Is God good?

[NonServiam]

Well I believe that God allowed these because they were used to scare people away from sin.

I don’t approve of beings who use scare tactics to keep others in line. I don’t respect such tactics or the beings who use them.

Another point, is that we deserve death. Bringing sin and evil into the world is a terrible thing that deserves death. We all deserve to die and go to Hell.

I utterly reject your premise on the grounds that I see no reason to support it and no reason that any good being would hold us accountable for the supposed crimes of our supposed ancestors.

I dare you to look at a newborn baby and tell me that it deserves to die and be tortured forever in Hell.

 

[Monica4316]

God is good.

It is blasphemy to believe otherwise… so it is sad that some believe this way. Don’t give in to this temptation.

The reason the events in the OT happened is to reflect the people’s relationship with God rather lack of it, before Christ. There wasn’t yet the sacrifice (the crucifixion) for sin.

Regarding evil… God allows evil because of free will. He does not support humans doing evil to each others and wishes for all to repent.

God bless

 

[NonServiam]

Could you give an example of where God gave a law that stated kill them if they do this or that.

I’ll do you one better: the famous passage of God commanding a genocide:

I Samuel 15: 2-3 reads as follows: “Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***.”

From Numbers 31:“And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people. …] And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. …] And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. …] Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”

Now, the most famous passage here is Num 31:17-18, in which the Israelites are instructed to kill all men and women who have “known man by lying with him” but they are to keep the virgins “alive for [themselves].”

If you want to get technical, it was the Lord who says to commit genocide against the Midianites. They keep the women alive, so then Moses sees that they’ve done so, he gets mad and tells them that the Lord wants them to kill the women who are not virgins and keep the virgins as slaves.

But even though it’s Moses who speaks the somewhat more atrocious part (?), the rest of the chapter makes very clear that it’s not something disapproved of by the Lord. The women who were taken as slaves are counted as part of the booty later on in the chapter, without a single comment about it being bad. In context, it seems that Moses has done a good job reporting and carrying out the will of the Lord.

Forget rules that require people to be stoned: here’s a part of the Bible where “the Lord” character explicitly commands genocide to take place and at least implicitly endorses the taking of virgins as slaves (gee, I wonder what for…).

Once more, none of this proves there’s no god, or anything silly like that. The question of god’s existence is entirely different from questions of his character. As I said, if we are to discuss the hypothetical scenario in which this being exists, then I say that if the Bible gives an accurate picture of this being’s character, then this being is not worthy of my worship.

 

[Rocks_91]

God is good.

It is blasphemy to believe otherwise… so it is sad that some believe this way. Don’t give in to this temptation.

The reason the events in the OT happened is to reflect the people’s relationship with God rather lack of it, before Christ. There wasn’t yet the sacrifice (the crucifixion) for sin.

Regarding evil… God allows evil because of free will. He does not support humans doing evil to each others and wishes for all to repent.

God bless

This statement… “God is good”… has always confused me a bit.

God is the author of the moral law, and since good is what God’s nature is, saying that ‘God is good’ is just another way of saying ‘God is God’. We have to accept God because he is the only God. If the eternal God had a different nature…

God is good because his nature makes him necessarily good, and we have no reason to love him. The way I see it, his love towards us (Jesus’ suffering for us), is/was not necessary, but because he chose to do it out of his free will, made himself man, obeyed his own law, suffered and died, he gave us a reason to love him. But even if there was no sacrifice and we were all burning in hell, God would still be good. That boggles my mind.

It also seems that we had no choice to be created, Souls come, souls go; and although we have a choice to accept/reject God, we still have no control over our destination. We are not given a choice to be uncreated, either. Is all this free will nonsense actually illusory?

Anyway, that’s something I ponder over sometimes, and I’m too lazy to study philosphy. But I still choose to follow God.

 

[Heuchler]

I don’t approve of beings who use scare tactics to keep others in line. I don’t respect such tactics or the beings who use them.

I utterly reject your premise on the grounds that I see no reason to support it and no reason that any good being would hold us accountable for the supposed crimes of our supposed ancestors.

I dare you to look at a newborn baby and tell me that it deserves to die and be tortured forever in Hell.

So, you don’t approve of all the parents who scare there children to keep them from hurting themselves. “If you get into a fight at school I’ll blah, blah,blah.” How else are you to raise a good child. If they don’t obey you to begin with, you have to give them reason to follow you. There’s a reason every society throughout history has used the death penalty. Unfortunately, it is the only way to keep order without the resources to create a prison.

You reject the premise that we have broken the laws of the all-powerful God and deserve justice for that unless we seek his mercy and try our best to repay this debt. If this being is infinite meaning there is no way for us finite beings to repay our debts without the help of another infinite being (Christ), then we deserve seperation from him. Seperation from God is Hell, a place of suffering where you will feel absolutely no love. Even if you don’t believe in original sin, you have sinned. We all have, it doesn’t matter. You can’t just reject my premise because of original sin because it has nothing to do with original sin, it’s about your sins.

No, I won’t condemn a child to Hell. They haven’t chosen to sin yet.

 

[danserr]

An atheist presented this question I wasn’t sure how to answer.

If God is good, why did he actively participate in human history committing the very evils he rebukes? It seems God contradicts Himself. My friend used the example,

Leviticus 20:13
“If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

I’m not sure what translation she used. But I agree that there are many of these seemingly contradictory participations of God in history. She also used the example of the great flood.

It would make a world of difference if you could reveal the good God behind these seemingly hateful crimes to me.

My regards,
Derek

On Old Testament stuff, a book I have heard recommended and read some of is Paul Copan’s Is God a Moral Monster.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

And when the last time a christian mob punished someone that way.

That question would make for a nice transition into the history of the Southern USA. But it’s an ugly discussion so I’ll save it for another day in another forum.

And that should demonstrate, that he simply cannot take quotes and draw conclussions. If that is what christians believed, then they would have applied that punishment in the last 2000 years.

From what I’ve seen the Bible isn’t necessarily a sufficient document for determining what a Christian believes. To oversimplify the range of beliefs there are some that take a very literalness rigid view and there are some that think that Jesus probably didn’t exists, but he sure did sound like a really swell fellow. If you want to know what some one believes you’ll need to talk with them and interact with them over time.

Interestingly enough many of the Christians I know are not familiar with the bible. They know a few key stories from it but not much more. Occasionally I’ve said something like “Moses said around the world in his great wooden boat on the lake of fire” or something from the Quran and you’d be surprised how many of them don’t catch what is wrong with the staement or that the verses from the Quran are not in the bible.

An atheist presented this question I wasn’t sure how to answer.

If God is good, why did he actively participate in human history committing the very evils he rebukes? It seems God contradicts Himself. My friend used the example,

What’s your goal in defending the stories of the bible with this person? I think making that known may better contribute to a more fitting response being offered. For the most part my advice is to not share the responses that I’ve read thus far in this thread. While I think they may make some other believes agree with you but I think it would just be more wood to the fire.

 

[carn]

But that’s not what an atheist means when they ask “is God good?” They mean it in the sense that we ask about a person whether or not they are good. IE, was Hitler good? Was Ghandi good? Was Pope John Paul II good?

The difference is this: it’s a judgement of scale in that case… humans are judged “good” in the degree to which they conform to the superior moral law (meaning that God’s moral law is greater than us, hence we may be judged by it). But there is nothing greater than God, and the moral law itself is God’s servant… so God is not good RELATIVE to His aquiescense to something, but because GOODNESS is a fundamental part of God.

I do not understand the problemabout judging God according to that scale, i can just like other beings judge him according to that scale, e.g. (assuming a scale of 0 to 10, 10 being perfectly god,0 being perfectly evil, maybe complicated scale like logarithmic or complicated mapping something like 10 actually being infinite plue and 0 being infinite zero):

Hitler ~ 0.5-1.5
Gandhi ~ 4-6
John Paul II ~ 5-7

Why the ranges?
I lack information regarding all actions of that persons, so judging them has uncertainities, as not all their actions can be understood throughfully.

Being responsible for creation, informing us about the existence of a moral scale, forgiving our sins regarding that scale and sacrificing himself in that process (aka God according to catholic doctrine) ~ 9-10

I lack information regarding that being and some of his acts look at first morally somewhat questionable. But as He is God i am confident that, in case my lack of information is ever removed, 10 ±0 would be the correct judgement.

So what is the problem of using the moral scale God has given to us upon Himself, except for the detail, that we have an lack of information that certainly cannot be cured this side of the grave?

 

[carn]

That question would make for a nice transition into the history of the Southern USA. But it’s an ugly discussion so I’ll save it for another day in another forum.

Christians punishing someone by stoning?
Just PM the links i am interested, because i did not find anything about christians and stoning. What i found was that stoning was commonly used nearly everywhere.

From what I’ve seen the Bible isn’t necessarily a sufficient document for determining what a Christian believes.

Good observation.

Interestingly enough many of the Christians I know are not familiar with the bible. They know a few key stories from it but not much more. Occasionally I’ve said something like “Moses said around the world in his great wooden boat on the lake of fire” or something from the Quran and you’d be surprised how many of them don’t catch what is wrong with the staement or that the verses from the Quran are not in the bible.

Its especially good, that christians are not familiar with the quran to notice such things.

Just out of interest, why do you spell Quran with capital letter and bible without?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Its especially good, that christians are not familiar with the quran to notice such things.

I wasn’t expecting familiarity with the Quran. I had been expecting at least something like “that doesn’t sound quite right.”. Along the same lines I often hear that the ten commandments are the most important document on morality ever written but those I’ve encountered that exclaim such can’t list what these commandments are.

Just out of interest, why do you spell Quran with capital letter and bible without?

I conjecture that it may be related to the multitude of ways in which I’ve seen “Bible” or “bible” used but the more rigid way in which " Quran" is used. I wasn’t even aware I was doing it until you pointed it out.

 

[carn]

I wasn’t expecting familiarity with the Quran. I had been expecting at least something like “that doesn’t sound quite right.”. Along the same lines I often hear that the ten commandments are the most important document on morality ever written but those I’ve encountered that exclaim such can’t list what these commandments are.

K, there you are right. One should have rough ideas about such topics.

I conjecture that it may be related to the multitude of ways in which I’ve seen “Bible” or “bible” used but the more rigid way in which " Quran" is used. I wasn’t even aware I was doing it until you pointed it out.

Capital for “God” “Bible” and so on is used due to respect. So if someone writes “God” you can assume you have a believer or at least someone being used to or communicating with believers and doing it for communication reasons. An atheists adressing atheists would seldom write “God” or “Bible” but “god” and “bible”. (I am personally sloppy and incosistent regarding spelling.)

For the moment i assume, you are from US, GB or another english speaking industrialized country. Can you come up with reasons why, although you live in an enviroment where there are many chrstians but few muslims, you are used to “Quran” with capital “Q” but have come across “bible” and “Bible”?

Im interested, because the only reason i can come up with is, that if one writes "god"and “bible” instead of “God” and “Bible” and maybe a few not so positive statements in conjunction with these words, the worst to expect is being ignored ( or banned in case of a forum). While when writing “quran”, “allah” and “muhammad” (ommiting “prophet”) and maybe a few not so positive statements in conjunction with these words, worse things can happen, depending upon the impresion you make, so better be careful and write “Quran”, “Allah” and “Prophet Muhammad”.

Which brings me back to the topic, while it is interesting to consider whether the author or publisher of the Bible is a perfectly good guy or not, i guess it should be clear, that whatever perfect good might be, the quran and its author are certainly further away from that than the author of the bible, simply nobody needs to care out of physical well being, how he spells some words.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

For the moment i assume, you are from US, GB or another english speaking industrialized country.

Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Can you come up with reasons why, although you live in an enviroment where there are many chrstians but few muslims, you are used to “Quran” with capital “Q” but have come across “bible” and “Bible”?

Nope, not beyond my previous conjecture.

Im interested, because the only reason i can come up with is, that if one writes "god"and “bible” instead of “God” and “Bible” and maybe a few not so positive statements in conjunction with these words, the worst to expect is being ignored ( or banned in case of a forum). While when writing “quran”, “allah” and “muhammad” (ommiting “prophet”) and maybe a few not so positive statements in conjunction with these words, worse things can happen, depending upon the impresion you make, so better be careful and write “Quran”, “Allah” and “Prophet Muhammad”.

I don’t think that’s a factor in my spelling behaviour, I am consistent about spelling Yahweh, Jehovah, and Allah with capitalization. I prefer to avoid the use of the word “God” because it doesn’t consistently refer to the same entity/person. If I am talking about Christianity I prefer to use Yahweh (I have one friend in mind that would answer “yes” to the question of the existence of God but “No” to the question of the existence of Yahweh).

I did pull out some dictionaries to see if they gave any clue to where I might have picked up the lower case spelling. They use uppercase for the main entry “Bible.” Though “bible” is used when they made reference to “any book of religious authority” or if a “book on authoritive information” (fisherman’s bible).

 

[promethius]

I do not understand the problemabout judging God according to that scale, i can just like other beings judge him according to that scale

It’s a problem of jurisdiction. The king is not judge by his subjects, and God is not judged by His servants. The moral law is the servant of God, subject(ive) to God’s will… not an objective standard under which God falls.

Being responsible for creation, informing us about the existence of a moral scale, forgiving our sins regarding that scale and sacrificing himself in that process (aka God according to catholic doctrine) ~ 9-10

I’ve highlighted the erroneous part of this statement: God does not merely inform us about a moral scale… He wills that scale into existence and defines it.

So what is the problem of using the moral scale God has given to us upon Himself, except for the detail, that we have an lack of information that certainly cannot be cured this side of the grave?

If I’m a parent and I tell my child that the rules of the house say children must be in bed before 9 pm, my child doesn’t get to judge my behavior by the fact that I’m not in bed before 9 pm. That is my rule and is subject to my purview.

Similarly, God defines the moral law (creates it from nothing). It no more applies rules Him than a bedtime rules the parent who created such a rule.

HOWEVER, because God is good by His very nature, God does not murder, lie, steal, etc… not because He is subject to an objective moral law, but because the subjective moral law is a reflection of God’s own nature.

 

[carn]

It’s a problem of jurisdiction. The king is not judge by his subjects, and God is not judged by His servants. The moral law is the servant of God, subject(ive) to God’s will… not an objective standard under which God falls.

I’ve highlighted the erroneous part of this statement: God does not merely inform us about a moral scale… He wills that scale into existence and defines it.

So if a universe creator decided, that murder is moral and compassion for innocent victims is a mortal sin, then so it would be?

If I’m a parent and I tell my child that the rules of the house say children must be in bed before 9 pm, my child doesn’t get to judge my behavior by the fact that I’m not in bed before 9 pm. That is my rule and is subject to my purview.

But that your child is not allowed to judge your behavior is solely due to the fact that the child is likely unable to do so not because judgement is beside the point. If i tell my child the rules say it must be in bed before 2 pm and must get out of bed at 1 am, the child would still not be able to judge my behavior, but if further rules exist (e.g. general rule of householf: rules should be of benefit for the child) a judgement is possible, if all information is avaible (e.g. its not a healthy sleep pattern, so without further reasons 2pm into bed 1 am out of bed might be immoral).
The capability and knowledge of the child do not change this. And i do not see a child trying to make sense of the rules, so in other words judging his parents, is in itself a problem, if the child understands, that it is unable to come to a reliable judgement and should therefore trust his parents.

Similarly, God defines the moral law (creates it from nothing). It no more applies rules Him than a bedtime rules the parent who created such a rule.

HOWEVER, because God is good by His very nature, God does not murder, lie, steal, etc… not because He is subject to an objective moral law, but because the subjective moral law is a reflection of God’s own nature.

Now you make a mistake. In absence of moral law, how do you know, that his good nature means, that God does not murder, lie, steal, etc. ?
Without moral law you cannot know, whether murder or lying is evil or good and therefore cannot know whether God would or would not act in that way, as the charecteristics good would not be defined.

And if God is bound to his nature and the subejective moral law is a reflection of that nature, then i see the subjective moral law as a subset to Gods nature, which comprise the complete moral law. And then God is bound to that, because he is bound to his nature.

 

[promethius]

So if a universe creator decided, that murder is moral and compassion for innocent victims is a mortal sin, then so it would be?

Correct.

We have only to look to the praying mantis or the black widow to find that God has willed that some species must kill their own kind without provocation in order to reproduce. The moral law is tied in with the natural law, and the law was made for man… namely that God created our nature in union with the moral law which governs it. If our nature were somehow different, God may have created a different moral law to go with that.

But that your child is not allowed to judge your behavior is solely due to the fact that the child is likely unable to do so not because judgement is beside the point. If i tell my child the rules say it must be in bed before 2 pm and must get out of bed at 1 am, the child would still not be able to judge my behavior, but if further rules exist (e.g. general rule of householf: rules should be of benefit for the child) a judgement is possible, if all information is avaible (e.g. its not a healthy sleep pattern, so without further reasons 2pm into bed 1 am out of bed might be immoral).
The capability and knowledge of the child do not change this. And i do not see a child trying to make sense of the rules, so in other words judging his parents, is in itself a problem, if the child understands, that it is unable to come to a reliable judgement and should therefore trust his parents.

That a child does not get to demand his parents have the same bed time or curfiew has nothing to do with whether or not a child is able to understand such a demand. It has solely to do with the authority of the law in relation to the subject of the law and the creator of the law.

In this instance, the parent is the creator of the law and the law is subject to their purview. In the case of God, all of moral law is His subject.

Now you make a mistake. In absence of moral law, how do you know, that his good nature means, that God does not murder, lie, steal, etc. ?
Without moral law you cannot know, whether murder or lying is evil or good and therefore cannot know whether God would or would not act in that way, as the charecteristics good would not be defined.

You’re getting it backwards again. I know that God is good because God is good. Good is ONLY good insofar as it is a reflection of God’s nature.

In other words, you’re trying to grasp that God can be judged by a moral law… but that’s not the case. The moral law is ONLY good because God created it and it is a reflection of His good nature. If God is not independently good, then why do we care what moral law He set forth for us?

And if God is bound to his nature and the subejective moral law is a reflection of that nature, then i see the subjective moral law as a subset to Gods nature, which comprise the complete moral law. And then God is bound to that, because he is bound to his nature.

First, I reject the premise that the moral law is a “subset of God’s nature”, any more than we are subsets of God’s nature because we likewise reflect the image of God in our creation.

Second, how is anything bound to it’s nature? I’m not bound to my nature, I am my nature! If God’s nature is goodness, He is not bound to be good, He is good.

 

[carn]

Correct.

We have only to look to the praying mantis or the black widow to find that God has willed that some species must kill their own kind without provocation in order to reproduce. The moral law is tied in with the natural law, and the law was made for man… namely that God created our nature in union with the moral law which governs it. If our nature were somehow different, God may have created a different moral law to go with that.

You’re getting it backwards again. I know that God is good because God is good. Good is ONLY good insofar as it is a reflection of God’s nature.

(I copied this two together.)
So if the universe creator regarding his universe would lie, steal and murder he would still be good. And if he one day declared lying, stealing and murdering forever wrong and would thenext day lie, steal and murder himself or command others to do so, he still would be good. Whatever he would do, he would still be good.

Isn’t then “good” and absolutely empty term without meaning?

That a child does not get to demand his parents have the same bed time or curfiew has nothing to do with whether or not a child is able to understand such a demand. It has solely to do with the authority of the law in relation to the subject of the law and the creator of the law.

So there would be no problem with parents requiring in bed 2pm and out of bed 1 am?

And i never said the child has a right to demand anything or that it should only follow rules it understands. I claimed i see no error in a child trying to make sense of the rules and trying to decide upon his current knowledge whether they are sensible rules or rules with errors. How the child should act on the results of such thoughts is another question.

In this instance, the parent is the creator of the law and the law is subject to their purview.

So for parents requiring their child to go to bed 9pm it would be fine to go to bed 7am?

In other words, you’re trying to grasp that God can be judged by a moral law… but that’s not the case. The moral law is ONLY good because God created it and it is a reflection of His good nature. If God is not independently good, then why do we care what moral law He set forth for us?

God actions are judged regularly. When someone claims that he had visions from God, church officials might decide to investigate. They do this to check whether the claim is true. They are only able to do so, by assuming that Gods behavior and message is limited in some scope. If they find evidence that a vision is outside that scope they decide its not from God. And they will still decide that way, if they did and error and the vision was truly from God.
I do not see amoral problem there, except the risk of judgement error. The process itself to check Gods supposed actions against a set of rules is in itself not wrong.

First, I reject the premise that the moral law is a “subset of God’s nature”, any more than we are subsets of God’s nature because we likewise reflect the image of God in our creation.

Subset in so far, as there is no contradiction between gods nature and the act of creating the rules.

Second, how is anything bound to it’s nature? I’m not bound to my nature, I am my nature! If God’s nature is goodness, He is not bound to be good, He is good.

But the moment you have a definition of “good” or “goodness” you can compare the supposed actions of God and compare whether they are in line with the definition of “goodness”. If you find a discrepancy either God did not act in that way or you made an error.

Of course if you define “goodness” as “the way God acts” then “God is good” is “God acts the way God acts.”, which would be true, but irrelevant, as it does not contain any information. It would be then irrelevant that God is good.

 

[promethius]

So if the universe creator regarding his universe would lie, steal and murder he would still be good.

Yes. And not only that, the moral law, which reflects God’s nature, would ALSO say that lying, stealing, and murdering would be good. And we, being subject to the natural and moral law, and rational beings, would be created under this very different reality and therefore it WOULD be good.

And if he one day declared lying, stealing and murdering forever wrong and would thenext day lie, steal and murder himself or command others to do so, he still would be good. Whatever he would do, he would still be good.

This portion is non-sensical. God is perfect as He is. If God is perfect, He is unchanging, since one cannot change from perfect to equally perfect. Augustine covers this extensively… God is timeless, unchanging, and perfect. There is no new state which is more perfect, nor will God change to a state which is less perfect.

In other words, the moral law will not change as you surmise because God does not change.

However, I get what you’re getting at, and I will answer that what I wrote above is all that can be said on the matter: what is good or bad is good or bad only because God has deemed it to be so.

Isn’t then “good” and absolutely empty term without meaning?

Not for us. We have to follow the moral law established by God and the degree to which we do so is our measure of goodness.

So there would be no problem with parents requiring in bed 2pm and out of bed 1 am?

And i never said the child has a right to demand anything or that it should only follow rules it understands. I claimed i see no error in a child trying to make sense of the rules and trying to decide upon his current knowledge whether they are sensible rules or rules with errors. How the child should act on the results of such thoughts is another question.

So for parents requiring their child to go to bed 9pm it would be fine to go to bed 7am?

The point is not whether or not the parent’s rules make sense. The point is that the rule is arbitrary. It only applies to those who fall under its jurisdiction, not to the parents and not to anyone else. The parents may CHOOSE to follow the same rule, but they are not BOUND to in the same sense that their child is.

God actions are judged regularly. When someone claims that he had visions from God, church officials might decide to investigate. They do this to check whether the claim is true. They are only able to do so, by assuming that Gods behavior and message is limited in some scope. If they find evidence that a vision is outside that scope they decide its not from God. And they will still decide that way, if they did and error and the vision was truly from God.

But they do not judge revelations from the standpoint of whether or not that would make God a “nice guy”. They judge private revelations from the standpoint of whether or not it conflicts with existing public revelation. If someone has a private revelation that a volcano will go off if people don’t start praying again, that doesn’t mean that it’s not true because setting off a volcano would be “mean” of God. It might be untrue for OTHER reasons, but the reason is never because we have a right to judge God’s actions as “not being nice enough”.

But the moment you have a definition of “good” or “goodness” you can compare the supposed actions of God and compare whether they are in line with the definition of “goodness”. If you find a discrepancy either God did not act in that way or you made an error.

But we don’t have a universal definition of goodness. We have a definition of goodness for mankind. Praying mantis and black widows certainly don’t follow this moral code.

The point I’m making is that God is the parent who defines the rules. He may follow said rules, but He is not bound to… and those rules only apply to us, because God has willed that only we have the eternal souls and therefore the applicability of a moral law. The moral law is for man… not God.

Of course if you define “goodness” as “the way God acts” then “God is good” is “God acts the way God acts.”, which would be true, but irrelevant, as it does not contain any information. It would be then irrelevant that God is good.

Conversely, it’s startlingly revealing that God is ultimate goodness and all that we consider good is only so because God ordained it to be that way…

 

[carn]

Yes. And not only that, the moral law, which reflects God’s nature, would ALSO say that lying, stealing, and murdering would be good. And we, being subject to the natural and moral law, and rational beings, would be created under this very different reality and therefore it WOULD be good.

This portion is non-sensical. God is perfect as He is. If God is perfect, He is unchanging, since one cannot change from perfect to equally perfect. Augustine covers this extensively… God is timeless, unchanging, and perfect. There is no new state which is more perfect, nor will God change to a state which is less perfect.

In other words, the moral law will not change as you surmise because God does not change.

However, I get what you’re getting at, and I will answer that what I wrote above is all that can be said on the matter: what is good or bad is good or bad only because God has deemed it to be so.

You missed that i deliberatly do not said “God” but “universe creator”. Because you seem to claim that due to the act of creation of this universe and humans, the entity has absolute freedom to prescribe any law to the inhabitants, even contradicting laws, even saying one day “A is true” and another day “not A is true.” .

You just assume that the only entity capable of universe creation is God and that Gods nature would not lead to contradiction. But if you are wrong on the first assumption, there is no longer absolute good, because it would depend upon who is the actual creator of the universe one is in.

But they do not judge revelations from the standpoint of whether or not that would make God a “nice guy”. They judge private revelations from the standpoint of whether or not it conflicts with existing public revelation. If someone has a private revelation that a volcano will go off if people don’t start praying again, that doesn’t mean that it’s not true because setting off a volcano would be “mean” of God. It might be untrue for OTHER reasons, but the reason is never because we have a right to judge God’s actions as “not being nice enough”.

But the work from the rule, that God is a “non-contraditing guy”. So if they one day die and facing last judgement “God” pronounces “you are condemened to hell because you believed the nonesense i told you through the prophets and my supposed son”,they would reply “You are not God.”. And that solely because that creature did not behave according the rules those church people think limit Gods behavior.

So there are rules limiting Gods behavior. If He would brake them he would not have been God all along.

Those rules differ from the rules he gave us due to different natures.

Conversely, it’s startlingly revealing that God is ultimate goodness and all that we consider good is only so because God ordained it to be that way…

The term “God is ultimate goodness” is devoid of meaning if good is just what God says is good. You might as well reword it into “God is acting exactly the way he act.”. That is true for any entity and therefore not a noteworthy feature of God.

 

[tonyrey]

The term “God is ultimate goodness” is devoid of meaning if good is just what God says is good.

It is not devoid of meaning if good corresponds to what God is. “God is Love” is clearer because it is dynamic whereas “goodness” may be interpreted as a passive state…

 

[carn]

It is not devoid of meaning if good corresponds to what God is. “God is Love” is clearer because it is dynamic whereas “goodness” may be interpreted as a passive state…

Everything is what it is. So saying “God is good” and “Good is what God is.” would be devoid of meaning “God is what God is” is always true.

And regarding “God is Love” 2 options:

-“Love is what God does/feels/…”, same problem as above.

-There are class of acts, which that are more or completely compatible with “Love” and there are class of acts which are less compatible or incompatible with “Love”. Then God is subject to a moral law because either he must avoid commiting acts of the second class or if, there must be a reason, why no contradiction between the act and “God is Love” arises. That means there is a moral law limiting Gods choice of actions, in as God is limited regarding what “Love” means.If he can freely change it, we have option 1 and “Love” is meaningless.