Is God good? Is God loving?

[Lain]

So, where there any doubt they were not in Heaven? Are all those catholics so happy that Mother Teresa and Father Pio are in heaven because the pope, or any canonisation process say so? Where they worried that they will just rot in Hell?

BTW. How could anyone be in Hell, if all they did was God's providence?

Ciao

- viole

Some may have doubted it, canonization just confirms a reality. It looks to what is when people are less sure about it and then says "truly it is so."

Due to moral evil, as I have said. A willful deprivation of the good an act should have, such as not being in the right amount, circumstances, and so on. God determines that it should have that, but a free agent deprives it of that.

God tells them that it should have that and they disobey this Command.
God Providentially permits this, so the action is under Providence.

The central point seems to be this I think: you believe that if something is ruled by Providence that it is a contradiction to say that the willful deprivation of the good human acts should have (as determined by God) is blameworthy.

If I have rightly represented what you're thinking here (it just dawned on me that you thought this probably, I have bad theory of mind please forgive my deficiency), then I do not understand it for I see no contradiction between:

(1) God permits free agents to willfully deprive acts of the good that He determines they should have.
(2) A person willfully depriving acts of the good that they should have is blameworthy.

Perhaps the key word here is "blameworthy"? And what that exactly means. I might be entirely wrong though. Maybe instead of that being the key, the key idea rather is why they are blameworthy but God is not, for ruling over these acts in Providence, permitting them, having made a world in which they occur, and so on?

For I know by "cognitive dissonance" you mean I am holding contradictory propositions in my mind, and if this is the case I'd like to rid myself of them, so can you assist me by saying whether or not those representations of the problem you are seeing is accurate?

 

[viole]

Some may have doubted it, canonization just confirms a reality. It looks to what is when people are less sure about it and then says "truly it is so."

And why are they happy? Any outcome should make them happy, since it is God's Will.

Due to moral evil, as I have said. A willful deprivation of the good an act should have, such as not being in the right amount, circumstances, and so on. God determines that it should have that, but a free agent deprives it of that.

I thought there is no moral evil, since everything is God's providence. Apparently I was not right. Can you make me an example of moral evil then?

God tells them that it should have that and they disobey this Command.
God Providentially permits this, so the action is under Providence.

You seem desperate now. If I let my kid go out and I order to not rape any girl, but he does, what shall I do? He disobeyed my command. However, do you think his actions were still under His providence?

he central point seems to be this I think: you believe that if something is ruled by Providence that it is a contradiction to say that the willful deprivation of the good human acts should have (as determined by God) is blameworthy.

Too complicated. I buy a gun, and kill the first kid I see. Was that God's providence or not?

If I have rightly represented what you're thinking here (it just dawned on me that you thought this probably, I have bad theory of mind please forgive my deficiency), then I do not understand it for I see no contradiction between:

(1) God permits free agents to willfully deprive acts of the good that He determines they should have.
(2) A person willfully depriving acts of the good that they should have is blameworthy.

According to what you said, that should not matter. What we do is God's providence. Why you are now doing it so complicated to me, is mind boggling. You said that if I get a gun and shoot the first kid I see, that would be God's providence. I can show you the post number if you want.

Unless you want to revise your B.S. (Biblical Scholarship). Of course.

Perhaps the key word here is "blameworthy"? And what that exactly means. I might be entirely wrong though. Maybe instead of that being the key, the key idea rather is why they are blameworthy but God is not, for ruling over these acts in Providence, permitting them, having made a world in which they occur, and so on?

Perhaps. It appears your theology is full of "perhaps" and "maybes".
Let me tell you that. Maybe, or perhaps, Kryptonite really exists and that would prove Superman. Right?

For I know by "cognitive dissonance" you mean I am holding contradictory propositions in my mind, and if this is the case I'd like to rid myself of them, so can you assist me by saying whether or not those representations of the problem you are seeing is accurate?

Simple. Tell me how God would program a hell for people who are necessarily compelled to do His will, anyway.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Lain]

And why are they happy? Any outcome should make them happy, since it is God's Will.

I thought there is no moral evil, since everything is God's providence. Apparently I was not right. Can you make me an example of moral evil then?

You seem desperate now. If I let my kid go out and I order to not rape any girl, but he does, what shall I do? He disobeyed my command. However, do you think his actions were still under His providence?

The outcome of the Universe does ultimately make all the just happy, due to God's Will, which is why knowing of the damned the Saints rejoice in God's justice.

Why did you think Providence is incompatible with moral or natural evils? What do you think Providence is? Providence is simply God's plan and the carrying out of it, His management or government of all things. A person can govern over things where there is evil and good, just like a father manages his household.

Moral evil exists: evil is deprivation of good, and human acts can be deprived of good. A thing can only be deprived of good if it should have good (this is necessary in the definition). What good a thing should have is determined by God and the natures He gives things. Willfully doing this is a morally bad act, free agents are able to do this, and so are blamed for causing it, blame in this case being God: "I gave you this nature which tends to and should do this, by decree of My Will, but you did that and destroyed it in part."

All things are under God's Providence, in the definition of that just given, since they exist, but how is this incompatible with a thing which exists coming to lack something God in His idea of the thing, determined it should have?

 

[Ashoka]

The outcome of the Universe does ultimately make all the just happy, due to God's Will, which is why knowing of the damned the Saints rejoice in God's justice.

That's sick. Imagine rejoicing in heaven over a loved one burning in hell. This is called the abominable fancy, and it's the idea that those in heaven will be entertained by those burning in hell. St. Aquinas taught it, St. Jerome taught it, St. Augustine taught it.

Any God that would ask me to be delighted in the suffering of others is not a God.

 

[Lain]

That's sick. Imagine rejoicing in heaven over a loved one burning in hell. This is called the abominable fancy, and it's the idea that those in heaven will be entertained by those burning in hell. St. Aquinas taught it, St. Jerome taught it, St. Augustine taught it.

Any God that would ask me to be delighted in the suffering of others is not a God.

Nothing at all was said about delighting in suffering or being entertained.

 

[Ashoka]

Nothing at all was said about delighting in suffering or being entertained.

What is rejoicing, then?

 

[Lain]

What is rejoicing, then?

Having joy in something.

 

[setarcos]

If I rate chocolate vastly preferable to dog's crap, do you think that the reason is that because there is a God giving me that sense of taste?

If you believe in an existent God that created this reality then yes. God gave you that sense of taste. You actually think you created your own sense of taste? Even if you relegate your sense of taste strictly to biological random processes its still not what you identify as your aware self that created your taste is it? You've simply replaced one entity with another. At this time in my life I simply prefer one hypothesis over the other.

If not, why would I need a God to tell me that protecting kids is better than burning them alive for fun?

God, biology, whatever...something is telling you what is better. By "telling you" I mean what ever processes inform you awareness and dictate your unaware actions

And if the conclusion would be that I really need a God, what makes you think that a God who promoted slavery, raped victims to marry their rapists, promoted genocide, the killing of women and children, including the cutting of pregnant women apart, dashing kids against walls, and all that.... would be a serious candidate as the source of my morality?

I think we mostly misunderstand the concept of God. IF God exists...whether you think you need it or not, your existence would depend on it. So in that sense you would need God. As far as promoting these things, that's another misunderstanding in my opinion. Those things your describing, I presume from events out of the Christian bible would be more accurately described as inevitable historical occurrences not promotions.
IF God exists, what we generally term as moral acts would inevitably be sourced from that God. On the other hand, such a God which would have sources human senses of morality would not itself be subject meaningfully by that same morality.
Another mistake many make is trying to subject God to the same things man is subject to. In essence trying to conform God to their own sense of how it should behave.

 

[Ashoka]

Having joy in something.

So having joy then, in the sufferings of the "damned."

Can you not see what is twisted about this?

 

[Lain]

So having joy then, in the sufferings of the "damned."

Can you not see what is twisted about this?

I didn't say they had joy in the sufferings of the damned, I said that they would rejoice in God's justice.

People often rejoice, for instance, when a violent dictator is overthrown... violently. It is not his death in itself that brings joy, it's the good that will come of it, or justice for his evil actions.

I agree that no one should ever take pleasure in the downfall of another in itself, for the Scripture also says not to do that, since ill will come to us too. But one may rejoice in God's justice, like when He causes the death of an oppressor freeing the oppressed, they rejoice in the justice of it, not the death in itself.

It would indeed be twisted to rejoice in another's suffering, I agree.

 

[Ashoka]

I didn't say they had joy in the sufferings of the damned, I said that they would rejoice in God's justice.

God's justice against those in hell. Who are suffering. It makes me sad to think that no one in heaven would have compassion on them. That would be the just thing to do. I'm sorry, but it's wrong. It was wrong when Aquinas taught it, it was wrong when Johnathan Edwards taught it, and it is wrong now. God doesn't take pleasure in people's folly. He doesn't ask that those who believe in him "rejoice" in "God's justice" which, according to him, is people burning in hell for all eternity.

People often rejoice, for instance, when a violent dictator is overthrown... violently. It is not his death in itself that brings joy, it's the good that will come of it, or justice for his evil actions.

What good can come out of people burning in hell for eternity? What good comes out of a loved one in hell because they believed differently?

It would indeed be twisted to rejoice in another's suffering, I agree.

Yes. For sure. I am glad you see it this way. Sadly, many early Christians and Christians today, did not see it that way. But I digress.

 

[setarcos]

OK, so what do you talk about with Him?

I don't much talk with him. I myself find addressing a person who I cannot see nor necessarily hear like any other human is to my chagrin somewhat foreign at best and embarrassing in the least. I imagine it could be somewhat comforting in ways if I could get passed these hang ups and do it. But your missing the mark I believe.
"Chatting up Jesus" is not about getting ready answers to all of life's little and big questions. Its a reflection on the self mainly. Somewhat like the Socratic unexamined life being examined. The answers you get from talking to Jesus is in the inevitable self reflection of who you are.

Have you ever asked Him how old the Universe is, for instance? I am sure answers with a difference of six orders of magnitude can be easily differentiated them. So, why this is not settled yet in America?

Lol....yeah orders of magnitude. Keep in mind that if the bible is anywhere near the truth in what it says then most Christians fall far short of it.
Heck even science has fallen short at times when calculating how old the universe is. At one point putting some of its stars older that the universe that contains them. I think they've since corrected those calculations but still...lol.
I think asking God something like that would be answered in giving man the capacity to

What about evolution? Have you asked Him? I have a personal relationship with my husband too, and I have no problem asking him basic questions. My Christian friend claims God told her evolution is absolutely true, including common ancestors. Did He tell you the same? Or what about the death penalty?

The same would apply I imagine to evolutionary theories.
I'm conflicted on the death penalty. I'm mostly of the opinion that some people have no light left in them and should be revoked of their license to live. On the other hand human ingenuity is still at the level such that mistakes can be made and innocents put to death.

 

[setarcos]

I am an atheist who has no problem with gay marriage, abortion, even eugenics abortion, euthanasia, and all that. Will I go to heaven, or is that just God's opinion?

Again....I have absolutely no idea if you'll go to "heaven", "hell", or some other place after you die. Perhaps a nice beach resort in Maui. IF God exists that would be up to it. I certainly could judge, based on my own belief systems, that those things are bad things but I certainly couldn't judge the one believing in those things. On a side note. God couldn't have opinions. God could only have facts.

So, the book of Job answered the question. Good. So, what is it? Do you know it, or do you not understand what your own bible says?

Jobs friends judged his misfortune based on their preconceived notions of what God does and does not punish or do. The answer is, God is God and he does what he wills to do yet always without self contradiction and man is ultimately incapable of comprehending the actions of God except that God wills mans comprehension for what he is to understand.
What the bible says is an ongoing unfolding of comprehension. I believe it is more of a test of who the person is rather than a book of explicit understanding.

 

[setarcos]

What do you think? Do you think he will go to hell? Why?

First off...how do you define hell?

 

[setarcos]

Any God that would ask me to be delighted in the suffering of others is not a God.

What about a God that would bring suffering in order to create delight? Is this not what Shiva does?

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you believe it will reverse global warming? Only the effects of that will cause quite a bit of suffering in the future, and we can demonstrate objective evidence for that claim, so what evidence can you demonstrate for you claim this suffering isn't going to happen?

I made no claim that religion or God will reduced global warming and mitigate suffering in the future. Only scientists can accomplish that. However, ordinary people can also help reduce global warming by changing lifestyles that contribute to global warming.

3 Ways Baha’is Deal with Global Warming

 

[Ashoka]

What about a God that would bring suffering in order to create delight? Is this not what Shiva does?

What are you referring to exactly? I am not a Puranic Hindu, and do not follow the Puranic stories of Shiva. So Shiva does not cause suffering in order to cause delight. He has 5 modes; creation, preservation, destruction, veiling and grace. Destruction is just one of his attributes. And destruction can be a good thing, as it gives us room for growth. Destruction of a bad friendship, of a bad job, etc. No where in Hinduism does Shiva, or any Deva for that matter, send anyone to an eternal hell and ask that those in the heavenly realms rejoice in his justice.

His destruction (dissolution, really) brings about positive change and growth, even if it's hard and even if it hurts.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well that's one question, but a more pertinent question for me would be, how can one make assertions about the nature of a deity if it's very existence can't be established? We might as well be arguing about unicorn husbandry.

Theists make those assertions based upon scriptures. I make no assertions about God being good or loving because I don't believe that can be known. It can only be believed that God is good and loving based upon Scriptures that are revealed through the Manifestations of God , who act as divine messengers.

God

The Baháʼí teachings state that there is only one God and that his essence is absolutely inaccessible from the physical realm of existence and that, therefore, his reality is completely unknowable. Thus, all of humanity's conceptions of God which have been derived throughout history are mere manifestations of the human mind and not at all reflective of the nature of God's essence. While God's essence is inaccessible, a subordinate form of knowledge is available by way of mediation by divine messengers, known as Manifestations of God. The Manifestations of God reflect divine attributes, which are creations of God made for the purpose of spiritual enlightenment, onto the physical plane of existence.[6] All physical beings reflect at least one of these attributes, and the human soul can potentially reflect all of them.[7] Shoghi Effendi, the head of the Baháʼí Faith in the first half of the 20th century, described God as inaccessible, omniscient, almighty, personal, and rational, and rejected pantheistic, anthropomorphic and incarnationist beliefs.[2]

God in the Baháʼí Faith - Wikipedia

 

[Sheldon]

If you believe in an existent God that created this reality then yes. God gave you that sense of taste.

It evolved, clearly, there is a reason things that might kill us like raw sewage smells and tastes bad to us.

You've simply replaced one entity with another.

Evolution isn't an entity, it's a process.

At this time in my life I simply prefer one hypothesis over the other.

Evolution is a scientific fact. There is an overwhelming amount of objective evidence that supports it.

God, biology, whatever...something is telling you what is better.

Again scientific fact versus unevidenced belief.

 

[Trailblazer]

For the latter, my house is a mess and I need to clean it, I didn't maintain it well.

Tell me about it. I pray to God and Jesus to help me constantly! I'm not kidding.