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.

[AquinasForGod]

Question for debate: Is anything less than Divine Simplicity a form of idolatry? ... If you think God is a person ...

Isn't the trinity beliefe in 3 persons in one god? ... if so each one of the three would be a person : So Cathholics believe God is a person.

JW

I am not sure what that has to do with the topic.

[JehovahsWitness]

I am not sure what that has to do with the topic.

I thought the point came up that it is not really a Christian concept to think of God as "a person".

.... 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.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Catholic teaching is to think of God as .... a person.

[AquinasForGod]

I am not sure what that has to do with the topic.

I thought the point came up that it is not really a Christian concept to think of God as "a person".

.... 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.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Catholic teaching is to think of God as .... a person.

You must have misunderstood. It is a Christian concept that God is a person, but classical theism by itself leaves God rather impersonal. The incarnation fixes that issue.

[JehovahsWitness]

I am not sure what that has to do with the topic.

I thought the point came up that it is not really a Christian concept to think of God as "a person".

.... 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.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Catholic teaching is to think of God as .... a person.

You must have misunderstood. It is a Christian concept that God is a person, but classical theism by itself leaves God rather impersonal. ....

Okay, my bad. I misunderstood your point.



JW

[PolytheistWitch]

If Christians want to insist that the Father Christ refers is the God of Abraham, they absolutely are.

[JehovahsWitness]

Are most Christians Idolaters?

Yes, by bible standards, most are.

EXODUS 20: 4, 5

“You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them ...

[onewithhim]

The trinity teaching is certainly not simple. There are a lot of idolaters out there who believe in the trinity, it seems.

True Christians are not idolaters because all their worship goes to Jehovah, the Most High (Psalm 83:18, KJV). They do not use idols when they pray or when they have meetings. The Bible cannot be considered an idol because it is God's Word and He wants us to read it.

[onewithhim]

If Christians want to insist that the Father Christ refers is the God of Abraham, they absolutely are.

Nope, they are not correct. Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and God (Jehovah) is the God of Abraham. Jesus prayed TO GOD, his Father, Jehovah. When he returned to heaven he went back to HIS GOD AND FATHER (John 20:17), Jehovah.

[PolytheistWitch]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #18]

Nothing Christ taught is compatible with Judaism.

[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.