Should a monotheistic God ever be considered good or great?

FilmFlaneur

You can't but I'm not sure why that would be an issue. What would be the reason to stop God if there's no evidence of a need to do so?

Humans need to come to grips with the notion that they don't have the ability to stop most things so why be concerned about stopping God?
While not the point of that conversation, flexibility is not the same thing as acting in a new way and thus there is no new standard.

AJ was making an argument of both it is impossible for him to change his standards but still needing to be prepared in case the impossible happens and I was just giving an example of if the impossible happens. So God changing over to a new standard if possible would make him untrustworthy
God didn't tweak anything in the NT sop there was no change of standard there.

His standard did not change for the Flood as he has always stated wicked people will die.

I have no idea what you are talking about regarding earthquakes and punishing gay people. I assume that was a conversation I inherited from someone else.

I think there was a discussion some months ago about the notion of who deserves the truth to be told to them, but I would have to search which thread to find it.

Basically, it is a part of God's standards to tell the truth to all that deserve it and the verses you brought out merely verify that. There doesn't appear to be anything wrong with using deception as part of the punishment for willful disobedience or being adversarial to God and his people.2 Thessalonians 2

So the verses clearly show that have already bought into Satan's deceptions. Verse 11 is the judgment itself and not what leads to it. In short, because people ignored what was true and embraced what was false, God was going to allow them to be devout to it.

Really, it would hardly be deceptive anyway if God is telling us what will happen ahead of time which was what the chapter was about.

I don't know why I do this though. I can't recall a time when provide in context verses over the one verse has amount to anything other than "Derp, the one verse says this!"

Same thing with 1 Kings 22. I feel I need to explain the chapter since you didn't read it
The King of Osrael was Ahab, husbad of Jezebel. He willingly for years denied worship to God and ignored a true prophet of God in favor of his own counselors. The srtory continues...
Again, God honestly told him ahead of time what was going to happen although by then it was too late anyway.

I don't accept your first sentence.  It seems your argument is resting on ideas or definitions of God held by the mostly well-known monotheistic religions, but even in that case there is debate among their adherents (at least for Christianity; see Omnipotence paradox).  And more generally, why does a "sole dispenser of justice" necessarily need to know everything?

I don't even accept that a monotheistic God cannot be born.  In many ways that one might define God (say, as one that has awesome "godlike" powers), it's perfectly conceivable that such a being could develop from humbler origins.  It's even possible to imagine that God doesn't exist yet, but will soon (via evolution or growth of artificial intelligence).  That might sound a bit crazy, but we are talking about something which many suspect is fictional (which I understand has fewer rules to follow than reality).

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.

So where in the Bible does it say that your preferred deity is not everywhere, does not have unlimited understanding or has its power circumscribed?

You mean besides all the places that say he wants us to choose, that he is surprised by particular actions, that he resides in heaven, and that there are things he can't do?

Are you wanting me to just transcribe the Bible over to the thread.

Not sure there room in the post.

I would like for you to show me a verse that indicates he MUST know all things at all times or one that shows he has done everything that can be done - possible or impossible.

I can only assume you were already scrolling through your rolodex of Bible verses to prove me wrong.

It's not like they haven;t been used before, but I'll try to show you how you ascribe too much into them.