I do see that vanilla as I said in an earlier post and you’re right, it’s God’s job not ours. I don’t know, I guess I just think, for now anyway, that’s it’s worth my time to at least try to explain, though I may not always do such a good job at that :).
True enough. Still, it seems different to me. If you sold all your worldly goods, it would hurt you, and it wouldn’t go that far toward reducing starvation in the world. God could presumably eliminate suffering at no cost to himself. At the very least, couldn’t he refrain from ordaining the suffering of the innocent?
**
True enough, again. I can see that if God really is omniscient, I’m simply not going to be able to understand all his ways. Still, it’s frustrating: we do have some understanding of right and wrong, imperfect though it may be, and we do make judgements. Why would God provide us with the faculties for making moral judgments, and plenty of evidence supporting the idea that his ways are not all good, and then ask us to accept that he is all good? Are we really expected to go through our lives choosing good over evil, but then when it comes to judging God, ignore the evidence?
I’ve been told that it’s to test our faith. But how can faith be anything more than a guessing game? In what version of the story should I put my faith? If I’m to weigh the evidence and choose the version that appeals most to me, then I’m back to relying on my own judgement–and if that judgement is unequal to the task of judging God, how can I rely on it when choosing whether to follow God in the first place?
I hope this doesn’t sound like an “I dare you to answer me” question. I don’t expect anyone to have all the answers, but your perspective is always valuable. Any insights to offer?
If god created us in his own image then he created some evil basturds. So what does that say about him? 
As erislover has said, mortal beings don’t have the capacity or vision to see the ‘big picture’, so you therefore do not have the ability to judge the being that does.
Faith is a form of trust. X-ians trust in YHWH and his 3 incarnations because they believe that YHWH is The Creator and has the vision and capacity to run things.
Simple really.
Then what capacity or vision is it that tells us this other being has the big picture? If we believe that God has the big picture, we are judging him. We’re just judging him favorably.
**
Since these X-ians admit that they don’t have the vision and capacity to judge, how can they decide who is worthy of their faith and trust?
**
Not really. Simplistic, maybe, but not simple.
Has God done evil things according to the Bible?
Yes.
Has God done evil things to the innocent according to the Bible?
Yes.
Is there any evidence according to the Bible, other than Revelations 12, that Satan became evil?
No.
I’m perfectly willing to be corrected if I am wrong.
The concept as I understand it: God’s omniscience enables him to see all ends. Apparently he has forseen that the best possible end requires him to allow the existence of evil in the world.
Based on a reasonable examination of scripture “the best possible end” is that the vast majority of human beings end up suffering in hell for all eternity (as was foreseen by God at the dawn of time).
This is the best an omniscient, omnipotent, perfectly good, perfectly just, perfectly merciful diety can come up with?
I guess even God can’t make an omelet without breaking a few hundred billion eggs.
I feel amazed at how much one can tell about a person from the questions they ask.
First, it goes without saying that the President is both another human and a citizen so of course our laws will apply to him. Second, quit thinking I’m asking you to not judge God. I think it is fair to say he would expect us to judge him. It certainly seems to be part of our nature to judge. But what I am asking you to consider is that an all-knowing, all-powerful being might have a thing or two on you in making judgments of any kind. I mean: please? Can you not see that we defer scientific judgments to scientists, mathematical proof judgments to panels of mathematicians, and so on and so forth? We do this because they are in a better position than we to make these judgments.
Now, if you think that moral descriptors are real, tangible things, then I would think it should be even more apparent that God would have a better perspective than you on it.
I am not saying God isn’t evil. I would like to know all that he knows before I would make that judgment.
MrO
Well, this is sort of a game then, that you don’t seem particularly motivated to play. The hypothesis is: this god exists. We do not enumerate every logical desciptor of hypothetical situations, including (in most cases) how we come to know that this world is how it is. We are saying: this god exists. Is he evil?
It seems so cut-and-dry to me I don’t know what else to say or what I could be missing from the other camp.
Squish
I don’t know. God has done things that, had a human done them, would be evil.
MrVisible
Well, those three qualities pretty much indicate that whatever judgment I make compared to whatever judgment God makes, his is always right, and mine can only be right if it happens to match with God’s. In fact, given that this God exists, he would of course set the very standard and serve as the very definition of correctness. And it is perfectly consistent and plausible (to me) that he should not have the same standard of judgment applied to him as we do to us. In fact, from a formal perspective, I am not sure there is any sense in which one would logically judge god without creating paradox after paradox. But, no matter, that’s a digression. If I am only discussing those properties, it is because I think those properties settle the issue conclusively.
God is NOT evil nor did He create evil tho I know you won’t agree with what I say. He created the angels and us with free will. He didn’t want robots. Everything was perfect when He created it until iniquity was found in Lucifer, who became satan. He saw his own beauty, was lifted up with pride and desired to be God. He was kicked out of heaven for his trouble and some of the other angels went with him. We call them demons today. God had a choice, either create a bunch of programmed robots or take a risk and create beings with free will to choose. You will never convince me that God created evil for I know better. But I’m not going to change your view either, I know.
This is a slight hijack, but hopefully, it’ll be short and everyone will forgive me. His4ever (welcome to the Boards!) contend that angels have free will. I’ve seen dreamer make a similar contention in the past (sorry, no link). Back when I was a Born Again Christian, I was taught that angels do NOT have free will, and so God made humanity. I know pldennison said that he had also learned something similar.
Both sides have merit. If angels have free will, then it’s easy to explain how Lucifer revolted – he chose to. What’s hard to explain in this scenario is why God decided to make a second creature with free will (you know, people). However, if angels do NOT have free will, then the difficulties are reversed. He made people because He wanted something to choose to love him freely… but how in the hell did Satan revolt if he didn’t have free will?
Anyone want to say for sure if angels have free will? (And yes, I will accept Scripture as acceptable “proof”). If so, want to take a stab at clearing up the difficulties in each scenario that I mentioned in the second paragraph above?
No, I don’t think you’re under any such obligation to do so. However, if you were to do so, then I (and presumably others) would say, “Wow, look at that guy. Without any desire of fame or glory for himself, he gave away everything he owns. He’s like that old chick with the three mites. Jeez, I wish I were half as moral as that dude.”
To put it another way: if you were Perfect Morality, then I would indeed expect you to do everything in your power to not only refrain from evil, but also to do good.
Quix
It seems that what you’re telling me is that meta-thinking is not allowed here. It’s okay to think about God, but not okay to think about how we think about God. Maybe you’re right; I’m not playing by the rules. But the implication, it seems to me, is that my questions are just too hard. At any rate, no one so far has shown any inclination to address them.
I’m not arguing here that God doesn’t exist, but if the hypothesis is that “this god exists,” then I’m still left wondering who “this god” is, and how we know. Is it the one from the Christian Bible, the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent one, which we know because the Bible tells us so? If that’s the stipulation, then of course he’s good. Because he tells us so.
If the question is whether God is evil according to him, then the answer is easy and not very interesting. We aren’t qualified to judge, and we have to take his word for it. Rather, we have to take the word of those who tell us that the Bible is “his word.” If the question is whether God is evil according to us, from our human perspective, then we have to assume that we have the capacity to judge. Another hypothesis, without which the question is pointless.
I think it’s perfectly appropriate to ask how we know what we think we know about God–not only appropriate, but necessary. How could we have the capacity to judge that God is good, without having the capacity to consider the opposite?
Of course it is appropriate to ask that. I’d warrant that’s why you’d align yourself with atheist or at least agnosticism: because you’ve asked these questions and thought on the matter and came to that conclusion.
But it seems clear to me that the question is: given the J-C God exists (hint: here’s how you know which God it is ;)), is he evil? And I have to say, you’ve said it well:
Precisely. Why would you accept that God did all these things he claimed to do as a fact in hypothetical, but not his own assertion that he is good?
Again: of course we can judge him. I certainly have, and the verdict isn’t good. I’ve condemned him to nonexistence 
But I feel that I would be doing myself a disservice in judging an all-knowing being without knowing the same amount as him, or at least knowing as much as I could. I try to make judgments from the best perspective possible, and from my view, this God has the best perspective available; that’s just what omniscience is all about. Without knowing more, I’d be inclined to accept his judgment over mine in all matters.
Well, good point. In fact, I can’t seem to accept either, and I guess the dissonance created by the contradiction is part of the reason. If he exists, and if he thinks he’s good, then either he’s crazy or I am. If I am, I’ll just have to plead insanity on judgement day. If he is, then all bets are off. In the meantime, I’m convinced that the whole thing is mostly mythology with a little bit of history mixed in, and poorly written at that.
In any case, I suppose it’s true that I haven’t been playing by the rules. I had the same problem in lit class discussions, and it really irritated some of my professors. I probably don’t have anything to contribute to this thread except to say that considering whether God is good or evil makes it even more clear to me that he doesn’t exist.
You’ll get no debate from here. 
erislover, I think what we’re getting hung up on here is the difference between being factually right, and being morally right. I can say that there are too many people on the planet for their own good, and I might be factually right, but if I decide to wipe out half of them, I’d be morally wrong.
Omniscience implies that all things are known. It does not imply that all things are understood. It certainly does not imply that the posessor of omniscience is omnibenevolent. I can question his morality without questioning his knowledge.
And this is what all of the vaunted “free will” and “god gave you a choice” comes down to. I don’t believe in God, because God doesn’t want me to. He wants me to burn, along with billions of other people, or else he’d have convinced me.
You’re still here MrVisible, does that mean you’re going to give him the chance to convince you until the day you die?
[added small hijack]
If God is there do you really want to know him? Are you going to continue to seek him out? Is there a time limit on convincing you?
I don’t know it just seems to me that you’re sure that he doesn’t want you to know him. How can you be so sure? It just strikes me as odd that you don’t even believe he exists, yet you think he’s mad at you and doesn’t love you or want you.
[/sorry for small hijack]
Well, on the other hand MrVisible, morality doesn’t exist in a vacuum. We use all sorts of factual propositions to help us determine moral codes, and our morality is deeply a part of and also influences how we view the world. It both determines what we are likely to do, and is determined by what we are likely to do (consider a moral proclamation that said sex itself, in any form, was evil). I don’t want to get into a moral relativism/absolutism bit, but in both cases determining matters of fact are crucial to a proper moral valuation. And God rules matters of fact.
Now, could he still be evil? I don’t see it as possible, first. Even granting that he hasn’t already told us he was good, or the source of good, I think I would say that the most knowledgable being with the most power is a determiner of morality. If you are saying that that means “might makes right” then might makes right. Well, to me, in the case of an all-powerful, all-knowing being it does (and sometimes even then).
From the pragmatic view: I stand to lose everything and gain nothing from rejecting his morals (again, assuming I would, in fact, reject his morals, which isn’t clear to me by inspection).
From the deontological view: his all-knowing status pretty much puts me down the path of accepting whatever categorical imperatives he presents me with.
From the relativist view: God created the entire universe. If I accept that anyone could possibly have a keener insight then myself in morality, I would be compelled to accept that this being did. Of course, it goes without saying that I would first seek to understand why he did what he is said to have done, what his reasoning was, and if I could even understand it (not having the universal perspective puts a damper on these sorts of things, I think).
From a selfish view: see pragmatism.
About the only way I would feel comfortable judging this being in actuality was if I felt that there was no possible way it could have a better morality than me; that is, if only I myself stood as the determiner of my morality; that is, that no matter what, no one could convince me to adopt or reject moral elements. My morality was totally private and not subject to discussion or revision by outside parties (no one could present me with a flaw).
Can you support this? Certainly, given the existence of such a being, he would be able to make laws, and establish consequences for them. But law and morality aren’t necessarily related.
The whole thing strikes me as so self-evident I have a hard time even stating these things as it is. Can I support that the most knowledgable being with the most power is a detreminer of reality? Well, I thought I lent some support to it, but I’m willing to give it other attempts.
First, morality is a limit on what one can do. That’s why we have it: to limit behavior. An all-powerful being can clearly limit behavior. Then you want to ask: “well, yes, he can do that according to some standard, but what makes it right?” Well, what makes anything right? We have a certain set of assumptions about reality, some facts about it, some insight into our own nature, and our very real feelings (which, more often than not, I think, clash with the others). From all these we construct our moral systems. God clearly has to make no assumptions about reality: he knows it in its totality. Score 1 god. As for the second, it is contained in the first (for god) so I won’t give him a point there. As for the third, we know our feelings, and so does god. We each get a point.
What else do we source morality from that you feel God doesn’t have access to? Perhaps that would serve me well in framing a response.