Is A Benevolent God Logical?

[Rivers]

 In Mormonism, we often speak of God a loving Father in heaven. The scariest thought that has ever come to my mind is the possibility that God is not good.  I shudder at the possibility that the fire-and-brimstone God preached by Jonathon Edwards is the real God.  But is saying, "A loving God would never be like that" a fair argument to make? 

[Stroopwafel]

Many do feel it is a fair argument. This is what we call the problem of evil. It goes something like this: How could a benevolent God allow so much suffering in this world? If he cannot prevent it, he is not all powerful. And if he doesn't want to, he isn't all loving (and may actually be evil, sadistic, etc.).
 

The standard answer to this problem in the church has been to respond that God gave us free will, so the evils of this world are caused by a misguided use of this gift. We are free to do what we want, but not choose the consequences. We need to learn from our mistakes. Eternal perspective. Yadi yadi yada.

 

But are all evils present in this world really necessary for "our own good"? Think about the worst things that can happen to someone in this life. Then try thinking something even worst. Now, people in this world have had such experiences, which are hard for people living in prosperity to fully grasp. Does the greater good justify any evil?

[JLHPROF]

The "a loving God wouldn't do that" argument is one of my pet peeves because it makes God in our own ideals and I have posted against the idea on several occasions.
God can be both a loving Father AND send down fire and brimstone. It is a false dichotomy to say otherwise.
God IS good. Sometimes mankind is not and good must stop us in our paths, especially if it could prevent his righteous work being completed (as on the Laban thread).
Just because we don't fully understand the fire and brimstone doesn't make it any less good or God any less good for sending it.

Edited June 5, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Nofear]

Most of the problems with the "why do bad things happen then?" argument is that it is incredibly myopic. This world isn't around for us to be happy, happy, joy, joy all the time. It is primarily a test and growing opportunity. Bad things happen because they are conducive to those two purposes (test and growth). And those purposes are good.

 

The post-mortality phase of our existence is precisely the place people are thinking of when it comes to bad things not being necessary. And that trouble free state is what happens. The trials, woes, afflictions that we now suffer are simply not part of any of the three degrees of glory.

[Maedros]

The evil in this world has its source in Satan - he is the moving force. God is a good contingency planner - for every act of evil that Satan can concoct, the Lord has a contingency plan - I think the whole purpose of earth life is to be in a war zone and survive. God is the source of all good (of that I have no doubt) and he doesn't punish, he doesn't condemn and he doesn't delight in suffering or the death of man (temporal and spiritual) - every bad thing that happens to us including excommunication is a consequence of our actions or the actions of others. I think that the world and all the powers (good and bad) are already here and that the war which started in heaven is as real as any war in the world - we are in the crossfire and the gospel plan navigates the path that we must follow. We access the good and bad powers or energies by our agency - we can access the power of comfort in trials by this agency - we can forgive and we can endure by the use of the power. We must rely on God but we must also rely on ourselves - He doesn't really owe us anything - it sounds bad but it isn't really. The doctrine of the fall is the key (i think) to understanding this conundrum. I've experienced some tragedies which have led me to question God and even once curse God but when you yield to the enticings of the Spirit and you accept then you see the hand of God even in suffering, even in the moment of pain - you have peace. People who have endured hardships have great faith - I can even say more faith than those who have not just like Alma the senior had more faith than his son until Alma junior went through his own trial and developed the faith of his father. God sits in yonder heavens and carries on with his existence - all the support that we need is already here on the planet, we just need to access it by using our own power (which God the Benevolent) has given us. A good read is "Satan and the Tree of Life" by Jeffrey M. Bradshaw and Ronan James Head. The devil and his servants are our real enemy - once we accept this we rely more on God.

[sandude]

I've always liked the description of the world as "a veil of tears".  In the eternities our time spent here is but an instant.  Nobody gets a free ride.  We all get our butts kicked along the way. A loving parent will give a child a spoonful of bitter medicine in order to heal a malady. Some of us get a bigger spoonful than others but nobody skips out.  Christ by far had the biggest helping. Our experiences here are necessary for our growth.

[stemelbow]

I'm pretty much the opposite of JHLPROF on this. Some of the deeds attributed to God, or said to be sanctioned by God as found in scripture, make this question stand out to me. I feel like it's reasonable to conclude that that which is attributed to God really isn't God. It is man's effort to pin it on God.

I give LDS a slight edge as it relates to the problem of evil over every other Christian tradition I've come across. Within the realm of Mormonism it's much easier to argue God did not do creation out of nothing; thus all that is did not originate in His conception. Evil as it is, comes from beings who are eternal and not from His creating out of nothing.

[The Nehor]

A benevolent God is only logical if you communicate with said loving God and find him to be loving. There is a reason that in most pagan mythologies most of the gods are capricious and often outright cruel.. Life is capricious and often cruel.

Eternity is fortunately nothing like this life.

[JLHPROF]

I'm pretty much the opposite of JHLPROF on this. Some of the deeds attributed to God, or said to be sanctioned by God as found in scripture, make this question stand out to me. I feel like it's reasonable to conclude that that which is attributed to God really isn't God. It is man's effort to pin it on God.

 

This is focusing on mans actions on behalf of God.  And I agree that some are from God and some are just man blaming God.

 

It is the actions of God himself towards mankind that lead to my belief that: "God can be both a loving Father AND send down fire and brimstone.  Sometimes mankind is not and good must stop us in our paths".

 

When God directed the Israelites to wipe out another nation we can debate whether that was man thinking it was from God or actually from God.  I agree with that debate.

 

When the wicked are burned as stubble that will be a loving God doing what needs to be done.  Scripture is clear that God loves us all, but that he chastens and takes peoples lives when necessary too.  That should not be debatable if you believe the scriptures.

[stemelbow]

This is focusing on mans actions on behalf of God.  And I agree that some are from God and some are just man blaming God.

 

It is the actions of God himself towards mankind that lead to my belief that: "God can be both a loving Father AND send down fire and brimstone.  Sometimes mankind is not and good must stop us in our paths".

 

When God directed the Israelites to wipe out another nation we can debate whether that was man thinking it was from God or actually from God.  I agree with that debate.

 

When the wicked are burned as stubble that will be a loving God doing what needs to be done.  Scripture is clear that God loves us all, but that he chastens and takes peoples lives when necessary too.  That should not be debatable if you believe the scriptures.

The wicked burning as stubble seems metaphoric to me. So I'm not sure God would advocate wiping out large populations. He seems more concerned with the individual to me, some scriptural stories that tend to support the notion that God wants to reign vengeance on others seem like perfect candidates for men putting ideas on God, seeing as is often the case men tend to view others as evil/bad and deserving of God's condemnation.

But I can appreciate your point of you, and am glad you offered these clarifications.

[Damien the Leper]

Isaiah 45:7 seems pretty clear. Attempts to refute that will be very problematic.

[thesometimesaint]

Enjoy.

SEE

[Sp0ckrates]

In Mormonism, we often speak of God a loving Father in heaven. The scariest thought that has ever come to my mind is the possibility that God is not good. I shudder at the possibility that the fire-and-brimstone God preached by Jonathon Edwards is the real God. But is saying, "A loving God would never be like that" a fair argument to make?

A different argument--though not necessarily better--might be to ask something like this: Would a just God ever condemn a good person to hell simply because she had never heard the gospel?

I think Mormons and Catholics are two groups who would answer the question by saying, "No. A just God would never do that." I'm sure there are others who believe the same.

Edited June 5, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[Mystery Meat]

Enjoy.

SEE

 

Good listen, thanks for sharing.

 

But Mr. deGrasse Tyson is setting up a false dichotomy. I believe it is possible for God to be both All Good (all loving) and All Powerful, in fact the scriptures say as much. It is not all that difficult to understand, then, how bad, terrible and even catastrophic things happen, not just at the hands of men, but by nature and by God himself and yet none of that diminishes God's goodness. But in order to understand this one must be looking at things with an eternal perspective.

[stemelbow]

Isaiah 45:7 seems pretty clear. Attempts to refute that will be very problematic.

meh...I don't read metaphysics into Isaiah. It seems rather devotional at this juncture, explaining to whom can we find light and peace.

[Stroopwafel]

The "a loving God wouldn't do that" argument is one of my pet peeves because it makes God in our own ideals and I have posted against the idea on several occasions.

God can be both a loving Father AND send down fire and brimstone. It is a false dichotomy to say otherwise.

God IS good. Sometimes mankind is not and good must stop us in our paths, especially if it could prevent his righteous work being completed (as on the Laban thread).

Just because we don't fully understand the fire and brimstone doesn't make it any less good or God any less good for sending it.

 

You talk about God sending down fire and brimstone in order to put humanity back on tracks. Fine. But the problem of evil goes deeper than that. For instance, is it really necessary to have terrible things happen down at the individual level? It may be appropriate for a loving father to chastise his children for their own good every once in a while, but what about a father that could save his children from suffering terrible things. Is it really being loving? Yes I know, Jesus, atonement, etc. But, do you really believe that this makes a lot of sense to those people that were sexually abused and suffered terrible things in their first years of life (infants, 4-5 year olds) to be told that this was indeed a necessary part of their spiritual progression from an eternal perspective? And if they don't seem to understand see it, do you just suppose that they must be approaching the issue from the wrong angle?

[Mystery Meat]

You talk about God sending down fire and brimstone in order to put humanity back on tracks. Fine. But the problem of evil goes deeper than that. For instance, is it really necessary to have terrible things happen down at the individual level? It may be appropriate for a loving father to chastise his children for their own good every once in a while, but what about a father that could save his children from suffering terrible things. Is it really being loving? Yes I know, Jesus, atonement, etc. But, do you really believe that this makes a lot of sense to those people that were sexually abused and suffered terrible things in their first years of life (infants, 4-5 year olds) to be told that this was indeed a necessary part of their spiritual progression from an eternal perspective? And if they don't seem to understand see it, do you just suppose that they must be approaching the issue from the wrong angle?

 

That's a whole lot of putting words in JLHPROF's mouth that I don't think he ever said.

[JLHPROF]

You talk about God sending down fire and brimstone in order to put humanity back on tracks. Fine. But the problem of evil goes deeper than that. For instance, is it really necessary to have terrible things happen down at the individual level? It may be appropriate for a loving father to chastise his children for their own good every once in a while, but what about a father that could save his children from suffering terrible things. Is it really being loving? Yes I know, Jesus, atonement, etc. But, do you really believe that this makes a lot of sense to those people that were sexually abused and suffered terrible things in their first years of life (infants, 4-5 year olds) to be told that this was indeed a necessary part of their spiritual progression from an eternal perspective? And if they don't seem to understand see it, do you just suppose that they must be approaching the issue from the wrong angle?

 

I cannot speak to the mind and will of God in allowing innocents to suffer.  I really can't.  Christ was perfectly innocent and suffered more than anyone ever did on the earth.  Innocents suffer every day.

 

All I know on this are three things:

1. God is perfect and loves us more than we can ever know

2. Man has agency and is very imperfect

3. The adversary has a lot of influence

 

I don't know why God allows abuse and the like.  But I do know that believing that because God loves us and is a loving Father he would never send the fire and brimstone is an incorrect view of God.  And that was the question posed by the OP.  The "a loving God wouldn't do that" argument doesn't hold water unless you have a perfect understanding of God's love.  I sure don't.

[Stroopwafel]

That's a whole lot of putting words in JLHPROF's mouth that I don't think he ever said.

I don't think I've put words in his mouth. The (rhetorical) questions I asked were to make clear that the problem of evil is about more than just grand scale disasters.

[thesometimesaint]

Good listen, thanks for sharing.

 

But Mr. deGrasse Tyson is setting up a false dichotomy. I believe it is possible for God to be both All Good (all loving) and All Powerful, in fact the scriptures say as much. It is not all that difficult to understand, then, how bad, terrible and even catastrophic things happen, not just at the hands of men, but by nature and by God himself and yet none of that diminishes God's goodness. But in order to understand this one must be looking at things with an eternal perspective.

 

I agree that an eternal perspective is a requirement. If our atheistic friends are correct it all falls apart if it is just this life and then the abyss.

[Rivers]

A different argument--though not necessarily better--might be to ask something like this: Would a just God ever condemn a good person to hell simply because she had never heard the gospel?

I think Mormons and Catholics are two groups who would answer the question by saying, "No. A just God would never do that." I'm sure there are others who believe the same.

My belief is that a God that sends people to an eternal Hell for not believing in Christ in this life absolutely not benevolent. It makes no sense to me. This kind of God is a monster. Is it reasonable to be confident that God is not a monster?

[JLHPROF]

My belief is that a God that sends people to an eternal Hell for not believing in Christ in this life absolutely not benevolent. It makes no sense to me. This kind of God is a monster. Is it reasonable to be confident that God is not a monster?

 

Fortunately, that God does not exist.

But a merciful and just God that follows law does.  And there results to every law accepted and every law broken.

Believing in Christ is required for some blessings.  Willingly rejecting Christ has certain results.

[Damien the Leper]

meh...I don't read metaphysics into Isaiah. It seems rather devotional at this juncture, explaining to whom can we find light and peace.

A misinformed reading of the text would suggest that the evil God creates is the evil of punishment and not the evil of sin. This is horribly false and unsupported.

[Stroopwafel]

I cannot speak to the mind and will of God in allowing innocents to suffer.  I really can't.  Christ was perfectly innocent and suffered more than anyone ever did on the earth.  Innocents suffer every day.

 

All I know on this are three things:

1. God is perfect and loves us more than we can ever know

2. Man has agency and is very imperfect

3. The adversary has a lot of influence

 

I don't know why God allows abuse and the like.  But I do know that believing that because God loves us and is a loving Father he would never send the fire and brimstone is an incorrect view of God.  And that was the question posed by the OP.  The "a loving God wouldn't do that" argument doesn't hold water unless you have a perfect understanding of God's love.  I sure don't.

 

I know this explanation makes sense from an LDS context, so in a way can be said to be "logical". But basically, this answer boils down to saying: "his ways are not our ways, and everything will be fine in the end." I was ok with that before, but somehow, the more I think about it, the more I find this inadequate, and sort of avoiding the question. Still, I appreciate and thank you for your honest reply.

[Nofear]

I know this explanation makes sense from an LDS context, so in a way can be said to be "logical". But basically, this answer boils down to saying: "his ways are not our ways, and everything will be fine in the end." I was ok with that before, but somehow, the more I think about it, the more I find this inadequate, and sort of avoiding the question. Still, I appreciate and thank you for your honest reply.

 

God also has a lot to balance. Suppose it would do my family a lot of good to give me $1,000,000 out of the blue. Suppose the same thing was (and may well be true) for tens of thousands or millions of others. But, were the million handed out to each of us it would cause, in the aggregate harm to everybody. That is, if it occurred to any one family, it would do them good and not hurt society. But do that for all the "any one" families and harm results. God has a lot to balance. His ways are not are ways -- we lack perspective. This is just one simplistic example which nonetheless can be extended and applied in innumerable ways.

 

And of course we can never forget that this life is supposed to be a test and learning experience. We need the opportunity for us to see what happens when we humans try it our own way. The result is not good. After mortality all of us will be compelled by experience, and not compulsion, to acknowledge the wisdom and prudence of God's governance in post mortal society.