Seeing Things Differently -DanP the apologist excuse.

[Gadianton]

If you were a God believer, what kind of God would you feel comfortable believing in while at the same time recognizing the world for what it is?

Need to disentangle believing there exists a God from believing in God. I believe Donald Trump exists, but I don't believe in Donald Trump.

In either case, it has nothing to do with whether I'm "comfortable" or not. There are many realities I accept that don't make me comfortable.

It's impossible to say in advance what my criteria is for believing in God's existence. The biggest issue is that breaking me psychologically won't make me thirst for God. I'm well beyond appealing to my self-interest. The problem then is that, a sufficiently advanced alien could visit me and tell me it is an angel, and come up with a great story about who God is, and I'm simply not bright enough to see through all the holes.

I think it's really impossible to believe God exists rationally with confidence. I don't want to say in advance what God should be like to be believable. I would suggest though, if I had to offer one constraint, that God is not an idiot. God should realize just how easy it is for someone to come up with a good story to convince others with. And so, I would think that the last thing God would be worried about is whether any of us believe he exists. But I don't formally constrain God to be reasonable in this way, as I understand reason. I'm open to God being a total butcher who demands allegiance on a whim. It's just, how is the case for that God going to be made? I can't say in advance I won't be convinced, but until I see the case I can speculate it will not be an easy one to make.

[Res Ipsa]

I don't either, but I remember someone teaching it as though 'man could compel god' that way. Maybe in seminary?

There are three people involved in a temple marriage, the couple and the officiator. The couple are equal partners with God in a covenant and are not the ones constraining God. The officiator, on the other hand, is not making any agreement or covenant with God. He is exercising the priesthood to seal the couple together and God is constrained to accept that sealing.

I guess I don’t view God’s voluntary delegation of authority as a constraint.

[Res Ipsa]

Thanks. I took a look. That looks like a covenant to me. God is bound to keep his part of the covenant if we keep ours. I don't equate God saying he lives up to his end of an agreement as the power to constrain God.

I don't either, but I remember someone teaching it as though 'man could compel god' that way. Maybe in seminary?

Could be. At least in my day, Seminary teachers didn’t always stick to the manual.

[Fence Sitter]

There are three people involved in a temple marriage, the couple and the officiator. The couple are equal partners with God in a covenant and are not the ones constraining God. The officiator, on the other hand, is not making any agreement or covenant with God. He is exercising the priesthood to seal the couple together and God is constrained to accept that sealing.

I guess I don’t view God’s voluntary delegation of authority as a constraint.

I am not sure why this is a disagreement or that it is even that important, but God isn't volunteering his authority in Mormonism, that I know. Males get the priesthood at a certain age and its use isn't even conditional at times. If a unworthy priesthood holder officiates at a sealing, or a baptism or a washing and anointing, the ordinance is still valid and God is still obligated to recognize it. Regardless, certainly in the case of the 2nd anointing ordinance, God is being obligated (better word?) to accept it and bestow those rewards. And, there are still all the other examples I gave of how limited the Mormon God is as compared to a true Omnipotent one.

[Res Ipsa]

I guess I don’t view God’s voluntary delegation of authority as a constraint.

I am not sure why this is a disagreement or that it is even that important, but God isn't volunteering his authority in Mormonism, that I know. Males get the priesthood at a certain age and its use isn't even conditional at times. If a unworthy priesthood holder officiates at a sealing, or a baptism or a washing and anointing, the ordinance is still valid and God is still obligated to recognize it. Regardless, certainly in the case of the 2nd anointing ordinance, God is being obligated (better word?) to accept it and bestow those rewards. And, there are still all the other examples I gave of how limited the Mormon God is as compared to a true Omnipotent one.

I’m good with the other examples. If Good chooses to extend some authority to 12 year old boys, I still see that as Gods choice. Is Catholic God constrained to recognized baptisms performed by priests? Last rites?

[Marcus]

Not that I'm a catholic scholar or anything, but the little bit I've learned seems to indicate that no, catholics do not believe God can be compelled.

From the catechism, see final (bolded by me) phrase:

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. 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. 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.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1257.htm

[Fence Sitter]

I’m good with the other examples. If Good chooses to extend some authority to 12 year old boys, I still see that as Gods choice.

It isn't a question of God choosing to extend that authority, it is the consequences of the what the 12-year-old does that obligates God. In Mormon theology, God has to recognize and honor ordinances performed by priesthood authority.

Is Catholic God constrained to recognized baptisms performed by priests? Last rites?

I don't know enough about Catholic theology to really know but I would guess Catholics do not believe their priests have the same power God does nor that God has to recognize anything done by man. They could easily believe that man does exactly what God wants him to do, in fact. (And now we are back at the question of Omniscience and Free Will.)

[Res Ipsa]

Not that I'm a catholic scholar or anything, but the little bit I've learned seems to indicate that no, catholics do not believe God can be compelled.

From the catechism, see final (bolded by me) phrase:

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. 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. 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.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1257.htm

LOL! Thanks, Marcus. I'm not laughing at you. I'm laughing at how much clever lawyering a church can do when it has a couple thousand years to do it. Maybe this is why we have so many Catholics on the Supreme Court.

I had to read this a few times before I understood how this works. So, God requires baptism for salvation, but God needs people to perform the ordinance. But the ordinance would be worthless if God retained the right to declare the ordinance invalid for any reason (or no reason). So, how does the Catholic church avoid the argument Sock Puppet is making -- that an omnipotent being cannot be restrained by the Priest that performs the baptism?
God binds the ordinance to the Priest, but he doesn't bind himself.

I think it's sophistry, but it's clever sophistry.

We could apply the same reasoning to Mormonism. God binds the ordinance of eternal marriage to temple workers. God binds the ordinance of baptism to certain priesthood holders, etc. Voila! We have a God that, substantively, gives part of his power to humans while retaining his omnipotence.

Man, those Catholic theologians are Goooooood!

[Res Ipsa]

I’m good with the other examples. If Good chooses to extend some authority to 12 year old boys, I still see that as Gods choice.

It isn't a question of God choosing to extend that authority, it is the consequences of the what the 12-year-old does that obligates God. In Mormon theology, God has to recognize and honor ordinances performed by priesthood authority.

Is Catholic God constrained to recognized baptisms performed by priests? Last rites?

I don't know enough about Catholic theology to really know but I would guess Catholics do not believe their priests have the same power God does nor that God has to recognize anything done by man. They could easily believe that man does exactly what God wants him to do, in fact. (And now we are back at the question of Omniscience and Free Will.)

I'm just going to refer you to my response to Marcus.

As for the issue with free will, I think that's a separate problem.

[Marcus]

I don't see how the catholic position is a fallacious argument, if that's what is meant by sophistry. If anything, the argument is sound but is based on the assumed starting conditions which of course, they also set. I would say the complaint about their conclusions would be a reliance upon a religious version of an incompleteness theorem, even though followed by a nonfallacious argument.