Is evil just a tool against God’s boredom?

[Greatest I am]

Is evil just a tool against God’s boredom?

All attempts to define a Shangri-La have failed because of boredom.

An everlasting, non-changing environment, whatever it is, like heaven, would be quite boring.

If you had absolutely no change in your life and no chance for change, how long would it take for you to get bored, if not go completely crazy, from life?

Not long I would wager.

God may have created man to change His boring existence. He may have chosen to add chaos to an otherwise unchanging system. To add evil where no evil was before. To add conflict and share his power with the forces of evil.

In other words, did God need evil to give his own existence meaning?

Take evil out of God’s systems and is there any reason for Him to continue living?
Seems not.
Is this why He lets evil continue?

He must have some reason and the above seems to me to be the only way to justify the existence of evil and the fact that God does not end it.

He, like humankind, needs evil, change and surprises to make life worth living.

He could end evil anytime. The fact that He does not speaks volumes of God’s need for it.

Is evil just a tool against God’s boredom or is there a better reason for God to leave it here with us?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgjF4dYUhD8

This clip puts the reason for evil as free will.
I do not agree as if that were true, then God would not kill any of us as that would interfere with our free will choice to live.
Either free will is sacred or it is not. It cannot be both violatable and non-violatable.

Is God just bored and using us for entertainment?

Regards
DL

 

[Mystic]

God is evil. Plain and simple if he/she in fact exists. No humane, almighty being who is claimed by his/her worshipers, to be 'love' and all goodness, would allow such travesty in the world we have today. Free will, and choice are just the nonsensical, illogical excuses sheep and idiots make up as excuses to try to explain what they can not logically explain, for in fact their god does not exist. If a being did exist to create all we have today then they truly are evil, nasty, cruel and unjust.

 

[Greatest I am]

God is evil. Plain and simple if he/she in fact exists. No humane, almighty being who is claimed by his/her worshipers, to be 'love' and all goodness, would allow such travesty in the world we have today. Free will, and choice are just the nonsensical, illogical excuses sheep and idiots make up as excuses to try to explain what they can not logically explain, for in fact their god does not exist. If a being did exist to create all we have today then they truly are evil, nasty, cruel and unjust.

No argument.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.





Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that it is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.

Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.

Evil then is only human to human.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should see that what Christians see as something to blame, we should see that what we have, deserves a huge thanks where it belongs. God or nature.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be.

Regards
DL

 

[doombug]

Who needs evil for entertainment when ignorance like this thread is simply hilarious....:24:

 

[BornReady]

God is evil. Plain and simple if he/she in fact exists. No humane, almighty being who is claimed by his/her worshipers, to be 'love' and all goodness, would allow such travesty in the world we have today.

Could it be God is not almighty? Traditionally we have thought of God that way. But, I agree with you, such a being doesn't seem to exist. On the other hand, there are many believers who draw strength and comfort from God or at the very minimum from a belief in him. Is it possible to reconcile these two positions? I think so. Maybe the believers are right, God exists. And maybe the unbelievers are right too, God is not almighty.

Maybe God would end suffering in the world if he could but he can't. Maybe his power is limited to working in the heart of men and women.

 

[doombug]

Could it be God is not almighty? Traditionally we have thought of God that way. But, I agree with you, such a being doesn't seem to exist. On the other hand, there are many believers who draw strength and comfort from God or at the very minimum from a belief in him. Is it possible to reconcile these two positions? I think so. Maybe the believers are right, God exists. And maybe the unbelievers are right too, God is not almighty.

Maybe God would end suffering in the world if he could but he can't. Maybe his power is limited to working in the heart of men and women.

BornReady, you notice that GIA mentions how humans have free will and are able to make choices which totally negates his premise. You see for GIA the truth is a bitch. hahaha!

 

[BornReady]

BornReady, you notice that GIA mentions how humans have free will and are able to make choices which totally negates his premise.

I think free will is overrated. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a totalitarian society but I don't want anarchy either. People shouldn't be free to do whatever they want. There are laws and social conventions that need to be obeyed.

As far as GIA, I think the two of you got off on the wrong foot. He's not an angry atheist. He's a believer, close to a liberal Christian. And he doesn't hate the bible. Actually, I believe he has a lot of respect for it. He may be preaching. But he's preaching against a literal interpretation of the bible, not against Christianity. I know he's a fan of Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong. I think his heart is in the right place.

 

[doombug]

I think free will is overrated. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a totalitarian society but I don't want anarchy either. People shouldn't be free to do whatever they want. There are laws and social conventions that need to be obeyed.

As far as GIA, I think the two of you got off on the wrong foot. He's not an angry atheist. He's a believer, close to a liberal Christian. And he doesn't hate the bible. Actually, I believe he has a lot of respect for it. He may be preaching. But he's preaching against a literal interpretation of the bible, not against Christianity. I know he's a fan of Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong. I think his heart is in the right place.

Whatever type of society we live in doesn't change how humans are designed. We are free willed beings.

I disagree with you. GIA rewrites the bible to fit whatever he wants and I find that to be dishonest. Besides if you debate you should be able to show how you reach a conclusion to make things interesting and actually debatable. GIA only wants to dictate what is said in a discussion without allowing debate. Again, this is dishonest.

 

[alice in chains]

I think free will is overrated. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a totalitarian society but I don't want anarchy either. People shouldn't be free to do whatever they want. There are laws and social conventions that need to be obeyed.

As far as GIA, I think the two of you got off on the wrong foot. He's not an angry atheist. He's a believer, close to a liberal Christian. And he doesn't hate the bible. Actually, I believe he has a lot of respect for it. He may be preaching. But he's preaching against a literal interpretation of the bible, not against Christianity. I know he's a fan of Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong. I think his heart is in the right place.

if 1% of the people i run across in life had half the thought capability this guy does i would die a happy man.

 

[alice in chains]

Whatever type of society we live in doesn't change how humans are designed. We are free willed beings.

I disagree with you. GIA rewrites the bible to fit whatever he wants and I find that to be dishonest. Besides if you debate you should be able to show how you reach a conclusion to make things interesting and actually debatable. GIA only wants to dictate what is said in a discussion without allowing debate. Again, this is dishonest.

it would appear on the surface he dictates, but show me in a post where he has manipulated or overlooked anyone's post or not declared a statement without reason. he doesn't rewrite the Bible; he quotes doctrine on the topic he posts.

 

[doombug]

it would appear on the surface he dictates, but show me in a post where he has manipulated or overlooked anyone's post or not declared a statement without reason. he doesn't rewrite the Bible; he quotes doctrine on the topic he posts.

He has yet to answer my requests to show how he reaches his conclusions and if you think he quotes actual doctrine, other than his own, you don't know much about the subjects he posts about. He completely misrepresents the bible and I find that to be dishonest.

 

[Mystic]

....misrepresents the bible by who's standards? the bible is a giant poem that has been re-written by king after king to suit what leader sat during which rein, including popes, bishops and anyone wanting to hold control of the ignorant masses of the time. Thankfully not all of us are still lost in the fantasy world of this fictional book called the bible.

 

[doombug]

....misrepresents the bible by who's standards? the bible is a giant poem that has been re-written by king after king to suit what leader sat during which rein, including popes, bishops and anyone wanting to hold control of the ignorant masses of the time. Thankfully not all of us are still lost in the fantasy world of this fictional book called the bible.

GIA is misrepesenting the actual words written in the book. What he is presenting is what he has decided to fit his premise and he has to invent things to make it work.

Really? And just how was the bible "rewritten", what was the process?

 

[Minor Axis]

 

[Panacea]

The bible cannot be misinterpreted. It could be pure fiction, or an attempted documentation of some truths badly disfigured by political influence. Therefore any number of interpretations can be made and are as valid as the next, with the exception of claiming its passages as law.

 

[HK]

I maintain that if a higher being does exist - which it may or may not - then it's motives and intentions are likely to be far beyond our own perception of good, evil and boredom.

 

[doombug]

I maintain that if a higher being does exist - which it may or may not - then it's motives and intentions are likely to be far beyond our own perception of good, evil and boredom.

Intelligent post HK!

I don't see how people who are Atheist or Agnostic can assign motives or desribe the character of a being they don't believe to exist in the first place.

 

[HK]

I don't see how people who are Atheist or Agnostic can assign motives or desribe the character of a being they don't believe to exist in the first place.

Well to be fair, I don't see how people who believe in a higher being can claim to know so much about it either :dunno if there really is something out there that is advanced enough to create worlds, then none of us can exactly empathise with it.

 

[doombug]

Well to be fair, I don't see how people who believe in a higher being can claim to know so much about it either :dunno if there really is something out there that is advanced enough to create worlds, then none of us can exactly empathise with it.

Good point HK but Christians go from what the bible says about God. That is how they claim to know God. If someone has faith I can see how they come to their conclusions. I really don't understand how non-believers can even be concerned with something they claim doesn't exist or are even neutral on the idea.

 

[BornReady]

I don't believe in God but I am interested in religion. I even teach a children's religious education class at church.