MovieChat Forums > The Prince of Egypt (1998) Discussion > My response to the idea that 'God is the...

My response to the idea that 'God is the villain'

posted 11 years ago by mtman318
23 replies | jump to latest

I originally put this in the "Anti-villain Rameses thread, but I figured it could warrant a new thread. Here it is:

As for all the "God is the villain" statements here, if God actually created mankind, and knows all things, etc, then how can we possibly have all the information to judge whether or not God's actions are evil? And why are certain things "evil"? What makes murder evil? It's because we're taking or ending something that we have no power to give back, right? But if God gave life to begin with, can't he also take it back when it seems right in his eyes? And who says that he can't give life back to those from whom he's taken it (which is, in a sense, everyone)? Besides, what is life, or even identity? Does it consist solely of existence as a physical body, or does it exist outside the known physical world? If you ask me, if someone hasn't found the answers to these (and many, MANY more) questions, or at least TRIED to find the answers, then they have no business saying God is evil (or even good, for that matter).

Now I suppose one could simply say, "I don't believe God exists, so these questions don't matter." Well, that's certainly a lazy way out, but it cannot work for this movie. "Huh?" Well, in every narrative story, whether it be in literature, film, etc, we assume it basically has its own universe that it exists in (or exists within it, I'm not sure which is the correct way of saying it). For example, the Lord of the Rings has Middle-earth, etc. There are also metaphysical aspects to each universe; so, in Middle-earth there is magic, and the "rules" on which it is based. Now, the Prince of Egypt is still a narrative story, and in the universe within that story, God clearly exists. *Pauses to take a breath* Therefore, you can't just ignore the above questions about God and morality in the context of the events in the movie. "You cannot keep ignoring us!" like Moses said. Well, I guess you still CAN, but it would certainly be a lazy thing to do, maybe even without integrity.

Am I overthinking this?! I don't know. In my opinion, though, if something is making me think this much, then it must be good.

[–] Severedevil 11 years ago

You're correct that a supernatural creator who runs an afterlife had extensive implications on the world. However, the movie itself does not commit to or explore those implications. It can potentially construct an alternate morality based off the premise of such a deity -- but it does not bother.

For example, if the mass-murder of Egyptian babies was justified because they're all going straight to heaven anyway, then... well, heaven is better than Earth, so God's actually doing them a kindness by skipping over their time on Earth. (The emotional anguish caused to those who cared about the kids is pretty bad, but perhaps justifiable.) But, unless I'm misremembering, the movie presents no such justification. They just kill, and claim it's OK because God endorses it. Uh... no.

[–] MetFanMac 11 years ago

Wait, you've lost me. When you say "mass-murder of Egyptian babies" are you referring to the Plague of the Firstborn, or to the killing of the Hebrew boys?

Supermodels...spoiled stupid little stick figures mit poofy lips who sink only about zemselves.

[–] Severedevil 11 years ago

The plague of the firstborn.

[–] MetFanMac 11 years ago

Ah. The reason I was confused you see, is that the plague affected ALL the Egyptian firstborns--not just the babies. (And furthermore, the movie takes big creative license here because the Pharaoh was also a firstborn, which led to him finally releasing the Hebrews--expelling them, really.)

Supermodels...spoiled stupid little stick figures mit poofy lips who sink only about zemselves.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MetFanMac 11 years ago

According to the Biblical account there is no heir to the throne mentioned at all, child or otherwise.

Supermodels...spoiled stupid little stick figures mit poofy lips who sink only about zemselves.

[–] MultiSanity 11 years ago

The Pharaoh wasn't the first born, he had a sister. This wasn't something that was covered or even mentioned in the movie however. I was curious about it as well and had to research it.

[–] MultiSanity 11 years ago

It's pretty much clear to see that you don't study the Bible at all (Old and New Testament) else you wouldn't be postulating that God is or can be evil, especially if you believe that when "bad" things happen the being to blame for it is God. Bad things don't happen because of God they happen because the forces of evil (aka Satan and his angels etc) are at work. As far as God perhaps not being "good" because he doesn't step in, the Bible states in no uncertain terms about not only the free-will of man but also how this earth is basically Satan's and it's been corrupted since sin first entered into the earth and the hearts of men. Certainly I think some people expect a so-called omnipotent presence to intervene when bad things happen but that's a little more than absurd. Sometimes people need to be left to their own devices to work things out for themselves, it helps to create and maintain independence. I certainly think it would be rather tedious and oppressive to have a higher power intervening all the time in even the most mundane things (because according to the Bible sin is sin, murder holds the same weight as lying).

[–] mtman318 11 years ago

If this is in response to me, please read my original post first before you respond again... or if you did actually read it, read it again carefully. At no point did I ever claim that God is evil. On the contrary, I argued against the idea.

Incidentally, there are passages in both the Old and New Testaments that could be interpreted to mean that God is or can be evil (at least by most people's standards nowadays), but posting them (and commentating on them) will probably go beyond the scope of this message board. But when has that ever stopped anyone on the internet?* So if anyone is really interested in going in depth on this stuff, I'll do my best to respond/inform.

*For evidence, I cite every YouTube video in existence, especially ones with religious themes.

[–] viking-fjord_90 9 years ago

Regarding your mention of sin. That was God's fault too. We're supposed to be "God's children", no? What does a child do if you tell them specifically not to do something? They do it out of curiousity simply because you told them not to. Thus, God should have known, or at least anticipated, that they would eat of the tree of knowledge.

"But wait a minute, wasn't that in of itself because of the snake/Satan?"

Answer: No. If it really was paradise, the snake/serpent shouldn't have been able/allowed entrance to that place. To be sure of it, God should have placed those Angels with the flaming swords to guard the garden to begin with, to prevent the snake entering. As a matter of fact, if the tree possessed such a threat, why place Adam and Eve where the tree was located? Why even bother creating such a tree?? So, it the origin of sin according to the Bible is entirely God's fault. He set them (Adam and Eve) up to fail ;)

[–] smibo-12109 8 years ago

MulitiSanity,

I have studied the bible, and the points you bring up here speak, in some degree, to the questions that still nag me about it. We seem to agree on one point though; if God is the ultimate arbiter of what is "good" and what is "evil", then it is patently absurd for us to try to pin suchlike labels on him/her/it.

However, it seems to me that the Bible is significant as much for what it does not say, as it is for what it does. A minor example: per the Bible, God knows the number of hairs on your head (Matthew 10:30), and also, apparently, the number of "grains of sand by the seashore." So far, so good - one would expect an omniscient entity to be aware of such details. Then at Psalms 147:4, we read that "He counts the number of the stars; he calls them all by name."

Note that the hairs on your head and the grains of sand are not important enough to warrant names, yet every star has a name. We are left to speculate upon why the stars need names though, as the Bible is otherwise silent on that matter.

The larger questions however, go directly to the points you brought up in your post, above. To wit:

Who created Satan? I know that's rhetorical, but still; who is responsible for this imperfect angel with the prideful spirit, wreaking havoc upon the Earth? Did God make a "mistake?" What was God's intention, when he decided to create some angels with character flaws serious enough to embroil the entire planet in such an epic, bitter conflict as that between "good" and "evil" (concepts which he defined to begin with)?

While we're at it, what kind of "loving father" would plant the equivalent of a hand-grenade tree in a garden, THEN let his two innately curious children play there (albeit with an admonition not to touch the hand grenades), THEN send his pet snake with the rotten heart in, to cajole them into a game of pin-pulling ping-pong?

I guess these questions (and others) are above our pay grade though, because God didn't see fit to provide the answers in the book of Everything-He-Wants-Us-To-Know.

[–] angelic1o7 11 years ago

God is an absentee landlord

[–] HydoanGiffaphuhx 10 years ago

Does a mother have the right to take life back from a child?

Evil is relevant to the observer and does not exist outside consciousness, therefore NO ONE, even an omnipotent God, has no say in the morals of others.

Sure he can make rules but if we are given free will then he should not interfere with mortal life.

I'm an atheist and i like this movie, but i think there could have been a lot less bloodshed if God just appeared to the Pharaoh instead of Moses.

He might of been stubborn but God should be a master debater.

[–] mtman318 10 years ago

Does a mother have the right to take life back from a child?

Apparently she does if it's still an embryo or fetus. But in all seriousness, that's an excellent question. I say no, in that neither the mother nor the father have any conscious involvement in the actual creation/formation of the mind and will of a child (besides the mother making sure she doesn't ingest anything that would be harmful to its development). True, they provide the DNA, but even if a person's entity is composed of only his or her body formed via the pattern of said DNA--rather than a body with a spirit of some sort--yet that person is still much more than a very long, complicated series of chemical bonds and reactions. In other words, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts; that's my opinion anyway.

But your implied question is "If not, then why would God have that right?" Well, if a person doesn't have a spirit, then I would say God doesn't have the right either. I think it would be next to impossible to argue otherwise. But if a person is made up of both spirit and body, and the spirit constitutes most (or all) of a person's conscious mind and/or free will, and if God was the creator (or at least provider) of this spirit, and--finally--if this spirit is what allows a body to be alive in the first place, then my answer is yes, he does have the right to both give and take life.

Now, the movie doesn't answer these questions (though the existence of spirits is implied in the last plague), and to be honest, I'm glad it doesn't. I like that the focus is on the people of the story, and I personally think all adaptations of Biblical stories should be that way. Besides, it's nice to be able to actually think about these things, rather than get spoon fed messages.

[I] think there could have been a lot less bloodshed if God just appeared to the Pharaoh instead of Moses.

Can't argue with that. And there's nothing in the movie that openly indicates that this couldn't happen. However, there do seem to be implications in the Bible itself that he can't just appear to anyone--that they have to be ready spiritually, and probably mentally and emotionally as well; otherwise, they are basically destroyed by his presence (and, in my opinion, destroying the Pharaoh would just make things worse for the Hebrews). There are a few other complexities to the conflict as well, but the point is it's all implied. Like the Bible, in this movie God has a tendency of not explaining himself, for better and for worse.

And that's basically the point of the opening post: There are so many unanswered questions regarding God in this movie (not to mention in real life) that we shouldn't be too quick to declare God as a villain, or hero for that matter--like he says "I am that I am."

Sure he can make rules but if we are given free will then he should not interfere with mortal life.

I actually agree with you here, for the most part. Though on one hand, it was at the point where the Hebrews needed outside intervention in order to be free from slavery, and they didn't have any allies who could help them (or at least none powerful enough). On the other hand, if God helped them with this, then why doesn't he intervene with every case of injustice? Either get completely involved, or not at all! But I guess it goes back to the point of God not explaining himself (assuming that he exists), and perhaps there would be a good reason not to always get involved which isn't apparent from our perspective.

But that's talking about in real life. For just the movie, I don't really have too much of a problem with it.

Evil is relevant [do you mean relative?] to the observer and does not exist outside consciousness, therefore NO ONE, even an omnipotent God, has no say in the morals of others.

Eh... that has unsavory implications. If we have no say on what constitutes morality outside of our own individual consciousness, then are all our laws unjust? Does that mean we have no moral authority over murderers, rapists, etc, and therefore cannot justly punish them and prevent such crimes--not to mention petty crimes? Or can it also mean that we should be able to lynch anyone we think is a murderer or rapist (or any reason really), without repercussion? Or do laws have nothing to do with morality--and if so, what are they then?

[–] HydoanGiffaphuhx 10 years ago

Woops, sorry for the slip in vocabulary.

Morals are bias and laws should be fair. A Christians morals differ from a Hindus because of bias.

I can't argue the existence of a spirit but i can counter with another analogical question.

If a fully-aware and emotional AI were created, should it have basic rights? How about a clone or a "printed" human?

[–] imthebaddest11 10 years ago

I didn't hear anyone say he was a villain, and I don't think that killing someone makes anyone a villain maybe they just like to kill.

"Art to me is a question mark. I don't think it should ever be an answer." Marilyn Manson

[–] mtman318 9 years ago

The idea came up on some of the other threads. More likely than not it was from atheists (or anti-theists rather) trying to sound clever, but at the time I was pretty annoyed by it--and thus made this topic.

[–] Brian_McInnis 9 years ago

So if I make little people, (by way of, for instance, reproducing) that makes it totally O.K. for me to torture and kill them if I feel like it. Got it.

[–] mtman318 9 years ago

If that's what you got from my post, then you have bigger problems than reading comprehension.

[–] AndrewGS 9 years ago

That we don't know everything doesn't mean we should refrain from making moral judgments or that they will necessarily be wrong.
I believe murder is wrong not exclusively because it constitutes a taking of something but because it inflicts great pain and suffering and prevents the pleasures that the person could have had as well as disregarding the person's autonomy; those certainly hold even if the killer had given the person life to begin with.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Moviefan-Two-Kay-Four 8 years ago

You've pretty much hit the nail, right on the head. If God exists as the Bible says, then He is the Creator of all life and can take it at His discretion...whether anyone else agrees or not. Beyond His promises to us, God answers to no one other than Himself. His very nature is what sets the standard for good and evil, right and wrong. As Dostoevsky famously said, "without God, everything is permissible."