Can We Really Say "God is Good?"

[LongJohnSilver]

Why is it tiring? Doesn’t the truth matter? The devastating effect that Marxism has had on human society in Russia and elsewhere amply demonstrates why dialectical and reductive materialism are pernicious.

Yes you are right, that demonstration is necessary. But I can get really tired and sometimes lose hope when reading these demands for ‘evidence’ of the existence of God. That narrow mindset is just too much for me, sometimes. But that’s my fault.
I am sorry.

 

[twoangels]

A very persistent question keeps looming in the back of my mind, one that must be asked before the mind will be at peace. And here is the question of the hour –
It is said that “God is Good.” I realize that the argument, “If God is Good, then why do bad things happen,” has been run around the track a view to many times. But, here is my very critical twist on the question.

If God is Good, why does he not accept prayers of faithful individuals, especially in times of suffering?
Here is the best example I can give.
Suppose a child has a very painful disease. All the family and friends constantly pray, and even the child him/her self during the time. But alas, no answered prayer and the child dies many years later after suffering.

If, I ask, God is Good, why does he not grant the prayers? Why does he make a child here on Earth suffer?
Suppose a Millionaire is stopped on the street, and asked to give $10 to cure the disease of a little child, laying helplessly on a bed. If the Millionaire says No, and turns away, or answers “Perhaps later, as I see fit,” would we not say that this Millionaire is far from Good?
Yet, it seems to me that we somehow and for some reason make excuses for God in these circumstances.

Maybe I am wrong in my thinking,
But can we honestly say that “God is Good?” Or Is that hastily assigning Him a title that will make Him more prone to be worshipped?
Any responses would be greatly appreciated!

Evil is simply the lack of Good. It is like how cold is just the lack of heat, or darkness the lack of light. Evil thus exists in the same way that cold and darkness exist.
Even if God answered every petition a person made so that the only people who suffered were the people who didn’t bother turning to God, wouldn’t you still have an argument that God isn’t good? What you are basically saying is that for God to be good, only goodness can exist. There should be no suffering at all. We should feel no need to ever turn to God or to petition Him with our prayers. Our lives should be easy and without suffering.

To me, that sounds like a teenager claiming his parents’ don’t love him because they give him consequences for bad behavior, or a young adult who thinks his parents don’t love him because they don’t bend over backwards to bail him out of the consequences or even all the hardships of his life.

I’m not saying that tragic events are as small as the things a parent punishes a child for or allows their child to feel the consequences. However, its important to try to not just look at all the evil in the world and decide “God has abandoned us because he is not good”, but rather to search to find where God is in those very difficult moments.

Moreover, we need to recognize that our entire Christian religion is founded upon the mysterious nature of suffering and of the concept of redemptive suffering. Overall this isn’t something that has some clear satisfying two word answer. Its something you have to sit with, ponder and pray about. Often just reminding myself that God is with me, that He loves me and is good helps me get through the times where I have the hardest time finding Him in life’s circumstances. However, at the same time, when I’ve entered into prayer, I’ve always found myself entering more deeply into prayer and being more aware of God’s presense when I am going through suffering than when my life is full of many joys. Sometimes these worldly joys distract me from God. Its within my suffering that I find the suffering Christ, cling to Him and find a deep intimacy with my creator.

I don’t know if what I says help, but that’s my two cents.

 

[Ichthys4121517]

It seems as if every crisis of faith is based on pessimistic thinking; we always ask, “Why is there bad?” Personally, I think a better question would be, “Why is there good?” Atheists have no answer for this. Why should a series of accidents and random mutations produce such great things as justice, beauty, and love? Indeed, morality is superfluous in an evolved world, to the point of being such a strange concept that atheists hold on to it without any reason. Sounds like blind faith to me. How ironic.

As I’ve said in a different topic, we should blame the evil in the world not on God, but on ourselves. After all, if a mother brought a child into the world who went on to commit genocide, should the mother be called a killer? Of course not.

 

[wanstronian]

Well, I could ask for exactly the same thing. What evidence is there for the validness of secular humanist/atheist morals? Because it is them who are imposing their religious dogmatic morals on the society I live in.

Well, start by defining your question properly. Secularism is not the same thing as humanism or atheism. Secularism is the removal of religious superstition from temporal affairs, and is clearly the only realistic option in a multi-cultural society.

Humanist and atheistic morals are just human morals, unfettered by the dogma of an arbitrary moral baseline laid down 2,000 years ago. It is human morality, given room to grow and evolve alongside the society to which it applies.

Christian morality, by contrast, is a dogmatic reflection of bronze age zeitgeist. Its proponents appear to think it’s valid purely because it’s written down.

Where in the bible does it say that women are equal to men? Where does it condemn slavery? Where does it advocate tolerance of other religions? Human morality gave women the vote, black people freedom, and everybody the right to live free from racial, sexual and religious prejudice.

By the way, your incorrect and emotive application of the words “religion” and “dogmatic” is noted and marks you out as one of the less knowledgeable attackers of non-belief.

 

[NE_Catholic]

Well, start by defining your question properly. Secularism is not the same thing as humanism or atheism. Secularism is the removal of religious superstition from temporal affairs, and is clearly the only realistic option in a multi-cultural society.

Humanist and atheistic morals are just human morals, unfettered by the dogma of an arbitrary moral baseline laid down 2,000 years ago. It is human morality, given room to grow and evolve alongside the society to which it applies.

Christian morality, by contrast, is a dogmatic reflection of bronze age zeitgeist. Its proponents appear to think it’s valid purely because it’s written down.

Where in the bible does it say that women are equal to men? Where does it condemn slavery? Where does it advocate tolerance of other religions? Human morality gave women the vote, black people freedom, and everybody the right to live free from racial, sexual and religious prejudice.

By the way, your incorrect and emotive application of the words “religion” and “dogmatic” is noted and marks you out as one of the less knowledgeable attackers of non-belief.

point of order.
This thread is not about the existance of God. If wish to debate this, start another thread.

 

[wanstronian]

point of order.
This thread is not about the existance of God. If wish to debate this, start another thread.

Are you a mod? Didn’t think so.

I haven’t discussed the existence of God, merely pointed out that it remains unproven, then responded to a poster who couldn’t understand why it was relevant. The point I was making is that if one can’t even prove the existence of God, how can one possibly discuss whether he’s good? It’s like me asking how fast fairies beat their wings.

However, if god exists, he clearly isn’t good unless you redefine the word to mean, “whatever God does.” Which kind of defeats the whole point of the question.

 

[NE_Catholic]

Are you a mod? Didn’t think so.

I haven’t discussed the existence of God, merely pointed out that it remains unproven, then responded to a poster who couldn’t understand why it was relevant. The point I was making is that if one can’t even prove the existence of God, how can one possibly discuss whether he’s good? It’s like me asking how fast fairies beat their wings.

However, if god exists, he clearly isn’t good unless you redefine the word to mean, “whatever God does.” Which kind of defeats the whole point of the question.

The premise of this thread is that God does exist. I do not know of any “reporting” in CAF, or I would report thread hijacks. If I wish to debate God’s existance, there are threads that cover that subject. Your quoted comment not only is mocking, but not in context to the question.

 

[LongJohnSilver]

Well, start by defining your question properly. Secularism is not the same thing as humanism or atheism.

Sorry, I should’ve wrote ‘secular-humanism/atheism’, instead of ‘secular humanism/atheism’. (I mean secular humanism to distinguish from christian humanism for example.)

Secularism is the removal of religious superstition from temporal affairs, and is clearly the only realistic option in a multi-cultural society.

I don’t think history proves you right.

Humanist and atheistic morals are just human morals, unfettered by the dogma of an arbitrary moral baseline laid down 2,000 years ago. It is human morality, given room to grow and evolve alongside the society to which it applies.

Christian morality, by contrast, is a dogmatic reflection of bronze age zeitgeist. Its proponents appear to think it’s valid purely because it’s written down.

Where in the bible does it say that women are equal to men? Where does it condemn slavery? Where does it advocate tolerance of other religions? Human morality gave women the vote, black people freedom, and everybody the right to live free from racial, sexual and religious prejudice.

This is so full of incorrect assumptions that I have no idea where to begin. Also, again, history doesn’t prove you right. The first abolition of slavery in Europe was done by Christians, for example.

By the way, your incorrect and emotive application of the words “religion” and “dogmatic” is noted and marks you out as one of the less knowledgeable attackers of non-belief.

An ad hominem because I’m getting too close?

 

[tonyrey]

Yes you are right, that demonstration is necessary. But I can get really tired and sometimes lose hope when reading these demands for ‘evidence’ of the existence of God. That narrow mindset is just too much for me, sometimes. But that’s my fault.
I am sorry.

No need to apologise. We should take a break if we feel we are wasting our time but we shouldn’t be dominated by our feelings. The truth is always worth pursuing…

 

[wanstronian]

The premise of this thread is that God does exist. I do not know of any “reporting” in CAF, or I would report thread hijacks. If I wish to debate God’s existance, there are threads that cover that subject. Your quoted comment not only is mocking, but not in context to the question.

Okay - it wasn’t a stated premise, but no matter.

Why is my quoted comment out of context? I repeat my initial comment on this thread - “By what criteria is the ‘goodness’ of God to be judged?”

Or were you just expecting answers of “Yes” or “No?”

 

[wanstronian]

Sorry, I should’ve wrote ‘secular-humanism/atheism’, instead of ‘secular humanism/atheism’. (I mean secular humanism to distinguish from christian humanism for example.)

I don’t think history proves you right.

Really? You think that biasing our laws and social practices in favour of the principles of a single religion, is fair on those cultures who practice a different, or no, religion? Funny point of view to hold, in my opinion.

This is so full of incorrect assumptions that I have no idea where to begin. Also, again, history doesn’t prove you right. The first abolition of slavery in Europe was done by Christians, for example.

Maybe, but it wasn’t done in accord with the teachings of the bible. Because an act is perpetrated by Christians, that doesn’t mean it isn’t a fundamentally secular act.

I’m not saying for one second that every moral doctrine of Christianity is wrong - that would be stupid and would deny the most probable source of Christian moral teachings.

An ad hominem because I’m getting too close?

Well, it doesn’t even resemble an ad hominem. But I have no motivation other than to point out that your words were a tired cliché generally spouted by those who make it their mission to misrepresent atheism.