If God is evil [Archive]

greenberg

10-30-08, 06:44 AM

Allright, this is a topic that keeps coming up in different threads, and it's time we finally address it head-on:
God might be evil.

Here are some questions to structure the topic:

A: What are the sources of the idea that God is or might be evil?

For one, examining some mainstream fire and brimstone doctrines of Christianity, reveals that their idea of God is that God is basically evil. These doctrines posit, for example, that torturing living beings in hell for all eternity even just for thought crimes, is an act of truest parental love.
It is from this kind of Christianity that many of us got the notion that God might be or is evil.

Another common source of the idea that God is or might be evil is when we posit that this world (life on planet Earth) is all there is, and that reality is the way we usually see it to be. Namely, a brutal mixture of suffering and happiness, cut short by death.

Yet other sources of the idea that God is or might be evil may be scriptures and doctrines of other religions, philosophies, worldviews.

B: What are the potential implications for us if God indeed is or might be evil?

1. There might be no true happiness for us, ever.
2. There might be no meaning to our lives, and we are doomed to suffer for all eternity.
3. In order to find true happiness, it might be necessary to commit morally repugnant acts.
4. Various known scriptures that report about God and what God is like might be lies.

There could be more such potential implications.

C: Why is it relevant whether God indeed is or might be evil?

Because the potential implications as mentioned above under B are relevant for at least for some people.
Some people want true happiness (one that is beyond the strife of existence as we usually know it);
they want their lives to be meaningful;
they don't want to suffer forever;
they don't want to do things that they find are morally repugnant, nor do they think that they could be happy after having done things that they find are morally repugnant;
they already appreciate scriptures that report about God and what God is like, or hope to find solutions to their problems in those scriptures.

Someone who is content with material life, or who is a nihilist, is not concerned about whether God indeed is or might be evil.

D: What exactly is the problem?

The problem - at least for those concerned about whether God indeed is or might be evil - is:
1. How to find out whether God indeed is or might be evil?
2. What to do in the case that God indeed is evil?
3. What to do in the case that God indeed is good?

E: What are the potential solutions and their advantages and disadvantages?

1. Blind faith in those scriptures and doctrines that state that God is good, and acting in accord with the orders given in those scriptures.
Advantages: Instant faith, instant release of anxiety.
Disadvantages: Compromising one's integrity; absence of personal realization.

2. Blind faith in those scriptures and doctrines that state that God is evil, and acting in accord with the orders given in those scriptures.
Advantages: Instant faith, instant release of anxiety.
Disadvantages: Compromising one's integrity; absence of personal realization.

3. Forcibly dismissing the problem, pretending that it doesn't exist, deliberately setting oneself up for denial (and if one does that long enough, one forgets that it started off deliberately).
Advantages: Some release from anxiety.
Disadvantages: It only postpones the solving of the problem, so deliberate denial is an act of setting oneself up for more anxiety in the future.

4. Carefully investigating those scriptures and doctrines that state that God is good, and acting in accord with the orders given in those scriptures.
Advantages: A promising and tried path to find out the truth, and as such, a promise of release from anxiety.
Disadvantages: May take a lot of time and effort.

5. Carefully investigating those scriptures and doctrines that state that God is evil, and acting in accord with the orders given in those scriptures.
Advantages: A promising and tried path to find out the truth, and as such, a promise of release from anxiety.
Disadvantage: May take a lot of time and effort.

6. Investigating all by yourself, more or less ignoring existing scriptures and doctrines.
Advantages: Preserving one's current level of personal integrity.
Disadvantages: May take a lot of time and effort; no guarantee for success; isolation from established spiritual/religious groups and individuals and as such no consistent support and companionship on one's path; often being in the situation of one-against-all which is stressful.

I think it comes down to choosing and committing to one of these six options. In all likelihood, there is always going to be someone who will claim that one has chosen wrongly and that therefore, one will burn in hell for all eternity or is wasting one's life. There are always risks, no matter what one does. And one cannot really not do something, not even for a second.

Enmos

10-30-08, 08:07 AM

Interesting topic, although I don't have much to say on the subject. I'll just watch for the time being :)

jayleew

10-30-08, 08:23 AM

Many many times, God asked the Isrealites to plunder and kill. God has also taken part in killing people on many scales, including global.

Lori_7

10-30-08, 08:30 AM

if god is everywhere and everything and evil exists then yes, god is evil. evil is merely a transgression of law and god is law...created the law. i think god is both good and evil. it seems to me that the law is set up to always encourage the greater good, in that the consequences of abiding the law are good, and the consequences of transgressing it are bad. if the wages of sin, which is a transgression of the law, are death, then obviously evil seeks to destroy itself, which is good. so everything is really good ultimately and so that shows that the intentions of god are in our favor, that is, in favor of life and peace.

jayleew

10-30-08, 08:40 AM

if god is everywhere and everything and evil exists then yes, god is evil.

Illogical.

evil is merely a transgression of law and god is law...created the law. i think god is both good and evil.

I agree with you to an extent. If God exists, I believe it is good, but does things that some would say was evil.

Morality is relative, that is why evil exists.

it seems to me that the law is set up to always encourage the greater good, in that the consequences of abiding the law are good, and the consequences of transgressing it are bad. if the wages of sin, which is a transgression of the law, are death, then obviously evil seeks to destroy itself, which is good. so everything is really good ultimately and so that shows that the intentions of god are in our favor, that is, in favor of life and peace.

I agree with most of this, but not that everything is really ultimately good.

An example of pure evil is someone who does evil for the enjoyment of not doing good.

Enmos

10-30-08, 08:47 AM

Morality is relative, that is why evil exists.

In other words, evil doesn't exist. And nor does good.

jayleew

10-30-08, 08:55 AM

In other words, evil doesn't exist. And nor does good.

Kinda.

Evil clearly exists in the extreme, we have many examples of people who lived who were. And good clearly exists in the extreme, we have many examples of people who lived who were.

Most people? Probably I would say not evil and not good.

jayleew

10-30-08, 08:57 AM

In other words, evil doesn't exist. And nor does good.

What I was really trying to say was that morality is biased. One person's terrorist, is another's freedom fighter.

The essence of good and evil still exist, but no one is 100% right at judging.

Enmos

10-30-08, 08:59 AM

What I was really trying to say was that morality is biased. One person's terrorist, is another's freedom fighter.

The essence of good and evil still exist, but no one is 100% right at judging.

Good and Evil are completely subjective concepts.
So nothing can be said to be truly evil, or truly good.

jayleew

10-30-08, 09:09 AM

Good and Evil are completely subjective concepts.
So nothing can be said to be truly evil, or truly good.

True enough, any more and we'd have to go to the ethics forum.

Lori_7

10-30-08, 09:09 AM

Illogical.

how's that illogical? it's simple math...

I agree with you to an extent. If God exists, I believe it is good, but does things that some would say was evil.

Morality is relative, that is why evil exists.

morality is man-made bullshit. really, there is only law and intent.

I agree with most of this, but not that everything is really ultimately good.

An example of pure evil is someone who does evil for the enjoyment of not doing good.

what i'm saying is that god's intentions are good and his means (his law) is perfect, and evil is a part of those means. i believe that right now we're all here to learn the difference, to learn the law and it's consequence, so evil is serving a good purpose. to give those willing to learn (intent) an education.

jayleew

10-30-08, 09:18 AM

what i'm saying is that god's intentions are good and his means (his law) is perfect, and evil is a part of those means. i believe that right now we're all here to learn the difference, to learn the law and it's consequence, so evil is serving a good purpose. to give those willing to learn (intent) an education.

It's good to see that some people think like this. I wholeheartedly agree with what you say. If God exists, it exists in context of how you are describing. If Christianity would think like this, it might stand a chance of surviving. The only reason I do not believe in God is I have not presented with evidence. Perhaps if Christians would get their heads out of their butts and also not be lemmings, they could get somewhere....and just maybe present a more convincing argument to abandon reason.

greenberg

10-30-08, 11:46 PM

if the wages of sin, which is a transgression of the law, are death, then obviously evil seeks to destroy itself, which is good. so everything is really good ultimately and so that shows that the intentions of god are in our favor, that is, in favor of life and peace.

What do you mean by "death" here? The destruction of some people's souls, or having them burn in hell for all eternity?

swarm

10-31-08, 03:21 AM

No god. No problem.

azriel

10-31-08, 03:53 AM

Mr. Hamstastic will appreciate this. I was walking down the street and suddenly the sky opened up and an angel of the Lord blew his mighty trumpet and thousands of angels came pouring out of the sky chanting some nonsense that only a biblical know it all would understand. I was terrified and I ran as fast as I could, then when I reached the safety of home I took a couple of qualudes and some prozac and it went away.

The moral of the revelation is there's no need to fear an evil God or a devil that just likes to party when you have qualudes and prozac. An eightball helps a lot too, just ask Mr. Fantastic.

Carcano

10-31-08, 04:49 AM

Allright, this is a topic that keeps coming up in different threads, and it's time we finally address it head-on:
God might be evil.

Which God?

Considering a creator deity in general we have to recall the simple fact that before the introduction of modern medicine MOST human beings died before their first birthday.

And the inherent conditions of creation are even worse for the less intelligent animals...worse still for the insect world.

Carcano

10-31-08, 04:54 AM

The third possibility is that God is a madman.

The Chilean film director Alejandro Jodorowsky wanted to make a film back in the seventies starring Salvador Dali as the mad emperor of the galaxy!

greenberg

10-31-08, 05:19 AM

Which God?

The "one and only true God", whichever one this might be, as this is yet to be found out according to the position laid out in the OP.
People generally have some idea of God, not necessarily specifically bound to a particular theistic or other doctrine; so from that perspective, the question is to figure out which doctrine speaks the truth about God, and what to do in the case that God is evil.

Carcano

10-31-08, 05:32 AM

People generally have some idea of God.
Not Buddhists...they have always taken a position of enlightened humility in regards to creation.

We simply dont know.

greenberg

10-31-08, 05:35 AM

The third possibility is that God is a madman.

True. The difference between an evil and a mad god being that an evil god might still be possible to please (even if this meant committing morally repugnant acts), but a mad one would be impossible to please.
But it is difficult to draw a sharp line between evil and mad: an evil entity might - since it is, after all, evil - simply change its mind about whether it has been pleased or not, or change the rules midway - in effect not being any different than mad.
I think that presuming that an evil entity would still be honest and consistent with its own evil designs - I think such a presumption is in discord with that entity being evil.

Carcano

10-31-08, 05:42 AM

This Sage teaches a vastly different vision of God than what is traditionally assumed in Abrahamic culture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjOsz4BDkCE

God to him is a one and indivisible conscious light.

Without divisions...how can there be any distinctions of good or evil?

Harro

10-31-08, 05:44 AM

It's that why satin was created so you could shift all the blame to him, and god get to bath in the glory?

StrangerInAStrangeLa

10-31-08, 05:52 AM

An evil god is a mad god. And a mad god is an evil god.
1111

greenberg

10-31-08, 05:56 AM

Not Buddhists...

Many Buddhists do have notions of God, and very Christian ones at that.
For example: http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/beyond/beyond01.htm

Or
"Having approached the priests & contemplatives who hold that... 'Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation,' I said to them: 'Is it true that you hold that... "Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation?"' Thus asked by me, they admitted, 'Yes.' Then I said to them, 'Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of a supreme being's act of creation. A person is a thief... unchaste... a liar... a divisive speaker... a harsh speaker... an idle chatterer... greedy... malicious... a holder of wrong views because of a supreme being's act of creation.' When one falls back on creation by a supreme being as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my second righteous refutation of those priests & contemplatives who hold to such teachings, such views.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.061.than.html

And
Buddhism and the God-idea by Nyanaponika Thera
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/godidea.html

greenberg

10-31-08, 06:00 AM

ON TOPIC:

Does anyone have any comments etc. on the problem of whether God is evil as put forward by the OP?

Carcano

10-31-08, 06:05 AM

Many Buddhists do have notions of God, and very Christian ones at that.
For example: http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/beyond/beyond01.htm

Sure, but they are critical of those notions...as your links attest.

greenberg

10-31-08, 06:08 AM

Sure, but they are critical of those notions...as your links attest.

Sure. But the fact is that they do have notions of God - which was the point in question. It's not the case that they are free from notions of God.

Lori_7

10-31-08, 10:08 AM

What do you mean by "death" here? The destruction of some people's souls, or having them burn in hell for all eternity?

i mean physical death.

Lori_7

10-31-08, 10:11 AM

An evil god is a mad god. And a mad god is an evil god.
1111

so it's evil to be mad? what if you're mad at someone who's abusing a child?

greenberg

10-31-08, 10:18 AM

i mean physical death.

You said earlier:
if the wages of sin, which is a transgression of the law, are death

So you think it is sin that makes people die a physical death? And that without sin, their physical bodies would live forever?

Lori_7

10-31-08, 10:31 AM

You said earlier:

So you think it is sin that makes people die a physical death? And that without sin, their physical bodies would live forever?

yes that's what i think. i mean look around at the world. look at the effects of it. what we do to our bodies. what we do to the planet. all in the name of what? greed, sloth, pride, wrath, lust, envy, and what's the other one? i think that if we were somehow able to always abide by the law, we would be in perfect peace, perfect health. there would be no destruction, no sickness and no death. just look at eating habits and health as an example. if you're able to extrapolate that one example into an application that encompassed it all, it's not that far of a stretch. can i imagine it? no. do i think i can do it? no. but i think that if there's a will, there's a way, and that's what jesus did.

greenberg

10-31-08, 12:05 PM

yes that's what i think. i mean look around at the world. look at the effects of it. what we do to our bodies. what we do to the planet. all in the name of what? greed, sloth, pride, wrath, lust, envy, and what's the other one? i think that if we were somehow able to always abide by the law, we would be in perfect peace, perfect health. there would be no destruction, no sickness and no death. just look at eating habits and health as an example. if you're able to extrapolate that one example into an application that encompassed it all, it's not that far of a stretch. can i imagine it? no. do i think i can do it? no. but i think that if there's a will, there's a way, and that's what jesus did.

But Jesus wasn't a baby his whole life - his body was 33 years old at the time of death. His body aged, from babyhood over boyhood to manhood. Was that because of sin? If he hadn't been put on the cross and killed, would his body continue to age? Could Jesus become an old, wrinkled, bald man?

Lori_7

10-31-08, 12:25 PM

But Jesus wasn't a baby his whole life - his body was 33 years old at the time of death. His body aged, from babyhood over boyhood to manhood. Was that because of sin? If he hadn't been put on the cross and killed, would his body continue to age? Could Jesus become an old, wrinkled, bald man?

the effects of sin are global. sin is also in our genes...in our blood. i think if we were restored genetically to our physical condition prior to the fall of man we would live forever just as they were supposed to.

PsychoticEpisode

10-31-08, 12:45 PM

My two cents: If god is evil then I think we have to change our definition of what's good or evil. At minimum, change the definition of what constitutes an evil act.

Correct me if I'm wrong but conventional wisdom has it that an evil deed is subject to some kind of punitive measure from God. Well, right away there's a problem with that because such a God may differ from you in how evil is determined. IOW's, evil is good in the mind of a nefarious God.

Now if I was an evil God and I could not or would not make a person do what I wanted them to (some call it free will) then I would write bibles exactly the way they are written today. I don't think I have to replay God's body count or a multitude of all the dispicable acts committed in the Bibles of any religion that refers to such events or acts.

There is only one way out, and only one way to exonerate an evil God. Blame Satan. However one might have to admit that their Bibles were written by the Lord of Darkness (thought I'd throw that in there seeing how it's Halloween)

Medicine*Woman

10-31-08, 04:23 PM

It's that why satin was created so you could shift all the blame to him, and god get to bath in the glory?
*************
M*W: Personally, I'll take satin.

Simon Anders

10-31-08, 06:41 PM

I think it comes down to choosing and committing to one of these six options.

As an aside: there is also the idea of a demiurge:
The term also appears in Gnosticism in which the material universe is seen as evil or at least created by a lesser and or inferior creator deity. In Gnosticism, the Demiurge is a being that never should have come into existence, the result of Sophia emanating without her male counterpart.

The Gnostics attributed to the Demiurge much of the actions and laws that in the Tanach or Old Testament are attributed to the Hebrew God Yahweh (see the Sethians and Ophites). Alternative Gnostic names for the Demiurge, include Yaldabaoth, "Samael", "Saklas", and "Kosmokrator", and several other variants. He is known as Ptahil in Mandaeanism. The figures of the "Angel of YHWH" and the "Angel of Death" may have contributed to the Gnostic view of the Demiurge.
I have heard other versions, but the basic idea seems to be that we are in the hands of a very powerful being who is not God and we should not be fooled by this demiurge.

That said: your list of six options:
they seem like the more isolated options.
One can also questions and explore with others -which you obviously know.
One can also follow some traditions' approaches to having a relationship with God and ask God about these issues.

Simon Anders

10-31-08, 06:43 PM

*************
M*W: Personally, I'll take satin. I prefer linen, especially with sheets. It deals better with sweat.

Simon Anders

10-31-08, 06:45 PM

ON TOPIC:

Does anyone have any comments etc. on the problem of whether God is evil as put forward by the OP?
I do not think God is evil, but I think God has acted in ways that were very confused and damaging. I also think that it is a pretty healthy question/issue: is God good, given the way things have been.

It should not be a taboo topic.

Simon Anders

10-31-08, 07:21 PM

A: What are the sources of the idea that God is or might be evil?

The success of certain kinds of evil approaches on earth. IOW the lack of justice.

B: What are the potential implications for us if God indeed is or might be evil?

We would be likely doomed.

C: Why is it relevant whether God indeed is or might be evil?

If God is evil most things become only temporarily relevent. They would all be swallowed up in evil in the long run, at best.

D: What exactly is the problem?

2. What to do in the case that God indeed is evil?
Oppose God.
3. What to do in the case that God indeed is good?
Breathe a sigh of relief.

And one cannot really not do something, not even for a second.
One takes a defacto position on the issue, yes. Actions speaking louder than words.

SnakeLord

10-31-08, 08:17 PM

I suppose the question is: What actions would the theist say "that's an evil action" to? I dunno, let's ask the theists...

Is it evil to make people cannibalize their friends and family?

Is it evil to provide one troops with young women captives for their own enjoyment?

Those two examples should suffice for now. The thing is that the theists here will say "yes" to the above. Having said yes to the above - yes, your god is evil. (biblical quotes provided if needed).

"But it's ok when god does it!!"

StrangerInAStrangeLa

11-01-08, 12:08 AM

“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
An evil god is a mad god. And a mad god is an evil god.

so it's evil to be mad? what if you're mad at someone who's abusing a child?

I was responding to someone who used the word in the old sense not meaning angry or upset but something akin to insane.

My two cents: If god is evil then I think we have to change our definition of what's good or evil. At minimum, change the definition of what constitutes an evil act.
Correct me if I'm wrong but conventional wisdom has it that an evil deed is subject to some kind of punitive measure from God. Well, right away there's a problem with that because such a God may differ from you in how evil is determined. IOW's, evil is good in the mind of a nefarious God.
Now if I was an evil God and I could not or would not make a person do what I wanted them to (some call it free will) then I would write bibles exactly the way they are written today. I don't think I have to replay God's body count or a multitude of all the dispicable acts committed in the Bibles of any religion that refers to such events or acts.
There is only one way out, and only one way to exonerate an evil God. Blame Satan. However one might have to admit that their Bibles were written by the Lord of Darkness (thought I'd throw that in there seeing how it's Halloween)

The Holy Babble says god repented of the evil it had intended. I forget where just now but could probably find it with Google.

I suppose the question is: What actions would the theist say "that's an evil action" to? I dunno, let's ask the theists...
Is it evil to make people cannibalize their friends and family?
Is it evil to provide one troops with young women captives for their own enjoyment?
Those two examples should suffice for now. The thing is that the theists here will say "yes" to the above. Having said yes to the above - yes, your god is evil. (biblical quotes provided if needed).
"But it's ok when god does it!!"

The Holy Babble has god doing many things theists would condemn humans for.
1111

Simon Anders

11-01-08, 12:20 AM

SnakeLord

11-01-08, 12:22 AM

The Holy Babble has god doing many things theists would condemn humans for.

Indeed.

Sort of like most governments, militaries, police........

Our governments, militaries and police are fallible, fallen, sinful human beings. Whatever is your point?

Carcano

11-01-08, 01:47 AM

An evil god is a mad god. And a mad god is an evil god.
Anger = Evil???

Hatred = Evil???

Is it possible to be hateful without being angry?

Carcano

11-01-08, 01:49 AM

The difference between an evil and a mad god being that an evil god might still be possible to please, but a mad one would be impossible to please.
Not even if you went along with the madness?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYLv9vnpxsk

greenberg

11-01-08, 03:17 AM

Anger = Evil???

Hatred = Evil???

Is it possible to be hateful without being angry?

By "mad", Stranger meant 'insane', as she explains above.

greenberg

11-01-08, 03:27 AM

Not even if you went along with the madness?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYLv9vnpxsk

If by "madness" you mean 'insanity' - no, as going along with insanity is impossible, in the sense that true insanity is unpredictable and so one would always be a step behind the insane entity, which could cause enough friction for the insane entity to doom you. Not to mention that by acting insane, one might truly become insane, in which case heaven and hell would not matter to one anymore.

As for going along with the angry - that might be possible, were it not that humans, if they are angry a lot, tend to become sick in the body and mind, and once sick enough, they couldn't be angry anymore. If being angry were the requirement for heaven, one eventually wouldn't be elligible for it anymore, unless one received a body and a mind that could endure constant anger.

Allright, some of these notions are really abstruse, but I suppose it's good to look into them, as they might fester in people's minds, more or less unnoticed but causing damage anyway.

Captain Kremmen

11-01-08, 08:09 AM

Would an evil God be able to create creatures less evil than himself?

greenberg

11-01-08, 08:46 AM

Would an evil God be able to create creatures less evil than himself?

Good question.
If omnipotent, then yes.

But then the next question is whether an evil god could be omnipotent.

This issue then points at another one: Whether the problem of God's potential evilness can be resolved in an abstract manner, simply using logic and common sense, without recourse to existing scriptures and doctrines about God.

greenberg

11-01-08, 08:52 AM

That said: your list of six options:
they seem like the more isolated options.

Sure, they are supposed to be isolated, if they are to be taken as guidelines for action.

One can also questions and explore with others -which you obviously know.

This would fall under "6. Investigating all by yourself, more or less ignoring existing scriptures and doctrines." "More or less ignoring existing scriptures and doctrines" accounts for more or less focused but not path-specific communication.

One can also follow some traditions' approaches to having a relationship with God and ask God about these issues.

Options 1, 2, 4 and 5 cover this.

Simon Anders

11-01-08, 12:19 PM

Our governments, militaries and police are fallible, fallen, sinful human beings. Whatever is your point?

I should have asked you the same question. I wasn't sure, but it seemed like you were pointing out a hypocrisy amongst theists in that their God (their authority) breaches the ethics he lays out for them. I responded by saying that this is true all over the place. In fact most people, secular or religious, seem to accept that our Authorities will act in ways we consider immoral, should we as individuals choose these actions, but that as Authorities, with all the burdens of that role, blah, blah, blah, we must turn a blind eye away or an 'understanding' eye toward.

Of course there are occasional outcries about specific cases that have 'gone too far', but everyone knows, depending on their level of denial, that Authorities are, right now, doing things we would consider immoral should we do them.

Most people seem to consider this par for the course.

Simon Anders

11-01-08, 12:20 PM

Would an evil God be able to create creatures less evil than himself?It could give him pleasure.

Simon Anders

11-01-08, 12:23 PM

Sure, they are supposed to be isolated, if they are to be taken as guidelines for action.
I meant isolated as in the user of the guidelines is alone.

This would fall under "6. Investigating all by yourself, more or less ignoring existing scriptures and doctrines." "More or less ignoring existing scriptures and doctrines" accounts for more or less focused but not path-specific communication.
It seems to me some traditions have this as part of tradition.

But it any case it seems like prayer and dynamic interaction with teachers and peers and other interpersonal approaches were meant to be included in your guidelines.

I drop the point then.

Mr. Hamtastic

11-01-08, 12:42 PM

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1583284&postcount=1

This thread needs to be taken much further(the one I linked to) before this one(The one this is in) can be appropriately answered. Genocide is evil, in the eyes of some. It's just pragmatism, to others. It's the final solution to others, and is thus good. God, as the ultimate decider, gets to say what is good and what is evil about His choices of action. Those who are with him will declare it all good, those against will decry it as evil. How can one come to a conclusion about something so relative?

Captain Kremmen

11-02-08, 07:25 PM

Would an evil God be able to create creatures less evil than himself?

It could give him pleasure.

Yes, an evil God might be sadistic.
But why would God be evil?

Usually, people are wicked for temporary gain or selfish reasons.
A God would have no motive to be evil.

Simon Anders

11-02-08, 07:37 PM

Usually, people are wicked for temporary gain or selfish reasons.
A God would have no motive to be evil.
I really don't know how one could be sure of such a thing, mulling it over in the abstract.

Doing evil things seems to give some humans pleasure. Why not a God? Why can't a god be selfish? Who would have more right, especially from its perspective?

Perhaps there are a number of universes and we incarnated, to our misfortune, in one run by an evil God. This can happen in countries, why not at the universal level?

greenberg

11-03-08, 09:27 AM

Usually, people are wicked for temporary gain or selfish reasons.
A God would have no motive to be evil.

As noted before, an evil and an isane god have several things in common.
An isane god is, in effect, evil.

So the next question is - What if God is insane?

In which case, however, the same applies as I said in the OP.

We can go through all sorts of scary scenarios about an evil or insane God. But it remains that if our quest is to find out for sure what God's nature is, we have those five options as listed in the OP. Otherwise, dwelling on issues of God's insanity or evilness is a waste of time, or some twisted pleasure.

Simon Anders

11-03-08, 09:30 AM

Doesn't one have to, at some point either decide to rely on the judgment of others or ask oneself
Do I believe God is evil?

and then notice what the answer to that question is?

greenberg

11-03-08, 09:32 AM

Doesn't one have to, at some point either decide to rely on the judgment of others or ask oneself
Do I believe God is evil?

and then notice what the answer to that question is?

IMO, that depends on who one thinks one is.

Simon Anders

11-03-08, 09:38 AM

IMO, that depends on who one thinks one is.Let me know
in what way
and why.

I start with a few options.

One notices one believes God is good.
If one is satisfied with this, that seems like the end of the issue, for now.

One notices one believes God is evil.
If one is satisfied with this - in terms of certainty -, that seems like the end of the issue, for now.

If one is not sure and wants to try to gain more information, then some of the directions you suggest may be helpful to some people.

However it seems important to me to check in and see what one believes, perhaps regularly.

If one focuses on 'how do I ascertain the truth' one may skip past a resolution that is already formed or in the process of forming, despite what one thinks ones methodology should be or how one should become certain.

Lori_7

11-03-08, 11:44 AM

the reason i like the bible is because it is consistent with what i see in the world around me. what i experience and what it tells of in the bible seem very similar. i can relate to it. what if the bible told of some happy, shmappy, goody two shoes god, who was nice?

what a fucking joke that would be right?

Enmos

11-03-08, 11:53 AM

i think that the bible is kind of "layered" in that i believe it can have different meanings to different people at different times regarding different things. the same scripture can have various different meanings and reveal various things to various people at various times, and that all of those things are true, even though they are not the same at all.

:D.

greenberg

11-04-08, 03:59 AM

Let me know
in what way
and why.

Who does a person think he or she is:
God's equal?
God's favorite?
God's enemy?
Someone whose assessment counts above all others?
A worthelss being who doesn't know anything?
God's creation?
Not God's creation?

And so on.

See below -

I start with a few options.

One notices one believes God is good.
If one is satisfied with this, that seems like the end of the issue, for now.

One notices one believes God is evil.
If one is satisfied with this - in terms of certainty -, that seems like the end of the issue, for now.

If one is not sure and wants to try to gain more information, then some of the directions you suggest may be helpful to some people.

These options you mention are just one part of the issue.
The other part is - Who is this I that believes these things about God? Who does this I think it is?

If you think you are God's enemy and you also discover you believe God is good, what does that mean for you?
If you think you are not God's creation at all and you also discover you believe God is evil, what does that mean for you?

And so on, all the various combinations that make a world of difference in what a belief that one might discover to have about God will mean to one.

A simple example makes it clear: If someone is already convinced one is God's favorite, then they probably won't be disturbed about whether God is good or evil, as they are already sure God won't hurt them since they are God's favorite (even though God might hurt others).
Conversely, if someone is already convinced one is God's enemy, then they probably won't be disturbed about whether God is good or evil, as they are already sure God will hurt them since they are God's enemy (even though God might not hurt others).
And so on.

So we can conclude that when exploring whether God is evil or not, we also need to explore what our position is in relation to God, who we are in relation to God.

Traditionally, religions address this topic. But if we try to address it simply from one side, without exploring our current and our ideal or potential position in relation to God, then any such analysis will be insufficient, and will leave us wondering.

However it seems important to me to check in and see what one believes, perhaps regularly.

Sure.
Hence in many religions, there are admonistions against blind faith.

If one focuses on 'how do I ascertain the truth' one may skip past a resolution that is already formed or in the process of forming, despite what one thinks ones methodology should be or how one should become certain.

Agreed.

Simon Anders

11-04-08, 07:11 PM

These options you mention are just one part of the issue.
The other part is - Who is this I that believes these things about God? Who does this I think it is? Perhaps they are a only a part of the issue for you. I'll see if you can show me it is also just part of the issue for me.

If you think you are God's enemy and you also discover you believe God is good, what does that mean for you?
I certainly have been concerned at times that this might be the case. At a certain level, I found, in myself, I cannot judge myself 'evil'. I found I don't do that. So if one of us is evil, it is God.

If you think you are not God's creation at all and you also discover you believe God is evil, what does that mean for you?That has not come up for me.

And so on, all the various combinations that make a world of difference in what a belief that one might discover to have about God will mean to one.
I think I would need to respond to a particular person with a particular position. As a general hypothetical I think it is confusing.

A simple example makes it clear: If someone is already convinced one is God's favorite, then they probably won't be disturbed about whether God is good or evil, as they are already sure God won't hurt them since they are God's favorite (even though God might hurt others).
And it would also still be possible that they would be concerned about God's actions and nature. This can happen in families where the favorite child does not trust Daddy or Mommy.

So we can conclude that when exploring whether God is evil or not, we also need to explore what our position is in relation to God, who we are in relation to God. I am still not sure this has come up for me. I am still concerned that discussing this in the abstract is somehow misleading. I do not simply mean that concrete examples will help, but that THE concrete example is needed. It feels ungrounded to me.

In this context...

if the concerned individual is doing a lot of
what iffing (around what it might mean if they believed this or that)
rather than trying to deal with their actual imprinting

I think it can be damaging, or delaying.

greenberg

11-05-08, 02:12 AM

In this context...

if the concerned individual is doing a lot of
what iffing (around what it might mean if they believed this or that)
rather than trying to deal with their actual imprinting

I think it can be damaging, or delaying.

Dealing with the actual imprinting in what way?

Dealing with the actual imprinting in a particular way is not a given, in my opinion. Dealing with the actual imprinting can also mean to deal with the way one is currently dealing with the actual imprinting.

A person's current idea about who they are is neither necessarily the correct one, nor does it mean that it will stay the same, nor that they themselves are 100% sure of their idea about who they really are.

I see basically two variables in all this:
1. one's understanding of God,
2. one's understanding of oneself (which includes an understanding of who one is in relation to other beings, including God).
I find that it is not enough if one treats only one of these as a variable, while the other one is treated as a non-variable.

Simon Anders

11-05-08, 08:09 AM

Dealing with the actual imprinting in what way? That depends on the person and the system they use. If they do. For me I approach the thought forms in a number of ways to see if they can loosen their hold. I also allow the feelings around the imprinting to take me bake to specific instances where I was imprinted to see if via fully experiencing what happened there the imprinting can loosen. I think there are also indirect activities that soften the hold of imprinting: if there is something I love to do, doing it can form a backdrop where imprinting is more likely to loosen.

Dealing with the actual imprinting in a particular way is not a given, in my opinion. Dealing with the actual imprinting can also mean to deal with the way one is currently dealing with the actual imprinting. A kind of meta imprinting. Yes, I agree.

A person's current idea about who they are is neither necessarily the correct one, nor does it mean that it will stay the same, nor that they themselves are 100% sure of their idea about who they really are.This is true.

I see basically two variables in all this:
1. one's understanding of God,
2. one's understanding of oneself (which includes an understanding of who one is in relation to other beings, including God).
I find that it is not enough if one treats only one of these as a variable, while the other one is treated as a non-variable.
I have (had) imprinting around God - and this is closely tied in with imprinting about myself - and I follow the admittedly rather abstract description I mentioned above in approaching these.

I think we have slipped in two directions before in past discussions where I want to shift to the concrete and you prefer a more abstract, comprehensive approach.

I would guess that my reaction is probably not so useful and is perhaps based on a confusion on my part that what is happening, for you, in those posts is a mirror of your current, personal questioning related to yourself. I read it and think, without noticing it really, Oh but if you stay on this very generalized, abstract level, it is going to seem utterly hopeless. Instead of focusing on the particular imprinting - or what is currently 'up' regarding it.

edit: So I think when I read your post here, it seemed to me you were trying to reach an overall decision about your own stance, in some sense before some other process. whereas I encounter my stance(s) as imprinting in an ongoing way. I encounter a portion of myself that thinks 'If I love something, it will be used against me' or 'God must find me disgusting' or whatever the specific imprinting is that I realize, and then I 'work' with that. Rather than trying to figure out some general position in advance.

So I think I may have been creating cross purposes because of what it would mean on my part if I wrote about things the way you have here.

greenberg

11-05-08, 10:13 AM

I think we have slipped in two directions before in past discussions where I want to shift to the concrete and you prefer a more abstract, comprehensive approach.

I would guess that my reaction is probably not so useful and is perhaps based on a confusion on my part that what is happening, for you, in those posts is a mirror of your current, personal questioning related to yourself. I read it and think, without noticing it really, Oh but if you stay on this very generalized, abstract level, it is going to seem utterly hopeless. Instead of focusing on the particular imprinting - or what is currently 'up' regarding it.

I agree that focusing on a particular imprinting or issue or problem seems more feasible, and more possible to yield results.
However, the danger in this approach is that we can lose sight of the "bigger picture", or never even develop one. So when we resolve several such problems, each one on its own terms, we might end up with solutions that cannot coexist, and we will so have new problems. This is what actually happened to me: For some time, I had resolved my problems, yet each of these solutions implied a set of values that collided with the set of values necessary to resolve other problems; but to keep up the solutions, the conflicting values had to be kept up as well. For example, with some things, I dealt the Buddhist way, with other things the capitalist way, with yet other things in a politically correct way, and there were a few more of such ways. Granted, it worked for some time. But eventually I was very frustrated over the whole inconsistency, and saw there was need for some all-overarching, all-encompassing principle or value or something like that that could be acted upon or taken into account in every instance, in all problems, without my having to compromise one set of values in order to solve a problem, and then compromise yet another set of values to keep up the solution to that problem and so on.

Simon Anders

11-05-08, 10:56 AM

I agree that focusing on a particular imprinting or issue or problem seems more feasible, and more possible to yield results.
However, the danger in this approach is that we can lose sight of the "bigger picture", or never even develop one. So when we resolve several such problems, each one on its own terms, we might end up with solutions that cannot coexist, and we will so have new problems. This is what actually happened to me: For some time, I had resolved my problems, yet each of these solutions implied a set of values that collided with the set of values necessary to resolve other problems; but to keep up the solutions, the conflicting values had to be kept up as well. For example, with some things, I dealt the Buddhist way, with other things the capitalist way, with yet other things in a politically correct way, and there were a few more of such ways. Granted, it worked for some time. But eventually I was very frustrated over the whole inconsistency, and saw there was need for some all-overarching, all-encompassing principle or value or something like that that could be acted upon or taken into account in every instance, in all problems, without my having to compromise one set of values in order to solve a problem, and then compromise yet another set of values to keep up the solution to that problem and so on.
Ah, good. I am glad you understood.

I deal with all 'mine' in the same way. That is when I am consciously dealing with them, despite the differences between the contents of the imprintings. Habits come and go - even brooding and feeling guilty could be seen as an attempt to resolve, and so of course could posting here, as a couple of examples - but it seems I have hit a core approach.

It is very refreshing to read even the short set of described 'approaches' or values you mention as I think most people do not realize how eclectic they are philosophically and methodologically. The curse and the blessing of some modern humans.