# What Do You Think God's Personality Is Like? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 29, 2000, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-gods-personality-is-like/27368 "2000-07-29T22:58:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2000, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-gods-personality-is-like/27368/201 "2000-08-16T14:32:10Z")
> [@](#): > > Sorry, guess I wasn’t clear. The first part was refering to “human” spirits you were talking about, not God. What I don’t understand is why spirits have to be either wholly evil or good. There seems to be nothing in your previous argument that requires it, and it makes the whole thing more complicated. On the contrary, nothing could be simpler than a dichotomy. God is simply good. Whatever is not good is not good. > [@](#): > > As I don’t know what God is, I have no reason to [believe] he couldn’t have some “evil” in him. As I don’t really belive in elemental good or evil as such, I’m not sure I’d be able to answer that question even if I did. Well, if I’m talking about the God I worship, Whom I have defined as Living Eternal Love, but you are talking about something undefined, why are we talking to each other? > [@](#): > > One common way of thinking about God, which is what I at first thought you were saying, that is, as basically the [Platonic] ideal of “good” would [probably] not. But I’m not sure that this type of being would qualify as a “Free Moral Agent.” I think the very act of making this “eternal” choice to be good would make him less than a free agent, and arguably something less than sentient, as we think of it. I presume you mean as you (singular) think of it, unless you have developed some means of probing a consciousness other than your own. At any rate, I am dumbfounded by the argument that His having made a free choice disqualifies Him as a Free Moral Agent. If you are using some epistemology other than reason, please identify it. > [@](#): > > Now, [if] God had said “I will be good forever,” and retained in himself the _capacity_ for evil, he’d still be a free moral agent, but you specifically said that he couldn’t (not that he wouldn’t) do so. I’m afraid you either have misunderstood me or confused me with someone else. The only way I can see that you might surmise that from what I said would be something along the lines of the logical inability to unring a bell. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure that experience IS meaningless in an eternal reference frame. Nevertheless, it is. Experience implies a past. Eternity specifically disimplies a past. > [@](#): > > If God goes through time more or less the same way we do, which is what I thought you were saying, he would have had “no frame of reference” until he created one for himself, as you implied that he predated every other conciousness. I cannot imagine how you thought I was saying that, when I have illustrated forty ways from Sunday the exact opposite point. 🙂 > [@](#): > > If he [doesn’t] go through time in some sense, that makes the free moral agent thing questionable. If he has absolute [knowledge] of the future, can you even _make_ a moral decision, as he knows what decisions he will make beforehand? From the closed reference frame of your consciousness, events must unfold over time. Specifically **your** time. But from your reference frame, a person travelling at near the speed of light appears to be in a “different” kind of time (though from his own reference frame, he doesn’t and you do). From an Eternal Reference Frame, there is no future to _be_ known. > [@](#): > > An entity outside of time would proably have to have thought processes so alien to ours that I think it would be well beyond concepts of good and evil. Gratuitous. > [@](#): > > Are you saying that [God] is the “[Center]” of a sort of fractal core of all possible universes? I’d have no problem with defining such [a Thing] as “God,” or at least [His] handwriting, but I don’t see how that would make [Him] good or loving. And in fact, it seems ridiculously anthropomorphic to say that such an “[Entity]” would be enough like us to “love” us in a way that would have meaning to us. That God is Good is an axiom, not an implication. We may talk about a god who is not good if you wish. We may also talk about a god who is made of Big Bang shrapnel if you wish. But my God _is_ Love. I have defined Him that way. And He is very much like us. He is Sprit, just as we are. > [@](#): > > Short version, there are lots of ways to define God. You seem to be, as far as I can tell, combining God as “goodness” itself, God as the universe, and an anthropmorphic God. I’m still haveing trouble understanding if that’s even what you’re saying, let alone which specific aspects of each you’re using. Well, I believe I have defined Him to a fare-thee-well, but I think Jesus best described God’s metaphysical context thus: “Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit… God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth… The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.” — Jesus of Nazareth [John 3:6, John 4:24, John 6:63] > [@](#): > > Do I love myself? Not [particularly]. I like some qualities about myself, (though it seems fewer and fewer as time goes on) and dislike others. I’m quite fond of the experience of living, but that’s not the same thing. Does it stand to reason that if you were perfectly good you might love yourself? God, being Perfectly Good, naturally loves Himself. > [@](#): > > Do I like the experience of loving others, and vice versa? In my limited experience, sure. (You’re using the agape type love here, right?) But I’m not sure how that applies. I love humans (intellectually) due to the fact I can empathise with them, and genetically because I’m programed to enjoy [them?]. I love animals intellectually because I assume, [probably] incorrectly, that I can empathise with them, and genetically because I’m [programmed] to like and protect cute things, and respect powerful things. I “love” (in some sense) objects [because] they provide me with [familiarity] and comfort, or represent something else. I’m not sure which version of these would apply to a God type [Figure]. God’s Love is alive. We are His Love. ---
**Author:** ![Ura-Maru](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/51bf81/32.png) [@Ura-Maru](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ura-Maru)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2000, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-gods-personality-is-like/27368/202 "2000-08-16T15:50:49Z")
> [@](#): > > Well, if I’m talking about the God I worship, Whom I have defined as Living Eternal Love, but you are talking about something undefined, why are we talking to each other? You are correct, of course. I was trying to explain _why_ I was having trouble understanding the nature of the good/evil split. Unfortunatly, this seems to have lead to me sort of half entering debate mode after that, which was unintentional. So several of my responses were, as you pointed out, not relavant. Sorry. I’ve been awake a bit too long. > [@](#): > > At any rate, I am dumbfounded by the argument that His having made a free choice disqualifies Him as a Free Moral Agent. If you are using some epistemology other than reason, please identify it. I’ll ignore the crack at the end. What I thought you were saying was that by making a choice to be Good, God had removed from himself even the urges to be evil. You did not say this directly, but that is how I interpreted an “eternally good” spirit that had “made it’s choice” I do not see how he could _remain_ a moral agent _after_ doing so, so I assumed that I had been incorrect in my understanding. Which apparently I was, which I’ll get to in a second. > [@](#): > > I cannot imagine how you thought I was saying that, when I have illustrated forty ways from Sunday the exact opposite point. I belive it was the word ablative, actually. Which implied to me that human spirits were “chipped off” of God, which in turn implied that there was some kind of sequential process. Yes, that IS how my mind works. You think it’s bad to argue with it, imagine how I feel. I have to try to think with it. > [@](#): > > From an Eternal Reference Frame, there is no future to be known. Ok, I get it now. I’m not unfamiliar with the concept, but I though you ment something else. This answers the question I had about how he could remain moral after choosing absolute good, as there is no “after.” > [@](#): > > Does it stand to reason that if you were perfectly good you might love yourself? God, being Perfectly Good, naturally loves Himself. No, it doesn’t. I’m not witholding my love for myself until I acheve perfection. That would be odd, I think, because what I love in other people isn’t perfection, or the aspects of them that approach it. That is what I respect or admire about them. I love people, as I said, when I can feel empathy for them. As I’m not sure what empathy for myself would involve, I don’t really see how I could acheve it. Or why I would wish to. But I think I understand your take on it, which is, after all, the point. – “How much O’Keefe is in this movie?” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-think-gods-personality-is-like/27368.md?page=10)