The Righteousness Of God

[Svartalf]

Thanks for THAT headache, it's one that I won't regret having had

[camoguard]

God really could have spoiled some Science and Technology information and made me like him better if a God existed.

[Feck]

As this thread is dragging on and we haven't even got around to questioning the tooth fairies generosity .

I found a nice quote

Brian Davies, a philosopher and Christian (specifically, a Dominican friar), has argued that the argument from evil errs in its assumption that God is perfectly good. God is perfectly good, according to Davies, but not in the sense that gives rise to the problem of evil. If Davies is correct, then almost all discussion of the problem of evil rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of God’s nature.
The argument from evil assumes that God is perfectly morally good. If God’s perfect goodness were of another kind than moral goodness, then it would be perfectly consistent with his allowing evil to occur.
There are many different types of goodness and perfection; what makes for a perfect wife is very different to what makes for a perfect racehorse, for example. When we describe something as good, what properties we are attributing to it will depend on what kind of thing it is. To describe something as good is to to say that it is a good example of a particular kind of thing, that it possesses those properties that things of that kind should possess. The conditions for goodness are thus relative to what kind of thing something is.
The conditions for being a good God, though, according to Davies, have nothing to do with moral goodness, because God is the wrong kind of thing to be described as morally good. Moral goodness is to do with fulfilling one’s duties, acting in the way that one ought to act. God, though, has all authority over Creation; he has no duties; there is no way that he ought to act. To describe God either as morally good or as morally bad is therefore a mistake, according to Davies; God is an amoral being. God’s perfection, then, does not imply moral goodness, and so does not entail that he will prevent evil from occurring.

[camoguard]

I'm not against a debate. But one should be more formal and deal with a short list of items on each post. And then those items should be figured out and then the result of that should dictate the rebuttals. Debates should be a practice in something elegant no matter the topic.

[A Monkey Shaved]

The use of caps to start sentences perhaps?

Oh - and welcome!

Or least just have a lower case "g" for god for more consistancy

[Hermit]

The use of caps to start sentences perhaps?

Oh - and welcome!

Or least just have a lower case "g" for god for more consistancy

I love it when people advise on spelling and grammar while stuffing it up themselves. Consistancy?

Buschmaster, by the way, departed, taking his cricket bat with him as he left. He obliterated every post he made along the way. He seems to have problems maintaining his composure when the replies he gets are not to his liking.

[Feck]

So just a drive- by then oh well

[mistermack]

Buschmaster, by the way, departed, taking his cricket bat with him as he left. He obliterated every post he made along the way.

I didn't know you could. How do you do that? Not that I'm contemplating it. (sorry!)
.

[Hermit]

Buschmaster, by the way, departed, taking his cricket bat with him as he left. He obliterated every post he made along the way.

I didn't know you could. How do you do that?

He edited all of his 19 posts by deleting what he originally said and replacing it with ellipses.

[mistermack]

Buschmaster, by the way, departed, taking his cricket bat with him as he left. He obliterated every post he made along the way.

I didn't know you could. How do you do that?

He edited all of his 19 posts by deleting what he originally said and replacing it with ellipses.

Oh right, thanks. He must have got in quick then, because I find that the edit option has been disappearing very quick lately, like in a matter of minutes, a few days ago.
Maybe that was some sort of glitch.
He must have been a sensitive soul then, to bomb out that quick.
.

[camoguard]

Buschmaster, by the way, departed, taking his cricket bat with him as he left. He obliterated every post he made along the way.

I didn't know you could. How do you do that?

He edited all of his 19 posts by deleting what he originally said and replacing it with ellipses.

Oh right, thanks. He must have got in quick then, because I find that the edit option has been disappearing very quick lately, like in a matter of minutes, a few days ago.
Maybe that was some sort of glitch.
He must have been a sensitive soul then, to bomb out that quick.
.

I don't know for sure, but an edit button is just a link. Maybe he hacked it.


(Stored for later to confirm or disprove my theory Edit This )

[mindyourmind]

Nice. I come here specifically to read his brilliant treatise on God, and now he has fucking deleted it all. Oh well, it's God's will, back to my heathen ways. I did try.

[Svartalf]

Charlou should be a plumber, she's gone through the tubes to retrieved tha PoS and make it available again.

[Pappa]

As this thread is dragging on and we haven't even got around to questioning the tooth fairies generosity .

I found a nice quote

Brian Davies, a philosopher and Christian (specifically, a Dominican friar), has argued that the argument from evil errs in its assumption that God is perfectly good. God is perfectly good, according to Davies, but not in the sense that gives rise to the problem of evil. If Davies is correct, then almost all discussion of the problem of evil rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of God’s nature.
The argument from evil assumes that God is perfectly morally good. If God’s perfect goodness were of another kind than moral goodness, then it would be perfectly consistent with his allowing evil to occur.
There are many different types of goodness and perfection; what makes for a perfect wife is very different to what makes for a perfect racehorse, for example. When we describe something as good, what properties we are attributing to it will depend on what kind of thing it is. To describe something as good is to to say that it is a good example of a particular kind of thing, that it possesses those properties that things of that kind should possess. The conditions for goodness are thus relative to what kind of thing something is.
The conditions for being a good God, though, according to Davies, have nothing to do with moral goodness, because God is the wrong kind of thing to be described as morally good. Moral goodness is to do with fulfilling one’s duties, acting in the way that one ought to act. God, though, has all authority over Creation; he has no duties; there is no way that he ought to act. To describe God either as morally good or as morally bad is therefore a mistake, according to Davies; God is an amoral being. God’s perfection, then, does not imply moral goodness, and so does not entail that he will prevent evil from occurring.

Great dodge there Brian.

[Svartalf]

Pappa, you and Feck pool to pay for the aspirin you are making me swallow like it were candy