The God Zoo

[Learner]

Who is denying what's written down? Those would include Paul and former Jews would it not? What does IT say about the verses ... God "created" evil?

Where does it say God creates evil, as showing to be a main attribute, to be consistant throughout, that doesn't have any of the preceeding 'God makes Peace' followed by 'God "creates" evil?' Which would otherwise as intended, show those particular verses to demonstrate two related opposing states and conditions.

I addressed the point of word translation earlier in the thread. The word רָע (rah) is used and 'rah' is best translated as 'evil' rather than 'disaster' or 'calamity.'

Best translated as "evil" but yet this "creates" a contradiction ... so as to NOT to make sense to the reader???

How about reversing the direction of translation, to at least investigate the plausible and likely word translation, simply because it gives a little more logical coherence?

For example :

What would be the Hebrew word IF I wanted to write a verse with CALAMITY in it? Or choose and write the Hebrew word for DISASTER, BAD, EVIL (hurtful), EVIL (Wickedness), EVIL (misery), EVIL (ethical) etc .. to put in a verse with the intention... to make sense to the reader?

In Hebrew ... It's the same word for all of the above!

(a bit busy now for rest of post)

 

[DBT]

Who is denying what's written down? Those would include Paul and former Jews would it not? What does IT say about the verses ... God "created" evil?

Where does it say God creates evil, as showing to be a main attribute, to be consistant throughout, that doesn't have any of the preceeding 'God makes Peace' followed by 'God "creates" evil?' Which would otherwise as intended, show those particular verses to demonstrate two related opposing states and conditions.

I addressed the point of word translation earlier in the thread. The word רָע (rah) is used and 'rah' is best translated as 'evil' rather than 'disaster' or 'calamity.'

Best translated as "evil" but yet this "creates" a contradiction ... so as to NOT to make sense to the reader???

How about reversing the direction of translation, to at least investigate the plausible and likely word translation, simply because it gives a little more logical coherence?

For example :

What would be the Hebrew word IF I wanted to write a verse with CALAMITY in it? Or choose and write the Hebrew word for DISASTER, BAD, EVIL (hurtful), EVIL (Wickedness), EVIL (misery), EVIL (ethical) etc .. to put in a verse with the intention... to make sense to the reader?

In Hebrew ... It's the same word for all of the above!

(a bit busy now for rest of post)

Sorry, nice try, but your rationale doesn't work.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I really don't get what it is that you're arguing here.

1. That God thinks rape is bad. (You asserted that God must think it's good.)

2. That you cant demand God stop every rape and simultaneously expect Him to allow abortion on demand. (Moral hypocrisy)

3. That God's intervention in biblical wars was done to hasten the end of that war. (End justifies the means.)

Dude, this was all YOUR argument, not mine. I was just asking you about it. You claimed that supposedly evil acts were the same as a surgeon cutting off someone's arm, so they led to good in the long run and it is only our ignorance of the full picture which causes us to categorize them as evil instead of a necessary good. I don't believe God thinks anything, since he's a fictional character from a storybook and they don't do things like thinking.

If, as you are now claiming, God thinks that things like rape or abortion are bad, how are they like a surgeon cutting off an arm? Are they an end-justifies-the-means type of thing and his allowing it is better than not allowing it? I think this is what you are saying, but that leads to the question of why you make so many anti-abortion posts when your position is that they are a necessary part of God's plan. There seems to be a vast disconnect between your two different points and I don't know how you're reconciling them.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Best translated as "evil" but yet this "creates" a contradiction ... so as to NOT to make sense to the reader???

How about reversing the direction of translation, to at least investigate the plausible and likely word translation, simply because it gives a little more logical coherence?

For example :

What would be the Hebrew word IF I wanted to write a verse with CALAMITY in it? Or choose and write the Hebrew word for DISASTER, BAD, EVIL (hurtful), EVIL (Wickedness), EVIL (misery), EVIL (ethical) etc .. to put in a verse with the intention... to make sense to the reader?

In Hebrew ... It's the same word for all of the above!

(a bit busy now for rest of post)

Sorry, nice try, but your rationale doesn't work.

Yes, but forest, trees ...

 

[Lion IRC]

I really don't get what it is that you're arguing here.

1. That God thinks rape is bad. (You asserted that God must think it's good.)

2. That you cant demand God stop every rape and simultaneously expect Him to allow abortion on demand. (Moral hypocrisy)

3. That God's intervention in biblical wars was done to hasten the end of that war. (End justifies the means.)

Dude, this was all YOUR argument, not mine. I was just asking you about it. You claimed that supposedly evil acts were the same as a surgeon cutting off someone's arm, so they led to good in the long run and it is only our ignorance of the full picture which causes us to categorize them as evil instead of a necessary good.

That's right. An amputee is going to think the loss of their legs a bad thing.
The surgeon isn't celebrating that fact either.
But on your anti-God reasoning, the 'god' surgeon delights in cutting off peoples limbs.

If, as you are now claiming, God thinks that things like rape or abortion are bad, how are they like a surgeon cutting off an arm?

If fewer rapes occur as a result of God's tactical war intervention, then the end DOES justify the means.

...but that leads to the question of why you make so many anti-abortion posts when your position is that they are a necessary part of God's plan.

That's NOT my position.
For the last time - God's omission to act to prevent a thing happening does not constitute happiness or approval.
The surgeon who amputates a gangrenous limb doesnt LIKE gangrene or amputating peoples legs

 

[DBT]

What if God deliberately has someones limbs damaged to the point of needing amputation, and the victim lives out the rest of their life in misery, depression and pain?

Has that improved the life of the victim? Made them a better person? Has it created a better a society when people suffer needlessly?

Who would do that to their own children?

 

[abaddon]

NM. DBT's on the same basic point.

 

[Lion IRC]

What if God deliberately has someones limbs damaged to the point of needing amputation, and the victim lives out the rest of their life in misery, depression and pain?

I wouldn't worship such a being.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

What if God deliberately has someones limbs damaged to the point of needing amputation, and the victim lives out the rest of their life in misery, depression and pain?

I wouldn't worship such a being.

View attachment 27879

Why would you worship anything? It's not a healthy behavior.

 

[DBT]

What if God deliberately has someones limbs damaged to the point of needing amputation, and the victim lives out the rest of their life in misery, depression and pain?

I wouldn't worship such a being.

View attachment 27879

Yet the bible tells us that its god does just that...."who has made the blind, the deaf....."

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That's NOT my position.
For the last time - God's omission to act to prevent a thing happening does not constitute happiness or approval.
The surgeon who amputates a gangrenous limb doesnt LIKE gangrene or amputating peoples legs

So ... why doesn't he act then? You say that he does intervene when the end justifies that means, so why not make the interventions more effective? There are millions of rapes and abortions each year and God has the potential to stop every one of them and save all of those people. He may not LIKE intervening in the world, but the end result of millions of non-murdered babies would seem to be a positive. In terms of stopping future abortions, seeing a fiery hole open up in the ground and the doctor trying to kill that baby being torn apart and dragged down into Hell by demons would make other doctors less inclined to try, or at least make the procedure financially non-viable due to the higher premiums events like that would add to their medical insurance costs.

If it's just a case of allowing it so that we'll see how bad it is and make our own decisions to stop it in the future ... what's the point of God in this scenario?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

That's NOT my position.
For the last time - God's omission to act to prevent a thing happening does not constitute happiness or approval.
The surgeon who amputates a gangrenous limb doesnt LIKE gangrene or amputating peoples legs

So ... why doesn't he act then? You say that he does intervene when the end justifies that means, so why not make the interventions more effective? There are millions of rapes and abortions each year and God has the potential to stop every one of them and save all of those people. He may not LIKE intervening in the world, but the end result of millions of non-murdered babies would seem to be a positive. In terms of stopping future abortions, seeing a fiery hole open up in the ground and the doctor trying to kill that baby being torn apart and dragged down into Hell by demons would make other doctors less inclined to try, or at least make the procedure financially non-viable due to the higher premiums events like that would add to their medical insurance costs.

If it's just a case of allowing it so that we'll see how bad it is and make our own decisions to stop it in the future ... what's the point of God in this scenario?

The reason I'm attracted to gods is because I'm attracted to suffering and misery in other things. Maybe I see it as a kind of just reward, punishment or purification. But the short answer is that consciously and subconsciously I like it.

 

[Lion IRC]

That's NOT my position.
For the last time - God's omission to act to prevent a thing happening does not constitute happiness or approval.
The surgeon who amputates a gangrenous limb doesnt LIKE gangrene or amputating peoples legs

So ... why doesn't he act then?

He does act. Immediately? No, not always. But He always does and He will. Nobody can escape God's justice.

If it's just a case of allowing it so that we'll see how bad it is and make our own decisions to stop it in the future ... what's the point of God in this scenario?

It's always humans putting God under the microscope and demanding to know why God doesn't do something.
This is back to front.
On Christian/biblical theology, it's our action/inaction which is under the microscope "in this scenario".

 

[abaddon]

On Christian/biblical theology, it's our action/inaction which is under the microscope "in this scenario".

View attachment 27893

Atheists taken action in response to the Bible's stories. I saw a long time ago that the Bible's ugly tales must result in either 1) disbelief or 2) blindfaith bullshitting. I chose #1.

The only ethical response is to judge God, not turn a blind eye and pretend there must be good reasons beyond knowing just because it's God/the Bible.

 

[DBT]

Not acting immediately means a preventable tragedy happens and people suffer and die needlessly. Look at the pandemic....what would happen if our government waited a year or two before responding?

 

[James Brown]

He does act. Immediately? No, not always. But He always does and He will.

How do you know?

Nobody can escape God's justice.

Which would we prefer? That murderers are always caught after they kill? Or that murders are always prevented before they occur?

It's always humans putting God under the microscope and demanding to know why God doesn't do something.

How about putting the claims of theists under a microscope? Can we examine those? Because certain theists make the claim that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-benevolent. And the existence of needless suffering in this world belies that claim.

 

[Learner]

In a world without God's existence you should have then, been able to "do better." Get cracking lads!

 

[abaddon]

In a world without God's existence you should have then, been able to "do better." Get cracking lads!

No. Like Lion IRC you have everything backwards.

The point of "the problem of evil" isn't that the world sucks. Rather, the point is the conditions of our world do not indicate an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God. Earlier, you said without God there'd still be a problem of evil. No... because "the problem of evil" isn't a problem for the world. It's a problem for the existence of God.

A world that has a God that is goodness in it logically MUST be better than what it is. But we plainly see that it isn't. So, what follows from that is theists need to come to terms with how the world contradicts God's existence. That's why the Bible is questioned, because there the god is visibly being an evil god... to see if YOU will come to terms with that problem. But you avoid the problem, claiming a God of goodness is beyond human judgment and other tricks of unreason.

 

[Learner]

In a world without God's existence you should have then, been able to "do better." Get cracking lads!

No. Like Lion IRC you have everything backwards.

The point of "the problem of evil" isn't that the world sucks. Rather, the point is the conditions of our world do not indicate an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God. Earlier, you said without God there'd still be a problem of evil. No... because "the problem of evil" isn't a problem for the world. It's a problem for the existence of God.

A world that has a God that is goodness in it logically MUST be better than what it is. But we plainly see that it isn't. So, what follows from that is theists need to come to terms with how the world contradicts God's existence. That's why the Bible is questioned, because there the god is visibly being an evil god... to see if YOU will come to terms with that problem. But you avoid the problem, claiming a God of goodness is beyond human judgment and other tricks of unreason.

I was highlighting your (plural) good morals. Which is relevant. You are disturbed by your good morals with the thought of how God (in your eyes), runs the world as according to the bible. In the "real" world as you see it....there really isn't any God. so humans of that morality that God "doesn't" have... evil shouldn't be a problem.

Earlier I ws eluding to... doing evil is avoidable by not willing to do so.

 

[DBT]

The conditions of the world produces all sorts of creatures, some are killers others are prey. Humans have a range of attributes and behaviours, some are kind hearted and generous others selfish and mean, and probably every combination between.

A psychopath may have no qualms in killing someone, maybe gets pleasure out of it and sleeps like a baby afterwards. The brain of a psychopath is wired differently, they have little or no empathy.

Nor does anyone choose to be a psychopath.

Your God could, for instance, correct any imbalances in the brain from birth to enable empathy and balanced thought, thereby preventing a whole lot of suffering.