Replies

"Doesn't necessarily follow. God cannot be moved, so all attributions of human characteristics to God in Scripture are figurative."

I agree with you and Thomas Aquinas.

But while TA makes excellent arguments for the existence and immovability of God, the God of the OT, imo, is not the same as the God of TA. They may both be referring to the same and one God (they must as there is only one), but the descriptions or argument of its existence differ. One, TA, makes a good argument for its existence, while the OT does not, imo.

I'm reminded of a Christian evangelist years ago in a telecast entitled, "Does God Exist" or one such theme. I listened to it, and while I believe in the existence of God, the poor evangelist failed utterly at making his case. Failure in this case does not imply non-existence.

But while TA makes excellent arguments for the existence and immovability of God, the God of the OT, imo, is not the same as the God of TA. They may both be referring to the same and one God (they must as there is only one), but the descriptions or argument of its existence differ. One, TA, makes a good argument for its existence, while the OT does not, imo.

That's understandable. The God of the OT certainly seems to be different from the God of the NT (and Thomas Aquinas). In fact, Marcionism was one of the earliest heresies in the Church.

Is there any part of the OT in particular that you find objectionable, or is it the "wrath of God" kind of thing? I can't find much on Google regarding the topic, except this book.