Is God good?

Right.
That is the Socratic question the Bible reader must ask himself as he tries to define what such an Almighty entity could conceivable be such as to make rational sense of these things.If this entity were a mortal, like us, it would mean this was a very mean man, indeed.
But we KNOW the story says this entity is not a man, but some spiritual non-material entity.
Perhaps it is a concept???Maybe we need think of the Almighty as an Ideal or concept of some sort.///
On the other hand, we must also read comprehensively, because Pharaoh and ll his army drown.
He did not get off Scott free.And the "Flood" seems too analogous to the explosion of Modern man Out-of-Africa, 40 thousand years ago when, indeed, all other types of humanoids went extinct. The "flood" probably refers to the spreading of Modern Homo sapiens to the tops of the mountains and around all the world, as if water gushing across the whole land.Saul is described pretty accurately as a kind of man God made who is different from the sexually promiscuous gentiles described in the Bible.
He sounds very much to be a patriarch, like the muslims of today.
And in both cases, slaughtering the matriarchies of the Gentiles seems to be inherent in their make up.So does killing one another ruthlessly, too.As far as David's son dying, that does seem to be the statistical case for our fatherless illegitimate boys in particular today. What this suggests to me is that God is Reality, that entity that insists to us, "I am."
I exist and you must face me.

The bible says "God is Love."But it also says God creates good and evil.
This rather confirms the identification of this almighty as Reality, itself:Isa 45:7
I, (almighty Reality), form the light, and create darkness:
I, (both Friend and Foe of the living), make peace, and create (the environment for possible great misfortune), evil:
I, (both Friend and Foe to life and man), the LORD, (of the living), do all these things, (naturally, through the environmental forces).

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide content and banner.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide content and banner.

Before I get suspended I need a lesson in how it is possible to "talk" to the people here with out be accused of changing the subject.Maybe you could give me a pointer or two.In regard to this opening post above, (which accuses god of being evil because he uses Evolution as a means of allowing life to co-exist with "him,"), I attack the thread's rationale and facts.I also suggest that the original post shows that the author has never stopped to define God.
He forges ahead with self righteous criticism that he encourages people to discuss with him.Where did i go wrong here????Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

You'll NEVER get "it" at this site because the censorship will keep you in the dark.
You have a need for some intelligent person to teach you how to read so you could learn to deduce from the facts the bible sets before you.Since the moderaters limit me to discussing the issue of why god is evil, instead of if he is really good,... you will just wallow in ignorance as is the case whenever supression reigns over the freedom of speech.Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

First, I am NOT Ad hommin'I am asking what ARE the standards.
Second, they suspended me and not you who had been baiting my every post with ad hommims which seems a different standard to me.Third, I stated that the Flood was equivalent to the extinction of all hominoids except us 40,000 year ago.
So why does the opening post make the reality of this existence mean that God is evil?I also said that the Reality of the matter is that the sons of Single Mothers die untimely deaths which seems to suggest god is good in condeming adultery and divorce and David was bad, not the other way around.If the mods are really reading these posts comprhensively I fail to understand the standards for keep on topic.

"Good" and "Evil" are relative. [/qs]The Original Sin concerned the matter of ingesting the concept of knowledge about what was good and what was evil.It is not relative but dependent, that Good for you is Selfishness, while good mankind, in general, is altruistic, charitable, and Christian.What Eve encouraged Adam to buy into was what was good for her and him, because they saw it was good for them.Throwing yourself in front of buses to save young people would be good, while throwing someone else's kid to save your own would be bad.

Yes, that is thye problem these critics of god have.If we read the OT, where the cruelity referred to can be found, we see that scripture is just stating the truth.God made lions who eat lambs.He also made those Hebrew Patriarchs who, indeed, he made to kill and hate the sexually promiscuous Gentile nations around them.That is justthe Reality we see today with the Muslims patriarchs who god made to think pretty much the same as in 1362BC.God also made the sexually promiscuous, pro-abortion baby killers, the homosexuals prancing on their TV's, and who who flood the internet with the porn those muslims love to hate.Ghe popint ofthe Bible is that God alsomade man able to think like He does, and see that neither of these two kinds of men God made have to stay that way.
They could accept Christian prudence and live in harmony.

Clever that you bait me to answer which the mods will see as defiant but let you stay on.Nevertheless, the mods would be wrong.This is an issue where the opening Post claims the Flood was not just Evolution at work, and that God was merely maintaining the integrity of his Natural Laws, (such as Adaptation to the ever changing environment or become extinct).Since my reading of the story is hardly different that the scientific reality of 40,000 years ago, I argue that this charge does not find God guilty of anything but asking us to face reality.Tough as that is, it isn't evil, but good to face reality.

Nah.
But you point is relative to understanding why God seems cruel whe we read about the behavior of the patriarchs.There are only two kinds of societies mentioned in the OT.
God made them both.
But he made us capable of synthesizing these two into one that is good for mankind.The battle of the sexes pit the Hebrew Patriarchs against the sexually promiscuous, pro-abortion, homosexual matriarchies.
The Patriarchies keep winning as the invade and destroy the gentile matriarchies.In time, as the Hebrew become rich and settled, they also become matriarchies where the women can divorce, abort, re-marry, and be adultresses and Harlots.
Other rising patrisarches like Babylon and Rome rise up and invade and kill the Jews.But this Dialectic between Patriarchy Vs Matriarchy synthesizes a Christianity which compromises an sexual equality moderated with prudence and the battle stops for a 1000 years of Christian monasticism during the Dark Ages.Rev. 20:4 And I saw thrones (of Universal Christian authority) and they, (the 144,000 monks of Catholic monasticism: [Rev14:4]), sat upon them, (Christianity mandated as the ONLY legal religion in the Empire, in 380AD), and (theocratic) judgment was given unto them (in the days of Catholic Monasticism): and I saw the souls, (the spirit-like psyches or thinking) of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the (one) word of God, (Truth), and which had not worshipped (by participation in the paganistic practices and sexual excesses fueling) the beast (of the revival of that Roman Culture including the economic system which had been based upon selfish self-interest), neither his image (on his coinage), neither had received his mark (of ledgered accounts recorded) upon their foreheads, or in (wages in) their hands; and they, (the monks), lived (in their Monasteries after the appearance of the Gospels in 54AD)...
.... and (they) reigned (in Monasticism) with Christ a thousand years, (from 54 AD upon the appearance of the Holy Comforter, until 1054 AD with the first Schism of Greek Orthodoxy).Rev. 20:4 And I saw thrones (of Universal Christian authority) and they, (the 144,000 monks of Catholic monasticism: [Rev14:4]), sat upon them, (Christianity mandated as the ONLY legal religion in the Empire, in 380AD), and (theocratic) judgment was given unto them (in the days of Catholic Monasticism): and I saw the souls, (the spirit-like psyches or thinking) of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the (one) word of God, (Truth), and which had not worshipped (by participation in the paganistic practices and sexual excesses fueling) the beast (that was Roman Culture, including the economic system which had been based upon selfish self-interest), neither his image (on his coinage), neither had received his mark (of ledgered accounts recorded) upon their foreheads, or in (wages in) their hands (those monks living in moneyless monastic environments); and they, (the saints/apostles), lived (as angels in the minds of the Christians who have followed since the appearance of the Gospels in 54AD, i.e., those beheaded saints, in the memories of the congregations who worshipped in churches built upon the bones of their remains)...
.... and (they) reigned (in Monasticism) with Christ a thousand years, (from 54 AD upon the appearance of the Holy Comforter, until 1054 AD with the first Schism of Greek Orthodoxy).

The OP misinterprets the flood story, but it still is no different that the factual extinction of all other men except Modern hom sapiens and the three racial stocks tat managed to survive.The accusation doesn't hold up..., saying that the God of the Bible is evil when the facts of life are essential responsible for exactly the same thing.Whether you accept that the Bible story is about our evolution or not, both matters of killing all but us are exactly the same thing.To accuse God of cruelity is as foolish as to say Evolution is a bad thing.
Man wouldnot even exist were it not for evolution.Now, if to make that point I get suspended, the mods miss the point.

?
Its all in the Bible if one reads comprehemsively.The OP is using his interpretation of the bible to accuse God of being cruel and unworthy of human appreciation.I am stating that de facto, God made Gentiles who worshipped baal, whose idol was the phallus.
he also made the Jews who were patriarhs acting exctly like the muslims of today.Eveny ou and the mods can see the dynamic now at work, between the sexually promiscuous West and the sexually repressive Islam.

So sez you.It seems to me that the opening post accuses god of being evil simply by insisting that the flood was a very bad deed.Yet you, who pretend to be rational about this, think I don't make sense in defending God by saying the whole extermination 40,000 years ago was just the Reality we are all trapped inside.It doesn't matter if God killed off all the men in the Noah story or if we compare the extinction of 40,000 years ago
Evolution is a good thing.
God then is good for having this Law of Survival because other wise man would never have evolved.Now all the above is ON TOPIC.

"Is God good?"Yes.
God progressively eliminated inferior species in our ascent as he allowed us to develop into the dominant species of the moment.
God is good for us.But he also creates the evil of extinction for us if we will not agree to adapt to the world, like stopping our own wars against ourselves.Isa 45:7
I, (almighty Reality), form the light, and create darkness:
I, (both Friend and Foe of the living), make peace, and create (the environment for possible great misfortune), evil:
I, (both Friend and Foe to life and man), the LORD, (of the living), do all these things, (naturally, through the environmental forces).