Does God have the ability to be evil?
- Thread starter NDS
- Start date
1) there is no God. Free will exists in us all.
2) good is that which favors the society existence. Good is tied with love, "to die for the truth, to die for the love, to die to protect"
3) evil is opposite of good
4) there is no God. We have the ability to act evil or good. We have the ability to be Gods of our own world.
5) there is no God. We can sin, we choose to sin and not.
2) good is that which favors the society existence. Good is tied with love, "to die for the truth, to die for the love, to die to protect"
3) evil is opposite of good
4) there is no God. We have the ability to act evil or good. We have the ability to be Gods of our own world.
5) there is no God. We can sin, we choose to sin and not.
certainly
what is in accordance with his free will
what is in discordance with his free will
he can - he does this by retracting the opportunity to serve him with love - usually he does this when the living entity envies him (and thus comes to the material world to deal with their envy)
since he is the foundation from which such a term develops, no
who would he 'sin' against?
What is "good"?
Why? How exactly do you know God's will is good?
Is "good" a quality separate from God which God chooses to be?
Or is "good" whatever quality God has at a given time?
What is evil?
Can God transform from a "good" being into an "evil" being like Satan?
You stated earlier that evil is whatever is discordance with God's will.
You stated above that God can transform into an evil being.
This is a contradiction since God cannot go against his own free will.
Does he have the ability to become evil, or perform an evil act?
So your definition of evil is "the opposite of God." You've already stated above, however, that God can transform into an evil being. Therefore, if God transforms into an evil being and he is the foundation from which the term evil develops, then does "evil" suddenly mean "good"?
Can God "sin"?
If you claim that "God" and "Good" are two separate entities, then sin can be defined as "anything which goes against God or Good"
However, if you claim that "Good" means whatever "God" is, then sin can only mean "anything which goes against God."
So in the former case, God could sin in the sense that he is going against the principle of Good.
lightgigantic said:
Why? How exactly do you know God's will is good?
Is "good" a quality separate from God which God chooses to be?
Or is "good" whatever quality God has at a given time?
What is evil?
lightgigantic said:
Can God transform from a "good" being into an "evil" being like Satan?
lightgigantic said:
You stated earlier that evil is whatever is discordance with God's will.
You stated above that God can transform into an evil being.
This is a contradiction since God cannot go against his own free will.
Does he have the ability to become evil, or perform an evil act?
lightgigantic said:
So your definition of evil is "the opposite of God." You've already stated above, however, that God can transform into an evil being. Therefore, if God transforms into an evil being and he is the foundation from which the term evil develops, then does "evil" suddenly mean "good"?
Can God "sin"?
lightgigantic said:
If you claim that "God" and "Good" are two separate entities, then sin can be defined as "anything which goes against God or Good"
However, if you claim that "Good" means whatever "God" is, then sin can only mean "anything which goes against God."
So in the former case, God could sin in the sense that he is going against the principle of Good.
this q was proposed by an ancient western philosopher (plato?) - basically the problem about defining goodness as something separate from god (the omnimax one of course) is that you are left with the issue of what is the framework an all powerful entity is working out of - in other words it suggests a greater cause than god
hence goodness is defined in relation to god's nature, rather than god's nature being defined in relation to goodness - I explain this more clearly later on
I also stated that a entity is transfered into something 'evil', or perhaps more correctly stated 'ignorant', when they envy god (envy being the fundamental principle of material existence)
certainly, if its god's will that the living entity also has free will (there is a difference between the free will of god and the free will of the living entity - the main one is that such classifications of good/evil cannot be determined by our free will)
“
the opposite of god's nature
I did?
unlike us, god doesn't have the ability to immerse himself in ignorance and thus forget his nature - since to be evil requires that one forget god's nature, it is not possible for god to be evil, just as it is not possible to cast a shadow on the sun
more closer to the later - basically there would have to be a nature higher than god for him to sin - since this defies the understanding of the word 'god' (no nature higher than him), the only other possibility is if god could transgress his own nature, which requires the influence of illusion or ignorance, and this also defies the standard definition of the word 'god' (no trace of the illusory influence of ignorance)
This statement is not needed. Basically it would be of better use to say that a god can do anything, but wont regard what it does as a 'sin' or evil the way humans perceive the word.
There are many written records of actions by gods that to us would be deemed sinful or evil. As an example I would mention human annihilation that from human morality is just plain wrong. god however can do these things and be free from any repurcussions purely on the basis that there is nobody to judge him/her/it/them.
It would be apparent that a god can sin/perform evil actions. If it could not then it would not be omnipotent and thus would cause LG to state that it "defies the standard definition of the word god".
In short: yes a god can sin, there's just nobody to judge those actions.
Lightgigantic,
If God is willing to stop evil but unable, he's not omnipotent.
If Gos is able to stop evil, but unwilling, then he's not benevolent.
What part of that statement escapes you theists' perceptions????
If God is willing to stop evil but unable, he's not omnipotent.
If Gos is able to stop evil, but unwilling, then he's not benevolent.
What part of that statement escapes you theists' perceptions????
Such a character as god would definitely have the capacity to commit evil, however would lack the ability to recognize any such acts as evil - having already defined himself as 'good'.
Hebrew is a very definite language...under the Hebrew to English translation the Hebrew word translated evil suggest that God does cause evil to come down on those that commit evil against God and their fellowman as a form a justice.
That word is best described as "to go against" or "to act against" Hebrew is litteral....so yes according to scripture God causes evil as a form of righteous judement upon the lawless.
That word is best described as "to go against" or "to act against" Hebrew is litteral....so yes according to scripture God causes evil as a form of righteous judement upon the lawless.
I can see that. But, it isn't that simple. Have you ever heard the phrase, 'it rains on the just and unjust'?
It makes it hard to worship or respect any deity that one, allows evil to come down on those people, because a lot of people get way more punishment than they deserve.* And two, that means since he allows evil to roam the earth, REGARDLESS of justice this, and justice that, he's not benevolent and ultimately responsible and accountable for all the crap that happens in this world.
*example, a guy grows up non-christian. He is offered Christianity but by his personal choice, he does not accept it. He grows up to be a good upstanding citizen. He supports his community, gives to charity, gets married, has children, raises them like a father should, never cheats on his wife, and passes away still married.
According to Xianity, he will go to hell. I personally have a problem with that. You do not have to be Xian to be a good, moral person. If anyone thinks otherwise, they are smoking crack.
So you can polish it, sugarcoat it and glitter it up all you want, but it all boils down to two choices (according to Xians): accept Christ or burn for eternity in hell.
If our legal systems punishment were proportional to that b/s, then we should put shoplifters in prison for life and lethal inject vandalists.
Now you see how people follow satanism - God is the bad guy - devil is the good guy. "Satan" rebelled for some reason anyway.
Actually ops I just remembered Zoroaster is the guy that made that whole horseshit story up....carry on.
Actually ops I just remembered Zoroaster is the guy that made that whole horseshit story up....carry on.
Because God is the self-proclaimed epitome of good and everything that doesn't agree with or accept God, is evil. That's why.
We simply don't know, but it might mean something else in that perspective than it does in ours.
No one is good but God, everything else is your moral code I guess, and what you think is good. It's good to do what you believe is good. Often things we perceive as good are done with love in mind.
Often we do evil things because of fear of different things, it can also be that we are influenced by our selfishness and evil is often the opposite of things we perceive as good.
God doesn't bring forth what He hates. So no. God cannot perform an evil act, as an evil act is something that isn't supported by God.
No, God doesn't go against Himself.
Who said that God is unwilling to stop evil, and who said that God is unabled to stop evil? We are on earth for a reason, for that reason evil is sustained, but only for so long (I think, when the rightous reaches it's full number).