I was watching the Louis Theroux and the Westboro Baptist church documentary and I was shocked at the people who seemed so normal believing in and loving a god who would be okay with causing that much harm. Is there a limit of God causing evil that would stop you worshipping him? Say god descended from heaven and killed a thousand children?
Posted Jan 30, 2020, 8:57 AM UTC
Any evil.
Would ordering infants to be killed qualify as evil?
If not, I’m not sure what would.
Me: "Hey, you ordered the Israelites to wipe out an entire tribe, even their children! That's evil!"
God: "No, it's not. Those children were going to grow up to be as brutal and murderous as their parents. I couldn't let them destroy the Israelites."
Me: "But how do you know that!?"
God: "For the same reason I know the numbers of hairs on your head. For the same reason I know the day you will die. I'm God."
Me: "But couldn't you stop them some other way?"
God: "I stopped them my way. My ways are higher than your ways."
God: "No, it's not. Those children were going to grow up to be as brutal and murderous as their parents. I couldn't let them destroy the Israelites."
He literally let baby Adolf grow up and destroy 6 million Jews...
That was obviously a tragic outcome, but are their still Jewish people today?
I'm referring to a time before Christ. The Jewish people had to survive in order to bring the Messiah to the world. The opposing tribes were hell bent on eliminating the Jewish people entirely.
Now that the Messiah has come, there is no more "chosen" people, aside from the body of the Christian church.
Me: "But couldn't you stop them some other way?"
God: "I stopped them my way. My ways are higher than your ways."
Me: "Using your omnipotence, could you have inspired the writers of the Bible to convey a sufficient explanation so that the most rational understanding is not that you were a jerk by taking this approach?"
God: "Totes. Duh, I'm omnipotent."
Me: "umm..."
Me: "Using your omnipotence, could you have inspired the writers of the Bible to convey a sufficient explanation so that the most rational understanding is not that you were a jerk by taking this approach?"
God: "I did. Those who know me to be a loving God already understand. You refuse to see me that way. The problem is with your heart, not my explanations. I had my apostle Paul say it best:"
1 Corinthians 1:18
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
That's ... not what the Bible says though. It never provides the justification you're providing.
So what is your explanation then?
[deleted]
Define evil in this context please.
I feel like having teens eaten for making fun of a bald guy is pretty clearly evil
This question, while it makes grammatical sense, lacks logical coherence. It’s like asking “What if a bachelor were married?” or “What if a square were a circle?”
Those questions contain proper grammar but after that do not make any logical sense and therefore no response exists.
A different, but similar view requires the only correct answer of "none" because, by definition, anything God does is good. So if God does come and brutally murder thousands of children, it would not be evil but would be, by definition, an act of good. We would simply be wrong in our assessment that it is not.
Divine Command Theory is immoral.
Hi- did you accidentally reply to the wrong thread?
Nope.
Oh, ok. My bad.
Its only a problem if you believe God can command literallly anything, but he cannot. There are things he cannot command.
God has done/commanded immoral things in the Bible.
I reject that assertion.
All it would take is once instance of evil. And that is the problem with the question. Evil, without a source of absolute morality is entirely subjective. Yet to hold God to a subjective opinion is to claim some sort of status greater than God, which is an incoherent position to take. One must first presuppose polytheism rather than the First Cause or Greatest Conceivable Being or Unmoved Mover of Classical Theism. The problem of polytheism being that it uses a definition of god that shares nothing with the definition of god in monotheism beyond the spelling of the word.
Morality is subjective but is does have broadly agreed upon standards most people would objectively agree to. For example I’m sure you and almost everybody else would agree killing a thousand children would be evil?
God cannot commit evil because it goes against his nature. However, he CAN allow evil.
How is unnecessarily allowing evil not evil?
Define unnecessary. And that's why I'm evil.
Without your definitions, how can one begin to answer the question?
An evil is necessary if without allowing it you can't avoid a bigger evil. For example, sticking a needle in your baby's arm is a necessary evil if it's for vaccination, and simply evil if you do it for your own pleasure.
I get your example. But that's not a definition of evil. You have simply described 2 types of evil.
God cannot commit evil, so your question isn't valid.
I was watching the Louis Theroux and the Westboro Baptist church documentary and I was shocked at the people who seemed so normal believing in and loving a god who would be okay with causing that much harm.
I've heard of that small group called the Westboro Baptist church, but haven't seen that documentary. Could you give a brief summary of what you're talking about?
Edit: In particular I didn't know what 'a god who would be okay with causing that much harm' is referring to.
Does the documentary imply that God is ok with those Westboro people's behavior, and their harming others?
The God I believe in does not like that bad behavior.
Aside from their conception of a god that hates gay people they also believe God will condemn every other person not in the westboro church to hell. They also believe that God directly causes the death of soldiers and is punishing America with war for being tolerant of gay people, adulterous behaviour etc.
Thank you for elaborating.
All good! I’d really recommend it if you’re interested. It’s an interesting look into a very odd cult.
I'm going to quote them (Westboro) here so please don't hate on me.
"GOD hates fags!"
"Thank God for IEDs!"
And so on...
Basically your generic "anrgy God hates sin so much he goes Rambo on it". Huge scriptural issues with their positions.
Edit: To be clear, I am opposed to Westboro on literally everything.
God does not do evil. Evil comes from the free-will of His created being.
Free-will is a causal gap between God and evil.
If it were possible for God to take back the promise of sending Jesus and then it be so Jesus never came in the flesh, I would have no further reason to worship God.
My worship of God is due to the fact that He is far greater than me in wisdom, far greater than me in power and yet He considers me worthy of His love. Who am I that God would send His only Son to us for our redemption?
Supposing there was a tribe on earth who did despicable things. You heard that they sacrificed their newborns by placing them on a rock for the wolves to feed on. They did this so the wolves would leave them alone having been satiated at the blood of the infants. You heard that any foreigner who has ever visited them has been killed and never seen again.
Would you send your son to go and try and educate them? Now even if you had the power to raise your son from the dead, would you send him?
Even if you could send an army of powerful soldiers to accompany him and also raise him from the dead, would you send him?
What about if you could also see the beginning and end of all things and knew that he would be tried under legal authorities and the soldiers you sent with him would have to yield to those authorities to allow a fair trial?
What if you could also see the beginning and end of all things and knew that your son would be put to death under those authorities even though they had no solid case again him?
What if you knew your son would be whipped, beaten, spat on, humiliated and crucified and that he would cry out to you wondering why you had forsaken him as he suffocated to death? Would you still send him even though you knew you could raise him from the dead? All to save some savage's kids from being sacrificed to the wolves by their own parents?
We are all savages who willingly sacrifice the happiness of others to save ourselves.
And God still sent His Son.
For this reason alone I bow before Him because there is no greater love. I cannot find such love anywhere else. It this love I submit to, this love that humbles me and this love which cleaves me steadfastly to the one who would and did send His Son for my sake.
This grace is not surpassable. There is nothing like it anywhere else. It is unique and precious and we ought to bow to it. We should not fight it or reject it or continue being savages, for now, we know better. We have been shown a better way. We need to repent and submit in all humility trusting that the one who sent His Son is for us in a way we cannot even comprehend. Jesus wasn't sent to condemn us for being savages, he was sent to save us from being savages for His Name's sake.
Were it not for God's will and the fulfillment of God's promise, I would have nothing to worship. I would have no hope. I would still live in fear of the wolves and be trying to save my own life by offering up anything to them in my place. I'd still be caught in a cycle of fear and death.
But for Jesus coming in the flesh and fulfilling the promises God had made concerning our redemption, I would simply worship my own life at the expense of everyone else's.
But Jesus did come in the flesh and did show us the way and was prepared to have his life poured out to deliver this message of redemption. For this reason, I call the God of Jacob 'My God' and I shall worship Him all the days of my life.
The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want...
The media is setting a negative stereotype against Christians with such productions. Why did Louis choose the infamous westboro baptists? Why do you take up this message, generalizing god as evil and his worshippers as mindless?
Louis picked them because he has an interest in any group of people on the extreme edge of the spectrum. He has also spent time with doomsday preppers, in militia groups in South Africa and Scientology. He was actually very respectful of scripture and frequently contrasted them and their beliefs against regular christians.
I don’t know if I am taking up a message as I said the juxtaposition of what seemed like generally nice people believing in a god who would do such evil interested me.
In that case, I'm confused about why you're associating god with harm and evil, and his followers as mindless, since they follow him without regard to his harms and evils. Your very question seems to be... is there any limit to the mindlessness? Is there any harm or evil which would result in christians saying, enough is enough, and breaking into atheism? Is there any red line that god is not allowed to cross?
What am I getting wrong there?
Its a big part of why I left the Christian church. The way they were treating outside people and gay people in particular. I know it's not the case with every Christian church and there are a lot of gay christians. Still it was enought for me to want to disassociate myself from the church. At times it just seemed too hateful. The problem with that is I felt like if I stood with the church then by default I was supporting those beliefs.
Comment permitted as an exception to rule 2.
I'm not going to get into it with you. I am going to say that how people get treated vs what scripture says about those people are often inconsistent. I'm not excusing anything. Just saying that you might consider (if you haven't already) gaining a more perfect understanding of what scripture says on it rather than just abandoning all things Christian.
Again this is not an accusation. Just a suggestions, and perhaps an invitation as well.
No I feel what your saying I really do. Its not the o ly reason I left, not even the main one. It is hoever definitely one of the reasons. It just felt like I was supporting the things I followed with the church and the ones I disagreed with.
I get it.
"mmm gays ur bad m'kay?"
"but if I disagree and stay.... aren't I saying I agree?"
Still the offer stands. Because I have found over the last 25 years that the outside perspective on this kind of this is much more harsh than the one maintained by scripture.
Tragedy will occur. We live on a fallen world. Does that mean God is evil? How man perceives God is flawed: we cannot understand what He is doing becauae it is through our finite perspective. While some may call His actions "evil" or "not how I would do it", I trust He knows what He is doing. Ending a life seems horrible to us but He gifted life in the first place and we don't know the path that that life would have gone on or through. While God laid out the law it is wrong for a human to shed human blood, He is not bound by our laws or understanding. This is the struggle of faith, being humble and submitting to God's wisdom.
So you have faith that even if does something you would personally consider wrong or evil that God has a greater reason for doing it?
Yes. I would consider it wrong or evil if God did not have a greater reason. It is not a perfect analogy but children don't understand everything parents do but they have reasons the kids may not understand and the kids consider it unfair or awful.
Null premise.
GOD is incapable of evil, so it is not a thing that could ever happen.
Your question seems to be aimed more at "Christians what kinds of things cause you to question your beliefs", but it is not worded to reflect that.
No it wasn’t at all. It seems the answer to you is that nothing God could do would stop your belief if you won’t believe he is capable of evil in the first place.
Evil in the site of man does not necessarily evil make in the site of the LORD.
God by definition cannot commit evil. Otherwise you have a contradiction.
Not really. I’m interested in the idea that christians can be more moral than the God they worship.
It seems that your answer is he could potentially do anything since you don’t believe him capable of evil. You wouldn’t believe it was evil because he did it.
It's not that. It's that if he commits evil, then he isn't God.
That would depend on your understanding of what a God is I guess. But He has done things that any person would consider evil. Genocide for example.
God not preventing us from doing evil, or him doing something to prevent a worse evil is not him committing an evil act.
This seems to be attributing the evil of mankind, or judgment against them as evil.....that's not actually him committing evil.
This kind of 'what if' question always amuses me. For the sake of argument, in theory, any evil God committed would (for instance, descending from Heaven and killing a thousand children) would prove me wrong in what I believe I know about God's character and I would, therefore, stop worshiping him. However, I can confidently say that it will never happen. God does not (and cannot) commit evil. He doesn't always prevent it but it never comes from him.
On your point about the Westboro Baptists - they seem to misunderstand the most basic principles of Christianity. I would go so far as to say that, though they worship the same God they clearly don't understand him. Let's take their favourite picket slogan, "God Hates Fags". God hates no one. Period. He may hate the sin but never the sinner (and it's debatable whether homosexuality IS actually a sin. I won't get into it here but I'd direct you to look up 'The Great Debate' essays on it if you want to get a really good understanding of both sides of the argument). Point is, don't look to the Westboro baptists as an accurate representation of Christianity. They aren't.
When I posted this it was supposed to be hypothetical until I started thinking about it and realised God DID commit my hyperbolic example of evil. He has directly killed thousands of children multiple times over.
Ten plagues of Egypt killed and caused suffering for all the people in Egypt and finished it off with killing literally all the first born children. Probably way more than a thousand really. He flooded the world and killed all the people except Noah’s family. Probably lots of kids. Sodom a whole city was razed to the ground there would have been kids there as well.
Yes, God has killed. However, I don't think most people would argue that all killing is always evil in every situation. There are times when it is a necessary way of dealing with evil. Are soldiers who kill terrorists evil?
God does not kill just for the craic (which was the impression I got from your original question). He would always rather avoid it and it is the last resort for him. To cover your examples:
Pharoh has every opportunity to release the Israelites from slavery. He is warned time and time again not to try and defy God and is proved wrong in doing so by each successive plague. Yes, there was suffering as a result of the plagues but in the case of the first 9 plagues, in the grand scheme of things they are inconveniences and nothing that Egypt couldn't have recovered from. Death is the last resort. Put yourself in God's shoes here. Let's say you find out that all your family and friends have been enslaved, and you have the power to unleash the plagues on whoever enslaved them. How many do you think you'd get through, repeatedly being refused before you start considering the plague of death?
On the flood, Genesis 6:5 says, "The Lord saw that the wickedness of mankind was great in the Earth, and that every intention of his thoughts was only evil, continually". So again, the flood is a last resort against evil and mankind brings it on themselves, the same as Pharoh does with the plagues. I think it's also worth noting that I find it unlikely that Noah's family were the only people spared from the flood for two reasons. The reason for his being spared is cited as, "Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God" (Gen 6:9). Are we to believe, that of everyone on Earth at that time that Noah and his family were the only righteous ones? The second reason is that it doesn't really make much sense, genetically speaking, when you think about it. I suspect there would have been a handful of others scattered around the world and there is just no need to recount all the stories as they all would have essentially been the same.
Finally, we have Sodom. Prior to its destruction Abraham is talking to God and asks, "Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?" (Gen 18:22). We then have a rather hilareous back-and-forth where Abraham very timidly and gradually reduces the number of righteous people required to spare the city - 'What if there's 50? What about 45? What about 40?' and so on until he finally asks, "Suppose only ten [righteous people] are found there? He answered, for the sake of ten I will not destroy it" (Gen 18:32). If there were ten people in the city who weren't evil, it would not have been destroyed.
Killing infants is always evil.
Is it possible to save a reply? I genuinely liked this
I would say killing children would be evil in almost any situation.
The first 9 plagues aren’t inconveniences they would have caused wide spread death by themselves, dehydration, starvation, sickness and burning. Also he didn’t do them just to free the Israelites he also did it to prove to the Egyptians he is the lord “For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the earth. But I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”
The pharaoh was also going to stop and let them go after the 4th plague but God intervened and “hardened his heart” so he would not keep his promise and Egypt would continue to suffer. He wanted to unleash all ten plagues.
The biggest issue is that even if his actions are justified and fine he still killed innocent thousands of people because of the choices of one man the Pharaoh. He punished people who had nothing to do with his “sin”.
The flood as you say everyone on earth was supposedly thinking evil and they “deserved it” and again I say even the children and babies who died in the flood? Even assuming that their are pockets of humanity left unaffected it makes it clear that most of the earth died.
I’m aware of the exchange the issue being that They don’t look very hard for the good people. Their hut gets surrounded by people who are bad and he concludes that they must all be. Were there no children and babies in the city? They surely can’t be evil and they were killed along with the others.
[deleted]