Good versus Appearance of Good

[_KevinSim]

There's a scene in the BBC production of "Pride and Prejudice" where Elizabeth Bennett is talking to her sister Jane about her realization that Mr. Wiccam had actually offended Mr. Darcy, had messed up Mr. Darcy's life, not the other way around. Lizzie comments that Mr. Wiccam had all the appearance of good, while Mr. Darcy had all the actual good.

I've thought that this distinction applies to the relationship between Biblical Christianity and Hinduism. Biblical Christianity has all the appearance of good, but Hinduism has the actual good.

It's very easy for someone to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth actually was a very good man. But think about the deity He served and worshipped. That deity, Biblical Christians claim, has the power to cause souls to cease to exist if he wants, due to his absolute, literal, omnipotence, but instead of annihilating the souls of those that rejected him he lets them suffer unbearable agony for the rest of eternity.

On the other hand, my original impression of the Hindu reincarnation system was that nobody ever lost all hope of eventual Nirvana; no matter how wicked one was in previous lives, by accumulating good karma in all successive lives, one could eventually reach that goal of all Hindus. Since then I've heard that if a soul lives wickedly enough that soul can eventually be completely annihilated, but that doesn't lessen Hinduism's goodness one iota. The fact is that in the Hindu system nobody ever gets damned to an eternity of suffering.

Christianity has simply presented itself better. Sure, Hinduism has Hare Krishna in the United States that has made some gains, but I can't help thinking that if Hinduism were to actively attempt to publish the real theological differences between its faith and the prevalent US faith, accentuating the inherent goodness of Vishnu and the Hindu pantheon over the alleged father of Jesus, then we'd have a lot more Hindus and a lot less Christians in the US than we have now.

The LDS faith takes the successful marketing of Jesus of Nazareth that Biblical Christianity has accomplished, and modifies its deity so that that deity becomes a good God, rather than the evil one most Christians worship.

[_zeezrom]

Kevin,

Your mention of that film just put you on my fav list. :)

The LDS faith takes the successful marketing of Jesus of Nazareth that Biblical Christianity has accomplished, and modifies its deity so that that deity becomes a good God, rather than the evil one most Christians worship.

I didn't see much support in the OP of this argument. Could you provide some more? How is the LDS God a good God, exactly?

Thanks,

Zee.

[_just me]

Zee asks an excellent question. What exactly is good about the LDS god? Most of his children will not gain eternal life (exaltation) and as a result will not be living anywhere near him.

Hooray?

[_KevinSim]

Your mention of that film just put you on my fav list. :)

Thanks. And you have good taste. (For liking "Pride and Prejudice," not for approving of me!)

I didn't see much support in the OP of this argument. Could you provide some more? How is the LDS God a good God, exactly?

A physician who tells a cancer-stricken patient that s/he is going to die is not evil, unless that physician has the capacity to save the patient's life, and has chosen not to use it.

LDS theology does describe God as a judge, who will determine our final fate. But the Book of Mormon makes it pretty clear that in some ways God is a spiritual physician rather than a judge. It's we ourselves who condemn ourselves to our eternal fate, not so much God. God mostly has described our spiritual failings, and has provided a way for us to be cured of them.

So I think God fits more somewhere in the continuum between judge and physician, rather than on the judge extreme end of that spectrum.

And Doctrine and Covenants 93:29 makes it clear that ability to create intelligence is an exception to God's omnipotence; God cannot create intelligence out of nothing. It's not a huge leap of logic to conclude that God cannot destroy that that verse 29 clearly says He cannot create.

There's nothing wrong with, at some future point, separating the spiritually healthy from the spiritually plagued; in fact sometimes I think that keeping them together may actually worsen the state of the plagued. Whether it does or not, if the spiritually plagued thus end up suffering unbearable agony for the rest of eternity, then God may wish He had the power to cause those to cease to exist, for their own sake, but it doesn't make Him evil to refrain from putting them out of their misery if he simply cannot put them out of their misery.

The bottom line is that I do not worship a God that has absolute, literal omnipotence. God would put the unsaved out of their misery if He could, but He cannot. God did the best He could with the circumstances that were under His control.

[_DarkHelmet]

Interesting question. The only reason god is good is because he says he is. So to be "good" you must worship him. For someone to even question the wisdom of worshipping such a being automatically makes that person "bad".

[_quaker]

You could say that the things that endure, persist and triumph sustainably in the long run and for eternity are 'good'. Then what falls under good is not arbitrary or assigned on a whim.

[Guest]

KevinSim,

The god you describe sounds weak and unworthy of praise - limited, powerless to do much. It's hard to fancy he's much more than a man who has one extra ability - to judge our final destination.

Rather impotent, I'd say, but then again, I may be reading you wrong. If I am reading correctly, I fail to see why one would worship such a lacklustre deity.

H.

[_Daheshist]

When I was on my mission, I told Christians that we Mormons don't believe that our loved ones who are Nonbelievers will burn in Hell forever. All of the Christians told me NEITHER DID THEY, that the Blood of Jesus "saved" not only them, but their non-Christian loved ones as well, but "I" and all other Mormons were doomed to eternal Hell-fire. Why? Because we weren't Christians.

Christians are IGNORANT!

Buddhism teahces reincarnation, karma, without the burden of worshipping the Hindu gods.

There's a scene in the BBC production of "Pride and Prejudice" where Elizabeth Bennett is talking to her sister Jane about her realization that Mr. Wiccam had actually offended Mr. Darcy, had messed up Mr. Darcy's life, not the other way around. Lizzie comments that Mr. Wiccam had all the appearance of good, while Mr. Darcy had all the actual good.

I've thought that this distinction applies to the relationship between Biblical Christianity and Hinduism. Biblical Christianity has all the appearance of good, but Hinduism has the actual good.

It's very easy for someone to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth actually was a very good man. But think about the deity He served and worshipped. That deity, Biblical Christians claim, has the power to cause souls to cease to exist if he wants, due to his absolute, literal, omnipotence, but instead of annihilating the souls of those that rejected him he lets them suffer unbearable agony for the rest of eternity.

On the other hand, my original impression of the Hindu reincarnation system was that nobody ever lost all hope of eventual Nirvana; no matter how wicked one was in previous lives, by accumulating good karma in all successive lives, one could eventually reach that goal of all Hindus. Since then I've heard that if a soul lives wickedly enough that soul can eventually be completely annihilated, but that doesn't lessen Hinduism's goodness one iota. The fact is that in the Hindu system nobody ever gets damned to an eternity of suffering.

Christianity has simply presented itself better. Sure, Hinduism has Hare Krishna in the United States that has made some gains, but I can't help thinking that if Hinduism were to actively attempt to publish the real theological differences between its faith and the prevalent US faith, accentuating the inherent goodness of Vishnu and the Hindu pantheon over the alleged father of Jesus, then we'd have a lot more Hindus and a lot less Christians in the US than we have now.

The LDS faith takes the successful marketing of Jesus of Nazareth that Biblical Christianity has accomplished, and modifies its deity so that that deity becomes a good God, rather than the evil one most Christians worship.

[_zeezrom]

KevinSim,

The god you describe sounds weak and unworthy of praise - limited, powerless to do much. It's hard to fancy he's much more than a man who has one extra ability - to judge our final destination.

Rather impotent, I'd say, but then again, I may be reading you wrong. If I am reading correctly, I fail to see why one would worship such a lacklustre deity.

H.

Weak, maybe compared to infinite power but certainly not so weak, worship is rendered useless. A god that is even a little stronger/better than all of us is worthy of some kind of reverence.

[_LDSToronto]

KevinSim,

The god you describe sounds weak and unworthy of praise - limited, powerless to do much. It's hard to fancy he's much more than a man who has one extra ability - to judge our final destination.

Rather impotent, I'd say, but then again, I may be reading you wrong. If I am reading correctly, I fail to see why one would worship such a lacklustre deity.

H.

Weak, maybe compared to infinite power but certainly not so weak, worship is rendered useless. A god that is even a little stronger/better than all of us is worthy of some kind of reverence.

By virtue of his power? Does that mean that I am worthy of reverence if I can inflict harm on someone?