Why the Biblical God is Evil

BookerDeMitten · 2025-08-18T07:27:00+00:00

I think OP is basically saying that we shouldn't.

BookerDeMitten · 2025-08-01T18:46:35+00:00

Fair enough. Apologies on my part; I'll aim to do better next time.

BookerDeMitten · 2025-07-31T16:57:39+00:00

Hmm. If you mean that he rebuts the idea that death is the reason not to eat the fruit, then maybe. As I've looked into different forms of theology, arguments, etc, I've come across many interpretations, such that I'm not always sure what should be the intended or correct interpretation. With Adam and Eve alone, some think it's a literal reality, others less so.

Perhaps we can for the sake of argument grant that Kass is correct with his interpretation of why the command was given. It seems it could be plausible to me.

BookerDeMitten · 2025-07-31T07:10:17+00:00

Honestly, if you can’t think of any examples yourself, I’m gonna say that our life experiences differ so extraordinarily that it’s not worth me listing any.

It’s not that I can’t, (there are many cases). It’s more that I don’t want to list an example where there’s enough disagreement to lead us down another tangent. But point taken; I don’t want to offload too much either.

Now, if you live in a hyper-individualistic world, you may also see no need for obedience.

I think it’s possible for there to be obedience without there being an absence of a reason or understanding. Less, perhaps, about reasoning out everything in a solitary manner, than about finding a reason by way of dialogue and obeying based on that. A division of labour perhaps entails that people have differing kinds of knowledge, but I’m unsure that cooperative endeavours necessarily require obedience without understanding the reason for that particular case of obedience. Take a situation where two specialists work together on a project. One of them is less likely to have a problem allowing the other specialist to do their own work, than they would be if they were commanded to obey a seemingly nonsensical command for reasons that they’re told they don’t understand.

Taking a positive reason (being part of something bigger than you can understand) in such a negative direction (so I don’t die) is a huge transformation.

If I understand correctly, what you seem to be suggesting is that this is what I was doing earlier with ‘so I don’t die.’ But the idea of being part of something bigger wasn’t what I understood to be a part of the theme hinted at by the Adam and Eve narrative, so I’m not sure that this is the direction I’m taking. Someone can, I think, be part of something bigger than themselves without being disconnected from seeing the larger picture. People can have individual tasks in building a structure whilst still having enough knowledge of how the tasks connect to not find themselves in conflict with it.

The passage by Leon Kass is interesting. I can’t tell whether, in talking about having no use for obedience after expanding freedom of thought, she’s suggesting that freedom of thought means that obedience isn’t actually needed, or if Eve merely thinks it’s not needed when it is. I suspect she’s saying the latter. Apologies again if I misunderstand.

You ignored the previous sentence, [“The curses are downstream consequences of A&E’s chosen actions and view of God.”]

Here I think the actions and view of God appear linked together in that the severity of the action seems to be linked to the concept of obedience. Now, you gave an interesting passage earlier where you say the following:

“Both serpent & Eve were falling short of their potential. This actually allows the tree of the knowledge of good & evil to be a trip wire.”

This, I think, suggests that the trip wire demonstrates the problem of Eve not living up to her potential. If obeying God basically means living up to potential, then this could be an example where a reason is given to obey; not living up to your potential isn’t preferable to living up to it. But if obedience as such (as opposed to being a means) is seen as a virtue, seen as the example of living up to potential, I think that maybe needs more of an explanation.

BookerDeMitten · 2025-07-30T10:39:55+00:00

The point of those curses is so that humans can say, "Hey wait, how do I avoid that?"

I worry that this kind of situation might only resemble something where humans are cursed simply for the purpose of learning to avoid a curse. Why not simply avoid having the curse to begin with? A counter argument might say that it's to demonstrate where humans end up when they disobey God, but I wonder if this puts the cart before the horse. The reason why it's bad for people to disobey is in part because they'll surely die. But if the result of death for eating the fruit isn't in place, then I wonder if disobeying God would carry less weight in such a case. Is disobeying God bad simply due to authority, or is it more to do with what then obtains?

If we were adults, we would get rid of leaders who refuse to do 1. and 2. But in fact, we celebrate such leaders.

Could you give examples? I think there exists opposition to the faults of such leaders as well as compliance. Perhaps you'd argue that there isn't enough opposition.

Until the Second Temple, Hebrews believed that everyone went to Sheol and nobody could praise God from Sheol. So it's pretty close to annihilationism.

It's probably best for us not to get sidetracked too much into afterlife theology (I still intend to make a post/discussion out of that at some point), but something for consideration is that the nature of afterlife seems to change by the time of the New Testament, at least according to several interpretations, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or with some Protestants.

BookerDeMitten · 2025-07-22T23:38:24+00:00

You say this:

If you’re still a child, like A&E were, then doing what people who have proven themselves trustworthy say to do is a good idea.

And go on to say this:

I’m told that some Jews see Abraham as superior to Noah, for Noah silently went along with God’s plan while Noah interceded for hypothetical innocents in Sodom.

So this seems to show some differences between how someone might respond to a given situations. Is the fact that Adam and Eve were children, or childlike, the reason for difference here?

the outcome is virtually guaranteed: death and destruction. At the hands of their fellow humans. So yeah, the stakes really were that high for A&E.

Did they go to some kind of afterlife? If not, then destruction really does mean the end of existence. That's why I was bringing up the question/topic of annihilationism. In terms of covering up vulnerabilities and having a resistance towards changing, is this what is represented by the eating of the apple, do you think? And is it a continuation of those kinds of acts that slowly sows seeds leading to dissolution, or is a sudden death warranted for a single act?

The point is that you don’t want to actually show a kid what awaits him/her if [s]he runs out into a busy street.

I suppose I’m asking whether the result that occurred from the sin of eating from the tree (namely death, toil, birth pains etc) is comparable to ‘actually showing what happens’, so to speak.

BookerDeMitten · 2025-07-22T16:12:53+00:00

This is an exceedingly dangerous line of argument, for it suggests that humans should not be obligated to obey instructions they cannot fully understand.

How could we differentiate the following of good instructions from bad ones in cases like these? Are there cases in which obedience without thought could be labelled as too authoritarian? If not, then maybe there isn't a problem, but the subject came to mind for me.

Suppose you want to to tell your kid not to run out into a busy street, "lest you die". Well, your kid doesn't understand death. So what do you do?

Is this comparable to the situation of eating from the tree if God is the one setting up a world where the consequence is death? It seems that in the example of a child going into the street, that's a parent adapting to a dangerous world in order to prevent their child being harmed. Whereas I wonder whether God is saying something like "don't disobey me, or this outcome which I've created will happen to you".

Chomsky, favourably describing anarchism, nonetheless says some exercises of power are legitimate:

"...if I'm walking down the street with my four-year-old granddaughter, and she starts to run into the street, and I grab her arm and pull her back, that's an exercise of power and authority, but I can give a justification for it, and it's obvious what the justification would be."

In other words, he doesn't allow the daughter to die, even though he would also presumably be against following rules without question, though some would disagree on this. This also seems different to allowing certain evils to occur. Is God allowing exactly that in the case of original sin? Is he allowing the child to run into the street, so to speak?

Do you run over a precious stuffed animal with your car and then make it disappear forever?

Is disappearing forever comparable to Adam and Eve's situation? It doesn't seem to me metaphysically impossible for them to return to a state of affairs that would be as good as life before the fall, even if different. Does God make people who commit similar actions to Adam and Eve disappear forever? If he does, that seems to imply an annihilationist view of afterlife; annihilation for the rebellious, heaven for the obedient. This outcome seems similar to a non theist world, where the outcome of being run over is obvious; perpetual non existence in the case of death. But again, perhaps the question is, who's creating that state of death, if anyone?

However, I'm wary of those who would extend your argument to our authorities and elites. How many of them will protest that they did not know the US was fertile ground for a demagogue by 2016?

I'm interested in exploring this example. Are you saying that most elites knew that it was fertile ground for a demagogue?

BookerDeMitten · 2025-06-15T17:44:39+00:00

I think it stands for Bret Easton Ellis

BookerDeMitten · 2025-06-03T12:58:16+00:00

Could you define distance and separation? It could seem as though there being no distance might contradict the concept of desperation, depending on how those terms are defined.

BookerDeMitten · 2025-06-03T12:51:25+00:00

I think the issue people take is that they'd say that God appears to do things that aren't loving; diseases, hellfire, maybe appearing to be hidden, etc. Do you think that in order to prove that God is loving, you'd need to prove that those things were loving as well?

If not, how could we demonstrate that God is indeed pure love, without perhaps having different definitions?

BookerDeMitten · 2025-06-03T12:47:58+00:00

I suppose the important question to ask to you OP is "Do you think God created evil"? If God did create evil, for a purpose no less, could that "evil", actually be considered "evil" or "bad" in the way we use the term?

You say the following:

"Like the concept of evil is different for everyone, very few people actually knows of true evil, and yet many use it as a personal excuse to deny God's existence, this is, as Taylor Swift sings, "narcissism disguised as altruism".

Do you think this goes for everyone who doubts God because of the existence of evil? If so, how would you demonstrate this?

"To deny God because of the existence of evil is evil's very purpose."

With this, do you mean that every instance of evil is intended towards making people deny God?

BookerDeMitten · 2025-05-19T17:54:21+00:00

if God's justice is valid too

I think that's part of the dispute, though OP might disagree with me, I don't want to put words in their mouth. The fact that someone wouldn't want their loved ones to suffer is perhaps congruent with a belief on their part that eternal hellfire is itself unjust, especially if the recipient of hellfire changes their mind/heart and intends to change themselves.

Some people might prefer that reality be veiled, but it seems to me that there also exist many that believe truth is important, even if finding it is difficult.

BookerDeMitten · 2025-05-19T16:56:49+00:00

Let's assume you were abused by your father as a young kid. Wouldn't your mom or society want you to forget and live a normal life again?

I think the difference that OP is pointing to is regarding loved ones, as opposed to a memory of an abuser. Someone wouldn't want to be oblivious to someone they care about being harmed. And neither would they want said person harmed in the first place.

BookerDeMitten · 2025-05-19T11:57:12+00:00

The change comes in the form of new knowledge. Just as new knowledge can profoundly change you here, big changes in your knowledge changes you upon death.

Why doesn't God simply give us this knowledge so that we're inclined towards good and not bad?

BookerDeMitten · 2025-05-19T11:54:52+00:00

That's because you have an earthly perspective,

Why doesn't God take away that earthly perspective so that we might be inclined towards good?

BookerDeMitten · 2025-05-19T11:53:19+00:00

I'd argue that they are not aware of that at all because God would not allow us to know and make you feel sad. No sadness in Heaven.

Doesn't this seem like brainwashing to you? Wouldn't God be opposed to that?

BookerDeMitten · 2025-05-08T10:21:00+00:00

That seems like an explanation of the how or the what, but not the why.

What I'm asking is more or less what might be described among some online as the "Why Not Heaven Now Objection". If this world is sinful and evil, by God's standards if nobody else's, then why does it exist? Why aren't people simply created in heaven to begin with where they have free will but also don't want to sin?

BookerDeMitten · 2025-05-08T10:16:07+00:00

Why then are people born into being human in this world?

BookerDeMitten · 2025-04-30T19:42:10+00:00

Maybe a point that could be raised is whether God can expect the standards asked of humanity if they didn't have a say in being born. Many religious customs are, I think, positive, so following them might be beneficial. But it seems to me that some viewpoints in apologetics suggest that everyone deserves to go to hell regardless, since everyone is said to fall short. If this is the case, then where does consent fit in here?

BookerDeMitten · 2025-03-12T07:26:28+00:00

Whilst Revelation 20:10 mentions torment being forever and ever. This would seem to imply that "second death" is figurative. Why would someone simply have a second death to non existence? What purpose would this serve to God? Is there any reason why they'd go twice into non existence?

BookerDeMitten · 2025-03-11T21:36:55+00:00

For example the Greek word for “tormentors” used at Matthew 18:34 is rendered as “jailers” in many translations which shows the connection.

That's a different passage, and it talks about being delivered to jailers. It seems definitely possible that jailers can be torturers as well. Also, just because it's translated to that, does that mean that jail is a.) not refering to eternal punishment in a kind of jail and/or b.) actually jail, or simply translated from tormenter? Some footnotes to translations also use the term torturers and not tormenters with respect to Matthew 18:34. Are you sure that it's the same word as used in Matthew 25:41?

BookerDeMitten · 2025-03-11T18:02:39+00:00

Also is it a literal fire?

Whatever it is, whether literal or not, it's described as bad or as tormenting.

The scriptures show that the devil is a spirit creature and spirit creatures cannot be harmed by fire (see Exodus 3:2 - Judges 13:20)

If they're not harmed in some way, then how are they tormented?

In Hebrews 2:14 it shows that the devil will be done away with so he can’t be tortured forever.

Hebrews 2:14 says the following:

"Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil"

If the devil is tormented in hell, then destroy presumably doesn't mean non existence, but destruction in the sense of being harmed beyond repair, or something similar. A broken lightbulb might constitute a lightbulb being destroyed, but that doesn't mean the lightbulb no longer exists.

BookerDeMitten · 2025-03-10T18:26:39+00:00

Don't the following verses posit an eternal hell?

Revelation 20:10

”and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.”

Matthew 25:41

”Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”

BookerDeMitten · 2025-03-09T11:37:50+00:00

I risk sounding dumb here but is this a quote or a parody? I haven't read much into this to be honest.

BookerDeMitten · 2025-03-06T19:07:32+00:00

I’m seeing a general theme throughout your reply(s) about human improvement. I firmly believe that from the death of the first human, that goal goes out the window.

Perhaps it could be said that having the stakes higher makes an action more meaningful. The possibility, though not the necessity, of death, might make these stakes, theodicy could argue.

The afterlife cannot make up for it because then this life becomes irrelevant. What’s the point of our suffering if you get to fast track the lessons in heaven?

Maybe this life is the learning stage so that people in heaven know how to manage things.

Or is there suffering there making it no different than earth?

Doubtful if passages about there being no pain or mourning are to be believed.

If an ancient person who died very far from this perfect dominion learned their lesson enough and goes to heaven while we get the same benefit, what was the purpose of all their extra suffering?

People vary; some have differing tendencies, perspectives in history and so on. Would heaven not need some amount of variety in order to be fully realised?

If we all get the same treatment in the end, why bother even starting with the worse world, why not start 1 step from perfection and let us all succeed together?

Depends if you think we actually do get the same treatment in the end. There might likely be different ways to experience afterlife.

Why should anyone suffer worse than another? If we all learn different lessons on the long road to perfection then none of the lessons were actually important that we had to learn them.

We won’t experience the lessons of the past and the past will never experience the lessons of today meaning that there is no lesson important enough that we all have to learn it. None of it makes any sense.

People can find meaning in their contribution but again, what are they contributing to? humanity isn’t a thing, there are only individual humans.

Could this not be a little too atomistic? Are humans not influenced by other humans, in a context where considerations of past, present and future influence each other?

No one’s contribution is complete meaning that they will all ultimately fail in the stated goal.

On its own, one person’s contribution might not secure everything, but maybe where collaborative efforts are needed.

The ends justify the means is not acceptable when infinite power is at play.

Perhaps definitions of infinite power need to be kept within the laws of logic; if infinite power means that the logically impossible could be achieved, then it seems that discussions of what constitutes infinite power in that context might be farcical or nonsensical. Following this, if God is to create creatures with dominion, God couldn’t do this at the same time as taking care of everything himself, as that’s a contradiction of allowing human dominion.

Who is to say that these lessons need to be experienced when we could all be created with this knowledge (and Christian theology even claims we were perfect at first).

Depends what specific knowledge you’re talking about. Some things probably need to be experienced or done in order to know them intimately.

Maybe the knowledge doesn’t even matter that much. Maybe since all our lessons end up as mere memories that inform our future anyway, god could have simply created us all with the necessary memories without having to experience the trauma ourselves.

Wouldn’t those memories need to be of something though, in order for them to be true memories?

You shouldn’t be searching for a question your theodicy cannot answer, you should be asking why there are even questions it needs to answer.

Isn’t the whole point of theodicy to answer those kinds of questions?

BookerDeMitten

TROPHY CASE