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

[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).