God is Good

  • Thread starter Thread starter quandy57
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, the Master’s gone away-and we’re left here all alone for all practical purposes, free to do as we please, left to our own devices, often wondering why He doesn’t do more, or if this degree of freedom really is-or will somehow be- beneficial in the end.

But the truth is that whether or not we believe the Master even exists, *we’re * the ultra-rich; we do have the capacity to feed the poor in this world, many times over. That’s the tragedy of it all; human greed and selfishness and failure to love in general are the obstacles to our being able to resolve such catastrophes.
Nonsense. First you take the “food” analogy verbatim. It is much more widespread a problem than it looks like. It includes the lack of rain, which would allow the people sustain themselves. Then it includes the so-called “natural” disasters - tornadoes, hurricanes, Earthquakes, etc. Not to mention our inability to cure far too many diseases and/or medical problems.

No matter how hard you try to whitewash God’s indifference, it is not a sign of God’s alleged “loving”. There is no sign of God’s love or caring.
 
Nonsense. First you take the “food” analogy verbatim. It is much more widespread a problem than it looks like. It includes the lack of rain, which would allow the people sustain themselves. Then it includes the so-called “natural” disasters - tornadoes, hurricanes, Earthquakes, etc. Not to mention our inability to cure far too many diseases and/or medical problems.

No matter how hard you try to whitewash God’s indifference, it is not a sign of God’s alleged “loving”. There is no sign of God’s love or caring.
There is more than enough food, we just do a bad job of sharing it. There is more than enough water, we just do a bad job of using it right, sharing it, and spreading it to those who need it. Sure there are natural disasters, but what does that prove? Natural disasters have their purposes. We can cure many diseases, we are growing in research to do so.

There are answers, I don’t have them all. God Loves us. His love is so perfect we have a hard time of understanding it.

There are a multitude of signs to show His love and His caring. You look too much into pain and suffering and say that an all powerful all loving God would not let such things happen. I don’t quite know why He lets all of what He lets, but I do trust His plan. He didn’t want it to be like this but He let it happen:
1) In order to allow us to have free will so that we could choose to love Him back
2) Knowing He make good out of even the worst of evil


Gratitude is the way to go.
 
Nonsense. First you take the “food” analogy verbatim. It is much more widespread a problem than it looks like. It includes the lack of rain, which would allow the people sustain themselves. Then it includes the so-called “natural” disasters - tornadoes, hurricanes, Earthquakes, etc. Not to mention our inability to cure far too many diseases and/or medical problems.

No matter how hard you try to whitewash God’s indifference, it is not a sign of God’s alleged “loving”. There is no sign of God’s love or caring.
The “problem of evil” will never be whitewashable-I’m not trying to whitewash it so much as emphasize the radical freedom we have-to do good or evil or remain in between. Even with lack of rain donor countries can still meet Africa’s needs now but corruption in the governments of many countries have created a big part of the problem, especially in southern Africa. Wars, as well, have impeded aid. Other natural disasters occur as you say-and individuals die by the millions everyday for that matter from natural causes, sometimes brutal diseases- but the worst evils in this world are still perpetrated by man. And yet one of the most honest questions ever asked was in a concentration camp, recorded by Elie Wiesel, “For God’s sake, where is God?” And still many remained strong in faith, and stronger yet as a result of the ordeal in fact. I can’t really say-we just know God is good-and with us in our temporary suffering here on earth.
 
And yet one of the most honest questions ever asked was in a concentration camp, recorded by Elie Wiesel, “For God’s sake, where is God?” And still many remained strong in faith, and stronger yet as a result of the ordeal in fact. I can’t really say-we just know God is good-and with us in our temporary suffering here on earth.
The phrase: “we just know God is good” is the quintessential blind faith, to assert something not just without evidence, but contrary to the evidence.

It is useful to remember that Elie Wiesel and some others held an informal court in the concentration camp, and declared God guilty for breaking his covenant with the Jews.
 
The phrase: “we just know God is good” is the quintessential blind faith, to assert something not just without evidence, but contrary to the evidence.

It is useful to remember that Elie Wiesel and some others held an informal court in the concentration camp, and declared God guilty for breaking his covenant with the Jews.
It is not blind faith. There are many reasons; there is a lot of faith involved as well, but that is not the problem, and no what you seem to be arguing. I understand most of the teachings of the Catechism which support the belief of God being Love and God; the bible supports what the Church teaches; historical evidence proves Jesus did exist. Granted there is still a lot of faith involved, but that adds to the Love of God.

We cannot argue that God is good if you throw everything away as whitewash/ blind faith
 
We cannot argue that God is good if you throw everything away as whitewash/ blind faith
It is impossible to reason with an angry person. Until he’s willing to argue rationally it’s a waste of time.
 
The phrase: “we just know God is good” is the quintessential blind faith, to assert something not just without evidence, but contrary to the evidence.
It is useful to remember that Elie Wiesel and some others held an informal court in the concentration camp, and declared God guilty for breaking his covenant with the Jews.
Yes, we’re sort of a stubborn bunch. Anyway, I used the quote because it’s an obviously honest question in a world such as ours. But the faith of Jews and others is-or can be-anything but blind. It has to do with knowing God, a faith that comes in part from “seeking His face”, then increased as we actually follow His ways. The ideal that Christ gave the world, especially from the cross, inspired a major paradigm shift, which is still ongoing. From the beginning, by presenting a universe that is based on reason, order, purpose, and goodness- on love- an inspiration was set in place that influenced humans in a variety of ways: to volunteer countless hours and donate untold amounts of wealth to feed the poor, cloth the naked, care for orphans, build hospitals, to preserve and later develop learning, education, science, the arts, build schools, develop the university system, to pursue excellence in general, to love ones neighbor in a world where vanquishing him had been the more common order of the day; altruism had become an authentic human value.

And even humanistic social justice endeavors such as civil rights and feminists movements, legal protection for workers, etc have their roots in Christianity, even as these concerns developed gradually, over centuries- but we tend to miss these facts, often preferring to bite the hand that’s fed us instead. The gospel, whenever anyone genuinely followed it, gave reason and basis and support for accepting and serving the outcasts and downtrodden. Often it required mavericks, who later were named as saints, to challenge the established Church-leaders & laity alike- to recall the true meaning of the gospel; we tend to get caught up in our own day to day interests quite easily, or occasionally even begin to justify behavior that is totally inconsistent with the teachings of Christ. But either way we don’t give up the hope (a virtue which is more akin to “confidence”) that, foundational to the universe, is a basic goodness, existing beyond ourselves while also existing within us, even if buried, that makes it all worthwhile in the end.

Mother Maria of Paris was a twice-divorced woman who gave birth to an illegitimate child and later became a nun. Always radical, she continued to eschew convention and had no sympathy for Christians unwilling to act, and during the Nazi occupation of Paris where she had already accepted anyone and everyone in need into her house, she began to help Jews by providing false documentation to prevent their arrest. She, herself, was finally arrested for this, a risk she was willing to take while knowing she’d probably end up caught. As with others who entered her life she nurtured her fellow prisoners- and ended up dying in a gas chamber, never giving up those higher ideals which caused her to love and serve God-and neighbor.
 
Yes, we’re sort of a stubborn bunch. Anyway, I used the quote because it’s an obviously honest question in a world such as ours. But the faith of Jews and others is-or can be-anything but blind. It has to do with knowing God, a faith that comes in part from “seeking His face”, then increased as we actually follow His ways. The ideal that Christ gave the world, especially from the cross, inspired a major paradigm shift, which is still ongoing. From the beginning, by presenting a universe that is based on reason, order, purpose, and goodness- on love- an inspiration was set in place that influenced humans in a variety of ways: to volunteer countless hours and donate untold amounts of wealth to feed the poor, cloth the naked, care for orphans, build hospitals, to preserve and later develop learning, education, science, the arts, build schools, develop the university system, to pursue excellence in general, to love ones neighbor in a world where vanquishing him had been the more common order of the day; altruism had become an authentic human value.

And even humanistic social justice endeavors such as civil rights and feminists movements, legal protection for workers, etc have their roots in Christianity, even as these concerns developed gradually, over centuries- but we tend to miss these facts, often preferring to bite the hand that’s fed us instead. The gospel, whenever anyone genuinely followed it, gave reason and basis and support for accepting and serving the outcasts and downtrodden. Often it required mavericks, who later were named as saints, to challenge the established Church-leaders & laity alike- to recall the true meaning of the gospel; we tend to get caught up in our own day to day interests quite easily, or occasionally even begin to justify behavior that is totally inconsistent with the teachings of Christ. But either way we don’t give up the hope (a virtue which is more akin to “confidence”) that, foundational to the universe, is a basic goodness, existing beyond ourselves while also existing within us, even if buried, that makes it all worthwhile in the end.

Mother Maria of Paris was a twice-divorced woman who gave birth to an illegitimate child and later became a nun. Always radical, she continued to eschew convention and had no sympathy for Christians unwilling to act, and during the Nazi occupation of Paris where she had already accepted anyone and everyone in need into her house, she began to help Jews by providing false documentation to prevent their arrest. She, herself, was finally arrested for this, a risk she was willing to take while knowing she’d probably end up caught. As with others who entered her life she nurtured her fellow prisoners- and ended up dying in a gas chamber, never giving up those higher ideals which inspired and compelled her to love and serve God-and neighbor.
 
Yes you’re right, sorry about the confusion. I was editing and didn’t notice when I switched something.

It should read:
Is something good because God wills it, or does God will something because it is good?
If (a) then good and evil are arbitrary.
If (b) then the good is independent and outside of God.

But, as Dr. Craig explains, neither option is correct. I find it hard to get my head around the whole thing but I found the video explains it in depth.

(I also didn’t notice that the 2 videos were actually the same one :o)
The answer is that God is goodness itself, so the question is incorrect. To put it another way, God is love, which is willing the good of the other. God doesn’t do the willing but IS the will itself, he “is” goodness. God is. As a wise Rabbi once said, “God is a Verb”.

In fact, this understanding is what brought me back to the Church from atheism. What I initially perceived as an abstraction was the spark that ignited my faith.
 
It is impossible to reason with an angry person. Until he’s willing to argue rationally it’s a waste of time.
I wonder which sentences did you misconstrue to be a sign of “anger”. Because you are “not even wrong” - as the old saying goes.
It is not blind faith. There are many reasons; there is a lot of faith involved as well, but that is not the problem, and no what you seem to be arguing. I understand most of the teachings of the Catechism which support the belief of God being Love and God; the bible supports what the Church teaches; historical evidence proves Jesus did exist. Granted there is still a lot of faith involved, but that adds to the Love of God.
You are surely kidding. The NT part of the Bible is a collection selected by the Catholic church, so it is not a surprise that it supports the Catholic point of view. There is absolutely no external evidence for the alleged miracles attributed to Jesus. Resurrecting Lazarus, coming back from the dead… or anything else.
We cannot argue that God is good if you throw everything away as whitewash/ blind faith
Unlike fhansen, who admits (probably jokingly) that you believers are a “stubborn bunch”, I cannot offer anything similar from our side of the fence. We are not “stubborn”, merely rational. And we need more than simple hearsay “evidence”.

All you need to do is provide actual evidence for God’s “goodness” - and we shall “fold” and accept that we were wrong. And this admission would be done happily. Of course “goodness” does not allow useless, unnecessary, gratuitous suffering. And that is not MY definition of goodness, it is THE definition of goodness. Suffering, which is logically necessary to bring forth some greater good would be no problem. Suffering that even God’s (alleged) omnipotence cannot prevent.

Let’s see some examples which would demonstrate God’s goodness:

Stuff like God coming down and preventing some hideous action in a visible manner (the Holocaust?). The prevention of all the gang-rapes by sending a guardian angel wielding a flaming sword would be a nice demonstration. Or having a new stone tablet falling from the sky and on it carved a recipe for an antidote against HIV and cancer and heart disease. Those would do also nicely. Or helping to rescue some miners trapped underground, by opening a fresh crevasse for the rescue crew. Something that cannot be mistaken for a lucky coincidence.

The standard reply to such suggestions is that these kinds of demonstrations would “rob us” of our free will to believe in God. But that is nonsense. You can’t have it both ways. Either there is an undeniable, objective, visible evidence for God and his goodness - in which case “faith” would be unnecessary and superfluous, or you have a blind faith, without supporting evidence. There is no “middle ground”. By the way, even if God’s existence (and goodness) would be supported by undeniable PROOF, it would not change us into “robots”. We would be still free NOT to worship God, and as such God would have a wonderful excuse to throw these “non-worshippers” into the eternal fire.

Now there is a usual objection to this is that there is “enough” evidence for those who already believe, but it is insufficient for those whose “heart is hardened”. These kinds of objections are incorrect. There are many former Christians (myself included) who prayed for clear guidance, who asked for a clear sign, who would LOVE to KNOW (not just believe), but are unable to do so, because there is no sufficient evidence.
 
All you need to do is provide actual evidence for God’s “goodness” - and we shall “fold” and accept that we were wrong. And this admission would be done happily. Of course “goodness” does not allow useless, unnecessary, gratuitous suffering. And that is not MY definition of goodness, it is THE definition of goodness. Suffering, which is logically necessary to bring forth some greater good would be no problem. Suffering that even God’s (alleged) omnipotence cannot prevent.

Let’s see some examples which would demonstrate God’s goodness:

Stuff like God coming down and preventing some hideous action in a visible manner (the Holocaust?). The prevention of all the gang-rapes by sending a guardian angel wielding a flaming sword would be a nice demonstration. Or having a new stone tablet falling from the sky and on it carved a recipe for an antidote against HIV and cancer and heart disease. Those would do also nicely. Or helping to rescue some miners trapped underground, by opening a fresh crevasse for the rescue crew. Something that cannot be mistaken for a lucky coincidence.

The standard reply to such suggestions is that these kinds of demonstrations would “rob us” of our free will to believe in God. But that is nonsense. You can’t have it both ways. Either there is an undeniable, objective, visible evidence for God and his goodness - in which case “faith” would be unnecessary and superfluous, or you have a blind faith, without supporting evidence. There is no “middle ground”. By the way, even if God’s existence (and goodness) would be supported by undeniable PROOF, it would not change us into “robots”. We would be still free NOT to worship God, and as such God would have a wonderful excuse to throw these “non-worshippers” into the eternal fire.

Now there is a usual objection to this is that there is “enough” evidence for those who already believe, but it is insufficient for those whose “heart is hardened”. These kinds of objections are incorrect. There are many former Christians (myself included) who prayed for clear guidance, who asked for a clear sign, who would LOVE to KNOW (not just believe), but are unable to do so, because there is no sufficient evidence.
From what you’ve written, it seems you have a sky-daddy conception of God. A sort of magical Jewish version of Zeus. While that is a common perception of God, even among some Christians, it’s not really what the Catholic Church teaches. Bishop Robert Barron has a few videos that touch on this subject. Here’s a link to one if you’re interested - youtube.com/watch?v=1zMf_8hkCdc&t=324s.
For me, and I’m sure many Catholics, your arguments against a sky-daddy are an apples and oranges kind of thing. Like you, I don’t believe is a sky-daddy, but I do believe in God.
 
From what you’ve written, it seems you have a sky-daddy conception of God. A sort of magical Jewish version of Zeus. While that is a common perception of God, even among some Christians, it’s not really what the Catholic Church teaches. Bishop Robert Barron has a few videos that touch on this subject. Here’s a link to one if you’re interested - youtube.com/watch?v=1zMf_8hkCdc&t=324s.
For me, and I’m sure many Catholics, your arguments against a sky-daddy are an apples and oranges kind of thing. Like you, I don’t believe is a sky-daddy, but I do believe in God.
Well, it was not MY invention that God loves us, that God is good, that God “wills” the best for us. But these words have meanings and if they have a separate meaning when they applied to God and when they applied to any sapient being - then they are meaningless when you try to apply to God. You cannot use words outside their commonly accepted meaning. If you do, you commit the fallacy of the stolen concept.

I watched the video in your link, and I did not see anything new. It is just hand-waving. If God is so indescribable, then the phrase “God exists” is a meaningless utterance. As I said before, you cannot have it both ways: either you can make meaningful propositions about God, and then you will have to face the problem that God is not loving, not good, etc… in the regular sense, or you must stay silent about God.
 
Well, it was not MY invention that God loves us, that God is good, that God “wills” the best for us. But these words have meanings and if they have a separate meaning when they applied to God and when they applied to any sapient being - then they are meaningless when you try to apply to God. You cannot use words outside their commonly accepted meaning. If you do, you commit the fallacy of the stolen concept.

I watched the video in your link, and I did not see anything new. It is just hand-waving. If God is so indescribable, then the phrase “God exists” is a meaningless utterance. As I said before, you cannot have it both ways: either you can make meaningful propositions about God, and then you will have to face the problem that God is not loving, not good, etc… in the regular sense, or you must stay silent about God.
Look God is perfected love; our love is broken and imperfect. We will not fully understand everything because we are just humans. If you have kids, you know that your kids don’t understand your love, your will, your goodness completely, and might never truly will until they become parents themselves. This is even more so when we are compared to God and His great Love.

In regards to the video, I don’t think you understand what he is getting at; He is more than we can understand. We cannot fully comprehend Him until maybe when we reach Heaven with Him. God exists, there is proof, but God lets you push away all the proof and lets you close your mind to any possibility of His existence.
 
Look God is perfected love; our love is broken and imperfect.
If a “perfected” love allows senseless rapes and tortures, then it is NOT love at all. At best it is indifference, lack of caring.
 
Well, it was not MY invention that God loves us, that God is good, that God “wills” the best for us. But these words have meanings and if they have a separate meaning when they applied to God and when they applied to any sapient being - then they are meaningless when you try to apply to God. You cannot use words outside their commonly accepted meaning. If you do, you commit the fallacy of the stolen concept.

I watched the video in your link, and I did not see anything new. It is just hand-waving. If God is so indescribable, then the phrase “God exists” is a meaningless utterance. As I said before, you cannot have it both ways: either you can make meaningful propositions about God, and then you will have to face the problem that God is not loving, not good, etc… in the regular sense, or you must stay silent about God.
You’re still talking about God as a sky-daddy. You’re using argumentum ad populum to try and steer away from a well established understanding of God. What I’m talking about is God as mentioned in 1 John 4:8 and Saint Thomas Aquinas’ Actus Purus argument and countless others. There’s nothing new here. You’re arguing against a Sunday School version of God.
 
That is not a third alternative. It is simply an arbitrary definition of God’s alleged nature and assumed goodness.

The Euthyphro Dilemma is a thorn in the side of Christianity, along with the Problem of Evil. No theologian was ever able to resolve these problems.
As for illustrating God’s “love” I suggest you take a peek at these pictures: google.com/search?q=hunger+in+africa&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwi0mqqqwtzSAhWEQSYKHfMeDikQ_AUIBigB&biw=1536&bih=783#spf=1 They show just how “loving” God is…

You mean: YOUR definition. Of course the easiest way to “win” an argument is to create your own “definition”, and conclude that any objection incorrect. As the Church Lady (Dana Carvey) said: “How conveeenient”. youtube.com/watch?v=Jm3zV1pCTQ8
(Underline added.) Only if seagal claims to have won something.

We should make this distinction: when someone says that God is good by definition, that could mean by definition of “good” or by definition of “God”. The former is highly problematic (basically equivalent to eliminating the term “good” from our vocabulary) but the latter (which is what seagal did) could be allowable if everyone will agree to it. It simply means that the claim “God exists” entails the requirement of goodness.

P.S. I fell behind on this thread a bit, and even now have not entirely caught up … I skipped a number of posts. Apologies if I’m duplicating what someone’s already said.
 
If a “perfected” love allows senseless rapes and tortures, then it is NOT love at all. At best it is indifference, lack of caring.
What would you rather? To not exist. To have no choice in what you do, but to be a programmed robot. Or to have your own free will. In His love, although He is hurt seeing such terrors, He allows it for a greater good. He is with us, but He wants to be invited, because that is best. Why? I am not entirely sure. But I thank our loving Father for giving us this free will.
 
(Underline added.) Only if seagal claims to have won something.

We should make this distinction: when someone says that God is good by definition, that could mean by definition of “good” or by definition of “God”. The former is highly problematic (basically equivalent to eliminating the term “good” from our vocabulary) but the latter (which is what seagal did) could be allowable if everyone will agree to it. It simply means that the claim “God exists” entails the requirement of goodness.
But not everyone will agree. When someone quotes some text from the Bible, or some other alleged “authority” I will disregard those quotations as irrelevant. If the quotes are contradicted by reality then I will always accept the reality.
 
What would you rather? To not exist. To have no choice in what you do, but to be a programmed robot.
If only I had a dollar for every time I see this nonsense, I would be quite rich. What I would prefer is to be created directly into heaven.
Or to have your own free will. In His love, although He is hurt seeing such terrors, He allows it for a greater good. He is with us, but He wants to be invited, because that is best. Why? I am not entirely sure. But I thank our loving Father for giving us this free will.
Explain the “greater good” coming from the Holocaust. If you can only say that you have no idea, but you trust God that there must be, then you are part of the crowd of irrational people, who exhibit “blind faith”. And I think you would not be grateful for the “free will” of a psychopath who kidnapped, tortured and murdered your child… There is a Room one-oh-one (if you know the phrase) for everyone. Applying the proper “pressure”, it is possible to break everyone, so you would curse this “free will”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top