Nairobi attacks - you'll have seen this, no doubt.

[Plotinus]

Why does God have to be "perfectly good"?

Because God is pretty much defined as a perfect being, who is perfectly good. If there exists something which resembles God in other ways but isn't perfectly good, then it's not really God (it is, perhaps "a" god, but that's not the same thing). A god who isn't perfectly good would be unworthy of worship, for example.

Also, theists typically (though not universally) think that God is the source of morality, such that whatever God says is good (or does) is good by definition. On this view, God has to be perfectly good, because he defines what is good.

Doesn't this presume an anthropocentric view of God - a god whose intentions and actions conform to the human notion of good, which seems to be just what is good for human beings?

Theism is essentially anthropocentric, since theists believe that the values that human beings have are somehow fundamental to the universe. To say that the universe is created and maintained by a good God is to say that our distinction between "good" and "bad" is real and (literally) universal. Of course a theist isn't committed to the view that God's values are exactly the same as ours, or that what God considers good is exactly what we consider good. Most theists would deny that to some degree. But there has to be some overlap or similarity between the goodness of God and what we understand by "good", or there'd be no point using the word "good" to describe him at all.

Human beings are only a small part of creation. If creation is what it is.

In the immensity of time and space, why would human beings (in this tiny part of space, and this incredibly narrow window of time) figure at all greatly in any of God's calculations? A being, presumably, of infinite expanse and duration.

The theist's claim isn't that God takes our values into account, it's that our values derive from God. It is God who is primarily good, and our understanding of goodness is based on that, however imperfectly. Perhaps there are other beings elsewhere in the universe who also derive their understanding of goodness from God, in which case they'd have similar values to us.

All of this is going rather off-topic, though.

 

[CavLancer]

No ground zero Mosque, just the wrong place for it.

 

[Borachio]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/oct/04/westgate-mall-attacks-kenya-terror#part-six

Shopkeepers and store owners returned to find their properties looted. A clothes-shop owner said even his mannequins had been stripped: “They’ve broken everything. All my money is lost over there. All the cash is lost. Everything is shattered over there, laptops gone, everything.”

A day later, footage emerged of the inside of Artcaffe showing scores of empty beer and spirit bottles littering the tables and lining the bar, where only Kenyan security forces had any access during the siege.

The owners of the second floor Millionaire’s Casino – who had emptied the safe while the siege was still officially underway – returned four days later to discover that while the premises were under government control someone had attempted to shoot their way into the safe.


Kenya’s celebrated satirical cartoonist Gado captured the mood when he portrayed Kenyan soldiers – who had been feted for their bravery days before – running away from the ruined shopping centre carrying looted goods and drinking beers. After days of conflicting reports there was no longer any confidence in the authorities when they announced that the figure of 60 people missing had fallen to 39.

Two weeks later it remains unclear whether the militants ever held hostages in the conventional sense. Survivors who emerged from Westgate had been hiding from the attackers, not being held. There have been unconfirmed reports that some were tortured or mutilated during the siege, but doctors said it remains possible that the physical injuries could have been sustained by grenade fragments.

Despite the number of people missing, only three bodies have officially been recovered from the rubble of the mall. Two of those belonged to Kenyan soldiers whose remains were so badly mutilated that families had to give DNA samples to identify them.

The Kenyan government continues to insist that five attackers were killed by its security forces, but has admitted that none of their bodies has been conclusively identified so far. Forensics teams, including agents from the FBI, have found remains they believe may have belonged to at least one of the attackers, but the person has not been named.

On 1 October, facing mounting criticism of his administration’s handling of the Westgate attack, Kenyatta promised an official inquiry.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The same sort of looting was found to have occurred in the underground commercial section of the WTC after 9/11.

 

[Borachio]

Really? I didn't know that. Opportunists get everywhere, it seems.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It was apparently done by cops and firemen. Access to the area was highly restricted.

 

[Bamspeedy]

It was apparently done by cops and firemen. Access to the area was highly restricted.

You mean the two volunteers, one of whom was posing as a cop?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1558574.stm

 

[timtofly]

Because God is pretty much defined as a perfect being, who is perfectly good. If there exists something which resembles God in other ways but isn't perfectly good, then it's not really God (it is, perhaps "a" god, but that's not the same thing). A god who isn't perfectly good would be unworthy of worship, for example.

Also, theists typically (though not universally) think that God is the source of morality, such that whatever God says is good (or does) is good by definition. On this view, God has to be perfectly good, because he defines what is good.

Theism is essentially anthropocentric, since theists believe that the values that human beings have are somehow fundamental to the universe. To say that the universe is created and maintained by a good God is to say that our distinction between "good" and "bad" is real and (literally) universal. Of course a theist isn't committed to the view that God's values are exactly the same as ours, or that what God considers good is exactly what we consider good. Most theists would deny that to some degree. But there has to be some overlap or similarity between the goodness of God and what we understand by "good", or there'd be no point using the word "good" to describe him at all.

The theist's claim isn't that God takes our values into account, it's that our values derive from God. It is God who is primarily good, and our understanding of goodness is based on that, however imperfectly. Perhaps there are other beings elsewhere in the universe who also derive their understanding of goodness from God, in which case they'd have similar values to us.

All of this is going rather off-topic, though.

Most would claim that the Muslims claim the same God as Christians, yet this God is not entirely good. Also even in the Bible, it was said that God was only good and merciful to those he was good and merciful to. It is also said that God cares little for human righteousness and he even proved it by making laws that were very demanding. It seems to me the only thing that God held high was obedience. And that included killing others. Since those others were the recipients of the result of being disobedient to God.

Why is God not a hands on god? I think God is a hands on God, but God detest any disobedience at all that even the Hebrews had this notion that if a human approached God, they would die. That image was so ingrained in their psyche, that they claimed they could not even look at God. It has been said that God only respects those who obey all the way, or not at all. There is no middle moral ground. The reason IMO that God is not noticeably hands on, is that the human race and this current solar system has not run it's full course, and humans still have a voice in their destination.

The reason there is tribalism, is because God separated and isolated humans into different groups. Some even believe that if humans ever did settle their differences, that God would return and make things right. Funny thing is that the Jews, Muslims, and Christians who claim this God, refuse to come to such a peace agreement. God could be waiting until all obey him, or all reject him.

The counter argument, "why did God even bother at all?" is just a straw man, since He did bother and set up a course that ended in human suffering. One can even compare the two stories about Adam and Job. Whether or not they are just metaphors, God demands obedience, even in the good times and bad times.

Even the so-called grace age that Christ gave humans, was abandoned and the followers did take up the sword and attempted to build a kingdom on this earth. An earthly kingdom was the rallying cry for Muslims and Christians and they have waged a battle ever since the latter was formed. Does any one even remember what sits in the middle of the temple mount?

Now if war was the will of God in the OT, why is not in the NT? God made a new covenant with humans; one that did not need war, nor death. If those who are supposed to Know God, cannot get that right, how is any one else? I may be wrong but even with science it could be argued that most suffering could be erased and humans could have a relatively peaceful co-existence. So who is holding up the process? I have to look at myself and hope that it is not me.

 

[Borachio]

Because God is pretty much defined as a perfect being, who is perfectly good. If there exists something which resembles God in other ways but isn't perfectly good, then it's not really God (it is, perhaps "a" god, but that's not the same thing). A god who isn't perfectly good would be unworthy of worship, for example.

Also, theists typically (though not universally) think that God is the source of morality, such that whatever God says is good (or does) is good by definition. On this view, God has to be perfectly good, because he defines what is good.



Theism is essentially anthropocentric, since theists believe that the values that human beings have are somehow fundamental to the universe. To say that the universe is created and maintained by a good God is to say that our distinction between "good" and "bad" is real and (literally) universal. Of course a theist isn't committed to the view that God's values are exactly the same as ours, or that what God considers good is exactly what we consider good. Most theists would deny that to some degree. But there has to be some overlap or similarity between the goodness of God and what we understand by "good", or there'd be no point using the word "good" to describe him at all.



The theist's claim isn't that God takes our values into account, it's that our values derive from God. It is God who is primarily good, and our understanding of goodness is based on that, however imperfectly. Perhaps there are other beings elsewhere in the universe who also derive their understanding of goodness from God, in which case they'd have similar values to us.

All of this is going rather off-topic, though.

I'm not sure I agree with this. I mean, yes, of course if you're referring exclusively to Judeo-Christian writings on the subject I've no doubt you're completely right. But looking outside that, it's far from evident that God is necessarily, by definition, entirely good.

The Nordic gods were certainly not seen as good, even the principal one. And the same applies to the Greek and Roman ones. As for worshipping God it's as likely that people have thought it necessary to placate it as much as anything. And isn't that what people are really doing when they claim to be "worshipping", anyway?

Devotees of Kali the Destroyer would never claim that she is good, I guess.

While the Buddha's principal attribute is compassion, not goodness.

And Muslims with their Allahu Akbar, shouted repeatedly in times of danger, seem more concerned with the attribute of greatness than that of goodness.

Even within the Christian tradition (though I'm sure you're better acquainted with it than I am) I'd say people have emphasized the ineffable nature of God as much as its goodness. And when it comes to the problem of suffering and the existence of "evil" in the world, without some extreme case of double-think, it's hard to see how any sane and rational theist could accept the existence of a purely "good" God at all.

It all seems too narrow a conception of an entity (if there is any such thing, of course) who must, I think, be rather alien.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You mean the two volunteers, one of whom was posing as a cop?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1558574.stm

You mean you think two people did all that looting and attempted looting?

The newspaper said the looters had taken items from a watch store, raided cases of designer sunglasses in another shop, tried to pry open at least one cash register and penetrated the service room behind a row of bank automated teller machines, where steel safes appear to have prevented them from making off with cash.

The Times said the extent of the looting and those responsible for it were not known.

"They (the looters) could have been police officers, they could have been firefighters, they could have been contractors or National Guardsmen," said Capt. Vincent J. Heintz, the commander of a National Guard infantry unit on duty at the building.

The Times quoted Guard officials as saying that it was virtually impossible for civilians to reach the underground concourse, which is very tightly guarded.

The vaults below the complex that was the World Trade Centre were a vast and secret place. Not only did they hold some of the world's largest gold depositories, but they were home to stashes belonging to the CIA and secret service.

Seventy feet below ground is an array of goods that includes bricks of cocaine, fake taxi cabs used for covert operations, bomb-proof state cars and security files meant for the eyes of the CIA only - nice booty for potential looters.

As Brink's-Mat security vans brought out $200m (£137m) of gold from a safety store below 4 World Trade Centre, which was on the east side of the ruined complex, it emerged that someone had tried to get into the vaults, no doubt with robbery in mind.

Two weeks ago a security guard spotted scorch marks on a basement doorway which had not been noticed by a patrol team a few hours before. Behind the door were thousands of tonnes of gold and silver. It looked like someone had used a blowtorch and a crowbar and it prompted concerns that they may try to do so again. Video surveillance systems have now been installed.

As they dig amid the rubble, recovery workers are uncovering corridors and gangways that lead to the cavernous vaults below. The 16-acre basement has enough square footage to fill a building of greater proportion than the Empire State building. Engineers and recovery officials say that large parts of the underground storage rooms are undamaged.

Since September 11 very little has been said about the treasures that lie below what has become a mass grave. But down there are piles of old furniture, a mountain of Godiva chocolates, stacks of illegal assault weapons, as well as jewels and more gold and silver.

Beneath the customs house - 6 World Trade Centre - was a fleet of government vehicles, including dozens owned by the secret service. The cars were kept in a sealed-off area, part of which was a garage which housed a single armoured limousine used to carry heads of state and dignitaries visiting the city.

The building also housed an office of the CIA containing drugs, weapons and contraband seized by customs officers. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms also lost two evidence vaults, according to a spokesman.

"There could be several hundred weapons - somewhere between 200 and 400, ranging from small-calibre semi-automatic pistols to assault rifles," he told the New York Times.

He said agents plan to be on the scene when the remains of the building are demolished some time in the next two weeks. "After that, we'll be working at the landfill to search for any missing items."

 

[Bamspeedy]

You mean you think two people did all that looting and attempted looting?

The looting at the apartments were most likely not these two people, I was just referring to the looting at the mall complex. It's not hard to believe if the guys took the watches that they also grabbed some sunglasses. The attempted looting is just that, an attempt. Is it hard to believe that after they failed to get some cash they grabbed some merchandise instead? They could have been firemen or cops or they could have been rescue workers or could have been volunteers, unless they were caught we won't know.
The guard officials said it was impossible for civilians to reach the area, but it's proven at least two did.

 

[Plotinus]

I'm not sure I agree with this. I mean, yes, of course if you're referring exclusively to Judeo-Christian writings on the subject I've no doubt you're completely right. But looking outside that, it's far from evident that God is necessarily, by definition, entirely good.

The Nordic gods were certainly not seen as good, even the principal one. And the same applies to the Greek and Roman ones. As for worshipping God it's as likely that people have thought it necessary to placate it as much as anything. And isn't that what people are really doing when they claim to be "worshipping", anyway?

Devotees of Kali the Destroyer would never claim that she is good, I guess.

While the Buddha's principal attribute is compassion, not goodness.

Those are all gods, not God (and I'm not sure the Buddha counts even as a god). There's a difference. The notion of God as opposed to a god comes not just from Judaism and Christianity but from Greek philosophy too, and that's what really gives rise to the idea that God is by definition perfect. You find this in Plato and (even more) the later Platonists and also the Stoics, and Aristotle too. This is God in the sense of the creator and source of the universe, from whom all being flows, the ultimate explanation of everything. In medieval and early modern philosophy God is even the explanation for all that is possible, not just all that is actual; God is literally "logical space", without which even thinking would be impossible. That's quite different from the various deities found in various pantheons. The "God of the philosophers" must be good or he wouldn't be a genuine explanation for everything.

You might say there could be a super-powerful being that isn't perfectly good, and perhaps there even is, but I don't see how such a thing could count as divine. If you're going to call such a thing "God" you might as well call your dog "God", because what does the word even mean?

And Muslims with their Allahu Akbar, shouted repeatedly in times of danger, seem more concerned with the attribute of greatness than that of goodness.

Is there a difference? Anselm called God "that than which no greater can be conceived", but he thought of goodness as part of greatness.

Even within the Christian tradition (though I'm sure you're better acquainted with it than I am) I'd say people have emphasized the ineffable nature of God as much as its goodness. And when it comes to the problem of suffering and the existence of "evil" in the world, without some extreme case of double-think, it's hard to see how any sane and rational theist could accept the existence of a purely "good" God at all.

It may be hard to see how they could, but it's a fact that they do, even whilst being perfectly sane and rational.

It all seems too narrow a conception of an entity (if there is any such thing, of course) who must, I think, be rather alien.

I don't see why God must[/] be alien. God, as usually understood, is at least tolerably comprehensible to human beings; if he weren't, he couldn't be called good at all (or powerful, or wise, or any of the other things he's called).

 

[Lone Wolf]

If you're going to call such a thing "God" you might as well call your dog "God", because what does the word even mean?

"Extremely powerful creator of the Universe"?

 

[Lord Baal]

Technically, The Lord is a cat.