Does the award for the greatest evil go to Satan or God?

No it isn't. If I tell you that giving to the poor is a good thing and then I don't give to the poor, I'm a hypocrite but I'm not lying. It's still good to give to the poor.

But how does that make hypocrisy good?

If a non-hypocrite says the same thing, it is better than a hypocrite saying it so the hypocrite must take a lower rank on the morality scale.
He is then more evil than the other.

Regards
DL
 
I'm not entirely certain what the Jewish view of Satan is. But I do seem to recall that there's a tradition in which Satan kind of serves as God's 'inspector-general'. He goes around tempting people, in order to see how deep their loyalty to God really is.

In that version of the story, the God-character still suffers from whatever moral defects the tradition has the God-character suffering from. And the Satan-character loses all the heroic qualities that he might have derived from standing up and taking a position in moral opposition to that. Satan is reduced to being sort of a two-faced weasel. He tries to talk human beings into opposing God, then runs and informs on them to his master if they listen.



In my opinion that's one of the best religious replies to the problem-of-evil. If God is good, then why is there so much evil in the world?
.

I see no problem of evil.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.


Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.

Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.

Evil then is only human to human.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should all see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us. Wherever it came from. God or nature.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ProfMTH#g/c/6F8036F680C1DBEB

Regards
DL
 
I gave one. If I tell you that giving to the poor is a good thing but I don't give to the poor, I'm hypocrite - but giving to the poor is still a good thing. Somebody else might even give more than I could.

The hypocrisy itself is neither good nor bad. The outcome of the hypocrtical statement can be either good or bad.

Your statement was that hypocrisy was good. Let's make up our minds.

Regards
DL
 
If a non-hypocrite says the same thing, it is better than a hypocrite saying it so the hypocrite must take a lower rank on the morality scale.
He is then more evil than the other.
If the hypocrisy had good effects, he isn't more evil. He might be less good. But how do you measure "good"? If somebody gives $100 because of me, isn't that "more good" than me giving $10?
 
If the hypocrisy had good effects, he isn't more evil. He might be less good. But how do you measure "good"? If somebody gives $100 because of me, isn't that "more good" than me giving $10?

Would he not give the same to the non-hypocrite as he gave to the hypocrite?

Regards
DL
 
Would he not give the same to the non-hypocrite as he gave to the hypocrite?
If the same amount is given, there's no effective difference between the hypocrite and the non-hypocrite. Without an observable difference in results, how do you judge good and evil? Are you suggesting that hypocrisy is absolutely bad, regardless of the outcome?
 
If the same amount is given, there's no effective difference between the hypocrite and the non-hypocrite. Without an observable difference in results, how do you judge good and evil? Are you suggesting that hypocrisy is absolutely bad, regardless of the outcome?

No. I am waiting for a scenario that shows where it can be good and have shown that this is not a workable scenario for me to see where hypocrisy would be good.

Regards
DL
 
No. I am waiting for a scenario that shows where it can be good and have shown that this is not a workable scenario for me to see where hypocrisy would be good.
You've rejected a scenario in which hypocrisy produces the same result as non-hypocisy - and it's a good result. How can you claim that in that scenario hypcrisy isn't good?
 
You've rejected a scenario in which hypocrisy produces the same result as non-hypocisy - and it's a good result. How can you claim that in that scenario hypcrisy isn't good?

Because we saw that thew result would have been the same either way and hypocrisy was just a needless added evil to the mix.

Regards
DL
 
As the creator of Satan, many think that God deserves the blame as he knew what Satan would be because God knows everything in advance.
I guess, there can't be an explanation other than: pre-scientific wises fund in 'Satan'(demonized gods [Zeus], demonized animals [Snake], Baal) the only explanation for natural evil (earthquakes, diseases, plagues, etc) and moral evil (caused by humans).

When spanish conquerors arrives to America demonized every religious icon of native people.
 
Why?
Because you can't decide?

No, because such silliness relies squarely on naive and immature notions of a god. You have already admitted to being completely unwilling to entertain any notions that diverge from the ones you perceive as typifying your chosen target and opposition. You seem to have intentionally boxed yourself into the corner of a false dilemma. Superstring has already said here, and I have elsewhere, that evil can only be demonstrated to originate from man.
 
If God is omnipotent (all Powerful), omnificent (unlimited power to create), and omniscient (all-knowing) as represented in most western theologies, then how can God not be both good and evil since both exist in our world?

He cannot. Therefore God must be both good and evil. Satan and “God” must then be different aspects of the same divine entity.
 
If God is omnipotent (all Powerful), omnificent (unlimited power to create), and omniscient (all-knowing) as represented in most western theologies, then how can God not be both good and evil since both exist in our world?

He cannot. Therefore God must be both good and evil. Satan and “God” must then be different aspects of the same divine entity.

This assumes that such a god fundamentally differs from that which it creates. Of what could such a difference be made? Was there a pre-existing substance a creator god fashioned everything from? Is not that counter to the assumption of omnificence?
 
I guess, there can't be an explanation other than: pre-scientific wises fund in 'Satan'(demonized gods [Zeus], demonized animals [Snake], Baal) the only explanation for natural evil (earthquakes, diseases, plagues, etc) and moral evil (caused by humans).

When spanish conquerors arrives to America demonized every religious icon of native people.

The victors write the history and man has created many Gods.

Regards
DL
 
Ooo, Ooo, I know this one. God, because:

''I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.''
—Isaiah 45:7

So you can't get more evil than the thing which creates it intentionally.

True. Intent is key before evil can be given to any act.

Regards
DL
 
No, because such silliness relies squarely on naive and immature notions of a god. You have already admitted to being completely unwilling to entertain any notions that diverge from the ones you perceive as typifying your chosen target and opposition. You seem to have intentionally boxed yourself into the corner of a false dilemma. Superstring has already said here, and I have elsewhere, that evil can only be demonstrated to originate from man.

I agree and that would make all religions myths.

Regards
DL
 
If God is omnipotent (all Powerful), omnificent (unlimited power to create), and omniscient (all-knowing) as represented in most western theologies, then how can God not be both good and evil since both exist in our world?

He cannot. Therefore God must be both good and evil. Satan and “God” must then be different aspects of the same divine entity.

Reason would agree and so do I.

Regards
DL
 
Syne said:
No, because such silliness relies squarely on naive and immature notions of a god. You have already admitted to being completely unwilling to entertain any notions that diverge from the ones you perceive as typifying your chosen target and opposition. You seem to have intentionally boxed yourself into the corner of a false dilemma. Superstring has already said here, and I have elsewhere, that evil can only be demonstrated to originate from man.
I agree and that would make all religions myths.

That does not follow without further argument. Just because a thing, evil, cannot be demonstrated to originate from an entity does not mean that entity is non existent. That is very much like saying rabbits are mythical because they do not build cars. It is completely non sequitur.
 
Because we saw that thew result would have been the same either way and hypocrisy was just a needless added evil to the mix.
Hypocrisy may be a needless add-on but if the result is still good, how can you say that hypocrisy is evil?

x = good
x + hypocrisy = good​

Evil isn't in the equation at all. Even if hypocrisy = evil, you still have:

x + evil = good​

Hypocrisy is irrelevant to good.
 
Back
Top