Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9208 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,438 Year: 6,695/9,624 Month: 35/238 Week: 35/22 Day: 2/6 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do we know God is "Good"?
grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 305 (154667)
10-31-2004 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gilgamesh
10-28-2004 11:23 PM


God is good by definition
Hello! Long time no chat. It's been almost a year since I visited but thought I'd stop in. Looks like alot of my old buddies are still here.
We know God is good for a couple reasons.
1) He says He is.
2) The only way we can define something as "good" is if God does exist and He is good in the absolute sense. Most accept that the concept of "good" exists. We don't debate this - not too often at least. We only question whether or not the Christian God is good. This provides evidence of our rebellious nature toward the most holy. Ultimately you and I both want to be God. We deny His very goodness in an attempt to make ourselves god -some even deny His existance.
God is good because He says He is good and because in order for you to even define "good" you must borrow from the Christian worldview.
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 1 by Gilgamesh, posted 10-28-2004 11:23 PM Gilgamesh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Gilgamesh, posted 10-31-2004 10:23 PM grace2u has replied

grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 305 (154710)
10-31-2004 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Gilgamesh
10-31-2004 10:23 PM


Re: God is good by definition
This doesn't really cut it. First you have to establish the Bible as a valid source of his words, secondly you have to deal with the fact that his actions (and the Bible) negate these words.
You can argue that God is good apart from scripture however. Christianity teaches that God is good. Therefore, in order to say that Christianity is wrong, you must perform an internal critique of the Christian worldview (I think this is what Mike perhaps was eluding to). Once you do this, the simplistic version of the Christian God is gone and you are left with the true version of this God - in all His wonder and glory.
Define good.
It really is no argument for you to say that the Christian God does not fit in or appeal to your humanistic definition of good. I agree. If man is the standard of all things - then No God can meet up to this standard unless it is the person creating the standard (you). This is the problem with a worldview that attempts to criticize the Christian view of God using humanistic standards. You will find God at fault - not measuring up to YOUR standard but why should He? Were He to obey your standard He would not be God - you would be.
You can't produce some subjective-humanistic definition of good - and then expect God to submit to this definition. If your question is "Is the Christian God good - in terms of a humanistic definition of good - then the answer is NO. God is not good if good is defined in this manner. If you ask "is God good in accordance to the Christian definition of good?", then yes, He is. He is the standard of good , consistent with 2000 years of Christian theology- we measure all other actions in light of this standard.
Why would you expect the creator of the universe, the great I AM, the omniscient soveriegn one - to submit to some faulty defintion of good in order to be good? It doesn't make sense that He would do this, if He did, I would say He would be irrational.
I think it would help if you defined what "good" means in this context. If you borrow from Christianity then God is good (by definition) and the discussion ends. If you define good in some relative - humanisitic term - perhaps that being good is not causing harm to others or removing ones ability to roam freely, then I agree with you - God is not good in this narrow relative standard - but this standard has no meaning in the final end - it's just some creatures arbitrary definition. Reading your comments it doesn't even seem that you think anything can be objectively good and so why even ask the question? I would argue that it's because deep down you know that there are objective standards such as "goodness", and that you are trying to deny that the one who gave you this standard is in fact good - the fallen rebellious nature that we all have drives us all to search for this conclusion.
The question of children always comes up in these examples. For one, noone is innocent - even children. But putting that aside, I will grant for the sake of argument that children are innocent. You look at some entity killing another creature as being perhaps one of the most haneous crimes or at least Not Good. Why? What is the rational basis you have for concluding that this is wrong? What is being wrong anyway? The problem you must deal with, is that without this God, you have no basis to claim ANY act is wrong or good - except for some meaningless humanistic relative standard (which has no true epistemological purpose or meaning).
The unspoken (maybe it is spoken) argument is this "Come ON, its obvious this God can't exist. look at what He has done in the past to the children!"
In your worldview, why is this wrong? Who cares if some flesh kills some other flesh? But more importantly, why do you think its wrong for a God to do this - christian or otherwise?
Can't God do as he pleases - as long as it doesn't violate His own nature? Concerning the death of children, why is this always brought up? Who really cares if all we are is some lump of evolving matter? If it will help my species survive, isn't it good to kill the enemies future warriors?
This is an emotional argument that as far as I can tell has no rational basis.
Even still, I've missed the forum, take care!
This message has been edited by grace2u, 10-31-2004 11:19 PM
This message has been edited by grace2u, 10-31-2004 11:26 PM

"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 28 by Gilgamesh, posted 10-31-2004 10:23 PM Gilgamesh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Gilgamesh, posted 11-01-2004 1:35 AM grace2u has replied
 Message 33 by lfen, posted 11-01-2004 2:46 AM grace2u has not replied

grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 305 (154830)
11-01-2004 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Gilgamesh
11-01-2004 1:35 AM


Re: God is good by definition
Do you agree then that your question of Gods goodness really has no meaning?
In other words perhaps the question is better phrased like this :
Question: "Does God meet the subjective humanistic standards of goodness?"
Answer: No
What is the point? Who really cares if God meets some relative standard of goodness? Any sincere searcher of truth could care less. The question is what does this mean for our lives? Would you suggest that because of this, the Christian God does not exist? Many make that claim because of reasons like this and I would argue that it is a foolish reason to not beleive in the Christian God as defined through revealed theology.
So what is the original point of the question you pose? I agree that you might not "like" the version of God that is presented but what does this mean conerning His true nature or inclination towards goodness or perhaps concerning His very existance?
Regards..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Gilgamesh, posted 11-01-2004 1:35 AM Gilgamesh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Gilgamesh, posted 11-01-2004 5:59 PM grace2u has replied

grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 305 (155101)
11-01-2004 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Gilgamesh
11-01-2004 5:59 PM


Re: God is good by definition
We all know what we mean by good.
Are you serious?
There is no need to clarify and make a special reference to the fact that Christian's are screwing with the definition of yet another word.
You have our own definition of good that you are curious if God meets. The answer is no. He doesn't meet your standard in fact, you standard is woefully superficial and extremely simplistic and oversimplified compared to His standard - which is really what we should all be interested in trying to understand.
The question is not "is God good" - especially when you can't even define good - or provide a response like "we all know what good is". The question is "Are we good as defined by God".
This oversimplified thinking is based on a sin-cursed minds feeble attempt to be divine (as my version of morality is as well - not picking on you - the best any creature could muster is still extremely lame and empty compared to Gods infinite glory which is a direct reflection of His moral character and goodness).
The point you are missing is the following:
In order to ask whether or not the Christian God is good, you must define good. The problem you have is that it is impossible to define good in such a way that would be binding on God - at least in some way that would matter to the rest of us that is.
To further complicate your problem, you speak as if goodness is some absolute standard that you are curious if God meets. I think you're reply that "we all know what goodness is" demonstrates this quite clearly. You would probably be the first to disagree however that goodness is absolute (my apologies if I'm wrong on this).
So - if you beleive that goodness is relative, dependent upon the current culture at the current time, then why do you even care if some supposed Christian God meets up to this subjective and everchanging humanistic standard of morality?
The Christian does not have this problem - for by our definition, God is good and is the standard of all goodness. Nothing is more good than God. We measure all things by His holy standard. Does this answer all question concerning acts that God allows to occur today or perhaps that He even commanded in the Old Testament? No - of course not. Ultimately, God is not bound by man - it's the other way around. God does not have to answer to us - we have to answer to Him. We might shake our fist in rebellion against God, the whole time acknowledging His existence by the very questions we pose(is God good). You have all the evidence you need for answering the question of whether or not God is good.
The emotional questions are good questions - I am not belittleing them. I would say that most every beleiver has questioned Gods goodness at one point in time.
Ultimately, the answer for the believer lies in who we know God to be. God has revealed Himself to us and we know that He is good because He has demonstrated this to us (for us it is abundanent life - not dependent upon our circumstances, a real relationship with our maker(throught Christ), a church or body of believers to help us out and provide fellowship, loving families, true friendships, unselfish brotherly love for non-believers and believers alike - as commanded through scripture, putting others above ourselves - all these things and more, commanded by a God who must be good. And obove all - our salvation and very existance. Furthermore, its things that really can't be described - spiritual truths that are revealed that demonstrate how foolish and lacking the world really is. Things that speak to us in ways that words could never come close - the best I can do is say compare it to a mother holding her baby for the first time, a father getting a hug from his kids, its contrasted with understanding the wickedness in the world - watching people mercilessly slaughtered on tv, watching man cause horrendous acts of violence against his fellow man. We see evil and we see good. We know that the good is from God and that the evil has nothing to do with God. Then we read things about how God hates evil even more than we do or more than we could even come close to. We feel the presence of His love in our lives every morning when we wake up and spend a little time meditating on His wonderous ways. We are encouraged by the hope of eternity being spent with Him, constantly learning more about His goodness but never quite reaching it in all its glory.
Christians simply know God is good. Taste and see.

"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 36 by Gilgamesh, posted 11-01-2004 5:59 PM Gilgamesh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Gilgamesh, posted 11-02-2004 6:43 PM grace2u has 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

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

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024