A perfect god can not exist?

Clearly a person can hold an opinion about a matter of opinion.

Amperage;155492 wrote:

Apparently Krumple is a firm believer in "might makes right"

It's not about being a believer in that concept. It's that the world works in that way, it's just most people don't want to acknowledge it, for what ever reason. I am not saying it is the best way, I am simply saying that is how it is.

a perfect god cannot exist because of the psychology of god

god does have psychology

?................

god has a pshychology does god not ?

otherwise the perfect god is devoid of psychology

which makes this god devoid of emotions and the ability to understand them and the consequenses thereof , for us

I'm not sure it can be said that God has a ''psychology''. I would say He is all knowing though, so clearly He understand psychology and emotions...

I'm not quite certain what you're attempting to set me up for....but I'll bite...where are you going with this?

It's not about being a believer in that concept. It's that the world works in that way, it's just most people don't want to acknowledge it, for what ever reason. I am not saying it is the best way, I am simply saying that is how it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by north
god has a pshychology does god not ?

otherwise the perfect god is devoid of psychology

which makes this god devoid of emotions and the ability to understand them and the consequenses thereof , for us






but did god , really ?



that god , because he has a psychology makes mistakes , such as Eve taking a bite of the apple of knowledge and not anticipating this reaction by Eve

got angry and took it out on the rest of us

( thanks Eve by the way )

so clearly god did not understand psychology of emotions and individualism

I wish it were true, that Christian doctrine taught that there are many paths to god, many methods of salvation and that there is truth in other religions. Alas, it is not. Many individual Christians do have these values or this tolerant attitude but the history, doctrine and official teaching of the Church does not. One need not look too hard (crusades, pogroms, inquisitions, Witch burnings, heresy trials, etc.) at the history of the church to see that.

842 The Church's bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:
All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .[331] 843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.

Even a look at the doctrine of most Protestant mainline liberal churches will show the official teaching is that Jesus is God in the flesh, and that salvation is through Christ alone and other exclusive religious teachings....It is true I am intolerant of exclusive claims to god, salvation, wisdom and truth and I suppose one could claim that being intolerant of prejudice, violence, discrimination, segregation, etc, is a form of intolerance itself.

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.[59] He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.[60] Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.[61] The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.
1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.
1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."[62] Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity. 1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"[63] allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Then there are the modern day problems of evolution, creationism, homosexuality, abortion, etc. Too often it seems the message of the Church is not one of love, compassion, kindness, tolerance or respect.

It is just incorrect (both historically and in the present day) to assert that Christian doctrine does not preach, teach and promote an exclusive faith in which truth and salvation can only be found within the Christian church and salvation only obtained through Christ.

In fact more than a few Christian sects teach that only the members of their particular sect enjoy god's favor or can hope for salvation and grace.

It is this exclusive claim on grace, salvation and truth to which I object and to the intolerance and lack of respect for those of other faiths and traditions which come with it.

You seem to see this as a personal attack on all Christians (including yourself) it is not.

There may be a perfect God but the institutional Church has become somewhat like the temple in Jerusalem that was the center of Jesus protest in the first place.

Moral relativist believe that "might makes right"

Why do you believe that? If a moral relativist believe that was universally true, he would not be a moral relativist. For no moral relativist believes that any universal moral statement is true. Isn't that true?

I believe that because that is exactly what the moral relativists have said. So ask them about their contradictory nature...not me.

Which moral relativists have said that? Can you name even one? Of course, is any said it, then he must believe both moral relativism is true and not true. But I will await your reply as to which moral relativist has said that might makes right. I would be surprised to hear that, for example, Margaret Mead, or Ruth Benedict, or Clyde Kluckhorn, ever said such a thing. But maybe you have some information I don't have.

Krumple said that....as far as accredited moral relativists I'm not sure but I know tons of philosophers have said that including Spinoza but I don't know if they are moral relativists or not

That really is not good enough. Spinoza was a subjectivist, but not a moral relativist. I take it, then, that you cannot name even one moral relativist who has held (as part of his moral relativism) that might makes right. Is that true? But tell me, where does Spinoza say that might makes right? That would be antithetical to his philosophy so far as I understand him. Could you quote any passage from Spinoza where he says anything even close to might makes right? Or even quote an accredited interpreter of Spinoza who claims that Spinoza thought that might makes right? Harry Wolfson is a very accredited interpreter of Spinoza, for instance. Does he say that Spinoza thought that might makes right?

Spinoza starts his theory of right from a state of nature, as in Hobbes, but this right is equal to the power of the right - holder. The contract is not an abstract entity which keeps a society stable. Rather all rules must depend on power, i.e. Machiavellian force or Spinozist (divine) power in all beings:

"It follows that the power by which things in nature exist, and by which, in consequence, they act, can be none other than the eternal power of God. / . . ./Now from the fact that the power of things in nature to exist and act is really the power of God, we can easily see what the right of nature is. For since God has the right to do everything, and God's right is simply God's power conceived as completely free, it follows that each thing in nature has as much right from nature as it has power to exist and act.; since the power by which it exists and acts is nothing but the completely free power of God " (PT, ch. II, Spinoza's italics).

Passions lead the multitude to use its power by natural right. If people are in bondage by their passions it follows that they may use it in a wrong or good way. To strive to exist, conatus, is the base whatever means one chooses. The multitude use passions, the wise reason. Both ways have the same natural right to do it. Non- utopian politics may just use the first way, the passions of the multitude. "The natural right of the passions, and therewith the rule, founded in natural right, of conflict, hatred, anger and so on is against reason in respect to our [the wise] nature, but not against reason in respect of the laws of nature as a whole "( Strauss , p. 232).

Rights as external norms are not to be taken seriously, when judging acts according to Spinoza's theory of causality. Less if they are "freely chosen", as Spinoza does not believe in a simple form of human freedom of choice . Power gives rights as in "To be able to exist is power " ( Ethics, part I, prop 11, 3rd proof). Power is the essence of substance, as the concept of conatus showed. We should not confuse Spinoza's concept of right as power with cynicisms as "might as right", "the right of the stronger" etc in an elitist fashion. "He is not only the first modern thinker to defend democracy as such, but to do so on the principle that might makes right" (Smith, p. 376). Weak men have as much power as the strong in absolute terms, but is somehow separated from what his powers, his essence, can attain. To attain as much as we can, we must increase our actions and increase our active affections, joys and lessen what makes us sad and powerless.

(We should consider the possibility that there is a moral law, but that it is hard to discern. It may not be discernible by scientific means, nor by discursive thought. It is traditionally understood as the record of human encounters with the Divine. In the Buddhist tradition, the term that is used is that salvational knowledge is 'discernible only by the wise'. This denotes that a certain quality of mind and character is required. Lacking these qualities, it may not be discernible at all. Hence it appears not to exist.

We can understand the various faith traditions as the historical record of these encounters, and the recording of the laws by the foundational prophets and seers of the various cultures.)