@sonship saidWould you accept the assessment that the OT God is a needy God?
@KellyJayGod needs nothing from man, only the man made gods do.
This is not my sentiment.
God has intentionally bound Himself so that He does need man.
God, Who could do everything unilaterally alone, has purposely bound Himself so that He needs man's cooperation to move His will forward.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidNo I would not. Simply reading the OT, God declares as much. Need suggests an incompleteness that God doesn’t have. We are not chosen to fill any void within the great I AM.
Would you accept the assessment that the OT God is a needy God?
3 edits
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
Throughout both testamental times God is in need of the cooperation of His people.
There is this side of the revelation of God.
One has to get use to the things of the Bible have two sides.
Kelly is not wrong that God is self sufficient. In one sense God is needing nothing.
But the things of the revelation of God often have two sides like the two wings of a bird. A bird doesn't fly with only one wing.
And there is this aspect that God has purposely said " I CAN act alone. But in this matter I will NOT act alone. My people must be an echo, showing that they want My will. Then we TWO together will act in a united way."
When a person gasps this she or he will see that to be saved is a tremendous matter human beings coming into a tremendous eternal purpose of God. It is not just that the pitiful human being is forgiven by the God who needs nothing.
No, it is a matter man coming into the co-operation of the eternal purpose for which we are created.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidIt didn’t come off as a parody to me. Maybe it would have if it was just you and I talking.
Come on kelly, it was a parody of your own words. You said, 'You keep saying cooperation as if that is the definition of morals,' and I responded, 'You keep saying 'God' as if that is the definition of morals.'
It neatly highlighted the erroneous nature of your assertion as I have 'CLEARLY' written that cooperation was 'not' the definition of morals. Cooperation ou ...[text shortened]... ociety with a moral framework.
The rest of your post bears no resemblance to what I have written.
Besides I think God is able to give us morals while reasoning can only give a variety of opinions to achieve a variety of outcomes. Broken compasses with no where to point,
@kellyjay saidReasoning not only gave us morals, reasoning gave us God.
It didn’t come off as a parody to me. Maybe it would have if it was just you and I talking.
Besides I think God is able to give us morals while reasoning can only give a variety of opinions to achieve a variety of outcomes. Broken compasses with no where to point,
We think, therefore He is.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidFor our sake
So, why does He keep demanding that we praise Him all the time? Why does He get jealous?
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYou are not responding to my points merely repeating yourself. Outside of the God all others are made up. You think everyone who has an opinion has morals of their own, regardless of how they conflict with others?
Reasoning not only gave us morals, reasoning gave us God.
We think, therefore He is.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYes, the powers that be needed slave power.
Hey, a much better post by you.
It is my contention sir that cooperation was the thing that gave us the edge as a species (initially) and not only ensured our survival but pathed the way to moral considerations. It is not my contention that humans remain primarily cooperative beings, but only that in the early stages of our journey it was in our own interest to wor ...[text shortened]... and wrong. Without this initial cooperation, neither of us would be here to have this conversation.
Just wait till AI and robotics no longer makes human slaves necessary.
Then what will they do with us?
@kellyjay saidAs discussed ad nauseam (especially with the abomination that was Romans) the morality of one given society may differ from the morality of a different society, though there tends to be an overlap of key moral issues, such as murder being wrong etc. I'm totally fine with the fact that there is not one moral outlook that encompasses the globe. Morality is man made so will, of course, have variations and change over time. (And between individuals, even within the same society).
You are not responding to my points merely repeating yourself. Outside of the God all others are made up. You think everyone who has an opinion has morals of their own, regardless of how they conflict with others?
And all religions believe their God is the only one not made up.
@wolfgang59 saidThere's no need for any of us to "believe" anything about what the ancients thought on the matter, which is also the subject of this thread. They did not think humanity could have morality without a deity, which contradicts the hypothesis of the thread starter.
Do you believe having laws "authorised" by
non-existent deities makes them objective?
btw: your use of "hewn" is ill-advised.
Now that you've been corrected on that overarching issue, my own belief aligns with logic as usual: since morality deals with how we "should" behave, to be truly binding it must be rooted in something beyond the subjective opinion of you or I or any number of beings. It must be objective or a function of how things must be. And things must be harmonious, as disorder cannot explain existence. I have shown elsewhere that deity (God) must exist, and He must also be the perfect expression of harmony, so yes, morality must be rooted in Him to be objective.
Btw, hewn is exactly how writing was carved into cuneiform tablets. If you're going to correct someone, it helps to be correct.
@wolfgang59 saidNope, just asked for transitional fossils at any point along the supposed line of human descent. I did not ask for a complete record. In fact, my point the entire time has been the paucity of transitional fossils, so you didn't just misunderstand, you've consciously been dishonest about what's at issue here.
Seeing as evolution does not stop you are asking for a
complete line of descendency from proto-humans to
yourself. That would include skeletons of your parents,
grand-parents, great grand-parents etc. etc.
btw: "methinks" really does not describe your musings.
Btw, one's musings--or the way things seem to one--is exactly what "methinks" describes. You're having a rough go at disagreeing with me, but again, I applaud your courage for trying. Many of your idiotic colleagues don't have similar gumption.
1 edit
@ghost-of-a-duke saidIf being attached to another god meant your destruction, you would not want even a flirtatious relationship to occur.
If your partner was jealous, would you accept the explanation that their jealousy was for your sake? And if they continually wanted you to praise them, would you not think them needy?
We praise many among us for far less than God has done for us.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYou are describing a reason why man’s moral compass is without a real direction, unable to progress at all! How is this real morals where everyone can do what they will? I can call that lust, selfishness, blind leading the blind. What exactly is being worked out with reasoning here, how to overcome those that have what we want with cooperation?
As discussed ad nauseam (especially with the abomination that was Romans) the morality of one given society may differ from the morality of a different society, though there tends to be an overlap of key moral issues, such as murder being wrong etc. I'm totally fine with the fact that there is not one moral outlook that encompasses the globe. Morality is man made so w ...[text shortened]... , even within the same society).
And all religions believe their God is the only one not made up.