• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

If God has freewill, can He be evil?

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
So the last sentence is talking about God, then, right? Like how he killed/destroyed the first born sons of the Egyptians, therefore stealing them from their families on Earth. So, God came, and killed and destroyed, and Jesus came to, instead, give life.

Actually, no. That is the "religious" viewpoint and probably what was drilled into your mind.

Exodus 12:23: For the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the Lord will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.

Notice that God protected but it was the destroyer that destroyed. And wanted to destroy even the Israelites.

Hebrews 2:14
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,\\

Notice its was the devil who killed and destroyed.

So, as I mentioned before, those Egyptians that decided to abide in darkness ended up receiving the fruit of the gods they served. It was also God's grace that held the destroyer and limited him to only a certain group.

Hope that helps your understanding.
 

Bathos Logos

Active Member
Actually, no. That is the "religious" viewpoint and probably what was drilled into your mind.

Exodus 12:23: For the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the Lord will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.

Notice that God protected but it was the destroyer that destroyed. And wanted to destroy even the Israelites.
I can't take this seriously. This is just excuse making. Look at the passage again - "the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians". Even my 11 year old, learning about subject and predicate of a sentence structure, could tell you that "the Lord" (the subject of the sentence) is the one taking the action of "passing through" and the verb helper here is "to smit the Egyptians". You are ignoring this part in favor of this idea of a "destroyer" being what is literally said to enter the home and do the killing. but who created the "destroyer"? Who brought the "destroyer" along for the ride? This is ridiculous... and could be taken as borderline delusional if it weren't so obvious that you are just pandering to your own agenda.

Hope that helps your understanding.
Nope... it says that it was God, period. You are ignoring parts where it explicitly states that God it the one who would "pass through to smite the Egyptians". He instigated it. He brought whatever "the destroyer" is. It was His intent and no one else's that killed those people. End of story. Don't lie to yourself Ken.
 
Last edited:

DKH

Member
Bathos Logos said:
And since no one can demonstrate that God exists to any sufficiently acceptable degree, it is fine to work under the assumptions that He does not exist. In fact, this is what I have done, day-in and day-out for my entire life. Have I experienced any ill effects due to this disposition? Not in the least.

This declaration (that God doesn't exist) must also be followed by the reality and subsequently the admittance that those who don't believe that God exists can't prove He doesn't, in any reasonable way. They are "definitely" only giving an opinion. Yet, you seem to be suggesting that those who do not acknowledge God (as existing) should expect some type of ill effects, because of this (if God does exist). Where did you pick-up such an idea? This just isn't true…God doesn't need us, we need God.

Bathos Logos said:
Okay, sure, I'll consent to being called "anti-God". I literally do not mine this moniker in the least. It means nearly nothing at all from my perspective. May as well be "anti-Bigfoot".

I was in no way suggesting or calling you by the nickname anti-God (in our first interaction)! That's on you. But, since you introduced this nickname openly to me, I will consider acknowledging it in any future interactions, if they occur.

Bathos Logos said:
So the further excusing of this is to take a secondary meaning of "tare" and say that the boys/men were just divided into groups to run off prancing through the woods. Okay... fine. Let's take this watered-down version of events as literally what happened. Some grown men were standing at the side of a road outside of a town, a bald guy came walking through their midst, the men called him "baldy" and laughed their stupid heads off, then this Elisha fellow called a curse upon them, God answered by sending bears to chase them off into the woods. So, excusing all of what Biblical scholars and translators actually placed into The Bible because they felt it the most accurate transcription, and instead going with your super-duper excusey version, this is what we have, then, right? That is still taking things way over the top when the "crime" was literally nothing but words spoken about some dude's lack of hair. Elisha has what? Hurt feelings? And because those feelings of his got hurt, the pertinent thing to do in someone's eyes (hint: that someone is God) is send physical bears after the people who spoke the words to get them to what? Realize the error of their ways? Is that what you think would have happened? Would the men have known, for certain, that the bears came out of the woods specifically due to the curse spoken by Elisha? Could they have verified this? Does the "punishment" fit the crime, in your estimation? Such that, if it were you in control of the bears (let's say you were standing there with the two bear leashed), would you release them on the men the moment you heard them jeering about Elisha's bald head? Do you think the authorities here on Earth would accept your justification for releasing the bears if those men turned to the cops and reported you? Do you believe that God does not deserve those same types of questions put to Him for his ridiculous behavior?

I'm confused with your stated positions. First, you claimed that: it is fine to work under the assumptions that He (God) does not exist. In fact, this is what I have done, day-in and day-out for my entire life. Have I experienced any ill effects due to this disposition? Not in the least.

However, when I claimed just about the same thing happened, related to the "lack of harm" that may have befallen those mocking Elisha and God in 2 Kings 2:23-24, you take an entirely different position (from your own personal experiences) and use bible scholars as support to try and counter my position. However, the same scholar's "opinions" that you suggest are contrary to mine, probably would disagree with yours related to the existence of God. Thus, I going to take the position that you are not suggesting you should be able to have it both ways.

Bathos Logos said:
In the end, I have a hard time believing that you have thought about this very thoroughly at all. Just not at all. You've already made up your mind, obviously, and God gets a free pass no matter what He does. Or, even if the thing being done is horrific, you'll find some way to spin it such that it doesn't sound "too bad". It's still bad. It's still stupid. It's still a terribly poor way of conducting oneself if the hope is to help or instruct anyone on how they "should be" living or behaving.


Yes (as you suggest), God can do whatever He pleases and that's why I refer to "my God" as the One and Only Supreme Being. I accept this and have no doubts. Whatever, others believe is on them. They won't be answering to me and I won't be answering to them…
 

Bathos Logos

Active Member
This declaration (that God doesn't exist) must also be followed by the reality and subsequently the admittance that those who don't believe that God exists can't prove He doesn't, in any reasonable way.
Yes, I can't prove that God doesn't exist. So what? Do you think that precludes me from living my life as if He doesn't exist? If I couldn't prove that fairies didn't exist, do you think I should walk around wondering if they do? No. Obviously no. The same goes for God. I needn't even concern myself with such an idea. It has no presence in, nor effect on, reality. Same as fairies, I'm afraid. Why would I concern myself with such a thing?

They are "definitely" only giving an opinion. Yet, you seem to be suggesting that those who do not acknowledge God (as existing) should expect some type of ill effects, because of this (if God does exist). Where did you pick-up such an idea? This just isn't true…God doesn't need us, we need God.
And what, precisely, do I need God for? I just got done telling you that there is zero effect on my life to assuming and acting as if He doesn't exist, and I from what I have experienced and witnessed of others' behaviors related to their beliefs, there is zero benefit for me to believe in God or act as if such a thing exists. Zero. I just don't see it. If anything, I see the opposite. That it is a huge detriment to one's self and their behavior on Earth to have positive belief in God.

I was in no way suggesting or calling you by the nickname anti-God (in our first interaction)! That's on you. But, since you introduced this nickname openly to me, I will consider acknowledging it in any future interactions, if they occur.
This is funny. It still seems as though you think the term should have some effect on me. Like you're trying to "tread lightly" or something, and are worried you'll offend me. You would probably consider it an offense. To me, it means no more than someone telling me I am "anti-fairy" or (as alluded to earlier) "anti-bigfoot". It is something to laugh about, shrug my shoulders over, and move on. Something said by confused people who seem to think this proposition which has no actionable evidence going for it is of the utmost importance. It is a triviality for me, and just an item of strangeness.

I'm confused with your stated positions. First, you claimed that: it is fine to work under the assumptions that He (God) does not exist. In fact, this is what I have done, day-in and day-out for my entire life. Have I experienced any ill effects due to this disposition? Not in the least.

However, when I claimed just about the same thing happened, related to the "lack of harm" that may have befallen those mocking Elisha and God in 2 Kings 2:23-24, you take an entirely different position (from your own personal experiences) and use bible scholars as support to try and counter my position. However, the same scholar's "opinions" that you suggest are contrary to mine, probably would disagree with yours related to the existence of God. Thus, I going to take the position that you are not suggesting you should be able to have it both ways.
You've got this all wrong. I don't care, for my own purposes, what any Bible scholar or write ever had to say or think or what interpretation they had. I could do without all of it, for my entire life, not need a single bit of it, nor to read any of it, study any of it, etc. I wouldn't need to care. The only reason I do is because there are people like you, who suggest that they know better about that subject material than all the others who actually translated it, actually wrote it, actually interpreted it originally. And so, I come to know things about it, because I am trying to vet and understand your viewpoint. And what I come to find in my investigations is that you're basically all full of crap. So yes... I am apt to look at one person's interpretation that is contrary to your own and throw it in your face so that you understand that whatever you said is not so cut and dry as you would like to assume. Doesn't mean, in the slightest, that I actually care about the statement I am pushing at you. I only care enough to try and expose you're deception of yourself. That is all.

Yes (as you suggest), God can do whatever He pleases and that's why I refer to "my God" as the One and Only Supreme Being. I accept this and have no doubts. Whatever, others believe is on them. They won't be answering to me and I won't be answering to them…
I'm happy for you? I don't know what you want me to say. Believe as you will. Just know that I, and people like me, will be around to expose to you the contradictions you are most certainly sure to bring to bear from you worldview due to the fact that it is not based on anything that can be demonstrated as being more real than any fiction.
 

Ella S.

*temp banned*
I disagree. If you are in love with the wrong person, it would be your choice, Can you fall in love with a person if you decide not to spend time with them? Were you "uncontrollable driven" to go out with the person again?

I'm not sure you know what love is.

Let's think through those parameters. You can't choose when to get up, you can't choose what kind of work you are going to. You can't choose what you are going to cook or eat. You can't choose a flavor of ice-cream... the very definition of suffering?

Lack of choice is not the definition of suffering.

You can't sue the electric company if you stick screwdriver into the electrical panel and never turned the electric off. Not an applicable statement.

But that's not really comparable to what we're talking about.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
I'm not sure you know what love is.

Actually, I think it just might be you that doesn't understand what love is.

Too many people relegate it to a feeling and leave saying "I just don't feel love for you anymore".
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
Do you believe God has freewill?
I think some would suppose “no”, as God = morality, so God can only do moral acts.
I think some would suppose “yes”, God could do whatever He wants.
If you suppose “yes”, then is it possible for God to act immorally? Or, is every action done by God automatically moral, no matter what it is, because God is the author of morality?
What do you think? Can God be evil through His own free will?

If so God would cease to be God.

God has reached a level of perfection that its not like a small error, or sliping on the ice. Its more akin to Mother Teresa deciding to become a mass murder and killing a few billion people type of 180.

So I'm not worried about it.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Do you believe God has freewill?
I think some would suppose “no”, as God = morality, so God can only do moral acts.
I think some would suppose “yes”, God could do whatever He wants.
If you suppose “yes”, then is it possible for God to act immorally? Or, is every action done by God automatically moral, no matter what it is, because God is the author of morality?
What do you think? Can God be evil through His own free will?
I'd suspect evil only pertains to men. God, who can create and destroy universes, would be beyond concepts of good and evil. We see something and call it evil whereas it is just God going about their business.
 

Madmogwai

Madmogwai
Do you believe God has freewill?
I think some would suppose “no”, as God = morality, so God can only do moral acts.
I think some would suppose “yes”, God could do whatever He wants.
If you suppose “yes”, then is it possible for God to act immorally? Or, is every action done by God automatically moral, no matter what it is, because God is the author of morality?
What do you think? Can God be evil through His own free will?
The God of what Religion.
 

Madmogwai

Madmogwai
If so God would cease to be God.

God has reached a level of perfection that its not like a small error, or sliping on the ice. Its more akin to Mother Teresa deciding to become a mass murder and killing a few billion people type of 180.

So I'm not worried about it.
Mother Theresa did some disgusting things that are unforgivable.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Do you believe God has freewill?
I think some would suppose “no”, as God = morality, so God can only do moral acts.
I think some would suppose “yes”, God could do whatever He wants.
If you suppose “yes”, then is it possible for God to act immorally? Or, is every action done by God automatically moral, no matter what it is, because God is the author of morality?
What do you think? Can God be evil through His own free will?

Evil is a subjective concept, symbolically connected to the tree of knowledge of good and evil. God assigned the ideas of good and evil to his servant Satan. This is why the serpent, Satan occupied the tree of knowledge of good and evil like his home for hunting and sleeping.

God told Adam and Eve not to eat from that tree. If you do, something will inside you will die. Satan tricks their egos to think this path would be an upgrade, by telling them by doing so humans could become like god. Satan said, You will be like a god knowing good and evil. God did not say that, since he knew this was regressive behavior, created by an illusion of the mind. God saw the negative consequence of human fear and vanity.

For example, the abortion issue is in the news. One side of the issue thinks abortion is good, while the other side thinks this is evil. How can we get two extreme points of view both claiming its side is good and the other evil? This type of thinking is not objective, but rather it is humans trying to play god by first convincing themselves that their conclusions are solid and universal, and therefore, all must obey by the law. This mind game is from Satan, since it is an illusion. Human were given free will and choice, so we can chose not to play or chose to play.

In science, the magnetic has a positive and negative pole. The terms positive and negative, show opposites. If these same words were applied to human behavior, it would be the same as assigning good and evil. Both perceptions come from the same type of brain processing.

In the case of the magnet, one pole is not better than the other nor is one assigned the subjectivity of an evil to be avoided, while the other assigned as good to be followed. The fact is neither pole of the magnetic, can exist alone, apart from other. Science has never isolated a single pole or monopole, all by itself, so this binary image of a magnet is not exactly real, but is part of a neural intellectual division, that reflects how the modern human brain breaks down reality.

The Bible says, this was not always the way that the human brain saw reality. It was different before the fall. Rather it was a choice at a cross roads of human conscious evolution, that is still with most people.

If we go back to the magnet, it is really just one thing, but intellectually we see it in the image of two poles. This helps us understand how its flow of energy is expressed. It appears to need both poles to be manifest, since monopoles do not exist, but only appear when they are together as a team.

The problem is if you assign good or evil to anything, the other side will also have to exist, since both are part of a whole, and neither can exist as monopoles. They both only exist in the context of the whole; 3-D concept. If I believe abortion is good or evil, then that makes the opposite POV, evil or good by default, since the magnetic of good and evil only appears, with two poles and not one.

This type of data processing of realty; 2-D thinking, helps us differentiate reality since any one sided thinking, will cause the other side to unconsciously manifest, so the real magnet can appear. If we see an affect in nature; meteor, we know there had to be a cause, which will appear as we investigate. The urge to investigate is an unconscious need to complete the magnetic so it appears.The affect cannot be a monopole. If I say X is good, somebody else will give an example where it was not good since monopoles need to exist in pairs or they are imaginary. For either side of abortion debate, to claim it has moral authority, the other side has to be sen as below contempt, to make the magnet of good and evil appear.

The whiter the white of good, the blacker the black of evil, since all strengths of magnets, need two balancing poles. The concept of Heaven and Hell exist as a set of poles, since both are monopoles that need the other to set the contract of opposites, so both can exist. Anything you can say to explain a characteristic of heaven, reflects into the opposite called Hell. Instead of love, hell will be hate. Instead of rest, there will restlessness. Instead of fresh air and water we have the stink of sulphur and the heat of fire. Together the magnetic appears.

The opposite is also true. If we have evil, then good will appear, as its opposite monopole. Through acts of compulsive behavior we get aware of its opposite, which is self control. The Bible seems to suggest that the darkness of the ancient world came first. This made the light of the world come into focus. In the Cold War, the evil of mutually assured nuclear destruction, cause the light of good to appear; war becomes the sport of cat and mouse instead to total aggression.

The next phase of conscious evolution will be 3-D thinking. This is when people understand that the opposites of good and evil exist together and this can be used as an energy supply just as the positive and negative of the magnet, can make electricity, if given a motion vector along the z-axis.
 

Madmogwai

Madmogwai
Well I’ve never thought she was perfect, but she did a ton of good.
Christ is very forgiving, so I doubt anything she did was unforgivable.
Tying children to beds all day, given them inadequate medicine and used syringes, taking millions from shady characters and putting it in her personal accounts whilst failing to spend it on what it was intended.
All the while claiming God wants them to suffer.
This may be ok in your eyes but most people would not make excuses for here.
 

DKH

Member
Bathos Logos said:
Yes, I can't prove that God doesn't exist. So what? Do you think that precludes me from living my life as if He doesn't exist? If I couldn't prove that fairies didn't exist, do you think I should walk around wondering if they do? No. Obviously no. The same goes for God. I needn't even concern myself with such an idea. It has no presence in, nor effect on, reality. Same as fairies, I'm afraid. Why would I concern myself with such a thing?

If someone can't prove that God doesn't exist and continues to claim that they don't believe that God exist, then their position/belief is arbitrary. Yet, this doesn't preclude someone from living their life as they choose (this is referred to as freewill, with limits), but it does determine the types of positions that can be claimed as a valid reality. Hence, if someone does concern themselves with an idea such as: Does God exist or not? Then, it does have an effect on their reality, even if they suggest otherwise. This (as well), would include the question: Do fairies exist or not? The only solution would be to avoid these topics…Then, one can claim that the topics (being avoided) have no effect on their valid reality.

Bathos Logos said:
And what, precisely, do I need God for? I just got done telling you that there is zero effect on my life to assuming and acting as if He doesn't exist, and I from what I have experienced and witnessed of others' behaviors related to their beliefs, there is zero benefit for me to believe in God or act as if such a thing exists. Zero. I just don't see it. If anything, I see the opposite. That it is a huge detriment to one's self and their behavior on Earth to have positive belief in God.

I'm sorry, but this isn't something I would want to do for you…The bible and internet would be additional sources for this information.

Bathos Logos said:
This is funny. It still seems as though you think the term should have some effect on me. Like you're trying to "tread lightly" or something, and are worried you'll offend me. You would probably consider it an offense. To me, it means no more than someone telling me I am "anti-fairy" or (as alluded to earlier) "anti-bigfoot". It is something to laugh about, shrug my shoulders over, and move on. Something said by confused people who seem to think this proposition which has no actionable evidence going for it is of the utmost importance. It is a triviality for me, and just an item of strangeness.

Yes, you are correct! I am not trying to offend you. However, I may write something (to you) that isn't liked or accepted. So, treading lightly can be considered common sense. It is my opinion that this type of approach is best, when dealing with obvious adversaries or someone who strongly disagrees with me.

Bathos Logos said:
You've got this all wrong. I don't care, for my own purposes, what any Bible scholar or write ever had to say or think or what interpretation they had. I could do without all of it, for my entire life, not need a single bit of it, nor to read any of it, study any of it, etc. I wouldn't need to care. The only reason I do is because there are people like you, who suggest that they know better about that subject material than all the others who actually translated it, actually wrote it, actually interpreted it originally. And so, I come to know things about it, because I am trying to vet and understand your viewpoint. And what I come to find in my investigations is that you're basically all full of crap. So yes... I am apt to look at one person's interpretation that is contrary to your own and throw it in your face so that you understand that whatever you said is not so cut and dry as you would like to assume. Doesn't mean, in the slightest, that I actually care about the statement I am pushing at you. I only care enough to try and expose you're deception of yourself. That is all.

The choice to use bible scholars (as support) was futile, as related to myself. They were not eyewitnesses to the story. Nor, can word translations and certain definitions be classified as accurate and/or the only possible understanding. They can only be understood as opinions. So, my position can only be formulated by the information given to me. Thus, the given information (if incorrect) can't be used to claim that someone is wrong. This seems to be what you are attempting. The reality that men and their writings could be incorrect has been a biblical concept for millenniums. So, the attempt to use others that you seem to have no respect for is odd. So, it is my opinion that you may be the one trying to offend. This type of action is common among strong willed and disagreeing individuals. However, I'm not offended by your writings, there're just words. Additionally, through-out our discussion you have claimed: you don't care. Now, you claim that you do care, but only to show me how deceived I am. But, you aren't giving me any proof. This surely isn't a way to help me with the perceived notion that I'm deceived! But, it seems that from your comments, you are more involved in these types of topics then first claimed.

Bathos Logos said:
Believe as you will. Just know that I, and people like me, will be around to expose to you the contradictions you are most certainly sure to bring to bear from you worldview due to the fact that it is not based on anything that can be demonstrated as being more real than any fiction.

Yes, I "will" believe as I am guided by the true God and His only begotten Son, not by those who may believe that I'm deceived. Where, I know that the anti-God can't avoid from being involved in the debate. Which (again) proves that their reality is connected to the topics such as: Does God exist or not? And, just about everything else in-between. Therefore, denying this reality and connection is unrealistic (in my opinion).
 

Fallen Prophet

Well-Known Member
Do you believe God has freewill?
I think some would suppose “no”, as God = morality, so God can only do moral acts.
I think some would suppose “yes”, God could do whatever He wants.
If you suppose “yes”, then is it possible for God to act immorally? Or, is every action done by God automatically moral, no matter what it is, because God is the author of morality?
What do you think? Can God be evil through His own free will?
God has free will - but He has a perfect character and He refused to act contrary to His character.

He does what He wants to do - and that happens to always be morally good and perfect.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
He has free will but he can't go against his nature as perfectly holy and just. Within that paradigm there's still plenty of room for him to make choices.
Also unicorns must be white, and can only mate on Wednesdays, since we're just making up unevidenced assertions.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
The ideas of good and evil comes from Satan.

Nope, these are simply subjective viewpoints, but that we sometimes share a broad consensus on, where actions are demonstrably harmful.

The destructive tendencies of Atheism

This sounds like nonsense you've made up. Evidence? If you use Stalin as a negative stereotype, I get to have a double shot of Vodka.

Just kidding, I'm having the vodka either way. :cool::D
 
Top