Is God really good?

[keith99]

Dang! You beat me too it. QFT

I was going to say God isn't god, God is Excellent!

Of course one has to realize just what some people mean when saying Excellent. Mr. Burns for example.

 

[Belk]

I was going to say God isn't god, God is Excellent!

Of course one has to realize just what some people mean when saying Excellent. Mr. Burns for example.

So you are going for a more Bill & Ted type of Excellent?

 

[Honkytnkmn]

I think there are two arguments here, and they're both terrible.

Argument 1, as it seems to me
First Premise: Good can be done for the sake of good.
Second Premise: Evil can be done for the sake of evil, but this is infrequent
Conclusion: Good is above evil.
Criticism: I submit that good done for its own sake is as infrequent as evil done for its own sake. Moreover, the frequency of either does not in any way imply the ontological primacy of good.

Argument 2, as it seems to me
First Premise: Good can be known alone
Second Premise: Evil requires good to be known
Conclusion: Good is above evil.
Criticism: The stars require light to be known. Is light therefore "above" the stars? Moreover, I doubt the premises. I submit that in the everyday world, evil is much more obvious than good. If you are robbed, you notice. If someone near you is law-abiding and decent, you frequently won't notice. Therefore, good lacks the ontological primacy you would attribute it.

Try again.

Yea, I'm not sure I'm explaining it properly.

See Good is subjective to the person doing it. Meaning I can hit someone because it feels good to me where as it may be evil to the person I'm hitting. But good in a sense is still coming out of it. Selfish good granted but still good.

Most actions are done for the good of something. I say evil is done for the sake of evil rarely, although I cannot think of any situation where evil would be done for the sake of evil. But on the other hand good is done for the sake of good all the time.

Example

I'm going to do evil because it makes me feel good. Some good, albeit good only to the person doing it, is being done.

On the other hand, you can say I'm going to help that person even though I can't stand them and don't really want to help them. That is good done for the sake of good.

I really have never heard anyone say I really hate doing evil and I get nothing out of it but I'm gonna do it to be evil.

it doesn't work that way.

You can say, things are wrong, but they are probably right for someone at some level. You may think Bill Gates is evil because he has tons of money and doesn't share with anyone, but Bill Gates thinks he is doing good because he's providing for his family.

I'm still not sure if I'm getting my point across

 

[The Nihilist]

Yea, I'm not sure I'm explaining it properly.

See Good is subjective to the person doing it. Meaning I can hit someone because it feels good to me where as it may be evil to the person I'm hitting. But good in a sense is still coming out of it. Selfish good granted but still good.

Most actions are done for the good of something. I say evil is done for the sake of evil rarely, although I cannot think of any situation where evil would be done for the sake of evil. But on the other hand good is done for the sake of good all the time.

Example

I'm going to do evil because it makes me feel good. Some good, albeit good only to the person doing it, is being done.

On the other hand, you can say I'm going to help that person even though I can't stand them and don't really want to help them. That is good done for the sake of good.

I really have never heard anyone say I really hate doing evil and I get nothing out of it but I'm gonna do it to be evil.

it doesn't work that way.

You can say, things are wrong, but they are probably right for someone at some level. You may think Bill Gates is evil because he has tons of money and doesn't share with anyone, but Bill Gates thinks he is doing good because he's providing for his family.

I'm still not sure if I'm getting my point across

No, you're not getting your point across at all. You seem to be confused about the difference between (pain and pleasure) and (moral good and moral evil).


Also, Bill and Melinda Gates run the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, which does all kinds of good stuff.

 

[Honkytnkmn]

No, you're not getting your point across at all. You seem to be confused about the difference between (pain and pleasure) and (moral good and moral evil).


Also, Bill and Melinda Gates run the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, which does all kinds of good stuff.

Yea, I'm gonna stop trying. C.S. Lewis did a spectacular job in his book Mere Christianity and I just can't do it justice.

Anyway

I know Bill and Melinda have a charitable foundation and give large amounts of money. I was just using him as an example that people might relate to.

 

[The Nihilist]

Yea, I'm gonna stop trying. C.S. Lewis did a spectacular job in his book Mere Christianity and I just can't do it justice.

Anyway

I know Bill and Melinda have a charitable foundation and give large amounts of money. I was just using him as an example that people might relate to.

No. C.S. Lewis is a hack.

 

[Honkytnkmn]

No. C.S. Lewis is a hack.

Ok, I take it you've read the book and disagree with him, therefore he is a hack.

I would love to get you're side of his argument.

 

[The Nihilist]

Ok, I take it you've read the book and disagree with him, therefore he is a hack.

I would love to get you're side of his argument.

No, there are plenty of intelligent people with whom I disagree. Lewis is a hack because he's a pop-theologian, and his theology is almost always terrible.

 

[rambot]

I'm a Christian but, fundamentally, I think it's impossible to "reason" God (given that faith is, by it's nature, not a sureity). Well, I can't.

But if that is the case (as it may be with many of us here) how could we expect to logically present an exposition on God's goodness?

 

[SiderealExalt]

I'm a Christian but, fundamentally, I think it's impossible to "reason" God (given that faith is, by it's nature, not a sureity). Well, I can't.

But if that is the case (as it may be with many of us here) how could we expect to logically present an exposition on God's goodness?

That's nice and poetic and all. But when you get past the overly complicated language all you are saying is effectively gibberish.

 

[stan1980]

It's much easier to answer the question if you keep your description of God simple, like in post 41. As soon as you start saying God is some entity that half influences some people, but not others, with no real idea of how much influence she actually exerts, then the question becomes difficult to answer.

If you do believe God is some entity that has personal relationships with people, which a lot of people do, then I think the following is the only way to answer the question:

We make judgements in our head of what is good or bad, but it isn't something we can measure because good and bad only exists in our minds. The only way I see of calling it, is by making your own judgement based on what kind of mood your in. If you're enjoying life and feel happy you can make an argument God is good, if you are miserable and suicidal you can make an argument God is bad. I see no other way around the question and it is probably pointless to even consciously take into account other people's experiences as what happens around you or what you see in the media or the news will have already had a bearing on whether you are happy or sad.

 

[SiderealExalt]

While I agree with the general concept of subjectivity in our perceptions that you are saying. It goes beyond simply what mood a single person is. The question can be asked in the context of moral axioms and those axioms as they are expressed in a given culture. It's still agreed upon morality, much of it pretty universal to humanity.

I think the gibberish part comes in when Christians like to go well God is good..but he is good is his own way that is not related to what we know as good as it relates to humans. It's just a fancy of saying a bunch of bollocks.

 

[Honkytnkmn]

No, there are plenty of intelligent people with whom I disagree. Lewis is a hack because he's a pop-theologian, and his theology is almost always terrible.

Ok again, thats your opinion you still have not givin me any reason to support your "C.S. Lewis" is a hack other than you disagree with him.

But getting back to the discussion on hand.

Are you saying that

A. Good and Evil are Equal.

or

B. Good and Evil only exists by the ideals that society itself dictates. Therefore good and evil doesn't exist at all.

 

[rambot]

That's nice and poetic and all. But when you get past the overly complicated language all you are saying is effectively gibberish.

YEAH. Sorry. I was having trouble expressing myself in that post. IT's been a while since I've had to use my brain for anything. Gimme a few running head starts; I'll improve.

Swearsies.

 

[SiderealExalt]

YEAH. Sorry. I was having trouble expressing myself in that post. IT's been a while since I've had to use my brain for anything. Gimme a few running head starts; I'll improve.

Swearsies.

No no no. I don't mean the comment was hard to understand. I meant that in relation to the topic of the thread it wasn't much. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[The Nihilist]

Ok again, thats your opinion you still have not givin me any reason to support your "C.S. Lewis" is a hack other than you disagree with him.

But getting back to the discussion on hand.

Are you saying that

A. Good and Evil are Equal.

or

B. Good and Evil only exists by the ideals that society itself dictates. Therefore good and evil doesn't exist at all.

No. Lewis is a hack because he's a terrible theologian. I disagree with Kierkegaard, too, but he's not a hack.
No, I don't think good and evil exist in any objective manner

 

[platzapS]

I've read Mere Christianity, and while it really helped me understand the Christian concept of loving your neighbor, and the Trinity, his arguments for God using morality fell flat.

Good is done for the sake of good because we evolved so that most normal, healthy people feel good when they are kind and helpful to others. Even if it's temporarily unpleasant, there's usually ultimately sense of satisfaction. Doing evil (harming people/causing them to suffer) may make you feel better temporarily, but at the other person's expense. Doing good to others helps both parties. Happiness begets happiness, love begets love.

I don't see any reason to bring God into the equation. If God exists, then I don't think He would have to be necessarily good. He might choose to be good all of the time, but the good would be judged according to a separate morality: whether He causes or alleviates the suffering of conscious beings.

 

[AmericanNight43]

God doesn't need to alleviate suffering or destroy evil to be good. Its all partof God's plan. Sometimes good comes from evil, and God knows when good can come from something that appears evil.

For instance, the greatest good came from the greatest evil. The greatest evil is the murder of God's Son, but the greatest good is the salvation gained throuhg the deatj of Christ. God letting Christ die may have seemes horrible to Christ's human followers at the time, but God knew that it would lead to the ultimate good.

 

[Honkytnkmn]

No. Lewis is a hack because he's a terrible theologian.

Again with the opinion. Look, you can have your opinion that's all well and good. but you still have yet to tell me why you think he's a terrible theologian. I tend do get the idea its because you don't like what he says, as, I've asked you twice (this being the third time) and you have yet to give me an answer.

I disagree with Kierkegaard, too, but he's not a hack.
No, I don't think good and evil exist in any objective manner

Ok well I now know where you stand. Thanks

Unfortunately, I have to disagree. A dog doesn't do good or bad in a dogs eyes, he just is. A dog can rip apart another dog and not know if what he did was good or bad.

People are different, you'll find most everyone agrees that murdering another person is wrong. So where do these ideas of right and wrong come from. In Darwin's theory, its survival of the fittest. If that is the case why would we keep the week in society? Why would we want to make society weeker? If there was no right and wrong I argue we would have evolved to break off the week in society to strengthen the whole.

 

[Beanieboy]

God doesn't need to alleviate suffering or destroy evil to be good. Its all partof God's plan. Sometimes good comes from evil, and God knows when good can come from something that appears evil.

For instance, the greatest good came from the greatest evil. The greatest evil is the murder of God's Son, but the greatest good is the salvation gained throuhg the deatj of Christ. God letting Christ die may have seemes horrible to Christ's human followers at the time, but God knew that it would lead to the ultimate good.

What Christians claim, however, is that God required Christ's death as atonement.

Do you require the death of your own son for atonement for your neighbor? Do you require that they even kill their son's hamster, and be right with one another?
Christ forgave sins prior to his death. He taught the disciples to pray, "Forgive us our sins, as we forgive others who sin against us." Jesus was alive and kicking.

But then you present the "Goodness" of God who required a human sacrifice, and you put God's love and righteousness and mercy below that of mankind, who would never require that of his neighbor.

I believe man killed Christ. It wasn't required, anymore than MLK was required to die for Civil Rights to pass.