God is good

[Bagheera]

The human person is worthy of profound respect pertains to human nature per se and not to sociopathic actions.

There is no uniform, unchanging human nature. It keeps on changing.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Originally Posted by Charlemagne II
And if we lived in a sinless and perfect universe by your standard, it would have to be heaven.

Yes. The only logical state of affairs if God would be “loving”.

Actually, the only logical state of affairs if God is loving AND human beings are completely so, as well. Free moral agency requires both conditions to obtain.

 

[Bagheera]

By this you mean God “allowed” the Holocaust.

Nope. I mean that God actively participated in every human action. The bullet fired from an assassin’s gun is “kept” on track by God from the muzzle of the gun all the way to the target’s heart. The gas in the Dünamünde convoy which was obliterating countless number of Jews was “kept in existence” by God. Of course according to the catholic dogma.

 

[Bagheera]

Actually, the only logical state of affairs if God is loving AND human beings are completely so, as well. Free moral agency requires both conditions to obtain.

After death, either in heaven or hell, there is no more “free will” - allegedly.

 

[Peter_Plato]

After death, either in heaven or hell, there is no more “free will” - allegedly.

Actually, Heaven would be the absolute attainment of free will since the unconstrained and absolutely free will (Actus Purus) of God (Fullness of Being, Truth and Goodness) would obtain perfectly. Hell would be the complete abdication and loss of free will since all possibility of actualizing Being, Truth and Goodness would have been abandoned by the agent in the state of absolute privation.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Nope. I mean that God actively participated in every human action. The bullet fired from an assassin’s gun is “kept” on track by God from the muzzle of the gun all the way to the target’s heart. The gas in the Dünamünde convoy which was obliterating countless number of Jews was “kept in existence” by God. Of course according to the catholic dogma.

No, what you mean is that God maintains the material and efficient means by which free agents commit the acts in question. God “enables” these evils only in the sense that he enables the conditions under which these agents bring about the evils. He does not positively enact or will the evil in question, it is the human agents themselves that do so. Otherwise human moral agency would be meaningless. Actions would not have meanngful and important consequences.

 

[polytropos]

(1) I think you’re wrong about the idea that following a moral law makes a person good. A being that was completely lacking in every excellence would not be good, even though such a being did not break any of his obligations.

Following a moral law does make a person good, because being moral and upholding duties and obligations is part of man’s natural end. Moral excellence is part of being a good person, so “a being that was completely lacking in every excellence” would also be lacking in moral excellence, by definition.

(2) The medievals did think God was morally good.

I would disagree with this. What is your source?

Morality follows from what a thing is and is constituted of what a thing ought to do according to its form. God does not have a form, and so has no moral obligations and duties.

(3) They thought this with good reason. If God is not morally good, then the God-created standards of “good” and “bad” are arbitrary, and God is not worthy of praise.

God’s standards of good and bad are not arbitrary even on the view that God is not morally good. Goodness is the degree to which a thing instantiates its form; imperfections are instances of badness. What is good and bad for things is inherent in their forms (which exist in God’s intellect whether he creates or not). God wills things to exist and is the First Cause of all that is good, but he does not need to decide what is good (nor is there a standard above him).

The fact that “God is morally good” does not make sense does not entail that “God is good” does not make sense. We can still speak of God as being good, as loving, etc. (God does not have a form to instantiate, but he certainly lacks imperfections, and as such can be said to be good. He is the source of all good on earth and wills all good that occurs.)

To make a small clarification, in some sense we can affirm the proposition “God is morally good” because Jesus was morally good. And Jesus was morally good because he was perfect man, and moral goodness is necessary for someone to be a good man (according to the form of man). But it does not make sense to speak of the divine substance as being morally good.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bagheera
**
True love is unconditional. You don’t have to “earn” it. **

God loves all creation unconditionally. But I was talking about earning heaven, not earning love. You know that, don’t you? Why do you twist things around and why are you so angry with God when you don’t even believe he exists?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

For anybody who’s interested, there’s a two hour documentary on St. Peter tonight on EWTN.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

What a nice “catholic” insult. Is that what they teach you at church? No, buddy, I do not feel any compulsion to give them money, but I feel very sorry for them, and since I can spare those few bucks, I try to make their life a little easier - without inconveniencing myself. Yes, I admit it freely. I do not give the shirt from my back, I do not walk an extra mile in their shoes, I merely give them whatever I can spare. Quite unlike God…

Thank you for your honesty.

God is not in the business of making our lives easier, nor is it clear that making a person’s life easier is good. If a person lacks freedom – if they are addicted – making that person’s life easier is the best way to make their life miserable. I say that as a person who is currently dealing with an addiction.

So no, I don’t think it’s OK to give them money for drugs. And I don’t think it’s OK to “treat them like adults”, if “treating them like adults” means enabling their addictions. Nor would I encourage you to treat me like an adult, when it comes to my addiction.

Only quite recently. The human race is a few hundred thousand years old, and up until a few hundred years ago, murder was a way of life, and women were treated as chattel.

False. Those practices are not significantly less common now than previous times in history. Murder, in particular, is not found in great frequency in any period of human history that I am aware of.

Not to mention that your “moral compass” would include the prohibition of lewd, public immodesty, the prohibition of non-procreative sex, the prohibition of non-marital sexual relationships, and truckload of other do’s and don’t’s, none of which is accepted even today, and was not accepted in the past. So much for your “universal moral compass”, “carved” unto the human heart. Bah, humbug!

I wouldn’t prohibit any of those things. Discourage, yes; prohibit, no.

It was a very slow, gradual process.

That’s a complete cop-out. Where did the moral rules originate? Where did this slow process originate? What determines the character of the rules?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Following a moral law does make a person good, because being moral and upholding duties and obligations is part of man’s natural end. Moral excellence is part of being a good person, so “a being that was completely lacking in every excellence” would also be lacking in moral excellence, by definition.

Upholding your duties is necessary for goodness, but not sufficient. You cannot be a good person simply by not being a bad person.

I would disagree with this. What is your source?

Morality follows from what a thing is and is constituted of what a thing ought to do according to its form. God does not have a form, and so has no moral obligations and duties.

I never said God had any duties. I am just saying that, when Aquinas said God was good, he was not asserting something he understood as a tautology. And moral goodness is the only type of goodness.

God’s standards of good and bad are not arbitrary even on the view that God is not morally good. Goodness is the degree to which a thing instantiates its form; imperfections are instances of badness. What is good and bad for things is inherent in their forms (which exist in God’s intellect whether he creates or not). God wills things to exist and is the First Cause of all that is good, but he does not need to decide what is good (nor is there a standard above him).

The fact that “God is morally good” does not make sense does not entail that “God is good” does not make sense. We can still speak of God as being good, as loving, etc. (God does not have a form to instantiate, but he certainly lacks imperfections, and as such can be said to be good. He is the source of all good on earth and wills all good that occurs.)

To make a small clarification, in some sense we can affirm the proposition “God is morally good” because Jesus was morally good. And Jesus was morally good because he was perfect man, and moral goodness is necessary for someone to be a good man (according to the form of man). But it does not make sense to speak of the divine substance as being morally good.

OK, I think all this just follows from your defining moral goodness as “the following of certain rules”. I deny that, and so I guess we’re just talking past each other.

 

[Bagheera]

God loves all creation unconditionally.

If love does not manifest itself in action, it is not much of a love.

But I was talking about earning heaven, not earning love.

Getting into heaven is supposed to be the “best thing since sliced bread”. If God would love us, there would be no “testing period”, he would immediately create us into that heaven.

Why do you twist things around and why are you so angry with God when you don’t even believe he exists?

Angry? You really are hopelessly confused… I am only looking at the apologists, and all I see that they are confused.

 

[Bagheera]

God is not in the business of making our lives easier, nor is it clear that making a person’s life easier is good.

I am not in the “business” of making the hungry less hungry, nor am I in the “business” to heal their frostbite in the winter. But whatever little I can do to alleviate their suffering, I do, without expecting gratitude. I am pretty sure that being hungry is not “good”, and being cold (those people live in a flimsy tent during the winter) is “good” and it is crystal clear that alleviating these problems will make their lives “better”.

If a person lacks freedom – if they are addicted – making that person’s life easier is the best way to make their life miserable. I say that as a person who is currently dealing with an addiction.

So no, I don’t think it’s OK to give them money for drugs. And I don’t think it’s OK to “treat them like adults”, if “treating them like adults” means enabling their addictions. Nor would I encourage you to treat me like an adult, when it comes to my addiction.

I have no information about their possible “drug problems”. Maybe they do, maybe they don’t. You have no information about it either. I know that they are dirty, sick and hungry. My few bucks can help them a little. That is all I care about. Quite unlike God…

False. Those practices are not significantly less common now than previous times in history. Murder, in particular, is not found in great frequency in any period of human history that I am aware of.

Study history, especially the middle ages.

 

[polytropos]

Upholding your duties is necessary for goodness, but not sufficient. You cannot be a good person simply by not being a bad person.

I agree, but have to qualify. Fulfilling moral obligations does not just mean not being bad, ie. obeying negative moral norms like “Thou shall not kill.” Moral goodness also includes being charitable, etc.; those are duties as well, and would be necessary for being morally good and for being good overall.

The other thing I would add is that moral goodness is not the only type of goodness. If you are in an accident and have to have your arm amputated, you are “worse” for having lost your arm, but you are not morally worse.

I never said God had any duties. I am just saying that, when Aquinas said God was good, he was not asserting something he understood as a tautology. And moral goodness is the only type of goodness.

As I’ve said, I disagree that moral goodness is the only type of goodness. The idea of goodness as convertible with being would seem to preclude the limiting of goodness to moral goodness. (We can speak of a good tree without speaking of a morally good tree.)

I would also add that the doctrine of the transcendentals holds that goodness, beauty, etc. are all aspects of being, or other ways of looking at being (and so conceptual, though not subjective, distinctions drawn by humans). Goodness, in particular, is being as desirable (ie. being which succeeds at being what it is meant to be). So to say that God is Subsistent Being Itself and Goodness Itself is really to say the same thing, following from our definition of goodness and conception of God as Pure Act.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bagheera

**Getting into heaven is supposed to be the “best thing since sliced bread”. If God would love us, there would be no “testing period”, he would immediately create us into that heaven. **

He did that once before with the angels. That worked until some used free will to screw it up.

We were no different with Adam and Eve.

Sorry, but you can’t have free will without the option to screw things up.

You and I have the same option. Are you complaining?

 

[Bob_Crowley]

This unlimited “infinite holiness” is just another meaningless phrase. But I will help you to see my point more clearly. If God would do ALL what good people do, AND THEN some more; AND do the same things, but even better, that would be a correct way to start to establish God’s “goodness”.

Your stance is illogical, because whatever good people would do, would also be good for God to do. It is ridiculous to assert that a “human good deed” would turn out to be “bad” if God performed it. Do you understand this?

Yes, I can. This is the kind of nonsensical dichotomy which makes apologists “look” dumb. One can give a certain level of “freedom” which is desirable and not more. For example God could give the freedom to choose to worship him, or not. Those who do not wish to worship him could be used as fodder for the furnaces of hell, the others could be “saved”. After all that is supposed to be the most important, most fundamental decision we can ever make. The rest is not important.

I said in one of my replies earlier that my own father appeared in my room the night he died. I still remember some of the conversation we had, and the terrible scream just before he disappeared. Something was obviously coming for him.

However at one point, I was angry about the way he’d pretty much shafted my career choices, to which he replied, “It’s not even important!” I was a bit taken aback by this, and snarled back, “Then what is??”

He replied,** “How you treat other people!”.** It was a bit late for him obviously, since he only had a couple of minutes remaining before going to eternal perdition, but from his new vantage point, that was what it was all about.

And that’s why we have suffering. “How you treat other people” is the yard stick, not just whether you have “faith” or not. And in this difficult world, there are many, many opportunities, for you and I to do something about the suffering and problems of others, ranging from plain ordinary courtesy, to charitable work, to public service, to fair pay, and in the end, the ultimate gift of the ultimate sacrifice, giving up your own life for others.

This business of “faith alone” ignores Christ’s very, very clear statement that we’ll be judged on what we do, or don’t do, for others. And in the end, you’ll find God’s in the judgmment seat, and most certainly not you.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I have no information about their possible “drug problems”. Maybe they do, maybe they don’t. You have no information about it either. I know that they are dirty, sick and hungry. My few bucks can help them a little. That is all I care about. Quite unlike God…

I do have information about their drug problems. I have talked to them, and had them do work at my house, only to find that the money I paid was being used for drugs. And I have very close friends that work with the poor every day, and beg me not to give them money. But I do sometimes buy them food, or some such thing.

As for your constant picking on God, it puzzles me. If I didn’t believe in God, I would not constantly harp on the awful things about the Christian God. I don’t really see the point.

Study history, especially the middle ages.

I have. I do it professionally. You will find a lot of war. You will not find long-lived cultures that tolerate murder.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I agree, but have to qualify. Fulfilling moral obligations does not just mean not being bad, ie. obeying negative moral norms like “Thou shall not kill.” Moral goodness also includes being charitable, etc.; those are duties as well, and would be necessary for being morally good and for being good overall.

The other thing I would add is that moral goodness is not the only type of goodness. If you are in an accident and have to have your arm amputated, you are “worse” for having lost your arm, but you are not morally worse.

As I’ve said, I disagree that moral goodness is the only type of goodness.

No, you’re missing my point. I am saying that all goodness is moral goodness, but NOT that all moral goodness consists in following morals. In historical lexicon, “moral” just means “pertaining to value”. So to me “moral goodness” is just basically “valuable goodness” – so obviously there’s no other kind. I agree that a body’s being intact, for example, is an example of goodness.

The idea of goodness as convertible with being would seem to preclude the limiting of goodness to moral goodness. (We can speak of a good tree without speaking of a morally good tree.)

Once again, we agree on substance here, though not on terminology.

I would also add that the doctrine of the transcendentals holds that goodness, beauty, etc. are all aspects of being, or other ways of looking at being (and so conceptual, though not subjective, distinctions drawn by humans). Goodness, in particular, is being as desirable (ie. being which succeeds at being what it is meant to be). So to say that God is Subsistent Being Itself and Goodness Itself is really to say the same thing, following from our definition of goodness and conception of God as Pure Act.

Goodness is a property of the Subsistent Being. But why goodness and not badness? Because there is a standard – not an external standard, but an internal standard.

Otherwise, all morality is arbitrary, and we have no reason – aside from self-interest – to obey God.

 

[DanAl]

I cannot stick with meaningless terms. If you wish to stipulate “perfection” in some abstract sense, then you need to define it.

Perfection means lacking nothing, how is that meaningless? you yourself speak of God in need of being morally good, isn’t that a perfection? why the double standard?

Because the apologists choose a few aspects, which are “good to have” and blow them out of proportion. If there would be a feline race, then their “perfect” being would be voracious and bloodthirsty.

That ignores what many theists have said in the shape of arguments for the characteristics of God. Read the first few chapters of the summa, it is for beginners.

QUOTE=Bagheera;11176829]Again, the “special pleading”.

This is called a failure to read what is being written to you, not special pleading. If commandments bind god,then, these commandments are more fundamental than God. God cannot be God. I said it several times already.

I am not talking about God’s alleged commandments. I am talking about the fully secular concept of “good”. It has nothing to do with God’s alleged commandments.

What is a “fully secular concept of good?” We’re meat-machines (aren’t we?). You might shudder at the thought of murdering woman and Ted Bundy will disagree.

The law of non-contradiction is binding on everyone. No exceptions.

I already addressed this in the previous post.

QUOTE=Bagheera;11176829]No, it is not a duty. They should make their own preparations for their old age. By that time, we have the duty to take care of our children. Nevertheless, if we have the ways and means to take care of our parents, then it is a good action to take care of them. Not out of duty, or obligation, but out of love and caring. And this also underlines the fact that even if God would not have the obligation to take care of its creation, he could do it out of his alleged" love" - if he deserved to be called “good”. I wonder if you realize that you started to argue my side. I don’t think you did…

So we don’t have duties towards them at all? putting that aside, supererogatory actions, can God perform them? no, that would restrict his freedom. So, no, god cannot perform supererogatory actions.

QUOTE=Bagheera;11176829]Do you intentionally play “dumb”? The duty ceases when they become self-sufficient adults themselves. Since we shall never reach God’s self-sufficiency, therefore God’s obligation never stops.

No, I don’t play dumb. You clearly did not read my post, especially the part that says " I don’t know what you mean by reaching “their level of existence” (whatever that means)". Your ineptitude (dumbness?) to read the text is your problem, don’t take it on others.
Why is self-sufficiency the litmus test for obligation? Putting that aside. you assume God something owes to his creatures, why does God owes them anything?

I’ll address the rest later, the computer lab is shutting down.

 

[polytropos]

No, you’re missing my point. I am saying that all goodness is moral goodness, but NOT that all moral goodness consists in following morals. In historical lexicon, “moral” just means “pertaining to value”. So to me “moral goodness” is just basically “valuable goodness” – so obviously there’s no other kind. I agree that a body’s being intact, for example, is an example of goodness.

Once again, we agree on substance here, though not on terminology.

Hmm. I suppose I would agree here.

Goodness is a property of the Subsistent Being. But why goodness and not badness? Because there is a standard – not an external standard, but an internal standard.

Otherwise, all morality is arbitrary, and we have no reason – aside from self-interest – to obey God.

I would say here that Aquinas regarded the distinction between being and goodness as conceptual, ie. it would not be made if there were not humans to make it (even though the criteria for goodness is objective, since it is reflected in being). As such, goodness is an aspect of God, which is like calling it a property but reflects the notion of divine simplicity and that God’s goodness is part of His Being in such-and-such a way.

As such, I’d see His goodness as a consequence of His lacking imperfections and willing nothing but good for creation. What is good for creation is, I suppose I could agree (?), an “internal standard” of God’s, since what is good for creation is “pre-determined” by the forms in God’s intellect prior to the act of creation.