Religion, Faith, and Spirituality : God the self-sufficient

Re: God the self-sufficient


Most of the things we do as humans is because we want to do them, so why would God be different?


Assuming a deity would be human-like and so compares humanity to the deity, when a deity can be NOTHING like what it created yet still exist.

Re: God the self-sufficient


Assuming a deity would be human-like and so compares humanity to the deity, when a deity can be NOTHING like what it created yet still exist.
This sentence doesn't make much sense but I'll give it a shot.

I am not talking about any deity which may have other particular motivations, I'm talking about the one I know.

God isn't human-like just because he wants to do things. If anything that means it could be a Godly tendency to choose to do things not tied to need.

If we are created in God's image, it would make sense that both he and us would have the same desire for things if not the same circumstances. After all, a creator will always be in better circumstances than the created.

So while the OP is certainly correct that God does not need us the way we need things and ultimately him, it is silly to extrapolate that into a notion that being self-sufficient somehow wouldn't contradict the notion that self sufficiency literally means the only thing you have is wants.

If this is Locke, then who's in there?

Re: God the self-sufficient


I am not talking about any deity which may have other particular motivations, I'm talking about the one I know.


If you 'know' a deity then you will need to introduce it. God never returns my call. Unless you mean you think you know?



So while the OP is certainly correct that God does not need us the way we need things and ultimately him, it is silly to extrapolate that into a notion that being self-sufficient somehow wouldn't contradict the notion that self sufficiency literally means the only thing you have is wants.


Well then: if God does not need, and has something more than has 'wants', what is it that drove It to create something other than was already perfect and complete? Or to put it another way, what is greater with more potential than God's will?



I am not irrelevant. Arlon10

Re: God the self-sufficient


For the life of me, I don't understand why "Because he wanted to" isn't a perfectly acceptable answer.

Because then it would not be true that he wants for nothing. A perfect being has no desires, being perfectly satisfied in every possible way by its own entity and company. If God wanted something which did not already exist, then he cannot be perfect.



That isn't putting it in another way. It's an entirely different question. The answer to which is there's no indication his creation is lacking beyond what we choose to do.

Then why did he regret having made man? And why did he later repent of having destroyed man in that act of repentance?

Re: God the self-sufficient

Unless you are changing the definition, needs are not wants and someone that doesn't need anything still can want a lot of things.

A perfect being has no desires, being perfectly satisfied in every possible way by its own entity and company.
You are placing stipulations on something just to win the argument.

There is no rulebook that verifies what you just said although there is plenty of evidence that God is both self sufficient and wants to create.

But again, let's assume for some reason unknown to any of us that God is not allowed to want stuff because that is really a need. Then it just means that God isn't self-sufficient. There still is no contradiction or conundrum unless you make up a new stipulation.

Then why did he regret having made man? And why did he later repent of having destroyed man in that act of repentance?

The answer was in the statement you responded to:

The answer to which is there's no indication his creation is lacking beyond what we choose to do.
Free will can always ruin expectations.

If this is Locke, then who's in there?

Re: God the self-sufficient


Unless you are changing the definition, needs are not wants and someone that doesn't need anything still can want a lot of things.

There is a reason why I said want for nothing - this includes not only needs, but also desires. When you hear the phrase, "you shall want for nothing", this is not a mere promise of bread and water. This is a promise that every desire be satisfied.



You are placing stipulations on something just to win the argument.

There is no rulebook that verifies what you just said although there is plenty of evidence that God is both self sufficient and wants to create.

It is simple logic. "Perfect" is the same as "flawless". Every single desire is either indicative of a flaw, or a flaw in and of itself. For example, the desire to eat comes from the physical need to eat. The desire is not a flaw in this case, but the need to eat is - because if unsatisfied, it will lead to death. Then there are desires which are at best tangential to what we need: the desire to play games, watch a movie, keep oneself entertained... If these desires are not met they will certainly not lead to death, but one will be unhappy if these desires are not met. A perfect being, however, is always perfectly happy - it will never experience any negative feelings or emotions as it is always better to be happy rather than unhappy. Thus, if you have two versions of God, one happy and the other not, the happy one is closer to perfection. It does not need to improve anything, whereas the unhappy God would feel the need to take steps to improve its happiness. The already happy God, however, would not need to do anything. Thus, the unhappy God cannot be perfect. And no being which feels either need or desire can possibly be perfect.



Free will can always ruin expectations.

A text-book example of a design flaw if ever there was one. A perfect being makes perfect decisions - "free will" (or rather, contrary desires with the opportunity to act upon them) is not perfect, and no God in his right mind would ever think to create it.

Re: God the self-sufficient


There is a reason why I said want for nothing - this includes not only needs, but also desires. When you hear the phrase, "you shall want for nothing", this is not a mere promise of bread and water. This is a promise that every desire be satisfied.
Wanting for nothing is not the same thing as wanting nothing.

You are simply trying to change the wanting into an additional need which is the only way the OP's argument becomes valid.

"Perfect" is the same as "flawless".
Ok, this is the correct part, but then you ruin it by putting rules on it that are not even remotely necessary for this statement to be true.

A perfect being, however, is always perfectly happy - it will never experience any negative feelings or emotions as it is always better to be happy rather than unhappy.
Although this has nothing to do with self-sufficiency since one may have needs and be perfect, it is also untrue that a perfect being can only feel happiness.

Jesus was perfect and yet he slept, ate, felt sadness, & died. Perfection can easily exist with need and it can also be relative to the creator.

A text-book example of a design flaw if ever there was one.
Well, if you are discussing in terms of engineering I suppose.

After all, an automaton should do as told and can't even be trusted to do as instructed.

Of course, then it becomes silly to discuss feelings at all from either the creator or created. God has no reason to be happy if he has o reason to possess other emotions. Heck, happiness doesn't even exist under those whacky circumstances of your view of perfection.

The flaw would be to create something and then distrust it enough to control its every movement.

If this is Locke, then who's in there?

Re: God the self-sufficient


Wanting for nothing is not the same thing as wanting nothing.

They actually are. All our decisions are based on our desires, our unfulfilled desires. For example, even if I am in the possession of a bottle of coke, I'll have to make the decision to open it and drink from it if I am to get any enjoyment from it. So even if, in that case, I do not want for drink (being in possession of it), it is still an unfulfilled desire which leads me to drink from it.



You are simply trying to change the wanting into an additional need which is the only way the OP's argument becomes valid.

I wasn't changing the want into anything. If you want something, it is because a desire is unfulfilled, meaning you lack something - meaning you are not entirely self-sufficient. The only difference between "want" and "need" is "need" is associated with survival. All else - in fact, the vast majority of things in life - are desires rather than needs.



Although this has nothing to do with self-sufficiency since one may have needs and be perfect, it is also untrue that a perfect being can only feel happiness.

Why would a perfect being ever feel anything else? If it was to feel at all, that is. A being which has the ability to feel will always naturally strive towards satisfaction, towards happiness. And one does not strive if there is no need to, if one is 100% self-sufficient.



Jesus was perfect and yet he slept, ate, felt sadness, & died. Perfection can easily exist with need and it can also be relative to the creator.

Jesus was perfect? Says who?



Well, if you are discussing in terms of engineering I suppose.

After all, an automaton should do as told and can't even be trusted to do as instructed.

Of course, then it becomes silly to discuss feelings at all from either the creator or created. God has no reason to be happy if he has o reason to possess other emotions. Heck, happiness doesn't even exist under those whacky circumstances of your view of perfection.

The flaw would be to create something and then distrust it enough to control its every movement.

The flaw is to create something in the first place when there is no need to do so. To create something which is itself flawed, is a much graver flaw. There is no way you can claim with a straight face that a perfect being would produce anything less than absolute perfection.

Re: God the self-sufficient

Re: God the self-sufficient

God was just being sarcastic.



_____________http://tinyurl.com/gtb6nc2_____________

Re: God the self-sufficient

He wanted someone to laugh at his jokes. Unfortunately, his humor style goes right over our heads.

-------------------
😺👴5⃣6⃣

Re: God the self-sufficient

gods come and go but human ignorance is constant.









Stephen

Re: God the self-sufficient

I think the issue is what is meant by self sufficient - someone who is self sufficient can have needs and wants - what makes them self sufficient is they are capable of achieving those needs and wants.

Perhaps God needed/wanted humanity to exist (the usual reasons given are for fellowship and for his own glory). And he had the ability to make it so and so he did.

Re: God the self-sufficient


usual reasons given are for fellowship


I must admit that I am struck by a lonely deity seeking something else to relate too, even though, presumably heaven is well stocked with the best possible company lol. Unless


as flies to wanton boys are we to the gods


a demotion of purpose which rather reduces our 'specialness' in the sight of the Creator.

This while 'something for His own glory' raises the obvious objections of vanity and self-aggrandisement. One could argue on this basis that God created natural evil and a less than perfect world just because it is more interesting and fun to watch!



I am not irrelevant. Arlon10

Re: God the self-sufficient



I must admit that I am struck by a lonely deity seeking something else to relate too, even though, presumably heaven is well stocked with the best possible company lol.

William Lane Craig once made an argument for the Trinity that it is God's nature to be loving and so he must necessarily have something to love. Since humanity is contingent, not necessary, there must be necessary persons for God to love - ie God must be composed of multiple persons that all love each other.


This while 'something for His own glory' raises the obvious objections of vanity and self-aggrandisement.

I suppose one could question whether a maximally great being could actually be vain? Does vanity not suggest an inflated sense of self?

Re: God the self-sufficient


William Lane Craig once made an argument for the Trinity that it is God's nature to be loving and so he must necessarily have something to love.


Well, maybe; but I can see two answers to this: first that one ought to distinguish between the potential to love and the actualisation of it i.e. a loving nature does not necessitate an object of affection; and second that God could, being clearly the best example possible of an object to love, be best and most completely served by loving Himself first - those same 'multiple persons that all love each other' (in fact the Bible tells one to love God above all things I seem to remember, so He is only following His own advice!) Perhaps, then WLC is on to something lol... Arguably, one can in addition see that God holds Himself in highest regard by the obeisance He demands, and the clear penalties imposed for not appreciating Him of any unfaithful..


one could question whether a maximally great being could actually be vain? Does vanity not suggest an inflated sense of self?


Well if there is a 'vanity standard' then one would expect the greatest standard possible be the one against which all following standards are compared, which would be God; and, as noted above, even if not 'inflated' (i.e. overstated) God certainly demands and expects a recognition of Himself which is entirely flattering and appreciative based on dire consequences if not.

I am not irrelevant. Arlon10

Re: God the self-sufficient


Well if there is a 'vanity standard' then one would expect the greatest standard possible be the one against which all following standards are compared, which would be God

Aquinas' Fourth Way would perhaps support that, yes. But can a maximally great being set the standard for negative qualities? It seems like a logical inconsistency between the ontological argument and the Fourth Way. But then as Aquinas rejected the ontological argument and I've come across very few champions of the Fourth Way, maybe that's not a problem.

Re: God the self-sufficient


But can a maximally great being set the standard for negative qualities?


Well if not, then to what ultimate standard would we measure negative qualities? The problem is made worse when we read in Exodus 34:14 the example of another 'negative trait', at least for many:


Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.


If God is not to be the standard for his own admitted jealousy then what is? What other would one measure the degree of God's jealousy against? I suppose the only way out would be to allow God to be greatest at 'justified' jealousy and vanity while allowing a comfortable condemnation of the 'ordinary' human kind. But this still faces a claim of special pleading, or hypocrisy, that something normally seen as a negative is worthy just because God does it, don't do as I do, do as I say sort of thing. It also means that anything on the larger scale might be 'justified' on the same basis - which can be scary.



I am not irrelevant. Arlon10

Re: God the self-sufficient

I suppose the counter-argument there is that jealousy is formally speaking an unwillingness to lose what is rightfully yours (as opposed to envy which is wishing to possess something that is owned by someone else). Since the Israelites made a covenant with God they were rightfully his and he would not tolerate them leaving him. So yes I suppose you could say that makes God's jealousy righteous.

But then Paul condemns jealousy in Galatians (5:19-20): "Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions."

But I think an apologist can get round this seeming inconsistency without too much of a headache. They can simply say jealousy is fine when it is righteous, Paul merely lists it because it is generally a negative thing. For instance I doubt Paul would condemn anger against sin or disputes over theological matters (he engaged in a few himself according to Acts). So if some of the other things he lists are not always bad then the same could be true of jealousy.

James (3:14-15) condemns a particular kind of jealousy: "But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic."
Perhaps then jealousy is only bad when coupled with bitterness?

It is definitely permissible (and even lauded) to be jealous on behalf of God - both Phineas (Numbers 25:13) and Elijah (1 Kings 19:9-10) are praised for just that.

Re: God the self-sufficient


jealousy is formally speaking an unwillingness to lose what is rightfully yours


Well maybe; but in the dictionary it can also be defined in terms of resentment, a fear of rivalry, an unhappy or angry feeling of wanting to have what someone else has, as well as a strict vigilance in maintaining something. It is fair to say whatever the precise nature of the word it is usually held to be a negative emotion. And as others have observed one can wonder why an entity which already knows, and has, everything would be 'jealous' at all, unless it was uncertain of itself or the future.


jealousy is fine when it is righteous


Yes, this is as I said above, just as one can conceive of righteous vanity; but, as also noted above this inevitably dwindles to a circular argument that something is righteous because it is done by God and God is righteous, or justified, in that He does it. Or the special pleading that God is above 'normal' morality since He can just do as He wants.



I am not irrelevant. Arlon10

Re: God the self-sufficient


And as others have observed one can wonder why an entity which already knows, and has, everything would be 'jealous' at all, unless it was uncertain of itself or the future.

I suppose that brings in the whole omniscience/free will debate. Though I think one can one still feel jealous even if something appears inevitable.


but, as also noted above this inevitably dwindles to a circular argument that something is righteous because it is done by God and God is righteous, or justified, in that He does it. Or the special pleading that God is above 'normal' morality since He can just do as He wants.

Not necessarily. Looking again at James, if jealously is only bad when it is coupled with bitterness, then anyone can be righteously jealous so long as they are not bitter, be they God or mortal. God presumably is never bitter so when he feels jealousy it is always righteous. But that is because of that lack of bitterness, not because he is God.

Re: God the self-sufficient


I think one can one still feel jealous even if something appears inevitable.


This is true; but then given the instance under discussion one wonders: is anything ever inevitable for God?


then anyone can be righteously jealous


I think you mean that anyone can feel righteously jealous, since only God would, presumably be the final judge of what is righteous although, in the event, He might just be 'rubber stamping' something obvious. In the case of more questionable motives and acts which one attempts to justify, the risk entailed by the Final Judgement is arguably greater. i.e to be 'righteously giving' is less of a dilemma morally that 'righteously killing'.


God presumably is never bitter so when he feels jealousy it is always righteous. But that is because of that lack of bitterness, not because he is God


Hmmm. This leads back to the old debate, over whether something is righteous and good as God says it is, or just because He says so. Is bitter jealousy (or repentful vanity, arguably, if we take one view possible of Man's not-needed creation which causes such grief) really righteous when separated out because of, or despite, God?


I am not irrelevant. Arlon10

Re: God the self-sufficient


This is true; but then given the instance under discussion one wonders: is anything ever inevitable for God?

Again that's the whole free will issue. Can God see everything that will happen or is this limited by our, and presumably his own, free will? If the former, everything is inevitable, if the latter only some things.


I think you mean that anyone can feel righteously jealous, since only God would, presumably be the final judge of what is righteous although, in the event, He might just be 'rubber stamping' something obvious.

As you say, it comes down to whether God's judgment is supreme because the rules are essentially his whim or whether he is merely the best at applying a set standard.
At any rate you can certainly be righteously jealous though you yourself might now know for sure how righteous you actually are. So yes there is a risk for us mere mortals in presuming we are righteous. Perhaps why Paul condemns jealousy in general. If we cannot be sure how righteous we are being in our jealousy, maybe it is best avoided. Elijah and Phineas both essentially get the ok from God before acting out of jealousy.


Is bitter jealousy (or repentful vanity, arguably, if we take one view possible of Man's not-needed creation which causes such grief) really righteous when separated out because of, or despite, God?

Not sure I quite get what you're saying here.

Re: God the self-sufficient


This is true; but then given the instance under discussion one wonders: is anything ever inevitable for God?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Again that's the whole free will issue


Sorry, I think you misunderstood; by asking this I was wondering whether anything could happen for, or to, God which He cannot help or influence? It was the jealously of the Almighty that was being discussed. I ask since, as has been observed before, unless God is pointlessly insecure, there is nothing that He would want that He cannot have one way or another and nothing which can best Him. And yet at the same time He described as jealous which means that He is the greatest example possible as in all things that help define Him.


At any rate you can certainly be righteously jealous though you yourself might now know for sure how righteous you actually are.


Indeed. But this cannot be said of God, who one assumes, will take it for granted that whatever He does is righteous since He cannot help His nature.


Is bitter jealousy (or repentful vanity, arguably, if we take one view possible of Man's not-needed creation which causes such grief) really righteous when separated out because of, or despite, God?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Not sure I quite get what you're saying here.


I was asking the same question really, about whether God sets the standard or is the standard of morality. This actually leads on to a another question about creation that I have already hinted at: was the creation of something which is realised as not perfect and which contains evil, a moral act - especially when it was not necessary and God does not need anything more?

I am not irrelevant. Arlon10

Re: God the self-sufficient


Sorry, I think you misunderstood; by asking this I was wondering whether anything could happen for, or to, God which He cannot help or influence? It was the jealously of the Almighty that was being discussed. I ask since, as has been observed before, unless God is pointlessly insecure, there is nothing that He would want that He cannot have one way or another and nothing which can best Him. And yet at the same time He described as jealous which means that He is the greatest example possible as in all things that help define Him.

I suppose there is a question of what God can do vs what God is willing to do. God could certainly stop anyone leaving his worship. But he prefers that they come to him willingly. So God is choosing to allow uncertainty because he prefers that to a certain, but less meaningful, outcome.

I suppose the natural follow up question is if he can still be considered self-sufficient if he desires uncertainty which will probably bring him less than his ultimate desire (ie if God's desire is for all people to freely choose him, that very freedom probably means that at least some will not do so). God's desire is therefore thwarted and we are left with a frustrated rather than a self-sufficient God. Perhaps then self-sufficiency should be abandoned as a quality of God.

One could maybe dip into Origen's thinking on salvation and say that all will be saved in time, even damnation is only temporary so God's frustration will also be temporary. Not a very satisfying counter though.


was the creation of something which is realised as not perfect and which contains evil, a moral act - especially when it was not necessary and God does not need anything more?

Perhaps the threat of evil is something God considers worth having? A world of people making real moral choices is preferable to one where they just go through the motions of existence.

Re: God the self-sufficient


So God is choosing to allow uncertainty because he prefers that to a certain, but less meaningful, outcome


This assumes of course that one has free will. (I thought I read you a while ago saying that you thought this was not the case? I could be mistaken). But in the specific instance of God himself and the Creation he elected to make the act itself is traditionally taken as deliberate.


I suppose the natural follow up question is if he can still be considered self-sufficient if he desires uncertainty which will probably bring him less than his ultimate desire (ie if God's desire is for all people to freely choose him, that very freedom probably means that at least some will not do so). God's desire is therefore thwarted and we are left with a frustrated rather than a self-sufficient God.


That would be a consideration I would raise too. Also one wonders why God could not have created a perfect world i.e. one in which free will inevitably leads to what He wants. We humans may not be able to think of a foolproof way, but that is not to say that a deity could not.



the threat of evil is something God considers worth having?


Well to be honest since God admits to creating natural evil, then it is more than a threat since it will assuredly occur. I can't see it mattering to God when, since a 'threat' implies ominous odds based on the passing of time and God, we are assured, is outside of such mundane considerations.



I am not irrelevant. Arlon10

Re: God the self-sufficient


whatever He does is righteous since He cannot help His nature
I think it is better described as whatever "He" does is righteous axiomatically, because whatever he does decides its definition, not that he is supposedly constrained in any way whatsoever. Eating dessert toddlers for Lent would be "Righteous" if he did it or specified doing it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX-FGe8n3O8

Re: God the self-sufficient

Only if you accept divine command theory, many Christians don't.

Re: God the self-sufficient

Some Christians believe God can "sin"?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQB8I40aKhg

Re: God the self-sufficient

No.

Divine command theory is that whatever God says is good is good because God say it is. The alternative is that it is good anyway and God being perfectly good say it is.

So for a divine command theorist if God ate toddlers then eating toddlers would be good. While as those who reject divine command theory would say God would never eat a toddler because that would not be good and God is good. Either way God is perfectly good, but divine command theory means God is also a creature of whim.

Re: God the self-sufficient

I think that is an apologist distinction without a real difference. It really doesn't matter that somebody's idea of "good" matches up to what has been projected as God's idea of "good". Peoples' ideas come from somewhere. Do they think "good" was not created by God?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQB8I40aKhg

Re: God the self-sufficient


I think that is an apologist distinction without a real difference.

Well it amounts to something in ethics. there is no point coming up with systems of how we can tell what is good (eg utilitarianism, Kantian ethics etc) if what is good is merely the whim of God.


Do they think "good" was not created by God?

That was exactly Plato's idea - that goodness exists independent from God. Most Christians were hesitant to accept that idea though. Generally instead those who reject divine commandment theory say that goodness is not something God decides on or creates but his very nature.

Re: God the self-sufficient

Well, sure. That's one reason why ethics from a god is deceptive and ultimately meaningless. Gods are described as doing patently immoral things, which adherents declare to be moral because they are executed by the god. Horrible things.


but his very nature
Again, more palatable re-wording of the same less-palatable (for some) thing.


https://youtu.be/NSS6mEyw3W0

Re: God the self-sufficient

I would say these are two practical differences between the two stances:
1. It means any potential God candidate's claim of divinity can be assessed by how good we find his/her morals. The problem of evil for instance only becomes worth considering if we reject divine command theory.

2. Where the God we believe in has not stated a view on a topic, or his view is unclear, we can work out what is right for ourselves.

Re: God the self-sufficient

I just don't see how one of them can coexist in any real sense (in my analysis) with Christianity. The Christian god constrained by anything just doesn't compute, and "God's nature" and "whatever God does is by definition is good" are ultimately synonymous. Circularity.


https://youtu.be/OoA0cTC228M?t=1

Re: God the self-sufficient

Ok well forget about God's nature for the moment. That was essentially a compromise Aristotle and Aquinas were forced into by rejecting universals whilst being uneasy about divine command theory.

Suppose there is such a thing as goodness. The law of non-contradiction would suggest that such a thing is consistent. We could therefore use logic to work out what would conform with the good and what would not. If divine command theory is true however we cannot because goodness is based on whim and whims change meaning what is right today may not be so tomorrow.

Now consider if God ate a toddler. For the divine command theorist, no problem. It's God and anything God does is good. The divine command rejectionist on the other hand has to either work out how doing so could possibly be good or decide that the thing that ate the toddler is not good and therefore not God.

It's also not true that a Christian will always do the former. Many people lose their faith when they witness God allowing awful things.

Re: God the self-sufficient

You say "whims", but what you really men is "God".


Suppose there is such a thing as goodness.
If such a thing constrains God, then that's not compatible with what I understand "real" Christians believe. And just because God could reverse logic if He so chose, it doesn't mean He will.

If God ate a toddler, I would hope it would lead to an adherent ultimately rejecting the faith (as you note in your final sentence). But to remain faithful a follower would have to say that such a thing, for God at least, is good. Or just blur it out with "we can't understand what is so much bigger than us".


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMITJ4Knhtg

Re: God the self-sufficient

Well that's pretty much agreeing with me. Some would explain it away, some would consider God above questioning and some would reject God. Sure only the thelogians and philosophers would see it in terms of divine command theory but that is what is essentially being applied.

Re: God the self-sufficient

No, it's you agreeing with me!

And as I said, I don't think the divine command theory is ultimately anything but a different wording.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDEDP9BHJEU

Re: God the self-sufficient

Then how do you explain why some Christians analyse the morals of God and some do not?

Re: God the self-sufficient

If by "analyze" you mean "rationalize". I'm not aware of any Christians who've concluded that God is immoral. Plenty of former ones, of course.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6wUPCqwWI8

Re: God the self-sufficient

There's clearly analysis going on if some are rejecting God. While as a divine command theorist would never seek to question him and so would never reject God no matter what he did. Of course, some of the DCT rejectionists will analyse (which may involve some rationalisation) and find God comes through ok. So yes there are no Christians who think God immoral because any who do stop being Christian.

Re: God the self-sufficient

Sure, but as long as they're Christian, it is due to their own lack of understanding, and guidance from the Holy Spirit will surely help them resolve it. If they really question it then that's when they finally bail.


Of course, some of the DCT rejectionists will analyse (which may involve some rationalisation) and find God comes through ok. So yes there are no Christians who think God immoral because any who do stop being Christian.
Which loops us right back around to the fact that, while Christian, anything God does/supports is moral by the fact of God, not because God is constrained to "goodness".


https://youtu.be/MxL5Qrtw_90?t=113

Re: God the self-sufficient

You seem to be assuming that no-one could really question the morals of God without coming to the conclusion he's immoral. I think that's unfair.



Which loops us right back around to the fact that, while Christian, anything God does/supports is moral by the fact of God, not because God is constrained to "goodness"

No. They think God is constrained by goodness. They're being Christian is dependent on God staying within those confines. Hence why some leave.

Re: God the self-sufficient


You seem to be assuming that no-one could really question the morals of God without coming to the conclusion he's immoral. I think that's unfair.
No, what I'm asserting is that when they actually get to this point, and they do often enough, they've already got a foot hip-level out the door.


No. They think God is constrained by goodness. They're being Christian is dependent on God staying within those confines. Hence why some leave.
They thing God is goodness. Those that leave do so because they ultimately decide that their version of morality does not match his. That does not change the fact that the Christian morality is God's nature, not that God follows Christian morality.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAcaAeIwl1Q

Re: God the self-sufficient

But to take it back to your original point you said if God ate a toddler that would be good. Some Christians would say God would never do that. And if he did they would have a crisis of faith.

Re: God the self-sufficient

And they should. But many would accept it as moral. There are after all many examples of "eating toddlers" already contained in the faith.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe65IdPCy1w

Re: God the self-sufficient

No arguments there. But of the ones who accept it as moral, some will not even think it worth questioning, others will see if they can reconcile it with their moral outlook.

Re: God the self-sufficient

All of which still comes back to the fact they're adjusting to the God-is-Morality, not that both humans and God are just following the same morality.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8rXJtSohiM

Re: God the self-sufficient

Well if you want to see it like that fair enough.

By the way, does this fake Rabbit have nothing better to do than post nonsense and delete it immediately every hour of the day?
Top