God is either evil, not god, not the creator, or nonexistent

[Lionz]

What as far as 1,800 plus year old text suggests the Father created individuals intending for them to rebel against Him? Or even suggests the Father created individuals knowing what they would end up doing in general? Someone care to discuss a section called Matthew 13:47-50?

http://yahushua.net/scriptures/matt13.htm

And if He does exist, who has the right to judge if not Him? Anarchy across the universe forever?

[InkL0sed]

Being & Nothingness. JP Sartre.

I see your Being & Nothingness, and raise you a Thus Spoke Zarathustra

[PLAYER57832]

I do understand your point, but I disagree. See you haves set up a definition that basically says there is no real and true free will, because God can predict everything and therefore is really controlling the situation.

It is indeed my opinion that an omniscient god is incompatible with any meaningful definition of free will, however, that has no bearing on this argument.

The 4 year old example might seem, superficially to apply, but it really doesn't. It doesn't for several reasons. The most important is that of consequence versus growth. See, that child has way too much potential to cause harm and only a very slight chance of doing good OR of learning from that harm.

If it doesn't apply, I would request you and everyone else to please stop using it. If it doesn't apply in my case it doesn't apply in any of your cases either. Period.

No, because you choose to only see one aspect and won't see any other options.

The bottom line is that you think there are only 2 choices. Either God creates us without evil, and is good, or he creates us with the propensity for evil and, therefore, is (by extention) bad because he, by creating the propensity for evil essentially created evil.

I say there are other options. They are options that do not exist to us as humans, with our children, not really. However, the child-parent analogy is as close as you can get.

In your example, there is no purpose or reason for leaving a child alone in a room with a sharp knife, or a boiling teakettle with funny pictures on it or anything else so hazardous. The child does not yet have the ability to understand the consequences for his actions. The penalty far exceeds any possible gain. On the other hand parents DO leave kids alone with less hazardous things, DO set up rules and DO enforce them with punishment.

You wish to say that God allowing people to do things that lead to, say, Hitler, makes him evil. I say, sure, it might seem so on the surface, but I am not God. Us being angry at God for allowing these things to happen is like the toddler getting angry because we take away the brightly colored tea kettle before it burns the child. OF COURSE, the analogy does not make perfect sense, because the scale is so very different. Yet, I say to you that scale is far more like the ones for God than your previous example.

You wish to set up a condition that God is unreasonable from the outset. I, Christians, do not. We believe that what God made, what is before us, even with all the trials, even with all the evil, is best for humanity. You do not.

There is no way to get beyond that belief with logic or reason. It is not a matter of logic or reason. It is a matter of belief. No amount of convincing will show you we are correct and no amount of convincing on your part will show us you are correct, because the proof lies outside our experience and ability to see.

You see our belief in that as a kind of "failure". Well, truth is, people of faith see the opposite side as a "failure", a failure to look beyond what is absolutely in front of you. But, that is a point upon which we can go around and around forever. There is no solution. The best we can do is say "hey, I don't agree with you, but I accept that you are a reasonable and intelligent human being". More importantly, we all need to accept that since we cannot prove the other wrong, we need to not impede that religion (atheism, Christianity.. Scientology, whatever).

Maybe it'll be easier if I restate my point:

I understand your point quite well. I just disagree. I will try to explain my position again.

God gives us free will knowing what we'll do with it. (And screw the contradictions in that.)

With our limited information (when compared to god) we do all kinds of stuff god disapproves of.

This is the part you have wrong. People don't commit evil because they fail to understand, because God withholds information. We make wrong choices because we CHOOSE to make wrong choices.

What makes this very, very complicated to the point its almost impossible for humans to get their mind around is that in amongst those actual choices ARE times when people do things they believe to be "correct", but that are truly evil. Some of this, like the Inquisition, like Nazism, etc. , occur because humans "conveniently" ignore some precepts put forward by God.

Other things happen because they are natural consequences of our actions. You light a match, it starts a pile of leaves on fire. If the wind kicks it up and burns down your house, that is a consequence of actions. You did not intend to burn your house down, but it happened. Could you have avoided that? You did not have to light that match, most likely. You could have paid better attention to the wind, but you did not. You might have taken other steps. You did not. Did you do that because you lacked the knowledge? Probably you knew, but you decided that the consequences just were not going to happen to you. Maybe you had even done it before, without consequence. Yet, this time... it went differently.

And, then there are things that are not the result of any choice or action. Why do earthquakes happen, for example?
I don't know. I do know that many mountains are formed that way, that many things have happened to shape our earth.

Floods provide us a better answer. We know (or at least, historically people have realized) that floods provide needed silt and fertilizer. Floods can cause harm, but they also are necessary. In modern days, we try to pretend they are not, we try to do without them, and we pay for that arrogance.

God knew we would do all that if he gave us free will, therefore he has no business doing any sort of judging. Not while we're alive, and not after we die.

Then we would be robots and not human. Period.

However, in the end, this is all just opinion. As long as you don't take your opinion to mean a right to condemn and criticize (as opposed to debate.. that is different) others who disagree, there is no problem. However, for anyone to push their belief onto someone else is wrong.

[Woodruff]

What as far as 1,800 plus year old text suggests the Father created individuals intending for them to rebel against Him? Or even suggests the Father created individuals knowing what they would end up doing in general? Someone care to discuss a section called Matthew 13:47-50?

Sure. It's right after Matthew 13:43-46.

[Snorri1234]

The bottom line is that you think there are only 2 choices. Either God creates us without evil, and is good, or he creates us with the propensity for evil and, therefore, is (by extention) bad because he, by creating the propensity for evil essentially created evil.

Ugh, no that is not the bottom line. It's about his judgement. The point is not that God is evil, it's that us being evil is essentially his fault so judging us is on it is silly.

This is the part you have wrong. People don't commit evil because they fail to understand, because God withholds information. We make wrong choices because we CHOOSE to make wrong choices.

Other things happen because they are natural consequences of our actions. You light a match, it starts a pile of leaves on fire. If the wind kicks it up and burns down your house, that is a consequence of actions. You did not intend to burn your house down, but it happened. Could you have avoided that? You did not have to light that match, most likely. You could have paid better attention to the wind, but you did not. You might have taken other steps. You did not. Did you do that because you lacked the knowledge? Probably you knew, but you decided that the consequences just were not going to happen to you. Maybe you had even done it before, without consequence. Yet, this time... it went differently.

These two paragraphs contradict eachother. MeDeFe isn't talking about information in the strictest sense, he's talking in the broad sense that we can't know what the consequences of our actions are and our actions aren't decided by perfect logic.. We do not have perfect knowledge, unlike God, so we make mistakes and commit evil for various reasons.

[Lionz]

Can you explain, Woodruff?

[MeDeFe]

The bottom line is that you think there are only 2 choices. Either God creates us without evil, and is good, or he creates us with the propensity for evil and, therefore, is (by extention) bad because he, by creating the propensity for evil essentially created evil.

Ugh, no that is not the bottom line. It's about his judgement. The point is not that God is evil, it's that us being evil is essentially his fault so judging us is on it is silly.

This is the part you have wrong. People don't commit evil because they fail to understand, because God withholds information. We make wrong choices because we CHOOSE to make wrong choices.

Other things happen because they are natural consequences of our actions. You light a match, it starts a pile of leaves on fire. If the wind kicks it up and burns down your house, that is a consequence of actions. You did not intend to burn your house down, but it happened. Could you have avoided that? You did not have to light that match, most likely. You could have paid better attention to the wind, but you did not. You might have taken other steps. You did not. Did you do that because you lacked the knowledge? Probably you knew, but you decided that the consequences just were not going to happen to you. Maybe you had even done it before, without consequence. Yet, this time... it went differently.

These two paragraphs contradict eachother. MeDeFe isn't talking about information in the strictest sense, he's talking in the broad sense that we can't know what the consequences of our actions are and our actions aren't decided by perfect logic.. We do not have perfect knowledge, unlike God, so we make mistakes and commit evil for various reasons.

Thank you Snorri. Yes, it seems a lot of confusion is about what I'm actually talking about. I am not trying to demonstrate that god is evil or something like that, I'm merely pushing the side-point of the silliness of god judging humans for what they are or what they do into the spotlight. Even if humans' deeds are of their own free will.

You are also right about the sense in which I use 'information'. This is also why god "seeing a person's true heart and motives" is irrelevant and doesn't in any way change that god judging us is silly. A person such as the hypothetical killer with good intentions and a horrible childhood player introduced earlier who might be judged kindly by god doesn't have full information even about himself, much less about the rest of the world.



The following is a tangent, feel free to ignore it.
If we accept that god really has created "the best possible world" for us, this means that every act of evil exists in order to promote some greater good or to prevent some greater act of evil. Following this line of reasoning, an evildoer is to be commended as much as someone who does good because they are both working to increase the net amount of good over evil in the world, although in different ways. Possibly the evildoer should even be commended more because in addition to promoting this goal, he also takes the sin and guilt of an evil deed upon himself.

[Woodruff]

Can you explain, Woodruff?

Sure. Matthew 13:43-46 comes just before Matthew 13:47-50. If you have any other questions I can help you with, let me know! I'm always glad to help!

[thegreekdog]

Who determines what is evil? Chew on that one suckers!

[PLAYER57832]

These two paragraphs contradict eachother. MeDeFe isn't talking about information in the strictest sense, he's talking in the broad sense that we can't know what the consequences of our actions are and our actions aren't decided by perfect logic.. We do not have perfect knowledge, unlike God, so we make mistakes and commit evil for various reasons.

Some things are choice, somethings are the result of other's choices or even natural phenomena. In some cases there is judgement, in others natural consequence.

It is not a contradiction, but a difference in belief. Beliefs are what they are. That is why religion is always such a difficult topic to discuss.

[PLAYER57832]

If we accept that god really has created "the best possible world" for us, this means that every act of evil exists in order to promote some greater good or to prevent some greater act of evil.

Again, you see only 2 choices. God's choices are infinite. There is much more than just good and evil here.

[Snorri1234]

These two paragraphs contradict eachother. MeDeFe isn't talking about information in the strictest sense, he's talking in the broad sense that we can't know what the consequences of our actions are and our actions aren't decided by perfect logic.. We do not have perfect knowledge, unlike God, so we make mistakes and commit evil for various reasons.

Some things are choice, somethings are the result of other's choices or even natural phenomena. In some cases there is judgement, in others natural consequence.

It is not a contradiction, but a difference in belief. Beliefs are what they are. That is why religion is always such a difficult topic to discuss.

How hard is to understand? It doesn't matter whether you have knowledge of things (for example, that murder is wrong) because that knowledge is not perfect compared to god's.

Evil happens because of our imperfectness, don't you agree? The creation of us as imperfect beings is god witholding information from us. Our emotions, thoughts and actions are inexplicable for ourselves. (in the sense that our knowledge is not great enough)

[Snorri1234]

If we accept that god really has created "the best possible world" for us, this means that every act of evil exists in order to promote some greater good or to prevent some greater act of evil.

Again, you see only 2 choices. God's choices are infinite. There is much more than just good and evil here.

what the hell does this mean?

[Lionz]

Maybe increased knowledge can make it easier to get into trouble. Ignorance can be bliss?

[PLAYER57832]

If we accept that god really has created "the best possible world" for us, this means that every act of evil exists in order to promote some greater good or to prevent some greater act of evil.

Again, you see only 2 choices. God's choices are infinite. There is much more than just good and evil here.

what the hell does this mean?

The point that you just don't wish to understand.

Like I have said before. You have your beliefs. I have mine. Just don't try to pretend that yours are somehow logical and mine are not. That you cannot understand my views speaks a lot more than any argument you can put forward for your beliefs. See, you cannot truly counter that which you don't fully understand.

Sorry, but that is the real truth.

[PLAYER57832]

Who determines what is evil? Chew on that one suckers!

Christ told us "love thy God" and "love thy neighbor as thyself". So, anything violating those 2 precepts is, by definition "evil" for we humans.

[Snorri1234]

If we accept that god really has created "the best possible world" for us, this means that every act of evil exists in order to promote some greater good or to prevent some greater act of evil.

Again, you see only 2 choices. God's choices are infinite. There is much more than just good and evil here.

what the hell does this mean?

The point that you just don't wish to understand.

Like I have said before. You have your beliefs. I have mine. Just don't try to pretend that yours are somehow logical and mine are not. That you cannot understand my views speaks a lot more than any argument you can put forward for your beliefs. See, you cannot truly counter that which you don't fully understand.

Sorry, but that is the real truth.

You're the one who doesn't seem to understand the arguments. Each time you attack MeDeFe for something he didn't say, you don't elaborate on your points as to what "infinite choices" actually means, you don't respond to points that are perfectly valid and instead come up with this 'you just don't understand, my view is as logical as yours".

Please explain why god judging us is not silly.

[PLAYER57832]

If we accept that god really has created "the best possible world" for us, this means that every act of evil exists in order to promote some greater good or to prevent some greater act of evil.

Again, you see only 2 choices. God's choices are infinite. There is much more than just good and evil here.

what the hell does this mean?

The point that you just don't wish to understand.

Like I have said before. You have your beliefs. I have mine. Just don't try to pretend that yours are somehow logical and mine are not. That you cannot understand my views speaks a lot more than any argument you can put forward for your beliefs. See, you cannot truly counter that which you don't fully understand.

Sorry, but that is the real truth.

You're the one who doesn't seem to understand the arguments. Each time you attack MeDeFe for something he didn't say, you don't elaborate on your points as to what "infinite choices" actually means, you don't respond to points that are perfectly valid and instead come up with this 'you just don't understand, my view is as logical as yours".

Please explain why god judging us is not silly.

The bottom line is just that you have set up a condition by which you feel if God exists, he created all, he created evil, so he is evil. I do not. You say there are no other options. I say there are. I have tried to explain some, but also say there are likely other possibilities I cannot explain. You reject any such possibility. You rejected Woodruff's explanation (I mention only because he is not arguing from a Christian perspective), you ignore mine or say they "don't apply". At some point, its not worth going over again and again. The only problem is that you sometimes wish to insist this failure to see is a point of superiority. On that, I disagree. Else.. you are free to believe as you wish.

It is belief, not scientific fact. I believe, I cannot prove to you my beliefs are correct nor can you convince me you are correct. Maybe another time we can debate again, but right now, I believe we are at an impasse.

[MeDeFe]

The bottom line is just that you have set up a condition by which you feel if God exists, he created all, he created evil, so he is evil. I do not.

Good.

I have also not argued for that in this thread. I have also pointed that out repeatedly, somehow it seems to get lost again and again.

[thegreekdog]

Who determines what is evil? Chew on that one suckers!

Christ told us "love thy God" and "love thy neighbor as thyself". So, anything violating those 2 precepts is, by definition "evil" for we humans.

What if you don't believe in God (and by extension Jesus). Who determines what is evil in that instance?

[Snorri1234]

The bottom line is just that you have set up a condition by which you feel if God exists, he created all, he created evil, so he is evil.

No I didn't.

You say there are no other options. I say there are. I have tried to explain some, but also say there are likely other possibilities I cannot explain. You reject any such possibility.

You haven't even responded to the point. These other options of you go towards a direction noone is arguing.

You rejected Woodruff's explanation

What explanation?

you ignore mine or say they "don't apply".

Yes I say they don't apply because they don't apply to the argument.

At some point, its not worth going over again and again. The only problem is that you sometimes wish to insist this failure to see is a point of superiority. On that, I disagree. Else.. you are free to believe as you wish.

It is belief, not scientific fact. I believe, I cannot prove to you my beliefs are correct nor can you convince me you are correct. Maybe another time we can debate again, but right now, I believe we are at an impasse.

What are you even talking about?

[Woodruff]

Who determines what is evil? Chew on that one suckers!

Christ told us "love thy God" and "love thy neighbor as thyself". So, anything violating those 2 precepts is, by definition "evil" for we humans.

He also told us "an eye for an eye". Does that mean we're evil if we don't follow that one too?

[dwilhelmi]

Who determines what is evil? Chew on that one suckers!

Christ told us "love thy God" and "love thy neighbor as thyself". So, anything violating those 2 precepts is, by definition "evil" for we humans.

He also told us "an eye for an eye". Does that mean we're evil if we don't follow that one too?

The concept of an eye for an eye was originally actually seen as mercy, not vengeance - in ancient times, the punishment often far exceeded the crime, while the concept of an eye for an eye taught that the punishment should match, but not exceed, the crime.

However, Christ actually did not teach this concept, but rather took mercy even farther -

You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Christians are supposed to follow the teachings of Christ, not necessarily the teachings of the Old Testament. Those teachings, while often wise or valuable, are no longer the Law in power - Christ came to replace the Law.

[Woodruff]

Who determines what is evil? Chew on that one suckers!

Christ told us "love thy God" and "love thy neighbor as thyself". So, anything violating those 2 precepts is, by definition "evil" for we humans.

He also told us "an eye for an eye". Does that mean we're evil if we don't follow that one too?

The concept of an eye for an eye was originally actually seen as mercy, not vengeance - in ancient times, the punishment often far exceeded the crime, while the concept of an eye for an eye taught that the punishment should match, but not exceed, the crime.

However, Christ actually did not teach this concept, but rather took mercy even farther -

You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Christians are supposed to follow the teachings of Christ, not necessarily the teachings of the Old Testament. Those teachings, while often wise or valuable, are no longer the Law in power - Christ came to replace the Law.

So God can't make up his mind?

[john9blue]

there is soooo much miscommunication going on in this thread