Are most Christians Idolaters?

[AquinasForGod]

Question for debate: Is anything less than Divine Simplicity a form of idolatry?

David Bentley Hart words it like this - Why Denial of Divine Simplicity Implies Atheism.

You might be like, WHAT? There is a good reason for this question, though. Philosophers and theologians like David Bently Hart have pointed out that many protestant Christians actually believe in an idea of god that is akin to idolatry.

I will try to explain the problem as simply as possible. If you think God is a person among the genus of persons but without our limitations, then you in fact think of God as some composited being, which would not be much different than Zues if Zues were the sole occupant of Olympus and had no beginning.

Another problem with God having any sort of parts, such as some attribute of justice which is a different attribute of mercy is that would make God a composited being, which means there must be something responsible for that him being composite in the way he is. See the argument for God from composites. This being would thus not be God for it is dependent upon something else for how it exists the way it does.

This is where divine simplicity comes in. It states God is not a composited being. God is most simple with no parts, no attributes, no properties, etc as having such would make him a composited being. This is the absolute oneness of God. Also, in principle there can only be one divinely simple being. It is not even possible for there to be more than one of them. I can show the argument if need be.

But this is not the same for god ideas that are not divinely simple. In principle, there can exist others. So at best you would have to say something like your god exist and although there could in principle exist others, he happens to be the only one. So it is not necessary there be only one.

But it is necessary there is only one divinely simple God, and so to worship any other God is akin to idolatry.

David Bently Hart has much to say on this, but here is one thing he says in his book The Experience of God.

The precise sense in which God is not a being, or indeed the sense in which he could even be said not to “exist,” is as some discrete object, essentially distinct from all others, “standing forth” (which is what “exist” means, etymologically speaking) from being as such. A being of that kind—one to which the indefinite article properly attaches—possesses a certain determinate number of attributes, a certain quantity of potentialities, a certain degree of actuality, and so on, and is at once both intrinsically composite and extrinsically enumerable: that is, every particular being is made up of a collection of parts and is also a discrete item within the sum total of existing things. All of this is precisely what classical metaphysical theism says God is not. He is instead the infinite to which nothing can add and from nothing can subtract, and he himself is not some object in addition to other objects. He is the source and fullness of all being, the actuality in which all finite things live, move, and have their being, or in which all things hold together; and so he is also the reality that is present in all things as the very act of their existence. God, in short, is not a being but is at once “beyond being” (in the sense that he transcends the totality of existing things) and also absolute “Being itself” (in the sense that he is the source and ground of all things. As Sufi tradition says, “God is al-Haqq, Reality as such, underlying everything. All finite things are limited expressions, graciously imparted, of that actuality that he possesses in infinite abundance. (pp. 108-109)

Hart says to reject divine simplicity is to reject God because a composited being cannot be God. And so he says

“To be the first cause of the whole universal chain of per se causality, God must be wholly unconditioned in every sense. He cannot be composed of and so dependent upon severable constituents, physical or metaphysical, as then he would himself be conditional” (p. 134).


But if one is unable to fathom this, as children certainly would not, then their faith will be enough, which atheists lack altogether, but to understand and reject divine simplicity is probably atheism.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #18]

Nothing Christ taught is compatible with Judaism.

It certainly is.

He taught the pure Judaic worship of his Father, Jehovah. He kept the Law to the letter when he walked the earth, and he exposed the religious leaders to be the hypocrites they were. What he didn't teach was all the man-made rules of the religious leaders.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #18]

Nothing Christ taught is compatible with Judaism.

It hasn't been established that the Father that Jesus was referring to, wasn't YHVH.

That is right. The Father that Jesus prayed to was Jehovah. Thank you for conceding that important point.

[William]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #18]

Nothing Christ taught is compatible with Judaism.

It hasn't been established that the Father that Jesus was referring to, wasn't YHVH.

That is right. The Father that Jesus prayed to was Jehovah. Thank you for conceding that important point.

conceding = "admit or agree that something is true after first denying or resisting it."

Please take more care when representing me by implication. Presently what you wrote is a misrepresentation of my position on the matter.

It hasn't been established that the Father that Jesus was referring to, was YHVH. I am open to evidence either way, and until such, I am happy to go along with the thinking, that where Biblical Jesus refers to his Father in Heaven, he is referring to YHVH.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #18]

Nothing Christ taught is compatible with Judaism.

It hasn't been established that the Father that Jesus was referring to, wasn't YHVH.

That is right. The Father that Jesus prayed to was Jehovah. Thank you for conceding that important point.

conceding = "admit or agree that something is true after first denying or resisting it."

Please take more care when representing me by implication. Presently what you wrote is a misrepresentation of my position on the matter.

It hasn't been established that the Father that Jesus was referring to, was YHVH. I am open to evidence either way, and until such, I am happy to go along with the thinking, that where Biblical Jesus refers to his Father in Heaven, he is referring to YHVH.

Your point here is not clear. Could you explain it more succinctly? And what does it have to do with "nothing Christ taught is compatible with Judaism?"

[Runner]

Are most Christians Idolaters?
Question for debate: Is anything less than Divine Simplicity a form of idolatry?

Yes, sadly the majority are idolaters as the reigning beliefs of God as three persons, and other beliefs that make Christ NOT God, are absolute blasphemy taught nowhere in Scripture. Thus, they are living in the sin of breaking the first 2 Commandments.

Divine Simplicity is the concept that God is ONE person.

It is the only TRUE concept of God that fully aligns with the Scriptures.

[SacredBishop]

I simply believe in God the holy Father and God the holy Son and God the holy Spirit and Mary the holy Mother of the holy Godhead and the holy angels and the holy books and the holy doctrines.

[William]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #18]

Nothing Christ taught is compatible with Judaism.

False. Many of the teachings and values of Jesus Christ, as recorded in the New Testament of the Christian Bible, are rooted in and compatible with the beliefs and practices of Judaism. Jesus himself was a Jewish man who lived within the Jewish community and taught within the framework of Jewish laws and traditions. The concept of love, compassion, and forgiveness that Jesus emphasized is also present in Judaism, and both religions share a belief in the importance of following the commandments of God. However, the belief in Jesus as the Messiah and the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy is a central tenet of Christianity that is not accepted by many Jews.

[William]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #18]

Nothing Christ taught is compatible with Judaism.

It hasn't been established that the Father that Jesus was referring to, wasn't YHVH.

That is right. The Father that Jesus prayed to was Jehovah. Thank you for conceding that important point.

conceding = "admit or agree that something is true after first denying or resisting it."

Please take more care when representing me by implication. Presently what you wrote is a misrepresentation of my position on the matter.

It hasn't been established that the Father that Jesus was referring to, was YHVH. I am open to evidence either way, and until such, I am happy to go along with the thinking, that where Biblical Jesus refers to his Father in Heaven, he is referring to YHVH.

Your point here is not clear. Could you explain it more succinctly? And what does it have to do with "nothing Christ taught is compatible with Judaism?"

This statement reflects a neutral and open-minded stance regarding the relationship between Jesus and God in the Christian faith. It acknowledges that there is no conclusive evidence to prove or disprove the belief that Jesus was referring to YHVH as his "Father in Heaven". By saying that one is "happy to go along with the thinking" until evidence is presented, this statement reflects a willingness to consider different perspectives and to be open to new information.

It is important to note that the interpretation of the relationship between Jesus and God in the Christian faith is a matter of theological belief and is not based solely on empirical evidence.

[PolytheistWitch]

[Replying to William in post #27]

Judaism, and both religions share a belief in the importance of following the commandments of God.

Jesus specifically told people the rules of Judaism we're silly. Letting your cow die cause it's the Sabbath was dumb, the story of the Samaritan, issuing two commandments. Nothing in Christ's teaching is Judaism. If it was Jews could incorporate them in their faith. They don't because He didn't.

[JehovahsWitness]

Jesus specific cally told people the rules of Judaism we're silly.

If by "Judaism" you mean the Mosaic law*, he did not such thing; Jesus and kept the religious laws of his day but spoke out against the manmade traditions and burdensom rules that the religious leaders had built up around it.

* The Mosaic law refers to the collections of laws and directives in the Hebrew bible

Letting your cow die cause it's the Sabbath was dumb ...

Agreed. Please note that the above wasn't part of the Mosaic law.

JW