God is good

[Prodigal_Son]

When classical theists speak of God as being good they refer to the fact he’s perfect and no lacking any perfections. The notion of God as morally good (I.E. morally obligated to do x) became fashionable after Descartes. That God is morally obligated to do something or is forbidden to do some actions like a human is to see in anthropomorphic lenses.

There are good reasons to see why God does not have the same moral obligations as a human. First, It would mean that there’s a standard outside God or a standard more fundamental than God. Neither option is desirable, nothing is more fundamental than God and God is not dependent on something outside himself otherwise God would not be Good or perfect: God would not be God.
Second, many obligations presuppose that we owe something to somebody else (respect to parent for taking care of us, for example) what does God owe to his creatures? nothing.

A few responses:

(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.

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

(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.

(4) The true standards of good and bad are not external to God. They are a part of God’s nature. God cannot control them by will, but they are not arbitrary, any more than God’s being itself is arbitrary.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

How typical! I did not insinuate that God take care of ALL our needs. And of course, the immediate attack that WE are responsible for the situations of those who are need. When I see a homeless person, I give as much as I can. If I had more resources, I would give more.

Do you realize how much of your money has been spent on drugs and alcohol, then?

If I could prevent rapes and murders, I would, and I would not care one iota about the “free will” of the psychopaths. To paraphrase the saying: “To whom much is given, much is expected”. And no one is “given” (not literally) as much as God.

God prevents murders and rapes a hell of a lot more than you do, because He put a moral law in our hearts which helps us choose against these things.

 

[grannymh]

I. I am talking about the fully secular concept of “good”. It has nothing to do with God’s alleged commandments.

The fully secular concept of “good” is the following. The human person is worthy of profound respect. This concept is determined by objective, not subjective, reasoning.

 

[Bahman]

(4) The true standards of good and bad are not external to God. They are a part of God’s nature. God cannot control them by will, but they are not arbitrary, any more than God’s being itself is arbitrary.

If good and bad are a part of God’s nature then why we don’t think that God is neutral.

 

[grannymh]

. Without God’s constant “tinkering”, the universe would simply disappear into nonexistence. (Catholic dogma!)

For the record.
“tinkering” is not a Catholic dogma.

Source: definitions of “tinker” 1& 2 in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

If good and bad are a part of God’s nature then why we don’t think that God is neutral.

The **standards **of good and bad are part of God’s nature. Or rather, the standard of goodness – everything not-good is bad.

To “be good” or “be bad” is different from “containing the standard of goodness and badness”.

 

[Bahman]

The **standards **of good and bad are part of God’s nature. Or rather, the standard of goodness – everything not-good is bad.

To “be good” or “be bad” is different from “containing the standard of goodness and badness”.

Or rather, the standard of badness – everything not-bad is good.

 

[Bagheera]

Do you realize how much of your money has been spent on drugs and alcohol, then?

No. I treat those people as adults, and I think it is best to let them make their own decisions.

God prevents murders and rapes a hell of a lot more than you do, because He put a moral law in our hearts which helps us choose against these things.

Our “hearts” simply pump blood. I was always curious what that “moral law” is supposed to be. It is true that most people have some vague moral compass, but it is the result of our upbringing.

 

[Bagheera]

The fully secular concept of “good” is the following. The human person is worthy of profound respect. This concept is determined by objective, not subjective, reasoning.

Yes, I am aware that this is your “staple” idea. I don’t share it as a generic principle, but I agree that there are humans who are worthy of respect. I am not sure what “profound” has to do with it.

For the record.
“tinkering” is not a Catholic dogma.

Source: definitions of “tinker” 1& 2 in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition.

I used the quotation marks as an indication that I do not mean it in the strict literal sense (even though the alleged “miracles” are true tinkerings). It is a catholic dogma that God immediately and actively participates in every action (in the Holocaust, too!), and that without God’s sustaining activity the world would simply disappear into nothingness - regardless of the conservation of matter and energy.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

No. I treat those people as adults, and I think it is best to let them make their own decisions.

From my perspective, then, you avoid concerning yourself with the real problems that they have, and ease your conscience by giving money.

Our “hearts” simply pump blood. I was always curious what that “moral law” is supposed to be. It is true that most people have some vague moral compass, but it is the result of our upbringing.

Vague moral compass? And this is the reason we all agree that murder and rape is wrong? No, I think the moral compass isn’t vague at all on such points.

And to say it’s the result of our upbringing merely moves the question back a generation. Why did our parents have such morals? Oh, yeah, because their parents did too.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

The concept of “good” is much more ancient that Christianity, and it is not a religious concept. The christian version “borrowed” it, tried to apply to God, and when it did not “fit”, twisted it into something nonsensical.

You seem to miss the point that the concept of “good” when applied to the Christian God is that of an infinite holiness, and not the limited good humans are capable of. Since we are not in a position to know what this Absolute Good looks like, we are left with the mystery of suffering.

Christ didn’t gloss over the issue of suffering -

Matthew 24:6-7 “And you shall hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places.”

When is the time that God is not looking?

Do you want Him to blow your nose for you? Or do you want some freedom of action? Take your pick - you can’t have it both ways. Either He allows you the freedom to act, and this includes the ability to do moral evil, which in turn affects others, and take physical reisks, or you live in a world without risks, with every possible contingency turned into a nice soft pillow for you to land on.

You can’t have it both ways.

I take it you don’t participate in any risky sports for the thrill of it? Ever been parachuting? Great view, once the parachute opens and your heart stops beating a million miles an hour (two static line jumps only - I had my eyes shut till the chute opened). You can also plunge to your death, although you should be aware of that before you jump.

But I suppose you expect God to reach out and save you if you decide to take the risk? You know, a bit hand should morally reach out from the sky, and safely lower you to the ground.

Irrelevant. Accident happen, and people do all their best to rescue the trapped miners. God looks down, and does not help even when the mission is hopeless.

And if, on the other side of death, the person who just died finds himself still quite alive in the spiritual sense, having been offered the promise of eternal life in different venue?

In that case, what exactly has been lost?

The point is that a “good” whoever helps when help is needed.

Especially when it does not “cost” him anything.

Depends on what you mean by “GOOD” in the divine sense. But I think we’re talking at cross purposes here - you seem to think the ultimate evil is death. God might not think so - according to Christ again -

Luke 20:38 NIV "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”

This means that ALL men and women, past, present, and future are alive as far as God is concerned. Every single person in your local cemetry is still alive, spiritually.

The thing that’s going to matter is where they are alive - Heaven, Hell or Purgatory (in the “short” term).

Glad to hear it, but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

It has a bearing, since I believe history is in God’s hands, at least in the overall sense, and I also believe the technology for this invention was kept from us** until it was needed, and not before.** We think we’re clever with our inventions - when we die, we’re going to find it was God’s intention all along that we invent these things, and when we invent them.

It’s all part of HIs plan, including this Forum.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bagheera

**Ah, I see you still use the fruits of that “useless and delusional empirical science” (namely computers and the internet). Shame, shame… why are you such a hypocrite? **

Lame answer. If you are intelligent and well educated, you can certainly do better than that.!

 

[Bagheera]

From my perspective, then, you avoid concerning yourself with the real problems that they have, and ease your conscience by giving money.

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…

Vague moral compass? And this is the reason we all agree that murder and rape is wrong? No, I think the moral compass isn’t vague at all on such points.

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. 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!

And to say it’s the result of our upbringing merely moves the question back a generation. Why did our parents have such morals? Oh, yeah, because their parents did too.

It was a very slow, gradual process.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, I am aware that this is your “staple” idea. I don’t share it as a generic principle, but I agree that there are humans who are worthy of respect. I am not sure what “profound” has to do with it.

Yes, the human person is worthy of profound respect. It can be a general or generic principle for determining morality without dependence on anyone’s personal belief system. Naturally, this depends on whether or not a person understands the difference between objective and subjective reasoning.

May I gently point out that since the human person is worthy of profound respect is an objective fact, one’s opinion of it is of no consequence.

I used the quotation marks as an indication that I do not mean it in the strict literal sense (even though the alleged “miracles” are true tinkerings). It is a catholic dogma that God immediately and actively participates in every action (in the Holocaust, too!), and that without God’s sustaining activity the world would simply disappear into nothingness - regardless of the conservation of matter and energy.

One of the scientific approaches to a miracle is that it is an extraordinary phenomenon.

As for your opinion about Catholic dogma, it is beginning to sound like a version of pantheism as in this first definition. “1: a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe” Source: Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition.

Pantheism and tinkering are very different from the fact that “God upholds and sustains creation” when one actually reads the **whole **sentence found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church Second Edition, paragraph 301. Here is the key sentence. I put definitive words in bold.
“He not only gives them being and existence, but also, and at every moment, upholds and sustains them in being, enables them to act and brings them to their final end.”
One of the easiest mistakes to make, when one is new to this Catechism, is to cherry pick. Another mistake is to omit reading surrounding paragraphs, footnotes, and cross-references in the margins. A third mistake is to skip paragraphs 20-21 which explain the different intentions when there is small print.

 

[Bagheera]

You seem to miss the point that the concept of “good” when applied to the Christian God is that of an infinite holiness, and not the limited good humans are capable of.

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?

Do you want Him to blow your nose for you? Or do you want some freedom of action? You can’t have it both ways.

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.

 

[Bagheera]

May I gently point out that since the human person is worthy of profound respect is an objective fact, one’s opinion of it is of no consequence.

Sorry, that is your opinion only (shared by others, no doubt). I refuse to respect sociopaths.

One of the scientific approaches to a miracle is that it is an extraordinary phenomenon.

Nope. Science does not care about “so called miracles”.

He not only gives them being and existence, but also, and at every moment, upholds and sustains them in being, enables them to act and brings them to their final end."

That is what I said with different words. From Dogmas

1. God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.)
2. God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures. (Sent. communis.)

So God actively participated in the Holocaust. Need one say more?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bagheera

As I understand you, you would like God to remove all suffering from creation. If God doesn’t do that, either he is cruel or he doesn’t exist. In other words, he doesn’t follow your idea of how you would create a universe.

But you are not God. And if we lived in a sinless and perfect universe by your standard, it would have to be heaven. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. You have to earn heaven. That means overcoming all our fears, including the fear of God’s love and mercy, which as a one-time atheist I had to do in order to think clearly and without hatred for God and those who worship God.

Try to be generous and think well of God. He certainly thinks well of us. We all cling to the life Good gave us, a sure sign that life is precious and God is good.

 

[grannymh]

Sorry, that is your opinion only (shared by others, no doubt). I refuse to respect sociopaths.

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

Nope. Science does not care about “so called miracles”.

Science, by definition, does investigate extraordinary phenomena which is a tad different from the ordinary phenomena we experience in our natural environment.

That is what I said with different words. From Dogmas

1. God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.)
2. God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures. (Sent. communis.)

So God actively participated in the Holocaust. Need one say more?

May I gently point out that in the world of the Catholic Church, the source of information is essential.

The source in your link is jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm This is the website of F. John Loughnan.

This is one of the links to the* Catechism of the Catholic Churc*h, Second Edition.
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Mr. Loughnan’s footnote refers to Dr. Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” This work has an excellent reputation. However, I need to ask, since I do not have a copy of the most recent edition – Were there any other words in point 70 besides
“God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures. (Sent. communis.)”?

On the other hand, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, Section I. Catechesis on Creation (starting on page 73) devotes paragraphs 282-324 plus additional cross-references and small print paragraphs, to explaining Dr. Ott’s points 69-70 which were referred to in post 36. In addition, the Catechism devotes paragraphs 355-368 to the creation of humans. One can use the Catholic position in CCC 355 as support for the fact that the human person is worthy of profound respect.

When one desires complete information about Catholic teaching, it is advisable to go straight to the horse’s mouth.

---- I was able to find this statement by following the links on the provided link in post 36.

A CRITIQUE
by Fr. Camillus Hay, O.F.M.
OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF
FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA[1]
by Dr Ludwig Ott

Recently, on a Q & A Forum, Fr. Joe Horn, O.Praem.[2] requested of an enquirer the source of a particular statement; the reply was from Fundamentals Of Catholic Dogma, by Dr. Ludwig Ott. As the particular matter appeared to be questionable, Fr. Horn’s response was: “Good book. But it’s not an official document of the Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, on the other hand, is an official document. It is my duty in this forum (and as a priest) to clarify the official doctrines of the Church, not the opinions of Father X, Theologian Y, or Book Z.”

From jloughnan.tripod.com/critott.htm
There is additional information in this link.

F. John Loughnan
January 23, 2011
is at the bottom of the link.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Sorry, that is your opinion only (shared by others, no doubt). I refuse to respect sociopaths.

Nope. Science does not care about “so called miracles”.

That is what I said with different words. From Dogmas

1. God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.)
2. God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures. (Sent. communis.)

So God actively participated in the Holocaust. Need one say more?

By this you mean God “allowed” the Holocaust. Why is still unanswered. Perhaps humans needed to witness what we, as a species, are capable of so that we never forget. A lesson that continues to be reinforced, but seemingly never learned, given that the Twentieth Century was the most genocidal by far in human history. We will see what the future holds.

---

A Hypothetical Situation:
You father a child, raise and nurture it to the point of adulthood. That child expresses to you the will to commit murder and rape. You have no doubt that they will. Since the child was fathered by you and you do not know when and how the child will do so, are you morally obligated, despite their moral autonomy, to follow them around to prevent them from committing any malevolent act? Do you have a right to kill them before they have the opportunity to commit such an act?

Is God morally obligated to override all immoral human choices? If so, in what sense is the moral autonomy of human agents logically compatible with your view of God’s obligation to intervene?​

If I have a child that goes near a hot stove and, despite repeated warnings that they will get burned, the child persists in attempting to touch the stove, it would seem that at some point, for the child to learn for themselves that actions have consequences, the long term right thing to do would be to allow them to experience pain as the direct result of their choice. At some point, they need to “see for themselves” the consequences of their choices or they will never take personal responsibility for their choices.

We live in a causally predictable world for a reason, so that we come to understand that effects follow from causes and choices matter. Sometimes, watching your child make wrong choices and suffer the consequences is the right thing for the long term.

Your “long term” is the extent of your own biological existence, God’s long term is much more extensive. The parameters within which you measure “good” limit your perspective. God is not morally obligated to view reality through your lens. You are actually committing an act of special pleading by requiring your perspective to be the one which constrains God.

A colony of ants minding their own business attempting to forage gets trodden upon by a herd of elephants. Millions die. A tragedy for the ants, it would seem, but you would not bat an eye. Why not? Why not view this horrific event in the same way you would view a tsunami or Holocaust? Are you not “special pleading” when you count human events as of more grave import to the ant catastrophe? Why does one deserve your attention more than the other? Why is God bound to your perspective rather than the ant (or some other) perspective?

Are you not “special pleading” when you demand that he does live up to your standards?

 

[Bagheera]

But you are not God.

Unfortunately.

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”.

Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.

Sez who? You don’t speak for God.

You have to earn heaven.

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