Putting An End3 To The War Between Good And Evil

[TheRedneckProfessor]

"Is trust good or is it evil?"  ~End3

 

"It is both and neither."  ~TheRedneckProfessor

 

.

 

One of the most profound moments I had after my deconversion was coming to the realization that there is nothing inherently "good" or "evil" in this life.  This is not to say that there isn't great evil in the world; nor am I so blissfully optimistic as to consider what good there is to be enough to outweigh the clearly present malignancies of life.  Rather, the point is that, in and of themselves, things are neither "good" nor "evil".  Nothing is "of the devil"; nor are there any "things of god".  Things are just things--feelings, ideas, love, trees, words--none of these possess any inherent qualities in themselves.

 

Rather, we imbue things with meanings.  We attribute characteristics to certain items based upon our experiences:  puppies are "good"; wasps are "bad".  In reality, puppies are neither better nor worse than wasps; both simply occupy the particular niche that developed with the evolution of their species within their environments.  

 

We attempt to attach meanings to the circumstances of our lives based upon the consequences that result.  We might consider war to be "good" when we discover the concentration camps; but the victims locked inside probably view the whole thing as "evil".  In truth, war is both good and bad.  It is hatred and love; triumph and tragedy.  It is the best of humanity willing to die for the worst of humanity.  

 

But, in and of themselves, none of the things in this life have any meaning, outside of that which we attribute.  This means, ultimately, that we have a choice.  It is what we do with the things in our lives, and our reactions to the consequences thereof, that will, in the final analysis, lead us to determine some thing to be "good" or "evil".

 

Trust is, among many others, including love, hate, anger, and happiness, a prime example.  

 

My son trusts me.  This is neither good nor evil; it is simply a true statement.  If I respect his trust in me, and if I desire to help him find a fruitful and joyous path in life, then I will use his trust in me to teach him key factors necessary for such an undertaking, such as discipline, empathy, self-control, and compassion, among others.  Thus, in this instance, trust might be considered "good".

 

Contrariwise, I could abuse the boy's trust.  I could lie to him, stab him in the back, set him up for failure.  Any number of self-fulfilling prophecies could be applied, by me, to his childhood; and, because of his trust in me, he would believe them all to the point of making them come true.  This is why, even at the tender age of seven, I don't care if he says "Fuck this goddamn shit!"; but I won't tolerate him using curse words like "ugly", "fat", "stupid", or "dumbass".  Nor will I tolerate myself using these words toward him.  Were I to do so, trust might be considered "evil"; and "pure evil" because he has no choice but to trust me.  Psychologists have proven, time and again, that children are hardwired to trust adults.*

 

(As an aside, the reason Ironhorse doesn't realize that he was indoctrinated into the Baptist faith, by a Baptist preacher, who was also the father of a Baptist family, was because Ironhorse was instinctively predisposed to trust the man as done the indoctrinating) 

 

Therefore, trust is neither god nor evil; while simultaneously being both good and evil.  And, as previously mentioned, the same can apply to any thing.  Love is neither and both; so is anger.

 

As we have seen, god betrayed Adam and Eve by witholding vital information from them.  god knew that they were both trusting, and naive; and he used their trust, and naivete, to manipulate them into bringing about the evil that he, himself, had designed and planned to unleash upon the earth (Isaiah 45:7).  Trust, in this instance, was "evil"; and "pure evil" because Adam and Eve had no choice in the matter.  Not because they were hardwired to trust, as we are; but because they had no concept of what trust was, nor of who it was they were trusting.  They had never been betrayed, or felt the knife in the chest that comes with broken trust; they only knew (by the name of the tree) that god was hiding something from them.

 

The question is, then, do you consider god to be "good" or "evil"? 

 

 

 

.

 

*http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/young-children-are-especially-trusting-of-things-theyre-told.html

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/yourlife/parenting-family/2010-10-23-trusting-kids_N.htm

[sdelsolray]

As to your last question, it depends on the god.  There are so many, all of whom come from human imagination.  I can imagine one that's only good, one that is all evil and one that is both, all at the same time.  Anyone can.  Human imagination can invent all sorts of things.  Inventing gods is easy.

 

As to the Abrahamic gods (there seem to be many), they are both good and evil.  Of course, they too come from human imagination, but have the added assurance that many people have them in their imaginations (mostly through indoctrination, peer pressure and general wishful thinking).  In other words, they are popular among the human population.

 

As to the details of your post concerning the word "trust", assigning attributes to words can work well, not work so well and sometimes fail miserably.  I think trying to assign "good" and "evil" as attributes of the word "trust" is a stretch at best.  Good and evil are moral judgments of human actions (or inactions) and may include human thoughts (or lack of thoughts).  Trust is a state of mind which is based on a variety of things, but generally involves prior experience and evidence.  I may not trust someone who has "done me wrong" in the past and I will likely trust someone who has acted good to me in the past.  I can trust immaterial objects to function (e.g., my refrigerator working) or have a lack of trust in one (e.g., my car is a lemon).  This use of trust has nothing to do with good or evil (i.e., moral judgments).  A distinction should be made between things or events that are "good" or "bad" but that are without any moral component, and things or events that are "good" or "bad" because of a moral component (although these two categories can overlap).  Your examples of "puppies are good" and "wasps are bad" speak to the former.  "Hitler's actions were bad/evil" and "His mother's lifelong commitment to her children's well-being was good" are examples of the later.

 

The Adam and Eve myth is allegory and is a very poor and faulty attempt to explain the human condition.  Your observations concerning the flaws in and paucity of that myth are only the tip of the iceberg.

[Guest end3]

Ok, let's rock.

 

God gives Adam the experience of "good" by providing him with Eve. Not sure if he explained to Adam that this was an instance of "good".

 

There is also evidence/a statement that they felt no shame for being naked.

 

Then the Debil convinced Eve....she "saw", i.e. perceived. Trusted through conversation?? Matter of fact, the Bible says she had several new interpretations of the tree after talking with the rotten snake.

 

I believe my point was that even if they had no experience with good and evil, they had the capability to develop trust through OTHER experiences. I think this adequately demonstrates my point.

[Guest end3]

Let's save ourselves time. The Bible pretty much says this is a test.

[duderonomy]

Let's save ourselves time. The Bible pretty much says this is a test.

 

...which is no good if you can't trust the one giving the test because he doesn't exist, or has lied, or has knocked up another man's fourteen year old fiance, and committed genocide and stuff like that and still wants to be called "holy".

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Ok, let's rock.

 

God gives Adam the experience of "good" by providing him with Eve. Not sure if he explained to Adam that this was an instance of "good".

 

There is also evidence/a statement that they felt no shame for being naked.

 

Then the Debil convinced Eve....she "saw", i.e. perceived. Trusted through conversation?? Matter of fact, the Bible says she had several new interpretations of the tree after talking with the rotten snake.

 

I believe my point was that even if they had no experience with good and evil, they had the capability to develop trust through OTHER experiences. I think this adequately demonstrates my point.

Now we come to the crux of the genesis myth.  god gave Adam and Eve an understanding of what he considered "good".  It was "good" for Adam to have a helpmate; god looked at his creation and saw that it was "good".  Thus, in setting up the equation between "good" and "evil", god made sure Adam and Eve had experiential knowledge of his interpretation of "good".

 

But what about "evil"?  Nowhere in the text does god explain his concept of it.  The closest he comes is in saying that it was "not good" for man to be alone; but that level of "not good" is nowhere near the level of evil that would justify death, sin, hellfire and brimstone.

 

god produced a "test", as you say; but only gave the test-takers half of the information they needed to pass it.  They only had half of the equation.  They had a basic understanding of "good"; but no idea whatsoever about "evil".  Yet god expected them to choose between "good" and "evil".

 

This is precisely why the serpent was able to tempt Eve.  He was the only one being honest with them.  "If you eat this fruit, you will be like god, knowing the difference between "good" and "evil".

 

The name of the tree itself told Adam and Eve that god was hiding something; how could they trust him?  The serpent told Adam and Eve exactly what it was that god was hiding; how could they NOT trust him?  Having no other social structure upon which to base their understanding of "trust"; Adam and Eve did exactly what one might expect of a naive child: they trusted the one who was telling the "truth".

 

So, as we can see, god hung the fate of the entire history of humanity, upon the ability of two naive children to willingly trust in someone who clearly could not be trusted.  god is evil.

[Storm]

Just kind of thinking out loud here. Prof, you stated in your opening post that beings are neither good nor evil. They just are products of their evolution within a particular environment.

 

 

We attribute characteristics to certain items based upon our experiences:  puppies are "good"; wasps are "bad".  In reality, puppies are neither better nor worse than wasps; both simply occupy the particular niche that developed with the evolution of their species within their environments.

 

Based on this, I would say that god is neither good or evil. He is only assigned one of those attributes based on the subjective experience of the one doing the judging. Puppies aren't evil because they bite you a bit too hard or scratch your hand or arm while playing, or if they pee on the carpet instead of going outside. Wasps aren't evil if they sting you protecting their home, nor are they good for not stinging you if you don't bother them. Simply because they perceive you as a threat and act upon that doesn't make them evil. It does make them jerks, though.

 

God is the product of the environment he created (or that humans created).

 

I would say that Christians are highly unlikely to say, or maybe are even incapable of saying, that god is evil. It is the ultimate goal of Christians to be like god. This entails seeing everything from his point of view. It is why when things don't make sense and there is cognitive dissonance that they automatically just say that god is mysterious or that he has his reasons. The christian will always say god is good because if they admit that he is evil, then they have to reconfigure their entire worldview and would have to at least entertain the thought that he is not all loving and all benevolent, which runs entirely contrary to their beliefs. 

 

You and I and the majority of people on this forum will be able to argue that he is in fact evil, because we aren't skewed by the christian perspective. We see his actions for what they are: Indifference, non-loving, biased, inconsistent, etc.

 

I would say that god is no more evil or good than a human is, simply because he is nothing more than an extension of humanity and the hopes and dreams of humans trying to makes sense of their world. Do I think he does evil, yes. Do I think he does good? yes. Just like humans. Is he inherently good or evil? I don't think so. He is what he is. (For the record, i do not believe the christian god exists, I was just proposing my thoughts)

 

I regards to the Genesis story, I do think god set Adam and Eve up for failure. And I do think that the serpent was telling the truth.But, I think that God wasn't necessarily any more evil than any parent who expects their children to act a particular way, despite the parent's inability, or lack of, completely conveying the full breadth of what they expect. He certainly went WAAAAY overboard on the punishment part of it though. But I am not sure that still makes him evil. If anything, Genesis conveys to me that God is anything but all knowing and all loving. He is just winging it as he goes, just like the rest of us.

[Guest end3]

 

Ok, let's rock.

 

God gives Adam the experience of "good" by providing him with Eve. Not sure if he explained to Adam that this was an instance of "good".

 

There is also evidence/a statement that they felt no shame for being naked.

 

Then the Debil convinced Eve....she "saw", i.e. perceived. Trusted through conversation?? Matter of fact, the Bible says she had several new interpretations of the tree after talking with the rotten snake.

 

I believe my point was that even if they had no experience with good and evil, they had the capability to develop trust through OTHER experiences. I think this adequately demonstrates my point.

Now we come to the crux of the genesis myth.  god gave Adam and Eve an understanding of what he considered "good".  It was "good" for Adam to have a helpmate; god looked at his creation and saw that it was "good".  Thus, in setting up the equation between "good" and "evil", god made sure Adam and Eve had experiential knowledge of his interpretation of "good".

 

But what about "evil"?  Nowhere in the text does god explain his concept of it.  The closest he comes is in saying that it was "not good" for man to be alone; but that level of "not good" is nowhere near the level of evil that would justify death, sin, hellfire and brimstone.

 

god produced a "test", as you say; but only gave the test-takers half of the information they needed to pass it.  They only had half of the equation.  They had a basic understanding of "good"; but no idea whatsoever about "evil".  Yet god expected them to choose between "good" and "evil".

 

This is precisely why the serpent was able to tempt Eve.  He was the only one being honest with them.  "If you eat this fruit, you will be like god, knowing the difference between "good" and "evil".

 

The name of the tree itself told Adam and Eve that god was hiding something; how could they trust him?  The serpent told Adam and Eve exactly what it was that god was hiding; how could they NOT trust him?  Having no other social structure upon which to base their understanding of "trust"; Adam and Eve did exactly what one might expect of a naive child: they trusted the one who was telling the "truth".

 

So, as we can see, god hung the fate of the entire history of humanity, upon the ability of two naive children to willingly trust in someone who clearly could not be trusted.  god is evil.

 

Appears like this is moving towards a free will discussion. Did God control the snake? You're essentially saying that God controlled the snake and Adam and Eve and the rest of us as well. If that's the case, then I don't see there is much we can do about it. Otherwise. the story supposes we need to learn to appreciate and love God for His vision and move on. I don't see how you can make the assertion that God is evil with your relative observation point.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

True. I probably should have said that what god did was evil. Not that god was evil.

 

That said, does it really matter whether god "controlled" the situation or whether he simply set the situation in motion already knowing what the outcome would be?

[Guest end3]

True. I probably should have said that what god did was evil. Not that god was evil.

 

That said, does it really matter whether god "controlled" the situation or whether he simply set the situation in motion already knowing what the outcome would be?

IMO, that would make the test to benefit those who take the test, not God himself...i.e. that they learn to discern.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

At what cost, though? Eternity in hell when god didn't even bother to explain both of the options between which they were supposed to "discern"?

 

How could they discern when only one of the options was presented to them? How could they understand "evil" without they experience it for themselves? Especially with god refusing to explain it.

 

And how could the threat of death, hell, and the grave be of any benefit to them (or anybody), when they had absolutely NO concept of what those words meant?

[miamia]

IH, you must understand, that theoretically, in relation to god vs adam and eve, this is exponentially worse than me conceiving my son, providing the perfect life for him, then at the age where he starts to become skeptical and defiant, (which is a sign of intelligence and a healthy parent child relationship, according to current research, aand starts at about 1 and a half) cast him out onto the street for taking a cookie out of the cookie jar at his tender age, destroying along side his trust and happiness, the supposed perfect balance of the entire global ecosystem, (which according to the bible was peaceful, and without death until "the fall".)just because I had set up a massive booby trap of incomprehensible scale in case they took a cookie. Aafter which my child has to work for their food while the whole the earth rebels against their efforts.JUST because I told him, you better listen to me, or something bad will happen. Well if the entire universe is under my control, and I can freely decide that no harm would come to anyone or my child no matter what they did, doesn't it seem sadistic and cruel that i would come up with a set of arbitrary rules that I foresaw they would disobey, and ruin their lives and the lives of BILLIONS of unwitting helpless people to come because of it, causing unending war, pain, and agony, not to mention hell itself?

 

This narrative of genesis was written by someone who hated death, pain, sickness, and having to plough their fields. It was later embellished by an individual who wanted their underlings to obey their "holy inspired word" with complete obedience and zero skepticism.. why IH, would god create humans with skepticism, such a powerful productive neccesary trait, then beg them not to use it, but to rely on faith. If he is omnipotent, why would a god create this earth and all the organisms on it, nevermind the vast universe that surrounds it, and PUNISH IS HIS CREATION for not living up to his expectations, when he made them just as they are.how can he expect anything other than what will happen if he is omnipotent omniscient etc. How can you disappoint an entity that knows everything you will do before it happens, and should be able to predict your vast ineptitude?

 

 

"I believe my point was that even if they had no experience with good and evil, they had the capability to develop trust through OTHER experiences. I think this adequately demonstrates my point. "

How can you penalize someone for not trusting you. Faith is not a virtue, faith can get you seriously hurt. If they did not trust God fully, it WAS because he either did not make himself seem fully trustworthy, or he, being omnpotent, created them in a way that they would not trust him. Or, *spoiler* god does not exist.

 

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god;because if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.-Thomas Jefferson.

[bornagainathiest]

 

True. I probably should have said that what god did was evil. Not that god was evil.

 

That said, does it really matter whether god "controlled" the situation or whether he simply set the situation in motion already knowing what the outcome would be?

IMO, that would make the test to benefit those who take the test, not God himself...i.e. that they learn to discern.

 

 

That can't be, End.

 

Adam and Eve were made innocent by God and unable to learn discernment.  Once again you're comparing them to us, using us as a model for them.  That can't be done.  I've addressed this yesterday.  Here...  http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/72646-how-to-make-a-christian-absolutely-livid/page-3#.V0dg2PkrJD8 (In post # 51)  

 

They were genetically, developmentally and socially different from us.  And they were also morally 'blank', unable to tell good from evil.  They were so different from us as to make any kind of comparison meaningless.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Ok, let's rock.

 

God gives Adam the experience of "good" by providing him with Eve. Not sure if he explained to Adam that this was an instance of "good".

 

There is also evidence/a statement that they felt no shame for being naked.

 

Then the Debil convinced Eve....she "saw", i.e. perceived. Trusted through conversation?? Matter of fact, the Bible says she had several new interpretations of the tree after talking with the rotten snake.

 

I believe my point was that even if they had no experience with good and evil, they had the capability to develop trust through OTHER experiences. I think this adequately demonstrates my point.

Now we come to the crux of the genesis myth.  god gave Adam and Eve an understanding of what he considered "good".  It was "good" for Adam to have a helpmate; god looked at his creation and saw that it was "good".  Thus, in setting up the equation between "good" and "evil", god made sure Adam and Eve had experiential knowledge of his interpretation of "good".

 

But what about "evil"?  Nowhere in the text does god explain his concept of it.  The closest he comes is in saying that it was "not good" for man to be alone; but that level of "not good" is nowhere near the level of evil that would justify death, sin, hellfire and brimstone.

 

god produced a "test", as you say; but only gave the test-takers half of the information they needed to pass it.  They only had half of the equation.  They had a basic understanding of "good"; but no idea whatsoever about "evil".  Yet god expected them to choose between "good" and "evil".

 

This is precisely why the serpent was able to tempt Eve.  He was the only one being honest with them.  "If you eat this fruit, you will be like god, knowing the difference between "good" and "evil".

 

The name of the tree itself told Adam and Eve that god was hiding something; how could they trust him?  The serpent told Adam and Eve exactly what it was that god was hiding; how could they NOT trust him?  Having no other social structure upon which to base their understanding of "trust"; Adam and Eve did exactly what one might expect of a naive child: they trusted the one who was telling the "truth".

 

So, as we can see, god hung the fate of the entire history of humanity, upon the ability of two naive children to willingly trust in someone who clearly could not be trusted.  god is evil.

 

Appears like this is moving towards a free will discussion. Did God control the snake? You're essentially saying that God controlled the snake and Adam and Eve and the rest of us as well. If that's the case, then I don't see there is much we can do about it. Otherwise. the story supposes we need to learn to appreciate and love God for His vision and move on. I don't see how you can make the assertion that God is evil with your relative observation point.

 

 

Nope.  

 

You can't assert that Adam and Eve could learn and appreciate and love as we do those things, End.  

 

They were fundamentally different on many levels and only became like us after they ate the fruit.  

[bornagainathiest]

Ok, let's rock.

 

God gives Adam the experience of "good" by providing him with Eve. Not sure if he explained to Adam that this was an instance of "good".  

 

Adam wouldn't have been able to see or understand anything 'good' until after He ate the fruit God told him not to eat, End.   Catch-22.   

 

There is also evidence/a statement that they felt no shame for being naked.

 

Then the Debil convinced Eve....she "saw", i.e. perceived. Trusted through conversation?? Matter of fact, the Bible says she had several new interpretations of the tree after talking with the rotten snake.

 

I believe my point was that even if they had no experience with good and evil, they had the capability to develop trust through OTHER experiences. I think this adequately demonstrates my point.

 

Nope.

 

Even if they had experienced good and evil before the serpent arrived, they wouldn't have been able to understand what those things were.  

 

Understanding had to wait until after eating the fruit.  

 

Catch-22 again.

[bornagainathiest]

Let's save ourselves time. The Bible pretty much says this is a test.

 

Was it a fair test, End?

 

With no hidden penalties?

 

No secret terms and conditions that A & E couldn't understand?

 

A test that was possible for them to pass?

[Guest end3]

 

 

True. I probably should have said that what god did was evil. Not that god was evil.

 

That said, does it really matter whether god "controlled" the situation or whether he simply set the situation in motion already knowing what the outcome would be?

IMO, that would make the test to benefit those who take the test, not God himself...i.e. that they learn to discern.

 

 

That can't be, End.

 

Adam and Eve were made innocent by God and unable to learn discernment.  Once again you're comparing them to us, using us as a model for them.  That can't be done.  I've addressed this yesterday.  Here...  http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/72646-how-to-make-a-christian-absolutely-livid/page-3#.V0dg2PkrJD8 (In post # 51)  

 

They were genetically, developmentally and socially different from us.  And they were also morally 'blank', unable to tell good from evil.  They were so different from us as to make any kind of comparison meaningless.

 

All we have is the context. You are right to an extent in my opinion, but the snake changed Eve's perception in at least three ways.....one of which was "good". So either she knew good beforehand or it was imparted to her through the conversation. She developed a perception that moved her to action.

[Guest end3]

They were fundamentally different on many levels and only became like us after they ate the fruit.

Nope.

[Guest end3]

 

Ok, let's rock.

 

God gives Adam the experience of "good" by providing him with Eve. Not sure if he explained to Adam that this was an instance of "good".  

 

Adam wouldn't have been able to see or understand anything 'good' until after He ate the fruit God told him not to eat, End.   Catch-22.   

 

There is also evidence/a statement that they felt no shame for being naked.

 

Then the Debil convinced Eve....she "saw", i.e. perceived. Trusted through conversation?? Matter of fact, the Bible says she had several new interpretations of the tree after talking with the rotten snake.

 

I believe my point was that even if they had no experience with good and evil, they had the capability to develop trust through OTHER experiences. I think this adequately demonstrates my point.

 

Nope.

 

Even if they had experienced good and evil before the serpent arrived, they wouldn't have been able to understand what those things were.  

 

Understanding had to wait until after eating the fruit.  

 

Catch-22 again.

 

Hard to say what levels "knowledge" means. I can see they were capable of experiencing, but what constitutes some level of understanding we call "knowledge"....I'm not sure.

[Guest end3]

 

Let's save ourselves time. The Bible pretty much says this is a test.

 

Was it a fair test, End?

 

With no hidden penalties?

 

No secret terms and conditions that A & E couldn't understand?

 

A test that was possible for them to pass?

 

It depends on whether God controlled the snake......and the ramifications thereof.

[Guest end3]

At what cost, though?

I believe Jesus states that narrow is the gate...even today. Seems evident that God knew from the beginning.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

At what cost, though?

I believe Jesus states that narrow is the gate...even today. Seems evident that God knew from the beginning.

 

So, predestination?  

 

Which answers the question: god did control the snake.  

 

Therefore god did intentionally set Adam and Eve up for failure; which brings us to the conclusion that god did manipulate their trust, thereby rendering trust, in this case, "evil".

 

Are you satisfied with the answer?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

At what cost, though? Eternity in hell when god didn't even bother to explain both of the options between which they were supposed to "discern"?

 

How could they discern when only one of the options was presented to them? How could they understand "evil" without they experience it for themselves? Especially with god refusing to explain it.

 

And how could the threat of death, hell, and the grave be of any benefit to them (or anybody), when they had absolutely NO concept of what those words meant?

Now, do you care to address the rest of these questions?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Appears like this is moving towards a free will discussion. Did God control the snake? You're essentially saying that God controlled the snake and Adam and Eve and the rest of us as well. If that's the case, then I don't see there is much we can do about it. Otherwise. the story supposes we need to learn to appreciate and love God for His vision and move on. I don't see how you can make the assertion that God is evil with your relative observation point.

 

Do you not see a problem here?

 

Through your own words, you have said that god "knew it all from the beginning".  Is this the vision we are supposed to love him for?  This "fallen" world?  This world that is only "fallen" because he desired that it be so?  He desired it so much that he purposefully set Adam and Eve up to take the fall.  And now we are supposed to "appreciate and love" him for it?  

 

I think you haven't seen enough "evil" in your world, yet, End3; if you had, you'd not be so quick to defend the creator of it.  

[Guest end3]

What I am seeing is intervention by the snake. I expect A&E were on there way to "knowledge" of good via their relationship with God....only good. THIS is what I meant when I said learn to appreciate.

 

But the snake intervened.

 

Let me please talk tomorrow.