Good and Bad Religion

[quatona]

In Christian theology we distinguish between God's sovereign will and His moral will.

Yes, you guys have a way with words.
Whenever your theology runs into logical problems, you simply invent some fancy new words that pretend to be meaningful. "Hypostatic union", "sovereign will/moral will", yadayada.
Point being: God´s sovereign will and God´s moral will appear to be in conflict.
You may say God has "every right" to have conflicting wills - but to call that "perfect" would require a complete redefinition of the word.

So no moral being has to say that everything is good. But we can't fault God for ordaining morally evil events to exist. We are not in the position to judge such a being, and we don't even know how to evaluate Him. But yes, these events are perfect in the sense that they have every right to exist, because God is right to will them. So everything has meaning.

You are moving the goalposts. I didn´t say you have to "fault" god, and I didn´t say anything about "meaning". The issue in question was "perfection".
What you seem to be telling me that the world is perfect and not perfect at the same time, and you seem to use a lot of rhethorics to reword that in a way that makes the self-contradiction go away.

Even nontheists get to the point where where they stop judging reality.

That´s besides the point. The question is: Why does god, why does the bible and why do Christians judge this "perfect" reality often in a negative way?

Not to the point of amorality, but they understand that their emotional resistance to events is pointless, and that things simply are what they are.

I don´t think that´s an accurate description of "nontheists" but personally I feel myself accurately described.

I think that such people are more God-affirming than many religious.

Well, you would have to explain how "things are simply the way they are" is affirming a theology that is circled around the desire to explain *why* things are the way they are (but unfortunately can´t come up with a reasonable explanation).

But you are digressing further and further.
If you can´t answer my questions, that´s completely ok.

 

[prov1810]

You are moving the goalposts. I didn´t say you have to "fault" god, and I didn´t say anything about "meaning".

I'm just thinking out loud about the ramifications of what I say.

Well, you would have to explain how "things are simply the way they are" is affirming a theology that is circled around the desire to explain *why* things are the way they are (but unfortunately can´t come up with a reasonable explanation).

We aren't in the Why business. Questions like this arise in the book of Job and the ninth chapter of Romans and they are not answered because answers are not the point. We are dealing with life as we find it in a world we did not make. It's about accepting the fact that we are not in control and trusting the one who is.

A perfect world is a world that doesn't have to be anything other than what it is. I started by saying "maybe" the world is perfect because the word "perfect" sounds admiring, as if I've figured the world out and given it my approval. My approval means nothing. But I use the word perfect because you've got to respect the superiority of brute facts - they are impervious to human griping.

 

[ianb321red]

No, the post doesn´t present any argument. It just presents an empty assertion. Now, it may be that the poster, you or Lewis have something in store to support it - but it hasn´t been done here.
Same goes for the "You are wrong" that has been given in return.

But you said it was a baseless remark didn't you? And I've shown that the remark itself is not baseless since it can be easily shown to have been derived or influenced by something else (i.e. CS Lewis, moral argument) which supports what the poster was saying.

That means it's not baseless i.e. it is based on something (whether you agree with it or not).
It does NOT make it an argument however:nobody has mentioned (to my knowledge) anything about presenting an argument at any stage of the discussion.

The comment you made WAS baseless i.e. based on nothing, since what can you show that independently supports your remark in any sensible way?

Is it any different from or more substantial than, say, the "argument": "Humans have legs, therefore God"?

Your "example" isn't even an argument, it's just nonsense with no logical connection between A and B....

TMA IS logical (at least to me it is, but I can't speak for anyone else...) because in it's base form of a logical syllogism its conclusion will follow according to the rules of logic as long as one affirms it's basic premises as being true premises.....

That is not to say that everyone agrees with the premises of TMA but it certainly demonstrates it IS a argument in comparison to whatever someone could describe your example as.... so answer your question, yes it is totally different!