God's Agency, Can He Sin?

[Serg]

Behold here another way interesting ad edifying topic. Blake ostler continues, in his book, to assert "cathegorical"freedom to all intelligent beings, this is, they have the power to do otherwise at the moment they make whatever their desicion is, at that precise time and place. This, leads him to establish that God cannot be less free than us.

We certainly believe that we will preserve our free will while exalted, hence, we must also conccur that Eloheim has it also. It follows that although he may be more good than us by an endless margin, he still has to have in his power th eoption to do otherwise. if he did not have teh power to err instead of doing right, he would not be morally responsible for His acts, let alone His goodness. If He, because of his exaltation, were to be naturally good by essence, and then, he CoULD NEVER, choose other wise because His nature obliged Him to do good, then, according to Ostler, we might as well thank Water for freezing at 32 degrees. But we dont, why? Because the water didnt choose to do so, it followed it's own nature and couldnt be otherwise. The same happens if we ascribe to God such conceptions. Solution? Then how can we be sure that God will not become suddenly evil? We know that wont happen, but not because it CANT happen. It wont, because our Lord and Father is a Person with Character, you just dont change an eternal character of goodness, also, the Gods supervise in some sense every order in th universe, the Godhead is fundamenta.l to this, for it is a relationship of love(and approval) of Three, hence, if one god were to do otherwise(which we cant conceive) he would not for automatically his intentions will be made known to th eothers who share that relationship of power and true knowledge, and he would loose his power to be able to do so.

What do you think? Do we treat God as water? Or as a loving , free divine being?

regards,

[Dr T]

Serg,

This topic is the similar to my "God can't do everything" thread. Your/his analogy of water and God is something I'll think about (thank you for that) but it doesn't seem, at first glance, the same in my mind. If He ceased to be good-you are correct, He would not be God. Chosing not to or unable?

Thanks,

Dr. T

[Serg]

Sorry if it resembles your thread, is just that this one deals with God's morality, and yours is very wide, and given this forum's participating people, it will be hard to focus on this alone.

I choose, that He chooses not to, and is able, that deserves my appraisal, my adoration my worship, how would i worship and admire the "goodness"of a Thing that is bound to be so?

He would cease to be a God, but not to exist, just as you would cease to be His elected son(to salvation) if you chose evil, but wouldnt cease to exist.

[Dr T]

Serg,

Don't be sorry for the similarity. I was not saying it's not valuable I was just saying it is similar. :) Thinking about your analogy "because water freezes (at zero degrees) does that mean you cannot value it? What about snow skiing? Do you not like to ice skate? Build a snow man? Put ice cubes in your drink to cool it? Do you just say, "well this water freezing thing is useless because that is what it's supposed to do!" I don't think so. Apply that to God. Would you say, "Because that is your nature, I can't respect you."? That does not sound like a good argument to me. Please clarify if you'd like.

Thanks,

Dr. T

[Serg]

Serg,

Don't be sorry for the similarity. I was not saying it's not valuable I was just saying it is similar. :) Thinking about your analogy "because water freezes (at zero degrees) does that mean you cannot value it? What about snow skiing? Do you not like to ice skate? Build a snow man? Put ice cubes in your drink to cool it? Do you just say, "well this water freezing thing is useless because that is what it's supposed to do!" I don't think so. Apply that to God. Would you say, "Because that is your nature, I can't respect you."? That does not sound like a good argument to me. Please clarify if you'd like.

Thanks,

Dr. T

LOL.

Here we go:

Dont misunderstand me. I am talking of God's MORAL quality, not His usefulness quality. Those are very afar from each other. I am stating, that while we justify the concept of punishment(by God) because we assert that we are responsible(morally)of such acts, we then establish that we could(in order to be significantly free) had been able to do otherwise(of what we actually, did). It follows, that those who here, practice virtue(or sanctity of conduct) are valued by both men and God, why? Because we know of the deal it involves in a person, that such would behave in a manner that is not so natural(as being truthful, condesendent, loyal, etc...)and we know such virtue is a result of self-effort(and assisting grace) and a very conflicting moral and psycological inner life. Indeed, it is very problematic to practice chastity(mentally contradictory) as you have natural impulses that are not within your "religious" calendar(you want to have sex long before marriage gets near you in ANY sense). Thus we say, wow, I admire that you do that. Thus God says, Behold, thou art righteouss, thou are a resemblance of Mine Only Begotten son, etc... because value comes from will, not otherwise.

When we consider then, God's moral quality(status-modus operandi, etc..), we find, that if He were BOUND by nature to act in a single way, then, He would not be even near human righteousness, for we indeed fight in ourselves to persevere, thats worthy. If we were bound(as we partly are) to be only evil, and we actually acted according this " nature", then God could not punish us, or admire in us our effort of virtue, but because we van do otherwise and choose not to, we preserve our worthiness. Thus happens to God. He cannot be bound by nature(as water) to be in a state(moral goodness-frozen ice), for then, it would have no value in terms of personality. Righteousness is not doing "good" alone, but CHOOSING to do so in face of opposites, the time you stop choosing, and start acting by default, you loose your freedom, or at least, what is worth of it.

If in preexistance we had free will, and chose good over evil(as yet do angels according to regular christian belief), then is not in which circumstances i encounter myself in what makes me more righteouss, but in what i WILL(to do) anywhere. Hence, Lucipher(being of light) chose evil over goodness, in the very presence of God!

Now God would certainly be more worthy that His creatures(or sons), and His righteousness would have to surpass anyone else's, thus He has to be even in more sublime terms, able to do otherwise(than good, i.e.evil) but choose not to, because being a Free Being, and good in nature(just as our good nature)(but He is not "goodness" itself, that does not exist), keeps existing in a single manner(hence His course is an 'eternal round"-not because He lives literally dgoing on a circle, LOL).

Now, you find water usefull, because of its nature, but you dont find it virtous, or righteous, or good(in a moral way), why? You may reffer in any case, to the "godness" of its USE, of its CREATOR, etc...but not to the water itself, why again? Because that water, did not choose to help you out in your thurst, but it was designed by nature to do so. Hence, it does not govern itself, why should we praise it? Do we praise our computer when we find in the internet what we are looking for? Why not?

Then, should we praise(or find, morally righteouss) a Being that is bound by nature(i.e.programed-not governing Itself,-planned-etc..) to be "good"? We then accept, even if roughly only, that He is able to do evil, but He doesnot do it, because He chooses not to, hence, He is our perfect example(as in Christ's), for if Christ could have not ever sinned, then He is no example to us, but to those of His kind(bound by nature to be goodness and merely endure suffering). If Christ did not have any freedom as to accept satan's offer in the desert to adore him, then 2:

a) Satan, knowing such a thing!, would have never even tried it!

B ) He would not be any example of morality,as we have to choose, and cant create in us a nature of infalliable goodness)

So we find the same conclusion, "Do you not like to ice skate? Build a snow man? Put ice cubes in your drink to cool it?" , of course i do, but particularly, as I am from the Tropic, i think I would find iceskating a bit difficult and rare(not funny), also i never made a snow man, and ultimatelly, what if9as vegetarians) i would preffer to drink water or juice without ice? These actuallities cannot be " applied to god" as you say, for they are cultural accidental things, while God's attributes must be treated as universally recognized and intelligiable to all.

Also "Do you just say, "well this water freezing thing is useless because that is what it's supposed to do!" I don't think so." , well, you can value its usefulness(again), but you dont thank water itself! Do you say "thank you water, for you have been so kind of helping me in my thurst" ? No, why? Ah....there you go friend. Also, "Because that is your nature, I can't respect you."? , hum, you run into even more serious difficulties, do you RESPECT water? Because it's nature SERVES you, do you OWE anything to water then? No, do you do any of these concerning it's(water's) Creator? Oh, yes, then we hit our jack pot.

But then again, when you finally recognize that you dont owe anything to water(nor respect for goodness), and you ultimatelly point towards heaven and say "there He is" " to Him I owe", then you tell me that He also is in the same position as water(for you believe that He also is bound by nature), so where do we point to? To whom do we point, that CHOSE to do and create all this GOODNESS(as in-usefulness in the world) for us, instead of just doing NOTHING at all? Was He(who ever it is) BOUND to create us? No. Just as He is not bound to do anything out of volition to His Will.

Lord, this is so edifying

Regards,

[Dr T]

Hi serg,

You said,

…value comes from will, not otherwise.

Not true. There is value apart form will. Look at a child’s beauty. Do you place his/her value only on your will? Look at the arts, etc.

You imply that our value to God is dependant on “what we do.” Again, if we are children of God, does he not value us for our mere existence? Do you have children? If not, can’t you at least conceive of value in that child because of his/her birth not based on his/her mistakes or “good behavior?”

You ask why I “dont find it virtous, or righteous, or good(in a moral way), why? [sic]” because it is an inanimate object sir. It is a non-moral agent. You are grasping here.

We are on different pages because you have an underlying belief in your deity’s anthropomorphisms.

Water is needed for us to survive. Note Jesus’ parallel to being “living water.” Why do you think He made that comparison? As water sustains life…

Anyway, Serg. You are missing vital foundations in your post. You might want to re-read what you are trying to say and try again.

Thanks,

Dr. T

[Serg]

Hi serg,

You said,

…value comes from will, not otherwise.

Not true. There is value apart form will. Look at a child’s beauty. Do you place his/her value only on your will? Look at the arts, etc.

You imply that our value to God is dependant on “what we do.” Again, if we are children of God, does he not value us for our mere existence? Do you have children? If not, can’t you at least conceive of value in that child because of his/her birth not based on his/her mistakes or “good behavior?”

You ask why I “dont find it virtous, or righteous, or good(in a moral way), why? [sic]” because it is an inanimate object sir. It is a non-moral agent. You are grasping here.

We are on different pages because you have an underlying belief in your deity’s anthropomorphisms.

Water is needed for us to survive. Note Jesus’ parallel to being “living water.” Why do you think He made that comparison? As water sustains life…

Anyway, Serg. You are missing vital foundations in your post. You might want to re-read what you are trying to say and try again.

Thanks,

Dr. T

I am not missing anything Dr. that's my point!

You say: Not true. There is value apart form will. Look at a child’s beauty. Do you place his/her value only on your will? Look at the arts, etc.

Fact: Beauty is a social construction, it is a communal "sense", it does not exist by itself, you dont find(what we call in phylosophy-universals) "beauty" alone in the universe, nor do you find truthfulness, or loyalty, those are characters and social constructions, we agree that what constitutes "beauty"(in THIS century) is a slim chick, with long hair(or short)etc... We agreed that "beauty"in God would have to "absort" us, indeed, we construct such universals, and they ONLY come(as VALUABLE) through one's(or any other's) WILL(mind, reason, thought). Thus, i child might be "beautiful" to you(cause you are there watching him!) but iof such a kid remained ALONE in the universe(or at least THIS world) he would NOT be beautiful, he would just be a kid, unless another WILL(mind) encounters itself with him and judges him(through the agreed social construction) as "beautiful".

You say:You imply that our value to God is dependant on “what we do.” Yes and no. He values us notwithstanding what we do "sir", for we are His sons, BUT, He values the righteouss heart ALSO, as an addition to that all natural-by default-love. Indeed Christ said "IF ye love me, keep my commandments", why would he say that? In fact, why do we have to keep His commandments? Why does have God to create such commandments for us? Ah, but also He mentioned LOVE, is not love the greatest meassure of value? What we value, we may say, we love(in a certain way) , moreover in God's case and His commandments, He LOVES us, and He says that the only way in which we can SHOW (or otherwise-truly DO) love Him, is while being obedient. So in fact, all the value we have(be it the parental-by default or the conduct one) comes ONLY from Will, for God, is WILL. If there were no Will(i.e.God), there would be no VALUE.

Value comes only through the inner concepts of a WILLING MIND, value does not exist by itself apart from Mind(Will). In fact, the only value(as in-useful-)you may find in water, is the fact that it "is needed for us to survive.", thus, if there would have been NO us to use it to survive, it would have no VALUE to you(for YOU are a Will!). We might mention that there are two sorts of values, intrinsic values, and extrinsic values. Water's value of sustaining us is an extrinsic one(external to it, not necessary to it for existing), while the nature of water(it's very-only-being) is intrinsic.

God's value then, cannot be only intrinsic(we cant just calue Him as we value water intrinsicly-because it only exists), but we have to value Him also extrinsicly(of How He interacts with other thiongs-beings), thus, his freedom.

Water's example is the most perfect one for this topic. You very sincerely admit :You ask why I “dont find it virtous, or righteous, or good(in a moral way), why? [sic]” because it is an inanimate object sir. It is a non-moral agent., and finally you get it! Hence, if God is not actually ABLE to will evil He deserves then no moral judgement(we may not say that He is GOOD), just as we dont consider water 'good".

And after all this you dare say You are grasping here. , Well, Dr., to that i can only say that you may as well ignore all this thread then.

Also:you have an underlying belief in your deity’s anthropomorphisms. Although I have nowhere mentioned or alluded here to any corporeal nature of God, of course i believe that. But a treatsie on God's moral agency only includes such aspects as it sees fit, it is not necessary nor has anything to do

[Dr T]

Hello Serg,

You spent the first paragraph trying to show that beauty/value is socially constructed. In the very next paragraph you say,

He [God] values us notwithstanding what we do "sir", for we are His sons, …

You get around to talking about intrinsic value. That is my point. The value of a child is not only because society tells be he/she is valuable. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. I know what universality is, sir. (Side question- Why did you put sir in quotation marks in you post?)

You said,

Well, Dr., to that i can only say that you may as well ignore all this thread then.

I think you are right about ignoring it.

Thanks,

Dr. T

[Serg]

You may ignore it, but the conversation remains open to future inquisitors. LOL.