Is God evil?

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
That is why faith comes before reason (as I’m continually harping on).

No that’s why you’re continually harping on

Faith comes before reason ONLY in one area, and that area is “God stuff”.

You don’t like the sound of “faith comes before reason” because you don’t understand what faith is, and don’t understand that reason is only “subservient” to faith in this one “area” of life.

Your dogma is that reason must always be the first consideration, which is true except for that one subject area that you refuse to take the time to understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
The NEED to believe is the first “reason” to believe, but it has nothing to do with human “reasoning”.

WANTING or NEEDing something to be true doesn’t make it true. This person virtually admits…

God isn’t evil, he’s imaginary.

God is imaginary to you because you won’t do the necessary things required to hear from Him.

It’s not that needing something creates God, but that needing God creates communication with Him.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Merged Duplicate Topics

 

[freesoulhope]

Merged Duplicate Topics

Why?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Some of you might flat-out hate me for even suggesting this, but really: how do we know? How do we know the whole world isn’t just some big joke, and that we’re all lab rats here to be lulled into a false sense of security over and over again, and then be tortured by a Deity grater than we can possibly imagine for His sick pleasure? That the Bible isn’t a ploy on His part to try and make us love Him an make our religious life into a situation of cruel irony?

I’d like to believe that that’s not true, but I haven’t been able to prove it to myself. If God was evil, then He would be able to fabricate any “proof” of His “goodness” anyway, so it might be a question that we, being non-omnipresent, omnipotent, etc. can’t answer.

If we insist on believing that God is deceiving us, we may very well find we are unable to believe that He does not do.​

If God is God at all, He cannot but be infinitely, indescribably Good. To be perfectly evil, is self-contradictory, because it amounts to being supremely good at being supremely evil. Which is why the devil is not infinitely evil - just very evil (if even that makes sense: it probably does not, because evil is not a thing, but an absence of good that is meant to be present).

OTOH, there is no contradiction in goodness: to be at all, is itself a mode of goodness. The torturer you’ve described is not God at all, but the devil. Even if the devil were that powerful (!), we would still have to seek the One True Good God, without Whom the thing that is the devil could not have what being it has, at all. For God is Infinite Fullness of Being , Alone Blessed, & Alone Good

If God is so evil - why is there good at all ? Logically, ISTM that you are heading straight for polytheism, with its incomplete, changeable gods of mixed moral character: which is a POV not remotely compatible with anything even distantly recognisable as Christian faith. You would then have to account not only for goodness, but also for multiplicity. That is another thing about evil - it continually unravels, never leading anywhere to any sure answers: unlike faith in God as revealed in Jesus Christ, which unifies & unites & simplifies & unfolds into joy and peace of body and of mind: it grows organically, it’s not disintegrated, like evil. They have nothing in common.

 

[BelFarfalla]

Some of you might flat-out hate me for even suggesting this, but really: how do we know? How do we know the whole world isn’t just some big joke, and that we’re all lab rats here to be lulled into a false sense of security over and over again, and then be tortured by a Deity grater than we can possibly imagine for His sick pleasure? That the Bible isn’t a ploy on His part to try and make us love Him an make our religious life into a situation of cruel irony?

I’d like to believe that that’s not true, but I haven’t been able to prove it to myself. If God was evil, then He would be able to fabricate any “proof” of His “goodness” anyway, so it might be a question that we, being non-omnipresent, omnipotent, etc. can’t answer.

Your theory here sounds like part of the belief in dualism… like Cathars.

They believed that the God of the bible was an evil God. That all things physical are evil. Since the OT God created the all things physical, like the earth, animals and mankind He is evil. they believed that during our lifetimes our souls which are good are captives of our evil physical body.

They futher believed that Christ did not come in the flesh (remember that flesh is evil) but instead came as a spirit. To them Jesus is the God of all that is good, spritual.

This is of course a form of polytheism.

 

[nucatholic]

The literal translation of Job 2:3 is “thou dost move Me against him to swallow him up for nought!’” (Young’s Literal Translation).

Yet, neither translation supports the absurd claim that there was a “deal” made (arrangement for mutual advantage). God gained nothing (as before and after the account, God lacked nothing). Satan gained nothing. ***The one who clearly benefitted from it all seems to be Job!! ***I pray God is moved against me in a similar way, just as he was moved against Job!

God did indeed give Satan the freewill to commit evil acts against Job, saying: “to Satan, ‘Behold, all that he has is in your power; only upon himself do not put forth your hand,’” later giving Satan even more freedom, saying, “Behold, he is in your power; only spare his life.” This is the only sense in which God was moved against Job.

Yet, what is the consequence of this freedom which God gives, even when exercised by those who would use it for wickedness? God knew what Satan would do. God also knew how Job would react. God also knew that in the end, Job would gain from the experience, “the LORD restored the fortunes of Job…and the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before.” (Job 42:10).

That’s not my experience. I may have sought out to create a heresy of my own making. But when I put the final touches upon it, I discovered it was orthodoxy.

Errrrrr…2+3=5. Only the ignorant or insecure would claim to know such a thing with absolute certainty, however.

Are you absolutely certain it was inappropriate? I’m not so certain about that.

Furthermore, your certainty with regard to your characterization of the Book Job is worthy of much doubt. Perhaps with more diligent study of Sacred Scripture, you will begin to have doubts about your doubts.

The “Sacred Scriptures” don’t make much sense to me friend, especially considering they begin with a logical contradiction (the two conflicting creation stories, they are not just inconsistent but logically contradictory which renders the creation story unsound) Before you try to explain it away, you should make a timeline for both stories by labeling which part of creation god made first in what order. I actually do kind of want to see how you explain that away because I want to see the depths of your delusion. (as you can see, my civility is wearing thin as well)

Thank you for patronizing me with your ad hominem attacks. I’m sure Jesus did the same when he had a disagreement with someone when he taught in the Synagogues. Obviously you care more about winning than truth, so I I await your response simply for entertainment.

 

[freesoulhope]

The “Sacred Scriptures” don’t make much sense to me friend, especially considering they begin with a logical contradiction (the two conflicting creation stories, they are not just inconsistent but logically contradictory which renders the creation story unsound) Before you try to explain it away, you should make a timeline for both stories by labeling which part of creation god made first in what order. I actually do kind of want to see how you explain that away because I want to see the depths of your delusion. (as you can see, my civility is wearing thin as well)

Unless you accept that God exist, and that God is necessary in order for the universe to come out of nothing, i don’t see the point in asking such a question.

What i will say, is that scripture must be intepreted in light of the traditions that people had at the time that genesis was written. It seems to me that your imposing your own interpretation on scripture, with out taking in to account that you are from a completly different culture form the biblical one. Your arguement seems to come from the assumption that the genesis story must be taken as literally true, and in doing so one can see the logical flaws. But there are Christian Saints that existed before the scientific era that did not hold to the literal intepretation of genesis, and it is not true that one must believe in the literal interp to be a Christian. The genesis story is obviously an anological, metaphorical story, which is reflective of an actual truth, but the literal reality that the words are displaying are not real, such as the talking snake.

If you look at the parables of Jesus, then look at stories such as the Eden, and Noars ark, they have a simela style in the way they are presented, except they are more story like and longer then the parables. Genesis explains how the world was created, and how the first human beings fell from God. You can see by the style of writing, that they are the sort of stories that are told around camp fires; the snake and the apple of sin from the tree, are obviously metaphores for something else other then what the images literally appear to be; they are metaphorical, anological representations of the real world. That, however, is not to say that the beings in them, and the basic underlining meaning of the story, is not real or true; its just that they are wrapped up in an analogical representation of a real event that had happened in past .

I haven’t given this as a proof of any kind, but it is an opinion that is widely shared. Obviously, i personally could never be a Christian, if i had to take the seven day creation as literally true.

Peace

 

[nucatholic]

Freesoulhope,

I wasn’t intending to reply to any comments, but I thought your response was interesting and very civil. The ideas you present are the very ideas I held when I was a Catholic. It was obvious to me that denying the truth of evolution was an excercise in self-deception. However, let us dive a little deeper into the idea that I am not being fair in my denying the creation story due to it being a logical contradiction if taken literally.

First, I’m almost certain that when these two creation stories were introduced to Israel, the Hebrews did indeed beleive their respective stories literally. I think it is a mistake to say that these ancient societies actually had a well developed idea of divine analogy like the one you and the Catholic Church present in modern theology.

Second, is it not a double standard to claim that the creation story is not literal and at the same time claim that the only way to interpret the Jesus story is literally? Why can’t Jesus’ life, death and ressurection be taken purely metaphorically? Or even further, how do we know that we should even believe any of the claims about God or the supernatural in the Bible? Why shouldn’t we treat it like the Illiad or the Book of the Dead or any other myth that presents some truth about humanity but which never is reasonable to consider as factual in any way? I have a feeling you will probably make the case that the Church decides with it’s authority whether or not there is room for non-literal interpretation here. If you are going to argue this, then you have to tell me why I should accept the Church’s authority on this matter.

 

[freesoulhope]

Freesoulhope,

First, I’m almost certain that when these two creation stories were introduced to Israel, the Hebrews did indeed beleive their respective stories literally. I think it is a mistake to say that these ancient societies actually had a well developed idea of divine analogy like the one you and the Catholic Church present in modern theology.

It would be nice to see something that supports you claim.

Second, is it not a double standard to claim that the creation story is not literal and at the same time claim that the only way to interpret the Jesus story is literally?

First you must investigate the history of Jesus, such as “was he a real person?” I think you personally must search for the evidence yourself , as i think it would mean more to you then if i just say well, have faith or, accept what the Pope says. If your scepticism is honest then you will do the reseach and consider all the evidence with an un-biased veiw.

Its unlikey you will get an accurate picture on this site alone, as everybody got oposing veiws even within Catholic circles.

 

[freesoulhope]

Freesoulhope,

Why can’t Jesus’ life, death and ressurection be taken purely metaphorically?

I cannot provide proof, but all i would say is that, the genesis story, is presented as a story, it doesn’t say at the beginning that the author has recieved it as a revelation from God or that he was there to see it happen (The writter was obviously not). When you read the Gospels, it has a historical tone to it in the way it is presented to the reader. It is presented as something that has really happened. The gospels are said to have been written fifty years after the account. Its unlikely that the events and the people involved are entirley mythical, if at all.

I would investigate it, i my self am investigating my faith. If i found something that was proof that Christianity was false, i would have no problem morving on with my life. The truth is, i want God to be real, and i want the gospels of Christ to be true accounts; i would be terribly hurt if they were not, but i refuse to believe blindly; i believe that ones faith must be reasonable. I have no problem with “faith” alsong as there is a good reason, other then ones subjective needs, to have it. The historical evidence in repect of Jesus rising from the dead, is promising to me, but then again im willing to believe that God exists in the first place, and hence it is entirley posible that Jesus rose from the dead; i certainly don’t believe something like that can happen by a natural occurance.
But if your of the predisposition that God cannot exist, then how can jesus rise from the dead? I would first consider all the evidence in favor of Gods existence, and then take if from there.

The difference between me and you, is that i have kept my faith pending investigation, where as you have thrown away your faith entirely.

 

[freesoulhope]

yoxcdfbdfb

 

[nucatholic]

Ok, this is seriously my last reply for the night cause I need to study for a Final haha.

I have indeed researched the historicity of Jesus and I do believe that Jesus the person probably existed. This is no problem because I’m sure you agree that Muhammed was a real person whilst not accepting his prophethood. Now, all the outside sources that mention Jesus only mention him brielfy and do not make any positive claims about his divinity or miracles etc. Thus, we are left with relying on the scriptures and writings of the early Christians to present us with accurate information about Jesus’ life. If we do this, then we must do the same with Muhammed and other prophets that existed within written history. Islam is a great example because it is a relatively young religion and there are numerous historical records of Muhammed and early Islam. If we accept the words of the early Christians when they claim that Jesus performed miracles etc, then why shouldn’t we accept the word of early Muslims about miracles associated with Muhammed or even better, the miracles associated with Joseph Smith or any other new religious movement? The reason we don’t accept the words of such people when they make claims about miracles is because we didn’t experience them ourselves and everything we know about the world tells us that miracles are impossible.

Let’s say someone says they have had a vision or have experienced a miracle. The most rational response to these claims is that they are lying or they are delusional due to natural causes (insanity, drugs) or possibly genuinely mistaken due to psychological/social factors. Everything I;ve ever experienced in life tells me that these are the only believable options.

I’m interested in your response, but I won’t be able to reply til later tomorrow.

 

[freesoulhope]

everything we know about the world tells us that miracles are impossible.

Improbable, not imposible, since you would have to know that God does not exist. Saying words like “impossible” leeds me to think that you have closed your mind to the posibility in favor of a purley naturalistic explanation.

As far as religions are concerend, Jesus rising from the dead, and the body being reported missing in other scriptures or writings apart from Gospels, shows that Jesus’s Body went missing,( if im not mistaken, somewhere in judaic writing there is the acusation that the apostles stole the body), also when you trully look at all the alternative arguements in reflection of the circumstance, there is no logical or plausible expliantion other then the fact that Jesus rose from the dead.

I see nothing like that in Islam. Plus all three different religions report on Jesus. The Christian faith is based on the fact the Jesus rose from the dead; if he did not, then the Christians have said themseleves, that are faith is false and in vein, like the apostles.
Why would they lie? Just to be tortured for somebody they know was either a mad man or a liar? Thats not reasonable to me.

I don’t believe the world popped out of nothing, and the current Big bang theory, leaves no space for a naturalistic explanation.

 

[freesoulhope]

Let’s say someone says they have had a vision or have experienced a miracle. The most rational response to these claims is that they are lying or they are delusional due to natural causes (insanity, drugs) or possibly genuinely mistaken due to psychological/social factors. Everything I;ve ever experienced in life tells me that these are the only believable options.

.

You have experienced that God does not exist? Because quite frankly, if one doesn’t know the nature of realty, it doesn’t seem reasonable to make hasty assumptions that everything is explainble by natural means. I dare say that soemthings are caused by nature; but i cannot deduce from that, that everything must be so, unless i already hold the belief that God does not exist.

 

[Gareth]

You don’t like the sound of “faith comes before reason” because you don’t understand what faith is, and don’t understand that reason is only “subservient” to faith in this one “area” of life.

Your dogma is that reason must always be the first consideration, which is true except for that one subject area that you refuse to take the time to understand.

God is imaginary to you because you won’t do the necessary things required to hear from Him.

Your posts amaze me Keiliolu you assume so much.

I spent years trying to have a relationship with God I even succeeded in a way. I regularly attended church and religous school. I spent time considering the priest hood. I had counselling sessions with a priest, I went to home groups, I was confirmed as an adult. I was baptized.

I meditated and prayed informally and formally. I had religous experiences I know weren’t just my imagination. But our religion does not explain them either.

My belief in it’s day was as genuine as yours is now. It is a house of cards my friend and you’ve complicated it to the point, where you can’t see the simple truth anymore, and that is the point of your ‘education’ to hide the truth from yourself.

Understand: you are a soulless animal related to all forms of life, from bacteria to sheep. Heading for the same place you came from… null. The bible sums it up: “Man and animals the same fate overtakes them both.”

In the begining Man created God.

 

[Gareth]

Ok, this is seriously my last reply for the night cause I need to study for a Final haha.

I have indeed researched the historicity of Jesus and I do believe that Jesus the person probably existed. This is no problem because I’m sure you agree that Muhammed was a real person whilst not accepting his prophethood. Now, all the outside sources that mention Jesus only mention him brielfy and do not make any positive claims about his divinity or miracles etc. Thus, we are left with relying on the scriptures and writings of the early Christians to present us with accurate information about Jesus’ life. If we do this, then we must do the same with Muhammed and other prophets that existed within written history. Islam is a great example because it is a relatively young religion and there are numerous historical records of Muhammed and early Islam. If we accept the words of the early Christians when they claim that Jesus performed miracles etc, then why shouldn’t we accept the word of early Muslims about miracles associated with Muhammed or even better, the miracles associated with Joseph Smith or any other new religious movement? The reason we don’t accept the words of such people when they make claims about miracles is because we didn’t experience them ourselves and everything we know about the world tells us that miracles are impossible.

Let’s say someone says they have had a vision or have experienced a miracle. The most rational response to these claims is that they are lying or they are delusional due to natural causes (insanity, drugs) or possibly genuinely mistaken due to psychological/social factors. Everything I;ve ever experienced in life tells me that these are the only believable options.

I’m interested in your response, but I won’t be able to reply til later tomorrow.

Sam harris makes an interesting point about miracles it runs somthing like this: Sai Babai (a hindu guru) has over a million followers. They claim he can walk on water, materilize objects from thin air, and raise the dead.

It doesn’t even make the evening news. But transport those type of miracles back before the age of science and Jesus’ miracles are accepted without question…

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*
You don’t like the sound of “faith comes before reason” because you don’t understand what faith is, and don’t understand that reason is only “subservient” to faith in this one “area” of life.

Your dogma is that reason must always be the first consideration, which is true except for that one subject area that you refuse to take the time to understand.

God is imaginary to you because you won’t do the necessary things required to hear from Him.
*

Your posts amaze me Keiliolu you assume so much.

I spent years trying to have a relationship with God I even succeeded in a way. I regularly attended church and religous school. I spent time considering the priest hood. I had counselling sessions with a priest, I went to home groups, I was confirmed as an adult. I was baptized.

I meditated and prayed informally and formally. I had religous experiences I know weren’t just my imagination. But our religion does not explain them either.

Uh,… I have no idea what you meant by that (bolded). Care to explain a bit further?

My belief in it’s day was as genuine as yours is now. It is a house of cards my friend and you’ve complicated it to the point, where you can’t see the simple truth anymore, and that is the point of your ‘education’ to hide the truth from yourself.

The more I “study” the faith, the less complicated and more clear it becomes.

The point of all good education is to reveal the truth hidden in the dross.

That your “complexification”, by which you were “disenchanted”, was called by you an “education” is simply your misunderstanding of the process of real education.

I’m sorry you had a horrible experience which produced such a horrible result.

Understand: you are a soulless animal related to all forms of life, from bacteria to sheep. Heading for the same place you came from… null. The bible sums it up: “Man and animals the same fate overtakes them both.”

In the begining Man created God.

God allows you to believe as best suits what you need at all times. You need right now not to believe in God, so that you can experience what that is like.

When you are truly faced with your “null”, you will be still free to believe as you choose, and are not obliged, or deserve, to believe as you have. That is the only thing I hope you will remember when that time comes.

Do not feel unworthy,… and do not feel you are without choice, even at the last moment.

Best to 'ya…!

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.