God: Benevolent or Malevolent?

This has been one of the most civil threads on the topic that I have seen on a car site. Kudos to both sides of the debate.:cheer2:

 

As for item 1:
Using a work written by men to verify man and not woman is the image of the creator is not evidence of the creator being male.

item 2:
I don't believe knowledge of the goals or purpose of the actions is necessary to judge... but I ain't a lawyer either Bra, and I do judge folks for what they do, thus I am human... additionally, I wouldn't say I would be a good judge of what the actions of the creator are, mostly because I have a lot of bias in what I believe are the failures that a creator should do for the folks I know that have been wronged (not to exclude yours-truly) or for the lack of actions to correct the wrongs I can see would/should be easily fixed if an all powerful being that cares had any information of the problem.

 

And DNA is a double-helix, which is clearly identical in all important respect to spaghetti. Therefore it is obvious that the world was created by a flying spaghetti monster. And the FSM, though he has prepared for us a heaven with a beer volcano and a stripper factory, really doesn't particularly care about us or our petty problems or what we do to each other.

* * * * *

But on a serious note...

The OP's question: "Is god benevolent or malevolent" is a meaningless question, because there is no god. Lots of religions have beliefs about gods. And that might be able to tell us something about those cultures. We can even analyse the scriptures of various religions to see if their beliefs about their gods match what their scriptures say. (I've done this from time to time, and concluded that modern Christian beliefs do not coincide with the texts they take as authoritative.)

But there is a grand difference between asking whether a belief matches its scripture, and asking about the character of something that does not exist. You might as well ask "What's the melting point of the number 7?" as ask "What's the character of god?"

Christianity has too many internal contradictions to be viable as a rational construct. Deism has no such problems. The deists (including amm0bob, if I read his posts correctly) believe that god made the world and then went about his business without looking back or much caring what became of it. Like a kid who builds a sand castle on the beach and then goes home and doesn't care that the tide is going to sweep it away. The deists believe that god gave us a world with considerable potential, and it's up to us whether we make good or ill of it. And as for all those natural disasters: well, we wouldn't be here were it not for limited resources and a changing and violent environment to drive natural selection.

 

Maybe His acts aren't personal and He's doing only that which achieve's a longer more grand goal. Much like war.

 

How about a third choice, ambivalent!

Icarus

 

The melting point of 7 is 8...

And I am a deist today, I was raised a catholic... war and my experiences across the globe made me alter my definition of what the creator is...

I may not be correct, because, well, I am a man... and fallible... I don't believe the creator is fallible, but I also don't believe the creator is anything much like man has written in his books... nor do I think that the creator participates in time, which is where I exist.

 

Hmmmm...

I still say nay Bra...

 

The only problem I have with deism is that is that I'm a tough sell for GOD creating the universe like a large wind-up toy only to just let it go, sitting back to enjoy the show...or maybe going off and doing other things. I'm having a hard time believing that somebody would construct a universe without becoming more involved with its day-to-day operation. Yeah...I know. That's a conceit, but hey....I'm only human.
Both Daniel's "kid/sandcastle" and my "it's got to be more important that that!" statements are yet further gezamples of people trying to shackle GOD (or GODS, if you're not into monotheism) with human limitations.

There's no reason to have anything other than a civil discussion about religion. I'm not going to say that some people aren't above throwing a turd into the swimming pool just to watch the flopping and twitching.
Maybe APK is really curious.
Maybe he's being ornry.

Not my call...nor is it my place to judge.
However (comma!) I usually give folks the benefit of the doubt where lofting a topic is concerned, and really…religion needs to develop a sense of humor!!
Sometimes they’re worse than a bunch of liberal Prius drivers!!
Lighten up out there!
It’s very clear, at least to me that not only is there a GOD, but GOD has one helluva great sense of humor, otherwise human history wouldn’t have nearly as many delicious ironies.

As always…..
YMMV.

 

It's not that hard a sell if you consider the sheer size of the Universe: There is the probability that there is a far more interesting civilizations out there.

 

True enough. The bible says that GOD created the heavens and the earth. I'm a poor source for biblical knowledge, but all of the various translations (in English) that I've read always pluralize heavens---meaning all of the non-earth type stuff that's out there.
Sooooooo.....yeah. There probably are some pretty interesting things and non-terrestrial places to involve yourself with if you happen to be GOD.
However (comma!) you'll have to admit that we humans are "probably" a wickedly funny bunch to watch from on high!

Yeah. I know.
Another conceit....but all fall short. That means me too.

 

Which Bible? In the Hebrew Genesis, god created man and woman at the same time.

As for this topic, it seems as though everyone will have a different idea. Some Christians, Jews, or Muslims believe their god is benevolent and bring out the best in people: some Christians, Jews, or Muslims believe god is malevolent and keeps people in line. Since the underlying principles in religion is one of faith, everyone is right.

 

Here... in the bolded Bra... is the difference... teh creator isn't "somebody"... she is everybody plus anyone else you couldn't think of rolled up into something that is immortal... of which, I am a small part of, as well as every living thing that ever existed in this universe, along with the stuff that made me.

Plus... the creator/she is not "someone"... what I believe is more closely related to a process... and with that understanding, if you impart feelings of some sort to the creator... you would be saying to me that blenders have feelings.

And I do not think the creator is a blender either Bra... but I do not believe she is anything like man has written in his books of religion.

 

Irrelevant.

 

Lilith...

Eve and the Identity of Women: 7. Eve & Lilith

 

I'm for the "none of the above", asking if God is benevolent or malevolent is like asking if a river is benevolent or malevolent. God is more like an energy source of enlightenment. I often think the description of God doesn't work because we try to humanize the concept.

My thoughts are more of the river. Our bodies are like vessels that contain a small amount of the river inside of us. We journey through life and eventually return to the river. Some are further upstream, others further downstream, but in the end, we all return. At that point we change from water to river. When we want/need further enlightenment (want to change locations in the river) we take another journey in the buckets we call human beings.

 

You're right....at least in saying that GOD isn't "someone". Good catch. This is why I sling wires for a living instead of trying to ply my wares as a chaplain, monk, or a preacher.
Better pay.
MUCH better working hours, and fixing phones for a living is something for which I do have some humble talents.
I'm not good enough at ENGLISH to try and tackle some of the languages that a divinity degree would require.
Greek would be....well.....Greek to me.

Interesting topic....and I'm glad to see that it'd been mostly devoid of the moronic insults and snide comments.

 

The goal of war is to take other people's stuff by killing them. I don't call that a "grand" goal.

I see a real problem with arbitrarily imposing the rather vague notion of "perfection" as well as the logically problematic notion of omnipotence on the idea of a creator. Pre-Judaic religions, by and large, did not consider their creators to be either perfect or omnipotent. And even the god of the O.T. is not presented as "perfect." He describes himself as jealous, and we see him also to be capricious and violent, and in Job we see him being unfair (to Job's family, who he kills just to prove to Satan that Job will remain loyal to him). It's not until the N.T. that god is regarded as fair and just.

None of the usual arguments that the world must have been "created" require that creator to be either "perfect" or omnipotent. In the popular watchmaker analogy, a watchmaker is far from perfect, and the watches, though intended to operate without their creator's intervention, eventually wear out.

Further, there's no reason to think that the creator (if there is one) exists "outside of time." A sufficiently powerful race or being could conceivably create a world without being "outside of time," and without being all-powerful. A watchmaker is not outside of time and he is not all-powerful, yet he makes watches, one after another, and sells them to one person after another.

It's even conceivable that one being created the universe, and another created the Earth.

And it's entirely possible (I might even say likely if I thought there were a creator) that the creator regards us in the same light as we regard aphids on a rose bush.

And yet we know that entropy guarantees that the universe will eventually wind down and become a cold, barren, dark place devoid of life.

 

Re: God: Benevolent - Nonevolent - Malevolent?

While a technicality, it should be noted that the Malevolent /Benevolent structure is a false
dichotomy.

More properly there is a continuous range of possibilities that probably looks like

Mal-evolent <------> Non-evolent * <------> Ben-evolent
(* Non-evolent being a divinity that couldn't care less.)

With a fourth separate, distinct possibility of Non-existant lying off the scale.

Sometimes I wonder what would/will happen to formal religion if real contact is made with a
non-terrestrial intelligent life form. That would mean that mankind is not the only near-
godlike creature in the universe.

What if the other species -- not necessarily carbon based -- were vastly superior in every
way? (Intelligence-wise that would be proven should they travel god only knows how far
through space and be physically preset in our solar system.)

In the case of the alien race being non-aggressive, would we pass this off simply as a matter
of the other race been around longer to perfect their science/technology/engineering?

And what if they have a religious-bent too? Is their god(s) the same as our god(s).? What if,
the two races can't agree? Would it be worth fighting a intergalactic crusade to smite the
infidel?

Or in the case of the alien race being aggressive and hell-bent on our destruction, would it
be admitted that they are more favored in the eyes of their god, or if you wish the only one
god?

Humanity then being but a footnote to a much larger history of cosmic creation/evolution?