I wouldn’t, because I vehemently reject the idea that politics are analogous to religion. Do you really believe that a politician is analogous to God?
So in that sense, your analogy doesn’t even apply.
That’s not a logical conclusion, it’s just a reiteration of your (IMO) completely unsupported opinion. Please try to keep in mind that analogies are explanatory devices. They are not arguments in themselves.
I don’t have the slightest problem with Faizal’s opinion, and I’m a Christian.
Wouldn’t that make it a Very Bad Idea to be drawing analogies between God and human politicians?
Agreed. It’s safe to say that we don’t live in such a universe, but there’s nothing wrong with saying that God could have created that universe. Those creatures would still be ordered toward their proper ends, those ends would just be… well… what Faizal described.
That claim would seem to be problematical on a number of fronts.
What evidence do we have that God values free will?
If God wants us all to “come to know and love him”, why did he, for millennia, only reveal himself to one small and inward-looking Middle Eastern tribe?
Likewise, if God wants us all to “come to know and love him”, why did he allow other religions to proliferate, obscuring knowledge of him?
Likewise, why did he create a revelation that was sufficiently ambiguous as to allow the wide range of schism within Christianity, again obscuring knowledge of him?
This would appear to contradict your first “possibility”, in that it would deny that we can “know” God in any meaningful way.
This would also mean that we have no basis for believing that God is good, meaning that obedience to him is simply obedience to power – and would make us no better than soldiers of the Third Reich “just obeying orders” in committing atrocities.
I’m fairly sure the UCMJ has something to say about obeying illegal orders.
“I wouldn’t, because I reject the idea that politics are analogous to religion Do you really believe that a politician is analogous to God?”
No I do not, but I believe you misunderstood. A politician and a king are not synonymous. However, King and God are synonymous. That is why both in Hebrew one of the names of god is HaMelech And for Christians Jesus is the king of kings, He’s never called a politician of politicians. Further, kings demand worship like God.That’s why it’s analogous.
Again, you are incorrect because you are using the second possibility and using the premise of the first so let’s stay in line that would be great.
The first possibility was a Christian one which deals with king and God.The second possibility is a Judaic one which deals with something entirely different, so please defeat that on its own grounds.If you care to thank you kindly.
amnesty international might disagree with you.
I’m very confident that I understand that analogous and synonymous are not the same concept.
Of course not! The latter is a subset of the former.
No, “king” is being used metaphorically.
No, so why were you claiming that they were analogous?
We’re questioning your claim: that God needs (or demands) worship, remember? You’re back to simply asserting your unsupported conclusion.
Again, we are questioning your claim that they are analogous. You seem to see God as Eddie Izzard lampooned Him (really, how too many Christians view Him) in his famous monologue. Kings are humans. God is not a human.
God is not a human.
I couldn’t agree with you more.There are no anthropomorphic qualities in God. That is the valid point why God is the righteous true king because he doesn’t demand anything from his subjects like a human king would do.That’s why it’s divine quality, not a human one
“We’re questioning your claim: that God needs (or demands) worship, remember? You’re back to simply asserting your unsupported conclusion”
I actually said the exact opposite God is free of need nor does he demand worship, Rather, it is our privilege and honor to be able to worship The Uncreated Creator.
Please quote me directly where I say that God is the one that needs anything?
I think he put that very badly, and you have naturally misinterpreted his intended meaning. But I still don’t know his intended meaning, so don’t ask me. Still, the fact that his statement, interpreted in the most obvious way, contradicts what he said previously is a clue that it’s not what he meant. Perhaps he will clarify.
Thank you for bringing that up. I see where the misunderstanding occurred. I meant like “a” God, not “The” God, which does not demand anything.
@LogosOfLogic, before responding to your latest post, I’d like to comment on some further issues I’ve noticed with your earlier one.
This does not solve the problem, but simply moves it from a God who wants people to worship him to a God who wants somebody to love (cue Queen song) and wants people to “know and love” him.
The act of creation implies a desire for that creation, in some shape or form – be that desire for worship, love or whatever.
This is non-responsive in that it does not even attempt to answer my question of:
… why would a God with “no desire whatsoever to be worshipped” create contingent imperfect mortal beings with that (purported) need?
This is blatantly disanalogous, in that the USMC has a clearly defined chain of command. The religious equivalent would be a whole host of rival commanding officers, each with a host of rival subordinate officers offering differing interpretations of their commanding officer’s orders.
I would then like to point out that you have made a complete clusterf@ck of your post, making all of your “ANSWERS” except your final line into a ‘quote’ of me, so that I have had to go through and manually correct all of threm. E.g.:
… into …
This “answer” raises far more questions than it answers:
What evidence do you have that we have free will? What definition of free will are you even making this claim about? Libertarian, Compatibilist, or some other? If Libertarian, I would argue (as do others) that Libertarian Free Will doesn’t exist (and is in fact logically incoherent). If Compatibilist, how do you demonstrate that intelligent non-human animals (e.g. chimps or dolphins) don’t have it?
If angels don’t have free will, then how did Lucifer, and the other fallen angels, fall?
If God values free will, then why did he harden Pharaoh’s heart against releasing the Israelites, when his free willed decision would have been to release them earlier.
Where does the Bible make this claim? What evidence do we have that it was talking about “free will” as we understand it? What definition of “free will” was it using?
Rather than prefixing this with “ANSWER”, it might have been more accurate to do so with:
BALD UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSERTION
Evidence supporting this massive sweaping assertion? Otherwise I can simply respond, with equal validity:
No he isn’t.
That’s both non-responsive, and a word-salad.
Ditto.
Then we cannot know that there is a “greater good”.
It then becomes just blind obedience to power, and thus of no moral value.
Your response makes no sense.
The USMC is bound by the UCMJ.
The UCMJ (articles 90 & 92) only require personnel to obey “lawful orders”.
“A lawful order must be reasonably specific, not conflict with statutory or constitutional rights, and must pertain to military duty. Orders that are vague, overly broad, or intended to harass or humiliate a service member may be considered unlawful.”[1]
Therefore a member of the USMC need not obey all orders, all lawful ones. Amnesty International has nothing to do with this.
It is far from certain that we have “free will.”
My point continues to elude you. We, as we have been created (according to your beliefs) would not find that any fun. Sea slugs, or so I imagine, don’t care one way or another. Your god could just as easily created us with the indifference of sea slugs to the question of whether we have “free will.” No doubt, then, theologians would marvel at God’s wisdom, grace and power in creating us with such marvelous indifference.
“Proper ends”, it seems, being defined as whatever God wants them to be in a particular situation, with no rhyme nor reason other than his own whims. IOW, it is an unfalsifiable claim. It is compatible with literally anything that could conceivably exist.
This does not solve the problem, but simply moves it from a God who wants people to worship him to a God who wants somebody to love (cue Queen song) and wants people to “know and love” him.
The act of creation implies a desire for that creation, in some shape or form – be that desire for worship, love or whatever.
ANSWER
That is incorrect.A creator can create a creation for the benefit of its creatures and not the creator. E.g. A composer that composes a piece of music that he himself cannot stand but his audience loves more than anything.
Who benefits from creation in the end?It is humanity if they come to know and love their creator God does not need anything nor does he benefit from anything?The act of creation was a act of compassion for us.Not for him Forst because he is free of need does not have any benefit by creating us.We are the ones who benefit from the creation.
This is non-responsive in that it does not even attempt to answer my question of:
… why would a God with “no desire whatsoever to be worshipped” create contingent imperfect mortal beings with that (purported) need?
ANSWER Actually, it does because if we are not able to see the divine plans, We cannot question the individual actions the divine plan takes.
This is blatantly disanalogous, in that the USMC has a clearly defined chain of command. The religious equivalent would be a whole host of rival commanding officers, each with a host of rival subordinate officers offering differing interpretations of their commanding officer’s orders.
ANSWER So according to your rational the marines have never committed a war crime not an Iraq not an Afghanistan not in Vietnam not ever as I said amnesty international would disagree with you. The point here.
Is when your commander commands you to do something you obey.
ANSWER One of the Abrahamic religions, Islam, states that Lucifer was never an Angel but rather a Jinn a demonic type creature. They have free will but they don’t have the spirit of god breathed into them, they don’t have human free will which is a first and an original creation of God.
We know right from wrong even a hardcore atheist knows right from wrong.He has a conscience that conscience comes from God.
No he isn’t.
ANSWER E.g. In Hebrew HaRachaman Arabic ArRahman Hindi bRahman. There’s evidence how different groups can have the same name for God.Even ones that are not part of the afro-asiatic or semitic group of families since hinduism is actually part of the indo-european group of families.
Further , God is known by different names in Hebrew at seventy two and Arabic is ninety nine therefore you can really make the connection that God has many names.
Also , apart from animism and shamanism , most religions were originally monotheistic before they deteriorated into polytheism Because from a logical point of view before you could ever have 2, 3,4, or more Gods you would have to start with the number one.
E.g. This is evidenced in history with the fact the ancient Egyptians worshipped 1 god Ra initially. The ancient Hindus worshipped only Brahman originally as well.
That’s both non-responsive, and a word-salad.
ANSWER You don’t see how one of the purposes of life could be for us to learn from one another and if we were all the exact same thing that would be boring and repetitive and monotonous? OK! Sounds great 
Then we cannot know that there is a “greater good”.
ANSWER
So again According to your rationale, if you cannot see something you cannot believe in it. Wow that is false assumption if i’ve ever heard one.
“It is far from certain that we have “free will.””
Again, we are not sure either way.And the possibility of free will existing is still a valid likelihood.
“My point continues to elude you. We, as we have been created (according to your beliefs) would not find that any fun. Sea slugs, or so I imagine, don’t care one way or another. Your god could just as easily created us with the indifference of sea slugs to the question of whether we have “free will.” No doubt, then, theologians would marvel at God’s wisdom, grace and power in creating us with such marvelous indifference.”
No I get your point.And I understand that the God could have made us that way but for reasons know solely to him he did not. If he did, we would be in NPC’s.As I earlier stated, we would not be playable main characters with free will and action and decisions to make.
““Proper ends”, it seems, being defined as whatever God wants them to be in a particular situation, with no rhyme nor reason other than his own whims. IOW, it is an unfalsifiable claim. It is compatible with literally anything that could conceivably exist.”
A designer and creator has free reign over his creation however he deems fit.
Absolutely incorrect 
it is literal if it weren’t why does God have an actual throne in heaven? That is NOT metaphorical also there is literal description of the throne in Ezekial 1 and Revelation 4. Eagerly awaiting your reply? 
Good.
No, that’s how we know that “king” is being used metaphorically in the Bible.
I do realize that you’ve said the opposite elsewhere. I very strongly recommend that you use the forum’s quoting features to reduce ambiguity and prevent misunderstandings.
Ezekiel 1 explicitly describes the visions as likenesses, so not literal at all. That obvious qualification seems to be preserved in every translation to English. Maybe someone can comment on the original Hebrew.
You seem to be using the terms “absolutely,” “metaphor,” and “literal” in extremely idiosyncratic ways.
I already cleared this up for you, let’s not be petty…
I meant “a” God not “the” God which requires nothing.
Absolutely incorrect it is literal if it weren’t why does God have an actual throne in heaven? That is NOT metaphorical that is literal. Also there is a physical description of the throne in Ezekiel 1 and Revelation 4. Eagerly awaiting your reply? 