DescentBB

Bet51987 wrote:

Duper wrote:That's because you do not correctly understand God. or His
Word.

Duper, when I was little, I believed His words were His and I prayed to Him every single night because I believed all of it....every single bit. But, as I got older, I began having serious problems keeping my emotions in check and still do to this day. I can no longer "correctly understand" a God who "knows all, loves all" and does nothing to stop the little girl from being brutally murdered. I personally want to see evidence that God really exists so I can have something to hate but I can't even have that.

Let me say it again.

You do not correctly understand God. or His Word.

You learned as a child, you reasoned as a child and you remember as a child. And truth reveals truth, emotion reveals your heart, sometimes. Emotion is only that: emotion. It is corruptible and VERY bendable. It is not absolute. Truth is. If truth were not, it would be variable.

Duper wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:

Duper wrote:That's because you do not correctly understand God. or His
Word.

Duper, when I was little, I believed His words were His and I prayed to Him every single night because I believed all of it....every single bit. But, as I got older, I began having serious problems keeping my emotions in check and still do to this day. I can no longer "correctly understand" a God who "knows all, loves all" and does nothing to stop the little girl from being brutally murdered. I personally want to see evidence that God really exists so I can have something to hate but I can't even have that.

Let me say it again.

You do not correctly understand God. or His Word.

You learned as a child, you reasoned as a child and you remember as a child. And truth reveals truth, emotion reveals your heart, sometimes. Emotion is only that: emotion. It is corruptible and VERY bendable. It is not absolute. Truth is. If truth were not, it would be variable.

A child believes anything whether it be truth or a lie. As of now, I neither see, hear, or feel any God so there is no word of God to understand, otherwise there would be absolute truth. Since no one can prove God exists, it cannot be called truth so how can you say I do not correctly understand?

Emotions do reveal truth. For example, an emotional person who has too much to drink at a party will more than likely speak the truth like I've seen some classmates do. Look at people who break down in front of a judge. Emotions reveal truth.

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:Emotions do reveal truth. For example, an emotional person who has too much to drink at a party will more than likely speak the truth like I've seen some classmates do. Look at people who break down in front of a judge. Emotions reveal truth.

Bee

The truth about how you FEEL, perhaps. Emotions can also blind us to the truth. Just look at any militant extremist and how they think.

Bet51987 wrote:A child believes anything whether it be truth or a lie.

You make it sound like adults are any different.

Sedwick wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:Emotions do reveal truth. For example, an emotional person who has too much to drink at a party will more than likely speak the truth like I've seen some classmates do. Look at people who break down in front of a judge. Emotions reveal truth.

Bee

The truth about how you FEEL, perhaps. Emotions can also blind us to the truth. Just look at any militant extremist and how they think.

I don't consider militant extremists (the religious ones you read about daily) as having any kind of emotion, empathy, or compassion for another human being. All they have is what was fed them... but without emotion, they don't have the real truth.

TIGERassault wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:A child believes anything whether it be truth or a lie.

You make it sound like adults are any different.

They are without question. If I told you I really saw the tooth fairy, you would poke me in the eye.

Bettina

Bet51987 wrote:

Sedwick wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:Emotions do reveal truth. For example, an emotional person who has too much to drink at a party will more than likely speak the truth like I've seen some classmates do. Look at people who break down in front of a judge. Emotions reveal truth.

Bee

The truth about how you FEEL, perhaps. Emotions can also blind us to the truth. Just look at any militant extremist and how they think.

I don't consider militant extremists (the religious ones you read about daily) as having any kind of emotion, empathy, or compassion for another human being. All they have is what was fed them... but without emotion, they don't have the real truth.

Actually, you don't even need to look at those extremists. Someone deeply bigoted allows his fear and anger to make him believe that everyone in a particular group of people is a threat. Such a person wouldn't even care about hard evidence to the contrary. His emotions blind him to truth.

Bet51987 wrote:I don't consider militant extremists (the religious ones you read about daily) as having any kind of emotion, empathy, or compassion for another human being. All they have is what was fed them... but without emotion, they don't have the real truth.

Riight...

Bet51987 wrote:A child believes anything whether it be truth or a lie.

You make it sound like adults are any different.[/quote]
They are without question.[/quote]
Right, for something like mythical entities, mabye. But for stuff like believing that religious extremists are devoid of emotion, empathy, or compassion for another human being, a lot of people are as guilty as anything.
Next you're going to be saying that Hitler didn't care about his people...

TIGERassault wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:I don't consider militant extremists (the religious ones you read about daily) as having any kind of emotion, empathy, or compassion for another human being. All they have is what was fed them... but without emotion, they don't have the real truth.

Riight...

Were you being sarcastic or did you just misspell?

TIGERassault wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:A child believes anything whether it be truth or a lie.

You make it sound like adults are any different.

They are without question.[/quote]
Right, for something like mythical entities, mabye. But for stuff like believing that religious extremists are devoid of emotion, empathy, or compassion for another human being, a lot of people are as guilty as anything.[/quote]
So, you agree. Thanks.

Next you're going to be saying that Hitler didn't care about his people...

He didn't unless your talking specifically of his master race.

Bettina

Bet51987 wrote:

Me wrote:Riight...

Were you being sarcastic or did you just misspell?

I'll give you a hint: Notice how right after that, I used what I quoted as an example of how some people believe anything...

Bet51987 wrote:So, you agree. Thanks.

Bet51987 wrote:

Me wrote:Next you're going to be saying that Hitler didn't care about his people...

He didn't

It's things like this that let you know where you stand in life...

TIGERassault wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:

Me wrote:Riight...

Were you being sarcastic or did you just misspell?

I'll give you a hint: Notice how right after that, I used what I quoted as an example of how some people believe anything...

Bet51987 wrote:So, you agree. Thanks.

Bet51987 wrote:

Me wrote:Next you're going to be saying that Hitler didn't care about his people...

He didn't

It's things like this that let you know where you stand in life...

So far you've called me ignorant, told me I should leave the E&C forever, and now your telling me where I stand in life without explaining why you think I am wrong. I'm not worldly, nor in the military, but were not getting anywhere. If we are truly on different pages then maybe we should ignore each others posts from now on.

You disagree with my statement so I would like a good reasoning why you think that religious militants have emotion, empathy, and compassion for their fellow man. Keep in mind that when they fire rockets into Israel, they fire them from schools full of kids or where women and kids congregate.

Lets start there. Hitler can wait.

Bettina

Sorry for the delay. I was too busy last week to give this discussion the concentration that it deserves.

Thanks Kilarin for your summary.

Kilarin wrote:Given the above, we find that God is Universal Perfection. There can not be any "Defect" in God, because a defect would have to be a deviation from something that could have been better, and since God has no "Potential", nothing within Himself that could have been otherwise, and since nothing within Himself is there by chance, there is no way He could have been "Better".

I find this conclusion puzzling. Is something perfect just because it cannot be changed? This seems to be the implication that the conclusion is assuming. But I don't think that this is the case. It's true that people often define something as perfect when it is incapable of being improved upon. But I think that they mean to say, it is incapable of being improved upon because it is so good. I don't think that defining perfection to mean incapable of being improved upon was ever intended to include something incapable of being improved upon because it was metaphysically impossible for it to change.

Let's flip some of what you said around. Suppose that it was God's essence that he took pleasure in and actively enjoyed others' suffering. Would that be perfect by virtue that God could not change?

Kilarin wrote:Which leads us to: God is his own Goodness. God is good because He is perfect. His goodness is not goodness by chance, there is no chance within God, His goodness is goodness itself. Goodness is not something God attains to in order to match up with some outside standard, He IS Goodness, by essence. God is his own Goodness.

Especially if we take something to be perfect simply by virtue that it cannot be changed, regardless of how good it is, then why should we think that God is good by virtue that he cannot be changed? Perhaps I'm not following something here.

snoopy wrote:2. State that God is not to be held responsible for the sorry state of the world, we are.

Thus, all of the pain, suffering, and injustice in the world has nothing to do with God's justice (it's much better than His justice), and is solely our responsibility- we only have ourselves (in a macro sense) to blame of anything bad in the world.

Let's step aside from categorically casting blame for a second.

When somebody survives cancer, we say that this is ethically good. It is good that people survive cancer. When they do, we don't say that it is an ethical wash, since they deserved to die of it anyways (or deserved even worse). We treat the situation for what it is--a good thing.

When somebody survives a natural disaster, we say the same thing, that this is ethically good. It is good that people survive these things. It's not a wash--it really is a good thing.

Are you really going to deny this? This is all you have to accept to recognize that an all-good God is leaving a lot of good things undone.

Bet51987 wrote:You disagree with my statement so I would like a good reasoning why you think that religious militants have emotion, empathy, and compassion for their fellow man. Keep in mind that when they fire rockets into Israel, they fire them from schools full of kids or where women and kids congregate.

Well, how about: because they do not go into an unarmed peaceful town assigned with a squad, shoot every member of said squad when their backs are turned, depopulate the entire town, steal all of their small, leightweight, expensive stuff, then hijack a vehicle and drive out of the country, running over or shooting anyone that tries to stop them.

Granted, that's only one example, but I think it gets the point across that attacking a defenceless school or two does not make you devoid of feeling or sympathy for humankind.


As for Hitler, he did a lot of things for his people. At least, the people he didn't already hate. The most notable being that he was pretty much the father of the cheap automobile.

Jeff250 wrote: When somebody survives cancer, we say that this is ethically good. It is good that people survive cancer. When they do, we don't say that it is an ethical wash, since they deserved to die of it anyways (or deserved even worse). We treat the situation for what it is--a good thing.

When somebody survives a natural disaster, we say the same thing, that this is ethically good. It is good that people survive these things. It's not a wash--it really is a good thing.

Are you really going to deny this? This is all you have to accept to recognize that an all-good God is leaving a lot of good things undone.

It's not "good" in the same way that God is good. In truth, it's neither good nor evil/bad that someone dies. They simply do. Now if they were murdered, that person committing the crime could be deamed as "evil" or bad depending on the situation.. but I digress.

I person in these cases are involved in circumstance and we view them as pleasing or un-pleasing. (i.e. Hitler surviving cancer would not be viewed as a "good thing") This is why emotion in not truth.

I like to see people survive adversity and continue with their lives (provided they are not creating a dooms day device); but whether their surviving or passing is "good or evil" is irrelevant.

TIGERassault wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:You disagree with my statement so I would like a good reasoning why you think that religious militants have emotion, empathy, and compassion for their fellow man. Keep in mind that when they fire rockets into Israel, they fire them from schools full of kids or where women and kids congregate.

Well, how about: because they do not go into an unarmed peaceful town assigned with a squad, shoot every member of said squad when their backs are turned, depopulate the entire town, steal all of their small, leightweight, expensive stuff, then hijack a vehicle and drive out of the country, running over or shooting anyone that tries to stop them.
Granted, that's only one example, but I think it gets the point across that attacking a defenceless school or two does not make you devoid of feeling or sympathy for humankind.

No, it does not get the point across because I don't know who your talking about so can you tell me? Anyway, how about militants getting their kids to sneak onto an Israeli bus loaded with teenagers and blowing it up. Or, how about entering a crowded supermarket full of women and children. That isn't just one example, its a continuing agenda of how religious militants use their own people as either shields, or to act as self exploding bombs.

Bettina

Bet51987 wrote:

TIGERassault wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:You disagree with my statement so I would like a good reasoning why you think that religious militants have emotion, empathy, and compassion for their fellow man. Keep in mind that when they fire rockets into Israel, they fire them from schools full of kids or where women and kids congregate.

Well, how about: because they do not go into an unarmed peaceful town assigned with a squad, shoot every member of said squad when their backs are turned, depopulate the entire town, steal all of their small, leightweight, expensive stuff, then hijack a vehicle and drive out of the country, running over or shooting anyone that tries to stop them.
Granted, that's only one example, but I think it gets the point across that attacking a defenceless school or two does not make you devoid of feeling or sympathy for humankind.

No, it does not get the point across because I don't know who your talking about so can you tell me? Anyway, how about militants getting their kids to sneak onto an Israeli bus loaded with teenagers and blowing it up. Or, how about entering a crowded supermarket full of women and children. That isn't just one example, its a continuing agenda of how religious militants use their own people as either shields, or to act as self exploding bombs.

Bettina

I agree with you on some points, Their actions would make one assume that all of it is done without emotion.

But the way i see it is this, If they didn't believe what they were fighting for was real to them why would they be so passionate about it?

So far as to risk their own lives?

Call me silly, But that in itself tells me they have emotional attachment to what they see as right/wrong and what they've been told by their own religion.

Universally speaking it seems hideous: Attacking defenseless bystanders or using people as human shileds.

But isn't that what the government is doing to our own troops?

And if so, What makes the U.S military policy any more justifiable than jihadists?

Are we THAT blameless?

Bet51987 wrote:No, it does not get the point across because I don't know who your talking about so can you tell me?

I am talking about those extremists that didn't depopulate an entire town and make off with their goods. My point is that blowing a couple of people up isn't enough to be classed as 'completely devoid of feeling towards another human'.

And you need to sort out your "you're/your" thing. It's really bugging me.

Bet51987 wrote:Anyway, how about militants getting their kids to sneak onto an Israeli bus loaded with teenagers and blowing it up. Or, how about entering a crowded supermarket full of women and children. That isn't just one example, its a continuing agenda of how religious militants use their own people as either shields, or to act as self exploding bombs.

Sure doesn't come close to depopuating your own town though.
Also, why do you keep saying 'full of women and children'. It sounds so sexist.

I've posted this before. The people in the middle east don't view life like we do. They're motivation and purpose for living is different. I'm NOT saying that they all think that the best way to die is in a suicide bombing. It's really hard to explain unless you've talked to someone from there at length. It's not wrong, it's just...different. Devoting theirselves to something like \"jihad\" is well within their rational, but for the average joe, it would take a lot more than what Al-kida is stoked about. Most are trying to make a living and raise their families.

Just because someone does something evil, don't think that they don't have emotion. That is what is motivating them in the first place. They may not love or value life like WE do in the western culture ..at least the semi-sane half... but they do feel these things.

Once again, their emotion does not reveal truth. It reveals that they are dedicated to what they are doing and that they believe it to be right. That's not truth...or even \"their truth\", it is perception.

I find it highly ironic that an atheist is resorting to appeal to emotion. I thought that's what Christians were supposed to do?!

why do you say that? Strictly speaking, there is nothing in common Christian theology that would dictate that.

Now, mind you, there are 20+ channels on TV that say otherwise.

I avoid those.

Behemoth wrote:I agree with you on some points, their actions would make one assume that all of it is done without emotion.
But the way I see it is this, If they didn't believe what they were fighting for was real to them why would they be so passionate about it?
So far as to risk their own lives?

Call me silly, But that in itself tells me they have emotional attachment to what they see as right/wrong and what they've been told by their own religion.
Universally speaking it seems hideous: Attacking defenseless bystanders or using people as human shileds.
But isn't that what the government is doing to our own troops?
And if so, What makes the U.S military policy any more justifiable than jihadists?
Are we THAT blameless?

I understand there are many meanings but I have always associated emotion with love, compassion, affection, etc, and I don't believe that militant fanatics have any of those qualities. Their only passion is to advance their religious views and religious laws at all costs...even if it means killing their own kind, using schools as shields, and blowing up civilians. They can do that because religion has suppressed their emotion and replaced it with hate. They would kill you without any remorse whatsoever.

Do you think Islamic militants are fighting for freedom for their people? No. They fight to impose ultra religious rules on the way their people live, dress, act, pray, and how they want the world to be. Their own lives, by the way, are totally meaningless to them as long as they believe they go directly to Allah.

And no, we are not blameless.

Firewheel wrote:I find it highly ironic that an atheist is resorting to appeal to emotion. I thought that's what Christians were supposed to do?!

Do you really believe that emotion is God given?

TIGERassault wrote:I am talking about those extremists that didn't depopulate an entire town and make off with their goods. My point is that blowing a couple of people up isn't enough to be classed as 'completely devoid of feeling towards another human'. …And you need to sort out your "you're/your" thing. It's really bugging me.
…Also, why do you keep saying 'full of women and children'. It sounds so sexist.

Emotion, the good kind I described, is not homogenous with genocide or ethnic cleansing of entire villages. That’s more than a couple of people and the reason I say women and children is because their the most innocent.

Duper…. Mother Teresa fought her emotions to her dying day so she COULD hold on to the God she believed in. If she let her emotions rule her, she would have seen that the world is truly godless.

Bettina

Bet51987 wrote: Duper…. Mother Teresa fought her emotions to her dying day so she COULD hold on to the God she believed in. If she let her emotions rule her, she would have seen that the world is truly godless.

Bettina

Not to hold onto God, but to remain faithful to the commission given to her by Him. We all struggle with emotion. Even Christ did. This is part of our humanity. We can not let our emotions govern out lives. This is why I continue to say that emotion is not truth.

Emotion is not truth.

Truth is something universally unable to be changed no matter how much you or anyone else tried to change it.

A biblical example would go along the lines of when christ was on the cross and cried my God, my God why has thou forsaken me?
Because he could not look upon the sin his son was bearing.

Or natural governed laws like light, You can not have dark in the presence of light and vice-versa
Almost like the more the gravitational pull on a planet the more things are pulled to the governing body, Instead of away.

I view emotion as a core to ourselves, The way i see it is this.

Person>Heart>Mind(intellect)>Body
First comes our person, I.E Soul or what makes us, Us
Then comes our heart, Or our governing emotions, Desires anything that we could ever want to accomplish or the way we feel towards other people.
It goes deeper than that but for now i'm smalling it down.

Our mind or intellect is how we plan to get those desires, Or how to sort out the emotions we DO have in ourselves to be able to show them outwardly through the body.

And lastly is the body, Which is the end result of our actions from within.
The body cannot fight against the heart or mind because it doesn't work that way.

Bet51987 wrote:Do you think Islamic militants are fighting for freedom for their people? No. They fight to impose ultra religious rules on the way their people live, dress, act, pray,

That is fighting for freedom, believe it or not. It's not fighting for freedom from political governing bodies or anything like that, it's fighting for freedom from Hell, or whatever the Islamic equivilent is.

Firewheel wrote:I find it highly ironic that an atheist is resorting to appeal to emotion. I thought that's what Christians were supposed to do?!

As far as I gathered, she's an atheist purely because of emotion. She feels that since people get hurt, there is no God.
...which is quite dangerous too. Usually it's fine when emotion-based people are religious, because that's normally channeled into love, except for the bloodshedding believers. But when there's an emotion-based atheist, they always believe that religion people are fools incapable of emotion because they don't feel that human suffering is enough to disprove a god as much as said atheists do. Bet here happens to be a fine example.

This must actually seem really patronising towards Bet then, especially seeing how she's so emotion-based...

Bet51987 wrote:Emotion, the good kind I described, is not homogenous with genocide or ethnic cleansing of entire villages. That’s more than a couple of people

Mabye not, but it is homogeneous with not backstabbing your buddies out of pure greed though.

Bet51987 wrote:and the reason I say women and children is because their the most innocent.

You didn't, by any chance, consider why I told you to stay away from the E&C, did you?

Bet51987 wrote:their

...

Duper wrote:Not to hold onto God, but to remain faithful to the commission given to her by Him. We all struggle with emotion. Even Christ did. This is part of our humanity. We can not let our emotions govern out lives. This is why I continue to say that emotion is not truth.

The "commission" she perceived to be from Him were in sharp contrast to what she was seeing, and it was purely her emotions that led her to write those letters. In her case, emotion revealed the truth about her inner self...that for most of her life, she doubted that god existed at all.

Also, I don’t believe I said, “Emotion is truth”. I said it “reveals” truth.




Behemoth…..

When Jesus spoke those words it was out of pure hopelessness. An emotional revealing of what He felt inside as he was dying. And, like I said before, it is no different than the person who jumps out a window thinking he can fly. He has the same emotional truth just before he hits the ground.

The body cannot fight against the heart or mind because it doesn't work that way

Sure it can. Good people do it all the time. It’s the religious fanatics that can’t.

TIGERassault wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:Do you think Islamic militants are fighting for freedom for their people? No. They fight to impose ultra religious rules on the way their people live, dress, act, pray,

That is fighting for freedom, believe it or not. It's not fighting for freedom from political governing bodies or anything like that, it's fighting for freedom from Hell, or whatever the Islamic equivilent is.

I don’t agree at all. What does freedom from Hell have to do with the beating and oppression of women?

…..But when there's an emotion-based atheist, they always believe that religion people are fools incapable of emotion because they don't feel that human suffering is enough to disprove a god as much as said atheists do. Bet here happens to be a fine example.

Please don’t include me in that “always” group. You don’t know me, and I’m not one of them. I have seen too many emotional people lighting prayer candles and I never once thought of them as fools. Not once.

I admit I have issues with TV evangelists, some priests, and some people here, but that doesn’t qualify as “always”.

TIGERassault wrote:You didn't, by any chance, consider why I told you to stay away from the E&C, did you?

No. It was too pompous so I ignored it.

TIGERassault wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:their

...

I think that is correct. However in your quote above where you say “religion people” may not be.

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:When Jesus spoke those words it was out of pure hopelessness. An emotional revealing of what He felt inside as he was dying. And, like I said before, it is no different than the person who jumps out a window thinking he can fly. He has the same emotional truth just before he hits the ground.

I can understand how, after just hearing what he said, someone would reach this kind of conclusion.

However, consider this. Jesus was a rabbi, and knew (OT) scripture inside and out. The words he spoke were a quote, coming directly from Psalm 22. He wasn't speaking out of hopelessness at all. What he WAS doing was fulfilling a prophecy. Please read the WHOLE Psalm to see what I mean.

Herc

thank you Herc. You beat me to it.

Duper wrote:It's not "good" in the same way that God is good. In truth, it's neither good nor evil/bad that someone dies. They simply do.

OK then, but even if you think that, then surely you still think that, generally speaking, it is good to help those who would otherwise die and evil not to help them.

Duper wrote:This is why emotion in not truth.

I think you've got me confused with somebody else.

Bet, Not to put Mother teresa down but have you ever considered that had she not listened to \"God\" in the first place she may have not done nearly as much to help the people she did, or help anyone at all in the first place?

And in reference to the body doing as it's told, There was a point when we as humans didn't know how to see, walk, talk, or how to do anything our bodies are able to do until we did it over and over again.

Now it's just routine.

Behemoth wrote:Bet, Not to put Mother teresa down but have you ever considered that had she not listened to "God" in the first place she may have not done nearly as much to help the people she did, or help anyone at all in the first place?

I don't know, but with all the empathy that she was born with, I would bet she would have ended up helping people anyway because even when she doubted God existed, she kept on helping the dying. Also, take a look at the doctors and nurses working in a hospice. Are they all theists?

Behemoth wrote:And in reference to the body doing as it's told, There was a point when we as humans didn't know how to see, walk, talk, or how to do anything our bodies are able to do until we did it over and over again. Now it's just routine.

Yep.. Its called evolution.

Bee

Jeff250 wrote:

Duper wrote:It's not "good" in the same way that God is good. In truth, it's neither good nor evil/bad that someone dies. They simply do.

OK then, but even if you think that, then surely you still think that, generally speaking, it is good to help those who would otherwise die and evil not to help them.

But see, then you are dealing with a different issue. You speak of moral responsibility. On the whole, that is true yes, with the exception of war, or possibly some rare or unforeseen circumstance. which is not always bad.

Bet51987 wrote:

Behemoth wrote:Bet, Not to put Mother teresa down but have you ever considered that had she not listened to "God" in the first place she may have not done nearly as much to help the people she did, or help anyone at all in the first place?

I don't know, but with all the empathy that she was born with, I would bet she would have ended up helping people anyway because even when she doubted God existed, she kept on helping the dying. Also, take a look at the doctors and nurses working in a hospice. Are they all theists??

You have a solid point, I think it's just as equally believeable that the goodness that comes from inside is from a spiritual origin as it coming from just within ourselves.

But you also have to consider the pride that's in peoples hearts naturally, Just look at the war's we have on our hands.

Bet51987 wrote:

Behemoth wrote:And in reference to the body doing as it's told, There was a point when we as humans didn't know how to see, walk, talk, or how to do anything our bodies are able to do until we did it over and over again. Now it's just routine.

Yep.. Its called evolution.

Bee

Meh, I think it's deeper than evolution.
I myself belive our physical bodies adapt to surroundings, But i struggle believeing we can add anything to ourselves genetically just by enviroment.

But what do i know, Cells are indeed complex things.

Jeff250 wrote:Let's step aside from categorically casting blame for a second.

When somebody survives cancer, we say that this is ethically good. It is good that people survive cancer. When they do, we don't say that it is an ethical wash, since they deserved to die of it anyways (or deserved even worse). We treat the situation for what it is--a good thing.

When somebody survives a natural disaster, we say the same thing, that this is ethically good. It is good that people survive these things. It's not a wash--it really is a good thing.

Are you really going to deny this? This is all you have to accept to recognize that an all-good God is leaving a lot of good things undone.

I'm not sure Duper responded to this as correctly as I'd like, so I'll take a stab at it.

I think there's some confusion between ethical good/bad and moral right/wrong.

I do agree with all of your statements about ethical good and/or bad (although I wouldn't say that they are exactly an ethical issue- I'll take a stab at defining ethics further on). Morally, however, your examples are a wash. Why? because morality carries with it an element of decision. Your examples are all purely causation, with no person making a decision about anything. It could be argued that there is some element of decision on God's part in ordaining things to happen as they do, but, as I pointed out earlier, that doesn't mean that responsibility lies on Him.

Now, to address the idea of inaction carrying with it a moral/ethical value. In any example I can think of (I'm thinking of doctors, witnesses to crimes) there is an ethical implication to inaction, but not a moral one. for example, if a doctor refuses to save a patient from dying, ethically it would be a bad thing to do, but morally the inaction itself isn't condemning. (You couldn't throw a doctor in jail for not saving a patient.) Now, there are motives, which can be evaluated morally, behind the doctor's not saving a patient. In one case, it could be that the doctor is in the middle of a war, has 50 wounded soldiers to attend to, and simply can't save all of them. In another case, the doctor could be standing there maniacally laughing while watching the person die. In the former case, the doctor's motives are not morally at fault, while in the latter they are.

If I apply this to God: when I say "God is good" I mean two things:
1. Morally, God is incapable of wrong.
2. God does good things for people (not all-inclusively)

Furthermore, we, as humans, have developed the idea of ethics in an attempt to deal with deal with cases where a person's actions are not morally at fault, but their motives are. Since God is morally incapable of evil (motives and actions), the idea of ethics doesn't really apply to Him.

So, you keep on throwing in the word "all" when you say that God is good, and then go on the imply that this means that God should be doing all possible "good" things- where your definition of "good things" is saving all people from all pain, destruction, and death. I don't think I agree with this definition of "good things," even. (I don't think that we really know what is actually "good" (or best) for someone most of the time.)

I'm saying that I disagree with your definition of "good things", and I also disagree with the idea that God is obligated to or claims to do this for everyone. I think that there are special promises of blessings that apply to Christians only, and that these blessings come (mostly) in a form that is very different from what a non-Christian would expect.

snoopy wrote:Now, to address the idea of inaction carrying with it a moral/ethical value. In any example I can think of (I'm thinking of doctors, witnesses to crimes) there is an ethical implication to inaction, but not a moral one. for example, if a doctor refuses to save a patient from dying, ethically it would be a bad thing to do, but morally the inaction itself isn't condemning. (You couldn't throw a doctor in jail for not saving a patient.) Now, there are motives, which can be evaluated morally, behind the doctor's not saving a patient. In one case, it could be that the doctor is in the middle of a war, has 50 wounded soldiers to attend to, and simply can't save all of them. In another case, the doctor could be standing there maniacally laughing while watching the person die. In the former case, the doctor's motives are not morally at fault, while in the latter they are.

Whether or not you could throw somebody in jail for something isn't exactly a flawless test for if something is immoral or not. But aside from that, I'm not sure if I can see what your ultimate argument is here. I'll grant you that it is possible for somebody to have good intentions but have bad results, such as choosing between the lesser of two evils. So now why are we supposed to think that this is the case with God and his choice to not help people?

snoopy wrote:So, you keep on throwing in the word "all" when you say that God is good, and then go on the imply that this means that God should be doing all possible "good" things- where your definition of "good things" is saving all people from all pain, destruction, and death. I don't think I agree with this definition of "good things," even. (I don't think that we really know what is actually "good" (or best) for someone most of the time.)

Don't obsess with the gray areas. You don't have to accept "my" (did I even give this somewhere?) definition of good things to acknowledge that things could be a lot better for a lot of people.

If he helped people out of every miserable problem would they be learning how to grow as a person?

The answer is no, You would end up a sheltered person unable to distinguish good from bad (In your own perception) If for nothing more than the fact you had nothing to base your own judgement on.

So even if i were in the place of omnipotence, I would find it better for people to experience pain AND joy on their own, But be accountable for their own actions as well.

Behemoth wrote:If he helped people out of every miserable problem would they be learning how to grow as a person?

Again, don't obsess with the gray areas. We don't need to decide how much pain is the perfect amount for a good life for every person. We just need to recognize that in some cases, there is too much suffering.

Besides, if God allowed pain just to help us grow as people, then we'd expect it dealt more evenly to all people. But as it stands, it's dealt without regard to personal character or personal development or matters of justice or fairness. I guess it does teach us that life isn't fair, but I don't know what value there is in learning this if it wasn't unfair to begin with.

sorry for the long delay!

Kilarin wrote:Given the above, we find that God is Universal Perfection. There can not be any "Defect" in God, because a defect would have to be a deviation from something that could have been better, and since God has no "Potential", nothing within Himself that could have been otherwise, and since nothing within Himself is there by chance, there is no way He could have been "Better".

Jeff250 wrote:I find this conclusion puzzling. Is something perfect just because it cannot be changed? This seems to be the implication that the conclusion is assuming. But I don't think that this is the case. It's true that people often define something as perfect when it is incapable of being improved upon. But I think that they mean to say, it is incapable of being improved upon because it is so good. I don't think that defining perfection to mean incapable of being improved upon was ever intended to include something incapable of being improved upon because it was metaphysically impossible for it to change.

Let's flip some of what you said around. Suppose that it was God's essence that he took pleasure in and actively enjoyed others' suffering. Would that be perfect by virtue that God could not change?

What Aquinas is trying to say here isn't simply that God can't change, but that there is "no room for improvement". No possible defect. That by His very nature, and as a logical conclusion from being the Prime Mover, God is GOOD.

Where are all the Catholics on this forum?!? A lowly protestant shouldn't be the only one defending Aquinas!!!

Jeff250 wrote:

Behemoth wrote:If he helped people out of every miserable problem would they be learning how to grow as a person?

Again, don't obsess with the gray areas. We don't need to decide how much pain is the perfect amount for a good life for every person. We just need to recognize that in some cases, there is too much suffering.

Besides, if God allowed pain just to help us grow as people, then we'd expect it dealt more evenly to all people. But as it stands, it's dealt without regard to personal character or personal development or matters of justice or fairness. I guess it does teach us that life isn't fair, but I don't know what value there is in learning this if it wasn't unfair to begin with.

I'd like to interject a personal belief of mine. I'm sure this will ruffle a few feathers, but that's not my intent.

It's my thought that pain and suffering amounts to very little in this life. We all have it; as Jeff pointed out in varying degrees. It Is there that it will aways be. It's condition of a "fallen world". I'm not implying that God does not care about our suffering. Scripture is very clear that He Is. It's just that I don't think that it's important if we are suffering or not, but rather how we conduct ourselves in the midst of it. Again, moral responsibility. Who are we in the midst of difficulty? How do we react and conduct ourselves? Will good behavior get us into heaven? No, but it will make God smile.

Kilarin wrote:What Aquinas is trying to say here isn't simply that God can't change, but that there is "no room for improvement". No possible defect. That by His very nature, and as a logical conclusion from being the Prime Mover, God is GOOD.

What I'm saying is that something isn't good or perfect or lacking in defect just because it's metaphysically unchangeable. Aquinas's argument is a wordplay.

When we say that something is perfect when it "cannot be improved," we don't mean this in the same sense as something that is metaphysically unchangeable "cannot be improved." With the former, something perfect "cannot be improved" because it's so good. We might be able to change it, but it's so good that any change wouldn't make it better. With the latter, something metaphysically unchangeable "cannot be improved" because it's metaphysically unchangeable. It may or may not be good, but we cannot make any changes at all to it. Yet Aquinas is treating these two cases of things not being able to be improved upon as the same thing and suggesting that the one implies the other. I don't buy that.

Some people think that Satan's essence is evil and that this is unchangeable. Would this belief imply that Satan is perfect?

No, Because extremes do not equal perfection.
To say that satan is all evil would not make him perfect is his evil.
Job was called a perfect man because he had a pure heart, Which means you're either talking of a different perfect(one that's measureable) or the real type of perfect we all sense, one you would call a \"gray\" area because it's dependant on perception.

Jeff250 wrote: Some people think that Satan's essence is evil and that this is unchangeable. Would this belief imply that Satan is perfect?

hmm. I would say these people do not understand who Jucifer is. Also, the nature of angels and the nature of man is different. Apples and oranges. He IS called the most beautiful of all angels. He's also called the Father of lies.