Should a monotheistic God ever be considered good or great?

This is a separate, if related, consideration from your previous questioning to which my answer referred, of whether it would be really be a foregone conclusion that we can't ever stop a deity doing what it wants. As in God's will, will be done, etc.

As for any evidence, or a reason required to ask a deity to reconsider, or act differently, or just plain intercede when things go bad, one might wonder why mercy (which is what we are essentially talking of here) especially from a purportedly all-loving and caring God would need reasons, or demand evidence at all. After all does one need 'evidence', or 'reasons', to love family? Such verses as Ps86:5 say clearly "You, Lord are forgiving and good, abounding in love for all who call on you" - without the caveat " ... as long as there is good evidence or reason." Furthermore, if - as faithists are often prone to do - someone calls upon God to change things, it is assumed that the omniscient Almighty might know the why already. Of course, one might argue instead that mercy ought to be 'justified' more than evidenced - a slightly different, and stronger, emphasis. But surely everything God does is justified, by definition?



If appealing to gods is really not worth concerning ourselves with then from the human perspective at least, this rather make prayers, and much of praise for instance, just an exercise in celestial vanity. However the notion of an 'absentee landlord' deity, one who just created and then doesn't care more for his handiwork however we whine and appeal against what would be, essentially, just fate has a long philosophical tradition.




This assumes that exercising flexibility can not result in new levels of conduct, which is not necessarily the case. If a god for instance was flexible on allowing his agents to rape and mutilate through justified action of war then standards, by most people's reckoning, will certainly have changed. [Judges 5:30 ; Zechariah 14:1-2; 1 Samuel 18:25 etc]

See above. It is also arguable that the god of the NT is not of the same ilk as that of the Old, but is represented to a different standard of softness - probably since, well, times had moved on some and the presentation was for a different audience while still reassuring that not a jot of the old laws had changed. Also, since we are assured God 'moves in mysterious ways' it is not sure that (reflecting your argument at the opening of this exchange) we would find evidence of his untrustworthiness that was reliable and true, only something which human understanding might necessarily not understand and misrepresent. It would also be unwise, following God's actions of any sort, to judge Him at all. Apparently your god doesn't like that.

And thinking about it, in one way, don't the 7 various covenants of the Bible reflect standards and expectations, at least in some way for the behaviour of the deity? Standards which weren't in place before?

I'd say supposedly coming to earth in person, and stimulating a whole new half of scripture with a fresh emphasis was quite a big 'tweak'. Many people would agree that, broadly speaking, the God of the Old Testament is a God of wrath, while the God of the New Testament is a God of love. The Bible is supposedly God’s progressive revelation of Himself to mankind through historical events and through His relationship with people throughout history. It hardly needs saying but any progression implies a movement of sorts. But, hey it's your religion. I can only repeat honestly what the impression is for the objective reader, although I can see your need to explain otherwise.

"The God of the Old Testament is utterly unlike the God believed in by most practicing Christians. He is an all-too-human deity with the human failings, weaknesses, and passions of men—but on a grand scale. His justice is, by modern standards, outrageous, and his prejudices are deep-seated and inflexible. He is biased, querulous, vindictive, and jealous of his prerogatives" (The agnostic writer, Charles Templeton, widely quoted)


By telling Noah that the Flood will never happen again the new standard for world-wide genocide by inundation has necessarily changed: to that now of a 'never event'. See how it works?


It was a joke, to emphasise the point. Surely you have read about the claims of some of the most devoutly-challenged in attributing disaster to God's supposed modern day wrath on the ungodly. This however is not the standard which most of His followers now attribute to Him.