winstonjen

That makes no sense. Some people get better deals in life than others in both a subjective and objective sense. A lot of things occurs with free will having nothing to do with it, such as natural disasters, etc.

Wiploc

At the start of this thread, I asked Christians how good god is.

Tercel had told me that answer #1 (see below) was not the standard Christian position; maybe, if I remember correctly, he thought it was more a position that I had made up and projected on Christians.

So now that we have four pages of response, I'm going to tote up the responses.



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.

Jerry M:
#1. God's goodness is absolute and perfect. Also, the innocent suffer.

(Immediately, you see that there is going to be a problem. Most people are going to take more than one position, and the positions will (at least appear to (at least to some people)) conflict. I'm going to count Jerry M as a vote for position number one because (a) he clearly and unambiguously took that position for the space of a single sentence, and (b) since we're here to see whether I made up position #1 or whether Christians really take that position, I'm going to be prejudiced in favor of this answer.)

The_Cave:
Infinitely good, according to most people. But for him personally, just very good indeed. But later he takes the incompatible position of saying that (again, I believe, in most people's beliefs) god values goodness less than freedom. (I'm not trying to count everyone's votes. Christians count, of course, and people who say they are explaining the orthodox Christian position count. The_Cave seems to say that, on the basis of sufficient study to entitle him to have an opinion, most Christians take position #1, so I would count this vote even if The_Cave were not himself a Christian (which I don't remember whether he is.))

Darth Dane:
100% good, but he contradicts himself instantly and openly. Coherance being, apparently, his enemy.

Maguss55:
Yes, God is 100% loving, perfect, merciful, just, righteous, holy, good. He is the epitome of perfection and holyness. (However, he reversed his position in his next post.)

Theophilis:
God is the standard of good and, as such, cannot be measured as to "how good" he is. God is absolutely whatever he is, e.g., holy, just, righteous. Neither can we know what good is apart from him.
If Tercel told you that [that god is not infinitely good (I think)], he does not speak for historic Christinity.
(In the first paragraph, he seems to define all the meaning out of the word "good," which might should put him in category #5 with SOMMS, but in the last sentence he betrays the fact that he thinks god goes in the 100% good category.)
The evil which God may bring on his creation is consistent with his ultimate purpose. (So there's a third position.)




[b] 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. /b]

Nobody voted for this position.




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

Nobody voted for this position.




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

Kenny:
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.
God does God does not compromise the greater value for the lesser. God is morally obligated to regard His own glory above all other considerations
(The first sentence puts him in category 3; the second sentence puts him somewhere below that.)




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

Tw1ch/SOMMS:
'God is good' is completely redundant. How wiploc is wiploc? (I could add another category for this type of answer, defining all the meaning out of the word good, but what would be the point? As near as I can tell, SOMMS is defining god as not-good according to human understanding of the word, not-good in any useful sense, not-good in any way that could help shape human behavioral standards. On the other hand, maybe he was trying to put himself in category #1?)


7thangel:
God is only good to those whom he had chosen. Cattles are made meat for men, good for men but bad for the cattle. And even in men, God created some to be vessels unto destruction, and some unto glory. ...God, as inventor of humans, be not benevolent unless He ends up with a good reason of creating. (7thangel seems to believe in the scorpion god.)




So here's the score:

5 votes: 1. He's all the way good.
0 votes: 2. Pretty darned good.
0 votes: 3. Good.
1 votes: 4. Tolerable.
2 votes: 5. Not so good.

Most people took the position (however briefly and however much they contradicted it) that god is all the way good. This highly unscientific survey cannot show that this is in any sense the "right" position; but I do think we can conclude that position #1 is not something I made up and unfairly attributed to Christians.
crc

the_cave

Well, no, he can't. I suppose because he's infinite, and you can't divide an infinity...if you're not looking for a Christian answer, I'll have to cook something up, I'm afraid!



If God can't create his equal, he can only create things lesser to him--that's how #1 imples #2. It's a good question about whether that makes him imperfect--but I'd argue that if I'm right about #1 implying #2, then he's as perfect as could be--that is, there is nothing that could be more perfect, since there isn't anything that, already being perfect, could create a copy of itself. Sigh...I'm afraid I'll have to get back to you after years of study if it's another explanation you want

It's as good as possible--but you are correct in noting that this is where things get sticky, and where Christians start using free will to explain the existence of evil. God doesn't love famine--but he does love the freedom that the universe apparently has to create famine. This is so, because that same freedom could also cause his creatures to love (aside to wiploc--I'd argue it's not a contradiction--freedom is good, so a maximally good god will value freedom). Without it, love is meaningless--and our free will could not exist without the freedom that the universe has. This is still a contested point, and you can probably think of some good arguments, but that's generally the explanation, and as far as it goes, I think it's an ok one. It takes some defending.

In short, God loves any universe with free will in it--whatever the consequences.

Aye, there's the rub. Here's one way of explaining it: he isn't creating creatures with the desire to do evil--but he is allowing for the possibility for them to desire to do evil. How they actually decide to do evil is anyone's guess, and is a big source of debate (even among atheists), but it's generally agreed (except by radical Calvinists) that it isn't god doing the deciding. So, if anyone gets eternal punishment, it is because of their willful rebellion against what is good.

Well...you are probably going to see this as a dodge, but free will doesn't require that absolutely everyone is free--it merely means that as a whole, humanity in general is free. God is actually fairly understanding these days.

Cipher Girl

Hi cave
Why couldn't he split into two parts, each infinite? That's certainly as logical as not being able to split into two parts. An example, let's split the set of integers. This could be split into the negative integers and the positive integers plus zero. There, that wasn't too hard to split an infinity into two infinite sets. Also, if you are not familiar with algebra, a countable infinite set allows for addition, subtraction, and multiplication (implies division by multiplication of reciprical).

What type of infinity? The example I gave was a countable infinite set. Also, I did not mean that I was looking for a non-christian answer, only that you did not have to limit yourself to a christian one.
If god cannot create a perfect creation, that demonstrates that he is imperfect not perfect as you claim. I could create something not equal to myself, does that make me god?
More assertions. What exactly are you trying to say here? I think your arguments are a little muddled here. That god does not create anything, somehow the universe does (famine)?
Quite a bit of mental gymnastics here, cave. But aren't you repeating yourself in the same statement? How would creatures have the will to do evil, without being created with that will? You make no sense here.
Yes, we agree on that, as there is no god to do the deciding. Yes, my turn to take something out of context.
So you agree that people get eternal punishment for being exactly the way they are created? After all, where does the desire for "willful rebellion" come from?
So who is free, and who isn't?
It's too bad a lot of his followers aren't.

7thangel

Just as I thought, you meant omnibenevolence meant to love "ALL." Well, God hates evil. If there is no such thing as evil men then God will love "ALL." If you insist that God should love evil men, you are sounding like the irrational theists I knew.


[block quote]Ephesians 1:5-12
5. Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6. To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
7. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
8. Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
9. Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
10. That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
11. In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
12. That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.[/block quote]

No that is not plain because that is just a part of the Bible. Truly, we were promised of joy, happiness, peace and eternal life. You can also read Revelation 21:4. Our difference, most probably, is that you are after temporal while I am after eternal.

But before we come unto such promises of God we should first learn how to understand it. So there we are “being given to experience good and evil,” so that we could have wisdom. And thus come up with a better sense of existing. Unfortunately, if you have had included the preceding 2 verses of the verses you quoted, you would have had a better idea of what it is saying. Note what it says:

[blockquote] 12. Though a sinner do evil an hundred times, and his days be prolonged, yet surely I know that it shall be well with them that fear God, which fear before him:
13. But it shall not be well with the wicked, neither shall he prolong his days, which are as a shadow; because he feareth not before God.[/blockquote]

My guess is that verse 14 speaks of the meaningless of such experiences if you will receive the promise. It means there is nothing like having eternal life. Well, as an atheist I understand if you see it differently.

That the chosen may have eternal life through Christ.

(Trying to edit the "blockquote.")

trillian

To give this some balance, I vote 5.

God has the same "goodness" as that of any evil dictator. He's nice enough to keep his power but fear of disease, death, and eternal damnation are his most useful tools. Jesus is much better but remains contradictory in his goodness. God's good vastly improves when you take out about 90% of the book.

God is so "not good" in the OT that IF I were a religious conspiracy theorist, I would say that the devil/satan/serpent/lucifer guy made up the whole thing to get people to hate and smite each other for his entertainment. Then he made sure that many competing ideas were developed for maximum clash value. His productions include "God Says We Can Take Your Land, Kill All of You, Then Hang Your Heads On Sticks" and "Let's Kill Another Million Infidels" which all the other gods are giving rave reviews about.

Wiploc

I don't think your vote counts. We know the Christians describe their god being terrible, but they also call him good. The question is, when they call him good, how good are they calling him? For the purposes of this survey, it is no good to point out that non-Christians see that he can't really be better than he acts. That's another topic.
crc

Bubba

Which is why most people who have abandoned Christianity do so-they no longer find it relevant.

Bubba

bgponder

Hey, thanks for re-posting my little quick toon.

Naw, my quick and dead comment was just a snide aside regarding your comment that not all would be "resurrested", because it is well known that the Judgement Day scenario provides for all to be resurrected--the quick and the dead. I was assuming in your vast interpretational milieu you had somehow slurred over that (that's a sarcasm, by the way). Now I see that you actually meant "saved", "redeemed", or some such. My bad.
However, now I have to call you on fudging in your original assertion, re your CP mindset, perhaps in order to make your assertion seem more acceptable:

You should have said "most", rather than "some". Of all humanity, only the chosen, the predestinated, only the Remnant, only 7000, right? Goodness Gracious! (That's another snide remark, dude--get it? "Goodness". "Gracious".)

Uh-huh. And Paul also obviously thought that the event commonly known as the Rapture would occur in the lifetime of those to whom he was speaking re "some shall not sleep", etc. Guess what? It didn't.

I am going on the assumption here that you're saying that I'm taking this verse and using it out of context. If that is so, more later--

Yeah, I know about the promises. And I guess I could (yet again) read the prophetic meanderings of "I, John" on Patmos, but what's the point? The dude was obviously having a bad trip. Probably half-starved, scourging himself, hoping that he was one of the elect.

Ah-ha! The plot thickens! Your motivations become clear! You want to live forever! Who'd-a thunk it!?!

Oh, right! I completely missed that, 7th, that there is a conclusive way to learn how to understand the Bible in general, and the CP regimen in particular! Why, all of us atheists in this forum have been kidding ourselves! How could we have been so blind? Do go on!

Of course "could" is the operative word here. And some of us attain a wisdom that concludes that it is not in the least likely that there is any coherent notion of goodness to be gleaned from the knowledge of the Biblical God.

Better for whom? The elect, right? Jesus H.F. Christ, give me a break!!!!!!

No, dear 7th, there was no need for me to read (yet again) the two preceding blatantly contradictory verses, and I understand it quite well, thanks very much. And here is the kicker that you obviously missed: I was not taking these things out of context. The very fact that there is no coherent context of good and evil in the Bible, which allows these "inspired" writings to so easily be juxtaposed is what I was trying to show by referencing those verses in the first place.

Oh well! That changes things! As long as we're guessing, it's my guess that the Bible is a collection of writings based upon the myths of the ancient Hebrews, and though there are many things of value in it regarding human nature and society, its claims about its God and all subsequent extrapolations are myths themselves, the assertions of people who lacked for factual ways to ascertain how the world works. And people who stubbornly cling to such things as equal to fact, most assuredly those who promote "thought" systems like CP, the basis of which is simple declaration of its own notions to be so, are happier with self-imposed intellectual blindness than with the hard truth of reality.

But that is just my guess

Thanks heaps.

That such a thing is the end purpose of God's eternal plan makes a mockery of the sacrifice of Jesus, (it was only for a few, known by God/Jesus/The Holy Spirit, from before creation), a mockery of the Great Commission (why preach to the whole world: "Hey, look, most of you are going to perish eternally in flames, but hey, that's the way it is, and was from the beginning"--what a stupid concept), and a mockery of any notion of good and evil in its consideration and context.

IMO, Calvinism/CP/Predestination in conjunction with so much of what is said in the Bible about God's intentions toward mankind, is the most arrogant, self-righteous and ridiculous bunch of bullshit to have ever been uttered in relation to humankind's place in reality re the prospect of Higher Powers.


Cheers!!! BarryG

P.S.

the_cave

Cipher Girl--finally getting back to you!

Ok--be prepared then for some potentially wild speculation

After thinking about it a good deal, I'm not sure a creator god actually can create his equal--if he already exists, everything he creates is in some minimal sense dependent upon him. He could create something almost his equal, except for the fact that it itself wasn't the creator. That, I think, is possible.

#1 implies #2 in the sense that I note above--all things that god creates are not strictly equal, since they're dependent upon him for their existence. They're necessarily "imperfect" in that sense--or, they are indeed as pefect as they actually can be--but not absolutely so, since they depend on something else for their exiistence. That's the minimal sense of "perfection" that I mean.

No, he doesn't love harm, for example. I suppose cancer would be good, if it didn't harm anyone. Traditionally all that god makes is indeed good, and I suppose that at least most of what he made has to be good, if we're to consider him good. It seems that there is a great deal of freedom for the world to be what it is--I think he believes that freedom is good, just like we do. We don't like the freedom of the world to harm us, and rightly so, but I think maybe that freedom has to be there in order for us to be free. Even without god, it seems to me to be necessary. I think that freedom has to mean (again, even without god) that some things can't be known--the outcome of some events can't be known ahead of time. It's good that the universe has enough freedom to create us. It's bad when that freedom causes us harm. So it's good that the universe is created.



No, he's creating them with freedom. The desire to do evil comes after that--it just happens, and it can't definitely be predicted ahead of time, even by god--or so I claim. Eternal punishment for unbelief is a complicated subject. My short answer is, I don't think it's as simple as "If you don't believe, you're getting punished eternally." There are degrees of belief. And the limitations on our reason is another factor. If someone has sincerely considered the question of god, and decided, for what they think are moral reasons, not to believe in one, I'm not sure that merits eternal punishment. Now, to think that there are in fact good reasons to believe, but then to say "well, the hell with that, I'll go wreak havoc on other people's lives, devil may care", that might be punishable--to some degree. I'm not here to argue for a literal hell, or eternal punishment in such a hell, for that matter. Just responding to the topic at hand as best I can.

Well, first of all, if they're unable to choose the good, I would hardly call that freedom. But I interpret human freedom to be a general quality that we have collectively. It's in our nature to be free--but some individuals might not be free (due to the freedom of the universe to create things that cause us harm.)

I don't understand this question. Of course they're not less free. We're all free to do good, or ill. Some are pleased by causing others harm--I'd say that's ill. Some are pleased by striving for the greater good--I'd say that's good. I would not say, however, that we're created automatically favoring one or the other. We could have a jolly good debate about the existence of free will, but I'm worried that would get even more off-topic.