is YHWH an Evil god?

[Complexity]

If You can do everything He is credited with having done, I'd say you have the right and the authority to do as You wish as well.

Nonsense.

If it were real, it would be evil in my eyes, and I would oppose it utterly.

 

[RandFan]

Nonsense.

If it were real, it would be evil in my eyes, and I would oppose it utterly.

It's interesting that theists will claim that god can't abide evil to justify hell. God abides evil just fine when he does it. Or evil is an arbitrary thing.

 

[bikerdruid]

For those of you that believe in the stories of YHWH, like the the story around Noah and his Ark. or Sodom and Gomorrah.

Do you think YHWH is an Evil god? What do you think about his alleged deeds?

also for those that do not belief in the existence , assuming the old myths would be true, what do you think about his alleged genocide against life?

by his own admission, he is an angry and jealous god.
both emotions have brought great evil to the world.
so, he is certainly a father of evil.

 

[Toontown]

...So trying to debunk the Bible by pointing out EXTRA-BIBLICAL data or facts or information will not work for the psyche of a fundamentalist.

Thus, one approach that might be quite effective is to use the bible ITSELF. If one can show that YHWH broke his own commandments using the Bible itself for a proof then it might go a long way in SHAKING their delusion…. I am sure it will not SHED their delusion…only shake…and maybe not even that in most cases.

But a delusion shaken is a delusion soon to be shored up. And the shoring materials can be as illusory as the original delusion. It is only an appearance that is being maintained, after all. And not even a real appearance. Even the appearance is illusory.

 

[bikerdruid]

But a delusion shaken is a delusion soon to be shored up. And the shoring materials can be as illusory as the original delusion. It is only an appearance that is being maintained, after all. And not even a real appearance. Even the appearance is illusory.

that's pretty deep fluff.

 

[Brian-M]

If You can do everything He is credited with having done, I'd say you have the right and the authority to do as You wish as well.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you arguing that might makes right (if you're powerful enough, it's okay to kill whomever you like)?

Or are you arguing that if he bought is into this world, he can take us out of it? In other words, that if you give someone life it's okay to kill them (for example, a parent should be allowed to kill their own children)?

Or are you arguing that celebrities should be excused from common standards of morality? (If you're famous, it's okay to kill people because you won't go to jail.)

Or a combination of all three?

 

[Idiot Wind]

Good...that is all I was trying to say...he broke many...if he broke even ONE that makes him a hypocrite and therefore not a God or at most an Evil _god. If he is willing to ordain the DEATH penalty for breaking the commandments he broke then he must be quite serious about these commandments. Why violate them himself?

Why not? He commanded his people to obey these laws, but he never said he was subject to them himself. So that might be inconsistent according to our modern ideal of equality, but not neccesarily hypocritical. God makes the rules, humans obey.
Also, can you point out why breaking a law makes him neccesarily evil or ungodly?

 

[Idiot Wind]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you arguing that might makes right (if you're powerful enough, it's okay to kill whomever you like)?

Or are you arguing that if he bought is into this world, he can take us out of it? In other words, that if you give someone life it's okay to kill them (for example, a parent should be allowed to kill their own children)?

Or are you arguing that celebrities should be excused from common standards of morality? (If you're famous, it's okay to kill people because you won't go to jail.)

Or a combination of all three?

Just playing devil's (well, actually God's) advocate here, but if you are in fact the omnipotent creator of all existence, you are the only possible absolute moral arbiter in this universe. Our human views on justice would be irrelevant. So if God exists, of course he's right, because he's God. This is why I don't like moral arguments against the existence of God. If there is such a thing as an omnipotent creator, our opinion of his commands is not relevant.

 

[Brian-M]

Just playing devil's (well, actually God's) advocate here, but if you are in fact the omnipotent creator of all existence, you are the only possible absolute moral arbiter in this universe. Our human views on justice would be irrelevant. So if God exists, of course he's right, because he's God. This is why I don't like moral arguments against the existence of God. If there is such a thing as an omnipotent creator, our opinion of his commands is not relevant.

But this would simply mean that he's operating on a different set of moral standards than us. The fact that he's "right" by his own standards is equally irrelevant from our viewpoint.

And I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "only possible absolute moral arbiter".

Do you mean he's the only possible moral arbitrator with absolute authority? Or do you mean he's the only possible authority on absolute morality?

If the former, that wouldn't make him right. If the latter, the question occurs as to whether any such thing as "absolute morality" even exists. Either way, our only means of judging him is by our moral standards.

And there's no reason to assume that he's even acting morally according to his own standards either.

 

[FireGarden]

Just playing devil's (well, actually God's) advocate here, but if you are in fact the omnipotent creator of all existence, you are the only possible absolute moral arbiter in this universe. Our human views on justice would be irrelevant. So if God exists, of course he's right, because he's God.

I disagree.
Being omnipotent would merely mean being able to enforce your will. It wouldn't make you right.

This is why I don't like moral arguments against the existence of God. If there is such a thing as an omnipotent creator, our opinion of his commands is not relevant.

It's not an argument against the existence of God. A wicked God is just as possible as a good and kind God.

For those who do believe in a kind God: either they must explain the kindness in the atrocities he ordered, or they must accept that the accounts in religious texts of him ordering atrocities are blasphemies. Or change their mind about God being kind.

 

[RandFan]

Just playing devil's (well, actually God's) advocate here, but if you are in fact the omnipotent creator of all existence, you are the only possible absolute moral arbiter in this universe.

This is just asserted as if it is axiomatic. It's not. You failed to answer the questions. You are in effect saying that might makes right.

Is what's moral, moral because god says it is? Or does god say what's moral because it is moral?

Our human views on justice would be irrelevant.

Again, this is just asserted. It's not an argument but an appeal to intuition. If morality is arbitrary then it's not morality but simply a preference. If morality isn't arbitrary then we can have a say. Not that we can dictate morality but we can figure it out. If god says killing babies is immoral for us then it is immoral for him.

So if God exists, of course he's right, because he's God.

Asserting something doesn't make it true.

This is why I don't like moral arguments against the existence of God. If there is such a thing as an omnipotent creator, our opinion of his commands is not relevant.

Asserting something doesn't make it true.

You are not playing God's advocate you are playing god's rhetorical apologist. God's right because he is god is begging the question.

 

[Leumas]

Point taken, but coveting implies a state of desire. If you take something that you don't really care about, then you haven't coveted. I'm not familiar with the text, does it describe God's state of mind? Did he actually want the land for his people, or did he merely give it to his people because it happened to be convenient or necessary?
Reading your subsequent posts, I see the quotes do show that he was jealous, but jealous of their worship of other gods. It seems from those quotes that he took their land from to anger and desire to punish, not because he coveted the land.

So no, he did not covet their land.

Again not to belabor the point...it is still not that important since we already agree...but just out of interest to see if this would get you to also agree to the Coveting point.

Remember I already argued that he coveted the worship other gods were getting and the status of the Canaanites gods.

In the verses from Ezekiel below it is obvious that:

• YHWH capriciously chose Israel
• He "espied" for them the land…look up the word espy and have a laugh.
• The land is "the best of all lands"….. whatever happened to Babylon, Syria, Egypt, Florence, Rome, Paris, Florida, Oregon, Brazil just to name a VERY few among a thousand other lands that are and were infinitely better
• They did not worship him and he did not punish them
• Not because he was merciful...but because he did not want the other nations to GLOAT
• All for his "Name's Sake"

Is this vanity and ostentation? "Espying" the lands of others for his "chosen" to glorify his name and to get them to worship him to the exclusion of their fathers' gods.

He did not choose Canaan because it was "convenient or necessary"; he "espied" it and chose it because it was "the glory of all lands"….. He coveted.

Ezekiel 20

5And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; In the day when I chose Israel, and lifted up mine hand unto the seed of the house of Jacob, and made myself known unto them in the land of Egypt, when I lifted up mine hand unto them, saying, I am the LORD your God;
6In the day that I lifted up mine hand unto them, to bring them forth of the land of Egypt into a land that I had espied for them, flowing with milk and honey, which is the glory of all lands:
7Then said I unto them, Cast ye away every man the abominations of his eyes, and defile not yourselves with the idols of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
8But they rebelled against me, and would not hearken unto me: they did not every man cast away the abominations of their eyes, neither did they forsake the idols of Egypt: then I said, I will pour out my fury upon them, to accomplish my anger against them in the midst of the land of Egypt.
9But I wrought for my name's sake, that it should not be polluted before the heathen, among whom they were, in whose sight I made myself known unto them, in bringing them forth out of the land of Egypt.

18But I said unto their children in the wilderness, Walk ye not in the statutes of your fathers, neither observe their judgments, nor defile yourselves with their idols:
​

ETA: Besides....what do the words "convenient" and "necessary" mean as far as an Omnipotent and Omniscient God is concerned? Could he not just Site-To-Site beam them from Egypt to Florida and New York and do away with all those bloody and wasted intervening centuries?

 

[Aepervius]

Yahweh gave up the universe and gave it to JC. Watch up to the last seconds .




I love SMBC.

 

[Marduk]

I'm waiting for the sequel to this thread,
"Is the non existent, coloured only by our perception"

 

[DC]

Yahweh gave up the universe and gave it to JC. Watch up to the last seconds .




I love SMBC.

LOL Torture for ever.

 

[RandFan]

Yahweh gave up the universe and gave it to JC. Watch up to the last seconds .




I love SMBC.

Like it.