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

[Redzeppelin]

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

I do not follow how this statement presents a cause-effect that contradicts my position.

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.

Is it possible that your vision of who God is doesn't allow for the expansive nature of the revelation of His character? In other words, is it possible that the picture of God given strikes you as "wildly...variant" because your idea of God is more narrow than the Bible portrays it? If I decided that all of the universe should be defined by what I can see out my window at night, have I not diminished the universe by the very nature of my limited idea as to what it is? We were created in "God's image" - and I believe that the vast range of human emotion is a reflection of God's emotive character.

The varying themes of the different books combine to create a "master theme" which is the revelation of God's character. That is the Bible's entire job - to show us who God is.

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 recall doing anything even remotely resembling proseltyzing.

The idea that the Bible is a "man-made anthology" presupposes the idea that God had no say whatsoever as to which of His writings were made available to the public in the form of a "fixed" cannonical structure. I find that difficult to accept; a being capable of calling reality into existence with His very words ought to be quite capable of making sure that His written revelation of Himself could be assembled without having serious violence done to the integrity of the narrative He wished us to have.

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.

Can you point out how any book in the Bible is not about God or the character of God?

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.

Perhaps, but the validity of one's interpretation depends upon its correspondence with the cohesive structure of the Bible and its alignment with the character of God. Any interpretation that fails to satisfy those two criteria is suspect in terms of its validity.

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 you wish:

"Consider it complete joy, my brothers, when you become involved in all sorts of trials, well aware that the testing of your faith brings about steadfastness."
James 1:2-3

"For as we experience richly the sufferings of Christ, so we enjoy through Christ an abundance of consolation."
2 Corinthians 1:5

"I regard everything as loss in comparison with the supreme value of knowing Christ...for his sake I have incurred loss of all things and consider them rubbish in order to gain Christ...that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, in order that I might arrive at the resurrection from the dead."
Phillipians 3:8-11

"Be joyful that you are sharing to some degree the sufferings of Christ, in order that at the revealing of his glory you may be full of joy...if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed but praise God because you bear that name...For this reason let those who are suffering according to the will of God, entrust their souls to God, the faithful Creator, while they do what is right."
1 Peter 4:13-19

I'll find more if you like.

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.

And you are not putting forth your own judgments on the matter?

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.

Telling people what they should be "aware" of does not tell them what to think; it expresses the idea that there is some essential information that they should understand, be cognizant of; if I tell you that you should be aware of your surroundings when you walk through the bad side of town, I've not told you to think in any particular way.

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.

I did not suggest anything about your personal beliefs beyond asserting a principle about how we assess the validity of our "picture" of God. If God is real and the Bible is His revelation, then it makes sense to me that any vision of God we possess ought to be consistent with the revelation of His character that the Bible provides. If one wishes to profess that one is a mathematics professor, I would assume that there is some standard that the individual is consistent with in order to claim such an identity.

I never said your vision was wrong - I simply pointed out the standard by which the validity of one's idea about who God is should be measured.

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.

That's where the Bible is essential; it allows us to see the inconsistencies of our vision of God; the Holy Spirit's job is to convict us if our picture of God is incorrect.

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.

War exists because free will exits; in giving His creatures free will (angels included) God took the supreme risk of allowing the universe to become disrupted; apparently, He felt the risk justifiable because love cannot exist with free will.

Satan's charge is that God is a tyrant who compels service through punishment or bribes it through blessing; as such, if God said "You're not touching Job," then Satan could turn to the "jury" (the other created worlds) and say "See? God knows that Job's service would be exposed for what it is if He actually allowed His creature to experience discomfort and suffering; in fact, the creature would totally reject God without the bribery of blessings God gives - so, therefore, God isn't really loving, because "love" is not measured by mercenary exchange." God's character was on trial - still is - and God chose to let Job's faith speak for itself, which resulted in a resounding defeat for Satan because Job proved that he loved God.

Remember - only God can "read" hearts; angels and other created beings can only judge by what they see. As such, there was no other way for God to transparently prove that His character is good because just saying "I know Job's heart" won't work once God's character has been questioned. If God just quashed the challenge, well, we'd call Him a tyrant, wouldn't we?

God had to let the evidence speak for itself.

Ok, I won't challenge that.

Thank you.

[earthboar]

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?

If God were omniscient, why would he have to prove anything to Satan, or to himself? This sounds like the doubt of an uncertain god. And, wasn't the evidence ad hoc? God didn't provide evidence, he tested Job. Calling that evidence after the fact is, I hate to use the cliche, post hoc ergo propter hoc explanation. Might not Job have done something entirely different? Given free will, and all that.

Remember - only God can "read" hearts; angels and other created beings can only judge by what they see. As such, there was no other way for God to transparently prove that His character is good because just saying "I know Job's heart" won't work once God's character has been questioned. If God just quashed the challenge, well, we'd call Him a tyrant, wouldn't we?

Remember??? You are stating a personal opinion as if it were a fact. That's like saying, "Remember, Marconi invented the radio." He didn't.

I've already called into question God's omniscience, in having to test Job to satisfy Satan and himself.

If God just quashed the challenge, I might call him omniscient and self-assured. How would he be a tyrant by refusing to subject Job to torture for the amusement of Satan?

Diversion time: Here's something interesting I found in 1 Enoch, the E. Isaac translation from Vol. 1 of James H. Charlesworth's "The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha":

40: 7-8 "And the fourth voice I heard expelling the demons and forbidding them from coming to the Lord of the Spirits in order to accuse those who dwell upon the earth."

Here Enoch, a grandson of Noah who was led on a tour of Heaven was referring to the fourth Archangel, Phanuel (sometimes called Uriel or Ariel?).

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.

[Redzeppelin]

If God were omniscient, why would he have to prove anything to Satan, or to himself? This sounds like the doubt of an uncertain god.

The evidence was more for the other beings in the universe than for God or even Satan; as stated below, only God (who is omniscient) can read the contents of the human heart - both the Psalms and the NT letters of Paul make many references to this reality; as such, a just God would not hesitate to show the universe that He is telling the truth by allowing the evidence to speak for itself. I doubt God would have brought Job up if He was not certain (from His complete and intimate knowledge of Job's heart) that Job would succeed in his task.

And, wasn't the evidence ad hoc? God didn't provide evidence, he tested Job. Calling that evidence after the fact is, I hate to use the cliche, post hoc ergo propter hoc explanation. Might not Job have done something entirely different? Given free will, and all that.

God provided evidence because He knew Job well enough to know that Job would vindicate both himself and God in the process. I don't know if you're a parent, but as a parent I can predict with a fairly high percentage of accuracy how my kids will respond to certain things; if I - an ordinary human - can do such things, with my limited knowlege, what is God capable of, who knows all about us even down to the molecular level?

Remember??? You are stating a personal opinion as if it were a fact. That's like saying, "Remember, Marconi invented the radio." He didn't.

The Bible makes it clear that God knows the contents of the human heart. In Romans 8, Paul refers to God as "the Father who knows all hearts."

I've already called into question God's omniscience, in having to test Job to satisfy Satan and himself.

You've called nothing into question because nothing in the book of Job indicates that God was uncertain of the outcome. He offered Job because He KNEW Job's heart.

If God just quashed the challenge, I might call him omniscient and self-assured. How would he be a tyrant by refusing to subject Job to torture for the amusement of Satan?

You advocate a process that you would never agree to here on earth. An authority declines to provide evidence and simply says "I know the truth and that's it"? That kind of response would be highly suspect in any court on earth. If God did that, how would the rest of the universe know the truth - since it is God's character (and Job's primarily) that Satan has attacked?

I don't think Satan was "amused" by this - at least for long. Satan's true target is God; as Milton imagined (accurately, I think) Satan's impotent rage against God was turned towards the object of His love: humanity. Like the torturer who leaves the prisoner alone but threatens to harm his innocent wife and children instead until the prisoner "talks," Satan turned his rage against God upon us, in order to hurt God via the pain inflicted upon those God loves. While Satan may have enjoyed Job's suffering, his loss at the "heavenly court" hurt far worse in terms of his "case" against Job and against God. Torturing humanity is a means to an end - not an end unto itself for Satan. He cares little for what we experience - only what our experience does to our Creator.

You would not trust a God who concealed evidence behind His authority - especially since no other creature can verify what God knows.

[mike thomas]

such ideas tempt me into philosophy.

the old stock reply is simple - we are all born with free will.

this is a cop out answer.

god is said to be omnipotent - knows all - past present future - cannot err...

therefore god knows the outcome of all things even before the 'creation'.

there was a time when there was nothing but god (and angels, and of course, Jesus, according to the stock reply).

then, after an infinity (for god is infinite, and has always been god) god
hits on a great idea: an earth and a heaven! and living sentinent beings who, although made to behave, will nonetheless misbehave, and will have to be drowned like rats, except for a select few, and those who remain will re-populate the face of the earth, and they too will misbehave ...... so god, athough knowing all this stuff even before the creation, sends His only son, Jesus, to be tortured and killed, even that is pre-ordained. All that, and more, on account of a man and woman who had not one drop learning, and who fell into bad company - with a walking talking serpent.

All over the fruit of one special tree, and the attainment of knowledge.

Up to that point Adam and Eve could not see, and probably used each other to stumble around the garden.

the first pair then understood good and evil and became one of the gods, but before they could take the tree that gives eternal life, god kicked them out of the garden, thus we now are stained with sin.

It is obvious from Genesis that the gods or god (there is confusion even in the first part of the bible, therefore was god/s confused?) would have been powerless to reverse the process, had they got a grip on the tree of life.


all is, while I am.

[RichardHresko]

Mike Thomas writes:
"the old stock reply is simple - we are all born with free will.

this is a cop out answer.

god is said to be omnipotent - knows all - past present future - cannot err..."

The mentioning of free will is not a "cop out" answer in that it does point out that while God is the creator of all that exists, it is not true that he is the creator of evil, which, as I pointed out earlier, does not have an existence of its own.

I think you have confused "omnipotence" and "omniscience" and meant the latter. God is, according to the Judeo-Christian conception, not only the creator, but also has the attribute of knowing all things. This knowledge is due to his intimate knowledge of his creation. Omniscience does not in itself remove the possibility of free will, any more than a couple getting a perfect score on "The Newlywed Game" meant that either the husband was Svengali, or the wife Jezebel.

[mike thomas]

hi RichardHresko

point taken re omni whatever. The main thing is this: God is all. Knows all even before anything exists, therefore God knows the outcome no matter how free will might affect things. Its a foregone conclusion.

You really believe that the Creator which knows that: what is about to be created (Satan, people or anything) is going to be evil, or do some evil thing, that no responsibillity falls on the creator?

I make an experimental flying machine, it falls on your house. You blame me, not the machine, right?

God, being God, knows what is about to happen (lets say the mass torture of millions) and allows it to happen, how can that be attributed to the influences of Satan? Isn't that a cop out?

You and I reason. We know that all things which we call 'evil' are the direct result of members of that unique animal which calls itself 'mankind'.

best wishes

[RichardHresko]

Mike Thomas writes:
"You really believe that the Creator which knows that: what is about to be created (Satan, people or anything) is going to be evil, or do some evil thing, that no responsibillity falls on the creator?"

Since the act is chosen by a creature with free will, the creature (namely a human) is responsible for the act. God did not choose the act of the creature, he merely foresaw it. He is therefore not the author of the act and therefore did not commit evil if the act itself was evil.

Mike Thomas writes:
"I make an experimental flying machine, it falls on your house. You blame me, not the machine, right?"

The analogy fails because the flying machine lacks free will.

Let's consider a case that would be stronger for your position:
Let us say that Egbert knows that Dymphna intends to murder Chauncey. Let's say that he even knows when, where, and how Dymphna intends to do this, and that Dymphna will in fact carry out her plan. Most of us, myself included, would agree that Egbert would be morally obligated to intervene, and would be culpable, to some extent, if he did not do so.

Is God in a different position than Egbert? To say "no" would be to argue that God is basically just a very powerful being, but in essence no different than ourselves.

If we accept that God is the creator of the universe (creator who engages in creatio ex nihilo and not a mere shaper of what is already there) and that he created without having a necessity to do so, and that he himself was not created, then it follows that he has no obligation towards that creation. This is different than Egbert's position, who is a member of a society and has obligations to it, even if not personal duties to Chauncey.

Mike Thomas writes:
"You and I reason. We know that all things which we call 'evil' are the direct result of members of that unique animal which calls itself 'mankind'."

Agreed, since man has free will. Whether or not there is a personal substance we call 'Satan' does not affect the fundamental fact that we ourselves are responsible for all 'moral evil' in the world.

[weepingforloman]

God is not responsible for the actions of humanity (or devils, for that matter) just as a government is not responsible for the actions of individual criminals.

[Unbeliever]

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?

I was reading just recently, in Doubt: A History, that this was a main reason that the religious leaders have always been against pantheism, because they didn't want to have to admit that God is evil as well as good.

[RichardHresko]

Unbeliever writes:
"I was reading just recently, in Doubt: A History, that this was a main reason that the religious leaders have always been against pantheism, because they didn't want to have to admit that God is evil as well as good."

I'm not sure which religious leaders are referred to here, but in the Western tradition one should look at Augustine first, since pretty much everything is derived from him.

A major concern of Augustine's in rejecting pantheism is that he considered it important to maintain a distinction between creator and created, as well as between spiritual and material. Both of these concerns were inspired by his rejection of Manicheanism, and to an extent also by his need to rework the neo-Platonist thoughts he incorporated into his world view. His discussion of the soul's relation to God is given, for example at Soliloquies 1.2.7.

More to the point of God's not doing evil is discussed in City of God XII.7. In essence, the argument goes that evil is not something that exists but a privation. Thus, to use a well-worn example, 'blindness' does not have a substantial existence but rather describes a state in which there is a lack of vision where one would expect vision (rocks can not be blind).

If you would give some examples of where religious leaders knew that God did evil but would not 'admit' to this knowledge we can examine and evaluate those specific claims.

[Redzeppelin]

I was reading just recently... that this was a main reason that the religious leaders have always been against pantheism, because they didn't want to have to admit that God is evil as well as good.

Nobody wants to "admit" anything that they know is a flat-out lie. Religious leaders are "against" pantheism because it's wrong - that's why.

[mike thomas]

God is not responsible for the actions of humanity (or devils, for that matter) just as a government is not responsible for the actions of individual criminals.

the goverment doesn't create all that is.

the goverment governs with the consent (most often) of the plebians. The plebs
pay the goverment to look after them...

god on the other hand, creates innocent, uneducated beings, puts them, like children in a candy store, in a garden full of temptation. In that garden god puts a walking talking serpent who's only purpose is to corrupt the innocent.

and here are we, blamed because go was an irresponsible parent.

regards

[Pendragon]

god on the other hand, creates innocent, uneducated beings, puts them, like children in a candy store, in a garden full of temptation. In that garden god puts a walking talking serpent who's only purpose is to corrupt the innocent.

and here are we, blamed because god was an irresponsible parent.

I hope you will not be offended by my highlights. I'm just glad someone woke up and realized that the Serpent in the garden wasn't what we call a "serpent". Didn't anybody ever catch that in the punishments delt out it was: Genesis 3: [14] And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

Why would he be made to go upon his belly if he were already there?

But Mike, I don't know if you have kids, I have three. You can raise them as best you can, but you cannot control them when temptation strikes. Will they remember what you said, or listen to other voices? God told them "No!" The Serpent moved one word. Instead of saying "Yeah, God hath said..." he said "Yeah, hath God said..." Turning a statement into a question and creating doubt. Eve stuck to her truth. So The Serpent now adds a word. God said, "Ye shall surely die." The Serpent said "Ye shall not surely die, for..." Adding more doubt. Anyone whose been through peer-presure knows where I'm going. See!

God bless

Pen

[mosimo]

Additionaly one must also realize God did not want robots but children who loved Him and did His will through free choice. Therefore he gave them a choice and even placed satan there so that they would have a definite choice of either they could follow God or satan. See if God had only placed the tree Adam and Eve would not have had the desire to eat because they had not yet been contaminated therefore God had to place satan as a contrast to Himself and to instill the idea.

[NikolaiI]

God is not everywhere, in fact he is a relatively small hermit crab on the beach. A very intelligent one, who dreamed us up one night.