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

[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!!

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 ? Yes, you would say, of course there is. We can measure it, see its effects, etc.

Now, is there such a thing as 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 ? Yes, you would say, of course there is. We can measure it, see its effects, etc.

Now, is there such a thing as 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 ? Yes, you would say, of course there is. We can measure it, see its effects, etc.

Now, is there such a thing as 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.