Attitudes and behaviour.

[Maeght]

That's the theists equivalent of the atheists ''We don't Know but we know it isn't God.

It is a belief that there is no waste nor lack of knowledge about anything by God even though it might sometimes look that way from the atheists POV.

So although we believe in purpose we need not know what it is and some us certainly are of the disposition that we can ask God in prayer.

If its clear it is part of a religious belief - 'I believe there is a purpose to everything although I don't know what it is' - then its fine by me. Stating it as a known fact is best avoided though.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What about it?

It's not a controversial view amongst Christians:

" For if He was not morally perfect, that is, if God was merely a great being but nevertheless of finite benevolence, then his existence would involve an element of contingency, because one could always conceive of a being of greater benevolence. Hence, omnibenevolence is a requisite of perfect being theology."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibenevolence

Can you honestly say that you have never heard this view expressed?

Hence a God of the 3 omnis could only produce a world that it wanted to. (I use the word want, but it is not clear to me how a god who is perfect would "want" anything).

If God is perfect (as claimed by Christians) then the world must be perfect i.e the only world that could exist.

Now it could be that the influenza virus and the female birth canal are perfect, but they don't seem it to us.  In fact most of us try to eliminate the first and make the second less dangerous. Which is a strange thing to attempt on things which are already perfect.

Maybe we should cease flue jabs and never perform C-sections.

Good.............. perfection.
How would the imperfect be able to judge perfection?
Benevolence equated with moral perfection? Not sure about that, it is different since we know we are recipients of benevolence but we can never be sure we are dispensing benevolence....I feel you are a bit confused here also in respect of confusing the creation with the creator.
He could be morally perfect and we aren't. That would definitely militate against him appearing benevolent to us but rather judgmental and condemning and no doubt the processes of the universe would appear also to reinforce our dim view of him.

If we are going to put in omnibenevolence then he is the God of the 4 omnis and this extra one also isn't explicit in the Bible.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Good.............. perfection.
How would the imperfect be able to judge perfection?

Why not?

Benevolence equated with moral perfection? Not sure about that, it is different since we know we are recipients of benevolence but we can never be sure we are dispensing benevolence....I feel you are a bit confused here also in respect of confusing the creation with the creator.
He could be morally perfect and we aren't. That would definitely militate against him appearing benevolent to us but rather judgmental and condemning and no doubt the processes of the universe would appear also to reinforce our dim view of him.

If we are not morally perfect then we are a flawed creation of a perfect being (how is it perfect if it creates flawed things).

Or

We only appear to be morally imperfect (from out point of view) and in fact are perfect creations (God still perfect).


It could be that all the things that appear to be not good about the world (influenza etc, etc) are good really but we just can't see the bigger picture.

However, it could be that they are the result of a creation by a god who is not perfect.

I don't see how you could tell the difference between these scenarios from looking at the world. Hence as I said earlier I don't think this is an argument for the non existence of God , but it certainly should give serious pause for thought to those who prescribe intentional design and purpose to all things in the natural world,

If we are going to put in omnibenevolence then he is the God of the 4 omnis and this extra one also isn't explicit in the Bible.

Actually I would agree that it is better to stick to the traditional three and use moral perfection / perfect goodness as the other. However, as the term is used by theists and non theists it crops up from time to time. I think it's meaning is clear though.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

If we are not morally perfect then we are a flawed creation of a perfect being (how is it perfect if it creates flawed things).

There is a Jewish school of thought that we learn from God, but God learns from us also.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

There is a Jewish school of thought that we learn from God, but God learns from us also.

Yep. That wouldn't jar so much against the natural world we observe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why not?

If we are not morally perfect then we are a flawed creation of a perfect being (how is it perfect if it creates flawed things).

Or

We only appear to be morally imperfect (from out point of view) and in fact are perfect creations (God still perfect).


It could be that all the things that appear to be not good about the world (influenza etc, etc) are good really but we just can't see the bigger picture.

However, it could be that they are the result of a creation by a god who is not perfect.

I don't see how you could tell the difference between these scenarios from looking at the world. Hence as I said earlier I don't think this is an argument for the non existence of God , but it certainly should give serious pause for thought to those who prescribe a intentional design and purpose to all things in the natural world,


Actually I would agree that it is better to stick to the traditional three and use moral perfection / perfect goodness as the other. However, as the term is used by theists and non theists it crops up from time to time. I think it's meaning is clear though.

We are not morally perfect though because are fallen through our own choice.......Be holy...as God is holy...is the scriptural exhortation.

I think you are mixing Greek,Jewish and modern atheist idiom up here Stephen.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

We are not morally perfect though because are fallen through our own choice.......Be holy...as God is holy...is the scriptural exhortation.

I think you are mixing Greek,Jewish and modern atheist idiom up here Stephen.

Not mixing anything up. It might be what the scripture teaches, but that doesn't mean it makes sense.

So creating humans with the freedom to choose to be fallen was better than creating ones which could not.

[floo]

We are not morally perfect though because are fallen through our own choice.......Be holy...as God is holy...is the scriptural exhortation.

I think you are mixing Greek,Jewish and modern atheist idiom up here Stephen.

Nothing good about being holy if that is what god is supposed to be.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nothing good about being holy if that is what god is supposed to be.

Everytime you come on as the Angel of light Floo millions are consoled by there being something far better."...............than you.

[Sebastian Toe]

Everytime you come on as the Angel of light Floo millions are consoled by there being something far better."...............than you.

Not one of your better ones.
Were you feeling a bit funny?............ 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not mixing anything up. It might be what the scripture teaches, but that doesn't mean it makes sense.

So creating humans with the freedom to choose to be fallen was better than creating ones which could not.

But the Jewish idea may not make sense because you have not really considered it.

What scripture says is that we were morally perfect but uses the word holy to denote that unlike platonic perfection, moral perfection existed within humanity, that we fell and repeatedly fall, but that holiness will be restored.

Moral imperfection is not being given the choice but making a certain choice.

Giving choice and exercising the correct moral choice is love.

What is the virtue of not giving moral choice?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

But the Jewish idea may not make sense because you have not really considered it.

What scripture says is that we were morally perfect but uses the word holy to denote that unlike platonic perfection, moral perfection existed within humanity, that we fell and repeatedly fall, but that holiness will be restored.

I don't see that if you have moral perfection you can lose it. Unless you are using perfection in a non standard way. I am using it in the same sense that I am applying it to God, i.e. without fault, flaw.

Moral imperfection is not being given the choice but making a certain choice.

Giving choice and exercising the correct moral choice is love.

Not sure what you mean here.

What is the virtue of not giving moral choice?

If by this you mean what would be good about God not giving us freedom to make choices, the I would have thought the virtue would be a lack of suffering through bad moral choices.

Not sure if that is what you mean though.


However, you seem to be determined to drive of at a tangent. The point is that if we are the creation of the tri-Omni perfect God then this is the only world that can exist. How could such a being generate a state of affairs that it found displeasing or not perfect? If you want to introduce choice/free will into this then all you are saying is that God thinks such a world is better than one without it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

1. I don't see that if you have moral perfection you can lose it.



2. If by this you mean what would be good about God not giving us freedom to make choices, the I would have thought the virtue would be a lack of suffering through bad moral choices.



3. you seem to be determined to drive of at a tangent.

1: Why can we not lose moral perfection. Only in a platonistic framework could we not lose moral perfections. Other, namely the jewish framework
would see it differently....
2: Good point however my response to it would be to question that anything which eliminates love is not, in fact, virtuous.......and you are saying that anything that causes suffering is not in fact virtuous.
3:I am trying to drive you of your addiction to platonic thought in debates about God.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

1: Why can we not lose moral perfection. Only in a platonistic framework could we not lose moral perfections. Other, namely the jewish framework
would see it differently....
2: Good point however my response to it would be to question that anything which eliminates love is not, in fact, virtuous.......and you are saying that anything that causes suffering is not in fact virtuous.
3:I am trying to drive you of your addiction to platonic thought in debates about God.

1: IMO the meaning of perfection, in human terms, is dependent on whether or not we are the creation of a tri-Omni God.

I have been playing the piano a lot lately, part of the enjoyment I get from it is the beauty of the piano itself. Mine is not a particularly expensive one, but take something like the Bosendorfer Imperial Grand. Years and years of development to achieve a distinct and wonderful full bodied sound. Is it perfect? Well you will need to get it tuned regularly, and it will likely be succeed in years to come by another one that will be regarded, at least by some, as better.

You could describe this drive to make things even better and less corruptible to be perfection for human beings. The drive to be the best possible.
However, consider a piano made by God. Could one be made in future that would be better, would it go out of tune? I would say no to both of these questions. It would be perfect. It would be the best it could possibly be. Swap piano for humans and that is my point. Humans created by a tri-Omni perfect God should be the best they can be. If they have a feature of  being able to fall and sin then this must be a feature that adds to their perfection otherwise it would not have been included in the design.

2. I don't see any logic that can get you from eliminating suffering necessarily eliminates love. Can good come out of suffering? I suppose the answer can be yes, I don't think that suffering is necessary though.

Two examples off the top of my head that seem to undermine your view are:

a) The police. Most people think that having a police force is a good thing. One purpose of the police is to prevent suffering caused by human behaviour. Most people would say that is a virtuous pursuit.

b) Heaven, I am led to believe that there will be no more suffering there. Will there be no love then?

3) I'm fine thank you. Am I a swivel-eyed Platonist or a Stalinist one

[Walt Zingmatilder]

1: IMO the meaning of perfection, in human terms, is dependent on whether or not we are the creation of a tri-Omni God.

I have been playing the piano a lot lately, part of the enjoyment I get from it is the beauty of the piano itself. Mine is not a particularly expensive one, but take something like the Bosendorfer Imperial Grand. Years and years of development to achieve a distinct and wonderful full bodied sound. Is it perfect? Well you will need to get it tuned regularly, and it will likely be succeed in years to come by another one that will be regarded, at least by some, as better.

You could describe this drive to make things even better and less corruptible to be perfection for human beings. The drive to be the best possible.
However, consider a piano made by God. Could one be made in future that would be better, would it go out of tune? I would say no to both of these questions. It would be perfect. It would be the best it could possibly be. Swap piano for humans and that is my point. Humans created by a tri-Omni perfect God should be the best they can be. If they have a feature of  being able to fall and sin then this must be a feature that adds to their perfection otherwise it would not have been included in the design.

2. I don't see any logic that can get you from eliminating suffering necessarily eliminates love. Can good come out of suffering? I suppose the answer can be yes, I don't think that suffering is necessary though.

Two examples off the top of my head that seem to undermine your view are:

a) The police. Most people think that having a police force is a good thing. One purpose of the police is to prevent suffering caused by human behaviour. Most people would say that is a virtuous pursuit.

b) Heaven, I am led to believe that there will be no more suffering there. Will there be no love then?

3) I'm fine thank you. Am I a swivel-eyed Platonist or a Stalinist one

Stephen

Thank you for your considered reply. I am on a flyer today and cannot give it its full justice reply wise.

However your piano analogy looks like just a sophisticated way of stating humanity was made with a flaw in morality. That is not the scriptural view as I have previously pointed.out. Is free will to or against morality essential for loving God yes. Does suffering happen when we choose to hate ,you suggested that yourself.

Are you a platonic or Stalinist swivel eye?
Platonic definitely and maybe even the perfect swivel eye in whom all other swivel eyes partake.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Stephen

Thank you for your considered reply. I am on a flyer today and cannot give it its full justice reply wise.

However your piano analogy looks like just a sophisticated way of stating humanity was made with a flaw in morality. That is not the scriptural view as I have previously pointed.out. Is free will to or against morality essential for loving God yes. Does suffering happen when we choose to hate ,you suggested that yourself.

Are you a platonic or Stalinist swivel eye?
Platonic definitely and maybe even the perfect swivel eye in whom all other swivel eyes partake.

Same here, not going to be around much today. I have an insatiable urge to get my tackle out and head for the canal.

I don't think you got the piano analogy. Have another read when you have more time. Effectively I am saying that if we are made by the perfect tri-Omni God. Then what appear to us to be flaws are not really, they are just part of the perfect creation.

[Sebastian Toe]

I have an insatiable urge to get my tackle out and head for the canal.

Should we warn women and children to avoid the canal today? 

[Gonnagle]

Dear Seb,

Should we just restrict it to woman and children

Gonnagle.

[Leonard James]

Dear Seb,

Should we just restrict it to woman and children

Gonnagle.

It is quite weird that people get so hung up about seeing any part of the human body.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Leonard,

Human body?? we are talking about Stephens fishing tackle

Gonnagle.

[Leonard James]

Dear Leonard,

Human body?? we are talking about Stephens fishing tackle

Gonnagle.

He didn't say that. Here is what he said :-

"I have an insatiable urge to get my tackle out and head for the canal."

 

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

He didn't say that. Here is what he said :-

"I have an insatiable urge to get my tackle out and head for the canal."

 

It was a frustrating session.

The top part of my pole kept sliding back into the butt section.  Reducing its length by half a metre.

However, once I got my other whip out I did a lot better and ended up catching something.

(before anyone calls the police https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRuCCq6Frk4)

[Aruntraveller]

Aye well, as long as it wasn't crabs

[Gonnagle]

Dear Stephano,

Reducing its length by half a metre.

Yeah yeah!! men are always bragging, mind you I have heard there is a market for tackle that size, in the prawn business, sure it's prawn, could be pawn, one of the two.

Gonnagle.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Dear Stephano,

Yeah yeah!! men are always bragging, mind you I have heard there is a market for tackle that size, in the prawn business, sure it's prawn, could be pawn, one of the two.

Gonnagle.

Hello to the member from Up North!

Never caught a prawn but I do like fishing for carp during the summer months.

Once I wash fishing near the locks on a canal where the water runs quite fast and my rod tip pulled round. It seemed a fairly sluggish fish until I got it in and found that I had caught a plastic bag that had been discarded by a dog walker who had clearly been cleaning up after the hound.

So I didn't catch a carp but I did catch a .....well I'm sure you can rearrange the letters.