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

[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.