A Question.

[Mycroft]

People define their god as all knowing, all powerful, and all good. What sticks out to me the most in this is that the good part play a very large part in that definition of god.

But when we see tsunami's wipe out half a million people, or hurricanes devastate cities, or fires burn down houses we take a step back and say 'wow, that's bad'. Some people wonder why god would let it happen. I would hazard the question that perhaps god is either not all powerful or not all good.

Yet everyone, mostly, would agree there's nothing good about a tsunami wiping out a shedload of people. We know these things to be bad. Because we define what good and bad is.

One could argue 'Maybe in god's mind that's not bad.' Except you've tried to define what god is.

So the question is this: How is it that religious people have the power to define who and what god is, but not the power to defind what good is?

 

[Glaurung]

Goodness is not so much a quality of God so much as God is in of himself good. He is the source all goodness. This is why separation from that goodness is hell, because there is no good, no happiness, no love, no semblance of any positive feeling once any chance of a saving relationship with him and all that is good is finally severed.

Nonetheless he in his patience permits but never causes evil. There is a lot of evil in this world (much of it seemingly senseless) but we are in no position to question his motives for permitting it. (for in the end, evil will only serve to bring about even greater good) We are asked to trust that God knows what he is doing.

 

[Mycroft]

Nonetheless he in his patience permits but never causes evil.

But to permit evil is not a good thing. It is a bad thing. So, I refer you back to the question.

 

[Glaurung]

But to permit evil is not a good thing. It is a bad thing. So, I refer you back to the question.

No it is not. He permits freedom, and as a result of that freedom there was an original disobedience which has resulted in this corrupted world. He could restore the world to its original state, but instead he has chosen to use this state of affairs to bring about his plan which will ultimately bring forth more good than should he do anything else. God is very much a bigger picture thinker.

He does and allows what he does and allows, because he and he alone knows best.

But of course, I know full well that you aren't really asking a question in good faith. You have no intention of actually understanding the Christian point of view in its own terms.

 

[Mycroft]

No it is not. He permits freedom, and as a result of that freedom there was an original disobedience which has resulted in this corrupted world. He could restore the world to its original state, but instead he has chosen to use this state of affairs to bring about his plan which will ultimately bring forth more good than should he do anything else.

This is necessary to bring about his plan? What did this guy ever do that means he has to suffer so god can bring about his plan? lol.

Think about that boy. How he must pray every day. How he must beseech god every day to end his suffering. And you say that that's okay because there's a better deal somewhere later down the line? Unconscionably immoral.

I think you just don't care. I think it's very easy to talk about god's plan when you're not the one starving to death. But should the shoe be on a different foot, I would wager your views might be very different indeed. What if someone broke into your house and raped then murdered your family. Would that be okay? Because, after all, god would have chosen that state of affairs to bring about his plan. So you should be perfectly okay with that, right?

God is very much a bigger picture thinker.

It's all very well taking the long view so long as what's under your nose doesn't turn to dust.

[/quote]He does and allows what he does and allows, because he and he alone knows best.[/quote]

So god has determined that it is best that all those children starve. That god, with all its power, need not intervene because that's for the best?

Would you stand idly by and allow a child to starve in the belief that it's god's plan?

But of course, I know full well that you aren't really asking a question in good faith. You have no intention of actually understanding the Christian point of view in its own terms.

This is a discussion about the definition of good compared to the definition of god. I refer you - again - to my original question, since you've yet to answer it on the terms that it's laid out.

 

[Sunstone]

If someone can say, "God knows what's best for a starving child", then by reason the same person can say precisely why the child's fate is best. That is, if you know that God knows what's best, then you are presuming to know it too.

To say "God knows what's best" is very different from saying "I have faith God knows what's best".

 

[ChristineES]

I don't think some people understand. I, as a Christian, question those kinds of things (starvation, natural disasters) all the time. It is tough, even for me. But I decided not to presume to question God. I do donate and such things to help victims of these kinds of things and pray. Donating and praying is all I can do.

 

[Looncall]

No it is not. He permits freedom, and as a result of that freedom there was an original disobedience which has resulted in this corrupted world. He could restore the world to its original state, but instead he has chosen to use this state of affairs to bring about his plan which will ultimately bring forth more good than should he do anything else. God is very much a bigger picture thinker.

He does and allows what he does and allows, because he and he alone knows best.

But of course, I know full well that you aren't really asking a question in good faith. You have no intention of actually understanding the Christian point of view in its own terms.

How do you know that any of this is true?

 

[Prophet]

People define their god as all knowing, all powerful, and all good. What sticks out to me the most in this is that the good part play a very large part in that definition of god.

But when we see tsunami's wipe out half a million people, or hurricanes devastate cities, or fires burn down houses we take a step back and say 'wow, that's bad'. Some people wonder why god would let it happen. I would hazard the question that perhaps god is either not all powerful or not all good.

Yet everyone, mostly, would agree there's nothing good about a tsunami wiping out a shedload of people. We know these things to be bad. Because we define what good and bad is.

One could argue 'Maybe in god's mind that's not bad.' Except you've tried to define what god is.

So the question is this: How is it that religious people have the power to define who and what god is, but not the power to defind what good is?

If you started asking others basic questions about their beliefs in tsunamis, earthquakes, and other natural disasters, while they would mostly agree that these events are not fortuitous for us, only freaks would tell you that the natural disasters possessed malicious evil intent. I believe you are muddling the difference between good/bad and favorable/unfavorable.

Humans have always attached intent to our concepts of evil. Were you to attempt and fail to murder me, you would still be guilty (of, at least, attempted murder). Were you to kill me by accident, you would still be innocent as one cannot commit murder by accident. My death, while presumably unfavorable, is irrelevant to the validity of the murder charge.

Calling a tsunami evil because it happens to be inconvenient to human society makes as much sense as calling a rock evil for hitting your head.

 

[icehorse]

To what degree do the folks supporting God in this thread declare to know the mind of God? For example, do you support circumcision? Do you think homosexuality goes against God?

If you claim to "sometimes" know the mind of God, then it strikes a non-believer like me that you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You know the mind of God when it suits your agenda, and "God works in mysterious ways" when bad stuff happens.

 

[lily_r]

This is a little long, I tried to make it as concise as possible.
1. Consider this-if there was no bad, there would be no good. One could consider the cliche of "stars cannot shine without darkness" to further explain this point. The presence of evil is the result of the fact that God is good. If God had created the Earth and sin did not exist, there would be no objective way of measuring good and evil. Satan exists not because God willed that He exists, but because Satan rejected God.
The same thing happens every day within our own lives. We reject God through sin and denial of His existence, and thus succumb to the evil known as "the Devil".
2. Along with the aforementioned idea comes the possibility that God permits evil to exist because the annihilation of evil is a process, not an immediate eradication.
Because we are all inherently evil, if God was to decide to destroy everything that is evil (which is coming later, stay tuned), then everything tainted with sin on this Earth would be obliterated. But--there is one thing that will save us, a belief and dedication of our soul to Jesus Christ. I truly believe that God is holding off on the rapture until all that will believe will believe. God does not wish for the destruction of anyone. But, because He is the ultimate source of "Good", He cannot have sin in His presence. Jesus is basically the guy who says "hold up a second Dad, don't turn on the flamethrower yet, they belong to me", and that is what saves us.
3. Along with the idea in number 2, it is a logical fallacy to assume that God will just wipe out evil "because He's God." If God does exist, then we must return to scripture and see that He does not necessarily seek the destruction of men, but it is done for a purpose that leads to an Ultimate Good, if you will. The concept that it's "done for a purpose" and we just have to accept that doesn't sit well with me either, so I prefer the concept in number two. I hope this helps.

 

[Prophet]

To what degree do the folks supporting God in this thread declare to know the mind of God? For example, do you support circumcision? Do you think homosexuality goes against God?

If you claim to "sometimes" know the mind of God, then it strikes a non-believer like me that you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You know the mind of God when it suits your agenda, and "God works in mysterious ways" when bad stuff happens.

God causes his sun to shine down upon the evil and the good and sends His rains upon the righteous and unrighteous alike as an eternal perfect example of the impartiality we are to show others. I think that works better than "God works in mysterious ways".

 

[lily_r]

To what degree do the folks supporting God in this thread declare to know the mind of God? For example, do you support circumcision? Do you think homosexuality goes against God?

If you claim to "sometimes" know the mind of God, then it strikes a non-believer like me that you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You know the mind of God when it suits your agenda, and "God works in mysterious ways" when bad stuff happens.

@icehorse
The definition of God that you are referring to is impossible to know entirely. If we knew everything about God, then He is no longer God, but a figment of your imagination (as you would prefer to call Him).
It rejects the nature of God to say that we as fallible humans could know every aspect about Him. You're a spiritual reasonist--even someone who is a nonbeliever cannot rightfully say that we could know and understand everything about an omnipotent, grander being. It is logically inaccurate to assume this.

We know what we believe He said as it is written in Scripture, and homosexuality is condemned. It's not a question of whether it "goes against God", but something that He explicitly stated as morally wrong. The act of disobeying Him could "go against" Him as you said. I can list the Scriptures that reflect this idea if you wish.
Circumcision is a completely different concept, and I recommend actually reading a bit of the Bible before you make generalized statements such as this.
1 Corinthians 7:19 ESV / 65 helpful votes
For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God

 

[outhouse]

You are muddling the difference between good/bad and favorable/unfavorable.
\
.

And you cherry picking what you want to attribute to your personal deity of choice???

 

[outhouse]

He is the source all goodness. .

No according to religion, he is the source of everything.

OP brings up a good point.


Now he is just watching everyone do the dance, failing to protect their precious mythological based faith.

 

[outhouse]

So the question is this: How is it that religious people have the power to define who and what god is, but not the power to defind what good is?

The main responce is divine inspiration. It is circular protection.

No one can prove their imagination is not divine


One thing is a fact, only man defines and writes about god.

Since most mirror the culture that is doing the defining, I dont buy divine anything.

 

[Prophet]

And you cherry picking what you want to attribute to your personal deity of choice???

I know there's a complete thought there if I read hard enough. *squint*

Maybe you'd be so kind to give examples of my cherry picking so I can respond.

 

[Mycroft]

I don't think some people understand. I, as a Christian, question those kinds of things (starvation, natural disasters) all the time. It is tough, even for me. But I decided not to presume to question God. I do donate and such things to help victims of these kinds of things and pray. Donating and praying is all I can do.

There's two factors. Theologically, not questioning things is what got all the trouble started in the first place. Eve didn't bother to question the serpent and the rest quickly became pseudohistory.

Secondly by saying 'god is good' you're saying that not only do you presume to define what's good and what isn't, but also who and what god is. Which is almost the same as questioning god.

 

[Mycroft]

One thing is a fact, only man defines and writes about god.

But does not only man define and write about good?

 

[Mycroft]

If you started asking others basic questions about their beliefs in tsunamis, earthquakes, and other natural disasters, while they would mostly agree that these events are not fortuitous for us, only freaks would tell you that the natural disasters possessed malicious evil intent. I believe you are muddling the difference between good/bad and favorable/unfavorable.

Humans have always attached intent to our concepts of evil. Were you to attempt and fail to murder me, you would still be guilty (of, at least, attempted murder). Were you to kill me by accident, you would still be innocent as one cannot commit murder by accident. My death, while presumably unfavorable, is irrelevant to the validity of the murder charge.

Calling a tsunami evil because it happens to be inconvenient to human society makes as much sense as calling a rock evil for hitting your head.

I didn't call a tsunami evil. I said that a tsunami rubbing out half a million people is a bad thing to occur. Do you disagree with that statement?