Tycho:
You seem to be entirely comfortable with this description of God, TitL, which I find a bit surprising. In my eyes, it seems to imply some negative things about Him. Are you just assuming that whatever He does must be good, even if it looks bad, because it's God doing it?
Trust in the Lord:
From what I have stated, I don't feel there are any negative qualities about God. I think they are positive. In the end, I am assuming whatever happens will be for Good.
I think the former is a direct consequence of the latter. You don't feel there are any negative qualities about God, because you
assume that no matter what He does, it's a good thing. Once you assume that whatever happens will be for the good, you've effectively stopped looking at the evidence (you might still see it, but it won't affect your conclusion in anyway). That seems like entirely the wrong order of things, in my mind. You should based your opinion of God on His actions, not your opinion of His actions based on your beliefs about Him. The former way has the nice property of being able to correct yourself if you start out with the wrong beliefs, whereas the latter doesn't.
Tycho:
You used the analogy of a CEO of a large company who allows his employees to handle some decision making. If a CEO knows his employees are doing something wrong (say breaking a law to make extra money), and does nothing about it, would you say that CEO is responsible for the crime in anyway? Can/should such a CEO be held accountable for allowing his employees to break the law? I would think that you'd say the CEO in this situation bears some blame, and should be held accountable for allowing his employees to break the law. Shouldn't the same thinking be applied to God, then? If he knowingly allows things like the holocaust, doesn't He bear some responsibility for them?
Trust in the Lord:
I don't think everything bad allowed does mean God is now responsible for it. Ultimately, we take responsibility for things that can be prevented, but the reason we prevent something is undue hardship, safety, etc. While God purpose is different than ours. God does not need to make sure we don't see hardship or struggles. It is with in the intent that changes the action.
But, just for the record, do you consider the CEO responsibly for actions he allows to be taken by his employees? Also, you say "God's purpose is different than ours." You say He doesn't want to avoid hardship or struggles (and, by implication, genocide, rape, murder, slavery, etc.). But, at the same time, you do think there
are in fact things He does want to avoid, right? People following other Gods, for example? And yet, He intentionally allows governments to enforce state religions that don't follow Him, right? It seems to follow that if God intentionally allows a country's government to impose Islam as a state religion, then God
wants that country to have Islam as a state religion, right? Doesn't that seem rather odd to you?
Trust in the Lord:
The difference between murder and self defense that both have people dying is clearly in the intent.
Would you agree that intent does make a difference?
I wouldn't say that's the only difference (the consequences for the killer not killing in each case is a bigger difference, one could argue), but yes, intent does matter. This, though, is sort of my point. A human that
intends for others to suffer is usually considered evil. But when God
intends for people to suffer, you believe it's good. This is what I'm saying about the implications of your position. The implications about the
intents of God aren't very flattering to Him, if what you're saying is true.
Tycho:
You also say that it's good for God to cause people to suffer in order to make them depend on Him more. But would you say the same of human? If a human made another human suffer for no other reason than to make the sufferer more dependent on the pain-causer, I wouldn't think highly of that person. Would you?
Trust in the Lord:
I wouldn't think very well of the person either.
Clearly though, a person does not see the end result, the ramifications of those actions, while God can clearly see the end result, and see what would help the person the most.
So imagine if God, an all knowing, all powerful and all loving God were in control, or imagine Tycho was in control. Certainly you can understand that most likely I can guess just about everyone in the world, except for Tycho, would want the all knowing, all powerful, and all loving God in control.
Except the trouble here is that you're
assuming God is all loving, and just trusting that everything He does is an act of love because of that assumption. I'm looking at the actions, and saying "hmm...that doesn't look very loving to me. In fact, it looks sadistic, cruel, and evil." By
assuming that everything God does is good, you're creating a possibility in which God could commit horrible atrocities and you'd still cheer Him on for it, even as evil was being committed right before your eyes. What you're describing is pretty much the definition of "blind" faith: believing what you believe
regardless of what you see. If you believe God is good
no matter what He does, that's blind faith, in the blindest sense of the word. And it's not just faith in God, it's faith
in your own initial judgment about Him. You're not just trusting that God is good, you're trying TitL is correct to
assume that He is good, because you've given up the option of letting evidence change your mind. Someone who lets God's proposed actions guide his views on God can have his mind changed either way. He could end up saying "hmm, I thought God wasn't so great, but now that I've seen X, I think He is," or he could say "hmm, I though God was great, but since I've seen Y, I'm not so sure." He could even change his mind back and forth many times. Once a person decides "everything God does is good, no matter what it is," though, no further evidence can every change their mind. Likewise if you decide everything God does is wrong, though, I don't know of anyone who believes in God, but thinks He's completely evil.
Yes, we're only human, and can't see everything. But that doesn't mean, I would argue, that we should ignore what we can see. It's not perfect, but it's all we've got to go on, as fallible humans. I think knowing that we're imperfect, we should be all the more hesitant to take positions that preclude changing our minds when we get new information.
You say the whole world would want God in control instead of Tycho, but you set it up by describing God as "all knowing, all loving, all powerful, yada yada yada." But if we set it up as "God who wanted the holocaust to happen, God who wants oppressive governments in power, God who wants the innocent to suffer so that they depend on Him more," I think you might get a different answer. And again, that's what it comes down to: do you judge God by His actions, or His actions by the fact that He's God? Is His goodness, omnipotence, and all-lovingness assumptions, or conclusions? If the former, you could just as well assume them about Tycho, or katisara, or TitL or Falkus, or anyone.