Good versus Appearance of Good

[_zeezrom]

Partly by virtue of power. If God is mean to you, it's time to find a different God.

[_Daheshist]

According to Buddhist Scriptures, the God of the Bible is called Baka Brahma ("Crane Brahma"), and does exist, and in fact RULES the 11th dimension, and all dimensions under it, and He is NOT all-knowing, NOT all-seeing, but He DOES have power over His own dimension and the dimensions under Him, but He has no power for the dimensions above Him, which are many. The Beings in the dimensions above Him are in Eternal Bliss, and basically have no "desire" to control us, nor do They desire our worship and praise, as does Baka Brahma (because He still has an ego, and They do not).

So, yes, according to Buddhist Scriptures, Baka Brahma CAN indeed make you His "servant" and even "reward" you or "punish" you, but you CAN escape His dominion if you walk the Noble Path and basically burn away all your Karma so that you can go to Nirvana, which is a dimension far above Him.

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.

[_zeezrom]

Wait! Back up.

A similar question to LDST's might be asked:

By virtue of His Perfection?

What makes a God worthy of worship?

To that, I say, "whatever gives us a desire to worship".

A God might be more powerful than the whole universe, more perfect than infinite perfection, and knowing of all things both past and present. But at the same time, that God might *still* be of little interest to the people.

[_KevinSim]

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".

DarkHelmet, how did you come to the conclusion that the "only reason god is good is because he says he is"? If that were the case we'd have no way whatsoever of telling the difference between God and Satan. Satan could say, "I'm good because I say I'm good, and I'm God." And we'd have no way to tell whether he was telling the truth about being God or telling us an outright lie.

No, there has to be some way that we mortals can tell the difference between what is good and what is evil at least on some level. There's plenty of room for God to tell us that He has a better understanding of what is good and what is evil on some subjects, but we have to be able to distinguish between what is good and what is evil on some other critical issues on our own if we're going to have any hope at all of telling the difference between God and Satan.

[_just me]

What is the difference between god and satan?

[_KevinSim]

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.

For the record I like Zeezrom's response to this.

But LDSToronto, why do you find it easier to worship a powerful deity than a good deity?

Biblical Christians worship a deity that they say is powerful, but that is actually quite evil. I would think that that deity's lack of goodness would be the thing that would make conscientious people stop worshipping him, long before any lack of power would. I personally would find it much easier to worship someone who has spent great effort and time trying to preserve some good things into the eternities, and has succeeded, than someone who through the Biblical Christian version of omnipotence simply willed things into existence.

[_KevinSim]

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.

Quaker, I think you have it backwards. I have a major problem with the idea that the things that endure must therefore be good. I think it's rather a property of good things, that they do endure. I think that there are inherent reasons why those things that are rationally determined to be good do, in fact, last longer in general than evil things.

[_just me]

What is good?

What is evil?

What is the difference between your god and your satan?

[_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.

For the record I like Zeezrom's response to this.

But LDSToronto, why do you find it easier to worship a powerful deity than a good deity?

Biblical Christians worship a deity that they say is powerful, but that is actually quite evil. I would think that that deity's lack of goodness would be the thing that would make conscientious people stop worshipping him, long before any lack of power would. I personally would find it much easier to worship someone who has spent great effort and time trying to preserve some good things into the eternities, and has succeeded, than someone who through the Biblical Christian version of omnipotence simply willed things into existence.

The LDS are biblical Christians. The God of the Old and New Testaments is the same God found in the Book of Mormon.

I don't think you've made a particularly strong case for God's moral goodness. What I think you have done is created a concept of good for limited deities and classified the LDS god as limited and powerless, but good nonetheless. For instance, you've said:

"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."

This may be true. In fact, let's assume it is true - human beings are completely responsible for their own spiritual shortcomings.

Then you say this about God:

"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."

If human beings are completely responsible for their shortcomings, why is the God you've described even necessary? If shortcomings cause eternal suffering, who cares if there is a God?

You state that God is a judge in this case - he separates the plagued from the healthy. OK, but how is that good? Is a God who is simply doing his duty, based on a rule that is higher than himself, good?

Hence, I fail to see how a powerless God is any better than an all powerful God in terms of moral goodness.

H.

[_KevinSim]

If human beings are completely responsible for their shortcomings, why is the God you've described even necessary? If shortcomings cause eternal suffering, who cares if there is a God?

LDSToronto, that's like saying, if human beings are completely responsible for their own physical health, why are doctors even necessary? They're necessary because no matter how much care we take of our physical health, sometimes we run into health problems that need a doctor's care. And they're also necessary when people who don't take care of their physical health get sick and realize they need professional help.

It's the same way with God, who I view as much closer to a spiritual physician than an authoritarian judge. If we live absolutely according to our consciences our entire lives then, yes, we wouldn't need God. But nobody does that. We all end up having problems with our consciences, problems with our spiritual health. But our spiritual physician knows how to cure spiritual sicknesses, so if we make use of His spiritual know-how we can be cured, and live lives free from our consciences tormenting us.

Hence, I fail to see how a powerless God is any better than an all powerful God in terms of moral goodness.

I didn't mean to say that if God is powerless then He must be good. Rather I meant to say that if God has power to do anything, including power to cause souls to cease to exist, and lets some souls suffer unbearable agony every moment for the rest of eternity, then that God can't be considered good. So such an all-powerful God is disqualified from being considered good by any rational measure, while a God who doesn't have the power to cause souls to cease to exist, is not disqualified. Such a God might have caused souls to cease to exist if He could, so maybe He is a good God; the former God, on the other hand, cannot be called good.