Is God good? Is God loving?

[setarcos]

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.

I'm afraid that those Christians that take delight in the thought of someone suffering in hell are flat out misunderstanding the teachings of Christ or are somewhat being misguided by others. Shiva does not cause suffering in order to cause delight...there you go. Neither does the Christian God. So, destruction is just one of the attributes of Shiva. Okay granted so why would you segregate just one aspect of the Christian experience and judge it in its entirety by that one aspect? What God asks of us is that Christians rejoice in the concept of justice itself. That there is meaning in right conduct and conduct and choice are not arbitrary and meaningless. That a person's suffering is not in vain and is celebrated not as delight in the eventual demise of the "evils" of this world but in the eventual triumph of Justice.

 

[Ashoka]

I'm afraid that those Christians that take delight in the thought of someone suffering in hell are flat out misunderstanding the teachings of Christ or are somewhat being misguided by others. Shiva does not cause suffering in order to cause delight...there you go. Neither does the Christian God. So, destruction is just one of the attributes of Shiva. Okay granted so why would you segregate just one aspect of the Christian experience and judge it in its entirety by that one aspect? What God asks of us is that Christians rejoice in the concept of justice itself. That there is meaning in right conduct and conduct and choice are not arbitrary and meaningless. That a person's suffering is not in vain and is celebrated not as delight in the eventual demise of the "evils" of this world but in the eventual triumph of Justice.

That is fair. But what would you say of those theologians, such as St. Aquinas, St. Augustine, John Calvin, R.C. Sproul, who teach this? These are theologians, men who contributed a lot to Christianity. Were they wrong on this?

Certainly, justice is good to rejoice in. Just not people's sufferings. Even if they were the worst person on earth. In my view, the answer to this question, is God good and loving, is a YES because no one is ever too far gone or out of reach of God. In my view, even those in the hell realms will one day reach Moksha (liberation). There's a story about how the Asura (demon) Ravana was killed by Lord Rama after he kidnapped his wife. Not only did Lord Rama forgive him, but he ensured that he would be liberated after death. Nothing, to me, is too hard for God.

 

[savagewind]

If God is good and God is loving what is the evidence? This is all about evidence. I don’t want to see any scriptures because they are not evidence.

Look around you in this world. What evidence do you see that would indicate that a good/loving God exists? I am trying to be objective about this rather than being influenced by my own feelings and life experiences which do not constitute evidence.

Love is longsuffering and kind. Patience, friendly, generous, and considerate.
Patience. We are still here!
Friendly. We have lots of churches and other things like churches.
Generous. Do you have all day?
Considerate. Friendliness is easy. Have you ever wondered why?

 

[setarcos]

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

That's not exactly science. That's strictly conjecture. No one has seen nor can show beyond hypothetical assumptions the development of how taste developed. I might just as well hypothesize that taste was created by a divine being for that same purpose you stated. Ironically, evolution doesn't deal in reason now does it.

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

I consider a process which taken as a whole in the production of some phenomena an entity. Like the corporate entity that created the I-phone for instance.

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

This is an oft mistaken assumption. Evolution is a hypothesis based on current observations of factual events. Like the fact that a particular fossil was discovered in a particular spot.
The evolution of past species is scientifically untestable. Unless science, ahem, creates a time machine somehow.

Again scientific fact versus unevidenced belief.

Again? Lol. Even in close relatives tastes differ. The main gist of this line of thinking was how those particular tastes developed in those particular individuals. Generally, I would imagine that if a divine being created a creature for the purpose of living on this earth it would inculcate into that creature some survival mechanisms. Hypothetically God and a strict natural evolution would be equal in their ability to be disproven or proven.

 

[rational experiences]

He said, using a computer linked to the internet.

When science as science is 100 per cent God wrong. Science then told science you are wrong. But don't use 100 per cent natural truth. As science was human designed only in human presence.

To argue you get involved.

 

[rational experiences]

When God the man talks about created God he lies.

As he didn't create God. Creation.

Pretty basic conscious biblical you are a destroyer mentality teaching.

Father said God the status was never known by man. Man then got punished by God for not listening to gods advice. Change God and god in reactions in nature first will destroy you.

Position one was natural anything.

So science confessing by mens use in words tells us. Yes I know reactions in nucleAr lead to human combustion.

Fully theoretic informed and envisioned. Reason for built bombs.

So you can no longer claim I am innocent in the knowledge human destruction.

Unlike first scientist who learnt by being sacrificed.

Man's consciousness says I know it all by motivated position one personal choice. Says I learn. Proves he doesn't listen to his own advice.

A bible conscious teaching.

To know sacrifice is to take position one holiest and give it position two changed.

Once learnt I was wrong as I was innocent of self harm but ego won't listen.

Humans reading self sacrifice choice hence claim it is a human mental condition.. yes science was chosen as status mental. Even taught it as mental. Scientists confession.

Why the natural human has to challenge science and ask them what form of a God are you talking about and where in natural history as the past where no human is alive is it placed.

By your reasoning I want it. Hence have to claim as I know I never created gods presence I have to open a channel for natural God to go into my machine.

By space opening. Position one as first natural God. Not first natural life.
When he says energy is the same old energy today as it was in the past.

Just energy.

Still won't listen.

 

[Sheldon]

I might just as well hypothesize that taste was created by a divine being for that same purpose you stated.

Except there is an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence for species evolution, based on over 162 years of global scientific scrutiny. There's not one shred of objective evidence for any deity using inexplicable magic.

I consider a process which taken as a whole in the production of some phenomena an entity.

entity
noun

1. a thing with distinct and independent existence.

Try again.

This is an oft mistaken assumption. Evolution is a hypothesis based on current observations of factual events. Like the fact that a particular fossil was discovered in a particular spot.
The evolution of past species is scientifically untestable. Unless science, ahem, creates a time machine somehow.

Species evolution is an accepted scientific fact, the scientific theory contains the evidence and explains the phenomena. The evolution of past species is amply evidenced in the fossil record alone.

Generally, I would imagine that if a divine being created a creature for the purpose of living on this earth it would inculcate into that creature some survival mechanisms. Hypothetically God and a strict natural evolution would be equal in their ability to be disproven or proven.

Imagined is right. An unevidenced deity using inexplicable magic is not a hypothesis, it's superstition, and it demonstrably is not falsifiable, nor is any unevidenced magic with no explanatory powers whatsoever.

 

[savagewind]

I wonder why Sheldon sounds so much like the character Sheldon? Magic, perhaps?

 

[rational experiences]

Status God by human teaching entity O earth first owned it's heavens. Highest holiest in its past. One climate balanced no seasons.

Immaculate heavens owned the balances.....balance no collision.

God by heavens status determined the living species multi varied living inside the heavenly god status.

The heavenly body determined what species could exist. Even in the past it was Multi varied life forms.

Teaching said heavenly status cooling manifested species back into higher forms. Of origin.

Which would identify hence they had been removed from owning a previous higher life form.

The status human known memories whilst living returned healed back into healthier life forms of our origins. Now by four seasons support.

No longer a one of climate.

Highest with God heavens.

A teaching.

Science had previously mutated removed the higher life forms. Heavens hotter increased radiation status as one climate.

Advice observed de evolution of species now healing to own original natural first forms with God.

Was a human scientific teaching why.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Who can say? If I were God, and have omnipotence and omniscience and all those omnis, I would have definitely done a better job in communicating to my children. It is amazing how even people believing in the same God disagree on real basic stuff.

So, after a suggestion to God, a suggestion to Christians: during your claimed personal relationships with Jesus, why don't you ask Him directly what is right and wrong? So, that you all agree? Same, of course, with a plethora of things, from cosmology to biology, basic theology, and all that.

That would really give us skeptics some evidence that when you speak with God, or claim to have a relationship with Him, you are not just deluding yourselves.

Ciao

- viole

Are you familiar with the Bible's teaching that skeptics are veiled from evidence?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

And? Who said anything about origins? Is this just your standard fall-back when someone starts mentioning evolution or something? Maybe get a new schtick? Right now, you're just dancing the non-sequitur twist - and looking ridiculous.

Sorry, i was tired when I replied.
I meant the origins of significant novel features of any life forms.

So, our bodies react to sugar with a positive pleasure reaction, which initially in our development is fine, because sugar isn't plentiful or easy to find, and so it makes sense to prize it, but then later when sugar is abundant all the time, our still having this pleasure reaction is because of "the problem of evil?" I think this conversation is over.

You know what I was replying to. I quoted your statement, that ‘one could ask why God would allow sugar to have such a detrimental effect on humans.’

This should have been clear.
You moved the goal posts, I guess because you don’t want the answers?
Idk.
I’m through, too.

 

[setarcos]

That is fair. But what would you say of those theologians, such as St. Aquinas, St. Augustine, John Calvin, R.C. Sproul, who teach this? These are theologians, men who contributed a lot to Christianity. Were they wrong on this?

I see two possibilities. Either they were wrong or they are being misinterpreted.

 

[setarcos]

Certainly, justice is good to rejoice in. Just not people's sufferings. Even if they were the worst person on earth.

There in lies a good question. How DO we achieve justice?

 

[viole]

Are you familiar with the Bible's teaching that skeptics are veiled from evidence?

Are you now using Scriptures to defend your case against skepticism of Scriptures? LOL

OK. Little 101 on critical thinking.

Suppose I make up something and I call it Holy Scripture. Everybody can do that. In that I write that if you believe in garden fairies, and you accept them as ladies and saviours of your garden against any form of agents who might corrupt them, you will go to a Heaven full of nice carrots and lettuce. If you do not, you will spend all eternity in a hell of marmite and some other disgusting stuff. To that, I add that unbelievers will scoff at that, and they will be veiled from the truth of my saying and the evidence thereof.

Now, anyone with an average intelligence will laugh at that immediately. But look: all I have to say to make my point is that they are proving my scriptures, namely that unbelievers will scoff at that, and that they are veiled by evidence. Proving thereby the reliability of my garden fairies holy scriptures and how good it is in anticipating unbelievers reactions. And, therefore, how divine its origin must be.

I have to ask. Is it really so easy to fool you all like that, guys?

Ciao

- viole

 

[muhammad_isa]

..Species evolution is an accepted scientific fact, the scientific theory contains the evidence and explains the phenomena. .

Indeed. One cannot prove "a fact" wrong by definition.
However, when I see lots of people throwing the word
"fact" around, I immediately become suspicious

It matters little to me "how god did it", and you might have
all the answers to "how", but I doubt you know much
about why you exist.
TOE cannot answer that.

 

[Muffled]

I believe He testifies that He is and testifies He is willing to be crucified for our salvation as proof.

 

[Muffled]

If they are supposed to be omnipotent, then they very clearly are neither good nor loving.

I believe that is a non-sequitur. I believe power corrupts people but not a perfect God.

 

[Muffled]

I notice believers seem to transfer the love they want to have to god and by their devotion to god he gives them the perfect idea of love that they are missing. Belief in god is a motivator to find love for oneself. The blessings and scripture and all of that confirms that god is doing his part. If people didn't believe in god, they wouldn't have that full love. So, it's not trying to ask a being/spirit (so have you) to be loving (unless that's what you believe) but it's to learn to love yourself by seeing and interacting the signs life throws at you.

It's a tilt in perspective. Unless you believe god is a being literally handling the laws and the shape of the universe, it's a personal growth rather than someone saying "here is love" on a platter.

I believe I received love directly even though no platter was involved. For me it was a cup.

 

[Sheldon]

Are you familiar with the Bible's teaching that skeptics are veiled from evidence?

Well it would say that wouldn't it?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Are you now using Scriptures to defend your case against skepticism of Scriptures? LOL

OK. Little 101 on critical thinking.

Suppose I make up something and I call it Holy Scripture. Everybody can do that. In that I write that if you believe in garden fairies, and you accept them as ladies and saviours of your garden against any form of agents who might corrupt them, you will go to a Heaven full of nice carrots and lettuce. If you do not, you will spend all eternity in a hell of marmite and some other disgusting stuff. To that, I add that unbelievers will scoff at that, and they will be veiled from the truth of my saying and the evidence thereof.

Now, anyone with an average intelligence will laugh at that immediately. But look: all I have to say to make my point is that they are proving my scriptures, namely that unbelievers will scoff at that, and that they are veiled by evidence. Proving thereby the reliability of my garden fairies holy scriptures and how good it is in anticipating unbelievers reactions. And, therefore, how divine its origin must be.

I have to ask. Is it really so easy to fool you all like that, guys?

Ciao

- viole

All I asked was whether you aware of the many scriptures that counter your claim that God ought to make evidence more plain to skeptics.

Your whole "A good God would show evidence to me" is different than the biblical God whose main sorting device is whether people trust or want to trust God or trust themselves as superior to God.