Is God evil?

[Relic]

Nonsense.

There is no god. There is no evidence to support your claim that there is.

The title of this is "Is God Evil?", implying His assumed existence. That's just what I'm doing: I'm debating whether God's good or evil.

If you want to debate God's existence then you're in the wrong forum.

 

[Relic]

No, God isn't evil, because the God of the bible does not exist. The people who wrote parts of the bible however certainly were, especially by modern standards of morality. I would argue that in this case, atheists are actually being more equitable to God than bible literalists are, because atheists are not the ones conflating biblical atrocities with the will and word of God, or putting these words in God's mouth..

It takes one look at the Bible, particularly Leviticus, to see how just the laws were compared to other nations of the times. And as for these "biblical atrocities"- where are they?
If Christians try and put false words in God's mouth, they're not Christians.

The institution of slavery, which persisted for 300 years, was frequently supported in the name of Christianity, with reference to biblical verses for slaves to obey their earthly masters. It was the Soviets (whom many apologists are quick to point out were atheistic as a slam against atheism) who killed 4 out of 5 Nazis for the Allies. Also, I don't see how worshiping the way Jesus died, while completely ignoring what he taught while he was alive, is a tenet of your religion to brag about.
..

The Bible verses regarding slavery were made in a time and culture when slavery was perfectly legal- all nations of the world did it. But the Biblical laws, probably unlike other nations of the time, taught about the *rights* of slaves, and listed how masters should be punished for mistreating them.

As for the white masters quoting Bible verses, the Bible itself accuses them: "Love the Lord thy God" and "Love thy neighbour", all Christian laws branch from this. Those who disobey these laws in the name of God are themselves heretics, and I think Martin Luther King new that. Further more, using the examples of said heretics to stain the Christian religion is your way of ignoring the fact that Martin Luther King taught in the name of God...[/QUOTE]

Edit: Yeah, the Soviets often made the Nutzies look like boy scouts, raping and pillaging the land, shooting their own soldiers in the back, and committing many atrocities of their own. But it's just as ridiculous to give Christianity credit for stopping Nazi Germany.

I never said Christianity stopped Nazi Germany, I said they were the first to openly stand against it: in 1936 Konrad Adenaur and Ronald Kain, at a memorandum from the leaders of the Confessing Church at Whitsundie said “When the Aryan is glorified, the Word of God teaches that all men are sinful. If the Christian is forced by… Nazis… to hate the Jew, he is, on the contrary, bidden by the Christian commandment to love his neighbour."

No, atheists do not believe in God, so atheists are attacking an idea or concept, not insulting an actual being.
.

Your excuses don't suffice.

There are so many problems with this, I don't even know where to begin. I hope you realize that good and evil is a line drawn down the middle of each one of us, and that the problem of evil is not as simple as that.

And this answer is supposed to prove that evil is complicated, therefore my statement is to be totally disregarded?

 

[stilicho]

I'm all for knowing a lot about the details in the Bible. I know quite a bit about what is in it. What makes me agree with Complexity is the level of investigation of the supposed meaning of the Biblical texts stilicho is professing. If one wanted to study theists, fine. If one was interested in the culture of the day, fine. But we have stilicho professing atheism (or agnosticism) while finding great meaning in the texts. That one is hard to assess given just what was posted here.

I await stilicho's further comments.

I didn't realise you and I still had a discussion. I've said that Hosea is a lyrical allegory and you've said it isn't.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

The Bible verses regarding slavery were made in a time and culture when slavery was perfectly legal- all nations of the world did it. But the Biblical laws, probably unlike other nations of the time, taught about the *rights* of slaves, and listed how masters should be punished for mistreating them.
....

Funny you should mention this. Apparently Dobson from Focus on the Family has just come out condemning Obama for a speech a couple years ago when Obama pointed out Leviticus' text implying God was fine with slavery clearly meant everything in the Bible wasn't so peachy keen. Dobson used the tired claim that the Old Testament Laws don't apply because Jesus changed that (wrong, Jesus actually said the OT laws all apply, but I digress..). Of course Jon Stewart on tonight's Daily Show picked up on this and noted Dobson cites Leviticus every time he wants to condemn homosexuality.

Of course the Bible is full of contradictions. How convenient for Bible believers. They can quote whatever verses fit the morals du jour.

Are the laws of the Old Testament still binding?

How should homosexuals be treated?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I didn't realise you and I still had a discussion. I've said that Hosea is a lyrical allegory and you've said it isn't.

And then I asked you how it mattered given this discussion if it was allegory or not if the allegory used 'disgusting whores' as the analogy.

In addition, you have yet to acknowledge that Hosea is one of a multitude of examples of the misogyny that permeates every book in the Bible. You claimed I was cherry picking. That implies the Bible does not treat women as the property of men and less than equal. And that makes your position one of a person blind to the facts in front of them. So if you are claiming the Bible does not treat women as worthless garbage, let's hear your cherry picked verses.

 

[Mashuna]

As for the white masters quoting Bible verses, the Bible itself accuses them: "Love the Lord thy God" and "Love thy neighbour", all Christian laws branch from this. Those who disobey these laws in the name of God are themselves heretics, and I think Martin Luther King new that. Further more, using the examples of said heretics to stain the Christian religion is your way of ignoring the fact that Martin Luther King taught in the name of God...

So when bits of the Bible are contradictory, how do you decide which parts to follow? I mean, in your example people can justify things using Bible verses, but you still consider them to be heretics. How can you tell?

 

[Relic]

Funny you should mention this. Apparently Dobson from Focus on the Family has just come out condemning Obama for a speech a couple years ago when Obama pointed out Leviticus' text implying God was fine with slavery clearly meant everything in the Bible wasn't so peachy keen. Dobson used the tired claim that the Old Testament Laws don't apply because Jesus changed that (wrong, Jesus actually said the OT laws all apply, but I digress..). Of course Jon Stewart on tonight's Daily Show picked up on this and noted Dobson cites Leviticus every time he wants to condemn homosexuality.

Of course the Bible is full of contradictions. How convenient for Bible believers. They can quote whatever verses fit the morals du jour.

Are the laws of the Old Testament still binding?

How should homosexuals be treated?

Some laws were abolished, some laws remain, but the fundamental teachings of the New Testament and Old Testament laws are in perfect accordance with each other.

Do you need an example? Thefoundation of both teachings are "Love the Lord thy God" and "Love thy neighbour". This value, seen in both teachings, does not change, and I use Leviticus as my example... Slavery of course is no longer legal, but if taken by a Christian in regards to not mistreating those of lesser station, whether in a company or elsewhere, the laws of Leviticus are wise. Or, if a maid is hired, the Christian should not mistreat her, but give her the right pay, whatever freedom she's entitled to and so on.
Leviticus teaches all of this, so how can you say there's contradiction?

 

[Relic]

So when bits of the Bible are contradictory, how do you decide which parts to follow? I mean, in your example people can justify things using Bible verses, but you still consider them to be heretics. How can you tell?

Wrong. Anyone can take a Bible verse out of place, or twist it to suit their meaning- even atheists. The white masters claimed to speak in the name of God in the same way the Pharisees did, but, in the same way Jesus accused the Pharisees, God will judge the white masters. There's no contradiction; the white masters were heretics, Martin was teaching the truth, and that's all there is to it.

Yet my point still hasn't been answered... if God is evil, shouldn't his followers be evil too?
Then can anyone here explain away why the Christians in 1936 spoke out against the Nazis, or why Martin Luther King was able to make what has been called one of the greatest speeches of all time by having faith in God?

 

[Mashuna]

Wrong. Anyone can take a Bible verse out of place, or twist it to suit their meaning- even atheists. The white masters claimed to speak in the name of God in the same way the Pharisees did, but, in the same way Jesus accused the Pharisees, God will judge the white masters. There's no contradiction; the white masters were heretics, Martin was teaching the truth, and that's all there is to it.

Yet my point still hasn't been answered... if God is evil, shouldn't his followers be evil too?
Then can anyone here explain away why the Christians in 1936 spoke out against the Nazis, or why Martin Luther King was able to make what has been called one of the greatest speeches of all time by having faith in God?

So how can you tell if a verse is taken out of place or twisted? What is the 'true' meaning of a verse? Saying one was wrong and the other was the truth implies you know the difference. Saying 'that's all there is to it' doesn't answer anything.

As to your second paragraph, well, that follows from the first. There are all types of Christians. Some do good (by my moral standards), some do evil. You seem to be identifying the former as 'true' Christians, and the latter as heretics. But you're not saying why. If God is evil, then MLK and the 1936 Christians are the heretics.

 

[Complexity]

The title of this is "Is God Evil?", implying His assumed existence. That's just what I'm doing: I'm debating whether God's good or evil.

If you want to debate God's existence then you're in the wrong forum.

Don't be pedantic - you haven't a clue how to go about it properly.

This is a 'thread', not a 'forum'. Words matter, little one.

Finally, you are obviously a xian bleever without anything of interest to me to redeem yourself with. I'll place you in your appropriate place when I get around to it.

P.S. Just did it. My universe is now has no relics.

 

[RobRoy]

Yet my point still hasn't been answered... if God is evil, shouldn't his followers be evil too?

Just caught up reading to this point. I'll take it up. No worries.

Then can anyone here explain away why the Christians in 1936 spoke out against the Nazis,

First, you proceed from a false assumption which makes it hard to directly answer your question. One of those assumptions is that all Nazis are inherently evil. This is not the case. I am not saying that Nazi party in general was a good thing, nor am I defending their actions as a whole. However, there are any number of Nazi party members who were good people.

Second, your term "the Christians" is a rather broad in your application. There were certainly any numbers of "good Christian" German, Polish, Fins, etc. who didn't do much of any protesting whatsoever. There was no universal outcry against the Nazi regime from Christians everywhere.

Third, speaking out doesn't make them good Christians. Doesn't make them bad either. Any number of people speak out about any number of things. An individual doesn't have to be motivated by their religion, or lack there of, to act contrary to any government, whether it's good or not.

Finally (of the major points I'm hitting), you presuppose that Christians are right in their belief, and in so doing negate all other religions. Are you saying that only Christians are good? Does that make Muslims, Baha'i, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs bad?

Then there are any numbers of smaller points. There are any numbers of Christian who have done bad, even evil things. I can name a few, if you need. There have been whole groups of Christians who have done quite terrible things to other folk simply because of a division of religion. Add in some political motivation, some greed, a little bit of power, and Christians have done no better than anyone else, sometimes worse.

If we start counting beans on your suggestion, we're going to find, that maybe at best Christians run the gamut of "good" and "evil". By your premise, then the nature of God must also run that gamut.

No, a reflection of His followers, whoever they are, doesn't work as proof at all for the nature of God.

. . . or why Martin Luther King was able to make what has been called one of the greatest speeches of all time by having faith in God?

Again, more false assumptions.

First, that Luther's speech was the "greatest" ever. No standards for this whatsoever. Certainly a great speech of the American Civil Rights movements. Perhaps the greatest of that movement. But what about other movements, causes, issues, concerns, needs, etc.? Haile Selassie's "Collective Security" speech before the League of Nations is pretty powerful stuff in context.

Second, how does faith in God lead to the ability to speak? Would you like me to list off the names of some of the great speakers down through history who didn't believe in God, or who believed in a God different from the Christian God?

Finally, if Luther's speech reflects well on God, does a poor speaker do the opposite? Does an individuals lack of ability to address the public mean that their faith is less?

No, this isn't proof of the nature of God either whether good or evil, or anything between.

 

[Relic]

So how can you tell if a verse is taken out of place or twisted? What is the 'true' meaning of a verse? Saying one was wrong and the other was the truth implies you know the difference. Saying 'that's all there is to it' doesn't answer anything.

As to your second paragraph, well, that follows from the first. There are all types of Christians. Some do good (by my moral standards), some do evil. You seem to be identifying the former as 'true' Christians, and the latter as heretics. But you're not saying why. If God is evil, then MLK and the 1936 Christians are the heretics.

How can you explain to me when words from a scientific text book are taken out of place or twisted? What is the "true" meaning therein?

And as to my second paragraph- correct. I identified the former as true and the latter as heretics, and I've already explained the reason: the former obeyed the two most important Biblical laws. Is there anything else you need reassurance on?

Don't be pedantic - you haven't a clue how to go about it properly.

This is a 'thread', not a 'forum'. Words matter, little one.

Finally, you are obviously a xian bleever without anything of interest to me to redeem yourself with. I'll place you in your appropriate place when I get around to it.

P.S. Just did it. My universe is now has no relics.

Well that's all very interesting but what point have you actually made here?

Just caught up reading to this point. I'll take it up. No worries.
.

Taking words out of context proves just how rational you are. Is it safe to assume that your following points will be just as rational?

First, you proceed from a false assumption which makes it hard to directly answer your question. One of those assumptions is that all Nazis are inherently evil. This is not the case. I am not saying that Nazi party in general was a good thing, nor am I defending their actions as a whole. However, there are any number of Nazi party members who were good people..

"not all"? "in general"? "as a whole"? "good people"? I think this speaks for itself.

Second, your term "the Christians" is a rather broad in your application. There were certainly any numbers of "good Christian" German, Polish, Fins, etc. who didn't do much of any protesting whatsoever. There was no universal outcry against the Nazi regime from Christians everywhere.
.

Basically you're saying you want more examples of how Christians stood up to the Nazis before you achknowledge my point to any degree whatsoever, despite examples already given.

Third, speaking out doesn't make them good Christians. Doesn't make them bad either. Any number of people speak out about any number of things. An individual doesn't have to be motivated by their religion, or lack there of, to act contrary to any government, whether it's good or not.
.

If we're to apply this rule to the words of people in general, then what we say doesn't make us either good or bad. So I suppose all the speeches Hitler made doesn't show him as either good or bad either? And as for not having to be motivated by religion- very true. There are many different motivations. But in this case God's will was motivation, a point which you have only side-stepped by claiming that there are many motivations.

Finally (of the major points I'm hitting), you presuppose that Christians are right in their belief, and in so doing negate all other religions. Are you saying that only Christians are good? Does that make Muslims, Baha'i, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs bad?
.

If you ask a Muslim, Baha'i, Hindu, Jew, Buddhist or Sikh whether or not they believe their beliefs are correct, they will tell you yes. Will you then accuse of them of saying that all other beliefs are bad? I might ask you if your own beliefs are correct, and then demand to know whether you are saying all Christians are bad.

Then there are any numbers of smaller points. There are any numbers of Christian who have done bad, even evil things. I can name a few, if you need. There have been whole groups of Christians who have done quite terrible things to other folk simply because of a division of religion. Add in some political motivation, some greed, a little bit of power, and Christians have done no better than anyone else, sometimes worse.
.

That's very brief, and no examples are provided. Still, a so-called "Christian" who is wicked, God rejects in the same way the so-called "holy" Pharisees were rejected.

And- what's this? "Better than anyone else?" Funny you should say that, disregarding the thousands of wars fought by mankind that had nothing to do with Christianity. Hitler was an *evolutionist* after all, who viewed Jews as a sub-human life-form, or an evolutionary failure, and it was on these grounds that he wanted to eliminate them.

If we start counting beans on your suggestion, we're going to find, that maybe at best Christians run the gamut of "good" and "evil". By your premise, then the nature of God must also run that gamut.
.

"*If* we start?" If we haven't yet started, then saying that "God must also run that gamut" is like skipping the evidence and concluding.

No, a reflection of His followers, whoever they are, doesn't work as proof at all for the nature of God.
.

I think it does.

Again, more false assumptions.

First, that Luther's speech was the "greatest" ever. No standards for this whatsoever. Certainly a great speech of the American Civil Rights movements. Perhaps the greatest of that movement. But what about other movements, causes, issues, concerns, needs, etc.? Haile Selassie's "Collective Security" speech before the League of Nations is pretty powerful stuff in context.
.

That's all very nice, but I said officially recognized as *one* of the greatest speeches. But I'm sure you didn't intentionally twist my words.

Second, how does faith in God lead to the ability to speak? Would you like me to list off the names of some of the great speakers down through history who didn't believe in God, or who believed in a God different from the Christian God?

Finally, if Luther's speech reflects well on God, does a poor speaker do the opposite? Does an individuals lack of ability to address the public mean that their faith is less?
.

Is this supposed to be a point about whether God is good or evil, or are you just asking random questions to distract the debate?

No, this isn't proof of the nature of God either whether good or evil, or anything between.

If we're to be logically about this, and follow the facts through, then a God who dies for the sake of mankind (even atheists) should naturally result in a good religion. A religion with "Love the Lord thy God" and "Love thy neighbour" as its foundational laws should result in good followers.

The examples of said followers I've given should proove the goodness of the religion, and the goodness of the religion should proove the goodness of God.

There's your proof- it's basically what I stated before except in clearer terms. But you haven't provided any proof supporting your view that God is evil.

 

[Relic]

I'll ask again. Can anyone explain away my points about Luther King and 1936, or am I simply going to be made subject to more out-of-place sentences, word-twistings, and off-subject remarks disguised as logical points?

 

[Mashuna]

How can you explain to me when words from a scientific text book are taken out of place or twisted? What is the "true" meaning therein?

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?

And as to my second paragraph- correct. I identified the former as true and the latter as heretics, and I've already explained the reason: the former obeyed the two most important Biblical laws. Is there anything else you need reassurance on?

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

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.

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

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

 

[RobRoy]

Taking words out of context proves just how rational you are. Is it safe to assume that your following points will be just as rational?

What did I take out of context?

"not all"? "in general"? "as a whole"? "good people"? I think this speaks for itself.

Your point?

Basically you're saying you want more examples of how Christians stood up to the Nazis before you achknowledge my point to any degree whatsoever, despite examples already given.

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.

If we're to apply this rule to the words of people in general, then what we say doesn't make us either good or bad. So I suppose all the speeches Hitler made doesn't show him as either good or bad either?

Strawman. Not my point.

And as for not having to be motivated by religion- very true. There are many different motivations. But in this case God's will was motivation, a point which you have only side-stepped by claiming that there are many motivations.

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.

If you ask a Muslim, Baha'i, Hindu, Jew, Buddhist or Sikh whether or not they believe their beliefs are correct, they will tell you yes. Will you then accuse of them of saying that all other beliefs are bad?

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 might ask you if your own beliefs are correct, and then demand to know whether you are saying all Christians are bad.

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

That's very brief, and no examples are provided. Still, a so-called "Christian" who is wicked, God rejects in the same way the so-called "holy" Pharisees were rejected.

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!

First a few high-profile Christian individuals:

Jim Bakker - PTL Club scandal, theft, lies, adultry, fraud, etc.
Aimee McPherson - Adultry, faked her death, lies, etc.
Jimmy Swaggart - prostitution, adultry, lies, fraud, etc.
Peter Popoff - Debunked by our own Mr. Randi, lies, fraud, etc.
Robert Tilton - Fraud, lies, etc.
Frank Houston - rape, pedophilia
Douglas Goodman - sexual assault
Kent Hovind - fraud

Next, a few high-profile Christian groups:
Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God - mass murder and suicide
Ordre du Temple Solaire - mass murder, suicide, fraud, embezzlement
Branch Davidians - rape, abuse, murder, suicide
The Body of Christ/Attleboro Bible Study Cult - murder
Roman Catholic Church - take your pick
Eastern Orthodox Church - more of the same

Now let's talk major events in which Christians played a major role:
Crusades
Saxon Wars
The Inquisition
The Reconquista
The Alhambra Decree
Pope Pius' issues the Regnans in Excelsis
French Wars of Religion
Marian Persecutions
Thirty Years War

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.

And- what's this? "Better than anyone else?" Funny you should say that, disregarding the thousands of wars fought by mankind that had nothing to do with Christianity. Hitler was an *evolutionist* after all, who viewed Jews as a sub-human life-form, or an evolutionary failure, and it was on these grounds that he wanted to eliminate them.

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.

"*If* we start?" If we haven't yet started, then saying that "God must also run that gamut" is like skipping the evidence and concluding.

Hardly. If Christians, as you claim, reflect the nature of God, and they run the gamut from good to evil, then God must also.

I think it does.

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!

That's all very nice, but I said officially recognized as *one* of the greatest speeches. But I'm sure you didn't intentionally twist my words.

Citation please.

Is this supposed to be a point about whether God is good or evil, or are you just asking random questions to distract the debate?

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.

If we're to be logically about this, and follow the facts through, then a God who dies for the sake of mankind (even atheists) should naturally result in a good religion. A religion with "Love the Lord thy God" and "Love thy neighbour" as its foundational laws should result in good followers.

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

The examples of said followers I've given should proove the goodness of the religion, and the goodness of the religion should proove the goodness of God.

The examples I've given refute this.

There's your proof- it's basically what I stated before except in clearer terms. But you haven't provided any proof supporting your view that God is evil.

Fair enough, enjoy the proof above.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

It takes one look at the Bible, particularly Leviticus, to see how just the laws were compared to other nations of the times. And as for these "biblical atrocities"- where are they?

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.

If Christians try and put false words in God's mouth, they're not Christians.

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

The Bible verses regarding slavery were made in a time and culture when slavery was perfectly legal- all nations of the world did it. But the Biblical laws, probably unlike other nations of the time, taught about the *rights* of slaves, and listed how masters should be punished for mistreating them.

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.

As for the white masters quoting Bible verses, the Bible itself accuses them: "Love the Lord thy God" and "Love thy neighbour", all Christian laws branch from this. Those who disobey these laws in the name of God are themselves heretics, and I think Martin Luther King new that. Further more, using the examples of said heretics to stain the Christian religion is your way of ignoring the fact that Martin Luther King taught in the name of God...

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 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.

I never said Christianity stopped Nazi Germany, I said they were the first to openly stand against it: in 1936 Konrad Adenaur and Ronald Kain, at a memorandum from the leaders of the Confessing Church at Whitsundie said “When the Aryan is glorified, the Word of God teaches that all men are sinful. If the Christian is forced by… Nazis… to hate the Jew, he is, on the contrary, bidden by the Christian commandment to love his neighbour."

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.

Your excuses don't suffice.

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.

And this answer is supposed to prove that evil is complicated, therefore my statement is to be totally disregarded?

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.

The title of this is "Is God Evil?", implying His assumed existence. That's just what I'm doing: I'm debating whether God's good or evil.

If you want to debate God's existence then you're in the wrong forum.

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.

 

[RobRoy]

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.

While I agree with your other comments, quite heartily, I think you might be wrong here. In making an argument regarding the nature of God, or Palpatine, we are assuming that those entities are real. We may make that assumption only within the argument itself, as we make a dozen other assumptions, in order to draw comparisons, provide motivations, and argue contentions such as those you provide in your example.

Does this mean we believe Palpatine (or God, if you like) to be a real person who could come over for Sunday brunch? No. But within the the argument we do have to make that assumption. Otherwise, as some have done here, you reject the OP out of hand and argument ceases.

 

[Radrook]

Originally Posted by Mashuna
So when bits of the Bible are contradictory, how do you decide which parts to follow? I mean, in your example people can justify things using Bible verses, but you still consider them to be heretics. How can you tell?

I understand your problem. You are very confused and incapable of comprehending the simple things of God on your own. You have two choices.

1. Continue in your confused state.
2. Ask someone who understands the basic things to help you understand.

 

[Complexity]

I understand your problem. You are very confused and incapable of comprehending the simple things of God on your own. You have two choices.

1. Continue in your confused state.
2. Ask someone who understands the basic things to help you understand.

And back in the Ignore pit you go.

 

[Olowkow]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mashuna
So when bits of the Bible are contradictory, how do you decide which parts to follow? I mean, in your example people can justify things using Bible verses, but you still consider them to be heretics. How can you tell?

I understand your problem. You are very confused and incapable of comprehending the simple things of God on your own. You have two choices.

1. Continue in your confused state.
2. Ask someone who understands the basic things to help you understand.

I guess Mashuna asked the wrong guy.