Wiploc

(I'm sticking this in the EoG forum because it bears on the Problem of Evil. But I'm not trying to do the PoE here, I'm just trying to find out what Christians generally mean when they use the word omni-benevolent.)


Christians, how good is god?

1. He's all the way good. That is, he is 100% benevolent, loving us and wanting our happiness as much as only a perfect god could. And his benevolence is unalloyed; there are no considerations weighing against it.

2. Pretty darned good. He sincerely and strongly loves us and wants our happiness a lot, and if he has any conflicting desires they are lesser desires.

3. Good. He wants our happiness. He could have other things, conflicting desires, that he wants just as much.

4. Tolerable. He wouldn't hurt us except as a side effect of getting something he wants more than our happiness.

5. Not so good. Any answer below "tolerable," as defined above.


Reason for the question: I always thought "omnibenevolent" meant perfectly good (number one, above) but Tercel tells me Christians don't believe god is all that good.

So, one thing I'd like to learn on this thread is which of us is right.

The other thing I'd like to learn is whether I drafted the question badly. I'd be happy to learn better ways to formulate the question.
crc

JerryM

I'm probably not the person to be answering this since I'm not a Christian believer. But from what I've studied, orthodox Christian doctrine holds that God's goodness is best described by your point #1. It is absolute and perfect. However, there is the proviso that God's benevolence is not always made manifest to us at all times. That is, God will allow nature and human affairs to take their course, which will sometimes result in the innocent suffering and the wicked prospering. But ultimately, either in the afterlife, or when God supposedly brings this world to an end, everything will be made right, and righteous believers will experience God's full goodness eternally. Of course, IMO, this argument is a load of horsecrap, and really just a metaphysical contrivance to explain the obvious contradiction between an omni-benevolent deity and all the evil and tragedy in the world. But I think, in a nutshell, that is their belief. If I am incorrect, any other comments are welcome.

Kenny

Your whole analysis implies that God’s goodness is to measured in accordance with how much God desires the personal happiness of all the beings which God has created over and above all other considerations. That is not the orthodox Christian view of what it means to say that God is good. God does desire the happiness of His creatures, all else being equal, because He is good, but not over and above all other considerations of goodness. Since God is good, for instance, God is also just. Because God is just, God punishes sinners. To punish someone means to, in some sense, deprive that one of some form of happiness. God doesn’t desire Hitler’s happiness, for example, above considerations of doing justice to Hitler. Sometimes, God’s goodness is a terror to us and a threat to our happiness – because God is just and we are wicked. That is the traditional Christian view.

Furthermore, as one coming from a Reformed theological perspective, I would also add that because God is good, God does not compromise the greater value for the lesser. Since God Himself is the supreme locus of all value and worth in the universe, God is morally obligated to regard His own glory above all other considerations – including the happiness of His creatures. This is not the result of some selfish attitude on God’s part -- indeed, Christ’s sacrifice on the cross demonstrates supremely God’s willingness to sacrificially give of Himself for the sake of the happiness of others while doing so in a way that does not compromise God’s glory and holiness – rather, God’s passion for God’s own glory is His passion for goodness and truth. To honor any other thing above God is to commit idolatry and to tell a lie because in doing so one is, contrary to reality, attributing greater value to something else over and against God. This is true whether a creature does this or whether God does it. The fact that God is obligated to regard His own glory above all other considerations, does not mean, however, that God will treat any beings unfairly or unjustly or that God will fail to uphold the dignity that any being possesses – since to act unjustly would be for God to compromise His own goodness and hence His glory. But, as we have seen, God’s refusal to compromise justice is itself a threat to our happiness, because we are wicked. In fact, God’s punishing sinners is itself a specific example of an instance where God is upholding His own glory (by honoring His standards of justice) over and above a goal of insuring the maximal happiness of each and every being.

Consequently, God’s goodness entails that God does not desire the happiness of individual creatures over and above all other considerations. Like it or not, we are not the centers of the universe. There are bigger considerations out there than our own personal happiness, and consequently our own personal happiness is not the center around which the universe revolves. Realizing such, even if one does not hold to a Christian worldview, is simply a sign of maturity.

God Bless,
Kenny

the_cave

I think the correct answer is indeed #1, but there's a caveat. #1 is the _generally understood_ meaning of omnibenevolence. I'm not sure it has to be adhered to under pain of heresy. In fact, I have searched the Catechism of the Catholic Church (as presumably an authority on the subject), and can only find this statement, taken from the opening paragraph:

"God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. "

This would imply that God is very good indeed--but note he is not necessary infinitely good, merely infinitely "perfect", whatever that means. His creation is from an act of "sheer" goodness, so presumably no evil marred such creation (until the disobedience of human beings.) That's it--no discussion anywhere of omnibenevolence. Which leads me to believe that in order to be a faithful member of the world's largest Christian organization, you need not have any opinion on the subject whatsoever. You can search it yourself if you like:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

I think if you're a Christian, it's miracles and omnibenevolence that are really at conflict. I suppose I think there might be ways to reconcile the two, but I myself am not very concerned about it, and don't wish to spend time doing so.

The Other Michael

Wouldn't mercy be a subset of omnibenevolence? Perfect mercy and perfect justice appear, to me, to conflict.

cheers,
Michael

rainbow walking

Hi Kenny,


Kenny: Consequently, God’s goodness entails that God does not desire the happiness of individual creatures over and above all other considerations. Like it or not, we are not the centers of the universe. There are bigger considerations out there than our own personal happiness, and consequently our own personal happiness is not the center around which the universe revolves. Realizing such, even if one does not hold to a Christian worldview, is simply a sign of maturity.


rw: Then when can we anticipate your god maturing? If we take what you've just said at face value, you've just described a very egotistical being who derives his personal happiness exclusively by squeezing his glory, (whatever the hell that means), outta man's wretched condition.

Darth Dane

God is 100% Good
God is 100% Evil
God is 100% (put in whatever you want here: _____)


To me God is everything 100%...no exception!


But hey...thats just me





DD - 100% Spliff

Kenny

Don’t forget Rainbow, that, for Christianity, God’s glory (i.e. the manifestation of God’s overwhelming goodness, holiness, and love) was not chiefly manifested in this world through the wonders of creation or through powers and authorities or through the pouring out of punitive justice – but on the cross. In the person of Jesus Christ, God brought glory to God, not through some egotistical demonstration of power, but by becoming low and taking upon Himself the form of a servant and giving Himself away for the sake of others. God choose to identify Himself with our wretched state in order to redeem us from it, even though He could have justly left us to wallow in it.

The supreme glory of God, therefore, has nothing to do with egoism or seeking His own happiness above all else, but with self-giving, the love of His enemies, and the willingness to far exceed going the extra mile. "Whoever wants to find his life has to lose it." God not only told us that. He came and lived it for us. In making Himself low, He was lifted up. We do well when we do the same.

God Bless,
Kenny

Wiploc

This makes sense to me because of my own experience in a restaurant. I asked for a menu, but they said there was none. I wanted to know prices, but they said they would make up the prices later. I tried to leave, but there was noplace outside of the restaurant; management had me trapped. And I was real hungry. So I ordered what looked to me like the least presumptive thing on the menu, an apple. I had two hundred dollars on me. I didn't see how I could get into trouble if the management had any sense of justice. So I ate the apple and they told me the bill was a billion billion billion dollars.

I pointed out that nobody has that kind of money.

They said, "That's the point."

I said, "So how do you expect me to pay?"

They said, "You don't have to pay. That's the glory of it! We have killed the busboy to pay off your debt!"

And I thought, "How glorious is that?"




Of course he also planned the Fall. He decided what was "wretched" and then created us that way. It's hard to sympathize with his "sacrifice" when he created our nature, planned our fall, decided to call that sin, arbitrarily decided not to let himself forgive us until he had sacrificed, and then arbitrarily decided that he could forgive us after his sacrifice. All for his "glory," which, again, he arbitrarily defines (and for any serious emulation of which we would put a human in the asylum).

crc

tw1tch

wiploc,
Both positions are actually wrong. The statement 'God is good' is a nonsensical statement.

This is the problem right here. Notice the language you use is the exact same as you would use to describe your tall friend Joe.
'Joe is tall'. 'Tall' is a concept defined outside of Joe. Joe is an individual that can be described by attributes (tall, funny, etc).

However, this is not the case for God. It is a mistake to assume that 'good' is defined outside of God. If God exists and is benevolent...then He is not defined in terms of mere human attributes...rather 'good' is defined in terms of God. Hence 'God is good' is completely redundant.

The following question should illustrate this...
How wiploc is wiploc?


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas