How do we know God is "Good"?

Mike, I'll have to disagree with you here. Hum ans did not make the flood happen - God made the flood happen in response to human sin. I think that many have trouble reconciling a God as "good" when He would commit global genocide as a response to anything.I think God Himself sees that His judgement was "bad" regarding the flood, since He vows to never do it again: I read this as God creating mankind as evil, then punishing mankind for that evil - more out of personal regret than punishment (from my reading of Gen 6 also).Whenever God destroys the world, a nation, or a town for being entirely sinful, I find it impossible to believe - what about the infants? is often my first thought.For all of the good in the Bible, God also commits many acts and proscribes many law s that can only be described as evil.

What is the difference in meaning between the following phrases?:men and beastman and beast

So what is your plan of action? Does your disagreement mean God doesn't exist? Sorry - But this won't mean he doesn't exist.We have a choice to sin - or not.When we sin - we give our dominion to satan. Satan tempted Christ with Kingdoms of this world, Christ didn't make the mistake of handing his domion over - for he knew all things.The bible itself says that God will punish us according to the fruit or the "evil" of our doings. THIS is biblical.

Did Christ heal according to the bible? Did Christ die for us according to the bible? Did Christ feed the hungry according to the bible? Did Christ come as a humble person according to the bible? Was Christ the person of God according to the bible? Is man sinful according to the bible? Did Christ wash our sins away according to the bible? Did Christ suffer according to the bible? Did Christ sin according to the bible? Was Christ the person by whom we look to when looking at God's person - according to the bible?

"How do we know God is good?"Well, the best way is to look at his person. Since you say God makes mistakes like a person - and you all want to judge God, like he is a person, shall we look at his person?

quote:

---

HUMAN'S made the flood happen. They were not forced to be wicked -

---

No, God chose a flood, which he knew would cause great suffering and fear.He could have just ended all life with a thought, but instead made people and innocent animals suffer.

quote:

---

You don't want to believe in God of the bible,

---

Oh? It's a simple matter of preferance for me? Well, thanks for clearing up that little confusion of my psyche for me, mike.Tell me, do you not "want" to believe the Gods of the Gita?

quote:

---

you'll make him look bad by mentioning how humans came to an end BECAUSE of theor own sin.

---

Can you please quote the verse in the Bible in which God tells everyone in the world that he was going to drown them unless they repented?

quote:

---

If I'm wrong biblically, why does the bible say "the fruit of YOUR doings"?

---

Gee, it sure looks like I'm the one telling the truth bout the Bible and you are the one tying yourself in knots.

quote:

---

I'm not twisting the bible - I'm doing what I must against the crowd.

---

Sometimes the crowd is right, mike.In this case, let's not forget that you are claiming that there were no children anywhere in the world before the flood.That is stupid.God wants you to be stupid?Thank goodness I'm not a Christian. I don't want to be stupid.

quote:

---

I know your intentions.

---

And just what are those?

Look, don't get upset at me.I didn't try to use that silly semantic game, you did.What is the difference in meaning of the following two phrases?;men and beastman and beast.Obviously, the meaning you want is for "man" to mean adult male, but then the word used would be "men" and beast.But, of course, "man and beast" means "mankind", not adult male, making it rather clear that children would have been among the ones struck down by the angel of death, by God's order.I was just pointing out that this is a semantic game that you are too smart to use.Here's a hint, mike:If your theology makes you use dumb arguments and silly illogic to maintain it, maybe your theology is what is lacking.

I wasn't arguing that He doesn't exist, so this reply is illogical. Depends on your interpretation of the Bible. When God states that "man is evil from his youth", my interpretation is that He created us as evil.Otherwise, how could God justify killing all of the human infants on Earth? They were evil from their youth. But what choice to sin had those week-old infants made? Right, a "good" boss will give you a talking-to if you are always ten minutes late for work. A "bad" boss will blow your head off with a shotgun for the same tardiness.Often God's punishments are much harsher than the "evil of our doings."Like in Ezekiel 23, where the Lord has a woman's nose and ears cut off with a sword, and she is then forced to cut off her own breasts - for the crime of being lewd.That's an evil act.Can you honestly defend it as otherwise? Would you this a "good" act by any mortal, under any conceivable situation?

You said thank goodness you're not a CHRISTian. Christians believe Christ is the person of God.I prefer the cross to the crowd. What? By telling what the bible says about sin? That we shall be punished according to our doings? In evry event mentioned - God said he spared the righteouss. Why should I believe you and not the bible?
Pink atheist said the first thing he thought is "what about the babies". This is an example, that you first try and blame God - and think of possible ways to make man's sin God's instead. Yet in every event mentioned, it was shown in the bible that man sinned. So I think the bible agrees with me somehow Shraff - that the wicked were punished and the righteous were not. "There is no peace sayeth the Lord, for the wicked". "Oh if thou hadst hearkened unto my commandments - then thy peace would have been as a river" - again, all biblical - and I agree with it. What am I twisting? AM I not agreeing? What truth do I deny? Simply show me the verse about babies With the bible. I have shown you everything I said with the bible. And you say I twist it, when I quote it?

So you think a man is a baby? Did you just say that? No Shraff - I'm most pleased it said "both man and beast" - it wouldn't say both "men" and beast, as that would have sounded odd. God said "both man and beast" - I have no reason to think that a man is a baby, or to twist or obfuscate. It's as clear as a bell.

First of all, why the hell are you calling me an atheist? You're above name-calling, Mike.I don't think I am guilty of "first trying to blame God" - I am guilty of compassion for human infants. If you don't think the same thing, then maybe I should call you "Mike the Neonate Hater". But that doesn't really further our discussion...I think Gen 6-8 show God as a distraught Father that doesn't know how to deal with His children. First He says He regrets making the mistake of creating man; then He vows to destroy them through horrible means; He isn't able to completely destroy His creation, so He spares one family. After it is all over He regrets what He did, and vows to never do it again.If anything this is the OT God at His most openly falliable - and thus He is also particularly relatable at the Flood. However, this doesn't make the act of drowning all life on the planet a "good" thing.

Sorry Mike,I'm just catching up to your apparent assertion that there weren't any babies killed during Flood - but I must say that seems a stretch.Can you clarify your thoughts on this point?

Pink Sasquatch,Ezekiel 23 is a metaphorical description of the sin (and punishment) of Jerusalem and Samaria. Verse 4 says: Emphasis mine.

Okay - so somehow babies were spared during the Flood. What about the killing of every first-born in Egypt in Exodus? Or in Numbers, when God commands Moses' army to kill all of the male children of the defeated Midianites?Are you actually arguing that God never killed a naive child?

Schrafinator,The truth is we don't know exactly how much suffering and fear occurred. We can only speculate.IMO, God could just as easily (and most likely did) have miracled a quick and painless death for all of the innocent babies that you are so concerned about.The bible describes the condition of mankind (with the exception of Noah and his family) to be one in which their thoughts were continually evil. I think if he spared the innocent babies from this it was a good act.