Talk:Eutheism and dystheism

This article is the result of merging several articles, Dystheism, Eutheism and dystheism, and Maltheism. Refer to those articles for the histories and related Talk. In particular, see Talk:Maltheism for most of the discussion before Dec 21, 2004. --BM 21:50, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that one component of dystheism we are missing is the idea of a fallible God. When George Burns observes he made the pit of the avocado "too big," he suggests God may be learning. I do not have any sources, but my understanding from talking with some Kabbalists is that are a number of forms of Judaism, some quite old, that purport that God, while omnipotent in human terms, is fallible and capable of learning.

Maltheism, since it means, essentially, "Evil god," is essentially Satanism (Satan= adversary/accuser). I can see why the term is dystheism is preferred, since the Greeks, for instance, did not see their gods as actively evil, just dangerous. Being divine, they were good, or at least beyond human moral judgment. Maltheism would be inaccurate to describe Gods who were merely many and fractious.

Inbetween/neither/both?
What is the therm people used to describe God (or the deity that people affiliate themselves with) is both good and evil, (or neither good nor evil, or even still, between good and evil)? because while we can classify the actions done by god into "Good" and "Evil", wouldn't the character as a whole would necessarily possess both characteristics, and hence, be both "Good and evil" (or neither, or inbetween, depends on how you classify it)? besides, putting God into some framework of being "Good" (or any character framework, really) would be too much of a constraint coexisting with, like, omnipotence. I mean, simply put, if God is necessarily good, then it is incapable of being evil (otherwise it won't be necessarily good, but perhaps a mixture of good and evil), and because God have something incapable of doing, God would have corresponding incompetencies, and thus not omnipotent (I would suppose the same goes for a description of "Evil", apparently)

I am not saying we can't judge God as a character, but then again, wouldn't there be a necessity to account for the multifaceted nature, maybe as a necessity of God being omnipotent?

Impartial to dystheism?
This majority of this article seems to discuss dystheism. Perhaps eutheism should be made an article and this could be its counterpart. Regarding the previous person's comment, I do not believe that dystheism is the same as lacking omniscience. -Moogle from 128.187.0.164 04:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Moogle, this is Craig. I did a lot of the rewriting of this article per DAB's request. I found that eutheism/dystheism is a dialectic, it's hard to talk about one without talking about the other, without citing things in terms of the other. This would make any two articles on the separate subjects of eutheism and dystheism either very disjointed or full of replications. Hence, the current structure.

Dystheism is the focus of this article because the bulk of the discourse about most religion and virtually all monotheistic religion is eutheistic by default. In fact, the reason why talking about dystheism as an alternative to eutheism is important is precisely because it is presumptive to assume that all belief in God is eutheistic by default, and one would think that an online encyclopedia ought to shatter naive assumptions by providing such knowledge coherently.

It's been argued here both ways&mdash;Detractors have said that maltheism shouldn't be talked about because it's a &quot;made-up word,&quot; but then when an academically blessed word is offered, it's argued that Maltheism just isn't a &quot;real&quot; movement because it has no church, no organization, it &quot;only&quot; exists online, etc. By this logic, any idea shared by people for which there is no &quot;blessed&quot; academically defined name and no formal organization is not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, even if people come forward that share this idea and even if a word is used by them to describe themselves! That's like saying the first advocates of &quot;extreme programming&quot; or &quot;design patterns&quot;, or other at one-time new computer software related notions would have been deemed unworthy of an article here if no one had already written a best-selling book on the subjects. To me, this hardly seems the way to grow an online encyclopedia, by shortcircuiting innovation and expansion of ideas.

Craig zimmerman 03:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Satanism/Maltheism differences
What are the differences between Satanism and Maltheism? I think that would be an important point to make, if only because of the stigma of Satanism.

---

I think the main difference, as indicated by the article, is that a Maltheist doesn't celebrate or even necessarily believe in "the devil". The Emmanuel Goldstein analogy is a good one, imho. I also disagree on the point made above regarding the term "maltheism" necessarily being connected to Satanism (and let's not get into Levay, I mean the actual devil worshipping kind).

A malicious and deceptive monotheistic God that is to be loathed is a very different concept from a rebellious angel/minor-god that rebels against the "#1 God", starts his own kingdom and is to be celebrated for it. There is quite a lot that seperates these two worldviews.


 * Whoever wrote this description, I compliment you on your insight. This is the very difference between Maltheism and Satanism in a nutshell. It is not a matter of dissociating ourselves from any stigma associated with Satanism by God worshippers&mdash;hell, you think telling people you believe that the God most people worship is evil helps us avoid that sort of stigma? I am frankly disturbed by those who want to lump together all people who don't share their positive opinion of God into one basket, simply for their convenience. Your comments make the distinction clear, and demonstrate that the two are not the same merely because some people would prefer to believe that this is so. -Craig zimmerman 03:19, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

maltheists believe
this article still has the same old problem: It says "Maltheists believe", "Maltheists do", etc., but there is no written source, publication, organization or anything at all that authoritatively speaks for the "maltheists" of this world. So apart from the self-evident "maltheists believe that God is evil, or not wholly good", all these statements are not verifiable in any meaningful sense. dab (&#5839;) 12:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

We have Euthyphro dilemma and Theodicy, where the points at hand are discussed with encyclopedic relevance. This article still has no solid references. "eutheism" and "dystheism" are terms that theologists can coin repeatedly when treating the above topics. "maltheism" is "eutheism" coined by somebody without any knowledge of Greek. "Maltheism" is a blog. Any attempt to make it sound otherwise will have to provide references, sorry. It is also not permissible to upload a personal essay to Wikipedia after simply changing every sentence to begin with "Maltheists believe/think/point out". I am sorry, but that't just not what Wikipedia is aiming at. dab (&#5839;) 12:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Maltheists don't have any real organization besides the group at beliefnet because they aren't a movement and they don't aim to be a movement (I suppose it could also be oppression/suppression, the person that first started writing about Maltheism was killed in an 'accident'). According to them, going around 'converting' others to Malthetism would be sinking to the level of those that worship God.

I do understand that from your point of view, the article in Maltheism is "a personal essay", but it's more that just that. It's a set of beliefs that a group, no matter how small, has subscribed to. What next? Should we erase everything regarding Jews/Muslims/Christians/Buddhists because they don't have a single consolidated oraganization?--Morzas Merix 01:54, May 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you Morzas. As I mentioned before, I have to wonder what would it take to &quot;legitimize&quot; Maltheism in an adequate way? The fact that people use the term, that people believe this way, doesn't seem to be enough. Do we have to be &quot;blessed&quot; by an academic authority, apparently, before inclusion is warranted? Do we have to build a church that God worshippers would firebomb? These criteria would seem to make entries for many groups unworthy of entry here (as I've already suggested, the Marranos for one). -Craig zimmerman 03:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I do in fact agree with the majority of the article, but the term maltheism is only barely ever used. In fact, I would be very interested to know how many people actually do believe that a God exists that is evil, instead of using it as hypothetical viewpoint to defend antitheistic similarities of secularism, atheism and agnosticism. I do believe that the bulk of this article makes perfect sense in the antitheism article, with a reference to a smaller maltheism article. The majority of references in the article refer to sources who claim to be atheist and use maltheism in a hypothetical sense. This article should reflect that. In no way do I want to harm the term: I think it is a completely useful and valid description of people who believe in God, and God being evil. Preserving that meaning should absolutely prevail. Precisely its value as hypothetical viewpoint in religious discussions makes maltheism legitimate. Robert John Kaper 21:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

DAB: &quot;Robert Koons' certainly isn't the first elaboration, who said that?&quot;

Actually, I think you did. :-) You were the one who found Koons' essay, as I recall, and said it was the only formal academic reference you could find on the topic. If it's the only one, it would also be the first. Again, between you and me, I think it is vain to presume that Koons was the first or the only, but thus far his essay represented the only &quot;legitimate&quot; academic data point, if that is to be considered the sole indicator of significance. -Craig zimmerman 03:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Atheism is not a belief system
While I understand many Christians like to group atheists with God-haters, atheism is rather badly out of place when categorised as a dystheistic belief system. I'm not disagreeing many atheists today tend to think eutheistic views do not make logically much sense if one reads the Bible as it is (see the Skeptic's Annotated Bible for examples), but atheism itself is neither dystheistic, a belief nor a system. --Lakefall 21:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

on the adam and eve part. Adam and Eve did die, according to the bible. so it wouldnt have been a lie.

Poor design -> argument for dystheism?
Would the argument against creationism such as Poor design be valid as an argument rather for dystheism because this shows the deity in the discussion may be, perhaps, sadistic?

Biblical support for dystheistic viewpoint...
I made the following change, because the latter examples cited were non-canonical, and, I thought, weakened the paragraph's argument:

"They note that God tells people that it's wrong to kill, but then exhorts them to kill in his name at his behest (e.g., the slaughter of the native inhabitants of Canaan by the returning Hebrews, the Christian Crusades, the Inquisition, the missionary practices of colonial Europeans, and today's Islamic Jihad). Some argue that these were all examples of free will."

changed to...

"They note that God tells people that it's wrong to kill, but then exhorts them to kill in his name at his behest (e.g., the slaughter of the native inhabitants of Canaan by the returning Hebrews). Some argue that this was an example of free will."


 * The section is about Biblical support, so your point is taken. However, I restored the reference to those latter examples as more recent instances of the same phenomenon. Craig zimmerman 21:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?
This article consistently presents the dystheistic opinion more than its opposition. It also uses phrases like "dystheists believe...", which seems like a weasel word to me. Finally, it doesn't reference sources for most of its assertions about dystheism. It just lacks an encyclopedic tone overall.Makerowner 03:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Trimming
This article was far too long and unencyclopedic, I trimmed it way down to make it more clear and useful, and changed the definiton of dystheism so that it more accurately reflects Coon's defintion. Arguments and speculations about these terms can be linked to from this page, but should really be projects for outside Wikipedia ThaddeusFrye 07:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No disagreement on the length, Thaddeus. But it's become clear that "Eutheism and Dystheism" is the wrong name for an entry like this. I re-created the separate Dystheism entry employing your changes, but correcting numerous typos and restoring just some of what you omitted. I also cited explicit references and left notes in the Talk:Dystheism entry. Craig zimmerman

The most recent edits to this page were rife with so many errors, so many spurious deletions of citations and references, that something needed to be done to clean this up. The name of the person who's cited as coining this term, Robert Koons, had his name spelled wrong throughout the entry! There were numerous additional errors that, had they been done by randoms, could have reasonably been considered vandalism. I am really shocked that people who are taking an active interest in this site (and in this page) would so casually introduce spelling errors and delete citations. I realize that the intent was to reset things and come back later to tidy up, but that was never actually done. I apologize if anyone feels I slighted their efforts. I tried to restore what was deleted, and retain much of what was added (the Calvinism and Dostoevsky line items). I have also tried to retain the goal of cutting things down where they were too longwinded, and I realize someone is likely to come in and give this entry a buzz cut sooner than later.

I still believe that this entry stopped being about "eutheism" in any meaningful sense a while ago. My own and Thaddeus' recent edits both have leaned us more towards an entry about dystheism, period. This is ultimately trivial because there are redirects in place, but my opinion is still that the article should be called Dystheism and that "Eutheism and dystheism" should redirect to Dystheism. I appreciate the fact that "Maltheism" was left as a redirect to here. Thanks to all those who advocated that. (I noted, by the way, that the word "maltheistic" is used in several places on Wikipedia to describe the dystheistic sentiment.)

Again, it was not my intent to disparage or dismiss anyone's efforts in cleaning up this article. It needed it. I hope I have restored documentation and examples that deserve to be in here and have also preserved NPOV as much as possible. Craig zimmerman

Could this Dickinson poem be an example?
 * Apparently with no surprise
 * To any happy Flower
 * The Frost beheads it at its play —
 * In accidental power —
 * The blonde Assassin passes on —
 * The Sun proceeds unmoved
 * To measure off another Day
 * For an Approving God.

It's a small thing, but I remembered the "Approving God" in this poem and always wondered. &mdash;vivacissamamente 22:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, a very good example. Thank you, I've included it in the page. Craig zimmerman 17:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This article renamed from Eutheism and dystheism back to Dystheism. Craig zimmerman 17:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)