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

[RichardHresko]

``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.

One need not hate to kill.

[mazHur]

One need not hate to kill.

yep. one doesn't even need to know one to kill . Killing is governed by many factors, including love and lust, hunger and power.

poppins arguments are merely based on the assumption that whatever is mentioned in the Bible is correct. That all other premises are not related to the subject. This thinking clouds the very image of God and the purpose of killing in His name.........

[RichardHresko]

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."

I think that you have stated the differences here concisely and well. My one quibble is over whether "only valid" or "ultimate" description is the more accurate for the position of some on the Bible. But that is minor.

Given these differences it is very easy for each side to talk past the other.

[hellsapoppin]

One need not hate to kill.

That may well be true. But my point is that according to that Bible, one need not commit the act in order to be guilty of murder.

It's a good thing most Christian professing people do not take the Bible literally or many more peope would have faced the gallows than have done so throughout history.

[emilylou06]

i agree with Fisherofmen, evil is the absence of God. God create good, and he created man with FREE WILL. Man chose to do evil acts because he would not be struck down on the spot. We will never know why or how God does things, if we did, he would be no greater than man. His logic is so much greater than ours that the closest we have gotten to figuring Him out is still miles away.

[mazHur]

IF God is everything doesn't it mean He is Nothing ??

[dzebra]

Nothing is the opposite of everything, so I don't understand how that could possibly follow.

[RichardHresko]

That may well be true. But my point is that according to that Bible, one need not commit the act in order to be guilty of murder.

It's a good thing most Christian professing people do not take the Bible literally or many more peope would have faced the gallows than have done so throughout history.

However, what is lacking in your point is an understanding of why hatred is equated to murder. And also to the distinction between killing and murder.

There is, of course, a great need to take care in interpreting the Bible. This is why it is insufficient to merely read the book (especially in translation), and also why it is ultimately an exercise in futility to try to fully grasp what is in there without an understanding of the traditions, and yes, a community. It is probebly true (with rare exceptions) that a solitary Christian is, in the final analysis, a contradiction in terms.

[hellsapoppin]

``a solitary Christian is, in the final analysis, a contradiction in terms.``


Not really --- according to that same Bible, Jesus said to his followers: ''know ye not, ye are gods?''

Gods are self contained or can be (in theory).

I don't know why you persist in in your insistance that your interpretation of that book is any better than anyone else's. As always, look up blueletterbible.org for any misunderstandings you have such as those expert comments on this god's creation of all evil.

[RichardHresko]

``a solitary Christian is, in the final analysis, a contradiction in terms.``


Not really --- according to that same Bible, Jesus said to his followers: ''know ye not, ye are gods?''

Gods are self contained or can be (in theory).

I don't know why you persist in in your insistance that your interpretation of that book is any better than anyone else's. As always, look up blueletterbible.org for any misunderstandings you have such as those expert comments on this god's creation of all evil.

Once again, the quote you take is out of context. The doctrine of deification has a long tradition, especially in the Eastern Orthodox. Deification does not, even in theory, imply that we are or can become God Himself.

See, for example, Symeon the New Theologian's Discourses and Palamas' Triads. In both of these works it is made clear that what is involved is not that we become stabd-alone gods as your interpretation would have it, but rather that we participate in the activity energeia of God. We can not participate in the Being of God because we are not of the same substance ousia as God.

[RichardHresko]

``a solitary Christian is, in the final analysis, a contradiction in terms.``


Not really --- according to that same Bible, Jesus said to his followers: ''know ye not, ye are gods?''

Gods are self contained or can be (in theory).

I don't know why you persist in in your insistance that your interpretation of that book is any better than anyone else's. As always, look up blueletterbible.org for any misunderstandings you have such as those expert comments on this god's creation of all evil.

First of all, I list my sources. Second of all, these sources are certainly not fringe commentators of unknown provenance.

Thirdly, you don't even read all the commentaries of your own "source," the blueletterbible.org, as is revealed by looking at the commentaries they list for Isaiah 45:7. Leaving aside the qualifications of Rev Chuck Smith (the first commentator listed), and Rev. Guzick (the second) neither of them agree with your interpretation of that verse.

Further, looking at the list of commentaries on your touted website, it should be noted that there are so many omissions of serious commentaries (Augustine, Aquinas, Jerome, Calvin, Palamas, Chrysostom, just to name a few from a very long list) and the inclusions of, well, Reverend "Chucks" that one would need to approach using this source with extreme caution. It would be folly to rely on it as the sole source of information.

[hellsapoppin]

``We can not participate in the Being of God because we are not of the same substance ousia as God.``


God is suppose to be limitless. Jesus plainly said that any of his ministers can easily duplicate and surpass any of his miracles. Therefore, they can control the weather and alter the chemistry of substances by turning them into food and water. That would certainly make one ''self contained''.

As for blueletter, that is precisely my point: it has all opinions and is authoritative.

[hellsapoppin]

http://members.aol.com/Patriarchy/pr...n/sendevil.htm

Interesting article that acknowledges divine creation of evil but suggests that, ultimately, good comes from it.

[RichardHresko]

``We can not participate in the Being of God because we are not of the same substance ousia as God.``


God is suppose to be limitless. Jesus plainly said that any of his ministers can easily duplicate and surpass any of his miracles. Therefore, they can control the weather and alter the chemistry of substances by turning them into food and water. That would certainly make one ''self contained''.

As for blueletter, that is precisely my point: it has all opinions and is authoritative.

No, blueletter lacks most of the most respected sources. Thus it is not even close to having "all" opinions, and many of the ones listed there are hardly authoritative. It is not a particularly good website. CCEL (it is either christian classic ethereal library or classic christian ethereal library, I forget) is a better website in that it has many of the classics.

There is confusion in your post as to what "self-contained" means theologically. Also, there is a basic misunderstanding about what "ousia" and "limitless" mean in the context of a theological discussion. I look forward to continuing this discussion when those issues have been addressed.

[Tuninks]

God cannot be labeled good or evil, the reason is because God himself does not have human morals and ethics. Good and evil is a terminology made by man to label words or actions and their effects on society and the environment. "One man's freedom fighter is another man's Terrorist."

For God, this does not apply for over the eons of existence, we can witness through texts that God himself evolves in his mindset. From quizzical, to curious, to wrathful, then to forgiving. Through all these changes his actions are defined as paradoxical and unearthly. In this, I believe, we cannot label him with a humanly term such as good or evil, and even then to do so would be to judge him.