How do you know God is the good guy?

[The Happy Humanist]

In another thread, I was told that true morality is found by following God. God, we are told, is the source of absolute morality, the final arbiter of good and evil in the universe.

How do we know this? How do we come to assume that God's good is really good? Sure, we are told as much by the Bible. But it's one thing to accept the Bible as God's word...but what if he's lying?

What I'm asking is, what is it about God that makes you so sure he's the good guy, the one you should be following? And how can you trust your instincts in this regard, when you believe he is the source of your moral compass in the first place? Would it not be possible for a Supreme Being to plant a moral compass in you that automatically registers his words as "good", no matter what?

So? Discuss!

[Tigerlilly]

That is quite a generalization. "Rooted in boredom, hatred, and disgust"? From over 99% of the Christians I've met, they can hardly be classified as rooted in boredom, hatred, and disgust. What leads you to make such a generalization of Christians and what facts do you have to back this up?

I speak mainly of fundamentalists. They have nothing better to do than to spout obviously crazy propaganda. Following the word of God in the Bible literally and believing that it's absolute good and perfection is, in my opinion, quite a disgustic, perverted system of moral thought. Most of it is hate filled, authority-obedience-driven, and non-objective.

Fundamentalists take what they learn from God and become mini-intolerante, hateful Gods. Just look at Fred Phelps. He's the perfect example of someone who takes the religion seriously at face value instead of analysing it's true nature.

He's just like the Dominists and the End of Times people. It's wrong, but whatever God says is A-Ok. I can't agree with that.

The whole Old Testament is a sign of evil and hatred. All peopl ehave to do is recognize it and follow it for me to be disgusted. The NT is somewhat better, because it's the more PC version of the OT.


There are over 40 million bored, hateful, spiteful, evil fundamentalists in the United States. That's 40 million too many.

[Corvus]

<SNIP>

Speaking of justice, anyone that would slander a perfect and blameless God to begin with is not good.

He's neither Good, nor perfect, nor blamless.

He commits evil, to which he admits. He repented, he said he was sorry and he sought forgiveness. Perfect beings don't make mistakes--God admitted he did.
<SNIP>

I think your entire objection comes about because you and Greenlight do not speak the same language when discussing morality. Allow me to translate; to most nontheists, good and bad are judged on benefits and harm to humans. To Greenlight, right and wrong aren't defined by what happens to humans, they are defined by what their names infer and this is "Correct" and "Incorrect". God, being the author of everything, has the supposed author's right, the authority, to decide what is correct or incorrect. And if it is his will to slaughter every living thing, it is his prerogative.

But Greenlight has also written that true neutrality does not exist. There is no objective measure of a being's level of authority or "rights", which no matter how you put it, are value judgements, and this means there's no definitive reason to follow God if one does not believe a being should have total ownership over its creation. Of course to him it doesn't really matter, we have no free will in any case, so we are just characters in a book and the words are being put in our mouths (unless I completely misunderstand him).

[chrispalasz]

Tigerlilly: Fundamentalists take what they learn from God and become mini-intolerante, hateful Gods. Just look at Fred Phelps. He's the perfect example of someone who takes the religion seriously at face value instead of analysing it's true nature.

He's just like the Dominists and the End of Times people. It's wrong, but whatever God says is A-Ok. I can't agree with that.

The whole Old Testament is a sign of evil and hatred. All peopl ehave to do is recognize it and follow it for me to be disgusted. The NT is somewhat better, because it's the more PC version of the OT.


There are over 40 million bored, hateful, spiteful, evil fundamentalists in the United States. That's 40 million too many.

Fred Phelps does not speak for me. I think his views are outragous. As a matter of fact - I believe his words condemn him more than yours condemn you. It would be better for people that say those things if they were Satanists. Let God be his Judge. This is the first time I've heard of him.

Corvus: I think your entire objection comes about because you and Greenlight do not speak the same language when discussing morality. Allow me to translate; to most nontheists, good and bad are judged on benefits and harm to humans. To Greenlight, right and wrong aren't defined by what happens to humans, they are defined by what their names infer and this is "Correct" and "Incorrect". God, being the author of everything, has the supposed author's right, the authority, to decide what is correct or incorrect. And if it is his will to slaughter every living thing, it is his prerogative.

But Greenlight has also written that true neutrality does not exist. There is no objective measure of a being's level of authority or "rights", which no matter how you put it, are value judgements, and this means there's no definitive reason to follow God if one does not believe a being should have total ownership over its creation. Of course to him it doesn't really matter, we have no free will in any case, so we are just characters in a book and the words are being put in our mouths (unless I completely misunderstand him).

This brings up an interesting point. I would like to make another one.

Here's my point: It may come down to whether or not you believe the terms "right" and "wrong" are relative. My stance is that they are not, in fact, relative - but that they are absolute.

If you think they are relative, then you cannot claim that my beliefs are wrong, since they are mine.

If you think they are not relative, then please expand on this. Tell me, who decides what is right and what is wrong? Do you? Does somebody that agrees with you? Is it possible for somebody to be "right" (in the good/bad sense) even if you don't agree with them? What's not shallow and egotistical about that?

Everyone disagrees on something. I'm sure that a person exists to disagree with every moral issue on anything. With that being the case, how can we say that right and wrong even exist without them being absolute?

I believe that God defines what is right and what is wrong. Without God, I believe the definition of right and wrong completely fall apart. Everyone wants to think that their own definition of right and wrong is the correct one.

And guess what? That's NOT what I'm saying. I'm NOT saying that MY definition of right and wrong is the correct one. I'm saying God's definition is. There's a big difference. There is a part of me that would change a few things if I were in control. But because I have the Holy Spirit speaking to me... I know that those thoughts of mine are sinful and wrong.

Regarding Election:
Corvus, what we do definately matters. I wouldn't call us robots. The doctrine of God's Sovereignty and Election are detailed and complex. I hardly think you've summed it up.

If you want to read a short, yet good article regarding, here's one that I like: http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1551

[Corvus]

I believe that God defines what is right and what is wrong. Without God, I believe the definition of right and wrong completely fall apart.

Without God your definition of right and wrong falls apart. I simply state right and wrong are social good and bad. I believe maintaining the stability of society and protect its people are goals anyone who lives in a society would want to pursue. The only problem is that not everyone agrees on what is socially beneficial or what is socially harmful, so we get different political divisions. This does not hurt the definition. I have heard it said that the reason behind most of God's own rules are an attempt at social harmony.

Everyone wants to think that their own definition of right and wrong is the correct one.

And guess what? That's NOT what I'm saying. I'm NOT saying that MY definition of right and wrong is the correct one. I'm saying God's definition is. There's a big difference. There is a part of me that would change a few things if I were in control. But because I have the Holy Spirit speaking to me... I know that those thoughts of mine are sinful and wrong.

Regarding Election:
Corvus, what we do definately matters. I wouldn't call us robots. The doctrine of God's Sovereignty and Election are detailed and complex. I hardly think you've summed it up.

If you want to read a short, yet good article regarding, here's one that I like: http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1551[/quote]

[concerro]

Tigerlilly: Now lets get passed your opinion of emotion, which is irrelevant distractor material.

Well, there's really almost nothing I can respond to in your post. I've quoted you above because I find it ironic that you would make this statement. The entire last post of yours was opinion of emotion... "irrelevant distractor material". See for yourself.

There's nothing more that you and I can address. We simply disagree. Listen, you can make those choices. I can respect that.

From knowing Jesus Christ apart from the Bible... I can say that I could only be so lucky as to be the one to serve Him tea and crumpets. I'm not even worthy to do so.

You cant address the points because they are valid and there is no logical argument you can make except becos God says so, and saying "..because X(whoever that may be) says so" is not a valid argument

[The Happy Humanist]

The purpose of this thread was to explore several questions at once:

1) Can we trust God when he says he's the good guy?
2) Is God the sole source of our sense of goodness and justice?
3) If God is the sole source of our sense of goodness and justice, how can we trust him? How can we know that the warm squishies we get when we attempt to follow God were not programmed in there from the start, so that we would always perceive him as good, no matter what he does?
4) How, therefore, does one judge God? Now you can say, we can't judge God, but at some point each Christian makes a conscious decision to follow God, and that involves a judgement - you are saying, this sounds right to me, this sounds GOOD. You wouldn't follow God if you didn't think it was right to do so, right? That's a judgement. It must come from somewhere. If it comes from some independent moral compass, where did that independent moral compass come from? Did it <gasp> evolve? And if it was planted in us by God, how can it be trusted?* It's not "unbiased", and therefore worthless as an instrument!

The answer I seem to be getting is, "You would know the answer to that if you knew God." Perhaps so...but here we go again: How can I TRUST the answer? God, you tell us, is infinitely powerful. He would therefore have the power to implant the notion in you that he is infinitely benevolent - but he might not be. How would you know? And no matter how many times you say, "You just know," I'm going to ask, HOW? So there. Nyah.

-----

*Whenever I contemplate this question, for some reason I am reminded of the movie "RoboCop." Officer Murphy was programmed with the entire penal code, and to recognize bad guys immediately and dispense with them with utterly perfect precision. He was a walking "morality enforcement" machine. But he had one defect: He was programmed never to turn in anyone connected with the company that created him. In a sense, his "moral compass" was programmed not to recognize anything his creators did as "bad" (= warranting arrest). Sound familiar?

[The Happy Humanist]

<sigh> Having rested the prosecution's case, I wasn't going to respond to this, but, well, let's just call this a post-trial press conference to clear up some misunderstandings.

People believe what they want to believe, regardless of what's really there.

I assume you are including yourself in this...despite the fact that you have said elsewhere "it is not a belief that God is good, it is a fact."

Also - I cannot say with certainty whether God created Evil as Evil or whether God created the being and then it became Evil.

The Bible does not get that specific, and there is a difference.

1) Isaiah 45:7 seems pretty specific.
2) There may be a difference, but not one that absolves God of ultimate responsibility for the Existence of Evil.

Besides which, to you it makes no difference morally, since God can do no wrong either way. He can create Evil and still be good, or he can knowingly create a being that will become Evil, and still be good.

If anyone captured anything from this discussion... it was me watching you justify Satanism and relating God to Kim Jhon Ill. [

I think you have me confused with someone else. Until know I didn't even know how to spell Kim Jhon Ill.

[Tigerlilly]

Even if God created a being which would later become evil--that doesn't excuse God. Why? God is omniscient. He knows everything that was, is, and ever will be. He has complete knowledge and complete power (they say he's also omnipotent and omnipresent).

What implications does this have? Well, if God creates a being, which later becomes evil...he knows it will happen before he does it. If he continues on with the creation, notwithstanding this a priori knowledge...he's willingly creating evil.

If he doesn't know, then he's not really omniscient, so he's not all-knowing, and there is no reason to feel that everything he does is right because he knows better. God is fallible.

However, It says in the bible that He is the creator of light and dark. Literarily, Light = good, dark = evil.

[Bro Dave]

Even if God created a being which would later become evil--that doesn't excuse God. Why? God is omniscient. He knows everything that was, is, and ever will be. He has complete knowledge and complete power (they say he's also omnipotent and omnipresent).

What implications does this have? Well, if God creates a being, which later becomes evil...he knows it will happen before he does it. If he continues on with the creation, notwithstanding this a priori knowledge...he's willingly creating evil.

If he doesn't know, then he's not really omniscient, so he's not all-knowing, and there is no reason to feel that everything he does is right because he knows better. God is fallible.

However, It says in the bible that He is the creator of light and dark. Literarily, Light = good, dark = evil.

Tigerlilly, you seem to be arguing from "inside-the-box". God created the Universe to excape His absoluteism. He, being perfect, could never experience growth. Enter mortals. We are imprefect in every way, except that God has chosen to live in our hearts, and, if we are willing, to guide us. We start this journey "at-the-bottom". God acts a a partner with us as we grow. He has invited all who will come, to go adventuring with Him in eternity. Sounds like a loving Father to me...

Bro Dave

[hannahjoy]

Tigerlilly wrote:

There are over 40 million bored, hateful, spiteful, evil fundamentalists in the United States. That's 40 million too many.

I may be hateful, spiteful, and evil, but I can assure you, I'm not bored. Maybe I'm # 40,000,001.

For believing that God doesn't exist, you sure do despise Him. I find that hard to understand. I don't despise the Imaginary Pink Unicorn, and I wouldn't even if his/her/its followers ascribed all sorts of horrible things to him/her/it, or did horrible things in his/her/its name. I might despise them, but not a being that I believe doesn't exist.