Is the Nature of God Rigid?

  • Thread starter Thread starter abucs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
abucs said:
rigid
Click to expand...
An odd question, it makes me wonder if someone called you rigid and you’re trying to justify the word. Rigidity in one’s personality has to do with infleexibility and an inability to appreciate the nuances. God, being all compassionate does understand our strengths and our weaknesses. That’s why the Father sacrificed His Son, that we might all be saved. Willing to save us from eternal damnation is not a quality of a rigid person who typically would need justice to be done. A rigid person is close-minded, whereas God listens to Abraham regarding the sparing of Sodom. Jesus does not condemn the woman He spares from the stoning, but tells her to sin no more. Rigid is synonymous with stiffness and hardness. So, the word rigid is probably best not applied to our relationship with God.
 
No I was not called rigid and no it does not mean close minded. That is a pejorative slur and should not be used against anyone in the way you mention it.

Rigid as described above is a describing word and it depends on what is being described. You can be rigidly against evil; rigidly for truth.

To be rigidly for truth is the very opposite of close minded.
 
It’s not a word I would use because it’s connotations as they apply to people in their relationships is typically negative. There are other words that communicate the message more clearly, without having to engage in a possibly lengthy tangential discussion, although that may actually prove to be a worthwhile exercise.
 
God is unchangable because he is infinitely perfect, fully being, fully actual, pure act without any mixture of potentiality. Philosophically speaking, change or movement implies imperfection for change or motion itself is an imperfect act arising from and presupposing potentiality or potential being. Aristotle defined motion or change as the act of a being in potency in so far as it is still in potency. Motion or change is more perfect than potential being but less perfect than full or completed actual being or some form. It’s a kind of act and so something that is real and has real being but moving towards something better, more perfect, involving more actuality, or some completed act or form. It’s like an incomplete or imperfect form because forms are acts. What is considered actual or actually exists or has being is in some degree perfect. What is in potentiality or which has a metaphysical composition of potentiality in their being which includes all creatures is in some degree imperfect. All creatures whether angelic, earthly, or of whatever kind are composed of act and potency. God alone is pure act.
 
Last edited:
Are we speaking of the mentally ill, or simply of the philosophically misguided? How do you argue with opinion, when nothing empirical exists on either side?

I am currently pondering whether Tylenol renders philosophy possible, or philosophy made Tylenol necessary.

I’m with ya’ Steven -

Life’s too short.

I’m out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top