Is God really good or evil?

You don't know what God is. Some things written down to tell us what God is, is just to get us by until we can understand the nature of God more.

And what to understand is, we don't know, and we only know our life experience, and adding God to that, we only know God's actions, not the intent.

When we think of God's intent, it is matching up to the values we hold as good and true.

And this makes sense to me.

I'm not trying to argue with anybody, but this is just how i basically see it.

God is an alien who employed the humans to mine gold for him, I think that he is neither good or evil, but he likes to think of himself as good and likes to make himself known. I can understand the criticism against him, because even though he is called God he thinks in only black and white, he sends off mixed messages, and has very contradicting views on things. I think God enjoys torturing humans and letting some of the priests get away with the ritualistic child abuse, making women nothing more than servants to their husbands and vessels to produce more children, God only loves people/creatures who agree with him and hates those who don't and throws them away and hating them for simply not agreeing with him. Nobody knows the real name of this God and is only called God because he is a powerful alien being that exists outside of the earth and probably could not survive on earth so He had to clone himself by using Mary to have his baby by artificially inseminating her, and then he rejected his own son while he called out to him during his crucifixion. His son was crucified for going against tradition and having different ideas about things. Jewish people are Gods favorite humans and maybe the only types of humans he will actually love and he does not really care about the rest of the other humans, even though there are also Christians and Muslims, God does not care about their points of views as long as they are dedicated to him and willing to be expendable. There is a lot more I can say but I will leave this for now.

Originally Posted by Razare

Then the science of rocket ships was not science in the 1500, it was fantasy?

There you go! :D Now I think we are reaching some common ground. At the time it certainly wasn't science. If it was even thought of, it would have been science-fiction.

I agree that scientists today should not professional invest in unproven science. The point of science is to prove based on evidence. I don't think that should change. All I express is a belief that science is in its infancy, and that one day the existence of certain supernatural occurrences will be proven and enter the realm of science. I'm not sure if God ever will enter that realm. But I don't see why spirits shouldn't eventually be uncovered. But yes, I understand perfectly that it's not "science" as it is today. Neither you nor I can say what science will be one million years from now, that's my point.

I pretty much agree with this, except, I don't like to assume that any sort of spirits exist because there is no evidence for it. I'd say the probability of anything we can think of existing but doesn't have evidence is quite low. Typically, science tends to discover things that we don't at all think of, and our common unsupported beliefs move into the realm of mythology.

I don't think it's a flaw. It's great! I don't think science should be any different. However, I refuse to limit my beliefs to what scientists dictate because I believe I can do better based on my own life experience.

"Ghost aren't real!"

"Well, I saw one."

Which would you believe? I'm not really expecting anyone else to believe it. But when I state my viewpoint, I'm not going to be dissuaded by utter lack of evidence vs. my first-hand evidence. A good scientist wouldn't be either. I just shrug and say, "I know what I've seen to be genuine, another person saw it in conjunction with me on several occasions... neither of us were on chemicals. Yet I understand that I cannot produce scientifically viable evidence."

A good scientist follows the evidence. As of right now, there is absolutely no evidence of ghosts existing, but there is plenty of evidence that ghost sightings are caused by perfectly natural phenomena. There is actually another thread I commented on about ghosts in CT&P.

What if you see a shooting star, and then it's gone?

Could scientists today, prove that shooting star existed?

Certainly the traces would be there, but would they be able to decipher the specifics of that shooting star from all the others, to completely validate your claim? It's just an example, as other people have seen spirits. Now, obviously science has proven a shooting star exists; they just don't prove every single one that falls from the sky. I think with spirits, it's probably a matter of them not being on our dimension, so instruments have difficulty picking them up. While we have souls that can experience them, and our souls interface with our neurology on a sub-atomic level... but that's just my hypothesis on it!

Shooting stars isn't a good analogy to ghosts. We know what causes "shooting stars" and what they are. We have no evidence for any sort of afterlife however. And on top of this there is no evidence of them interacting with our world or being "in another dimension." The way I like to describe things with no evidence is "making stuff up to fit preconceived notions."

My point about subjective & objective is this... no one can know the objective world, because all perception of the objective world is fed in through sensory input and processed by the subjective mind. We have this presumption that somehow adding up subjective mind + subjective mind = 100% objectivity.

I would argue science could never attain 100% objectivity by definition of the human condition, and therefore, never be fully objective, so instead it reaches degrees of objectivity.

I would agree. But I would argue much more that the reason we can't scientifically know reality 100% is more because of limited evidence.

Didn't believe in God growing up. I didn't buy into other people's claims. Upon thinking about the matter for many years, I reached the conclusion that God likely existed. Then also, with my viewpoint on the impossibility of total objectivity, I realized that everyone holds their own reality in their hands. If I believe wholeheartedly there is a pink elephant sitting atop my house, then in my reality there is one, so long as no one else convinces me otherwise. To the non-believer, what makes their reality more valid than mine? Because they have 20 other people on their side?

This sounds like New Age stuff, which I don't buy because there is no evidence to support it.

As an INFJ, I've never been influenced by groups. I'm a loner who thinks for myself, so group logic and herd mentality doesn't sit too well with me. That's why I describe myself as a skeptic, plus my non-believer past.

This isn't why I describe myself as a skeptic. I describe myself as a skeptic because I don't accept claims without due evidence, and I understand the difference between good evidence and bad evidence. I also, understand a good deal about psychology and logical fallacies, which is important for skeptics to know about to accurately arrive at decent conclusions about things. Being anti-conformity doesn't make one a skeptic.

Absolutely! Those who *know* God... well they're usually lost in samadhi and don't speak much. We get lucky, and sometimes they pass their teachings along to those who will listen.

I just enjoy discussing the topic. It's not about being right or wrong, for me it's about a journey toward spiritual truth.

The devout who thinks God is going to send me to Hell for not believing in their brand of religion, is on one step of spiritual truth. The saint is on another. Who is right, who is wrong? It's about realizing yourself toward the goal and not about being correct.

In that regard, I see the atheist as correct, so long as they're believing what they want to believe. Non-belief might very well be the first step toward God. It was for me!

I am concerned about seeking truth and knowledge, not about believing in something. I find the real world to be fascinating and exciting, and want to learn about it.

Originally Posted by Shiro

no he's good for he forgives you anything you do even murder- and he doesn't send anyone to hell. Hell is the choice humans take by rejecting his offer of forgiveness.

The only forgiveness is that of the Self or Man, any other kind that we perceive, can never be truly accounted to God. The way God is described in the Bible, does not make him kind or good, he can be very cruel at times, which makes what is described in there, to me, something human.

God is Man, and everything we see, believe and experience is a reflection of that. God is also the universe, it is beyond ourselves and something we cannot fully grasp. We see and we believe and we reflect.

Both Heaven and Hell are to me, not what to many they appear to be.

If Heaven is paradise that you visit after death, if you lived your life true to your religion, than life on earth would be meaningless, though this is also a point where opinions vary greatly. Would it be a test? Yes, a leap of "faith". There is no evidence whatsoever of what it would really be like, and if it exists, if someone is there, there is no way in reporting that back to "us".

Hell on the other hand, would be where the people go that lived their lives as "free," this would both include criminals and murderers, but also people who led a normal life, but had no religion. Would a lot of them face "eternal" torture, while they did nothing wrong?

So we either have a choice of living our lives to a set of rules without actually truly knowing the "Who" behind them, as opposed to the constitution of a country. Or, we choose our own path, freedom, and in no way does this have to be evil.
If you do not follow the rules, you will suffer? This sounds so typically human to me, and if you look around in the world, heaven and hell is all around you. Earth could even be a definition of Hell.

If God indeed forgives all, then there would be no Hell. And what Heaven would be like, is probably also different to everyone, it is a reflection of the Self, what we want it to be, what it would mean to us.

There is both good and evil in Man, but which is dominant?

People are free to practice religion, they are free to believe. It is up to you to decide. Religion is reflection. God is Man, Man is Good, Man is Evil.

Hmm.. I sometimes wonder if Hell is a concept used to manipulate people into being religious--or else. Perhaps it's not, but some people really are afraid of going to Hell.

This is not to offend anyone but here's what I have understood or what I think I understand about God.

The good:

- Created Heaven and Earth
- Created Humanity
- Saved the Israelites from slavery
- Came down to Earth as Jesus to redeem humanity of their "sins"

The bad:

- Destroyed the cities Sodom & Gomorrah
- Has let several humans burn in Hell because they did not "repent"
- Wiped out the entire human population with a flood
- Has intentions of destroying the world because of "sin"

This is from when I was still attending Christian schools. I've always questioned many of the Biblical stories that were taught and I never got answers to it. Now I just think that God is an imaginary figure meant to keep people at ease and look towards something when they are in need of help.

Hell doesn't exist as we believe it to. In the Bible, there are two words that are usually translated to 'hell;' Sheol and Gehenna. Sheol was the word for being in a state of rest or unawareness (which is why some Christians believe their soul sleeps after life until they are resurrected). Gehenna was an actual place where the people used to throw the bodies of criminals they deemed unworthy for burial, or who died of illness. It was kind of like a trash dump that would burn all the time. Some Christians believe that after they are resurrected, the "wicked" people will be reduced to nothing and simply cease to exist. No eternal torture or damnation; they merely do not exist.

Of course, I don't necessarily believe that, but if you want to believe in a God who is perfectly good, that's a whole heck of a lot easier to swallow. People invented hell. You could look into the history of it, I believe it was Constantine during his reign but I could be mistaken. But, if you think about it, most religion has some kind of political implication. It's like the people, whoever and wherever they are, select a national religion related to their political system and culture (or vice-versa; they feed into each other so much that it's hard to tell which was first). Of course, Christianity fits into capitalism fairly well. It wasn't always like that, but I feel that because people desired a capitalist society, they devalued the scriptures that warned against overly-capitalistic behaviors and changed Christianity to match the economic structure. Everyone has the same theoretical opportunity (because if some people has less of an opportunity, it wouldn't mean as much), but in the end, only certain people make it to the top. It's very black and white (heaven or hell, nothing in between), and we are to assume that the people who made it to the top were somehow better than those who didn't because we are to assume that God is a fair and just God. I think this might be the reason why so many people are against socializing, even those who are not Christian (note: I'm not putting value on it one way or the other, just stating a potential idea). Our political structure reflects our culture which reflects our religion. And, since politics and religion are so closely joined, we can't expect any religious document to be without those biases- even the Bible. Here's a link to a website I was checking out on how Christianity influences our capitalism; How Christianity Created Capitalism | Acton Institute . If anyone is interested, you can check that out :)

The Bible is also no more than a cut-edit-paste version of what it once was. There were at least 20 something scriptures that were supposed to be in the Bible, but never made it in. A long time ago, during Constantine's reign, he killed those who used those scriptures as heretics. Most Christians won't tell you that, though, either because they don't know or because it challenges their structure. Among them are the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, the Gospel of Thomas, The Secret Book of John, and a whole slew of others. They can be referred to as the "Gnostic Gospels." The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library are among them, I think (I'm a little off on definition, so if I've missed something on the specific definition, let me know~).

As for the question of whether God is good or evil, I believe they are good. I'm still developing my own ideas as to whether God is a fully integrated being, accepting both feminine and masculine traits, or if there are two- one male and one female. But a lot that we "know" about God through the Bible has been manipulated by man, and it has also been that humankind didn't understand God and so attributed human traits to Him/Her, such as jealousy and envy. Not much different from Greek mythology (interestingly enough, in many mythological stories that were around before Jesus was ever even thought of, a virgin would give birth to the son of a god. Hmm...coincidence?), where Zeus is an extremely lustful, unfaithful husband. But what separates a God from man, if God is just like us? How are we to assume that a jealous God is also fair and just?

I'm just gonna throw one last thing out there and say that I do watch a TV show called Psychic Kids. Some parents on there rant and rave about how their children are being "attacked by demons" or even Satan himself. I think that's some kind of mild paranoid delusion, or narcissism. If Satan was going to attack someone, of course you'd say he's going after your family because you must be so special if he's gonna take time out of his busy schedule of causing plagues to come attack you and your kids. ._.

In short:
*God does not send people to hell. There is no hell.
*The nature of God's relationship to man is speculative.
*God is probably not nearly as concerned with what religion or non-religion we believe in as how we treat our fellow man. He cannot possibly be so threatened by a different religion that He would send someone to a place of eternal punishment over it.
*The devil is a tulpa, or a being that literally exists because we think of him.
*Everyone is entitled to have beliefs that are different than your own.

Neither, if there is a good they seem pretty indiffirent toward the plight of man. Creator, life is a bitter gift and eternal life...well that nice i guess!

Originally Posted by MilkyWay132

So I've been wondering...if God is real, is he really good or evil? Christians and the Bible insist that he is good, and will even say "God is love." But is this true? Think about it. Doesn't he send people to Hell? Of course, he will send people who do bad things and never repent for those sins to Hell, but what about non-believers? Doesn't he send them to Hell, too? If this is true, isn't that unfair? I'm not trying to attack anyones' religious beliefs, but I am just not sure of the morality of God.

No he will not send you to hell just because you do not believe in him. He send people to hell only when they harm other people.

Most of the people do not really understand god and different people have different levels of understanding of god. You only have to find for yourself what you feel really is GOD.

God (I'm talking about the Christian version now) is an interesting concept. He is supposed to be perfect and everything; hence, He must be both - good and evil. He is rather revengeful and actually pretty scary In the Old Testament. On the other hand: He is loving and caring In the New Testament. Which one is the "real" God, then?