[nicoburns]

> It also follows that if God made the universe, and the universe has goodness in it, then God either created goodness too or he IS goodness

Doesn't that argument apply equally to "badness" (I guess "evil" might be the more idiomatic term): if God made the universe, and the universe has badness in it, then God either created badness too or he IS badness. Therefore, God is bad.

> In Christianity, this is theologically explained as "God is good and the source of all good, his will is good and to go against his will is therefore bad"

Of course the question is why we ought to believe this as opposed to following our own moral convictions. And from my perhaps cynical perspective, this seems to be what Christians do anyway (moral views vary dramatically within Christianity): they just ascribe their own moral views to God.

[throw0101b]

> Doesn't that argument apply equally to "badness" (I guess "evil" might be the more idiomatic term): if God made the universe, and the universe has badness in it, then God either created badness too or he IS badness.

Aquinas covered this in the 1200s, "Whether the supreme good, God, is the cause of evil?":

* https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1049.htm#article2

> Of course the question is why we ought to believe this as opposed to following our own moral convictions.

You say slavery is bad. I say slavery is fine. You can follow your mortal convictions (and not have slaves), and I'll follow mine (and run a cotton plantation). But the two statements are contradictory, so which of us is following the "correct" one?

Of course this assumes that there is an objective moral code—which begs the question on where it would come from.

[I_Am_Nous]

Consider a light source in front of a shutter. The light is the positive, additive energy that flows through the shutter when it is open. If you close the shutter, are you creating darkness? Or is the light just no longer illuminating anything past the shutter? Is a heart which won't let God in dark because it is emanating something, or because it lacks something?

Regarding moral convictions, that one's obviously true. Everyone from Luther to Wesley were interpreting the Bible in new ways after the reformation, so it's no surprise "interpret it yourself" became people's primary strategy.

That said, for a baptized Christian, we receive the Holy Spirit (aka the Paraclete, or counselor). Christians are encouraged to read the Bible so the Holy Spirit can call those verses to mind when they are relevant to something, such as seeing a hungry person and hearing "Feed my lambs" in your heart.

So while having an authority structure is good for some, others don't need it. I described the Bible to my father in law as "the rules of the beach - follow them or you'll get kicked out of the beach. That's enough for some people to never commit grave sin, just knowing the rules. Sometimes it's more complicated than that." The Holy Spirit fills in that gap and helps guide us even when the Bible didn't explicitly say something it couldn't have known like "don't cyberbully people because it's a sin."

Of course from the outside looking in, that just sounds like "your conscience" in some respects, but your conscience affects you after an act, not before it. The Holy Spirit is our guide in this world and is the one who speaks what needs to be said as Jesus told his disciples not to worry about what they are to say to authorities when brought to court, as the Holy Spirit will give them what they should say when they get there.

Obviously people can and do ignore the Holy Spirit, but that doesn't mean he isn't still helping them.