Poll: Is God All-Good?

[Milton Platt]

Supposedly, God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent (all-good).

Since we're focusing on the last one, there's supposedly the problem of evil for the last one.

My church is splitting due to the whole gay thing. My cat is probably dying (no eye in one eye, blurry eyed in another, can't eat much and stumbling around). And despite spending money advertising and despite being pretty okay in terms of skill with self-employed gig, I can't seem to break through (most calls I do get about computers are either solicitations to phish for my info, calls that are for problems completely out of my depth like making actual glass for the computer, or people who call when I'm visiting family for Christmas).

I'm not gonna discuss how much of this I could probably fix, but rather use it as an object lesson for the study of whether God is all-good or not.

To me, I'm pretty certain God exists (not only from the personal changes in my life, but also because of philosophical reasons), but right now I'm only not sure how good he is. In fact I'm pretty mad at God.

If god created everything, knowing everything beforehand, then he knew the consequences of all of his actions beforehand and therefore is responsible for everything, including evil resulting from those actions.

 

[viole]

OK. Bad things from man (moral evil) is the price of free will. Cruelty of nature (physical evil) is a lot more difficult to explain. I haven't found a good answer yet. Some known answers I could think of:

• Physical evil is a natural consequence of the metaphysical evil. Only God is absolutely perfect. Everything else can only evolve through stages of perfection and thus at some stage experiencing the pain of growth and longing for perfection. The price of existence and awareness.
• Karma.
• The fall of man.
• Work of gnostic Demiurge.
• Forces of darkness affecting also the physical plane.
• There is a purpose but beyond our human understanding.

ok, but that is not what I asked. I asked whether all those disasters make the world worse, better or neutral compared with a possible world where they did not happen.

you can say, I don't know, obviously. But then I would ask whether it can be possible for a better being to create something that is not best in class, so to speak.

ciao

- viole

 

[EtuMalku]

My general opinion regarding this thread is that what is being referred to as 'god', at least by the OP, is 'An Omniscient, Omnipotent, Being'. This has a plethora of philosophical dead ends that have been argued for centuries.

The OP: "God, strictly speaking, is existence. This means to say things like "I know the universe was created without God" is nonsense, because the statement reflects "I believe all that is (being) was created without Being." Being can be seen, heard, felt, etc. An old man in the sky cannot."

With all these 'omnis' attached to this 'Being', it is difficult to understand why Evil would be necessary in the world? Actually, it wouldn't be necessary. Now first, let me say that I consider both Good & Evil to be subjective experiences; One Man's Good is Another Man's Evil sort of thing. Evil is something experienced not something that exists.

This brings me to my final point, that what the majority of people are calling 'God' is simply the objective universe, a cold, non-conscious, and little-understood mechanism. Not some conscious omnipotent, and omniscient being laying plans for our existence.

 

[Trailblazer]

And you see, here is where I would point you to your myopic way of thinking. Because I said "always looking to blame others" was unhealthy, you jumped STRAIGHT to the idea that I felt you should always blame yourself. Why?

That is a straw man. I did not say that you said I should blame myself; I just said that I blame myself.

Why did you jump directly to that?

Because it came into my mind, since I tend to blame myself.

From my perspective, it is far more important that people realize that in a great many situations, THERE IS NO ONE TO BE BLAMED. The most obvious examples are hardships like inclement/damaging weather. People will cast around, still looking for "blame" when a tornado destroys their house. Is it God? Is it the heathens around me who incurred God's wrath? These people are being foolish. There is no one to be blamed. Stop looking.

That is true, sometimes there is no one to be blamed, and weather is an obvious example. But sometimes people are to blame, if they drop the ball when they should have done something, for example, and then something bad happens as a result. Let’s say you knew the brakes on your car were failing and you did not do anything about it and then as a result you had an accident and hurt yourself and other people.Let’s say you drove drunk and killed people. How about when a man plans and carries out the murder of his wife?

My point is that if people were NEVER to blame for anything then we would not need a justice system.

My belief is that some of the time, whether one is "struggling" or not is actually matter of perspective. A lot of people seem to feel like they are battling some unseen enemy, and so they feel like the issues they encounter are "personal." This describes A LOT of people I have encountered. They are looking at it wrong. Many of those things are simply temporary situations that one simply has to overcome. Lamenting that you have to go through the process of overcoming does NOTHING to get you through it faster. Absolutely nothing.

My belief is that when someone is struggling, and if they are suffering as a result, even if it is because of their perspective,they are still suffering. They are not looking at it wrong; they are just not looking at it the way you would. If it was as easy as falling off a log to change one’s perspective, there would be no mental health problems.

Sure, some of the ordinary everyday problems people encounter are temporary and people can overcome them, but other problems are more serious, recurrent or chronic, and one is never able to completely overcome them, no matter how hard they try. It is not just a matter of will, because sometimes there is no good solution. I am not suggesting that people should lament and complain to other people. Most people do not want to hear about other peoples’ problems, so it is best not to talk about them with anyone except someone who can be trusted, a close friend, a relative, a spouse, or a mental health professional.

There are people who have zero compassion and there are those who have a lot of compassion, but since one can never know who is who, it is best not to share one’s feelings unless one is prepared to have them trampled underfoot. Some people do not mean to be insensitive but they just cannot keep their ego out of it and realize everyone is not like them and/or they do not have all the answers. I consider this a serious character defect.

 

[PearlSeeker]

ok, but that is not what I asked. I asked whether all those disasters make the world worse, better or neutral compared with a possible world where they did not happen.

you can say, I don't know, obviously. But then I would ask whether it can be possible for a better being to create something that is not best in class, so to speak.

ciao

- viole

Sorry, English is not my first language.

Some natural phenomena are experienced as disasters only because there are beings that can suffer. I think it's still better that self-aware life is part of this world.

 

[Hawkins]

Supposedly, God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent (all-good).

God is all good. That's how He uses the process only once to get rid of evil once and for all.

Have you tried to build a fish aquarium? Earth is like a filter where all the dirt will stay to secure a clean aquarium the Heaven. All kinds of evil will show up and be openly displayed, followed by a final judgment such that they will be destroyed once and for all to secure a clean future Heaven.

So don't complain when you are in the middle of the process sticking together with all other sh*ts inside the filter which is our planet earth.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

My belief is that when someone is struggling, and if they are suffering as a result, even if it is because of their perspective,they are still suffering. They are not looking at it wrong; they are just not looking at it the way you would. If it was as easy as falling off a log to change one’s perspective, there would be no mental health problems.

Sure, some of the ordinary everyday problems people encounter are temporary and people can overcome them, but other problems are more serious, recurrent or chronic, and one is never able to completely overcome them, no matter how hard they try. It is not just a matter of will, because sometimes there is no good solution. I am not suggesting that people should lament and complain to other people. Most people do not want to hear about other peoples’ problems, so it is best not to talk about them with anyone except someone who can be trusted, a close friend, a relative, a spouse, or a mental health professional.

There are people who have zero compassion and there are those who have a lot of compassion, but since one can never know who is who, it is best not to share one’s feelings unless one is prepared to have them trampled underfoot. Some people do not mean to be insensitive but they just cannot keep their ego out of it and realize everyone is not like them and/or they do not have all the answers. I consider this a serious character defect.

Unfortunately, any time a person appeals to the idea that they "cannot help how they feel" about a particular situation, or as a reason they are found to be complaining about a certain thing, etc. they simply MUST afford the other person in the conversation any reaction that person comes forward with. Because they cannot discount that the other person's reaction is simply something that "cannot be helped" by them either. I know this sounds callous... but it is simply true. If you "can't help how you feel" sometimes, then you have to understand that other people also "cannot help how they feel." And yet, here you are, wanting to hold their reactions against them. You wish to be allowed your reaction to your circumstances - whatever that may be, or however detrimental to your own mental state, and yet you want other people to stifle their reactions to your reaction or your situation.

To my mind... there are TWO egos in play. The one of the person who doesn't see the suffering of another as as big a deal or doesn't want to hear it, and the ego of the person who is making the claim to suffering, who feels that they are being attacked when another diminishes what amounts to their opinion about their situation.

 

[viole]

Sorry, English is not my first language.

Some natural phenomena are experienced as disasters only because there are beings that can suffer. I think it's still better that self-aware life is part of this world.

i think that even better would be self aware beings that do not suffer. Right?

you know, like what you expect in heaven.

ciao

- viole

 

[PearlSeeker]

i think that even better would be self aware beings that do not suffer. Right?

you know, like what you expect in heaven.

ciao

- viole

Yes, it is better and I believe one day the Kingdom will come but I'm not sure if it would be better if it was here at once. Maybe we have some things to learn or to prepare. First the starter, then the main course and then the dessert. All in good time.

 

[metis]

None of the responses in the OP relates to my drift about God, which is whatever caused this universe/multiverse I'll call "God" and pretty much leave it at that. [familiar? that was my previous faith statement, which I still adhere to]

I think it's likely that God is reflected in Nature, to use Spinoza's alternative name for God that includes an approach that Einstein also believed likely [notice I put Einstein and myself in the same sentence ]. Much like an artist drawing paintings for him/herself, what they paint will largely be a reflection of themselves. Thus, as Einstein stated [notice I used his name again here ], everything we see is a "reflection" of God.

This can be a very uncomfortable position as this also must include natural things that go wrong besides those that go right. There's a commentary in Judaism that goes that when God made our universe He saw that it was "good"-- but not "perfect". Why would He maybe do that? Glad you asked. Maybe so as to allow us to have our "free will" to make Earth and our surroundings ours versus just His. This puts God as being more of a minimalist, thus allowing events to take place minus His controlling everything.

 

[viole]

Yes, it is better and I believe one day the Kingdom will come but I'm not sure if it would be better if it was here at once. Maybe we have some things to learn or to prepare. First the starter, then the main course and then the dessert. All in good time.

To prepare? The vast majority of souls will be little kids who died soon after birth, or aborted or miscarriaged fetuses. Even today, 30,000 kids will die. Like every day. Not to speak of the ones dying before being born.

what are they planned to prepare here?

ciao

- viole

 

[Trailblazer]

Unfortunately, any time a person appeals to the idea that they "cannot help how they feel" about a particular situation, or as a reason they are found to be complaining about a certain thing, etc. they simply MUST afford the other person in the conversation any reaction that person comes forward with. Because they cannot discount that the other person's reaction is simply something that "cannot be helped" by them either. I know this sounds callous... but it is simply true. If you "can't help how you feel" sometimes, then you have to understand that other people also "cannot help how they feel." And yet, here you are, wanting to hold their reactions against them. You wish to be allowed your reaction to your circumstances - whatever that may be, or however detrimental to your own mental state, and yet you want other people to stifle their reactions to your reaction or your situation.

That is a straw man, because I do not expect other people to stifle their reactions to my reaction or my situation. Moreover, I am not saying that just because we feel a certain way we should share those feelings with other people, OR that if/when we choose to share them we should have any expectations of the other person. Sure, the other person's reaction is going to be whatever it is according to how they understand the situation, and that is why we should not expect any sympathy or understanding from people who we suspect would not understand. I have learned this the hard way.

To my mind... there are TWO egos in play. The one of the person who doesn't see the suffering of another as a big a deal or doesn't want to hear it, and the ego of the person who is making the claim to suffering, who feels that they are being attacked when another diminishes what amounts to their opinion about their situation.

You are assuming that nobody ever sees the suffering of someone else as a big deal and/or that nobody ever wants to hear it. I think that might be projection on your part, just because you do not want to hear it. I would NEVER share my suffering with anyone unless I knew I would not be bothering them AND I knew they would understand. Some people would be empathetic and they would not feel I was bothering them but they would not understand why I am so upset about x because they would never be so upset about x. As such I would never share my feelings about x with them.

I can share feelings with my husband because he is obligated to listen if I am in a crisis just as I would listen to him if he was in one. He does not FULLY understand how I feel but he understands better than anyone else ever would, UNLESS that person had very similar feelings about x. I had a friend I met on an online support group who did understand about x better than my husband, but unfortunately we parted ways back in 2013 when we had a big disagreement about our religious beliefs.

Of course, God understands about x better than any human being ever could, but that does not help me if I need someone to talk to. I used to go to counselors because that is their job to listen to me, but when they did not understand or have any solutions it only made me feel worse, so I stopped going.

Imo, people should be able to put their own ego aside if someone else is suffering and not care about themselves or their opinion, but I believe that because of my religious beliefs.

“O ye beloved of the Lord! The Kingdom of God is founded upon equity and justice, and also upon mercy, compassion, and kindness to every living soul. Strive ye then with all your heart to treat compassionately all humankind—except for those who have some selfish, private motive, or some disease of the soul.” Selections, p. 158

People who are truly suffering to not have a selfish private motive because they are not trying to GET something for themselves, so Imo we should show everyone kindness and compassion even if we think what they are suffering over would be insignificant to us.

Once, about a year ago, a very young Baha’i woman I met on a forum thought her life was over because she allowed a boy she was dating to go too far sexually (even though it was not all the way.) Her father was a strict Muslim and her mother was a Baha’i so she said she could not tell them what happened, as she was so ashamed of what she had done. I am a licensed counselor (although not practicing) and I know a lot about psychology so I told her she could send me a private message on that forum.

I tried to assure her it was not a big deal, we all make mistakes, and she would get over it eventually, but she kept saying her life was over and she was so depressed she did not know if she would be able to go off to her first year of college in the fall. It took a long time, but eventually I got through to her and she started to recover.

A while later, maybe it was months, she posted me a private message thanking me; she told me she had recovered and went off to college, but she never would have recovered if it had not been for me. I had no idea that what I had said helped her that much. My point is that I think we should always show compassion to people even if we do not think what they are suffering over is a big deal. It is egotistical to think that just because it would not be a big deal to us it is not a big deal to someone else.

 

[PearlSeeker]

To prepare? The vast majority of souls will be little kids who died soon after birth, or aborted or miscarriaged fetuses. Even today, 30,000 kids will die. Like every day. Not to speak of the ones dying before being born.

what are they planned to prepare here?

ciao

- viole

I guess they come back to get the next opportunity. Yes, that's reincarnation.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You are assuming that nobody ever sees the suffering of someone else as a big deal and/or that nobody ever wants to hear it.

I was not at all assuming this, nor am I the type of person who "never wants to hear it." Sure, my intuition gives me cues when what I am hearing sounds like much ado about nothing - however all I was stating is that people can have various reactions to hearing other people's woes, and anyone is obviously free to feel affronted or insulted by someone who doesn't have the reaction they were hoping for - but I was stating that I feel such offended-ness to be misplaced and somewhat hypocritical if the excuse "I can't help it" is expressly used, or even internally felt.

I was once talking to my sister - she had been having discussions with her husband about divorce - a divorce that my brother-in-law wanted and was asking for, and that she was opposed-to/didn't want. I listened to her, and attempted to give her compassionate counsel as necessary... but mostly just listened. However the conversation took a turn when she mentioned that one gripe she had with my brother-in-law was that he was not sympathetic to her discussions with him about trauma she felt she had endured during her dreams. We being family, I tried my hardest to talk her calmly and rationally down out of the strange thought processes that must have led her to these ideas, but basically she was claiming that she had been traumatized by her dreams - dreams like being chased by villains in a factory where people were being made into hot dogs, or being whisked through the cosmos by some being that she felt intended her harm - and the claim was that this should afford her some understanding for any quirks in her behavior that my brother-in-law was lamenting. Her dreams. DREAMS. Surely she can feel as traumatized as she is willing by her dreams, and believe that they hold some great sway over her life... but do you honestly think I shouldn't try to talk her out of this? That I shouldn't try my hand at giving her some better tools to work with that will allow her to ignore or de-prioritize these non-existent, whims of an unconscious brain? I'm not going to just stand by as my sister tells me something like this, or encourage her, or give her reason to take it any further. No. It isn't healthy - as can be thoroughly evidenced by how unhappy the situation is making her, and I do not have this problem myself. No matter how many "bad dreams" I have had, I have never once considered that they could have lasting impact on my life. So apparently I am doing something differently that allows me to drop kick that potential problem into the dust bin. Do you think it kinder for me to coddle her, or to attempt to impart to her the details of how I accomplish this within my own experiences?

 

[Samantha Rinne]

My general opinion regarding this thread is that what is being referred to as 'god', at least by the OP, is 'An Omniscient, Omnipotent, Being'. This has a plethora of philosophical dead ends that have been argued for centuries.

The OP: "God, strictly speaking, is existence. This means to say things like "I know the universe was created without God" is nonsense, because the statement reflects "I believe all that is (being) was created without Being." Being can be seen, heard, felt, etc. An old man in the sky cannot."

With all these 'omnis' attached to this 'Being', it is difficult to understand why Evil would be necessary in the world? Actually, it wouldn't be necessary. Now first, let me say that I consider both Good & Evil to be subjective experiences; One Man's Good is Another Man's Evil sort of thing. Evil is something experienced not something that exists.

This brings me to my final point, that what the majority of people are calling 'God' is simply the objective universe, a cold, non-conscious, and little-understood mechanism. Not some conscious omnipotent, and omniscient being laying plans for our existence.

If we are going by the OP (my) definition of God as existence, why would it not be?

For existence to be existence, it generally has to be real. So let's look at artwork and what looks most and least real.

Both Thomas Kinkade and Maxfield Parrish do prints that have little of no shadow. Yet they are almost weird to look at (I like them, but still weird). Anything that could be called Heaven or Paradise wouldn't be the complete absence of evil, but rather the existence of harmony DESPITE evil. And right now, my life is very very broken, so I'd not call it harmonious.

Curiously, stark black and white contrast (often called chiaroscuro) also doesn't look real, which is why black and white morality is so off.

But basically, if you're in Heaven, there's a sense of unity, kind of "there are problems in the world but I also had like the best sex ever, so this can wait." Whereas in the absence of anything that can be called bad, it's more like an oversaturated painting.

That's my understanding.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

God is all good. That's how He uses the process only once to get rid of evil once and for all.

Have you tried to build a fish aquarium? Earth is like a filter where all the dirt will stay to secure a clean aquarium the Heaven. All kinds of evil will show up and be openly displayed, followed by a final judgment such that they will be destroyed once and for all to secure a clean future Heaven.

So don't complain when you are in the middle of the process sticking together with all other sh*ts inside the filter which is our planet earth.

Yes, but fish can't exist in completely purified water. Only fresh or salt water will do, but something like Brita or Pur water is actually too pure. Not only does extremely pure water actually leach nutrients from even the human body, but it probably has no oxygen, meaning fish gills suffocate.

To say God will cleanse the world is not saying to remove the evil completely from it, but rather to put things in balance.

 

[EtuMalku]

If we are going by the OP (my) definition of God as existence, why would it not be?

For existence to be existence, it generally has to be real. So let's look at artwork and what looks most and least real.

Both Thomas Kinkade and Maxfield Parrish do prints that have little of no shadow. Yet they are almost weird to look at (I like them, but still weird). Anything that could be called Heaven or Paradise wouldn't be the complete absence of evil, but rather the existence of harmony DESPITE evil. And right now, my life is very very broken, so I'd not call it harmonious.

Curiously, stark black and white contrast (often called chiaroscuro) also doesn't look real, which is why black and white morality is so off.

But basically, if you're in Heaven, there's a sense of unity, kind of "there are problems in the world but I also had like the best sex ever, so this can wait." Whereas in the absence of anything that can be called bad, it's more like an oversaturated painting.

That's my understanding.

Art? If there is anything that displays our individualness and Godself divorced of some kind of universal consciousness, it is the Arts! I also don't accept the idea of opposites/dualism, which is an illusion of the objective universe . . . everything/one is unique unto themselves, Light is not the opposite of Darkness, rather Darkness is the womb from which Light is held.

 

[Bobby Anderson]

Our true Parent is Pure Love. However the OT biblical "god" is not that true Parent and was made up in the hearts of men. So our Parent is Pure Love and the OT "god" only exists in a book and the hearts of mankind who want that kind of "god" to exist. People do not understand what this world is and why they are truly here, actually not here, just think they are due to their mind. To know Truth, we must listen to our Spirit that is from our Parent. Our mind is just a method of navigation of this illusion we believe is real. Our mind is the true enemy of Truth and Eternity.

 

[Skwim]

I voted:

1. *God is evil, and somehow also doesn't exist (Explain that one ).... 3 vote(s).....14.3%

As an explanation: I have no reason to believe god exists so I can't say he does (Lacking an agnostic position I choose this as being closest.) That he is evil depends entirely on how he's depicted in the Bible, and as the Bible account goes he creates evil and has done things that under our present day ethics would be considered to be evil---"profoundly immoral and wicked acts"---if done by anyone else.

If some other god than that of Abraham is to be considered I would have to know whom before pronouncing him evil.

.

 

[Trailblazer]

I was not at all assuming this, nor am I the type of person who "never wants to hear it." Sure, my intuition gives me cues when what I am hearing sounds like much ado about nothing - however all I was stating is that people can have various reactions to hearing other people's woes, and anyone is obviously free to feel affronted or insulted by someone who doesn't have the reaction they were hoping for - but I was stating that I feel such offended-ness to be misplaced and somewhat hypocritical if the excuse "I can't help it" is expressly used, or even internally felt.

Okay, I can understand and agree with that.

People who complain about things I do not consider important do not complain to me so I don’t have to deal with that. If they do complain, I do not give advice; I just listen if I have to.

I was once talking to my sister - she had been having discussions with her husband about divorce - a divorce that my brother-in-law wanted and was asking for, and that she was opposed-to/didn't want. I listened to her, and attempted to give her compassionate counsel as necessary... but mostly just listened. However the conversation took a turn when she mentioned that one gripe she had with my brother-in-law was that he was not sympathetic to her discussions with him about trauma she felt she had endured during her dreams. We being family, I tried my hardest to talk her calmly and rationally down out of the strange thought processes that must have led her to these ideas, but basically she was claiming that she had been traumatized by her dreams - dreams like being chased by villains in a factory where people were being made into hot dogs, or being whisked through the cosmos by some being that she felt intended her harm - and the claim was that this should afford her some understanding for any quirks in her behavior that my brother-in-law was lamenting. Her dreams. DREAMS. Surely she can feel as traumatized as she is willing by her dreams, and believe that they hold some great sway over her life... but do you honestly think I shouldn't try to talk her out of this? That I shouldn't try my hand at giving her some better tools to work with that will allow her to ignore or de-prioritize these non-existent, whims of an unconscious brain? I'm not going to just stand by as my sister tells me something like this, or encourage her, or give her reason to take it any further. No. It isn't healthy - as can be thoroughly evidenced by how unhappy the situation is making her, and I do not have this problem myself. No matter how many "bad dreams" I have had, I have never once considered that they could have lasting impact on my life. So apparently I am doing something differently that allows me to drop kick that potential problem into the dust bin. Do you think it kinder for me to coddle her, or to attempt to impart to her the details of how I accomplish this within my own experiences?

I do not think it would be kind to coddle her, it would be best to do as you did, try to talk some sense into her. That shows that you care. If that did not help, I would recommend to her that she seek some counseling.