NationStates

Genivaria wrote:

Big Jim P wrote:
why waste the energy hating them? They were created for our entertainment.

Story tellers create villains because we're SUPPOSED to hate them, in the same way we're supposed to love the heroes, if we're not emotionally invested in the story then your not really going to care what happens.

The Joseon Dynasty wrote:Another Sunday School recollection answers a portion of this question. From what I remember, the answer is quite simple and perhaps simplistic, that God created people in order to love them. But since he wanted the love to be reciprocated by choice, he allowed for free will, which allowed for the absence of God, which allowed for evil.

It's a long string of reasoning, but there is an answer. You could perhaps conclude that it was selfish for him to create people for self-gratification, knowing full well that suffering would be a consequence.

The Godly Nations wrote:God is not malevolent, as people claim, rather, he is just simply amoral, lacking in morality altogether. Therefore, it is fallacious to apply morality to him, when he simply exist beyond the reaches of morality.

Genivaria wrote:

Big Jim P wrote:
why waste the energy hating them? They were created for our entertainment.

Story tellers create villains because we're SUPPOSED to hate them, in the same way we're supposed to love the heroes, if we're not emotionally invested in the story then your not really going to care what happens.

Nationalist State of Knox wrote:

Of the Free Socialist Territories wrote:
That argument...wow. I've seen the light; get me some water and we can do a baptism by sundown.

Let us go out into the Lake, my brother, and feel the Holy Spirit descend on us.

Big Jim P wrote:The conversation lost it's credibility when god was mentioned.

Nationalist State of Knox wrote:I was interested in reasonable discourse, until you told me to go and burn myself on a fir tree.

That's just rude, man, that's just rude.

Chinese Regions wrote:Elaborate? No one's sin has ever exceeded god. Name the worst rapist, paedophile, dictator, serial killer you can. What they done cannot be as bad as a being that could've prevented the birth or the crime said rapist/paedophile/dictator/serial killer, a being that has committed mass genocide because his creation didn't turn out right, a being that punished an angel for rebelling against his dictatorship, a being that could've prevented un-man made disasters; disease, accidents, volcanoes, earthquakes.

Mavorpen wrote:So does Darth Vader, because he doesn't exist.

Yet we can consider him malevolent.

Yankee Empire wrote:

Big Jim P wrote:The conversation lost it's credibility when god was mentioned.

Condunum wrote:Not to try to make any large derailment, but haven't you argued that might makes right? I'm asking out of curiosity.

Yankee Empire wrote:

Mavorpen wrote:So does Darth Vader, because he doesn't exist.

Yet we can consider him malevolent.

Characters exist as characters.

Alancar wrote:

Nationalist State of Knox wrote:Perhaps, but people would be more likely to follow him because of fear (of the consequences should they not follow him) rather than genuine love.

The thing about that God, is that he didn't seem to want to be loved, though some might love him (or at least love what they believe god is). For that matter he didn't seem to want to be worshipped or followed or anything like that. He had a plan, and he manipulated events using several of his agents in order to follow though with it.

Ultimately it wasn't really about whether or not people wanted to follow him, or believe in him, it was about whether or not people had the strength to go where they were meant to be.

Yankee Empire wrote:

Chinese Regions wrote:Elaborate? No one's sin has ever exceeded god. Name the worst rapist, paedophile, dictator, serial killer you can. What they done cannot be as bad as a being that could've prevented the birth or the crime said rapist/paedophile/dictator/serial killer, a being that has committed mass genocide because his creation didn't turn out right, a being that punished an angel for rebelling against his dictatorship, a being that could've prevented un-man made disasters; disease, accidents, volcanoes, earthquakes.

>Implying to Know better than an Omnipotent being creator of all.

>Implying that is the true Nature of God

>Implying some interpertation of God may not be true when it suits your case but not doing so when it doesn't

Yankee Empire wrote:

Mavorpen wrote:So does Darth Vader, because he doesn't exist.

Yet we can consider him malevolent.

Characters exist as characters.

Yankee Empire wrote:

Mavorpen wrote:So does Darth Vader, because he doesn't exist.

Yet we can consider him malevolent.

Characters exist as characters.

Yankee Empire wrote:

Mavorpen wrote:So does Darth Vader, because he doesn't exist.

Yet we can consider him malevolent.

Characters exist as characters.

Dracodango wrote:Why would a self-described anti theist initiate a discussion on the nature of a God? Is this a rhetorical question?

Mavorpen wrote:

The Godly Nations wrote:God is not malevolent, as people claim, rather, he is just simply amoral, lacking in morality altogether. Therefore, it is fallacious to apply morality to him, when he simply exist beyond the reaches of morality.

So does Darth Vader, because he doesn't exist.

Yet we can consider him malevolent.

Nationalist State of Knox wrote:

Reggae Is Coming to the Nation wrote:Most Christian scholars regard these "Texts of Terror" as the Israelites putting words in God's mouth. If you want to see the heart of Abrahamic theism, look to the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Micah or the gospels.

What about the Christians that view the Bible as infallible and God's word? You can't just pick and choose which parts of the Bible are correct and which parts should be ignored.

Of the Free Socialist Territories wrote:

Cetacea wrote:
I'm assuming you being a naughty boy didn't involve vile and irredeemable wickedness (ergo a dead lamb would have been sufficient recompense)

What "vile and irredeemable wickedness" is this?

What did the children whom Joshua et al. killed do that was "violently and irredeemably wicked"?

and just because your father isn't the President doesn't rule out flattening whole towns, go visit Palestine or Afghanistan and such...

How charmingly irrelevant.

Buddha Punk Robot Monks wrote:These kind's of threads by atheists are always in bad faith. If you don't believe in God you don't believe in God. There is no point in asking if a hypothetical God is malevolent or not.

The Godly Nations wrote:

Mavorpen wrote:So does Darth Vader, because he doesn't exist.

Yet we can consider him malevolent.

1. The point of this topic is to discuss whether God, should he exist, is malevolent. As this is not about whether God actually exist or not, the first part is entirely irrelevent.

2. Malevolence requires actual evil intentions, since God does not have any sense of either Good or Evil, being a being above morality, and encompassing both, what he does cannot be classified as either Good or Evil. Therefore God is not malevolent, should he exist, he is simply completely amoral.

Primordial Luxa wrote:Then let me ask you, if your God would allow my madness to flourish across the globe, then wouldn't it seem to you that any god like that would be just as mad as I? - Anonymous Nazi Major

God may exist
but if he does he must good for that's what the bible tells us.
However he does nothing about the evil in our world.
So one of the following must be true
A) He doesn't exist
B) He has no power to control us and therefore its not his fault there is evil
C) He is evil and allows evil to prosper
(I'm leaning toward B, but I don't worship this powerless god.)

So

It is also important to remember that any gods that do exist view us as too insignificant to help or that they don't fall under our standard definition of good and evil. Plus im sure we all have different versions of evil so its pointless to hold any god up to those criteria.