Roy Moore


I’m not going to chase links or watch a video just because you think you found a credible “authority” or two (try making your own case instead of simply passing the buck to an alleged expert), even if I weren’t a dial-up cripple. Neither of those guys are the Bible, no matter that you and/or they claim to be consistant with it. When it comes to the truth of the matter, someone saying what the Bible says or means has no bearing on what the Bible actually says or means, any more than what a judge says has any bearing on what the Constitution actually says, or the words therein mean.

The Bible makes it CLEAR that God is indeed a being; indeed, His very name is the verb to be: I AM.


? I did state my case, and then you used off-the-cuff claims to counter me. So I used Aquinas to demonstrate that this isn’t my own scrupulosity at play, rather this is a well established, tempered position on God.

Claiming what I said “countered the bible” was erroneous argumentation; nothing I said conflicted with it. Being-itself, is a plausible read of the Bible’s description of God, even if you don’t want to agree with it.

Which doesn’t contradict with viewing God as being-itself; it reinforces it, because God is insisting that he isn’t an individual among many, nor simply a supreme leader of individuals, but rather an existence that is all encompassing. A God as being-itself has no better name.


Appeal to authority is one of those pernicious logical fallacies we’re taught about in logic class, AS, and you do it CONTINUOUSLY.


It is not fallacious to cite experts. We would never get very far if we all had to be experts in everything. Which is not to say that experts are necessarily right. I think we can all point to historic moments where experts were generally and clearly wrong – We can probably point out all kinds of places where we think experts have things wrong in the present.

So what are you saying/ .Do you believe that God has a sovereign will and an ability to enact that will?


Except, my original point was that looking at God as something close to a phenomenon was consistent with Christian theology.

And I’m right about that. St. Augustine said the same thing even before Aquinas. That’s not an appeal to authority, that’s social proof that this is consistent with historical Christian norms, to look at God in this way.

You may have your own position, and you may disagree with the position I’ve presented, but that doesn’t change what I said. That this position is consistent with christian theology, there’s about 18-1700 years of theology demonstrating that.

Ergo, claiming God is being-itself is consistent with theology, is the same as saying the same of Confession, because there’s a large body evidence showing that it’s been utilized within Christianity for quite some time.

That your own particular brand of Christian theology may not like or approve of Confession, is neither here nor there. That’s not the point.


Actually, I have no problem with Confession, per se. We are told that if you confess and SINCERELY repent of your sins, they will be forgiven. The only two entities who will EVER know for certain that your confession and repentance are SINCERE are you and God himself.


1 My off-the-cuff claims are solidly biblically founded. You didn’t challenge it with any thought of your own, or with direct scriptural quote; instead, you quoted some guy claiming what Aquinas said about God (without any indication that the Bible was referred to).

2 Wrong; I was spot on; you claimed that:


I made the irrefutable point that God’s very name is the verb to be. You know; BE. As in, the root word of BEING.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that you claimed:


Which the I AM reference destroyed. And you won’t admit it. Instead, you moved the goalposts to Saturn. And the sport is sophistry.


I just noticed that I had a couple dozen unread posts on the “Roy Moore” thread. Couldn’t believe that we were still talking about him.


AS, what are you saying/ .Do you believe that God has a sovereign will and an ability to enact that will? Is God some non-entity with no volition or power? Are you saying that all things in the universe are constituent parts of God, who may or may not be an independent entity that reasons on its own?

As it turns out, no one is lol.


I haven’t seen any theology demonstrating that. As FC pointed out in one of his posts, the name of God is “I AM” - the verb “to be”. He is not human; although human beings are made in His image, He is high above that. Furthermore, He is Love, and nothing that has is not a “being” can love. A thought cannot love. A “phenomenon” cannot love. He loves everyone, even the most evil person, and wants everyone to come to Him and know His love and His pardon for sin, which was accomplished by Jesus on the cross. He even loves you!

As for that Latin quote from Aquinas, I suspect that it really means what Ravi Zacharias meant when he said that “God is the only BEING whose reason for existence is in Himself.”


Which is consistent with viewing God as being-itself; nothing about that is a counter.

There is an argument against this viewpoint, but neither of you are presenting it in any way I recognize.

I gave the source, not just as justification, but as an explanation of what this viewpoint is. Can you please indulge me, and read it?

And yes, the theology is presented there, so claiming “this doesn’t exist” is a non-starter. Did you mean “not in scripture”? Because that’s not the same thing. Plenty of Christian theology is not directly named in the Bible.

I’m sorry Susanna:

This is apart of the Thomistic meditation on God, the Pope himself was recently paraphrasing St. Aquinas when he said this:

God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life,

There’s no changing what St. Aquinas thought on the matter. Nor St. Augustine before him.

Both did this for at least partly the same reason; reconciling the Platonic dialectic on the creator to theology. As you might know, St. Aquinas made his name for basically linking Christianity to the old Greek philosophers. This position on God as “being-itself” is apart of that.

Another reason they had in common was to promote a view of God that eschewed idolatry. Not viewing him as something with a fixed, finite form that you worship, but as an omnipresent essence, from which everything in the Universe is made.


No FC, I implore you to take a step back.

The name of this position, that I’am articulating to you, is called, God as being-itself.

Here is an Evangelical, laying out why he disagrees with this viewpoint just to hammer in the fact, that this is the name of the position, and that it runs contrary to viewing God as a Being.

It is not “changing the goalposts” to lay out what my position is called.

God is not a being, because he is being-itself. Which “I AM” does nothing to contradict. That’s why using it as an objection doesn’t hold here.

“I AM” is used to justify the position as viewing God not as a existence, or something that has existence, but simply existence itself.


Who is Roy Moore?..

This “being-itself” is a non-term according to my Merriam-Webster unabridged. In reference to that and other things, you’re playing word games, AS.


The very first source I gave uses the term; and in the very next post I made, I quoted it since you didn’t look at it.

Here’s three others:

You just should have looked at the source FC; that’s what it comes down to.


The only “source” that matters is the Bible, AS.


The Bible itself doesn’t say that. The Bible wasn’t written alone; it for instance gathers its Angelic canon from the same external source as the Kabbalah. It also doesn’t act as the speak-all of Christian theology.

Y’know, those words or things that don’t appear:

The Trinity.
Clergy performing marriages.
Worshiping on Sunday.
Prohibition against gambling.
“age of accountability” for baptism
What, precisely, Seraphim are.

You only find them either in theology or philosophy (or the Kabbalah… or the Talmud.)


So what?


I did look at the source; which is spelled: B-I-B-L-E.

The term you used is so esoterically contrived that I’ve never heard of it outside of your posts; and for years, I’ve listened to programs on Christian apologetics.

Bottom line: You said God wasn’t a being. I established CLEARLY with a term used in the Bible that he is. You responded with a lot of doubletalk that would make a lawyer proud and a man ashamed.

I never claimed or implied that a being was all that God was; but a being He most certainly is.

You, without any qualifiers, said that He is not. Period.

You are wrong.



It’s in the Summa Theologica.

And I’ve just given no less than three professional apologists laying out the case for Being vs Being itself.

It is a term, and this is an argument, that you’re not familiar with. So you had a duty to inform yourself, before talking on it.

Yet I have source, using your “evidence” as evidence of God as being-itself. Here’s another:

Which means, you aren’t even familiar enough with this argument to be making a counter, you basically just admitted that.

I have given TWO people arguing against it, taking the stance you claim to be making, go read them! Find out if what they know jibes with what you know.

FC, …It’s Aquinas:

"Article 4 I answer that, God is not only His own essence, as shown in the preceding article, but also His own existence. This may be shown in several ways.

First, whatever a thing has besides its essence must be caused either by the constituent principles of that essence (like a property that necessarily accompanies the species–as the faculty of laughing is proper to a man–and is caused by the constituent principles of the species), or by some exterior agent–as heat is caused in water by fire. Therefore, if the existence of a thing differs from its essence, this existence must be caused either by some exterior agent or by its essential principles. Now it is impossible for a thing’s existence to be caused by its essential constituent principles, for nothing can be the sufficient cause of its own existence, if its existence is caused. Therefore that thing, whose existence differs from its essence, must have its existence caused by another. But this cannot be true of God; because we call God the first efficient cause. Therefore it is impossible that in God His existence should differ from His essence."

This is Thomistic philosophy on Essence and Existence.

“double talk” my arse. The two apologists I’ve given you for the “against” position, both use the same terms as Aquinas for this.


The ancients didn’t live by the Bible alone, and neither do the people today purporting it.

“Bible alone” maybe a user-friendly way to promote sound guidance and morality, but as a theological maxim, it lacks legs in both history and human experience.

Thus, I don’t put much stock in it. There are dangers that come from delving into the full complexity of Christianity, the full dialectic that exists externally of the Bible, but it also confers certain advantages.

Like knowing how to reconcile the faith with Evolution and life on other planets. Or how to articulate the self-evident existence of God, through the nature of reality.