Is God good?

I said a simple yes or no would suffice.So which is it: yes or no? Stop waffling.

First off, you should know that the whole population was not killed off. God saved 8 people in the ark.So this argument doesn't apply. In no time does God kill everybody on the whole planet.God wants future generations to know some things. One of them is that it is POSSIBLE for human society to sink so low as that world did.Would it be kind of God, if He knew that such was possible, NOT to inform us of this ?Maybe if you spent a week in such a world as the world before the flood you too would realize the need for a whole new beginning.You know this world of Noah was without human government. It was in the real sense an anarchy. Everyone was only governed by their conscience.God let things run their course. We see what can happen when there is no human government. After the flood human government was established (Genesis 9:6) .Notice that before the flood God forbad ANYONE to exact vengence upon Cain for murder (Gen. 4:15). After the flood He establishes capital punishment (Gen. 9:6).I take this as a major shift in human society. The age of men being governed ONLY by their conscience was ended. Now in principle, men who listen to conscience should exercise some rule over those who do not listen to conscience - Human government.The Flood was the line of demarcation of the old and new dispensation.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

So you agree that killing the whole world is bad...but as long as I leave 8 people alive, I can still be "good?"

It was not kind for God to know that society would sink so low and to create a course which would lead to the destruction of the entire world (minus 8 people) being necessary.No, that was not kind.God did not just "let things run their course."He designed the track and built the engine and shoveled the coal. So he could have set up capital punishment or even better, a human culture that prospers in culture in a way that capital punishment would not be necessary.But he didn't.Call that success or failure if you want.Do NOT call it kind.

I agree that God is good. (If not agree with you, I agree with the concept of the good God.)It was good that God made an example, good that they were judged, good that He saved some, good that He started a new beginning, and good that He instituted a major shift in dispensation after the failed one was manifest as inadaquate for His purposes.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I believe that it is just of God. He did strive with them. He says His Spirit would not always strive with man.But if you have a sickness it would be a good thing that the Doctor inform you just how bad that sickness could get. That is the world to which we are going. No punishment, no tears, no death, no sorrow, no pain, no sin, no sinning, no rebellion against God and no other will besides the will of God.The tragedy in creation resulted from the introduction of another will besides the will of God. We are given a glimpse of the culmination of God's plan. We see where we have destiny. We see the climax.We see Revelation 21 and 22. That God requires TIME to work out His eternal purpose is just a fact of life. That some STILL may choose to have nothing to do with His plan is also a fact of life.If you say "Well WHY are we not in the New Jerusalem NOW ?" That may be hard for me to answer.But I can say, we know that we are on the way. We know that God cannot be defeated from reaching that glorious goal of Revelation 21 and 22.It is not easy to answer the complaint "Why are we not in eternity of God's perfect will NOW, today ??"That's hard to answer. I can say that God is definitely MOVING in that direction and that we will arrive.We who Amen His will that His kingdom come and His will be done on earth as it is in Heaven, surely will arrive.Those who cling to the opposition party which lied in the beginning, causing us to doubt God's heart and God's goodness? Well, such need His mercy to reject the old lie and believe the truth of His love for us.This topic "Is God Good?" is really a continuation of Satan's accusation from the beginning causing Eve and Adam to doubt God's heart and count Him as surely withholding something from us. "You will not surely die! For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will become like God, knowing good and evil." (Gen. 3:5)The enemy of God always seeks to plant into our hearts that God does not have our best welfare in mind and that He is withholding us from the best blessings.Its a lie.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Are you kidding?God is not a doctor in this scenareo. He caused the illness. Do you not understand that?He broke the limb and then set it correct by amputation.

I don't see it that way. First we have God warning the first man.This man Adam is innocent and in a neutral position. In essence the warning of God is for Adam to be careful what he takes INTO himself. He is not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.Now Adam eats. He has not only disobeyed God. He has also taken into his system a foriegn element. It is a parasitic malicious "virus" if you will, like a evil computer virus.Something has "constituted" a change in his being. The man has moved from a stage of innocence and neutrality to actualy emnity against God. He has joined the opposition party against God. He has become an enemy of God.The first hint we get that something foreign has entered into Adam's system may be in what God tells Cain - "And Jehovah said to Cain, Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen?

​

If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and his desire is for you, but you must rule over him." (Gen 4:6,7)Something foreign, something as an evil active force is now attached to Cain. Like a parasitic thing it has attached itself to the host , mankind.This evil energy is like a crouching beast at the door of Cain's will. It seeks to drive him to crime. Cain reacts to God's warning by murdering his brother Abel.He is mad with jealously that God accepted the blood sacrifice of Abel but rejected that pure vegetarian offering of Cain. Abel's offering, I believe was prescribed by God. Cain invented the first religion. Cain will not approach God via the redemptive blood which foreshadows the Son of God.Cain approaches God to be accepted on the merit of his own good doings.At any rate the point here is that man has received into him a foreign evil element that has constituted him a poisoned being. He can only exert some limited self control over it. He is in need of redemption to be fully reconciled to God.We see one stage of degradation in the first murder. We read of other indications of the downward slide of humanity. We see a climax in this downward slide in the days of Noah.Enoch, though, walks with God 200 some years. Enoch's son Methusalah is a living warning that judgment is coming. Noah finds grace in the eyes of God. And Noah's 7 relatives are preserved for a new beginning.The warning of impending judgment is there for at least the 969 years of the life of Methusaleh, since his very name means judgment is coming. Noah preaches warning and is probably mocked. Enoch preaches warning and is raptured for a testimony.The whole story is warning to us today. I mean TODAY.
The Great Physician is fully manifest in Christ's coming.He says those who are well are not in need of a doctor but those who are ill. He means those who can admit that they are sinners.
Some proud ones will not. Rather they spend their time trying to place God as the sinner.

Yes, what a perfect scenario that God created.He makes Adam without the knowledge of good and evil, so Adam does not know if obedience to God is a good or bad thing.Then God gives a rule. The rule, if broken, will reveal that Adam has done a bad thing. Prior to breaking the rule, Adam does not understand that breaking rules is bad.God also makes the rule arbitrarily, since he did not have to place any such forbidden tree in the garden in the first place. He did so to create the possibility of Adam breaking the rule.Again, Adam, until he eats from the tree of knowledge, has no knowledge of good and evil and does not know if breaking the rule is good or not good.And, again, this foreign, "evil" thing is something that God created, and placed within reach of an ignorant man.God put the potential for a poisoned nature in the garden WITH man, and increased the likelihood that man would stumble by not giving him knowledge of morality to begin with. And as an added element of a twisted joke, allows Adam to know that he has done something wrong only after he has done it.There is no warning. No hint. A hint would include rational understanding and consequence expectation. It would include giving insight and foreknowledge about what would happen and would include the capacity to understand good and evil PRIOR TO having broke the one rule.It's a cruel joke and it is sick.

You are very naive or else over sensitive and unrealistic if you just can't accept the Facts-of-Life about Evolution.The rule seems to be" Temporary inconvenience for permanent improvement" when Father Naturedrives a sad non adaptive species into extinction and the strong survive.

a swift kick in the balls is a temporary inconvenience.Don't trivialize real human suffering and tragedy.

What I read is that God said "it was very good" (Gen. 1:31)Where did you read it was a perfect scenario ? What I read that God told Adam up front, directly, frankly that if he ate of the fruit of the tree he would die (Gen. 2:16,17) .I am also told in the NT that Adam, in eating, was not deceived (First Timothy 2:14). He was warned of the consequences, knew them, and deliberately disobeyed.He must have known enough -" And He said, Who told you that you are naked? Have you eaten ofthe tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" (Gen. 3:11) Adam had the knowledge he needed to believe and obey God's direct command. Your analysis doesn't agree with what I am told in Scripture.
He warned his wife that God had commanded them both not to be receive anything of that tree.Eve probably got the information from being told by her husband. But I cannot prove this. It suggests so somewhat - "And the women said to the serpent, Of the fruit ofthe trees of the garden we may eat, but of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, You shall not eat of it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die." (Gen. 3:2,3) Adam alone when he is warned of death upon eating the fruit of the tree. Eve is not yet formed (Gen. 3:16,17 comp 21-24)The extra detail which Eve put on her statement - "nor shall you touch it, lest you die" could be Adam's effort to make certain that his wife understood the prohibition. "No do not eat of it. Don't even TOUCH it. Stay away."The instruction was abundantly clear. Your attempt to make it unclear is slanderous. It seems a continuation of the serpents attempt to portray God as the arbitrary despot - unfair.
Your accusations seem to be a continuation of the serpent's accusation against God. You're still hoodwinked. By studying the whole Bible I ascertain that when man was created to have dominion over all things, there was left over the Devil and his hosts, over which Adam too was to have dominion.They were left over from an very ancient pre-Adamic world. When God said that everything He made was very good, I take this to mean not that it was good that Satan was still around. But rather it was very good that man was now the deputy authority OVER all.Adam was told how to maintain this position of deputy authority. His disobedience took him UNDER that which he was created to rule OVER. He was to GUARD the garden.The presence of the tree in the first place must have been God allowing man his choice since God will not FORCE or COERCE any being to remain under His kingdom.Adam made the wrong choice. He did so as a second party to his wife. Satan went in through the weaker vessel. Paul says that the woman was deceived but Adam was not deceived - "For Adam was formed first, then Eve; And Adam was not deceived; but the woman, having been quite deceived, has fallen into transgression." (1 Timothy 2:13,14)At the same time the greater weight of responsibility is placed by God on the man - Adam. Adam knows enough not to eat as I have said.The line crossed was the line not to eat of the tree. Adam is not held responsible for anything else except to be careful not to eat. He knows that if he does he will DIE. He knows enough that to DIE is undesireable.The account reminds me of the oldest book in the Bible Job. There seems to be a contest there. Perhaps there was a challenge from the Devil for God to give him a gateway into his God opposing kingdom.But this is speculation. The tree had a beautiful sounding name. It was in fact simply a tree of DEATH. God honestly warned man that to eat of it meant his DEATH.Your attempts to portray Adam as not having sufficient information or wisdom to know not to receive anything that would cause his DEATH, fail, I think.He is a living being and he must know that DEATH is not a part of God's plan FOR him. That I do not know. I only know that God caused to grow every tree that was pleasant to the sight and good for food.Exactly how much jurisdiction Satan had over that tree, I am not sure. But man was put in a neutral position between two sources of existence -1.) the tree of life representing God's way, God's divine life2.) the tree of the knowledge of good and evil representing the "other" way which leads to death.Life verses Death.Satan's withdrawal from the Source of all blessing with his corrupted wisdom verses God Himself as the eternal and divine life to be dispensed into man.We are told that Satan was perfect in wisdom from the day he was created. We are told that he corrupted his wisdom. The perfect wisdom that he was created with and bestowed with from God, he corrupted. "You were perfect in your ways from the day that you were created, until unrighteousness was found in you ... Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty, you corrupted your wisdom by reason of your brightness ..." (Ezek. 28:15,17) These is concerning the anointed cherub who became Satan, the nemisis against God. He could not be higher than God. He became the opposite of all God is.Satan, was the one who said five times " I will " (Isaiah 14:13,14). Satan introduced into the creation of God another will besides the will of God.The two trees and man in the middle was a triangle situation God set up. God as life is here. Satan as death is there. And the neutral created man is in the middle.The way man turns, either toward God as life signified by the tree of life or towards Satan signified by the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was significant. It would tip the triangle in one direction or the other. It would be significant to all creation and to God's eternal purpose.Fortunately, the rest of the Bible reveals how God would not give up the man whom He loved and created for Himself. And in the end of the Bible we see only the tree of life. We see God as divine life flowing within the "city".This means God and man have become mingled and united. Satan goes to the lake of fire to be eternally punished for his opposition to God.Don't buy into his lies. The OTHER source is there. But the WARNING is given by God also.The serpent's temptation was a preemptive strike. I believe that man was to assist God in the final execution of this enemy. Adam was to guard the garden.A creator IN the garden telling slanderous lies against God certainly was a creeping thing over which Adam was given dominion. Did or did not God warn the man that he would die ?If he warned Adam then your slander falls flat. "And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may eat freely, But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, OF IT YOU SHALL NOT EAT; FOR IN THE DAY THAT YOU EAT OF IT YOU SHALL SURELY DIE." (Gen. 2:16,17) Why don't you stop pretending that this divine warning is NOT there? I have to now count this statement as a lie.The warning is in Genesis 2:16,17. You cannot even see what is written there. " ... Have you eaten of the tree o which I commanded you not to eat?

​

And the man said, The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me fruit from the tree, and I ate." (3:11,12) And we see that man is STILL making excuses as witnessed in your erroneous exegesis. The blindness with which some can twist what is plain to read there is kind of sick.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.

So if you kill all humanity bar a select few to keep the line going you define that as good: this being the case can we assume that you would define the actions of fictional character Hugo Drax off of James Bond as good.Aside from considerations of fictionality would his plan of killing all of humanity bar a select few to carry on the line good, also?Yes or no?

Well you've effectively answered my question.You think near genocide is good.My opinion of real Christians such as yourself (as opposed to the fluffy bunny Christians who see the bible as basically a licence agreement that you just tick 'I agree' without really thinking) who actually has read the bible BUT STILL IDENTIFIES GOD'S ACTIONS AS GOOD has not changed.I don't think I want to talk to someone who cannot tell the difference between good and evil actions any more. Edited by Larni, : Softening the blow

A foreign virus you say? I do not understand the ''tree'' of good and evil. God is omnipotent, yet perfectly good. The garden of Eden seemed like a stable setup, with the crown of His creation, 2 humans with a certain neutral innocence.There's no need to explain what went wrong. In the garden, teahere was once condition. A object, a power to send everything of God's preferred way of things. A essence of knowledge of good and evil. I call it a essence, because fruit in general doesn't hold any kind of supernatural power. A gorgeous tree was created, and God bestowed upon the tree the knowledge between good and evil.God could have created anything he wanted as a paradise. He does not have any sort of limitation that required him to put the essence of the knowledge of good and evil there. God didn't want Adam and Eve to obtain this essence. One could argue he presented a choice, but one of the choices was orginal sin, and humanity being cursed because of it, I do not really seem to see much point in presenting it. If God makes the Essence of the knowledge of Good and Evil accessible, he created a choice. What was God's will with this? He could have left it out of the garden all the same. Why bother with putting in something he would never wanted humanity to obtain in the first place? And suppose Adam and Eve never ended up eating the fruit, what would the purpose of this essence of good and evil being stored in the garden forever, never to be touched, but always present.And his container for this was a fruit. He created humans to be able to consume fruit, and in fact, instructed them to consume anything in the garden if the pleased, expect the one tree He saw fit to grant the essence of the knownledge of good and evil. A edible container, a delicious fruit just.. being there. He could picked any container He wished. Unattractive looking fruit? Maybe something else entirely, a sacred shine with a floating light perhaps? That might not have changed the course of events of Genesis, but at least the essence of knownledge of good and evil would be more distinctively not meant for humans on a appearance basis.The third factor is accessibility. To recap, God put the essence of the knownledge of good and evil in the garden. He chose to mold it in a edible fruit hanging in a tree. This makes it very easy to grab. It was well in Gods power to put a barrier there. Or a friendly angel gently guarding it from any harm, so the three would only be used for it's purpose, whatever it may be.
Most of all, God himself was aware of the garden at all times. He manifested himself as walking, but he still must have been in the whole garden at all times. He could have acted before the fruit was eaten. That he didn't, implies that He allowed free will on the matter. But when the act was done, then he decides to inform Adam and Eve of His wrath and grief. He didn't want this to happen, yet His course of actions can only been as making it a choice.And finally, there was a catalyst for the events. Without the snake, it might have not have happened. There's debate if the snake was Satan or just one of the creations in the garden. If it was Satan, God let a foreign element that would upset the balance in the garden. If it was just a talking snake, what caused this snake to behave in this suicidal behaviour? Just malicious spite? Seems willingly evil, so the snake did already have some knowledge of it. Either way, both possibilities also lack any sure of protective measures.What did God want with such a fragile setup? A instant condition of failure, easily reached in the form of a fruit, lacking any projection, or apparent function. And God has unlimited knowledge, and he also knows the feature, so He knew exactly how this garden design would end in. Yet the fact he warned once means the chain of events cannot be in any way attributed to Him? If he wanted to include a element of choice, did it have to be the concept taking to it's logical limit?I cannot compromise these events being literal with perfect goodness and onnipotence of God. Not without God intending nothing of it. The exception of it's a huge masterplan of sorts, in which case it's all a act, and humanity is innocent. Yet, that obliviously isn't what the bible implies unless God is lying.