Is God good?

I agree with you that the Bible states these things, and that they can be used to show that God thinks of males and females as equals.But saying things is one thing, while doing something about them is quite another.I don't think you can argue against the fact that the past is full of women not exactly having the same rights as men.
There are still plenty of innocent women in the world today who are not treated as equals.
We have names for people who say virtuous things, but then do not back those virtues up when it comes to their actions. None of those names would include calling them "good."Again, we have a problem of evil that God can fix, and according to you God says that he supports fixing it... but He just doesn't.Either He isn't capable, or He doesn't care to.
Therefore, He either isn't God, or He isn't good.

Maybe God wants us to correct the problem of evil ourselves?
-that would allow those who succeed to feel awfully smug about themselves. Of course, it also includes the needless suffering of all those who live and die before those who succeed. Don't you think that any human who actually does solve "the problem of evil" would give up the "glory" of having done so in order to prevent the suffering of all those who came before them?
It's a farce. A rationalization that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. There's nothing good about "testing" humans to see if they can overcome the problem of evil on their own. If God can prevent evil, but doesn't because he's playing a game with humanity, then God is not good.

​

Maybe God has a plan to correct the problem of evil at some future point?
-then there is some sort of temporal restriction on God's power... in which case, He is not powerful enough to stop the problem of evil now.

​

Maybe God has a plan to correct the problem of evil in the afterlife?
-then there is something in this life that restricts God's power... in which case, He is not powerful enough to stop the problem of evil here.

​

Maybe God has a plan to continue the problem of evil here and now and we just don't understand why it is in fact a good thing?
-this is exactly what this thread is for.
Where is the information that justifies leaving the problem of evil alive and well, here and now?

​

I fully agree that if this information ever becomes available, then we might be able to see that the problem of evil actually is a good thing.
But, really, this is just saying "If it can be shown that God is good... then God is good." Of course that's true. Why wouldn't it be? The important part is if it can be shown that God is good, of course... which hasn't been done yet. And, if we look at the facts we have, God has so far been shown to not be good (or not be powerful enough to act as He wishes to promote that goodness).

​

These are the facts:

​

There is a problem of evil.
God exists.
God is all powerful.
God is benevolent.

​

...but it just doesn't add up.

​

A problem of evil cannot exist with a God that is all powerful and benevolent.
An all powerful, benevolent God would simply restrict the free will of someone attempting to commit evil, instead of restricting the free will of the victim of evil.

​

Therefore, from the information we have available to us:

​

God is not all powerful.
Or God is not benevolent (not good).

​

Edited by Stile, : "She'll be comin' 'round the mountain when she comes..." -I hate that song

I don't have a problem with this at all.
I've been saying all along that God is either not good, or not all-powerful.I fully agree that God could exist as very good, but just not all-powerful.God can really want to help us be good, but He's just not powerful enough to do that. His power is limited to us FIRST seeking His kingdom and His righteousness.Is that what you're saying? God isn't capable of dealing with the problem of evil right now?
If so, then I agree.However, if God actually is capapble of dealing with the problem of evil right now... but He isn't, and He is imposing this charge onto us just because He wants to do that before He helps out... then this reduces God to playing a game with us. Which, again, would make God not good at all. I have no problems with this at all.
God is fully allowed to restrict my free will where it would hurt other people. It would prevent me from making all the mistakes I'm still prone to. Sounds fair.
If it's because God is not powerful enough to fix the world before we abide in Him as Christ abode in the Father, then it's acceptable and God may still be good.
But if you want to say that God could fix it now, and He's making a choice to restrain Himself until we abide in Him as Christ abode in the Father... then God is playing a game with us. This is not good at all.Do you know which one it is?
I can understand if you do not know. Or do you claim to know? No problem. I think you're doing really well.

I am willing to say that Jesus and God are one and the same, that's fine.
And I certainly agree that the Bible says God is good. Especially about Jesus.But this is what we're here to discuss. Is God good?
The problem of evil exists, so God is either not powerful enough to stop it, or He doesn't want to stop it.God can be good, just not powerful enough to prevent the problem of evil.
Or God can be all powerful, just not good enough to stop the problem of evil.
But He can't be both. It's impossible because the problem of evil does exist. Why mention logical impossibilities?
I am not suggesting that God could do anything that is logically impossible.
I'm simply saying that God could restrict an evil person's free will instead of allowing an evil person to restrict an innocent person's free will.
I could do it if I was powerful enough.Either God isn't powerful enough to do it... or He isn't good enough. Again, I agree that the Bible says this.
The Bible says all sorts of things.But, obviously, some of them are not true.
The problem of evil exists.
A God that is all powerful, and all good could easily stop the problem of evil without requiring any sort of "square-circle" logical impossibility. An all powerful, all good God could simply restrict an evil person's free will instead of allowing an evil person to restrict an innocent person's free will.
But... He doesn't, since the problem of evil does, in fact, exist.
Therefore... either the Bible is wrong about God being all good.
Or the Bible is wrong about God being all powerful.He can be one or the other, but as long as the problem of evil existed at some point in time (like... now, and the past) He cannot be both. If, as you say, God is choosing to restrain Himself from preventing the problem of evil. If God is allowing evil to flourish so that some other aspect of His plan may proceed as He desires, then God is not good.A good God would not allow evil to exist in order to move forward with another plan of His choosing. Such a God is playing games with humanity... seeing if we're capable of doing this or that while he allows the problem of evil to exist. Seeing if humans have it within them to come to God regardless of the problem of evil. Allowing humans to make their own free choice to come to God even though the problem of evil is right in their faces. It's a game, and it's not good. I have no problem with God getting His way.
I simply have a problem with how God has decided to get His way.
He's decided to limit His ability to prevent the problem of evil so that man can be open to Him, receive Him, mingle and blend with Him.
To me, that is not worth a single person being raped or murdered.
I would freely give up my ability to open myself to God, receive God, mingle with and blend with God for all of eternity if it could somehow protect all others from the problem of evil.
To me, preventing the sufferring of others is more important than gaining additional "wonderousness" for myself.
If I had the power of God, if I could prevent the problem of evil... then I would do so.
To me, it sounds like God is playing a game with humans. Giving them the problem of evil to see if they can overcome it and still make their way to Him. That is not good.Yes, the Bible says that God is good.
Yes, the Bible says that God is all-powerful.
But, the two cannot co-exist along with the fact of the problem of evil.You seem to agree with this.
You seem to say that God is, indeed, all-powerful. He's just not good. God would rather include the problem of evil for humans so that they may come to Him.
Is God not powerful enough to remove the problem of evil and still give humans the ability to come to Him?
Removing the problem of evil does not remove free will, it would not remove the free will of choosing to come to God or not. Therefore there is no "square circle" being requested.I do agree that God can be all-powerful, and just not very good.

For an all-powerful Creator, there is a 4th option (at a minimum...):4.) He could grant angels and men the royal dignity of freedom to decide for themselves whether to be in His will or against it. He could create creatures who can choose though He foresaw that many of them would abuse this freedom and revolt against His administration. And He could forsee that such rebellion would result in tragic and endless consequesnces to them as individuals, instead of being able to hurt other people as well....which grants more freedom, is more benevolent and is within the power of an omnipotent God."More benevolent": Because evil is restricted and innocence is allowed to flourish instead of the other way around.
"More freedom": Because under your #3: An evil man has the ability to restrict the free will of many different individual innocent people (a rapist can have multiple innocent victims). While under my #4: Only the evil man himself, as an individual, would have his free will restricted (God would prevent the rape from occuring).So, why didn't God pick the option that has more free will and is morally better?Either God isn't powerful enough to make things go this way.
Or God isn't good enough to want to protect innocent people in this way. The free will and consequences you have described here would still exist within option #4.Why did God choose the system that gives us less free will?
Why did God choose the system that contains the problem of evil?Either God is not powerful enough to put choice #4 into action.
Or God is not good enough to put choice #4 into action. Why are you trying to force God into creating a "square-circle"? I thought you were against such a thing?
A square-circle is a logical impossibility.
God being maximally good, and powerful and loving and just while the problem of evil exists and while we live in a world with reduced free-will... is a logical impossibility.
Why are you forcing God into creating something that cannot possibly exist? All it does is show that you do not understand the consequences of what you are promoting. Yes, I confess that I am still evil.
There are many times that I think selfishly and end up hurting people I care about. Such things are evil. It exists in me, and in pretty much everyone I've ever met. I do appreciate the time. But it is His weakness or shortange of benevolence. Identifying facts does not imply a lack of thankfulness for the benevolence we currently receive. No matter how much guilt you attempt to pile upon it.
What is it about option #4 that is not within the power of an omnipotent being?
What is it about option #4 that a maximally benevolent being would not strive for?The problem of evil exists.
Option #4 is within the abilities of an all-powerful, maximally benevolent God.
We live in option #3.Therefore, God is either not powerful enough to create option #4.
Or God is not benevolent enough to give us option #4. I agree very much so.
I am not demanding that God do anything.
I am simply identifying that an all-powerful, maximally benevolent God had option #4 available, but did not choose it.
Either God isn't powerful enough to give us option #4.
Or God isn't benevolent enough to give us option #4.If you want to say that option #3 is better than option #2 and we should be thankful... then I agree. But this isn't what we're talking about, and that's a rather boring conversation. Again, you are right. I've acknoweldged this many times.It is possible that God's current option #3 plan contains some information that I am not aware of. This information may possibly explain why this is, in fact, maximally beneficial.
I cannot think of any additional information that would do this and you have yet to suggest any, but it is possible that it exists...
It is also possible that this information does not exist, or that this information explains precisely why option #4 would be a better choice.Therefore, as with all decisions, we are left with the information that is available to us.
Would you like to discuss the information that is available to us? It is a much more interesting conversation than simply saying "well, maybe we just don't know how yet." "Maybe we just don't know how yet" is a defense for all positions, not just yours. Using it is rather useless. Because the information available to us tells us that.
Perhaps looking at the information available to us is not important to you. That, also, is an acceptable answer. This could very well be true.
It is possible that God is simply the "most" powerful being. Just not "all" powerful.
If so, then He could still be maximally benevolent to us and He was not powerful enough to provide option #4. So we get the next best thing... option #3. Such profoundness is also found in option #4. In fact, option #4 is even more profound as it contains even more free will (less free-will is restricted). More free-will would mean more chances for God to lose which would make it even more special when we do choose God. Why didn't God go with option #4?Either God is not powerful enough to give us option #4.
Or God is not good enough to give us option #4.

No, I don't mean any of that.Let's make a really simple example.
Instead of getting all complicated with "all evil" we can just take "an evil person who rapes innocent people" as an example.In our world, there are evil people that are capable of raping multiple innocent victims.
When this occurs, these innocent victims have their free will removed.
They want to live their lives rape-free... they don't get this.
They want to be able to walk alone at night... some no longer get this due to the trauma of the rape.
They want to do a job that requires social interaction... some can no longer do this due to the trauma of the rape.
They want to hang out with friends and feel comfortable in public places... some can no longer do this due to the trauma of the rape.This all exists, within our world.
The rest of their lives, every day... multiple people. Hundreds of thousands of days where people have had their free will to do what they want restricted because of the trauma forced upon them by a single evil person.What I mean is that God could (if He wanted to) restrict the evil person's free will instead of allowing the evil person to restrict everyone else's free will.For our example, it could be done like this:
When the evil person actually decides to rape someone... actually performs sexual advances on another human being with the intent of their own sexual pleasure while they do not have the permission of the human they want to touch... God could instantly put them to sleep for 6 hours.Exactly the same world as we have now, except that whenever a rape is about to happen, God simply puts the offender to sleep for 6 hours.Instead of 1 man restricting the free-will of an innocent victim for thousands of days (the rest of their lives) because of one single evil action... there is only 6 hours of free-will restricted to the evil offender.Restrict the evil offender's free will instead of allowing them to restrict the innocent victim's free will.
The result is less free will restricted overall.
The result is more free will overall. You do misunderstand me.
If you would like, we can go simpler than option #4 and onto a new option #5 where "only rape" is restricted as described above. All other evils are still allowed. But rape itself is off the books as described.Love is still the same, social interaction between people is still the same, people can still be hurt, people can still be cruel. Just no rape.More evil is removed.
More free will is available (less free will is restricted, as explained).Why did God not do this?Either God is not powerful enough to put someone to sleep for 6 hours when they are about to rape an innocent victim.
Or God is not good enough to put such a system in place.I hope this example is sufficient.If not, we can go even simpler still:
We can propose an option #6 where God only prevents evil people from imprisoning innocent victims (abducting children and holding/torturing them against their will). This can still be possible with the problem of evil removed completely (#4) or even just lessened, if you prefer (#5 or #6). People can stand individually before God, individually responsible even if the problem of evil is completely removed.
Or, if it's easier to understand, we can simply lessen the problem of evil a little bit, and obviously this can still occur.The point is, the present system isn't optimized for anything.
A tweak here or there could provide improvement in pretty much any direction you can imagine.Therefore, an all-powerful, maximally-benevolent creator God is simply impossible.
Our current world (#3) is too undirected. Take your time.
I, for one, would rather live in a world that is governed by an all-powerful, maximally benevolent God.
But if we take an honest look at the world around us, it's just not there.

In setting up God as the all powerful and maximally benevolent creator of a world that contains the problem of evil... you have created a "square circle" situation. You have created a situation where you then need to explain how evil is benevolent.Squares are not circles.
Evil is not benevolent. They are opposites.You seem to have plenty of explanations for the way things are.
But everything you say still comes down to one of two quesitons...Is it because God is not benevolent enough?
Or is it because God is not powerful enough?I agree that this is the way things are. You do not have to explain the way things are.
The questions, though, still exist. Can you answer them?"No, I cannot." Would seem a lot shorter of a response.
I fully respect an answer of "No, I cannot answer your questions, but if you have faith that God is good, then you can have faith that the missing information will be sufficient when it is revealed to you."Personally, I do not believe that there is any missing information that can justify this sort of world to still be created by an all-powerful, maximally beneficial God. I also do not believe there is any missing information that can explain "square-circles". But that may be my mistake, and I do understand that "faith" can get one past this blockade.If that is so, please just say so. Your extended explanations do not seem to do anything to alleviate the two questions. Watch: Yes, like you say, the point is that some do still occur. And it's because God doesn't stop them.Does God have the power to stop all rapes?
Does God have the benevolence to want to stop all rapes? But what happens after the sinking (evil actions) isn't the issue.
The issue is the sinking in itself.Is God not powerful enough to prevent the sinking in the first place?
Is God not benevolent enough to want to prevent the sinking in the first place? This is saying that God (Jesus) has the power to heal/help the victims.
But that is not the question.The question is: "Why does God allow people to sink in the first place?"
The question is: "Why does God allow people to be raped in the first place?"
The question is: "Why does God allow people to be imprisoned and tortured in the first place?"Does God have the power to protect the innocent from becoming victims in the first place?
Does God have the bevevolence to want to protect the innocent from becoming victims in the first place? Whether or not final accounting occurs is not the issue.
We can even assume that the final accounting is definitely going to happen, if you'd like.Is God powerful enough to prevent evil before the final accounting?
Is God benevolent enough to want to prevent evil before the final accounting? It is possible that anything can lead to Atheism. Same with Christianity. But this is not the issue either.Is God powerful enough to protect innocent people regardless of the method leading some to Atheism?
Is God benevolent enough to want to protect innocent people regardless of the method leading some to Atheism? This sentiment is not without it's noble aspects.
Of course... why does an innocent have to be raped in order for a rapist to learn a lesson?
Why does God side more "free-will protection" to the evil-doer instead of the innocent victim?
Why does God focus more on teaching the evil-doer how to be good instead of protecting the innocent victim? Such a game is not a good thing.Is God powerful enough to teach a lesson to an evil-doer while also protecting the innocent?
Is God benevolent enough to want to teach a lesson to an evil-doer while also protecting the innocent? If the evil is not going to continue forever... then at some point God does have the power to remove the evil-doer's free will.
Why not do that sooner and protect the innocent? Wouldn't that be "more good"?Is God powerful enough to protect the innocent sooner rather than later?
Is God benevolent enough to want to protect the innocent sooner rather than later?

---

As you can see, everything you say seems to be explanations for specific scenarios... but doesn't seem to touch on these two questions at all. The two questions are just as unanswered after as they were before.The same, orginal, two questions remain:Is God powerful enough to remove the problem of evil?
Is God benevolent enough to want to remove the problem of evil?The problem of evil exists.
Therefore, God cannot possibly be all-powerful and maximally benevolent.If He was, He would answer "yes" to the above two questions, and then the problem of evil would not exist.
Obviously, He's answering "no" to at least one of those questions.You seem to lean towards the side of God being all-powerful.
Perhaps God simply isn't maximally benevolent, then. Maybe He's created this world, as you say:

quote:

---

There is no secret that God cannot know.
There is no sneaky plan that God cannot see.
He can expose EVERYTHING.
He will judge the secrets of men in their motive, let alone in their actions.

---

...He's just going to do it eventually... and, in the meantime, allow the innocent to become victims and have their free-will removed instead of simply removing the free-will of the evil-doers. Which is not a good thing.I understand that there may be reasons why this should be done eventually.
The problem with labelling God as "all powerful" and "maximally benevolent" is that there is then no reason why it would be done eventually. What possible reason could exist that a powerful, benevolent God couldn't overcome? What possible reason could squares have for being circles?If you'd like, you can continue explaining the existing system, and I can continue asking the same two questions that never seem to get answered. Or, you can try to frame an answer that cannot have a "more powerful" or "more benevolent" solution. Or, you can accept that Faith is what is required in order to continue a belief in an all-powerful, maximally benevolent God. Which is, by all rights, perfectly acceptable when dealing with Gods and those who find faith to be acceptable. It's just not convincing to those who see squares and circles as two different things that cannot be one.

No, there's no "GOTCHA!" sense here. It's just the words that you have chosen to describe the creator... and what those words mean.You have chosen to describe God as all powerful and maximally benevolent.
Not "the most powerful and the most benevolent"... but "all powerful and maximally benevolent."I didn't choose those words, you did. Or, at least, you say the Bible did.The problem of evil exists.A maximally benevolent God would not want evil to exist. If this same God is powerful enough ("all" powerful), then this God would erase the problem of evil so that it did not exist. That's the point. If God seems to have limited Himself, it's due to 1 of 3 reasons:1. God is not powerful enough to overcome the limitation.
2. God is not benevolent enough to want to overcome the limitation.
3. We need to "have faith" that there is a benevolent justification for God to limit himself in the same way that we would have to "have faith" that God can create a square-circle that we also cannot understand in the same way. Because the terms used are contradicting opposites. Right. But...
We can understand slapping a baby to get it breathing vs. slapping a baby for no reason because they are not opposites.
We cannot understand a maximally benevolent, all-powerful God allowing the problem of evil to exist because they are opposites. I don't doubt that.
I doubt that God is all powerful and maximally benevolent.
God doesn't have to be all powerful and maximally benevolent in order to "have the power to cause all things to work together for good to those who love Him."He just has to be very powerful and maximally benevolent.
or
He just has to be all powerful and very benevolent.
or
He just has to be very powerful and very benevolent....but both "all" and "maximally" are not required. Why am I talking to a potential rapist?
We're not talking about me preventing anything.
We're talking about an all powerful and maximally benevolent God preventing things.
Or... not preventing things (the problem of evil)... things that would be "benevolent to prevent"... which is the opposite square-circle problem we are talking about. "Eventually" is a limitation.
I can see that this could happen, but again, God doesn't have to be all powerful and maximally benevolent in order to "eventually" arrive in the New Jerusalem with the new heaven and new earth.Why do you use the terms all powerful and maximally benevolent when they are not required?
Why do you cling to these unrequired terms that only add confusion in the form of square-circles to your message? Perhaps, perhaps not.
We're not talking about my religious viewpoint here.
We're talking about why you claim that God is all powerful and maximally benevolent when they are conflicting opposites when taking into account the factual problem of evil in this world.
We're talking about why you support the use of these terms when they are not even required for your message.

We can always take words and just put them one after another to form a sentence. The problem is when we want the idea and context of that sentence to make some sense. God is "benevolent enough" to "actualize evil"?That just doesn't make sense.
It's like saying God can make a circle "square enough" such that it's also "a circle" in order to have a square circle.We can type the words in order... but they don't mean anything because the terms are conflicting opposites. That is wonderful.
The point, however, is whether or not God is powerful enough to allow evil to exist only long enough to teach us a lesson as we freely choose His Spirit over our own and not hurt any innocent victims in the process.
Is God that powerful?
Or is He not benevolent enough to care for the innocent victims?It is a grand gesture for God to provide us with free will to make our own decisions. Be that being evil or choosing to walk with the Holy Spirit.But what about providing innocent victims the free will to make their own decisions?God seems to allow an evil-doer the free will to live their life their way and choose to hurt other people. Sometimes quite viciously.
But God does not seem to allow an innocent person to have the free will to live their life their way and choose to live with family (if they are imprisoned and tortured by an evil-doer, they are not living with their family).Why side with evil?God seems to protect the free will interests of the evil-doers, but doesn't seem to care about the loss of free will for the innocent victims.
Why not protect the free will of the innocent victims and stop caring about the loss of free will for the evil-doers?
No loss of free will... just simply different from how God seemingly chose to do things.That sounds more benevolent to me.Is God not benevolent enough to protect innocent victims?
Or is God not powerful enough to protect innocent victims? This possibility would still exist within a world where the evil-doer's free will was restricted, and the innocent victim's free will was protected...

Oh, I do understand the concept you have provided.
I also understand the concept that jaywill has provided.They are wonderful concepts that describe a very powerful and very benevolent God that is generally compatible with how we see the world as it is around us.They just don't describe an all powerful and maximally beneovlent God, which is incompatible with how we see the world around us. This causes me to wonder why you stress that these terms should be used. Or do you not care if these terms are used or not?The concepts you and jaywell describe are within the realm of a very powerful, very benevolent God. And that same God could be behind the world around us.But if you start saying that the same God is now "all-powerful" and "maximally-benevolent"... and want that to jive with the problem of evil that is present in our world... I'm just pointing out the obviously conlicting terms that simply don't make sense.This is how I see the issue here:We look at our world, and we see a square with rounded edges.
You and jaywell seem to describe the concepts that depict a God who created square-circles, although your concepts themselves seem to stay away from the terms "square" or "circle" or any direct definitions of such words.
This seems to have a generally co-herent flow to it. The concept makes sense and it can work with how we see the world around us.Then I ask a direct question (like this thread does) "Is God square?" And I get answers that involve statements of God being "all-square" and "maximally-circular" at the same time and using those same perfections to make our world... but I look at the world around us and it's a sqare with rounded edges.
So I explain that it's either a sqare with some rounded edges... or it's a circle with 4 sides to it... it's certainly not "all-square" and it's certainly not "maximally-circular."Then you go back to the general concepts that describe square-circle type things without actually using the terms "square" or "circle" or defining them... or mentioning any requirement for perfect "square-circles."
...yet you seem to get very upset when I point out that, factually, we do not have anything that is "all-sqaure" and "perfectly circular" at the same time. Even when it's blatently obvious to anyone who's ever lived longer than 5 years.Your concept itself is not difficult to understand.
What is difficult to understand is your unyielding defense of a perfect ideal that is not necessary for your concept to function in the first place. Especially when it is extremely simple to see that this perfect ideal is obviously a directly conflicting oxymoron that can't possibly exist within the same world we live in. I can certainly agree that this is where we sit today.
But none of this requires God being "all-powerful" or "maximally benevolent."
And, still, if we look at the world, we have the problem of evil. We have a problem of evil that an all-powerful, maximally benevolent God would not allow to exist.So, I do agree with your above statement of where we sit today.
I just don't see how it connects with the topic, or with my question.Is God not powerful enough to provide a world where the problem of evil does not exist?
Or
Is God not benevolent enough to provide a world where the problem of evil does not exist?God cannot be "all-powerful" and "maximally-benevolent" because the problem of evil does, in fact, exist.I understand that these are uncomfortable questions.
I also do not see a problem with the following answer:

quote:

---

It does not appear that God is all-powerful and maximally-benevolent at the same time, however... God certainly is "the most powerful being in existence" and "the most benevolent being in existence" and has provided to us the "best world in existence."

---

I still don't believe that answer to be correct... but it does answer the questions and also provides an answer that is not in direct conflict with the simplist observations of the world we live in.Is that more of what you're talking about?
Or are you going to continue to insist that God is indeed "all-powerful" and "maximally benevolent" while there is the problem of evil factually existing right in front of all our faces that directly proves this wrong without even having to think about it at all?Edited by Stile, : The quote was just hanging... not closed anywhere, just going on and on and on for eternity... will somebody think of the children???!!!