence free will, if you go by the bible.

Wait, smooth operator, what do you mean he cannot stop them? He can kill you, can he not? That I would consider stopping them; a flood I would consider stopping them.

So, okay, this has all been about JWHA, or the LORD, but in Hinduism, wars and stuff is all just in the gnashing of Krishna's teeth or something, so God is beyond good and evil. Or as Nietzsche says, whatever is love is beyond good and evil, so if God is Love, he is beyond good and evil.

[earthboar]

Some people are saying that God could be both evil and good. But I have to say I think this is simply impossible. Although I may be wrong, I believe that God simply uses "evil" to test people in ways.

Carl Jung has something to say on this subject in his "Answer to Job." A couple of things stand out in Jung's book. One was that God was modified during his punishment of Job (which wasn't really a punishment, in the sense that Job did anything to transgress God. It was more like God was torturing Job). In the end, God seemed remorseful that he inflicted so much needless pain. A clue that God, having emotional ambivalence, is not perfect.

The other thing Jung pointed out was that God did not make the decision by himself, but the adversary, literally "Satan" influenced God's decision to inflict torture upon Job. Note that at this time, Satan was not living in the underworld as a fallen angel, but was God's confidante and adviser. Apparently, God listened to Satan back then. Why would a perfect God need or heed the advise of his angels? Good question.

[NikolaiI]

Or what is the similarity between chaos and evil?

I agree that some things that are dangerous are not evil, and only bad from our point of view. If we were hit by a gamma ray burst (is that right-?) we would all die very, very quickly, but I wouldn't consider that evil, just chaotic.

Oh, that was a reply to the first page, lol. Sorry about that.

[weepingforloman]

Just because God is in everything doesnt mean that he controls everything. Everyone has some good in them, but everyone also controls their life and God cannot stop them, only show them the way.

Who says God is everything? This is not the general Western view of God, but a pantheistic Eastern view. You would have to address your problems to an impersonal "force" a la the (I think Daoist?) concept of the Yin/Yang.

Carl Jung has something to say on this subject in his "Answer to Job." A couple of things stand out in Jung's book. One was that God was modified during his punishment of Job (which wasn't really a punishment, in the sense that Job did anything to transgress God. It was more like God was torturing Job). In the end, God seemed remorseful that he inflicted so much needless pain. A clue that God, having emotional ambivalence, is not perfect.

The other thing Jung pointed out was that God did not make the decision by himself, but the adversary, literally "Satan" influenced God's decision to inflict torture upon Job. Note that at this time, Satan was not living in the underworld as a fallen angel, but was God's confidante and adviser. Apparently, God listened to Satan back then. Why would a perfect God need or heed the advise of his angels? Good question.

Satan was not God's "confidante" at this point. He was already fallen in Genesis (the serpent). But he presents himself before God because God is still sovereign, and he cannot defy God's will (I separate permissive will from active will in this instance... causing pain is not something God desires, but something He permits). And God did not "torture" Job. Satan was the one who struck him with disease. And God allowed this, in part to take Satan's bait, but in part to ensure that Job would not rest upon his blessings. God alone is man's joy, not wealth or family, as Job had. We take pleasure from these things, but they are from God nonetheless. If we had nothing, we would still be happy if we knew Him.

[Redzeppelin]

Carl Jung has something to say on this subject in his "Answer to Job." A couple of things stand out in Jung's book. One was that God was modified during his punishment of Job (which wasn't really a punishment, in the sense that Job did anything to transgress God. It was more like God was torturing Job). In the end, God seemed remorseful that he inflicted so much needless pain. A clue that God, having emotional ambivalence, is not perfect.

The other thing Jung pointed out was that God did not make the decision by himself, but the adversary, literally "Satan" influenced God's decision to inflict torture upon Job. Note that at this time, Satan was not living in the underworld as a fallen angel, but was God's confidante and adviser. Apparently, God listened to Satan back then. Why would a perfect God need or heed the advise of his angels? Good question.

Jung was a very intelligent man - but his analysis of Job (despite some fascinating comments and insights) treats Job as a literary text rather than a single episode within the cohesive narrative of the Bible.

1) God did not "punish" Job - He allowed Job to be put under trial by Satan - and this is something that all believers understand is a reality of living in a fallen world. Any one of us could have such an experience - and the NT appropriately warns us thusly.

We tend to be very ignorant of the "game rules" that God and Satan are operating under and make vast assumptions about why God does what He chooses to do. When you understand the rules of a game, what the players do tends to make more sense.

2) I do not think God is remorseful about His decision, but rather that such an ugly episode had to occur at all. The cosmic battle taking place is essentially Satan's attack on the character of God (see Genesis 3 for Satan's revelation of this charge); as such, Satan will use human beings to attack the character of God. Satan did so in ch. 1 of Job by suggesting that Job did not "love" God but merely served Him for mercenary reasons (i.e. the blessings Job enjoyed). God, who knew Job's heart, allowed Job to prove that God is who He says He is. I rather see God as annoyed at the other individuals who came to "comfort" Job and ended up condemning him instead.

3) Satan did not "influence" God; He questioned God's character and God let the evidence (Job's faithfulness) speak for itself. Which is more convincing in a court trial? The defense's claim or the evidence? God could have said "No - Job loves me - you just don't know him like I do." And if God had done that, wouldn't we now be attacking His concealment of the truth by not allowing Job to prove Satan wrong?

4) Where do you get the idea that Satan was still an "advisor" to God? No "advisor" to God would attack His character as Satan attempted to do. God did not need Satan's "advice" - He responded to a false charge by presenting evidence.

I liked Answer to Job as analysis, but I wouldn't accept Jung's questions as good Biblical theology.

[jon1jt]

The fact that, though he waxed poetic on the virtues of the wild, he was a fat, lazy slob doesn't bother you? He was a hypocrite.

Besides which, the Bible is not meant to be read as prose for the modern reader. It is translated at least once, most of it twice, and written thousands of years ago. The latest of it came before English existed as a language. And if you use prose as a basis for divinity, wouldn't you be better served by worshiping Shakespeare?

in my humble opinion, prose is a better basis for divinity than the current one. i make a supplication to many great writers. Jack London is seated upon his throne, Kerouac seated at the right hand, Bukowski at the left. Shakespeare serves them the wine.

it's true that Jack London was overweight, but lazy slob he was not. a voluminous writer is never lazy. what did Jesus ever write? and jesus could have used a shave and hair cut you know.

[earthboar]

Satan was not God's "confidante" at this point. He was already fallen in Genesis (the serpent). But he presents himself before God because God is still sovereign, and he cannot defy God's will (I separate permissive will from active will in this instance... causing pain is not something God desires, but something He permits). And God did not "torture" Job. Satan was the one who struck him with disease. And God allowed this, in part to take Satan's bait, but in part to ensure that Job would not rest upon his blessings. God alone is man's joy, not wealth or family, as Job had. We take pleasure from these things, but they are from God nonetheless. If we had nothing, we would still be happy if we knew Him.

Can you give proof for your first and third sentences? Because I don't agree with it. While it would appear that God cursed the serpent, causing it to crawl on its belly:

Genesis 3:14, “The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life.”

the conflict is that God also listened to Satan, and was complicit in allowing Satan to torture Job:

Job 1: 6 One day the angels [a] came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan [b] also came with them. 7 The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?"
Satan answered the LORD, "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it."

8 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil."

9 "Does Job fear God for nothing?" Satan replied. 10 "Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. 11 But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face."

Satan is roaming the earth, but so are humans, and so are all creatures. Why do you equate that with "fallen"? If Satan was fallen, then he must also have been "risen" to appear before God. Also, note how God talks to Satan. It's not exactly the conversation one would expect between the condemner and the condemned.

Also, compare with Zechariah 3:

1 And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of Jehovah, and Satan standing at his right hand to be his adversary.

2 And Jehovah said unto Satan, Jehovah rebuke thee, O Satan; yea, Jehovah that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?

In any case, there he is, standing near Jehovah, not in hell.

To Redzeppelin:

Jung was a very intelligent man - but his analysis of Job (despite some fascinating comments and insights) treats Job as a literary text rather than a single episode within the cohesive narrative of the Bible.

My contention is that there is no such thing as a cohesive bible. An anthologized collection of books that eventually came to be called "The Bible" is something that developed in later centuries. I grant that when you read the bible, you might interpret a cohesive continuity. When I read the bible, it appears as distinct and disparate books that sometimes make references to earlier books, sometimes not.

I will refer to a statement in an article posted by Washington State University,

"The Bible is not so much a book as a library of books, a collection of writings which evolved over many centuries and did not become completely fixed in its classic form until the first century CE."
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/worl...rew_bible.html

Before the modern, bound codex-form of the Bible, each Bible story were separate scrolls, distinct and individual. This was the case with Job, as it was with Genesis, Exodus, and Daniel, etc., and many others that remained uncanonized. This is where a study of the Dead Sea Scrolls is most helpful to get a context of what Jewish people were reading--not one book, where each story was simply a coherent and sequentially arranged chapter. They were separate scrolls. The Bible, in other words, is an anthology, a collection of books, not a long continuous narrative. Therefore, in my opinion Jung did not unfairly treat the Book of Job.

1) God did not "punish" Job - He allowed Job to be put under trial by Satan - and this is something that all believers understand is a reality of living in a fallen world. Any one of us could have such an experience - and the NT appropriately warns us thusly.

I take issue with that "all believers" part. Specious, statistical. Which believers constitute "all believers"? Only a certain kind of believer? Not sure how you can support such a judgment call. For instance, I might be a believer who does not believe suffering as a universal reality, much less that the intelligence that created me would not raise a hand against extreme cruelty, and much, much less that my creator literally made a deal with the devil.

I will concede that God gave Satan a liberal amount of authority to traumatize, torture or cause Job anguish. That we resort to euphemisms, saying it wasn't really punishment, it was a trial, doesn't quite do it for me, sorry. Job was inflicted with punishment while on trial? This is what makes Job such a great case study of God's emotional ambiguity. In the end, I think Jung gave YHVH a generous benefit of the doubt. Still, Jung was unequivocal in saying that Job's punishments (oops!) resulted in a change in temperament in God. Why? Because the creator was incapable of empathy with his creation. I am reminded of a little boy who tortures an animal, but later feels remorse and vows never to do it again. God learned!

[earthboar]

What is a lesser god? If there isn't a greater, how can there be a lesser?

Who said there isn't a greater God? Not I. If I said "lesser god," then I implied there must be a greater god.

Perhaps man wasn't prideful in the wicked sort of pride, but simply ambitious?? They wanted to be like their Creator, in the same way that a child wants to be just like his parents.

Why would man be ambitious before he had eaten the apple, if he was the product of a perfect creator? Why would people want to be more than what they were, and succumb to temptation, if they were perfectly formed? Defect. Or...perhaps the serpent was really on our side, and that god who ejected us from the garden is hiding something from us, something we were meant to have...

Does this mean if a parent lets his child choose btw. a good and a bad choice without FORCING him to do the good, and the child chooses wrong, the parent is at fault??? That's preposterous!

Only preposterous if there was something flawed in the supposedly perfect creator's creation. If there was a flaw (and, the eating of the apple proves there was), then it reflects on the one who created the flawed creature. Again, if we had been perfect from the outset, the outcome of all choices would always be the good choice.

[Redzeppelin]

My contention is that there is no such thing as a cohesive bible. An anthologized collection of books that eventually came to be called "The Bible" is something that developed in later centuries. I grant that when you read the bible, you might interpret a cohesive continuity. When I read the bible, it appears as distinct and disparate books that sometimes make references to earlier books, sometimes not.

That contention is based upon the idea that the books were simply inspired and written by men; Christianity believes that the Bible is the inspired word of God (and that He is the true "author" and as such, quite capable of weaving together a cohesive narrative across centuries). The cohesiveness is not simply "created" via interpretation - it is consistent in its themes, its portrayal of God and His character throughout. Its cohesiveness can be demonstrated - not merely inferred.

I will refer to a statement in an article posted by Washington State University,

"The Bible is not so much a book as a library of books, a collection of writings which evolved over many centuries and did not become completely fixed in its classic form until the first century CE."
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/worl...rew_bible.html

So? This statement means that the Bible has no internal cohesion? It simply states a fact about the physical entity we call "the Bible" but it says nothing of how its narratives work together.

Before the modern, bound codex-form of the Bible, each Bible story were separate scrolls, distinct and individual. This was the case with Job, as it was with Genesis, Exodus, and Daniel, etc., and many others that remained uncanonized. This is where a study of the Dead Sea Scrolls is most helpful to get a context of what Jewish people were reading--not one book, where each story was simply a coherent and sequentially arranged chapter. They were separate scrolls. The Bible, in other words, is an anthology, a collection of books, not a long continuous narrative. Therefore, in my opinion Jung did not unfairly treat the Book of Job.

I do not use the word "narrative" to indicate that the Bible is one long work; I use "narrative" in terms of the overall story it creates about God. The Bible is composed of books that focus on the lives of various individuals and their experiences or beliefs, but each story is really about God, and as such, creates a cohesive picture of God.

I take issue with that "all believers" part. Specious, statistical. Which believers constitute "all believers"? Only a certain kind of believer? Not sure how you can support such a judgment call. For instance, I might be a believer who does not believe suffering as a universal reality, much less that the intelligence that created me would not raise a hand against extreme cruelty, and much, much less that my creator literally made a deal with the devil.

I use the term "all believers" to mean those who read the Bible and understand its assertion. In a number of places in the Bible, New and Old Testament, it is made clear that being a believer in God does not protect one from trials - those put upon us by Satan for our detriment or those allowed by God to refine our character. As such, those who read the Bible and profess to believe in God should be aware that following God requires things of us, not all of which will be pleasant. The point has been made that if the Son of God Himself was not spared the difficulties of this life, then why should we expect any easier path? You can believe whatever you like, but if your beliefs contradict what the Bible says, then you've created your own version of God to follow and might as well not believe in God at all because Gods we create are merely inflated versions of ourselves.

There was no "deal with the devil." God's character is on trial; Satan challenged God and God let his faithful servant demonstrate his mettle. You're not required to like what happened. Ugly things happen in war - and the cosmic battle we are in makes all other wars pale by comparison.

I will concede that God gave Satan a liberal amount of authority to traumatize, torture or cause Job anguish. That we resort to euphemisms, saying it wasn't really punishment, it was a trial, doesn't quite do it for me, sorry. Job was inflicted with punishment while on trial? This is what makes Job such a great case study of God's emotional ambiguity. In the end, I think Jung gave YHVH a generous benefit of the doubt. Still, Jung was unequivocal in saying that Job's punishments (oops!) resulted in a change in temperament in God. Why? Because the creator was incapable of empathy with his creation. I am reminded of a little boy who tortures an animal, but later feels remorse and vows never to do it again. God learned!

"Punishment" is your euphemism for what happened to Job; don't make it sound like I'm the one mincing words. To prove that God "punishes" Job, you'd need some textual support to suggest that God allows Satan to torture Job because he's done something wrong. You cannot find such proof. Job was not on trial; God was.

Jung's conclusions about God are incorrect. Although Job was guiltless of sin and showed his remarkable faith, he did make the mistake of putting himself at a certain "equal" level with God by demanding to have his case heard. Once God showed up and reminded Job who He was, Job realized his mistake. When one stands before the creator of the universe, personal "rights" kind of shrivel in comparison.

[earthboar]

That contention is based upon the idea that the books were simply inspired and written by men; Christianity believes that the Bible is the inspired word of God (and that He is the true "author" and as such, quite capable of weaving together a cohesive narrative across centuries).

Supposing God revealed himself through the prophets, it does not follow that the bible is a cohesive and continuous book.

The cohesiveness is not simply "created" via interpretation - it is consistent in its themes, its portrayal of God and His character throughout. Its cohesiveness can be demonstrated - not merely inferred.

The themes are not always consistent, except that all were written according to Jewish cultural norms of their time. Esther is very different from the books of Moses; Job is very different from Esther. What each share is they are talking about Jewish problems of their time, whether that is in Egypt, Canaan or Persia (Shushana). The portrayal of God across he Old Testament is wildly, recklessly variant. That is one of my struggles, and one reason I am so fascinated by the irreconcilable mood swings of a "jealous god" and one that would punish his own creation with mortal reprobation.

So? This statement means that the Bible has no internal cohesion? It simply states a fact about the physical entity we call "the Bible" but it says nothing of how its narratives work together.

The physical form of the Bible is more of a design by committee. If you are not aware, it takes different forms in different places. Syriac, Greek Orthodox, Alexandrian. In terms of the New Testament, the Valentinians and Sethians, Mandeans, Manicheans and Cathars each included slightly different selections. What you call "the Bible" undoubtedly differs from what I call "the Bible". Yes, I call it a man-made anthology, I'll leave it at that, since I have not solicited a request to be converted to a particular theological point of view, thank you.

I do not use the word "narrative" to indicate that the Bible is one long work; I use "narrative" in terms of the overall story it creates about God. The Bible is composed of books that focus on the lives of various individuals and their experiences or beliefs, but each story is really about God, and as such, creates a cohesive picture of God.

OK, and I do understand where you're coming from, and respect it as truthful within you. If you take any of the several Bible versions and read it, from beginning to end, I'm sure some unified message will appear. But, whether each story is about God seems to me a predisposition that that is what you are expecting the book to be about. In other words, if you are raised or taught beforehand, "this book is about God," that is what you are going to get out of it.

I use the term "all believers" to mean those who read the Bible and understand its assertion.

Me too! What a coincidence. However, I might point out that our beliefs seem to vary dramatically. Could it be that two people reading the Bible draw vastly different conclusions, meaning, and lessons? Yes. You and I can read the same Bible, and draw different conclusions. Therefore, theological "Truth" is not an absolute.

In a number of places in the Bible, New and Old Testament, it is made clear that being a believer in God does not protect one from trials - those put upon us by Satan for our detriment or those allowed by God to refine our character.

It would be helpful if, from now on, instead of using language like, "The Bible makes it clear," you would quote or refer to specific passages, so we can read for ourselves just how clear or unclear the Bible makes certain assertions. Otherwise, I have no reason to take one individual's assertions on the blind faith that their interpretation is unimpeachable.

As such, those who read the Bible and profess to believe in God should be aware that following God requires things of us, not all of which will be pleasant. The point has been made that if the Son of God Himself was not spared the difficulties of this life, then why should we expect any easier path? You can believe whatever you like, but if your beliefs contradict what the Bible says, then you've created your own version of God to follow and might as well not believe in God at all because Gods we create are merely inflated versions of ourselves.

1) "As such, those who read the Bible and profess to believe in God" Well friend, I read the bible, I believe in God, yet our conclusions about the meaning of the scriptures and the identity of God are quite different. Therefore, I suggest you might be making a judgment, rather than an observation.
2) "should be aware that" That's telling people how to think, not suggesting that this is what you think. You are projecting a personal point of view onto everyone who reads the Bible.
3) "You can believe whatever you like, but if your beliefs contradict what the Bible says, then you've created your own version of God to follow and might as well not believe in God at all because Gods we create are merely inflated versions of ourselves." It's not up to you whether my beliefs and my interpretation are incompatible with God. More likely, my beliefs and my interpretation of scripture is at odds with your personal belief, and that you have associated your personal belief system with absolute truth, for whatever reason. I see no reason why this line of reasoning doesn't work equally well with you, that you have created your own God based on your prejudices of Biblical interpretation. In fact, that is exactly how I am reading you.

Do I, likewise, admit that I have created a God in my own mind? I readily admit it. The difference between us, perhaps, is how much we are willing to admit that God is an imaginative construct. Sacred imagination.

There was no "deal with the devil." God's character is on trial; Satan challenged God and God let his faithful servant demonstrate his mettle. You're not required to like what happened. Ugly things happen in war - and the cosmic battle we are in makes all other wars pale by comparison.

Why war, if God is supremely perfect? If there was conflict in heaven, then there was conflict in perfection, and therefore no perfection. Why would God not protect his creation from Satan's meddling? Was God insecure in his supremacy? That is what I read in Job.

Jung's conclusions about God are incorrect. Although Job was guiltless of sin and showed his remarkable faith, he did make the mistake of putting himself at a certain "equal" level with God by demanding to have his case heard. Once God showed up and reminded Job who He was, Job realized his mistake. When one stands before the creator of the universe, personal "rights" kind of shrivel in comparison.

Ok, I won't challenge that.