Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,495 Year: 6,752/9,624 Month: 92/238 Week: 9/83 Day: 9/24 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do we know God is "Good"?
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 305 (155338)
11-03-2004 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by jar
11-02-2004 9:45 PM


Re: GOD is complete.
Hello Jar:
Well,as I've said before, good and evil are arbitrary terms that we assign, usually based on personal opinion as opposed to the actual incident.
True. But we can have a consensus on what is good and evil that reflects the opinions of society/humanity as a whole. Our legal system attempts to do this, of course. Just because they are subject to change and evolution doesn't make them any less valid. In fact such evolution ensures that they reflect what we are learning from the past.
Such terms can be applied to incidents. Here's one:
Would you define as good the killing of young children for acts committed by their ancestors many generations prior? (These children are of no threat or danger to you now or ever).
Before we get too deeply buried in specifics, I need to make sure that you and I are talking about things from at the least, a common language.
Agree. Discussing this topic with you, is very much different than discussing this topic with a Biblical inerrantist.
So let's first deal with the Biblical tales.
As I have said in the past, IMHO we must read the Bible remembering that it was written by men of a given period and contains all of the limits, prejudices, bias and culture of their period. Can we agree with those assumptions or do you want to first address particular instances from the Bible?
I suspect you and I will have nothing to debate.
Do you believe that God killed any children for the acts of thier ancestors as depicted in the Bible (whether through the actions of those weilding swords in his name or through his own action, eg the flood)?
No?
Then, for the sake of debate for you and I, do you believe that your God would condemn any sentient being to an eternity of pain, anguish etc?
Still no?
Then let's have a beer and a yarn about American football.
Edited for typos.
This message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 11-03-2004 12:20 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 11-02-2004 9:45 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 11-03-2004 12:33 AM Gilgamesh has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 94 days)
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 47 of 305 (155339)
11-03-2004 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Gilgamesh
11-03-2004 12:16 AM


Re: GOD is complete.
Damn, talking to you is worse than talking to my ex-wives. I still don't get a chance to say anything. LOL.
Okay, the Bible is something we can agree on. Those stories must be read through the eyes of the folk living when they were written.
So shall we move on to today?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Gilgamesh, posted 11-03-2004 12:16 AM Gilgamesh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Gilgamesh, posted 11-03-2004 12:50 AM jar has replied

Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 305 (155340)
11-03-2004 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by jar
11-03-2004 12:33 AM


Re: GOD is complete.
Jar wrote:
So shall we move on to today?
I think I am still going to have trouble finding something that you and I have issue with. Your description of God is not the traditional Christian God of the Bible.
Ok, for the sake of allowing you to articulate your liberal and progressive theology (which I very much would like to hear) how is God's goodness evidenced by my fundamentalist Christian nephew contracting insulin dependent diabetes at the age of ten?
Edited for typos: Again!
This message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 11-03-2004 12:52 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 11-03-2004 12:33 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 11-03-2004 9:53 AM Gilgamesh has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 94 days)
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 49 of 305 (155406)
11-03-2004 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Gilgamesh
11-03-2004 12:50 AM


Re: GOD is complete.
Ok, for the sake of allowing you to articulate your liberal and progressive theology (which I very much would like to hear) how is God's goodness evidenced by my fundamentalist Christian nephew contracting insulin dependent diabetes at the age of ten?
That is a great question and goes to the heart of the issue. Why do bad things happen?
This may seem like I'm rambling but honest there is a point to all this and I'll return to your nephew before the end of this post. But first, let's step back a short way in time.
About 65 million years ago an asteroid smashed down into the Gulf of Mexico a few hundred miles from where I live. That was a monentous event. For a long period of time the dinosaurs had been the dominate lifeform on the planet. They had been very successful and lasted far longer than we have and had expanded into all of the niches that humans now occupy. They lived in warm and cold, high and low, forest and plain, swamp and meadow.
The asteroid strike 65 million years ago must be considered a very bad thing for the dinosaurs. So we can ask the same question as about your nephew. Why do bad things happen?
Well, here is the fundamentalists chance to show the big picture, how it was bad for the dinos but good for us, right? Well, no, that's not the argument I hope to make.
Although the changes after the asteroid strike did open up environmental opportunities that mammals expanded into, I do not see the strike as some act of GOD to bring about humans. Instead, it was a normal result of the universe we live in, one of the random and unfeeling incidents we have both mentioned before.
Basically, over the last 65 million years or so all of the evolution of the mammals has happened. That's pretty quick, a rush job as it were, and it shows. If you look at the result (and IMHO this single fact is enough to blow any thoughts of Intellegent Design out of the water), what evolved are critters that are just barely good enough. This is true of every mammal out there. None of them are really well designed overall. They are all a collection of mismatched parts and Rube Goldberg engineering. They get sick. They break. They wear out way too soon.
The Fundamentalist might say, "Well, that's all after the fall and before then man was perfect." Fine, they may believe that but frankly, there is no evidence to support such a contention and trying to do so simply opens up way to many other issues. The result of such mental gymnastics is a theology that is an even bigger Rube Goldberg than life as evolved.
Back towards the topic.
If we look at life today we find similar effects and issues regardless of species. Animals and plants get sick. They have systems that don't function or they break. It's pretty normal.
But finally, this gives me the opportunity to point out some of the things I see that show GOD is good.
First, the system.
IMHO GOD designed a universe that is, unlike the individuals in it, self healing. We can see this at every scale, every level. If we look out way beyond our local neighborhood we can see stars exploding, galaxies colliding. Yet the result of such catastrophies is not an end but a beginning. New stars and galaxies form, new elements are made, we get the iron that forms the core of our planet and our very existence from such events.
Closer to home we can see the same thing. The catastrophy 65 millions years ago was healed. The system is designed to assure that if life exists, it will evolve to fill the available environments regardless of what they are. If tomorrow something happened that wiped all mammals from the face of the earth, something else will evolve to fill the world again.
Even if all life were destroyed, it's likely it would start again. It certainly happened at least one time before and most likely, several times. Since we know that life began even if we do not know how, there is no reason to believe it could not happen again.
So the system GOD created is pretty good. It works well and seems to be self healing.
Now let's return to your nephew. He is typical of all the life we see around us. Every living thing we've found so far is subject to desease, to injury, to the limitations of the individual critter. Animals break bones. They get sick. They wear out. Their systems vary from individual to individual.
Unfortunately, your nephew has diabetes. I'm sorry. I wish it were otherwise.
There is one thing though that also brings me back to the Good GOD, something I've mentioned before. It's something unique to humans that I see as evidence of that Good GOD.
We can treat his diabetes. In fact, we are at the point where we can do more for him than ever before. And there is a very good chance that in the not too distant future we may be able to prevent such incidents.
Humans, through the scope, extent and intent of their capabilities can do things to help. If he were any other mammal, suffering any desease or breakage, he would be on his own. The other primates do not set and brace broken limbs. They do not treat the deseases that inflict others of their kind, much less other species.
That brings me to the fourth attribute that I've mentioned in the past, Empathy.
Humans have empathy that extends beyond their immediate family, their species, their clan, their nation. They are the only critters that actually intentionally try to improve the lives of other critters regardless of relationship. The concept of a veterinarian is uniquely human.
Yes, when I look around, I see the product of a Good GOD.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Gilgamesh, posted 11-03-2004 12:50 AM Gilgamesh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Gilgamesh, posted 11-03-2004 7:33 PM jar has seen this message but not replied
 Message 77 by riVeRraT, posted 11-05-2004 5:44 PM jar has replied

Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 305 (155604)
11-03-2004 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by jar
11-03-2004 9:53 AM


Re: GOD is complete.
Thanks Jar. I enjoyed reading every word that you wrote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 11-03-2004 9:53 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 305 (156085)
11-04-2004 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Gilgamesh
11-02-2004 6:43 PM


Re: God is good by definition
Gilgamesh,
I have read your reply and do appreciate it. I think that the discussion that at least you and I are having hinges around this statement:
As I stated and you keep ignoring, I am only interested in what we human's call good. I have no interest in pondering what some fictional diety might think.
To honestly answer the question "is God good" requires a tremendous ability to think clearly and rationaly in order to disect the true nature and meaning of the question. You must be able to seperate your presuppositions and emotions if you are to arive at an answer to this incredibly complex question. As it is phrased above, we must define good. You have done this in humanistic terms and therefore the question has no meaning at least when applied to the Christian definition of God.
Christianity actually agrees with you in a sense. Reformed theology would argue that you are in rebellion against God and that any definition of good you produce, God will not adhere to - and thereofre to you, God is not good. It only answers the question:
"Do I find God personally pleasing or Does the Christian God meet the subjective definition of good that I have produced - even though it might change as my opinions change"
Or perhaps better put,
"Do I like the Christian version of God"
We agree on this. You do not like the Christian version of God - nor should you - acording to 2000 years of Christian theology. It is no suprise to believers that there are people in the world that don't like God. I myself was in rebellion against God until He saved me (as were all Christians). This is ultimately what drives the world against God. In its feeble attempts to be God - it denies the reality that He is all things and that everything : sensible morality, rationality, logic and science all depend upon His existance. So in an attempt to make ourselves God, we deny that which is obvious. To the world, Christ - the Wisdom of God, is foolish. What the world fails to see is that it is dependet upon His existance in order to make sense of itself and of the entire human experience.
This is a prime example. Your disaproval of the Christian God HAS NO epistemological meaning. Just because you don't like God, doesn't mean that He doesn't exist or that He isn't good if He does. It just means that He doesn't meet up to your humanistic definition of good - something that He clearly states He will never meet up with. He won't meet this weak standard of goodness because it is just that - weak. His goodness is far greater than any changing and relative defition the greatest humanisitc philosophers could come up with. HE IS THE STANDARD. You subtely acknowledge that a standard exists, and even suggest that it is absolute, universal and invariant. You claim that this standard is whatever the current definition is - already contradicting your own position.
For example - surely you know that the Christian God is unchanging - as defined by Christianity. Your question would otherwise be this - "does some humanisitic, changing and relative definition of good apply to a God that is unchanging?" How could it be??? God might be good by todays standard but not good by tomorrows standard. Just because He might not be good now, doesn't mean that He isn't good in the universal sense. BUT, your question is not this, it is "Is God good". Clearly you are aknowledging a univerasal/unchanging standard and you are attempting to determine if an unchanging God has met this standard.
This is why your question makes no sense. This is why in order to make sense of your question, you must affirm that which you are clearly trying to disaffirm. - namely if God is good.
To ask if God meets some relative standard of good has no meaning. What is the point. Who really cares, especially since God has said that you will not agree with Him.
God is the standard. He answers to no-one, except His own nature. God is good because He is the definition of good. He is all things. His absence is darkness (or evil) - as the great St. Augustine so clearly stated hundreds of years ago. Your questions are not rational unless you borrow from Christian philosophy.
The questions you have concerning Gods goodness are emotional problems and they are real questions. I would never discount them or belittle them. They ultimately lead to a traditional answer to the problem of evil. That if God exists He is evil.
Using this as a premise however, produces many more problems than it solves. For exmaple, you would then have the problem of good "How could an all evil god allow good in the world". Clearly, the good in this world outweighs the bad. GOd has an answer for the bad. He says that the bad is a byproduct of disobedience towards His will and rebellions against His nature. While we might not fully understand all the evil- at least we know that there are some potential answers out there - free will, differences between Gods directed and permissive will, etc.
Your question ultimately has no meaning because of the fact that your definition of good is not binding on God and because God Himself has stated that you will not agree with Him. He is God and He defines goodness. Of course there are questions at times (such as when the kids were massacred in russia). This however drives me to a deeper understanding of Gods goodness however (we know evil exists, the absence of God) - not further away from Him. Because I know that GOd hates these acts far more than I could ever hope to dispise them. Because of this, I know God is good. To the qeustions, I rely upon His goodness and His understanding. This is not irrational - I do not know everything - nor do you. Many things we are not capable of understanding. This does not mean God is not good however. It only means that He is at times unsearchable and that His ways are not our ways.
In Christ,
Richard M (grace2U)

"The moral rectitude of God must consist in a due respect to things that are objects of moral respect; that is, to intelligent beings capable of moral actions and relations. And therefore it must chiefly constist in giving due respect to that Being to whom most is due; for God is infinitely the most worthy of regard. The worthiness of others is as nothing to his; so that to him belongs all possible respect. To him belongs the whole of the respect that any intelligent being is capable of. To him belongs ALL the heart. Therefore, if moral rectitude of heart consists in paying the respect of the heart which is due, or which fitness and suitableness requires, fitness requirees infinitly the greatest regard to be paid to God; and the denying of supreme regard here would be a conduct infinitely the most unfit. Hence it will follow, that moral rectitude of the disposition, inclination, or affection of God CHEIEFLY consists in a regatd to HIMSELF, infinitely above his regard to all other beings; in other words, his holiness consists in this" J. Edwards

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Gilgamesh, posted 11-02-2004 6:43 PM Gilgamesh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Gilgamesh, posted 11-08-2004 6:25 PM grace2u has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 671 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 52 of 305 (156171)
11-05-2004 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by jar
10-28-2004 11:50 PM


Re: Not all of us base things solely on the Bible.
There is yet another record that many of us believe GOD left for us. It's the universe around us. It is amazing, awesome, wonderous. Certainly something good in all.
This raises the question, is it good if a meteor slams into your house?
Or some other disaster that is a result of the nature of the Universe?
Should we consider the Universe all good?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 10-28-2004 11:50 PM jar has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 671 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 53 of 305 (156172)
11-05-2004 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by coffee_addict
10-29-2004 12:26 AM


No-one here has ever proven that God is responsible for evil.
He created it, only because he created everything, but he is not responsible for it happening.
But people will continue to blame him for it, and use that kind of reasoning to not accept God.
Its just like abortion, people say they are Pro-choice, and they are right, they have the choice not to screw each other.
Its like standing on the Brooklyn bridge and contemplating jumping. You just might survive the splash, but once you jump off, your choice has been made. You cannot go back and reverse it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by coffee_addict, posted 10-29-2004 12:26 AM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by grace2u, posted 11-05-2004 11:19 AM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 11-05-2004 11:28 AM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 671 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 54 of 305 (156173)
11-05-2004 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by jar
10-29-2004 12:34 AM


Re: Not all of us base things solely on the Bible.
The question is whether or not we do what are capable of doing.
Amen brother.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 10-29-2004 12:34 AM jar has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 671 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 55 of 305 (156180)
11-05-2004 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by jar
10-29-2004 2:06 AM


Re: The difference between Man's actions and those random ones.
Okay, I have never said that you must or even should believe in GOD. That is something between the individual and GOD himself. You, and many others deny GOD, but if you agree that "We do have the capability of making things better" and if you actually work towards making that a reality, I believe that it is the denied GOD working through you.
Denied God working through you. That is an interesting statement.
I have always looked at it like this:
Hebrews 8:10
This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
If this is true, then we should all be born with a good heart. However our hearts get harden by many things, including inherent sin, and bad religions, and the people that run them. Once we reconize that the world does not match what God has put in our hearts, we turn away from all that does not conform, religion included. Depending on our lives, we then pursue the goodness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 10-29-2004 2:06 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by jar, posted 11-05-2004 11:45 AM riVeRraT has replied

grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 305 (156182)
11-05-2004 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by riVeRraT
11-05-2004 10:48 AM


No-one here has ever proven that God is responsible for evil.
He created it, only because he created everything, but he is not responsible for it happening.
Well said.
Regards..

"The moral rectitude of God must consist in a due respect to things that are objects of moral respect; that is, to intelligent beings capable of moral actions and relations. And therefore it must chiefly constist in giving due respect to that Being to whom most is due; for God is infinitely the most worthy of regard. The worthiness of others is as nothing to his; so that to him belongs all possible respect. To him belongs the whole of the respect that any intelligent being is capable of. To him belongs ALL the heart. Therefore, if moral rectitude of heart consists in paying the respect of the heart which is due, or which fitness and suitableness requires, fitness requirees infinitly the greatest regard to be paid to God; and the denying of supreme regard here would be a conduct infinitely the most unfit. Hence it will follow, that moral rectitude of the disposition, inclination, or affection of God CHEIEFLY consists in a regatd to HIMSELF, infinitely above his regard to all other beings; in other words, his holiness consists in this" J. Edwards

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by riVeRraT, posted 11-05-2004 10:48 AM riVeRraT has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1722 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 57 of 305 (156183)
11-05-2004 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by riVeRraT
11-05-2004 10:48 AM


No-one here has ever proven that God is responsible for evil.
He created it, only because he created everything, but he is not responsible for it happening.
How does that make any sense?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by riVeRraT, posted 11-05-2004 10:48 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by riVeRraT, posted 11-05-2004 11:44 AM crashfrog has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 671 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 58 of 305 (156188)
11-05-2004 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Gilgamesh
11-01-2004 1:35 AM


Re: God is good by definition
Define good.
I attempted to: "Being positive or desirable in nature, Worthy of respect; honorable, Of moral excellence, Benevolent; kind, etc, etc"
These are relevant extracts from dictionary.com.
To you consider it good do defend your mother if she was being attacked, even if it meant killing her attacker?
Or do you consider it good to kill people who attack us, like terrorists?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Gilgamesh, posted 11-01-2004 1:35 AM Gilgamesh has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 671 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 59 of 305 (156192)
11-05-2004 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by crashfrog
11-05-2004 11:28 AM


What is a car? Good or evil?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 11-05-2004 11:28 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by coffee_addict, posted 11-05-2004 11:50 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 63 by lfen, posted 11-05-2004 12:39 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 64 by lfen, posted 11-05-2004 12:39 PM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 72 by crashfrog, posted 11-05-2004 4:08 PM riVeRraT has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 94 days)
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 60 of 305 (156193)
11-05-2004 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by riVeRraT
11-05-2004 11:10 AM


Re: The difference between Man's actions and those random ones.
However our hearts get harden by many things, including inherent sin, and bad religions, and the people that run them.
Well, I don't believe in inherent sin, so I dont see that as an issue.
But you cannot have good without evil, pleasure without pain, gain without suffering.
In an earlier post you asked if a meteor falling on my house was good or bad. My answer is neither. It may be unfortunate, but it is not bad. It had no motive, it did not single me out any more than storms, lightning or any other accident singled me out.
GOOD and BAD are judgements and labels we assign. For me, they include an element of intent. BAD is the result of concious actions or the willful suspension of morality.
Nature can not be bad. The most horrific acts of animals are not bad. Only humans can be bad, IMHO.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by riVeRraT, posted 11-05-2004 11:10 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by lfen, posted 11-05-2004 1:42 PM jar has replied
 Message 66 by riVeRraT, posted 11-05-2004 2:45 PM jar has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024