This is incontrovertible proof that God is evil. God does not live by his own golden rule.

[wellwisher]

So who did you say witnessed this such that they could write down what the Lord said to Satan or is this just more made up stuff.
Talk about working out the element of a trick and you fall for made up stuff without question...
Alex

The entire premise of this topic is God is evil. I am showing how the ancients believed Satan was an intermediary to God through the entire old Testament. Satan is not thrown from heaven until in Revelations of the New testament, which was written decades after the death of Jesus. Satan is not the same thing as the Devil. The Devil is pure evil, but Satan is both good and evil, like the tree in paradise; tree of knowledge of good and evil.

The temptation of Jesus in the desert comes from Satan. Satan had the authority to give Jesus all the riches and kingdoms of the world, if Jesus bowed and worshipped him. Satan was in charge of the earth. The evil attributed to God was performed by Satan, as the CEO of the earth. If God created the universe, the earth is a tiny place and does not need a full time God. The humans were defective and were given a remedial god; Satan.

It is not exactly clear whether the Jewish God of the Old Testament is Satan, God the Father, or both. The prophets seem to be the only ones who had access to God. Satan appears to be the more common intermediary; keep getting into trouble. God the father is not evil but is morally neutral like instinct and the laws of science. If matter and anti-matter annihilate is this evil? The answer is no, even though things are destroyed. Satan, who is connected to knowledge go good and evil is more about value judgements placed upon things. To some this will become evil. Or meat becomes evil, even though it is morally neutral via instinct.

This mythology is also symbolic. Up to eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, there is no complaint by God about the state of his creation. It was all good. Adam and Eve lived in paradise. The crap hits the fan after Adam and Eve eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which is Satan's tree. Genesis tells about the evolution of the modern human psyche, with paradise implicit of natural human instinct; one with nature. Knowledge of good and evil is where subjective knowledge replaces instinct.

Instead of eating when instinctively hungry, good could have meant eating on a schedule, and evil could have meant eating impulsively like an animal. Since this law is subjective, and will conflict with natural instinct, repression, sublimation and temptation appear; death appears. Now the human creation is messed up. Satan is placed in charge of the human beasts he had helped to mess up.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I am showing how the ancients believed Satan was an intermediary to God through the entire old Testament.

And I thank you for taking the time to outline the beliefs of the ancients.

I do find your posts very interesting.

Instead of eating when instinctively hungry, good could have meant eating on a schedule, and evil could have meant eating impulsively like an animal. Since this law is subjective, and will conflict with natural instinct, repression, sublimation and temptation appear; death appears.

I only eat when I am hungry so I am animal like I guess.
Alex

 

[wellwisher]

And I thank you for taking the time to outline the beliefs of the ancients.

I do find your posts very interesting.

I only eat when I am hungry so I am animal like I guess.
Alex

It is good that you do that since it shows you follow your inner voice.

Say culture started on one its health fads and created taboos in terms of food and drink. The mayor of NYC made super sized soft drinks, taboo. Thou shall not drink big gulps since this is evil. This type of law will create two types of spin-off evils. The prohibition will create temptation in some people. It will also create self righteousness in others, such as the mayor, who will use the law as a justifiable excuse to be a bully.

The temptation and the self righteousness are the keys. The law will define anyone tempted as evil, while the self righteous will be called good, even though the tempted only hurts themselves and the self righteous is allowed to hurt others in the name of the law. That was the nature of Satan; good and evil sound good up front, but it gets quickly gets confused which is why death appears. The Salam witch trials occurred because killing a witch was good, since it was evil for her to practice herbal medicine.

In the USA, the Democrats and Liberals love to make rules, regulations, procedures and laws. Even PC is a bunch rules, which if not followed, make you evil and allow the holier that thou to bully you and in the name of good manners. They have a closer relationship to Satan, in the traditional sense; knowledge of good and evil. They are like Eve, who will then attempt to get others to eat; by trick, peer pressure, or by force. If you go along, you have lost your innocence due to the self righteousness that will appear.

I often seem contrary to the status quo, since I won't eat the apple, since law is not good for the brain, based on how the brain deals with law. There is a negative feedback loops that results based on natural instincts and human nature; firmware.

The prayer called Our Father, ends with the phrase, lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. This is addressing the impact of law; temptation and self righteousness which hurt oneself and hurt others, respectively. We partition God deal with Satan and law.

 

[Great Old One]

Agree. We'll consider that a retraction of post 98.



Of course it isn't.

It's an attempt to understand the rationale behind your logic that being given the "gift" of life should be regarded as evil,

Now that you're finished talking about my mother I'll point out that you're constructing a straw-man. Read more carefully, please.

I indicated that the privation of life is evil, not that being alive in itself was evil or that becoming alive was evil. Evil God is the one who sets the conditions for sickness and death and is responsible for the evil of life's privation.

since the gift is not eternal, and may only last a billion years.

To wit:
"His Darkness kills all people. No exceptions. No matter what good you create it will eventually become an evil through privation. "

I don't find a problem with what you just quoted. You would need to argue against the value of a good life in order to proclaim death a good thing, or even an indifferent thing. Aging, sickness, and injury leading to a reasonable recommendation for palliative care resulting in death wouldn't count in Evil God's favor...His Darkness is the One who sets those terrible conditions.

You'll find no escape route for God by wondering weather it's good to be dead or to never be born (which is incoherent). A heavenly reward would nevertheless be stained by understanding what a moral monster decided you needed to first be tortured before you could have it.

All of Good God's problems are removed by simply understanding that He is Evil to the core.

If there is no limit to the amount of life that it would be good to have, then it may be that a bad end is in store for us all.

It's an interesting paper...
http://dbanach.com/death.htm

 

[DaveC426913]

I indicated that the privation of life is evil, not that being alive in itself was evil or that becoming alive was evil. Evil God is the one who sets the conditions for sickness and death and is responsible for the evil of life's privation.

Yes. So, in your view God is evil because - despite giving us potentially a billion years of livelihood - it is not forever.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

If you go along, you have lost your innocence due to the self righteousness that will appear.

Well as you no doubt have worked out I do not "go along" with the notions presented in the bible and reject it for reasons stated.

I remain inoccent.

Add to that I have no need for spirituality, there is no hunger so I never eat.

I find symbolism tiresome and unhelpful I do not like its use and would rather a notion be presented in plain terms that have little opportunity for various interpretations.
Give me the facts and trust that I can work up my reality from there.

So I am ill equipped to post in a religious forum.

Thank you for your post.

Alex

 

[Great Old One]

Yes. So, in your view God is evil because - despite giving us potentially a billion years of livelihood - it is not forever.

No. Rather, the known eventual privation of any good serves the Evil God in a way unlike evil presents as a problem for the Good God. The problem of good isn't a serious problem for the Evil God. The problem of evil is a serious problem for the Good God.

Were evil to be used in order to create good for the Good God that would be a major theological problem for traditional theists. If they know what they're talking about in terms of figuring out a solid theodicy they are always looking for ways to make evil disappear. If evil is part of God's agency then you must admit God isn't entirely good and therefore (by their traditional definition of a maximal being having to be entirely good) not actually God.

You can have a perfectly happy life where you appear to create good, make art, have children...save lives. You can do all kinds of good things and have a marvelous life to eventually die in peace with no pain or regret due to old age. You might say...isn't this a problem for the Evil God? This person was happy. He got away!

It's not a problem. Evil God eventually killed him and put an end to his happiness. When you look at the analogous scenario for the Good God you might see a terrible person living in happiness. They do all sorts of crimes and malicious things. They hurt people and they see nothing but profit and joy for themselves. When they pass away in peace with no regrets from old age the Good God is in a pickle.

He needs another universe where this horrible person can meet with Divine Justice or else God simply isn't that good after all. His universe was not just. The evils were never made right and they carried the day unchecked when they wanted.

Now, in this situation Evil God has the upper hand against the Good God. There's no additional universe required for His will to be done. We don't need any more evidence to know the situation meets with the approval of His Darkness.

It's the Good God who is left wanting another universe to mete out justice. And of course, there's no evidence to suggest there is some place of universal justice where the wrongs are made right.

We have only this world, and with the evidence we have it suggests the Evil God more strongly.

 

[DaveC426913]

It's not a problem. Evil God eventually killed him and put an end to his happiness.

Most people, who have an opinion on this, believe that God is not infinitely meddling. He sets things up and lets it go. That God does not kill people so much as he created a world in which death (by old age or by volcano) is natural.

Humans set up conservation parks, where both antelope and cheetah live. They will die. Is that evil of us?

Do you think, if we asked them (or if God asked us), they/we would say: "I'd rather never to have lived at all than to live only to die."?
I am pretty confident that you will walk many miles before finding a single human that would say that.

Death is what makes life worth living.

When you look at the analogous scenario for the Good God you might see a terrible person living in happiness. They do all sorts of crimes and malicious things. They hurt people and they see nothing but profit and joy for themselves. When they pass away in peace with no regrets from old age the Good God is in a pickle.

It still seems you consider existence to be a zero-sum game. As if the badness of death cancels out the goodness of life, leaving net zero. It doesn't.

 

[Greatest I am]

Well, the Bible, inasmuch as I give it credence, is not telling us to use stuff to test anything; it is supposedly literally God's wishes, in written form.
So, if it says I turned her to a pillar of salt, then that's God saying 'I get to do that. Follow my laws.'

It is saying to test all concepts with logic and reason, which are qualities that idol worshipers have set aside for the faith of fools.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

You begin with basic principles and test the validity of things based on those principles. As an analogy, say you went to a magic show and the magician is levitating his lovely assistant. A basic science principle would be to assume gravity is in affect on the stage. If you stick to the basics, this is an illusion this going against this basic principle. Therefore you try to unravel the mystery, based on firm footing of what you know to be real and true. You can't just believe and buy into things, just because your eyes appear to see. Once the herd accepts illusions, things like prestige and peer pressure can make it harder find the truth; Emperors new clothes.

One atheists magic trick, this topic brings up, is blaming evil on God. In tradition, Satan was in charge of the earth. The evil attributed to God, metered out on humans, actually comes from Satan. Satan is the original rebel against God.

If God was all there was in the beginning, and all things emanated from him, then who else could possibly be responsible for evil as either a concept or as reality?

The best Job quote is 2;3 where God admits to Satan moving him to do evil.

Nothing quite like God being moved to do evil.

Not a far reach for a genocidal son murderer.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

As the cosmogenic principle concerned with spawning and regulating existence in general, the "Father" component of the God tripartite might be prior in rank to judgements of good and evil. Much as scientists would feel ridiculous assigning such culture-emergent properties to the mechanistic, indifferent or amoral processes of the universe.

The "Son", OTOH, was embodied in human form and thus very much susceptible to the properties of the cultural stratum. Whether the "Son" was merely the concrete avatar of the generalized Father or was always a fully distinct agent in the divine family is anyone's guess, when interpreting the Biblical mythos. Either way Jesus apparently served as a sympathetic mediator between mortals and the uncompromising demands of the machine-like Almighty. The former able to take into account contingent circumstances and pay the debt for them. Which via the bounds of its nature were impossible for the the latter to acknowledge, mitigate, or repeal.

The "Holy Spirit" apparently served the function of fertilizing and gestating devout believers for apotheosis at a later date (following end-time resurrection, after the millennium of peace, etc -- whatever / whichever). IOW, facilitating their eventual conversion into immortals, gods or demigods themselves; as well as assisting their adherence to a "path of salvation".

I really do not know what to say to this.

Let me see if your view of Jesus is moral or not.

Do you agree with this quote?

As Ingersoll said; 'no man would be fit for heaven who would consent that an innocent person should suffer for his sin.'

If do not agree then please take the time to listen to this Bishop on this issue and come back and put your justifying argument as to how substitutionary atonement is in any way good justice.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Most people, who have an opinion on this, believe that God is not infinitely meddling. He sets things up and lets it go. That God does not kill people so much as he created a world in which death (by old age or by volcano) is natural.
.

How is letting go possible for God?

If he did, then everything written of God is a lie. Right?

The great flood, Killing of Egypt's first born and even sending Jesus would be all lies if God let go. Right?

Regards
DL

 

[DaveC426913]

How is letting go possible for God?

If he did, then everything written of God is a lie. Right?

The great flood, Killing of Egypt's first born and even sending Jesus would be all lies if God let go. Right?

Wel, that's the prob,em with taking the scriptures too literally.

 

[Greatest I am]

Wel, that's the prob,em with taking the scriptures too literally.

Indeed but every Christian does read scriptures literally to some extent or he could not believe in a real Jesus.

Regards
DL

 

[DaveC426913]

Indeed but every Christian does read scriptures literally to some extent or he could not believe in a real Jesus.

You would do well to avoid drwing conclusions about what "every" other people think.

 

[Great Old One]

Most people, who have an opinion on this, believe that God is not infinitely meddling. He sets things up and lets it go. That God does not kill people so much as he created a world in which death (by old age or by volcano) is natural.

I'm not sure that is true. Believers refer to God's plan all of the time...specifically when horrible things happen. That's what gives them comfort.

Surprise! The school was destroyed by a tornado and a dozen children were killed.

That's OK. It was just God's plan. Of course, it is a tragedy and it breaks our hearts. However, we needn't be entirely despondent because we can take comfort in knowing that even this apparently horrible thing was just part of God's plan. God is all knowing. He is all powerful. Sure, these helpless children died horribly according to the very prescription of God's will in that moment but that's OK because He has a plan and this was a part.

You can't take away God's plan. He knows everything. He knows everything which will ever happen and He empowers every natural law in every moment. At the dawn of creation God knew those children would die in that tornado and that's exactly what He wanted to happen.

You can't say it's not what God wanted to happen.

What God wants God gets.

Most people just aren't ready to accept that God's plan is an evil plan.

Humans set up conservation parks, where both antelope and cheetah live. They will die. Is that evil of us?

Those humans enact God's will. If you felt like you were doing good and preserving these animals for some time that is only an illusion. God is going to not only kill all of them, but also you and your family. Later His Darkness will kill everybody who ever saw those animals or who ever would have wanted to see those animals. Whatever good we thought we created in their preservation is fleeting. It is ultimately swallowed in darkness.

Do you think, if we asked them (or if God asked us), they/we would say: "I'd rather never to have lived at all than to live only to die."?
I am pretty confident that you will walk many miles before finding a single human that would say that.

If we get to decide what the animals would say when they get to magically speak then I decide they agree with me.

When the question is put to us it is entirely irrelevant as we are already alive. Our preference is of no consequence. For us, like it or not, whatever good in life we experience will ultimately become privation and loss.

I am simply describing our existential situation. It is not of our choosing. However, in this moment I have a little sympathy for the Devil (His Darkness).

His existence was also not of His own choosing as He is a metaphysically necessary Evil Being who created the universe in order to destroy it.

Death is what makes life worth living.

That isn't established. In fact, the paper from Nagel I earlier referenced does a great job illustrating that unless you can establish a reason why there is a limit to the life which would be good to have then you can reasonably say that death is an evil...

http://dbanach.com/death.htm

It still seems you consider existence to be a zero-sum game. As if the badness of death cancels out the goodness of life, leaving net zero. It doesn't.

You aren't following because you didn't read the Nagel paper. You aren't actually following me either...

I'm not suggesting that dust-to-dust is net zero.

It's much worse.

 

[billvon]

Indeed but every Christian does read scriptures literally to some extent or he could not believe in a real Jesus.

OK. You've said you are a Christian. So you believe in the Scriptures literally?

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm not sure that is true. Believers refer to God's plan all of the time...specifically when horrible things happen. That's what gives them comfort.

Surprise! The school was destroyed by a tornado and a dozen children were killed.

Having a plan is not equivalent to infinite meddling. What we were talknig about is the degree to which God is directly involved in low-level events of persons. A plan for a planet with weather and other dangerous things is not the same is directly striking someone down with a bolt of lightning.

You can't take away God's plan. He knows everything. He knows everything which will ever happen and He empowers every natural law in every moment. At the dawn of creation God knew those children would die in that tornado and that's exactly what He wanted to happen.

Who are you speaking for here? I think you should avoid putting words in hypothetical peoples' mouths.

Most people just aren't ready to accept that God's plan is an evil plan.

Perhaps because such a case that not been made yet, and is not in a position to be "accepted" or not.

Those humans enact God's will. If you felt like you were doing good and preserving these animals for some time that is only an illusion. God is going to not only kill all of them, but also you and your family. Later His Darkness will kill everybody who ever saw those animals or who ever would have wanted to see those animals. Whatever good we thought we created in their preservation is fleeting. It is ultimately swallowed in darkness.

You are over-thinking the analogy.

A bunch of atheists tend to a bunch of conservations. They look after the animals. (i.e. There is no God at all. The humans are analogous to gods.)

Anyway, the animals object. The animals (in their limited way) think the humans are horrible evil creatures, but they are wrong. The humans are saving the species. They have bigger plan than the animals can conceive. And, yes, some gazelle will get eaten by some cheetahs. That is a person preserving (conserving) the life that gazelle and cheetah have evolved for.

When the question is put to us it is entirely irrelevant as we are already alive. Our preference is of no consequence.

As is our opinion of whether God is evil or not.

And yet we are alive to form that opinion.

For us, like it or not, whatever good in life we experience will ultimately become privation and loss.

If that logic were sound, why does it not follow directly that - each of us who comes to realize it - subsequently commit suicide?

You aren't following because you didn't read the Nagel paper.

You are welcome to reference it in your arguments. Nagel hasn't shown up to defend himself.

You aren't actually following me either...

It is just as valid to say you aren't following me. That kind of goes without saying in a debate. You don't get any points for that.

I'm not suggesting that dust-to-dust is net zero.

It's much worse.

If that logic were sound, why does it not follow directly that - each of us who comes to realize it - subsequently commit suicide?

Yet here were each are, finding something useful to us while we're alive.

Your logic is not born out by observation.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

You can't take away God's plan. He knows everything. He knows everything which will ever happen and He empowers every natural law in every moment. At the dawn of creation God knew those children would die in that tornado and that's exactly what He wanted to happen.

Interesting.
So based on the superstitious writings of ancients making up stuff to explain the world we can reliably say God has a plan etc and yet God has not manifested to identify or confirm this supposed plan.

If we are to accept such a plan it seems there is no point to get out of bed, there is no point in anything because everything is subject to the plan.
If I could have a plan the first thing would be to let kindness rule every outcome.
So where do we stand with free will?
This plan would seem to throw that out.
Time to make up a new story the old one does not make sence.
Get rid of the plan and the plan maker.
Alex

 

[HeavenlyPanda]

God is anything he wants himself to be. If there is a god, we cannot define him by our own definitions just like we don't allow dogs to define us as human beings. What might be morale to an animal is not morally right to us. Just like whatever is morally right to us may not be morally right to god. We don't follow the morales of those we deem lesser than ourselves in terms of animals. What makes you think that god is going to have the same morales as human beings. Clearly if god is god, we human beings are inferior. Therefore why the hell would he follow our morales? He doesn't and that's clearly seen throughout the bible. God is evil to us yet to himself he is probably anything he wants to be because there seems to be no other deity equal to god toright him in his ways. Therefore god is technically a loose cannon that has no rules. This is in particularly dangerous because supposedly an all powerful being is on the loose with no restraints whatsoever.