One of the major problems for Christianity is that it suffers from divided loyalties. It looks to two very different traditions for guidance and understanding — Athens and Jerusalem, the Greek tradition and the Jewish tradition.
The God of the New Testament is a father, but like real-life fathers, there is not only unconditional love but also serious expectations and obligations. If you really love your father, then you had better show it. Dad is paying for your college fees, so don’t spend four years drinking and playing video games.
The classical theistic view of God takes in all of this and ends with an entity that is eternal, in some sense self-sufficient, perfect, and sustaining everything else. Plato’s Form of the Good may not be a creator out of nothing, but it is very much a sustainer in the sense that everything else gets its being from Good.
the philosopher’s God — he does not come into being, he does not go out of being, he just is, and he is the source and reason for the existence of everything else. He uniquely exists necessarily; all else is contingent.
My impression is that Christianity never really managed to reconcile these two roots, and if you talk to Christians about their God, they sometimes intentionally, sometimes unintentionally jump back and forth between God the emotional Father and God as Pure Form and Ground of Being
He is indeed a contradiction...this Christian god. The dichotomy of the two branches, only highlights the difference between the Abrahamic spiteful, vengeful god of the Old Testament, which doesn’t quite coalesce with Jesus, the son of god, and known as the god of love. I have often thought that it would be easier if they had not decided on the trinity, but just sold Christianity as the gospel of love in the New Testament, based purely around the teachings of Christ. The Old Testament is Judaism, and I can’t understand how fundamentalist Christians concentrate on the scriptures of it, and pay scant attention to the gospels which Jesus preached....that to me is contradictory to professing to be a Christian. It is incomprehensible to my mind why most people of any religion believe what they do, beyond realising that the human mind can be conditioned to accept things that are unsubstantiated by any evidence and are even counterintuitive and contradictory. I have long ago stopped trying to figure out what makes some people accept blindly, anything that they are told , and those who have natural skepticism and question everything.
Interesting. The Hindus have their many gods and goddesses and demons and they have their philosopher’s God, developed later and superimposed. They get around the problem by saying that the lesser gods are aspects of Brahman, which encompasses everything.
I rather like the idea of the philosopher’s God but I’d prefer not to label it as “God”. That word has bad associations among many people.
Yes, even Baptists sometimes speak in terms of the philosopher’s God—I remember. Unfortunately they also have to pay homage to the Bible which they have ignorantly declared to be the inerrant word of God.
The more problems, the better, maybe they could addrress those things instead of trying to run the country?
You sure spend a lotof time worrying about organized religion........
If you agree with something then god is love.
If you disagree, then god is justice.
And you will be always able to use it because the religion is on made to be impossible to follow so you are always being judged and needs to keep the leaders pleased so they apply the "god of love" into your case.