"Is God Good?" is not a Valid Question

[Dream]

Jahway, I'm answering this very late and did not mean to ignore you.

Can you please illustrate how you interpret this scripture? What "law" do you think Paul is referring to? I ask because I am unsure.

The law he mentions in vs 14 is described also in the surrounding verses. Its not so much a particular law as the entire concept of humankind rising to meet the perfection of principles. He's saying that our apparently carnal construction undermines the higher principles which we admire but fail to follow at all times.

His point of view seems to be that our duel nature of mind vs. matter was created for the purpose of demonstrating how good the law is. His reasoning is a bit complicated, and it spirals out from "16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good." That, according to him, is what its all about. He seems to be saying that our struggle to be good combined with our failures is the purpose for which we were created. His illustrations are drawn from Genesis, and he does seem to be giving his opinion about the purpose for humanity. Its certainly on topic with what you were talking about.

• Romans 3:4-5
  By no means! Let God be true though every man be false, as it is written, "That thou mayest be justified in thy words, and prevail when thou art judged." But if our wickedness serves to show the justice of God, what shall we say? That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.)

I am not saying that I agree with Paul. He's just a man, and what he says is open to debate. Its not like doubting Paul is sinful. He has admitted as much many times in his letters, so don't get on my case about it.

I think history has proven this, do you believe things have been getting better?
We have had much time, and I think we see the repetition of evils throughout our human history. We are not truth, are we not without injustice. Only God is. How can an unrighteous man rule men righteously? If there is only ONE that is righteous in all ways, then only that ONE would be able to. This is based on a Christian belief in the return of Christ. What is your faith if I may ask?
.

Jahway, there is value in approaching perfection. There are things we can never attain and yet be so close that for practical purposes we are there. Perfection isn't something you find in the real world. My faith is much changed from the days when I was 12 years old and dedicated my life to a God that I didn't know. It is the God who is always perfect, loving, so good that my highest ideals continually are too low to compare. That God I offered complete allegiance, but I didn't know about myself then that I don't have allegiance. I have something like it that is moving towards or away from it. Faith? In the sense of being faithful I have some. In the sense of believing I don't think it matters to us or to God.

The Christian belief in the return of Christ, whatever you may hear elsewhere, is not about letting God directly save the world. It is (and was) always about all of us being transformed step by step over a long period of time, far far beyond even 2010. Its about everyone becoming better and helping each other, reminding each other, causing the world to reach a good kind of critical mass at which time God is all and in all. When we fall, then we have to get back up and start pushing again. What eventually happens is that we, all together, jointly reach a plateau at which we no longer backslide. We are then a transformed race. That is what is called the 'Last trumpet' or the Omega in the Alpha and Omega.

 

[Dream]

Hi Dream,
The question of why God created seems pointless when you consider that there is nothing that we can know about God other than that he is a creator. He is above description, in Taoism He is called the Nameless. If it can be Named then it is the creation, not the creator.

Hello, it seems I overlooked all of the responses in this thread, and I'm sorry.

I think I agree with that. One thing you have in Taoism is a method of teaching disciples. You called it 'Taoism'. You desire to teach others something that cannot be named, but you can't. What is Taoism for?

 

[Quahom1]

What makes you say this, because the answer is obvious?I suppose ti depends on what the definition of is is. I'd say yes I rectangle has four sides, but not just four sides.

Actually very astute!

A rectangle has eight sides, eight angles, an interior area and exterior area, as well as two perimeters, two parallels, and possible four equalateral lengths, or not. Though generally thought of as two dimensional, it is associated with a cube (also a series of rectangles), which can give it mulitple dimensions. Ergo the rectangle is much more complex than it appears.

Same goes for "God is Good"...simply depends on how deep one wants to dive in and research the "Good" part of God...

 

[Jeremyw]

If God is good by his nature then he doesn't have free will if free will allows people to do evil. But if humans need free will to be saved why doesn't God need free will to be saved? Also if God knows the future and has always existed then he will have no sense of freedom and just carries out what he always intended to do.

 

[vizenos]

Yes, goodness is a necessary condition for God. If said entity is not good, said entity is not God. If said entity does not have exactly 3 sides, said entity is not a triangle. I can verbally make a statement like: "Well such and such is a triangle, but it doesn't have 3 sides"-- that does not mean its valid. Its not a matter of implying anything.

Well, I can understand that having three sides is the essential and defining quality of a triangle, but does it follow that goodness is, likewise, the essential and defining quality of God? If so, how is one to deal with this:

"I am the L-rd, and there is none else, there is no G-d beside Me....I am the L-rd, and there is none else. I form the light and create darkness: I make peace and create evil: I the L-rd do all these things." (Isaiah 45:5-7)

Any radically exclusive monotheism must come to terms with the problem of a good God who actively creates, or at least permits, un-good things in His creation. Dualists avoid this by postulating an anti-God of one sort or another, and some monotheists try to argue that the existence of human free will requires genuine alternatives upon which to use it. So far as I can tell, only the Gnostics had the courageous temerity to grab the bull by the tail and actually face the situation.

This of course explains why Gnostics are rather thin on the ground, these days....

Regards,
vizenos

 

[Quahom1]

If God is good by his nature then he doesn't have free will if free will allows people to do evil. But if humans need free will to be saved why doesn't God need free will to be saved? Also if God knows the future and has always existed then he will have no sense of freedom and just carries out what he always intended to do.

So, if God enslaved himself to man, for man's sake, then God is no longer free?

Seems to me you miss the point...

As I recall, there was a moment when God decided to dispense with man all together...but for one man who kept his promise to God. God chose to do counter to what he originally intended...for the sake of one man...

think about it.