Why is god benevolent?

[Chivalry Augustus]

You know the way people are, and the way they hurt people they love. I don't understand the obsession with benevolent god over malevolent or in-between god. With the way the world is, doesn't a malevolent god have more of a place in our world than a benevolent god? I'm not saying that there is or isn't a god, but do any religions preach the existence of a less accepting god?

 

[der Astronom]

I don't think people would actually like a malevolent god to exist.

The irony is that I think that's exactly what happened to the Christian god. Instead of being a benevolent god that people want to have exist because he'll help them through life and comfort them from things like the unknown, we get a vengeful god who only punishes people that do "wrong", and instead of comforting them, he scares people with fear of hell, and he's no good for encouraging critical thinking. How we got to this concept of a benevolent god is beyond me.
But then again, it's not like they were asking for a benevolent god in the first place when they created him...

 

[Gaige]

In my eyes, a lot of people turned the Christian God into something to be feared, rather than something to be worshiped or even respected. The Old Testament God in particular was the kind to basically command total obedience, and would basically go smiting anyone who didn't agree with Him.

The New Testament God seems to be considerably less authoritarian than his Old Testament incarnation, and that's because he's portrayed for the most part through the more human form of Jesus Christ. We don't really see God as this downright oppressive force because he is portrayed as someone more empathic and compassionate, simply because he is in a human incarnation.

However, we have to remember that at the end of the day. the Bible was created by humans as the interpreted Word of God, and so there will be a certain amount of speculation and fear-mongering, because that's what humans do. Really some people need an afterlife to fear because that's the only thing keeping them in check. Fear of the unknown is a natural human trait.

As well as that, I do believe that if there is a God, He isn't perfect. We were created in His image if the Genesis account is to be believed, and as such, he is capable of wrath, sorrow, disappointment, and rash actions just as much as us. He isn't malevolent in my eyes, but He most certainly isn't completely benevolent either.

 

[Sir Fratley]

As a Pagan, I view the Divine much as the ancient Egyptians did, as a duality. I believe that the Divine is a being of balance that keeps things in order. I believe we are rewarded in the next life for the actions we do in this one. I do believe that the Divine favors the good, however, as many laws across many religions have most of the same basics: be good to others and bring no harm to your fellow human are the general consensus. Quite frankly, I feel that people who spread division, hate and 'holy' war are nothing more than a mockery to the Divine, and doing evil 'in the name of God' or prosecuting others because they don't believe in the same Divine Being is an insult to the Divine.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

The irony is that I think that's exactly what happened to the Christian god. Instead of being a benevolent god that people want to have exist because he'll help them through life and comfort them from things like the unknown, we get a vengeful god who only punishes people that do "wrong", and instead of comforting them, he scares people with fear of hell, and he's no good for encouraging critical thinking. How we got to this concept of a benevolent god is beyond me.

Vanity is the key thing here. It means to have self-importance, and to boast it as if it actually has any usefulness or value is vain.

When taking into account that God created you, what reasoning is behind having vanity? What is not vain about it?
It's quite a frustrating concept, actually, because it only promotes destruction. War is caused by this, as well as poverty and other things. It's the root of all chaos, and God seems to be the only figure who states this concept as it truthfully is.

That is why God is benevolent. His so-called acts of 'evil' are to purge 'evil'. You say it is too much, but it's obvious that it isn't enough.
In this case, one should be happy that God has not purged man yet again.
It's something called grace. If God isn't benevolent, it's because He hasn't sent every man to Hell to be honest. The bible is quite clear that every man is unworthy, and the rationale backs it quite well.
Don;t be fooled by the duality of good and evil: Divine beings know this more than anything. And above all, God Himself.

Saying God should be just and then stating He should let this tyranny continue is quite asinine.
I want someone to give a real reason why God is not benevolent. It's as if you are scapegoating God for your own undoing, and yet calling Christians scapegoats for believing in Christ.

 

[der Astronom]

Vanity is the key thing here. It means to have self-importance, and to boast it as if it actually has any usefulness or value is vain.

When taking into account that God created you, what reasoning is behind having vanity? What is not vain about it?

I don't know; why don't you ask all the people desperately trying not to go to hell and trying to go to heaven? Here's a hint: they're doing it for themselves; nobody else.
If you ask me, god has just shot himself in the foot by imposing a heaven and hell system that punishes people for not believing or worshipping him. And it works because it's based on people trying to save their own skin; if they were completely selfless, they wouldn't care if they went to heaven or hell or not.

It's quite a frustrating concept, actually, because it only promotes destruction. War is caused by this, as well as poverty and other things. It's the root of all chaos, and God seems to be the only figure who states this concept as it truthfully is.

Has it ever occurred to you that it's possible other things cause war too? Like perhaps god himself? It's all over the bible, and the Crusades and the Inquisition were also the result of religion.
No actually, I guess that is considered vanity in a sense. Which says something. Namely that religion itself encourages vanity.

That is why God is benevolent. His so-called acts of 'evil' are to purge 'evil'. You say it is too much, but it's obvious that it isn't enough.

I can understand if he only wants a select few people around him up in heaven, but if that were the case, then hell is totally unnecessary. In other words, any being who sends people to heaven for being especially nice to him but does nothing to people who aren't is much more benevolent than the Christian god.

In this case, one should be happy that God has not purged man yet again.
It's something called grace. If God isn't benevolent, it's because He hasn't sent every man to Hell to be honest. The bible is quite clear that every man is unworthy, and the rationale backs it quite well.

Replace "God" with Hitler and "man" with Jew, and tell me you don't see the problem.
If there is rationale for the bible saying man is unworthy, please explain it.

Don;t be fooled by the duality of good and evil: Divine beings know this more than anything. And above all, God Himself.

I am not fooled by the subjective opinions someone has about good and evil.

Saying God should be just and then stating He should let this tyranny continue is quite asinine.

Actually, the god described of in the bible is already a tyrant. Maybe that's what he should stop doing. Or was that the tyranny you were referring to?

I want someone to give a real reason why God is not benevolent. It's as if you are scapegoating God for your own undoing, and yet calling Christians scapegoats for believing in Christ.

I am not blaming my personal problems on god. I am blaming god's actions on himself (and I think that is well deserved because he's the one who did all those things in the bible). And I did not say that Christians are scapegoats; I said they scapegoat Jesus to get away from the responsibility they owe the people they have wronged. And if god allowed such a system, then he isn't benevolent. If hell exists to punish people who probably don't deserve it, then he isn't benevolent.

 

[Jquestionmark]

You know the way people are, and the way they hurt people they love. I don't understand the obsession with benevolent god over malevolent or in-between god. With the way the world is, doesn't a malevolent god have more of a place in our world than a benevolent god? I'm not saying that there is or isn't a god, but do any religions preach the existence of a less accepting god?

The majority of religions that have existed have entire pantheons of gods, many of whom would be considered evil (or at the very least assholes). Most religions have approached the idea of gods as if they're just super-powerful versions of us. Personally, this seems to make a lot of sense - we have a precedent for it in ourselves, as opposed to some single super entity (I guess the sun could form a precedent for that, but it's a stretch). The majority of religions have taught of gods that are much like us.

Good or evil (benevolent or malevolent) is a very christian and relatively new construct: back in the day, people were people and gods were gods and morality was very different from how it is now. Good and evil hadn't entered the picture.

Also, I agree, a malevolent god would make a lot more sense than a benevolent one, given the world of the past and the world today.

When taking into account that God created you, what reasoning is behind having vanity? What is not vain about it?

I'd say it's pretty vain to claim to be the chosen creations of some ultra-being that loves you. A lot more vain than the likely situation of just being a poor confused by-product of the natural process of evolution.

It's quite a frustrating concept, actually, because it only promotes destruction. War is caused by this, as well as poverty and other things. It's the root of all chaos, and God seems to be the only figure who states this concept as it truthfully is.

Vanity doesn't cause wars or suffering. A huge variety of issues contribute to the problems that plague the world, and it's not so simple as assigning it to a singular concept. Vanity is not causing the suffering and chaos in Japan right now, for example.

As far as god "stating" anything, there's no documented reliable evidence of god speaking to anyone. The Bible was written by humans, and makes a ton of claims for what god "stated." For example, god lies to a prophet and then kills him for believing his lies. So benevolent, so much truth.

I want someone to give a real reason why God is not benevolent. It's as if you are scapegoating God for your own undoing, and yet calling Christians scapegoats for believing in Christ.

Here's a real reason: killing people is never benevolent (double so if you're killing them for believing the lie you told them), especially when you're supposedly all powerful and would have other options at your disposal.

None of us have said god is responsible for our problems, just that he's not that benevolent if he's unwilling to do anything about them (if he even existed).

 

[Sum1sgruj]

So if everyone was without vanity, there would still be issues of war and poverty?
I find this completely incorrect.

In fact, vanity is what causes any and every form of destruction. This doesn't even have to be a biblical intrigue,, it stands alone.

Nonetheless, it cannot be denied it's presence as being the original sin. The simple act of vanity by Lucifer gave birth to all forms of evil in the story of Eden. As I've explained before, The Tree of Knowledge bore no knowledge itself. The act of disobeying God is what led to the realization of good and evil.
Lucifer's vanity> Eve gains vanity
Eve disobeys God> Eve becomes ashamed
Eve deceives Adam> Adam becomes ashamed
Adam and Eve's shame> they realize they are naked
Adam and Eve's shame> they hide from God
They hide from God> fear
Fear> resentment
Resentment> anger
It goes on and on, eventually leading to pain and death.

I don't know why this concept is so hard to take in, but the 1st book of the Bible alone exemplifies vanity as being the crux of evil, which is quite remarkable for a god that is just so wrong for the way the world is when he would really be justified in purging everyone on it.

Peace will never come of man because of vanity, as life without such a god contains dualities of riches/poverty and security/fear. It's a human condition that such a god has given you a chance to escape if only you would not take part in it.
It's really just that damn simple_

To illustrate it further:

Parents raise a child. The child gets solid grades in school. All of a sudden, the child hangs around the wrong crowd out of boredom/fulfillment/whatever. The child's grades plummet.
Vanity.
Hitler bleieves Germans are the master race.
Vanity.
Going to war for resources.
Vanity.
Feeling jealous that your ex is with someone else.
Vanity.
It just,, anything really. And in the end all it becomes is torment. And if you consider God to be real, than it is also vain, because when you leave Earth and continue with eternity it really just became unnecessary to feel/cause any grief.

 

[Gaige]

Actually, the snake wasn't Lucifer. It was Satan. Satan was an angel God used to test the faith and will of others. The two, contrary to popular misconceptions, are not synonymous with one another.

And back on topic, God is not a perfect being. He has opinions and beliefs, certainly, just like we do, but His acts in both Christianity and elsewhere are simply accepted as the right thing by devouts simply because God is portrayed as a flawless being.

God cannot possibly be wholly benevolent because He forces these "ordeals", if you like, upon us. We do not live in fear of God Himself. We cling in fear to Him because it's all we know how to do, in the hope that He'll save us from whatever may come in the future, whether it is an ordeal like a natural disaster, or the divine apocalypse detailed in Revelations.

If God is capable of anger, then He is capable of rash decisions and impulsive, thoughtless actions. He might mean well, but that doesn't mean he holds nothing but benevolence for humanity. For him to condemn, kill, and damn those who have refused to turn to him is in itself a malevolent act. In fact, it can almost be considered spiteful from how it's written.

Once again though, the Bible is written by man as the interpreted Word of God. We have no way of knowing what He is really like. A malevolent God doesn't keep everyone in check, but it damn well keeps some of them in check.

 

[Jquestionmark]

So if everyone was without vanity, there would still be issues of war and poverty?
I find this completely incorrect.

Vanity doesn't create uneven resource distribution on the surface of the earth (which I'd say does a lot more for causing war/poverty than people being vain). So yeah, vanity does not create every issue.

In fact, vanity is what causes any and every form of destruction.

Every form? Even earthquakes, huh? That's a pretty interesting claim. Care to provide some basis for that claim?

This doesn't even have to be a biblical intrigue,, it stands alone.

It has to stand alone, because it's not in the Bible.

Nonetheless, it cannot be denied it's presence as being the original sin. The simple act of vanity by Lucifer gave birth to all forms of evil in the story of Eden. As I've explained before, The Tree of Knowledge bore no knowledge itself. The act of disobeying God is what led to the realization of good and evil.
Lucifer's vanity> Eve gains vanity
Eve disobeys God> Eve becomes ashamed
Eve deceives Adam> Adam becomes ashamed
Adam and Eve's shame> they realize they are naked
Adam and Eve's shame> they hide from God
They hide from God> fear
Fear> resentment
Resentment> anger
It goes on and on, eventually leading to pain and death.

First: that's a serpent, and not Lucifer. You need to provide some evidence that we should think the serpent is Lucifer, because none exists in the Bible.

Second: if the tree of knowledge bore no knowledge, then why does the Bible explicitly say it does? This is an interesting interpretation of the Bible, but it just seems like you're applying your ideas to it, and not actually addressing what the Bible is actually saying. How is this an example of vanity (after all, adam and eve don't know good from evil at this point, so they could not have known this was an evil act)? Why should we believe this story is about vanity and not what the Bible states is going on? How does Lucifer factor in at all?

But, most importantly, the serpent is not Lucifer. Your train of logic stops right at the start, because Lucifer is not mentioned once in the actual eden story.

This is your story, not a true story, not a story from the bible, and what happened in the story does not mean that every problem in the world stems from vanity (just that god was a monster that punished adam and eve for eating a fruit at the suggestion of a serpent). At the end, you're just arbitrarily stringing emotions together, not showing how your story actually brought death and pain into existence. Why should we think this really happened, and how does it apply to every problem in the world?

I don't know why this concept is so hard to take in, but the 1st book of the Bible alone exemplifies vanity as being the crux of evil, which is quite remarkable for a god that is just so wrong for the way the world is when he would really be justified in purging everyone on it.

No, the first book of the bible shows god punishing people that didn't know good from evil for being tricked into doing something evil. This is only an example of god being cruel.

You think god is justified in purging the world of everyone on it? Why do you think that?

Peace will never come of man because of vanity, as life without such a god contains dualities of riches/poverty and security/fear. It's a human condition that such a god has given you a chance to escape if only you would not take part in it.
It's really just that damn simple_

Those things exist whether god does or not. Using escapism does not do anything about those issues, it just ignores them. In this scenario god is solving nothing (at least no more so than escaping into television, sports, videogames, books, etc.).

To illustrate it further:

Parents raise a child. The child gets solid grades in school. All of a sudden, the child hangs around the wrong crowd out of boredom/fulfillment/whatever. The child's grades plummet.
Vanity.
Hitler bleieves Germans are the master race.
Vanity.
Going to war for resources.
Vanity.

Trying to prevent your people from starving is vain?

Feeling jealous that your ex is with someone else.
Vanity.

That's actually envy. Vanity is something else.

It just,, anything really. And in the end all it becomes is torment. And if you consider God to be real, than it is also vain, because when you leave Earth and continue with eternity it really just became unnecessary to feel/cause any grief.

So both believing and not believing in God is vain? That seems a little odd. What situation would not be vain, then? Or is there no such thing?

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

]but do any religions preach the existence of a less accepting god?

Only monotheistic religions (which are what most people in the western world are most familiar with) have the problem of claiming a benevolent god. Polytheistic religions do not have this problem because none of the gods are all powerful, which means that, even if one is benevolent, it doesn't mean all that much. And most of the gods are very human, or simply control/exemplify/personify certain things (the good and bad aspects of them). Often, the gods are explicitly called out as being cruel, or petty, or other negative qualities. Just look at Zeus' various dickery and what trickster gods do.

If the existence of a single god is claimed, then it is either benevolent and not all-powerful, or it is all-powerful and malevolent.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Actually, the snake wasn't Lucifer. It was Satan. Satan was an angel God used to test the faith and will of others. The two, contrary to popular misconceptions, are not synonymous with one another.

And back on topic, God is not a perfect being. He has opinions and beliefs, certainly, just like we do, but His acts in both Christianity and elsewhere are simply accepted as the right thing by devouts simply because God is portrayed as a flawless being.

God cannot possibly be wholly benevolent because He forces these "ordeals", if you like, upon us. We do not live in fear of God Himself. We cling in fear to Him because it's all we know how to do, in the hope that He'll save us from whatever may come in the future, whether it is an ordeal like a natural disaster, or the divine apocalypse detailed in Revelations.

If God is capable of anger, then He is capable of rash decisions and impulsive, thoughtless actions. He might mean well, but that doesn't mean he holds nothing but benevolence for humanity. For him to condemn, kill, and damn those who have refused to turn to him is in itself a malevolent act. In fact, it can almost be considered spiteful from how it's written.

Once again though, the Bible is written by man as the interpreted Word of God. We have no way of knowing what He is really like. A malevolent God doesn't keep everyone in check, but it damn well keeps some of them in check.

The 'ordeals' He enforces are spawned from ultimate truth. Here's the thing about God:
He is so holy, that not even most angels can look upon Him. This is speaking of truth. He has no boundaries to it. This truth is undeniable, and is actually feared.
It is something that noone can contend with, honestly. Every argument against Him is false. The Judeo-Christian God is one of purity, not opinionated intrigue.
And I have exemplified it well without any real opposition from anyone in this and other threads.

The snake was Lucifer. He is called the serpent because of his deception upon man. He is also called the adversary, satan, devil, etc.

God has been angry and grieved over man. But His actions have always been for the interests of life. He purged the planet so life would no longer suffer and begin anew. But man is so ignorant that it fixed nothing.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

It is something that noone can contend with, honestly. Every argument against Him is false. The Judeo-Christian God is one of purity, not opinionated intrigue.

I would contend that something so dissimilar and foreign to the human condition has no bearing on the way in which we should live our lives. Such a being isn't even mortal or necessarily physical. We have more in common with grasshoppers than the god you describe. This, of course, only applies to this inflated representation of God.

What I gathered from the book was that God essentially behaved like an average guy given way too much power. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's kind of hard to make an informed, rational decision when getting pissed can flood the entire earth.

The snake was Lucifer. He is called the serpent because of his deception upon man. He is also called the adversary, satan, devil, etc.

There's nothing wrong with you believing this, plenty of people do, but the serpent was never linked with Lucifer in the Bible. It was just a serpent. Otherwise, why would God punish all snakes by getting rid of their legs if it was really Satan? That's like knowing that someone stole something but arresting Jimmy Carter because the thief was wearing a Jimmy Carter mask.

God has been angry and grieved over man. But His actions have always been for the interests of life. He purged the planet so life would no longer suffer and begin anew. But man is so ignorant that it fixed nothing.

Why doesn't he just blow everything up, then? Or kill himself?

 

[Sum1sgruj]

I would contend that something so dissimilar and foreign to the human condition has no bearing on the way in which we should live our lives. Such a being isn't even mortal or necessarily physical. We have more in common with grasshoppers than the god you describe. This, of course, only applies to this inflated representation of God.

This isn't an 'inflated' representation of God. This is the representation of God through an unbiased, logical view. Atheists don't want to believe in such a thing, so they discredit the Bible with heresy and technicalities. A lot of theists are so disgruntled with their own convictions that their interpretation conforms to what they feel is right.

There's nothing wrong with you believing this, plenty of people do, but the serpent was never linked with Lucifer in the Bible. It was just a serpent. Otherwise, why would God punish all snakes by getting rid of their legs if it was really Satan? That's like knowing that someone stole something but arresting Jimmy Carter because the thief was wearing a Jimmy Carter mask.

It's metaphorical. Get used to it if you ever desire to venture into the complexities of the Bible.
Lucifer is Satan, the Adversary, the Serpent, etc., I don;t know what logic says this is not so. He is the 1st sinner, the leader of the fallen angels, the Prince of Earth.. it speaks for itself. Wherever you heard otherwise, it's wrong.

Furthermore on metaphors, here is an example: The beast from the sea. Revelations is not talking about a literal sea urchin, it is talking about the Antichrist- the beast that will arise from the sea of people.

As a side note, the Antichrist is thought not to be Lucifer, actually, but one of His fallen angels. Leviathan or perhaps Belias (or Belial), both who were also in the Seraphim in Heaven, will likely be this embodiment.

Why doesn't he just blow everything up, then? Or kill himself?

Because He is not the evil god you are trying to portray Him to be. Though He would be justified in doing so, He has love for man. Vanity has screwed man, there's no way around that fact, God or not. And He has given every man a chance to prove that they are without vanity and will not corrupt Heaven as Lucifer had.

 

[der Astronom]

This isn't an 'inflated' representation of God. This is the representation of God through an unbiased, logical view. Atheists don't want to believe in such a thing, so they discredit the Bible with heresy and technicalities. A lot of theists are so disgruntled with their own convictions that their interpretation conforms to what they feel is right.

Do not assume the reasons for why atheists are atheists. It is not a necessary condition for atheists to desire god not existing in order to be one.

As Jquestionmark has already mentioned, problems with even technicalities in the bible are enough to require attention.
And for that matter, I'm finding your representation of god not any more valid than any other Christian's interpretation of god that I know of. I'll agree it's unique, but that's it. There's nothing inherently logical or unbiased about it.

It's metaphorical. Get used to it if you ever desire to venture into the complexities of the Bible.

Then get used to the fact that metaphors tell us nothing true because they are unfalsifiable statements.

Lucifer is Satan, the Adversary, the Serpent, etc., I don;t know what logic says this is not so. He is the 1st sinner, the leader of the fallen angels, the Prince of Earth.. it speaks for itself. Wherever you heard otherwise, it's wrong.

Apparently, there is no indication in the bible that Lucifer and the serpent are one and the same. At least that's what I gather from the people posing the argument. So either provide a counterexample or you're not convincing anyone. You don't get to come here and spew unsupported statements and expect people to be convinced by them just because you said so.

Furthermore on metaphors, here is an example: The beast from the sea. Revelations is not talking about a literal sea urchin, it is talking about the Antichrist- the beast that will arise from the sea of people.

And because that's open to interpretation, it tells me nothing true. Even if it were the Antichrist, it wouldn't even tell me if the Antichrist even existed.

Because He is not the evil god you are trying to portray Him to be. Though He would be justified in doing so, He has love for man. Vanity has screwed man, there's no way around that fact, God or not. And He has given every man a chance to prove that they are without vanity and will not corrupt Heaven as Lucifer had.

Actually, killing himself after all the crap he's given us is the best thing he can do for us, at least short of simply leaving us alone. Vanity has screwed up god into thinking he knows best for us, and instead, he's ruined the lives of the people in the bible, his teachings have ruined the lives of people in history, and if he really existed, he'd probably ruin our lives too. And if he thinks making a scapegoat out of himself means people can prove they won't screw up heaven, then he's a moron.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Do not assume the reasons for why atheists are atheists. It is not a necessary condition for atheists to desire god not existing in order to be one.

From what I've gathered, it's become my educated opinion.

As Jquestionmark has already mentioned, problems with even technicalities in the bible are enough to require attention.
And for that matter, I'm finding your representation of god not any more valid than any other Christian's interpretation of god that I know of. I'll agree it's unique, but that's it. There's nothing inherently logical or unbiased about it.

Oh yes, it is logical and unbiased. I have provided a conception that are in terms with both, unlike you or others. Over this thread and the other, I have gotten in full detail and they have gone conveniently ignored. I cannot force one to be intuitive. There is a difference between knowledge and reason, believe it or not, and it seems that reason is dropped as soon as someone else brings something new to talk about that others haven't ventured upon.
It's a mockery to debating, honestly.

Then get used to the fact that metaphors tell us nothing true because they are unfalsifiable statements.

See above.

Apparently, there is no indication in the bible that Lucifer and the serpent are one and the same. At least that's what I gather from the people posing the argument. So either provide a counterexample or you're not convincing anyone. You don't get to come here and spew unsupported statements and expect people to be convinced by them just because you said so.

Then what was the Serpent? See above.

And because that's open to interpretation, it tells me nothing true. Even if it were the Antichrist, it wouldn't even tell me if the Antichrist even existed.

See above.

Actually, killing himself after all the crap he's given us is the best thing he can do for us, at least short of simply leaving us alone. Vanity has screwed up god into thinking he knows best for us, and instead, he's ruined the lives of the people in the bible, his teachings have ruined the lives of people in history, and if he really existed, he'd probably ruin our lives too. And if he thinks making a scapegoat out of himself means people can prove they won't screw up heaven, then he's a moron.

See above.

 

[der Astronom]

From what I've gathered, it's become my educated opinion.

I only agree with the opinion part, but not the educated part.
And it doesn't matter anyways; I'd be happy if a morally unjust god didn't exist, but that wouldn't be the reason why I believe the Christian god doesn't exist.

Oh yes, it is logical and unbiased. I have provided a conception that are in terms with both, unlike you or others. Over this thread and the other, I have gotten in full detail and they have gone conveniently ignored. I cannot force one to be intuitive. There is a difference between knowledge and reason, believe it or not, and it seems that reason is dropped as soon as someone else brings something new to talk about that others haven't ventured upon.
It's a mockery to debating, honestly.

While failing to address the issues you have over god's problems that are not related to vanity, and about the unnecessary cruelty he exhibits over his creations, or about the logical inconsistencies with regard to his abilities and his poor decision making abilities? And for that matter, maybe you should address why vanity is the only criterion you seem to be using for evaluating morality. And if it's because god said so, this argument is over, and you're done.
"God said so" is one of the most blatantly ignorant and fallacious arguments I've heard.

See above.

Oh no you don't. Address the problem with using metaphors to support your argument, or you're done.

Then what was the Serpent? See above.

Where do you get off on the assumption that the serpent had to be something more than just a snake? And even if you hadn't known who he was, it doesn't justify pretending he is Lucifer if there is no evidence that indicates that Lucifer was the serpent.

See above.

Your interpretation of god does not explain why you think that beast specifically had to be the Antichrist, nor does it explain how you know it existed.

See above.

I still do not have a satisfactory answer as to why you don't see anything wrong with a god who doesn't condemn slavery, commands people to murder and rape others, punishes people who don't deserve it when he could prevent it, and bother even creating hell, or even letting people go there.
Don't respond and say it's obvious, because it's anything but that, and it makes for a bad argument anyways.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

While failing to address the issues you have over god's problems that are not related to vanity, and about the unnecessary cruelty he exhibits over his creations, or about the logical inconsistencies with regard to his abilities and his poor decision making abilities? And for that matter, maybe you should address why vanity is the only criterion you seem to be using for evaluating morality. And if it's because god said so, this argument is over, and you're done.
"God said so" is one of the most blatantly ignorant and fallacious arguments I've heard.

I've explained vanity in full detail. You have not, and likely cannot, prove otherwise that vanity is what causes any and every form of immorality.
Vanity is self-importance. Without it, no other immoral act could exist.
I have evaluated it, extensively no doubt. This is why I stopped posting on the other thread, because logical fallacies in lieu of my past explanations take over. Like a big circle. Sound familiar?

The same can go for the abilities and intentions of God. You nor J even delved into it, but rather dismissed the idea altogether because it threatens your take on God.

Oh no you don't. Address the problem with using metaphors to support your argument, or you're done.

I've already addressed it. Reason. And you put your own foot in your mouth. If metaphors are unfalsifiable and there are so many things of the sort within holy intrigue, than you do not even have enough reason to deem God as evil or unjust.

Where do you get off on the assumption that the serpent had to be something more than just a snake? And even if you hadn't known who he was, it doesn't justify pretending he is Lucifer if there is no evidence that indicates that Lucifer was the serpent.

Because der Astronom, do you believe that an actual snake cursed all of man?
It's ridiculous, and why would God need to test man with a serpent when Lucifer, the Prince of Earth, the Adversary, etc. is more than willing to tempt man?
Like I said before, which is actually becoming quite a comical thought: You are dismissing the Bible with technicality.

Your interpretation of god does not explain why you think that beast specifically had to be the Antichrist, nor does it explain how you know it existed.

This isn't even just my interpretation. It's that of Christians, the Vatican, ect., and reason will say that there is no actual 'sea urchin', just as there is no 'serpent'. To think otherwise is what is illogical.
And once again I say: dismissing the Bible with technicality.
The beast from the sea is regarded in Revelations. Do you think a sea urchin is supposed to be ravaging Earth at the end of days.
Blasphemy, I tell you.



[/QUOTE]I still do not have a satisfactory answer as to why you don't see anything wrong with a god who doesn't condemn slavery, commands people to murder and rape others, punishes people who don't deserve it when he could prevent it, and bother even creating hell, or even letting people go there.
Don't respond and say it's obvious, because it's anything but that, and it makes for a bad argument anyways.[/QUOTE]

Nothing is satisfactory for you, because the only thing you want to believe is that theism is evil and there is no god.
People do these things with or without god. But you know,, I'm not re-posting my entire philosophy on the matter. Read previous posts/threads.
A big circle.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

This is the representation of God through an unbiased, logical view.

An unbiased, logical view of god would allow the existence of any kind, or form, of god. All forms of god are equally valid. You are entirely biased towards Christianity. What about Brahma, or Buddha (in some forms of Buddhism)? Why are they dismissed? Why are ours dismissed?

Lucifer is Satan, the Adversary, the Serpent, etc., I don;t know what logic says this is not so.

You can argue that the serpent is a metaphor for another thing (like Satan and Lucifer), but I'm simply saying that Lucifer and Satan are two entirely different characters. They are never once linked throughout the Bible. Lucifer is a fallen angel (and, in fact, the passages referring to him are actually about a defeated Babylonian king given the title "Morning Star"/"Day Star") and Satan is a creation of God's that tests him; the Adversary. They are entirely different characters. And that's straight from the Bible. You can have whatever ridiculous view that you wish, but don't claim that the Bible supports it.

Because He is not the evil god you are trying to portray Him to be.

How do you know? Are you his prophet on earth? The second coming of Christ? Nobody knows if or what god is, yet you claim to. How are you an agnostic, exactly? You claim absolute knowledge about god and you completely exclude the ideas of other religions. Allowing that god may not exist only makes you an agnostic as far as your own interpretation of Christian belief is concerned, as you seem quite confident that any other interpretation of god is false. Frankly, it sounds ethnocentric.

Atheists don't want to believe in such a thing, so they discredit the Bible with heresy and technicalities.

Do you also have the ability to read minds? You just used a universal by referring to all atheists. All you need to do to disprove a universal is to present one example that is contrary to what the person claims. Here's one: I don't want to believe anything, I simply believe in what I observe. I have not observed god in any way. That is why I do not believe in Him/them. I discredit the Bible because it is full of logical and moral holes; it has nothing to do with my religious beliefs.

I have just disproved your statement. You could always modify it to be "I think most atheists are". And you'd still be wrong, but it wouldn't be as easy to disprove.

do you believe that an actual snake cursed all of man?

How is that any more ridiculous than a magical super being nobody can prove the existence of? I at least know snakes exist. My roommate owns one. His name is Milson. He also does not have legs, which is consistent with the Biblical story. That is way more evidence for snakes than Lucifer. Which means my argument has greater inductive strength.

It's that of Christians, the Vatican, ect.

Let me disprove you again. There are groups of Christian who believe the Bible literally. That is completely counter to what you claimed about Christians. They believe that a sea monster will really rise in the end of days, that the earth is 6000 years old (which is somehow more plausible to you, even though it's disproven, than a sea monster, which at least we can't disprove?), and other such literal things. So no, not all Christians believe what you claim.

Vanity is self-importance. Without it, no other immoral act could exist.

It sounds like you're conflating vanity with any consideration of yourself above others. In other words, anything but complete selflessness. But I know a few immoral acts that do not originate from your definition of vanity.

Any person who has ever fought for a greater cause that they believed in (be it soldiers giving their lives for their country, or crusaders purging the infidel) has given themselves to a higher purpose, selflessly, and have often committed immoral acts like destruction and murder. They are completely selfless and, in the Christian sense, immoral.

because logical fallacies in lieu of my past explanations take over.

Say what logical fallacies they are. You say that people in this thread are using them, but not who and not which ones.

However, I can point out a logical fallacy that you are using. You are claiming that some of your beliefs are believed by all Christians, which somehow is supposed to strengthen your argument. That is Argumentum ad populum, or appeal to popularity. "If many believe so, it is so." That is a logical fallacy.

You also have used strawmanning, by claiming that atheists (including us) believe something that we actually do not, and then arguing against it (specifically atheists wanting to believe something, but you've used it before).

I have soundly discounted nearly everything you have said within the last few posts. Is that enough evidence and reasoning for you?

 

[der Astronom]

I've explained vanity in full detail. You have not, and likely cannot, prove otherwise that vanity is what causes any and every form of immorality.

Actually, since you are asserting that vanity causes all forms of immorality, it is your responsibility to convince us of that assertion. Which means you have to show that vanity causes every form of immorality--I just need to come up with one example of immorality that doesn't involve vanity.

However, there are problems with that--what I consider immoral may not be considered immoral to you; in fact, it is just convenient for you to decide that everything that doesn't depend on vanity is not subject to morality, and then there's really no discussion.

So perhaps you should convince me of why your opinion of what is moral and what is not should be based off of vanity, and not any other number of things that can cause immorality.

Vanity is self-importance. Without it, no other immoral act could exist.
I have evaluated it, extensively no doubt. This is why I stopped posting on the other thread, because logical fallacies in lieu of my past explanations take over. Like a big circle. Sound familiar?

Then do you consider allowing someone to be scapegoated in order to be forgiven immoral, and if you do, do you consider it vain? And please also explain why or why not.

The only logical fallacies that are going around here are yours. If we made any, you have not clearly identified them, and made vague statements that don't explain anything, and if you're complaining about even having logical fallacies, well your explanations are as good as nothing precisely because they are riddled with fallacies.

The same can go for the abilities and intentions of God. You nor J even delved into it, but rather dismissed the idea altogether because it threatens your take on God.

Actually, the way I've been describing god is based on what you have said about god, and from what I know of in the bible. If you found any of the things I talked about in the bible doesn't agree with your interpretation, you are free to point it out. Not all Christians believe in hell, nor do they believe in an omnipotent or omniscient god that dooms people from the start; they've simply deviated their interpretations from the bible, which is why we are only in the interest of pointing things out that are either said in the bible or that you have stated.
And if you don't like it, I'm sorry you never saw those problems in your interpretations; if you knew they were there, I doubt you'd be supporting it in the first place.

I've already addressed it. Reason. And you put your own foot in your mouth. If metaphors are unfalsifiable and there are so many things of the sort within holy intrigue, than you do not even have enough reason to deem God as evil or unjust.

That's too vague. Explain why a metaphor has any sway over truth when it can be ambiguously interpreted by different people.

When I said metaphors are unfalsifiable, I meant that you can neither say anything true nor false about them; truth does not apply to things that are not falsifiable because there is no possible condition under which they could be wrong, and you would not be able to tell if it were true or false. And it isn't for logical reasons that they can be wrong; it just amounts to sophistry. It's the same with opinions; they are not subjected to the same rigor as with anything in science or math which require evidence and the possibility that they could be false. Without such a criteria, we cannot speak about whether or not they are true.

Because der Astronom, do you believe that an actual snake cursed all of man?

No, and that's for the same reason why I don't believe in god.

It's ridiculous, and why would God need to test man with a serpent when Lucifer, the Prince of Earth, the Adversary, etc. is more than willing to tempt man?

Why would god create a tree with a fruit that gives the beings that eat it the ability to discern good from evil? If he hadn't wanted to test them, then there was absolutely no reason for creating that tree and imposing the condition that nobody should eat from it.
And Lucifer didn't even suggest to them to eat from the tree; he basically told the truth. God was a liar for saying the fruit from that tree would kill them. So who's the one testing Adam and Eve? Certainly not the messenger.

Like I said before, which is actually becoming quite a comical thought: You are dismissing the Bible with technicality.

And I happen to think it's worth it because you don't have any good reason for dismissing it.

This isn't even just my interpretation. It's that of Christians, the Vatican, ect., and reason will say that there is no actual 'sea urchin', just as there is no 'serpent'. To think otherwise is what is illogical.

Not all Christians have the same interpretations, and I just explained that above.

And once again I say: dismissing the Bible with technicality.

It still remains that there are unresolved problems with the bible. Doesn't matter if you think it's a trifle or not.

The beast from the sea is regarded in Revelations. Do you think a sea urchin is supposed to be ravaging Earth at the end of days.
Blasphemy, I tell you.

And I don't even think such an Apocalypse is actually going to happen as it is described in the bible.
Either way, you're just asserting more argument from ignorance fallacies; just because it's not a sea urchin doesn't mean it has to be the Antichrist. Maybe there are some better candidates for the beast of the sea that you're just not willing to consider.

Nothing is satisfactory for you, because the only thing you want to believe is that theism is evil and there is no god.

I don't believe there is a god, but I don't think theism is necessarily evil. What is evil is some of the beliefs that exist as a result of the things written in the bible, and trying to enforce these beliefs on other people who don't hold these beliefs. And they happen to be mostly beliefs that some theists share; now if atheists were to agree with some of these statements in the bible, I would think them immoral as well. There's no reason why being a theist or an atheist changes whether or not I think you're moral or not.

People do these things with or without god. But you know,, I'm not re-posting my entire philosophy on the matter. Read previous posts/threads.
A big circle.

And I'm not asking you to restate your argument. We know what your argument is; it's just lacking a proper justification that isn't consistently filled with fallacies.