djm wrote:Doesn't that also make this god immoral if it designed us specifically to covet that which doesn't belong to us, or for that matter, if it designed us or anything else to "belong" to anything other than it's self?
djm
That's the other core scholastic question: free will, and sin.
Believe me, every move you can think of in this game has been made.
Bloomfield wrote:
Believe me, every move you can think of in this game has been made.
Yes, it is a game. A game that I tired of (once and for all) a long, long time ago, in my distant childhood.
(1.) "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" is indeed part of the moral law. The moral law is no hindrance to God's omnipotence, inasmuch as morality and His will are one.
(2.) God's immutability is as much a part of who He is as is omnipotence. It is not that He cannot change the moral law, as much as He will not.
(3.) I'm afeared this thread is gonna wind up in the politic and controversy forum.
An aditional interpretation of this is that God originally designed humans with a nature to give, not to covet. And, that we had to learn this new nature of coveteousness (the precept was not given till long after Creation). This learning became part of our nature and the unlearning process, as prescribed by Christ, included giving all you have to the poor and following him. This act of giving would renew the heart and restore the soul so that the little you still own is a collective ownership as experienced by the early disciples at pentecost. Paul picks up on the theme quite nicely, saying...
1Tim 6:7-9 For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and raiment let us be therewith content. But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
Walden wrote:I'm afeared this thread is gonna wind up in the politic and controversy forum.
I'm afeared it should probably have been there from the start.
Well, no. If it had been, I wouldn't have read it. But it was here and I did, so let me just say this about that corporeality issue . . . "And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us."
Now that is settled, let's all go out and have ice cream. Moderators treat!
Walden wrote:
(1.) "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" is indeed part of the moral law. The moral law is no hindrance to God's omnipotence, inasmuch as morality and His will are one.
His will, the law, and my will --- I would love to understand that. Mind you, I don't doubt your proposition that the law and & his will are as one; it's just that I feel some of the deepest layers of meaning are concealed beneath it. And mind you no. 2, that by "understand" I don't mean something I do with my head, but something I do with my life.
(2.) God's immutability is as much a part of who He is as is omnipotence. It is not that He cannot change the moral law, as much as He will not.
I've always found it interesting and amusing how singular unimpressed the scholastics were by this argurment
Given that God in all his glory is omnipotent, could he microwave a burrito so hot that not even he could eat it?
First answer was a silly one. Here I'll try to be more serious. Given that God is Almighty and omnipotent, then to propose he could nuke a burrito too hot for him to eat would not be a paradox, but a contradiction in terms. Something the all powerful cannot do is not a thing at all. It is nothing, for it is a self-contradiction. And to put an old phrase in a new light "Nothing is impossible for God."
"Yes... yes. This is a fertile land, and we will thrive. We will rule over all this land, and we will call it... This Land."
