Is God evil?

[Relic]

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'.

It's still a form of analyzation. Regardless, this isn't helping the debate progress.

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.

Such as?

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.

Many Nazis were atheists, Jews would have of course opposed them because their lives hung in the balance. Besides, Christians were the first.

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?

If I ever said that a quote would be nice.

 

[epeos76]

As far as the role of religion and science goes, it's interesting to contrast the development of science in Europe and China. This analysis comes from an undergraduate course I took some time ago, and so it may suffer a little in the remembering.

Essentially, several scholars, most notably Joseph Needham, point out that science in China was traditionally most closely associate with a particular type of philosophical Daoism, which encouraged careful observation of the natural world. In contrast to the western tradition, Daoism emphasized understanding particulars at the expense of formulating general, universal laws. It was impressively empirical but unsystematic. The example I remember most vividly is an essay arguing against adopting the use of an early form of perspective in painting, primarily on the grounds that it couldn't show all the facets of the subject. (title something like "Against the 'Under the Eaves' school? by Shen Kuo?).

European thought simply assumed the existence of universal laws. This assumption ultimately benefited science. The universal regularity of nature was an important assumption in Newton's work, for instance. Initially, though, it took precedence over objective verification. Empiricism was a relative late comer which, to some extent, had to struggle against an elaborately systemitize view of the physical world.

I think the assumption of regularity is classically associated with greek philosophy, so it is likely independent of monotheism/polytheism. In both China and Europe, however, essentially religious ideas about the fundamental nature of the universe had a significant impact on the way scholarly inquiry developed.

Even if you assume religion is strictly a product of human imagination, I think it's a mistake to discount its impact on other cultural developments. Pointing out that Christianity justified a certain amount of violence and bigotry is accurate, but it's not complete.

 

[Relic]

So social darwinism then. Fair enough.



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?

Regardless, this isn't helping the debate as to whether God is evil or not.

Now you're just making stuff up.

Unless you genuinely believe this?

You're saying that no modern inventions came from the 17th and 18th centuries of England during the Christian era?

 

[Relic]

Well, now that I've answered five days or so worth of arguments, I think it's about time I put up some of my own before I log out.

Consider the following:

Jesus dies for the crimes of mankind rather than judging them as they deserved by allowing them to drown in their own evil. This includes homosexuals and atheists, even the ones who constantly scorn Him today.

Christians are bidden to love their neighbour and their God, which is said to be of primary importance.

God stands up for the rights of orphans and widows.

God always brings the Israelites back to the Promised Land even after they betray him again and again.

Jesus heals.

God was the one who originally created mankind in the first place; that is, the only reason we are able to be here and debate this is because God allowed us the gift of life.

 

[Shalamar]

Evidence for the above claims?

 

[edge]

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.

Where did I say that?
You got Proof that God sent it?
You sure it was sent by God, or the devil, or is it something that has always been here in other primates and then passed on to humans through transgression and and still done so repeatedly?

(Rom. 6:23). There is only one cure. It resides in the cleansing power of Jesus Christ’s shed blood. Paul wrote, “Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him” (Rom. 5:9). The righteous wrath of God against transgression has been fully satisfied through Jesus’ death in our place. All we need do is repent, recognize Him as our Savior, and receive the spiritual cure for sin.

Fact is that the unborn child in most cases isn't infected.

Hey Relic How ya doing?

 

[Mashuna]

You're saying that no modern inventions came from the 17th and 18th centuries of England during the Christian era?

No, I'm saying you've made an entirely unsupported connection between inventions in the 17th and 18th century and Christianity.

 

[Mashuna]

It's still a form of analyzation. Regardless, this isn't helping the debate progress.

A form that does not have to be grounded in reality. If you can analyse it by just looking at it and deciding for yourself, there's no common point to debate.

Many Nazis were atheists, Jews would have of course opposed them because their lives hung in the balance. Besides, Christians were the first.

[/QUOTE]

The only reference I've seen you provide for Christians opposing the Nazis was 1936. Is this your earliest reference? Because they'd been opposed for years before that.

 

[RobRoy]

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.

Ahhh, I see that you're not interested in an actual, honest discussion. You twist, cherry-pick your believers, make ad-hom attacks, and when confronted with evidence to the contrary, you move the goal-posts. Thanks for playing, but I'm not interested in a discussion where one has to lie, obfuscate, and jump through mental hoops to make his point.

Your contention lacks merit, your arguments lack support. Good luck!

 

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by stilicho
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.

It is arbitrary but not unsupportable.

We actually have a test case in which monotheism was adopted by a primarily tribal society--7th and 8th Century Arabs. What followed was a "renaissance" against which even the European "renaissance" pales.

Science appears to flourish under specific conditions that include societal stability. Those were the conditions that Islamic conquerors provided in Baghdad and Toledo, among other centres of learning. Feudalism, on the contrary, did not provide an atmosphere conducive to the development of science. Feudalism is merely disguised tribalism. It wasn't monotheism that strangled intellectual pursuits in medieval Europe but the direction of an economic regime that punished townsmen in favour of rural landlords. I would direct you to Marc Bloch or virtually any other historian to gather support for this contention.

Are you arguing that the development and employment of the scientific method is independent of social and cultural influences?

 

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by stilicho
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.

Placing importance on monotheism is not that extraordinary. For all it's apparent ills, monotheism is a closer step to agonisticism than polytheism is. (I know what you're going to say: 'unsupportable and arbitrary').

But it is closer.

When you simply have to deny one "prime cause", the way you do it is a lot closer to the scientific method than when you have to deny that "the goddess Springtime" created flowers. And then having to deny a myriad of "Springtime sprites" that make variously daffodils, snapdragons and dandelions.

 

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by stilicho
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.

It's possible I didn't explain that well enough.

Women were not only not "second-class citizens", they weren't even "citizens". Neither were men. There was no concept of citizenship in OT Hebrew life.

The Hellenes had a rudimentary concept of "citizenship" around the same time but it wouldn't be one that you or I would recognise. The Romans had a radical version of universalism that they applied to subject peoples, creating them as "citizens" of Rome, but essentially that was for purposes of collecting taxes. You wouldn't likely be able to ascend to the position of quaestor by being a "citizen" of Lugdunum.

You are entirely right about your perspective of the status of women and it shouldn't be limited to Africa and Asia. There is an awful lot of work to do and it would be alarmingly perfect to see something as anachronistic as an enlightened despot in those areas to make it happen.

This conversation has veered wildly away from the original objection that I had with your observations on the OT. You have a good heart and a strong conscience and you are the kind of person that ought to out there working for your principles. I am constantly active disabusing well-meaning people of their prejudices against Christians and Christianity so that the religious and the agnostic alike can recognise challenges harmoniously.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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?



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.

Those beliefs of yours sound like they come from one sick puppy. I'd say your beliefs represent quite a bit of evil and either you are making a facetious example or you believe in a truly evil god.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It is arbitrary but not unsupportable.

We actually have a test case in which monotheism was adopted by a primarily tribal society--7th and 8th Century Arabs. What followed was a "renaissance" against which even the European "renaissance" pales.

This is a single anecdote and in no way supports your claim. You'll need to do better than that. You haven't even proposed a reasonable mechanism of action. How is any magical being belief 'closer' to natural laws? Is there even anyone such as a recognized philosopher or scientist who echoes this conclusion of yours? Maybe if you posted a link I might find a better explanation for what you are claiming.

Science appears to flourish under specific conditions that include societal stability. Those were the conditions that Islamic conquerors provided in Baghdad and Toledo, among other centres of learning. Feudalism, on the contrary, did not provide an atmosphere conducive to the development of science. Feudalism is merely disguised tribalism. It wasn't monotheism that strangled intellectual pursuits in medieval Europe but the direction of an economic regime that punished townsmen in favour of rural landlords. I would direct you to Marc Bloch or virtually any other historian to gather support for this contention.

Are you arguing that the development and employment of the scientific method is independent of social and cultural influences?

People need adequate food and shelter before they can spend time on observation and contemplation. That's a no brainer. But lots of people have had time for observation and contemplation in polytheistic societies. Look at all the gods the Aztecs, Mayans and Incas believed in. They developed the science of astronomy to a great degree as did many Native American societies who were also polytheistic. These groups had advanced agriculture as well. The Chinese were not monotheistic either.

It seems as if you have some cultural bias clouding your view.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Placing importance on monotheism is not that extraordinary. For all it's apparent ills, monotheism is a closer step to agonisticism than polytheism is. (I know what you're going to say: 'unsupportable and arbitrary').

But it is closer.

No it isn't. A magical belief is a magical belief. There is no qualitative difference and the claim reducing the number of gods gets one closer to zero gods is fallacious logic.

When you simply have to deny one "prime cause", the way you do it is a lot closer to the scientific method than when you have to deny that "the goddess Springtime" created flowers. And then having to deny a myriad of "Springtime sprites" that make variously daffodils, snapdragons and dandelions.

Like I said, this is just false logic. I could just as easily label these 'god beliefs' and then you have all or none. Either god beliefs explain observable phenomena or they don't. Just exactly what those god beliefs are is not relevant. What is relevant is magical thinking or critical thinking.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's possible I didn't explain that well enough.

Women were not only not "second-class citizens", they weren't even "citizens". Neither were men. There was no concept of citizenship in OT Hebrew life.

The Hellenes had a rudimentary concept of "citizenship" around the same time but it wouldn't be one that you or I would recognise. The Romans had a radical version of universalism that they applied to subject peoples, creating them as "citizens" of Rome, but essentially that was for purposes of collecting taxes. You wouldn't likely be able to ascend to the position of quaestor by being a "citizen" of Lugdunum.

You are ignoring an awful lot when you try to claim men had it as bad as women because they were often oppressed by the state. Women in your description would have been oppressed by both men and the state, men only by the state. I see no reason to take this further since it is getting too far OT. I think your claim of the status of women was no worse than the status of men in the Bible is ludicrous. Obviously you want to deny that with all these arguments about "citizenship" but the facts contradict you.

You are entirely right about your perspective of the status of women and it shouldn't be limited to Africa and Asia. There is an awful lot of work to do and it would be alarmingly perfect to see something as anachronistic as an enlightened despot in those areas to make it happen.

This conversation has veered wildly away from the original objection that I had with your observations on the OT. You have a good heart and a strong conscience and you are the kind of person that ought to out there working for your principles. I am constantly active disabusing well-meaning people of their prejudices against Christians and Christianity so that the religious and the agnostic alike can recognise challenges harmoniously.

I suggested the Bible was full of examples of a misogynous culture that was present at the time it was written. That culture is still present in much of the world and has only recently improved in Western cultures. People who adopt the Bible as a literal text are going to be misogynistic and it is also reflected among many Christian religious groups who claim outright the wife is to "obey" the husband.

There are plenty of people who have maintained the god belief part but just decided the Bible actually says something else. Look at some of the posts here. You have one person claiming the standard, "God is Love", version and declaring none of the bad stuff in the Bible has meaning. You have another claiming God hates gays and gave them HIV-AIDS as punishment for their 'wickedness'. The Bible itself if taken literally, portrays a horrible evil misogynistic god. But Christians are all across the board from truly kind and loving to dog beating gay hating evil. I assure you, it isn't the label, "Christian", I judge people's evil by. Their magical thinking, yes, but not their evilness.

 

[fatewilleatyou]

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...

So you support theft and deny Jesus teachings about paying taxes?
Mans laws on free speech are wonderful. If only our politicians were fervent in protecting them.

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.

So far there hasn't seem to have been too much overt intrusion in the lives of citizens. The danger lies is applying outrageous powers to matters other than national security.

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.

This sounds like youthful nihilism... twenty years from now you'll feel differently. I spend a good decade waiting for the warheads to come.
In your not under 25, then please forgive my insult to your maturity.

If I dug a hole for my son everytime you told me he was going to die, I'd be eating chop suey in China. - Cher in Mask

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Is God Evil? Well.. heh... I don't know.

Assuming that there is one, and that he is evil, then I guess there's nothing to worry about. Cause no matter what you do, you're going down. The Boss is Evil and he wants you to die.

So even in that hypothetical case, I wouldn't worry much.

 

[RobRoy]

Is God Evil? Well.. heh... I don't know.

Assuming that there is one, and that he is evil, then I guess there's nothing to worry about. Cause no matter what you do, you're going down. The Boss is Evil and he wants you to die.

So even in that hypothetical case, I wouldn't worry much.

So is the reverse then true? If God is good, then you're not "going down"? Which would then, I suppose, mean that we do need to worry?

 

[Frozenwolf150]

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.

Here's the site that was mentioned earlier. The lists are based on fairly superficial interpretations of the verses, but if you're going to take it at face value that the Israelites were morally superior to the other tribes just because the bible says so, then you also have to take these verses at face value.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

It's a fallacy of equivocation and question begging. If one is going to redefine Christians as people who only do good in the name of Christianity, then there must not be very many Christians in the world. In fact, the number of true Christians would be the number of people who agree with the arguer's core convictions. How convenient.

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

Really? Earlier you said this:

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.

So by your own admission, slave owners were indeed following instructions that were included in one part of the bible. Exodus 21 and Leviticus 22, written centuries before the NT, are full of instructions and laws regarding slavery and sex slavery. It no more makes slavery moral if everyone else did it than two wrongs make a right. As for the teachings regarding slave rights, in Exodus 21:20-21 the bible says it's okay to slowly beat your slaves to death, as long as they survive for a couple of days, because after all, they're your money. A daughter being sold into sex slavery had NO rights and no say in the matter, yet there are proscriptions for this throughout the OT.

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

Please read up on the fallacy I explained above.

For the record, Dr. King got his idea of non-violence from Mohandas Gandhi. Where did Gandhi get this principle (Ahimsa) from?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi#Nonviolence
It turns out it's a central tenet of religions that originated in ancient India, including Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism.

I never denied that good has been done in the name of Christianity. I was specifically addressing your claim that nothing evil has ever been done in the name of Christianity, which is false. RobRoy posted a list of religious atrocities all claiming Christianity as their driving principle.

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.

No, I was pointing out how if you can give credit to Christianity for being the first to stand up to Nazi Germany by cherry-picking examples, it would be even easier for me to draw a connection between Christian fundamentalism and the Holocaust. Look at the quotes from Mein Kampf and tell me Hitler didn't draw many of his beliefs from Christian fundamentalism.

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.

This is what you get when you pull the fallacy of equivocation with the definition of a Christian. If Christianity was the "first to stand up to Nazi Germany" then you must also accept the actions of the Church and Nazi Germany itself as representative of Christianity. The Church may have officially denounced the Third Reich, but it also adopted a non-interventionist policy stemming from fear, going so far as to open up its genealogical records to the Nazis and to declare (in agreement with Hitler) that Jews could not be redeemed in this lifetime.

Also, your claim about evolution is idiotic. Hitler was a creationist who believed in fixed kinds, special creation by God and the non-evolution of humans, and the story of the Garden of Eden.
http://www.skepticwiki.org/index.php/Hitler_and_evolution
His beliefs on racial / tribal superiority, of being chosen by God, and of acting on God's behalf to perform a task on this Earth came from scripture, twisted or otherwise.

Your excuses don't suffice.

Do I detect a veiled ad baculum fallacy here, that you believe God will get angry and start punishing people if skeptics keep saying offensive things about him? If that's the case, then you could at least be honest about your beliefs. Though perhaps it's not God who is offended. Perhaps the ones being offended are the believers who conflate their own petty sensitivities with the will of God.

Now you're twisting your own words.

No, reread the argument you were responding to with that strawman. Nobody was advocating going out on a shooting spree to eliminate evil, except you.

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?

I don't know how you could miss this, but the belief in God is a strong influence in the lives of many people around the world, and has the potential to cause good or great harm, regardless of whether you think these people are "true Christians" or not. Yes, these effects extend even to people who don't believe in God. Most politicians, lawmakers, and people who make important decisions in modern society believe in God, for better or worse. Tell me this doesn't affect the lives of nonbelievers.