Is God evil?

[stilicho]

Leaving aside your lack of concern for the large segment of Earth's population which believes in and promotes the dogma of a misogynistic religion, and trying to keep within the thread question, how do you figure monotheism made one iota of a difference in the success or failure of a society? Evolution from religion to science? What evidence is there monotheism is anything more than a coincidence of timing?

For someone who claims to be atheist or agnostic or whatever it is you said, you certainly seem defensive of the Christian religion in particular.

Monotheism is preferable to polytheism (or pantheism or panentheism) when developing the concept of universals. Naturally, I figure that agnosticism offers an even better opportunity but few societies or cultures have been preponderantly agnostic.

I am hardly "defensive" of any religion as you might have noted several times. But it does exist and it has to be placed in context of (mainly) Western civilisation.

From our vantage point, and with the benefit of the tools of everyone from theologians to archeologists, we know now that the "primitive" societies were not nearly as "primitive" as we'd like to believe. I would even posit that the 7th Century BCE Hebrews were not perceptibly any more misogynistic than our modern Western culture is. While you might find a few verses you object to in a long book such as the Bible, you could pluck 50 Cent's "Curtis" off the rack and have no such illusions about the prevailing theme of the work. Next to it, you could find "Cosmopolitan", a neatly packaged objectification of women for no ceremonial or religious purpose but simply because they want to sell stuff. I don't need to cherry-pick to establish that modern occidentalism is rife with outright hostility towards women.

I know you explained a few threads back that women in the Bible were treated as "second-class citizens". I chuckled a little. In Hebrew law back then there was no recognisable concept of "citizenship". The Hebrews were a tribal people who owed their allegiance to their family, first, and then their tribe. On the bright side, though, the Hebrews were advanced among others in their vicinity in that they introduced the concept of "cities of refuge". This is probably mentioned as many times as misogyny (allegorical or not) but escapes scrutiny for some reason. It was an advanced idea for its time and had no parallel in Assyria, Egypt, or Babylonia.

I have always felt that Christianity could have been avoided entirely if the philosophy of Lucretius and other Roman stoics had prevailed. But the issue at stake was not whether Lucretius was a better option than the existing pantheon but how to best unite the myriad cultures contained within the Roman Empire. Lucretius would not have been understood by most of the Romans, let alone by the vast hordes of Germanic, Celtic, and other tribes inhabiting Europe at the time Christianity came into being.

It's probably all Tertullian's fault.

 

[hamelekim]

The Christian God is not evil. When people have free will, they have a choice to do evil (go against the will of God) or do good (following God's law). What is God's law according to Christianity? Love your neighbour as you love yourself. You can't tell me if everyone did this that the world would be a worse place?

You can't blame God for the evil in the world, because God gave us all free will, he would be taking away that free will to interfere. Of course, God also has his limits when it comes to allowing sin to exist. Hence why you eventually have the whole end time battle and final judgement.

Personally, I'd rather follow God's law than man's. Don't download music, you're not allowed to drive without paying a monthly fee, no right to free speech, etc... There are countless stupid laws that man creates, like the spy laws in the US and Britian right now, which make the world a much worse place, and remove freedom.

My own personal opinion is that we are living in the last several decades of human history. Either we will go the way of the Transhumanists with the Singularity, or we are coming up on an end time scenario. I believe it is the latter personally, but then I'm a Christian.

So no, God is not evil.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Monotheism is preferable to polytheism (or pantheism or panentheism) when developing the concept of universals. Naturally, I figure that agnosticism offers an even better opportunity but few societies or cultures have been preponderantly agnostic.

This is an unsupportable and arbitrary claim.

Science evolved through better and more careful observation. And the success of conclusions drawn from careful observation is what propagated the use of the scientific method. Prayer and other god belief generated rituals are totally unsuccessful. It wouldn't have mattered what the god beliefs were, mono, poly or ancestor.

I am hardly "defensive" of any religion as you might have noted several times. But it does exist and it has to be placed in context of (mainly) Western civilisation.

Still you place extraordinary importance on theism as contributing to modern thought while I see it as having hindered the advance of civilization.

From our vantage point, and with the benefit of the tools of everyone from theologians to archeologists, we know now that the "primitive" societies were not nearly as "primitive" as we'd like to believe.

Just to clarify, I don't use the description, 'not modern', in the same context you seem to be using 'primitive'. I am confining 'primitive' in this case to the social sophistication but not to the intelligence or relative technological sophistication of human populations over the last 10-20 thousand years.

I would even posit that the 7th Century BCE Hebrews were not perceptibly any more misogynistic than our modern Western culture is. While you might find a few verses you object to in a long book such as the Bible, you could pluck 50 Cent's "Curtis" off the rack and have no such illusions about the prevailing theme of the work. Next to it, you could find "Cosmopolitan", a neatly packaged objectification of women for no ceremonial or religious purpose but simply because they want to sell stuff. I don't need to cherry-pick to establish that modern occidentalism is rife with outright hostility towards women.

Here you again speculate with almost no consideration of the evidence. Almost every non-modern society on the planet today is misogynistic relative to Western culture.

I know you explained a few threads back that women in the Bible were treated as "second-class citizens". I chuckled a little. In Hebrew law back then there was no recognisable concept of "citizenship". The Hebrews were a tribal people who owed their allegiance to their family, first, and then their tribe. On the bright side, though, the Hebrews were advanced among others in their vicinity in that they introduced the concept of "cities of refuge". This is probably mentioned as many times as misogyny (allegorical or not) but escapes scrutiny for some reason. It was an advanced idea for its time and had no parallel in Assyria, Egypt, or Babylonia.

Since when are women equal in tribal societies? You need to travel more.

Human Right's Watch on Women's rights

Millions of women throughout the world live in conditions of abject deprivation of, and attacks against, their fundamental human rights for no other reason than that they are women.

Combatants and their sympathizers in conflicts, such as those in Sierra Leone, Kosovo, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Afghanistan, and Rwanda, have raped women as a weapon of war with near complete impunity. Men in Pakistan, South Africa, Peru, Russia, and Uzbekistan beat women in the home at astounding rates, while these governments alternatively refuse to intervene to protect women and punish their batterers or do so haphazardly and in ways that make women feel culpable for the violence. As a direct result of inequalities found in their countries of origin, women from Ukraine, Moldova, Nigeria, the Dominican Republic, Burma, and Thailand are bought and sold, trafficked to work in forced prostitution, with insufficient government attention to protect their rights and punish the traffickers. In Guatemala, South Africa, and Mexico, women's ability to enter and remain in the work force is obstructed by private employers who use women's reproductive status to exclude them from work and by discriminatory employment laws or discriminatory enforcement of the law.... Women in Morocco, Jordan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia face government-sponsored discrimination that renders them unequal before the law - including discriminatory family codes that take away women's legal authority and place it in the hands of male family members - and restricts women's participation in public life.

Abuses against women are relentless, systematic, and widely tolerated, if not explicitly condoned. Violence and discrimination against women are global social epidemics,...

... Millions of women and girls are forced to marry and have sex with men they do not desire. Women are unable to depend on the government to protect them from physical violence in the home, with sometimes fatal consequences, including increased risk of HIV/AIDS infection. Women in state custody face sexual assault by their jailers. Women are punished for having sex outside of marriage or with a person of their choosing (rather than of their family's choosing). Husbands and other male family members obstruct or dictate women's access to reproductive health care. .....

(BTW. I've shortened this to keep within board rules, not to cherry pick.)

 

[Dragoonster]

The Christian God is not evil. When people have free will, they have a choice to do evil (go against the will of God) or do good (following God's law). What is God's law according to Christianity? Love your neighbour as you love yourself. You can't tell me if everyone did this that the world would be a worse place?

Tell me if everyone did this God's work according to Christianity the world would be a better place:

20:13 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death

If you think it would (killing all homosexuals, nothing less), you're evil according to my morals, and so is God. If you don't think it would, you're good, but God is evil, or his prophet misinterpreted Him thus the entire Bible is suspect.

Or you can just not refer to Biblical quotes because they're wildly interprative.

You can't blame God for the evil in the world, because God gave us all free will, he would be taking away that free will to interfere.

So we should blame something other than an all-powerful creator for something that exists? Who do we blame evil's very existence on?

If it exists but God is not evil or did not create it, I guess he's not all-powerful and evil is something beyond his domain, no? If so, why bow to him when there's apparently something that he has no sway over? Maybe Satan will reward his followers too, with God apparently powerless/unwilling to interfere...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The Christian God is not evil. When people have free will, they have a choice to do evil (go against the will of God) or do good (following God's law). What is God's law according to Christianity? Love your neighbour as you love yourself. You can't tell me if everyone did this that the world would be a worse place?

You can't blame God for the evil in the world, because God gave us all free will, he would be taking away that free will to interfere. Of course, God also has his limits when it comes to allowing sin to exist. Hence why you eventually have the whole end time battle and final judgement.

Personally, I'd rather follow God's law than man's. Don't download music, you're not allowed to drive without paying a monthly fee, no right to free speech, etc... There are countless stupid laws that man creates, like the spy laws in the US and Britian right now, which make the world a much worse place, and remove freedom.

My own personal opinion is that we are living in the last several decades of human history. Either we will go the way of the Transhumanists with the Singularity, or we are coming up on an end time scenario. I believe it is the latter personally, but then I'm a Christian.

So no, God is not evil.

So all the crap in the Bible describing all the bad things that should happen to non-believers is not evil? According to the Biblical god one has to do a lot more than just treat people well. In fact, one needn't treat sinners well at all.

 

[edge]

Tell me if everyone did this God's work according to Christianity the world would be a better place:

Originally Posted by Leviticus
20:13 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death

All because they do not believe and then they will face judgment.

They are killing themselves and us, heterosexuals.
They have and are deceiving themselves and others.
I know of a woman right now who has aids and is not using protection and not disclosing the facts to her partners.
The laws that are in place now a days won't put her to death but she will do time if one of her partners figures it out. So now it’s attempted murder on this side that’s the punishment because the life style is shown to be dangerous in the physical sense and is and abomination in the eyes of God so it is dangerous in the spiritual sense.

Where did this black plague of the century start for humans?
To have that lifestyle and not to obey Gods laws is a requirement that most gays have to have and that is to be an atheist.

That verse in today’s terms is about judgment in the after life, which they don’t believe in.
In our laws of today it is attempted murder if you are infected that is where it stands, that is the most punishment for being gay or infected and now heteros face that also , no death in this life, but in the second life, they take their chances of being in darkness.

People aren’t born gay they are taught to be that way.
If people would have obeyed Gods law to begin with, there wouldn’t be any aids today…..so would the world be a better place?

So all the crap in the Bible describing all the bad things that should happen to non-believers is not evil? According to the Biblical god one has to do a lot more than just treat people well. In fact, one needn't treat sinners well at all.

No you should still love your brothers and sisters and witness to them, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, just don't infect others with your concepts if it brings misery or a possibility of an early death.

 

[Mashuna]

<snip> [An] abomination in the eyes of God so it is dangerous in the spiritual sense.

Where did this black plague of the century start for humans?
To have that lifestyle and not to obey Gods laws is a requirement that most gays have to have and that is to be an atheist.

<snip>

People aren’t born gay they are taught to be that way.
If people would have obeyed Gods law to begin with, there wouldn’t be any aids today.

I'm glad you're here to clear things up for us Edge, and to confirm that God isn't evil. It's all the fault of the gays for not doing as they're told.

I can certainly see why a kind and loving God sent down a deadly disease that will kill off those infected for not doing as they're told. I'm not quite clear why he made this a disease which can be passed on to the unborn child, but I'm sure He had his reasons. Good and Just reasons they will be too, of course.

 

[Relic]

Well, if I'm not sure what the words are saying, I should be able to either follow the logic through from first principles (for a purely mathematical problem), or recreate an experiment. That way I can be sure my understanding is correct. What do you do?

That's pretty much the same to the way one can determin whether a verse has been twisted or not. By looking at them. Shouldn't this have been obvious to you?

Yes. How have you decided that these Biblical laws are more important than other Biblical laws?

These two Biblical laws were revealed to be the most important by Christ.

With your two points, your argument seems to be that you have two examples of Christians who did something good, therefore God must be good. Please correct me if I misunderstand.

I will: the two powerful examples I gave help destroy the stereotype that some here apply to God and the ones who follow him. In addition, you and all others here now must admit that at least some Christians have done extremely brave and powerful acts in the Name of Jesus, and, as these things were accomplished through the motivation of Christian faith, you must also admit that true faith is as strong and powerful as those words spoken by Martin Luther King. My points, although only very tiny examples of God's Glory, are more than you try to make them out to be, and they are examples that you could not explain away, even after I challenged you to.

Now I have a question for you: you described these two powerful acts as "two examples of Christians who did something good", almost as if undermining this. Does this imply reluctance on your part to achknowledge the ideals of equality between black and white people as spoken by Martin Luther King as something any more than trivial? Do you also view the brave souls who stood up to the Nazis and their sacrifices as "trivial" matters?

If there are examples of Christians who do something that is evil, then you identify them as heretics.

A man who claims to be Christian but who obviously holds to regard to the two most important laws is not Christian any more than the man who claims to be scientist but relies on nothing but biassed propaganda for his evidence.

It's getting close to either circular reasoning, or a no true scotsman argument.

Considering I've just answered all of your points- I don't think so.

 

[Mashuna]

That's pretty much the same to the way one can determin whether a verse has been twisted or not. By looking at them. Shouldn't this have been obvious to you?

I'm sorry, it appears as though I wasn't clear. I've told you that if I want to get the truth from a mathematics or science book, I can recreate the steps that lead to the answer. Therefore, if there is any ambiguity in the final wording of the text, it can be conclusively answered.

That's very different to just 'looking at it'.

Shouldn't this have been obvious to you?

These two Biblical laws were revealed to be the most important by Christ.



I will: the two powerful examples I gave help destroy the stereotype that some here apply to God and the ones who follow him. In addition, you and all others here now must admit that at least some Christians have done extremely brave and powerful acts in the Name of Jesus, and, as these things were accomplished through the motivation of Christian faith, you must also admit that true faith is as strong and powerful as those words spoken by Martin Luther King. My points, although only very tiny examples of God's Glory, are more than you try to make them out to be, and they are examples that you could not explain away, even after I challenged you to.

Sure, at least some Christians have done brave and powerful acts and credited their acts to God or Jesus. Other people have performed equally brave and powerful acts and not credited any deity at all. Faith is not necessary to perform these acts.

Now I have a question for you: you described these two powerful acts as "two examples of Christians who did something good", almost as if undermining this. Does this imply reluctance on your part to achknowledge the ideals of equality between black and white people as spoken by Martin Luther King as something any more than trivial? Do you also view the brave souls who stood up to the Nazis and their sacrifices as "trivial" matters?

I don't regard these things as trivial, I just don't regard them as being a necessary result of Christianity. In your example, the people involved credited their faith. Atheists, Jews and Communists stood up to the Nazis, without a mention of Jesus.

A man who claims to be Christian but who obviously holds to regard to the two most important laws is not Christian any more than the man who claims to be scientist but relies on nothing but biassed propaganda for his evidence.

So, just to clarify, you can only be Christian if you hold regard to those two laws, but just holding regard to those laws is not enough, in itself, to be regarded as Christian?

 

[Relic]

What did I take out of context?

For a start you said that I said Martin's speech was the greatest of all time and tried to prove me wrong on this, when I had only said it was officially recognized as one of the greatest.

Your point?

You seem reluctant to admit the Nazis ever did anything wrong.

Nopers. This isn't my point. I'm saying some Christians decried the Nazis. Some Jews did too. Some Muslims. Hell, I'll bet some conservative Republicans decried them. That doesn't prove the nature of God as evil or good.

Christians were the first.

Strawman. Not my point.

Of course not, otherwise you'd have to admit that I proved it wrong, else you wouldn't hesitate to tell me what your point really was, and be able to logically explain your words.

Not at all. I have no doubt the good Reverend was motivated, in part, by his religious faith. That doesn't prove his speach is the best ever. It doesn't prove that God is good.

Once again a twisting of words: doesn't prove his speech was the best ever? I said officially recognized as one of the best. Another good example of your rationality. And didn't I already tell you my point about good God=good religion=good followers?

You chose Christians to reflect the nature of God. You therefor rejected everyone else. Unless you aren't rejecting everyone else. You tell me where you want the goal posts and we can go from there.

I never rejected anyone anywhere. I chose Christians to reflect the nature of God because that's what they're supposed to try and do. But here you're changing the subject yet again; you're trying to accuse me specifically of something, or at least question my own morals- but I thought we were debating whether God is evil?

ROFL. This one always makes me laugh. You proceed here from a false assumption about my beliefs. Thanks for playing!

I simply said I might question your beliefs and then accuse you of saying everyone who doesn't believe this is wrong, since that is the kind of question you posed towards me.

Answer me this: if I "proceeded from a false assumption about your beliefs", what did I assume your beliefs were? A quote would be nice.

ROFL. This is awesome. By this reasoning, if I can point to one Christian doing a bad thing, then your argument fails utterly! I'd say "peice of cake" but I've never been a fan of cake. Pie . . . mmmm, warm, apply pie!

Not necessarily. By this reasoning, if you can spot one Christian doing a bad thing, then that's one Christian who failed God as mankind inevitably does at times. If you can spot one man who claims to be Christian and lives his life in evil, then, by this reasoning, he's not Christian anymore than a scientist is a scientist whose evidence is based on nothing but biassed propaganda. I think you should make an attempt at figuring out what the point of your opponent is before ROFLing, otherwise you might be deemed foolish.

I could go on and on, but I think I've established a case of Christians being pretty mean, if not downright evil, to other human beings.

Hitler's evil outweighs all the deeds of said false Christians- need I remind you that he was an evolutionist?

Strawman. You set up the restrictions regarding Christians reflecting the nature of God by being His followers. I've provided examples specific to Christians actions showing that they aren't always good, and have sometimes been quite evil. But thanks for playing.

I never said Christians were perfect- I said that a good religion should result in good followers. If a Christian fails to follow the laws of his own religion, is it the religion's fault, or God's fault? And once again- men who are utterly evil but claim to be Christians are false, because they contradict themselves in that they refuse to obey the statutes of the religion they claim to be part of.

Hardly. If Christians, as you claim, reflect the nature of God, and they run the gamut from good to evil, then God must also. Then God must be both good and evil. This utterly refutes you original contention, and supports my case that the actions of any set of followers is not a reflection on the nature of God. Thanks!

Christians *should* reflect the nature of God- that was what I said. The one who was able to reflect this perfectly was Jesus- can you place any blame of *Him*?

Citation please.

The one who is said to twist the word should make the citation.

Not random. You made claims. I'm asking questions to discover how solid those claims are. If you're honest about this discussion, you'll answer the questions. I await your response.

Ask your questions, and I'll answer on certain conditions:

1. Each question you ask me, you must provide for me a claim that I made as logical grounds for resulting in that question.

2. They must not be off-topic, distracting the debate from the question as to whether God is good or not. That means if you ask a question that seems to have nothing to do with the debate, you have to show that it isn't steering the debate into some other subject.

3. For every question you ask me that I answer, I'll also ask you a question that you must answer. This is a debate; if you ask questions, you should also prepare to recieve them.

I await your reply.

And yet, Christianity has not always been "a good religion" with "good followers", as I reflected above.

"not always"? Are you implying that the Christian laws changed so that at one stage it was a good religion, and at another stage not so? And as for so-called followers- I don't know how many times I've said this, and how many times you're going to try and make me say it again, but: Christians who contradict their own laws (eg. Love thy neighbour) cannot be rightly called Christians as described by Jesus in the Bible.

The examples I've given refute this.

The answers I've given refute this.

Fair enough, enjoy the proof above.

Which I've now answered. So far I've given only two examples of the goodness that exists within Christianity as proven by its true followers, but, as there are false Christians, I'll give more solid examples from now on, proven by the goodness of its God. Jesus is the One who established Christianity, and He is not only the perfect example thereof, but the embodiment of it. If we can debate the actions of Christ, then shouldn't we be able to determin the goodness of God?

Let's start with this, something I mentioned already, but which as far I've seen, no-one has answered. That is that Jesus died for the sake of humanity- even atheists.

 

[Relic]

So the fact that the Israelites were only just as barbaric, violent, and misogynistic as they claim some of their rival tribes were makes them virtuous and righteous? Are you aware of the fact that it's common practice in times of war to demonize one's enemies in order to render them subhuman and therefore worthy of extermination? I suggest you read Foster Zygote's post in this thread. Also, if you have to ask about atrocities of the bible, you obviously missed the mention of the SAB earlier in this discussion.
.

Wrong. Israel was a great deal more civilised in morals than the other nations were of the time. Also, if I have to ask about atrocities of the Bible, I think I'm entitled to an answer. This is a debate, after all.

The fallacy that describes this is so elementary, I'm disappointed that you would even attempt to use it.
.

That's nice but you haven't proven it wrong, have you?

No, I was talking about how the bible was used, by Christian slave owners, to condone their practices. You have failed to address that fact.
.

I was talking about how the Bible was contradicted by slave owners- but you've failed to address that fact.

Sure, because it's so convenient to be able to disown anyone who abuses Christianity in order to disassociate them from Christianity and keep the ranks pure. That way you can continue to claim that nothing evil has ever been done in the name of Christianity, in spite of mountains of historical evidence that prove otherwise.
.

If they contradict Biblical law, they're not Christians, and no matter how much you accuse this of being wrong on grounds that it is "convenient" it won't lessen the truth in it. As for mountains of evidence- have you yet managed to brush aside my examples of good deeds done in the name of Christianity?

If I were discussing someone who committed atrocities in the name of Buddishm, for example, I wouldn't say that he wasn't a "true Buddhist" I would say he was being a "really bad Buddhist." If a person being does something bad, you don't say that he's no longer a person, but that he's a really bad person.
.

If a law-abiding citizen breaks a law, I'd say he's no longer a law-abiding citizen.

Do you want me to get the quotes from Mein Kampf where Hitler claims to be acting in the name of Christianity? While Hitler's exact religious affiliation may still be up for debate, those quotes certainly exist, and by your logic, they prove that the actions of Nazi Germany were caused by Christian fundamentalism.
.

You said his religious affiliation was still up for debate- in which case, you neutralise your own claim! Well, when you've confirmed it, come back. In the mean time, he believed in evolution, and that the Jews were an evolutional error and a form of sub-human, which was his grounds for exterminating them. Those captured by the Nazis were largely Polish, who were largely Catholics, and a minority Christians. If Nazism was caused by Christianity (which you yourself said is nothing more than debatable) why was it the Christians who opposed him? No twisting of the Bible can allow the killing of Jews.

Your evasion is duly noted. Atheists do not believe in God, therefore they do not regard God as an actual entity when they discuss him/her/it/them. It's ridiculous to claim that God is being insulted, or that insults could possibly harm or undermine God.
.

Your excuses don't suffice.

Your statement was an idiotic strawman, where you claimed that the position you were arguing against was that we should go on a shooting spree in order to eliminate evil, because everyone is "evil." I said that good and evil is a division that's drawn down the middle of each of us as individuals. In essence you were defending God's immorality by advocating mass murder. The point of the argument you were responding to was, in actuality, that the belief in God has the potential to cause more harm than good, and therefore should be discarded.
.

Now you're twisting your own words.

Wrong. It's possible to discuss whether God is good or evil without assuming anything about his existence or lack thereof. For example, was Emperor Palpatine good or evil? It could be said that the actions of the Galactic Empire may have been intended to unify the galaxy and prepare an arsenal of weapons capable of defending against the Yuuzan-Vong invasion. With that said, did I just assume or argue that Emperor Palpatine was real? Of course not.

Basically you don't believe in God, but you're going out of your way to discuss whether he's evil or not? Contradictory. Then what's the point of this debate to you, unless you have some grudge against God?

 

[Mashuna]

Hitler's evil outweighs all the deeds of said false Christians- need I remind you that he was an evolutionist?

Actually, I'd like to be reminded of this. I've seen claims that Hitler was a Christian, and claims that he was an evolutionist. I've seen people argue that he wasn't a Christian, and just used his Catholicism as a front to gain support, but it looks like you're rejecting even the claim that he was a false Christian.

In terms of evolution, I know he was a social darwinist, but I'm sure you know that this isn't the same thing. Can I ask where you got this information from. If not, it doesn't really matter, as the theory of evolution doesn't make claims for moral authority.

 

[Relic]

Actually, I'd like to be reminded of this. I've seen claims that Hitler was a Christian, and claims that he was an evolutionist. I've seen people argue that he wasn't a Christian, and just used his Catholicism as a front to gain support, but it looks like you're rejecting even the claim that he was a false Christian.

In terms of evolution, I know he was a social darwinist, but I'm sure you know that this isn't the same thing. Can I ask where you got this information from. If not, it doesn't really matter, as the theory of evolution doesn't make claims for moral authority.

Look at the post just above yours.

 

[Relic]

This is complete nonsense.

You are living in an alternate reality.

First, why would this omniscient god be so uncertain of the laws it wanted people to follow?
Second, prove it! Point out to us those supposed clear instructions that say follow this law, now follow that one now stop following this one.....

The Bible is full of vague gibberish throughout.

No. Point out those supposed contradictions, if that will help the debate as to whether God is evil.

Oh really? Stoning a woman to death? Killing children for parental disobedience?

"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. Lie la lie..."

Stoning an adultress to death who betrayed her husband. Killing parents for their own disobedience.
Putting to death murderers and rapists and therefore saving the lives of innocent women and children who would have otherwise been raped and killed. Standing up for the rights of orphans and widows and the defenceless, and conquering the ones that would persecute them.

Reuful-sounding, maybe, but dealt against reuful people.

 

[Relic]

No. Some are and some aren't, just as you would expect for any large enough sample of the human population.

Depends on how closely they follow God's laws.

 

[Relic]

The scientific process has a set of operating rules. When followed the conclusions generally move closer and more precisely toward the truth. Thus the collective body of knowledge advances even if current conclusions turn out to be false along the way.
.

For an example the argument of Intellignet Design.

We have proof this works. Scientific advances demonstrate the value of the scientific process. Science leads to cures for diseases when prayers have yet to ever do so. We can deal with the weather and other catastrophes, we don't need to perform useless rituals asking non-existent magical beings to save us. We have landed instruments on Mars. We have telescopes that see billions of light years into space and microscopes that give us images of molecules and instruments that tell us about quantum size particles. None of that is in the Bible. Prayers and rituals are the things of silly children who have yet to learn about the real Universe.

The scientific boom of the 17th and 18th centuries in England was during the time Christianity was most prominent there. In addition, the science you take so much pride in was put together by an Intelligent Mind; if a true Christian nation were to rise, God would bless that nation, and the scientific discoveries made would pale the examples you've given. God blessed Israel and we had the reign of Solomon, God blessed England and we had the scientific boom.

 

[Relic]

I'll go with your caveat that the thread only discusses whether God is good or evil, not whether he exists. As in, the assumption He exists is true, therefore He is a) omnipotent and b) The Creator. But if this is true then if evil exists He is evil. I don't see how you can explain evil unless you puncture one of those axioms.

God didn't create evil. He simply gave free will. Man chose evil. God provided an escape route.

I haven't read much of the Bible,

Which is why you posed a question to me just then which the Bible answers simply.

but from what I have it quickly devolves into man's mistakes. But man could have no access to mistake unless it was there for him, if God is ominipotent. Either God created evil to be accessed, or God is not omnipotent and man created something He has/had no potency over.

Man didn't create evil; evil defines going against God's will. God gave man free will. Man chose evil. God allows him his free will.

It's pick one or the other.

Not necessarily. I just answered without picking one or the other. Please don't make such assumptions.

 

[Mashuna]

Look at the post just above yours.

So social darwinism then. Fair enough.

For an example the argument of Intellignet Design.

Were you citing this as an example of a current conclusion being false, or are you claiming evolution is false and ID is an advance?

The scientific boom of the 17th and 18th centuries in England was during the time Christianity was most prominent there. In addition, the science you take so much pride in was put together by an Intelligent Mind; if a true Christian nation were to rise, God would bless that nation, and the scientific discoveries made would pale the examples you've given. God blessed Israel and we had the reign of Solomon, God blessed England and we had the scientific boom.

Now you're just making stuff up.

Unless you genuinely believe this?

 

[Relic]

If you think it would (killing all homosexuals, nothing less), you're evil according to my morals, and so is God. If you don't think it would, you're good, but God is evil, or his prophet misinterpreted Him thus the entire Bible is suspect.
...

The male and female genders in terms of sexual reprodective abilities are clearly formed for each other. Two of the same gender lying together is unnatural, shown by the shape of the sexual organs as they simply don't "fit", and shown also by the fact that it is impossible to reproduce through homosexuality, which is like paedophilia, of which there is an increasing rate in the gay population, bestiality, and any other kind of bizarre and sickening sexual fetish, and like these distasteful acts, it is a corruption of the mind to such an extent that in Biblical law it does indeed have the penalty of death behind it, but Jesus died even for the homosexuals.

So we should blame something other than an all-powerful creator for something that exists? Who do we blame evil's very existence on?

Mankind.

If it exists but God is not evil or did not create it, I guess he's not all-powerful and evil is something beyond his domain, no?

Not necessarily. Evil simply defines going against God.

If so, why bow to him when there's apparently something that he has no sway over?

In a century most or all of the evil people alive today will be in hell and the good in heaven. How much more sway do you want?

Maybe Satan will reward his followers too, with God apparently powerless/unwilling to interfere...

Oh, don't worry, Satan will...

 

[Relic]

So all the crap in the Bible describing all the bad things that should happen to non-believers is not evil? According to the Biblical god one has to do a lot more than just treat people well. In fact, one needn't treat sinners well at all.

What the Bible describes is a warning, not a threat. And no, it is not evil. Horrific, yes, but not evil. The people who suffer through those things will be the ones that deserve them; rapists, murderers etc.

Christians are expected to treat sinners politely, God is expected to judge.