evil God?

[billcu1]

In theology god is good beyond our understanding. Any thing genuinely evil as we define it god allows to exist because it will ultimately be used to make a good. In non-theological systems I don’t see why it would matter because there is no first cause. No mover that is moved by only itself. Nothing happens against god’s will either. It is so perfect that god wills a good and something slips in; an “evil” god has already taken it into account and has a plan.

 

[Daedelus76]

It was have a cost to the girl and to the torturer. So at most 2 people could be hurt by it. No one else would have to know.

But isn’t that pretty ugly? That your moral philosophy would force you to admit that torturing a little girl to death is actually morally good if it could benefit enough people? Wouldn’t it be better to pick a better base for your morality?

My moral “philosophy” would say that torture is abhorent wheather I know about it or not. Needing your religion to justify my moral sentiments is not necessary. Let’s stop playing tricks, shall we? I’m not the one from the philosophical tradition that pits sentiments against reason and elevates reason above sentiments. In a normal, healthy human being empathy leads us to not want to hurt people or watch other people suffer.

 

[Daedelus76]

Daedalus
But the stats tell us it is atheism that breaks our will, since the rate of suicide among atheists everywhere in the world is higher than the rate for theists.

Well, I consider believing what is uncomfortable but true preferable to believing a lie that is pleasant.

It is apparent that your notion of God is not of a supreme Intelligence and Heart to go with it.

Sorry, I know how Catholicism works. You can’t tell me its many rules are part of a system created by a loving, wise being. It’s judgemental, authoritarian, and impersonal. Not the traits I consider characteristic of an enlightened mind.

It is true we are uncertain of our salvation. That’s as it should be.

So Catholic salvation is like the lottery, take your chances? Why bother playing this game, since most adults realize gambling is for fools? I would be gambling away what little time I have. I can spend my life trying to live well as I understand it in my natural state, free from the gulit and shame that your religion pushes on people, or I can spend my life trying to be something I’m not playing by somebody else’s rules, and die, and maybe… be with a being that’s threatened me will eternal punishment if I don’t obey Him. One path involves being a fake person, the other not. If God is a loving being, why would he construct an obstacle course of faith? Why threaten people that never asked for his religion in their life in the first place?

That is something only a suicide would hope for.

Not loving life comes easily to somebody that sees suffering in the world. We should love life to live for others, not because some horrible sky tyrrant orders us to do so. If we can’t muster the courage to do that, then perhaps suicide is preferable.

 

[danserr]

My moral “philosophy” would say that torture is abhorent wheather I know about it or not. Needing your religion to justify my moral sentiments is not necessary. Let’s stop playing tricks, shall we? I’m not the one from the philosophical tradition that pits sentiments against reason and elevates reason above sentiments. In a normal, healthy human being empathy leads us to not want to hurt people or watch other people suffer.

This is not a game or a trick, it is the logical implications of your moral system. You offered a moral system based on the principle that “whatever contributes to human flourishing is good, and whatever hinders it is bad.”

Now not only is this arbitrary, but it has the ugly consequence that if torturing a little girl to death contributed to human flourishing or maximized happiness for more people, then your system obligates you to affirm that torturing the little girl to death is not only morally good, but a moral duty!

Trying to claim that we don’t want people to suffer doesn’t help you, because on your system if torturing this little girl prevented the suffering of more people, then your system obligates you to do it.

Christianity, however, offers you a solid basis for your moral principles, (which are probably ones on which we would largely agree).

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Daedelus

Sorry, I know how Catholicism works. You can’t tell me its many rules are part of a system created by a loving, wise being. It’s judgemental, authoritarian, and impersonal. Not the traits I consider characteristic of an enlightened mind.

None of the above is true, so you don’t really know the Catholic God.

Well, I consider believing what is uncomfortable but true preferable to believing a lie that is pleasant.

Bottom line, you don’t know for a fact it’s true there is no God. That’s why you’re here at Catholic Answers, trying to justify your unbelief.

So Catholic salvation is like the lottery, take your chances?

In a way, yes. Just like you take a chance leaving your house in the morning. You don’t know if you are going to make it home at night.

If God is a loving being, why would he construct an obstacle course of faith? Why threaten people that never asked for his religion in their life in the first place?

You have a chip on your shoulder, as I once did. No one else can knock it off. You have to do that yourself.

If God is a loving being, why would he construct an obstacle course of faith? Why threaten people that never asked for his religion in their life in the first place?

If there is a God and his name is Jesus, the fake person is the one who rejects him.

I ought to know. I was a fake person for many years.

We should love life to live for others, not because some horrible sky tyrrant orders us to do so.

Apparently you have had some bad experience with authority figures in life. All authority is not bad. If you have children, you have to exercise authority over them, even when they irrationally claim you are a tyrant. A tyrant is not a father who has given his life for his children. A tyrant is not someone who preaches love and then dies to prove that love conquers all … even death.

A tyrant is someone who has told you that the person who really loves you is a tyrant. A tyrant is someone who persuades you to believe that the truth is a lie, and a lie is the truth. A tyrant is someone who wants you to die and suffer forever in his presence … Satan.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Let me preface this post by saying that I have not taken the time to read all of the replies in this thread, so I may have little if anything to add to the discussion. But I believe this to be an important topic, and if there is anything that I can add, I suppose that I should try, regardless of its insignificance.

To put it as simply as I can, I believe that evil has nothing to do with the result, evil has everything to do with the intent. Bad and evil are two different things.

We all make choices every day knowing that bad things may happen. Parents send their children off to play sports, knowing that there is a chance that they may be injured. But as much as they love their children, and as much as they are aware of the danger, they allow them to play. But their intent is not to do harm, to their children, or to any other. They don’t intend for bad things to happen, although they know that they inevitably will, to someone’s child, somewhere. They have weighed the danger and the potential benefits and they have made a choice. The intent is not evil, even if the outcome is bad. Even with good intentions bad things can happen. That is the price of freewill I suppose. That is the price of life.

I do not know the nature of God, and if He created this world I do not know His intent. What I can see, is all the struggles and suffering that life brings, but I cannot see the ultimate good that may come, and so I cannot judge the intent. But I do know that for all the bad things that happen in life, there are some truly priceless and inspirational things too, and perhaps one is the price that one pays for the other. I, in my wisdom, wish that bad things would never happen, and that the world would be filled with only happiness and joy, but perhaps such a world is not possible. At least not for men. At least not now. But I can hope, that someday the suffering will lessen, the pain will diminish, and the anguish will fade. Until that day, all that I can do is persevere, and hope, that there is somewhere mercy, that there is somewhere a value far beyond the price.

Perhaps it takes a perspective far greater than yours or mine, to judge the ultimate value of life, and the intent of God.

 

[Daedelus76]

This is not a game or a trick, it is the logical implications of your moral system. You offered a moral system based on the principle that “whatever contributes to human flourishing is good, and whatever hinders it is bad.”

Unlike you, I’m not a rationalist. Reason isn’t an absolute guide to what is true. A wise man, the Buddha, told the Kalama tribe 2500 years ago to resist the appeals of “spurious reasoning” and to accept only those teachings that “you yourselves know is true”.

Now not only is this arbitrary, but it has the ugly consequence that if torturing a little girl to death contributed to human flourishing or maximized happiness for more people, then your system obligates you to affirm that torturing the little girl to death is not only morally good, but a moral duty!

Please don’t use the phrase “moral duty”… That’s imposing an objectivist view of morality onto what I’m saying (moral sentimentalism).

For what it’s worth, I’m also open to considering Kantian ethics; though I intuitively see flaws in his view of what is moral, it’s far superior to what the Catholic Church uses to decide what is and isn’t moral behavior.

trying to claim that we don’t want people to suffer doesn’t help you, because on your system if torturing this little girl prevented the suffering of more people, then your system obligates you to do it.

This is too abstracted from reality, in the real world torturing a little girl doesn’t benefit other people and causes a great deal of harm. So your point is moot. If you mean, would I do something ugly in order to safeguard the lives and wellbeing of many other people, I think I would… and you would be a moral coward to not do so as well.

Christianity, however, offers you a solid basis for your moral principles, (which are probably ones on which we would largely agree).

Are you kidding? I believe there’s alot of difference between my moral sensibilities and yours. In my mind there’s nothing wrong with being gay or lesbian and expressing love physically with other gays or lebians, nothing wrong with birth control (and something wrong with needlessly bringing lives into the world), for starters. I don’t view life as “sacred”, nor do I see us having a duty to sky daddy to make more offspring.

I believe alot less in “moral principles” and alot more in the golden rule, like Jesus said, “on this hangs the whole of the Law”. He didn’t mean it had a dozen qualifications and so on. The Buddha said the same thing, “Whatever is hurtful to you, do not cause for others”. No Pope and his Scholastic voodoo is needed to tell me how I ought to act to my fellow human beings, I can figure that out on my own.

In a way, yes. Just like you take a chance leaving your house in the morning. You don’t know if you are going to make it home at night.

I have a reasonable certainty though that if I do things in the correct order, I will. Catholicism can’t give me that. The whole concept of mortal/venial sins and your Scholastic categories for divine punishment and justice and so forth, portray God as a fiendish nominalist, a stickler for rules. Mercy is something He knows nothing about. This is not wisdom, because real wisdom is looking into the causes and conditions of behaviors and understanding those, rather than making judgements on a person’s nature.

If there is a God and his name is Jesus, the fake person is the one who rejects him.

Jesus knows where I live, if he has issues with my behavior he knows where to get in touch with me. Otherwise, I don’t believe you have authority to speak for him.

A tyrant is not a father who has given his life for his children. A tyrant is not someone who preaches love and then dies to prove that love conquers all … even death.

That’s Jesus… not your God. Your God is whatever the current Pope says he is. In times in history, in fact, God has been much more like some byzantine monarch than a carpenter from the Galilee, because the Papacy is saturated in the corruption of this world. That’s pretty much how Catholic epistemology works, whatever the Pope wants to say infallibly must be true, right? That in itself is submission to tyrrany.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Daedelus

Jesus knows where I live, if he has issues with my behavior he knows where to get in touch with me. Otherwise, I don’t believe you have authority to speak for him.

I notice that much of the time you live at Catholic Answers. Why are you here if you don’t believe we have any authority to speak in his name?

 

[Ian_Ward]

Only a person with an hard and calloused heart would believe that God is evil.

 

[tonyrey]

             *

Ultimate responsibility is not identical with immediate responsibility. Parents are aware of the crimes some of their descendants will commit but they are not responsible for them.

Parents **know **it is virtually certain some of their descendants will commit crimes - which they could prevent by not having any children - but most people agree it is worth having children because of the immense value of life.

How do you derive purpose from that which is purposeless?

People can choose their own purposes and create their own meaning.

How?

A cheap, simplistic philosophy of materialism is just a rationalization…

I’m not a materialist. Rejecting your religious beliefs doesn’t equate with embracing materialism.

If you are not a materialist you must believe in the reality of the mind…

Can you provide a **feasible **

blueprint of a world totally devoid of disease, disasters and deformities?
It’s not my responsibility. I’m not the one claiming to believe in an all-powerful, all good supreme being.

You are claiming that there is excessive suffering.

However, I’ve just found something your God cannot do… create a world devoid of suffering yet having moral freedom. This makes classical theism invalid as far as I’m concerned, because this God is not all-powerful but his goodness and/or power is constrained by human freedom.

God has freely chosen to be constrained by human freedom and He can choose to rescind that constraint.

People want to believe their God is all-powerful, but they qualify God into meaninglessness.

Your rejection of qualification is meaningless. The gift of freedom implies sharing power - which is a rational explanation.

Are you telling me I should just ignore **the reality of good and evil **

in your desire to see a Godless world?
Good is whatever helps human flourishing evil is the opposite.

“helps” and “flourishing” are both value judgments which beg the question…

No God is needed to explain it.

How do you derive value from that which is valueless?

 

[tonyrey]

I don't view life as "sacred", nor do I see us having a duty to sky daddy to make more offspring....

So you wouldn’t hesitate to kill a person?

No Pope and his Scholastic voodoo is needed to tell me how I ought to act to my fellow human beings, I can figure that out on my own.

In other words you claim to be infallible! How and where do you derive your insight, intelligence and information? From your “earth daddy”?

 

[hiinEnkelte]

If God doesn’t exist evil doesn’t exist!

“The Son of God suffered unto death, not that men might not suffer, but that their sufferings might be likes His.”-George Macdonald

 

[ThinkingSapien]

No Pope and his Scholastic voodoo is needed to tell me how I ought to act to my fellow human beings, I can figure that out on my own.

I’m sure he will correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t gather that he is claiming or implying to be infallible. I do gather that he doesn’t recognize the Pope as an authority.

 

[Daedelus76]

Parents **know **it is virtually certain some of their descendants will commit crimes - which they could prevent by not having any children - but most people agree it is worth having children because of the immense value of life.

Why is life inherently valuable? Specifically “new life”?

People have children because most kids are unplanned and people have sex, not because they sit down and philosophize about it. Its animal behavior, genes doing their thing.

                                                If you are not a materialist you must believe in the reality of the mind...

Yeah, what does a bearded guy in the sky have to do with the mind being real?

I believe there may be something like a “ground of being”. Like I may be open to pantheism or panentheism (I hate to use the language that could be misconstrued as monotheism but I want to make it plain- I’m not wedded to a materialist worldview). But your mythology doesn’t give us unique insight into this metaphysical reality. On the contrary it empowers a class of people that have proven themselves abusive manipulators of this world. I see no need for your fairy tales, in short.

 You are claiming that there is excessive suffering.

My value judgement… following my heart on this one. Or do you believe that feelings don’t matter? You’re the one willing to submit us all to a cold calculus that doesn’t take into consideration peoples subjective experiences of anguish and suffering.

God has freely chosen to be constrained by human freedom and He can choose to rescind that constraint.

I’m sure that consoles a rape victim, too. Imagine if cops had to respect our precious freedom like your God does…

How do you derive value from that which is valueless?

Value and meaning is relational and contextual, so it doesn’t have to be absolute.

In other words you claim to be infallible! How and where do you derive your insight, intelligence and information? From your “earth daddy”?

I derive it from myself. I’m not a mental weakling that needs somebody else vouching for everything I perceive. Radical skepticism works both ways… how do you know the Pope is really infallible? You don’t.

“The Son of God suffered unto death, not that men might not suffer, but that their sufferings might be likes His.”-George Macdonald

Was Jesus ever raped? Did Jesus die from Ebola? Maybe have his organs slowly eaten over a period of days by wasp larvae (wow, there’s an intelligent design by a benevolent Creator). Come on, a morning spent on a cross and a few lashes doesn’t equal the suffering experienced in the whole world. So just how is Jesus suffering like every human beings? It’s not. Every human is unique. Christians just show a profound disrespect to peoples individuality when they play this game. You use the cross to delegitimize the anger and outrage of victims, that’s abhorent.

 

[tonyrey]

Parents know it is virtually certain some of their descendants will commit crimes - which they could prevent by not having any children - but most people agree it is worth having children because of the immense value of life.

Irrelevant. Do you deny that parents know it is virtually certain some of their descendants will commit crimes?

People have children because most kids are unplanned and people have sex, not because they sit down and philosophize about it. Its animal behavior, genes doing their thing.

Irrelevant and off the topic. Do you deny that most people would agree it is worth having children because of the immense value of life?

If you are not a materialist you must believe in the reality of the mind…

Yeah, what does a bearded guy in the sky have to do with the mind being real?

Your puerile caricature of Christianity infringes the forum rules and is an infantile evasion of the issue.

I believe there may be something like a “ground of being”. Like I may be open to pantheism or panentheism (I hate to use the language that could be misconstrued as monotheism but I want to make it plain- I’m not wedded to a materialist worldview). But your mythology doesn’t give us unique insight into this metaphysical reality. On the contrary it empowers a class of people that have proven themselves abusive manipulators of this world. I see no need for your fairy tales, in short.

Your vacuous objections to Christianity are based on nebulous metaphysical assumptions…

You are claiming that there is excessive suffering.

My value judgement… following my heart on this one. Or do you believe that feelings don’t matter? You’re the one willing to submit us all to a cold calculus that doesn’t take into consideration peoples subjective experiences of anguish and suffering.

A false argumentum ad hominem which fails to substantiate your claim that there is excessive suffering

God has freely chosen to be constrained by human freedom and He can choose to rescind that constraint.

I’m sure that consoles a rape victim, too. Imagine if cops had to respect our precious freedom like your God does…

Irrelevant, false and an infringement of the forum rules which reveals inability to refute my statement.

How do you derive value from that which is valueless?

Value and meaning is relational and contextual, so it doesn’t have to be absolute.

Another evasion of the question:

How do you derive value from that which is valueless?

In other words you claim to be infallible! How and where do you derive your insight, intelligence and information? From your “earth daddy”?

I derive it from myself.

In other words you claim to be not only infallible but also inspired!

I’m not a mental weakling that needs somebody else vouching for everything I perceive.

Irrelevant, false and an infringement of the forum rules.
.

“The Son of God suffered unto death, not that men might not suffer, but that their sufferings might be likes His.”-George Macdonald
Was Jesus ever raped?

An irrelevant, illogical and deliberately provocative question which infringes the forum rules.

Did Jesus die from Ebola?

An irrelevant, illogical and deliberately provocative question which infringes the forum rules.

Maybe have his organs slowly eaten over a period of days by wasp larvae (wow, there’s an intelligent design by a benevolent Creator).

Irrelevant, illogical and deliberately provocative invective which infringes the forum rules.

Come on, a morning spent on a cross and a few lashes doesn’t equal the suffering experienced in the whole world. So just how is Jesus suffering like every human beings? It’s not. Every human is unique. Christians just show a profound disrespect to peoples individuality when they play this game. You use the cross to degilimitize the anger and outrage of victims, that’s abhorent.

Irrelevant, illogical and deliberately provocative invective which infringes the forum rules.

 

[tonyrey]

No Pope and his Scholastic voodoo is needed to tell me how I ought to act to my fellow human beings, I can figure that out on my own.

		 		 	 	  In other words you claim to be infallible! How and where do you derive your insight, intelligence and information? From your "earth daddy"?  			 		 	 	 I'm sure he will correct me if I am wrong, but I don't gather that  he is claiming or implying to be infallible. I do gather that he  doesn't recognize the Pope as an authority.

NB "I can figure that out on my own"!

 

[hiinEnkelte]

Was Jesus ever raped? Did Jesus die from Ebola? Maybe have his organs slowly eaten over a period of days by wasp larvae (wow, there’s an intelligent design by a benevolent Creator). Come on, a morning spent on a cross and a few lashes doesn’t equal the suffering experienced in the whole world. So just how is Jesus suffering like every human beings? It’s not. Every human is unique. Christians just show a profound disrespect to peoples individuality when they play this game. You use the cross to delegitimize the anger and outrage of victims, that’s abhorent.

How obtuse.

“Come on, a morning spent on a cross and a few lashes doesn’t equal the suffering experienced in the whole world.”

1. Even if one could somehow combine all the suffering in the world–not even sure what that means how how it could be done–it is irrelevant since no one suffers that much pain.
2. Crucufixion is an agnozing way to die. How could you gloss over that?
3. If Christian theology is correct, Jesus Christ didn’t even have to go through with it. And even worse, Jesus, the Son of God, was forsaken by His father. Pain isn’t just physical.

“So just how is Jesus suffering like every human beings? It’s not. Every human is unique.”

Did you mean “he’s not” and not “it’s not”? Either way, suffering is suffering and there is no quesiton Jesus suffered to a degree in which I cannot even imagine. Clearly Jesus suffers–suffers unto death–and that is how he shares in our uniqueness. Our humanity is our uniqueness which Christ Himself participated in. How does me being unique as a specific individual have anything to do with my suffering in this context?

“Christians just show a profound disrespect to peoples individuality when they play this game. You use the cross to delegitimize the anger and outrage of victims, that’s abhorent.”

I am unable to agree with you. Christianity legitimizes suffering.

Every other philosophy/religion in the world–at least many of the influential ones–deal with the problem of evil by escape, but “the peace of Christ is totally different, for on Calvary profound peace and unspeakable suffering were welded into one.”

 

[MindOverMatter2]

You use the cross to delegitimize the anger and outrage of victims, that’s abhorent.

Jesus’s suffering implies that potential suffering is a necessary step to salvation. Jesus had to sacrifice himself in order for the human race to be saved. Its got nothing to do with how horrible his suffering was. The point is, a greater good comes out of the potentiality of suffering; and that is the salvation of the human race. Only good people are willing to suffer for the greater good; only bad people scorn sacrifice. Human beings would rather not sacrifice anything for heaven. The idea that potential suffering isn’t necessary is the illegitimate assumption of those finite minds looking for a much wanted excuse to disbelieve so as to avoid the responsibilities intrinsic to Christianity.

Using other peoples suffering as an attempt to excuse yourself from taking Christianity seriously is a more abhorrent disrespect to human beings, since it implies that you would rather believe that humanities suffering amounts to absolutely nothing, and that nothing truly good or meaningful comes from their existence or suffering.

I would prefer to be humble and give God the benefit of the doubt so that people who suffer can at the very least have the dignity of suffering for a greater good, so that their lives actually mean something good. Christianity dignifies suffering, rather than hopelessly enslaving us to it. Wouldn’t you rather believe that people suffer for a reason, than have the belief that people suffer for nothing and then cease to exist?

Which is more abhorrent to you?

I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss God on the basis suffering. While it is in deed a very perplexing subject; if i am truly humble i will admit that i am not omniscient and thus i am not in a position to judge the creator. And if i truly perceive good and evil and understand the nature of good and evil in the world, than that is every reason to believe in a transcendent objective standard of good, since true evil can only exist as a privation of objective goodness, and i can only know true goodness if good actually exists.

In a very real sense, evil is evidence of a Good God.

 

[hiinEnkelte]

MindOverMatter2–right on!

 

[Daedelus76]

Irrelevant. Do you deny that parents know it is virtually certain some of their descendants will commit crimes?

No I don’t. But why does what the majority of parents think have to do with being a guide to truth? Appeal to consensus is a fallacy.

How obtuse.

1. If Christian theology is correct, Jesus Christ didn’t even have to go through with it. And even worse, Jesus, the Son of God, was forsaken by His father. Pain isn’t just physical.

If God abandoned Jesus, he could abandon any of us. If God abandoned a good person like Jesus for a morning why wouldn’t he abandon you or me for eternity… on less warrant? Christians can’t step outside their myths and stories and see how genuinely repulsive they can be. Why worship a cosmic child abuser that loves hurting people?

Legitimizing suffering is part of the problem; it hardens peoples hearts against actually doing something and is moral nihilism, not moral progress (or worse, it sentimentalizes away peoples real needs in favor of religious platitudes, “The poor will always be with you”.). And this is what Christianity’s view of the Cross does, it’s a legitimization of violence and indifference to suffering. " If Jesus could “man up” and take God’s wrath, surely you, the oppressed, the poor, the marginalized, can do the same? Quit whining about injustice and just take it like Jesus" It’s hate bottled as fluffy love. This is what I hate. You take the words of a man that pronounced woes upon the rich and powerful and you create a mythology around him to justify your authority, so that you can then use it to human, temporal ends. To tell the oppressed to sit at the back of the bus and never speak up, never demand more; to be good little serfs and fit into the Chain of Being and hope for the Pie in the Sky… Hell on Earth is justified by your Heaven.

I’m not the hedonistic moral coward here. I hope there is a final judgement just as Jesus spoke of, with the sheep and the goats, and I hope that the oppressed, the poor, the disabled, the gay are your accusers against you and your church; you deserve no less; you cloak your fear and insecurity in religious piety instead of embracing an ethic of radical solidarity with the other (which is necessary for real love), because that would involve genuine humility and openness instead of what is at the ugly heart of every religious impulse; control and manipulation.