Ask a Christian philosopher a question

[bhsmte]

And wasn´t Jeremy a reincarnation of elioenai?

Could have been and seems to follow a pattern; form new user names when the going gets tough and form new threads when the going gets tough.

 

[anonymous person]

What degree in philosophy do you have?

Since I asked for only one question per person and since this is your first question, I will address this one.

I have no degree in philosophy.

 

[bhsmte]

Have you used other usernames on this site in the past?

 

[anonymous person]

Why do you think it is acceptable to do so?

Go on...

I would have done what Rahab did when she hid the spies.

 

[anonymous person]

Have you used other usernames on this site in the past?

Not this site. I have been a member of quite a few different Christian forum sites though.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Very well, but that does more or less fit one of the "categories" I referred to, doesn't it?--not a member of any denomination or non-denominational congregation and also not partial to any particular set of ideas identified with one of the leading denominations. I'm assuming that not being a regular attendee at any particular church goes with it.

The only "problem" there (for the rest of us, that is) is that we don't know--until we get the explanation you volunteered here--which reason for choosing the generic "Christian" category is the one that applies to you (or anyone else in the same situation).

By the way, there seems to be only a slight benefit in taking "Christian," since most of the religious forums are open to any Christian; it's only the denominational safe houses that aren't, and they would demand their own denominational tag. Anyway, it was just a small consideration that I perhaps shouldn't have brought up.

Actually, in line with Scripture, I can't but recommend that we all be involved with a local church: at present, I tend toward Baptist/Christian churches, although I am not content with some of the overall tendency toward Dispensationalism I find there.

As far as my own preference for the 'Historic Christian' label, I choose this description to partially represent my approach and method to faith, but it doesn't mean, of course, that I have the same reasons for using CF's generic 'christian' label as others might. I also choose it over some other label like 'non-denominational' because many times it can refer to a more Charismatic type of faith, which I'm not against, but not specifically ready to jump into both feet first.

Anyway, that's the short of it, Albion.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[David Colin Gould]

If God lied in the Bible, would that have been a moral action by him?

 

[anonymous person]

If God lied in the Bible, would that have been a moral action by him?

God cannot lie. So the hypothetical is one that is impossible.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And wasn´t Jeremy a reincarnation of elioenai?

Yes, he was.

 

[David Colin Gould]

God cannot lie. So the hypothetical is one that is impossible.

Why can't God lie?

 

[anonymous person]

Why can't God lie?

To begin with, your question, "If God lied.....?" is an example of a counterfactual with an impossible antecedent because God is essentially axiologically perfect, the Summum Bonum.

 

[juvenissun]

What degree in philosophy do you have? Where did you get your degree in philosophy?

If you have no degree, in what sense are you calling yourself a philosopher?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Many schools offer "Ph".D.
Does that count?

 

[juvenissun]

Why can't God lie?

That is a definition. No why.
It means: if someone lied, then he is not God.
Make sense?

 

[David Colin Gould]

To begin with, your question, "If God lied.....?" is an example of a counterfactual with an impossible antecedent because God is essentially axiologically perfect, the Summum Bonum.

I will point out here that you made the argument that lying can be a morally good act, so ...

However, my next question is: by what standard is God adjudged to be perfect?

 

[David Colin Gould]

That is a definition. No why.
It means: if someone lied, then he is not God.
Make sense?

No. It only makes sense if lying is always immoral by some standard and God must always be moral, as judged by that same standard. But if God is the standard, then when God lies he must be doing it in a moral way.

 

[juvenissun]

No. It only makes sense if lying is always immoral by some standard and God must always be moral, as judged by that same standard. But if God is the standard, then when God lies he must be doing it in a moral way.

You made the definition tooooo complicated. A lie is a lie. That is it. God is defined as a figure who do not lie.
I guess you want to be god. So you can define what is a lie or not. I tell you in advance: it won't work. People have tried that many many times.

 

[David Colin Gould]

You made the definition tooooo complicated. A lie is a lie. That is it. God is defined as a figure who do not lie.

Okay, so God cannot lie.

If there was a circumstance such that by God not lying it would result in an immoral outcome, what then? Is God trapped in being unable to prevent an immoral outcome?

I guess you want to be god. So you can define what is a lie or not. I tell you in advance: it won't work. People have tried that many many times.

Huh?

 

[juvenissun]

I will point out here that you made the argument that lying can be a morally good act, so ...

However, my next question is: by what standard is God adjudged to be perfect?

I think you do not know what a definition mean.
God is defined to have a set of contents (characters or natures). The one in your question is one of them.

Read the first two Books of the Bible. God "introduces" (defines) Himself by many characters in the Books. An interested one among them, which you probably do not understand, is God says: I am "jealous".

 

[juvenissun]

Okay, so God cannot lie.

If there was a circumstance such that by God not lying it would result in an immoral outcome, what then? Is God trapped in being unable to prevent an immoral outcome?


Huh?

I guess you mean that is WE do not lie than bad thing would happen. Right?
God does not lie. God tells Adam do not eat the Fruit. God does not lie to prevent that from happening. What else could be worse than what Adam did? God does not prevent it by His power.

 

[anonymous person]

my next question is: by what standard is God adjudged to be perfect?

The question assumes there is a standard by which we judge God.

The answer to your question is to point out that God is essentially axiologically perfect. The term "essentially" denotes within this context "by nature" or by "definition".

God is perfect not because He conforms to some standard of perfection external to Himself, but rather, by virtue of His essence or nature as the Summum Bonum. Analogously we say that a triangle has three sides because it is by defintion, a three sided object.