Is God good?

So let me ask this? So let me see if I have this correct (a simple yes or no will suffice): you believe that a real character in a book that, according to the book, wiped the face of the earth clean of nearly all living things, has a better moral fiber than Rahvin, an person that you only know via his postings on this website but via those postings has indicated a generally high moral standard? Is that correct?

That's YOUR gamble. That it is hypothetical.Now I would point to the resurrection of Christ as historical and ample proof - that as He predicted He would be raised from the dead so all men would be raised from the dead.So YOUR gamble is that a future resurrection of the dead and judgment is only hypothetical.Judging from the track record of the Speaker, I toss my bet in the probability that He speaks the truth.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Well, it is a basic concept that we don't accept claims without evidence.The assumption that the biblical god does not exist is well-founded in that there has been no evidence to presuppose anything else.That's why.

It was a simple yes or no question, the answer to which does not hinge on my statement that your god is not real. You could either a) answer the question or b) provide sufficient evidence that your god is a real being. Seeing as how you lot have had millenia to provide evidence for this character, yet have failed to do so, I suggest you take the easier route and just answer the question. It's not a difficult one and not one that will serve as an indictment towards your faith. The only negative aspect of your answer will be that you prove your self to be less than moral and have a severely misguided moral compass, thus proving to us that you religious types are NOT the arbiter of morals.Your god is a ficticious character, by the way. At least we have evidence that Rahvin is at worst a computer program, but evidence indicates him to be a real live human. The same cannot be said for your god. Secondly, this thread itself makes the assumption that your god is as real as the story since it is about the storybook god, so get over it.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

But alas you have no historical proof. Also could you point me to some writings by this christ guy that show he predicted such a thing. But then again you have no proof on this resurrection thing in the first place.

Big change of subject.Here's something you should think about - God's attitude towards the enemies of Israel against whom the skeptic says He was genocidal or at least very hateful.He wiped out a huge Assyrian army besieging Jerusalem under Hezekiah. He executed many firstborn of the Egyptians in the Exodus.Assyrians and the Egyptians. They're big enemies of Israel - "In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrians will come into Egypt and the Egyptians into Assyria, and the Egyptians will worship with the Assyrians. In that day Israel WILL BE THE THIRD PARTY with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth, whom the Lord of hosts has blessed, saying -

​

"Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance." ( Isaiah 19:23-25) Wait a minute. I thought the maniacal psychopath genocidal executioner hates these enemies of the Jews to wipe them off the face of the earth ?Hmmm "Egypt My people ... Assyria the work of My hands ..."What about the nasty Phlistines? Everyone knows the people of Goliath, the Philistines were BIG enemies of Israel to be defeated continually.These longstanding enemies, God says, will be like the Jebusites. The Jebusites were people in Canaan during the conquest who made a peaceful pact with Joshua and his army. So here as the Jebusites were brought into the fold of Israel (1 Chron. 21:15, 18, 28) God promises the PHILISTINES, of all people, likewise will be at peace with Israel.No genocide there with these BIG enemies of Israel. Were they not very nasty to the Jews ?Zeechariah 9 says "then they also will be a remnant for our God, like the clan in Judah, and Ekron [a city in Philistia] like the Jebusites." (See. 1-6)God also says Egypt and Babylon will be among those who acknowlerdge God. Same for Tyre and Cush (Ethiopia).Rahab was a harlot from a city cursed by God. She became a great grand mother of David and is included in the geneology of Christ.Ruth was a Moabitess. They were forbidden to enter the congregation of Jehovah until the tenth generation. She has an entire OT book named after her - Ruth. The Moabitess became and pre-ancestor of David the king. She cared for God and God's people.Many nations will join themselves to Jehovah, says God in Zechariah. This is suppose to be the same genocidal ethnic cleanser of the Old Testament speaking. "And many nations will join themselves to Jehovah in that day and will become My people ..." (Zech. 2:11) The judging of the Canaanites is clearly having nothing to do with their ethnicity per se. God tells Abraham that He will not bring the Jews into their land to conquer it for another 400 years only because the people have not gotten BAD ENOUGH yet.All the genocides I know of in history are because people had only the misfortune of being of a certain race or ethnic birth.What did the Canaanites do which was so worthy of judgment ? They must have included things like rampant beastiality. They sacrificed their children to Moloch burning them alive.They were involved in such deep occultic practices that animals and children were consecrated to the demonic world. There must be some reason God had some animals slain too. You all believe what you wish. I believe God knew exactly what He was doing.The religion of the Canaanites often involved sacred sexual promiscuity. The spread of such "worship" - giving people license to fornicate under the guise of performing religious service, God must have deemed dangerously contagious as to threaten human civilization at large.But the Gospel writers record Christ's specific treatment of the Canaanite woman. Jesus said not a word about her being wrongly "left alive".If His Father was genocidal against the Canaanites, why didn't Jesus just finish her off with murder rather than minister mercy and grace towards her ?Your criticisms don't add up skeptical ones. They do not add up to portray the biblical God as a moral monster.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The topic of the thread is not whether the Biblical deity is real or fictitious. I think we all know where we stand on that question, and discussing it is probably for another thread.I suggest that we all simply acknowledge that any character, fictional or real, can be judged by documented actions, under the assumption for the argument that the documented events actually happened. When I argue that the Biblical god it evil because he Flooded the Earth and committed genocide, I am arguing as if the Biblical god is real and that the events actually happened. When I argue that Grand Moff Tarkin is evil for blowing up Alderaan, I am arguing as if Tarkin and the Death Star and Alderaan were all real.It doesn't matter if a character is real or not, it doesn't matter if the events were real or not; what we are arguing here is if those characters actually did what was described, how would we then judge them morally?If a real person killed off the entire global population of Earth, regardless of who that person is, or what magic powers that person has, I argue that we would consider this person to be evil, as murder and especially mass murder are inherently evil acts.I argue that the wickedness of such acts stems from a consistent valuation of sentient life and suffering, and causing suffering or involuntarily snuffing out life is always ethically negative.I argue that the commission of such acts outside of the immediate defense of other lives is inherently evil.I argue that, since the Flood was obviously not an act of defense and was instead simply an example of mass murder on an unprecedented scale, that any being responsible for causing such an event is evil.I argue that to argue that the Biblical god is not evil while upholding the value of human life and labeling Hitler, Stalin, and Grand Moff Tarkin as evil despite similar acts of mass murder (if on different scales) requires simple special pleading, which is a logical fallacy.I argue that no matter how many quotes jaywill farms from his Bible, no matter how many times he seeks to blame the victims for their own murder, special pleading is still a logical fallacy and therefore his argument is wholly invalid.jaywill has presented absolutely no rational argument for his position, except that his deity is what defines "good" and "evil," and therefore his deity can perform absolutely any act at all and still be called "good." He argues that this is so because the Bible says so, and therefore his moral compass must point accordingly, regardless of the argument involved.This is ironic because jaywill accuses "atheistic morality" of having "no ultimate authority," and therefore such morality is unbound by consistent rules, that people embracing moral relativism can actually count the Holocaust as a "good thing."jaywill is mistaken. He is so mistaken that he either does not comprehend even the basics of humanistic ethical systems, or he simply chooses to ignore them and instead tries to utilize emotional pleas to demonize an ethical system that, contrary to his words, is significantly more consistent than his Bronze-Age Authoritarian ethics, which change on the whim of the authority (or, as history has shown, on the whim of the interpreter).The god of the Bible is guilty of multiple counts of genocide. If any other individual were to perform exactly the same act, that person would quite obviously and rightly be labelled as "evil." If we are to be logically consistent, the god of the Bible must also be considered evil.

Are you even trying to reply to the comments people are making to you? What you did just there in Message 156 (the message I am replying to) was not at all even close to the text that you quoted or the message you replied to. If you want to simply preach, be my guest. After all, that's about all you do anyways. Just don't pretend to be having a discussion whilst doing so.

Some old predictable pattern. Jump to another topic. Accuse the poster of preaching.Want to define preaching?If you want to jump to evidence that "WE" accept, which is a whole new topic - "evidence for God's existence" - why pretend you are on this topic? Start your own on Evidences for God's Existence.I'm doing what I'm suppose to be doing here STUDYING the BIBLE along the lines of the question "Is God good?"Looks like you let "We" down fella. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

You still haven't answered my first question, the one that brought me into this topic. If you would be so kind?

This would appear to be the root of the disagreement in this thread.The topic of this thread is "Is God good?"The topic of the thread is not "Does the Bible say God is good?"The Bible does say the Biblical god is good. It says so repeatedly.But by any consistent system of humanistic morality, the Bible is wrong, and the Biblical god is evil.

Re-ask it then kindly. If it is simple and on topic I will try to respond in kind.And if it is too tough for me, I'll tell you. I don't claim to have all your answers.

It's right there in Message 149. but I'll be a nice guy and type it again.

quote:

---

So let me see if I have this correct (a simple yes or no will suffice): you believe that a ficticious character in a book that, according to the book, wiped the face of the earth clean of nearly all living things, has a better moral fiber than Rahvin, an person that you only know via his postings on this website but via those postings has indicated a generally high moral standard? Is that correct?

​

If we pretend for a moment that we have two characters (YHWH and Rahvin) and all we know about them is what is written about them (YHWH has the bible and Rahvin has EvC), you are seriously going to say that the one whose character is listed as murdering 99.9% of the planet has a better moral system than the character that espouses equality for all and NOT to murder? How can you justify that sort of thing and live with yourself?

---

I certainly hope you have the answer to a question of "is this your position; yes or no".Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Well, this may be a little grey area. The Bible ALSO says God repented of doing something. See? I can even give you amunition.Conceivably this topic then could go to Forum on Faith and Belief or something more philosophical.So I am studying the Bible - "Bible Study" this forum is.If you want to really get into a philosophical debate "Is God good?" well that doesn't even imply the Bible necessarily. Does it ?Don't dispair. You almost got me. Keep using biblical evidences for your argument.Yea, God had the Amalakites really trounced. Examine WHY too.
Examine WHY the Midianites were so trounced.I have to consider that ALL of the enemies of the Hebrews were not dealt with with the exact same rigor. Why not ?Two possibilities:1.) God just gets into particularly worse moods on occasion and does MORE infliction on a whim.2.) He had sufficient reasons in Himself why this people merit this judgment but another people merit another lesser judgment.I assume the latter case. After examining all the data, I assume the latter must be the case. And this even though I cannot always detect His reason.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I feel that Jesus Christ was not just good. He was GLORIOUSLY good. He was extraordinarily splendid in goodness.Rahvin, may be good compared to some other people. But is he gloriously good - good with a excelling splendidness such that the human race has defined history of the world in terms of "Before Christ" and "In the Year of Our Lord ? "Christ is this Bible's God incarnate as a Man. He is not a different God from the God in Genesis six or Genesis nineteen or in the book of Joshua.He is the Triune God of the Father - Son - Holy Spirit - three-one God. My position is that of the Scriptures - "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." God, whom you say murdered 99.9% of the people designed and created 100% of them. He has the authority to bring them into being. He also has the authority to decide when they should be no more.And He has the authority to bring them physically back to life.I believe God says He has furnished a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness. And He has furnished proof of this by resurrecting Christ, by whom He will judge all, from the dead. " ... He [God] has set a day in which He is to judge the world in righteousness by the man whom He has designated, having furnished proof to all by raising Him from the dead." (Acts 17:31) I think this man is qualified to be the Judge of ALL men, women, children, fetuses, unborn, retarded, brilliant, dull, young and old and whatever. He is qualified.He is not only good. He is not only very good. He is good with a near blinding radiance. Even His enemies say so, many of them.Your question implies I should consider that Rahvlin is qualified to be this One's judge.Okay. I considered it. I think he doesn't qualify. I do not think he rises higher than Christ. I do not think he rises higher than the God written about in Exodus or even Joshua.But he may be a super guy by typical standards of typical bloaks.
Christ, he is not. Ask him yourself.I pointed out God's long suffering in the Old Testament. He tolerated that evil society for 400 years until He HAD to judge. Then He gave them an additional 40 years.That is a lot of long suffering and patience while people are suffering under the wickedness of a evil society. "They [Egypt] will affict them four hundred years ... And in the fourth generation they will come here again, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete." (See Gen. 15:13-16) Ie. They are not sinful enough yet to merit the example He will make of some of them.We read about God being slow to anger.The short answer is that when Rahvlin or you or someone else sets themselves up as qualified to pronounce God evil, I regard them as delusional at best.When I felt to accuse God in by gone days, it was usually because I wanted to justify my own ego as occupying the throne center of the universe. The thought of the "Lord" repulsed me with fear and rebellion. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.