Great Fiction, thank you for answering my question, I really appreciate your inclusion of Aristotlean theory but unfortunately many of Aristotle's treatises on happiness lacked the soundness of logic, and instead where circular in nature; eg. Aristotle said happiness is the highest good, and that the way that a person can be happy is to be good.
I would ask for more leniency to give more credence to my comment, that Aristotle was indeed lacking my friend. For Aristotle a champion of reason was not a champion of faith or relationship. Therefore we are in agreement that Aristotle does not offer “true happiness.” For my comment would insinuate that our relationship with God and His relationship with us is the cornerstone of happiness. Aristotle simply gave us a methodology.
As far as why I like to be happy, that is simply a chemical process that we've gained throughevolution and artificially named happiness. I think the question of why I like to be happy is irrelevant to the question of whether God can be happy.
In kindness, as a Christian do you extract all happiness to be simple compounds manifesting in our physiology? Do you believe in Godless dialectical materialism void of spiritual belief (this is not to be confused with consumerism)? Do you also believe that dialectical materialism is compatible with Christianity?
I should be quick to point out that Godless philosophic materialism which is void of sound metaphysics would elect that our conscience “is god” and that our goal as a society is to morph into a giant collective amoeba that denounces Christ to even exist. Thus in sincere kindness do you believe in more than chemical compounds?
I was trying to approach rather the dichotomy of happiness and unhappiness, how a being can be happy and also unhappy, and be perfect at the same time. Redefining how humans achieve happiness doesn't really seem to answer that question and only serves to complicate the question of what exactly happiness is.
It forces Christian's to redefine happiness and joy in such a way that can only be supported by scripture. I would really like to find answers to my questions with as many sources as possible, because at times the scripture itself can seem to me to contradict itself; so in the same light that Aristotle gave a definition of happiness that was unsound via contradiction the same could be said about the scripture. I have always become more confused when reading through scripture and thus have tried to rely on logic to come to my conclusions about the world.
I want to say that I appreciate your insight and any advice you could provide, and don't want it to seem that I am purposely throwing a wrench into your response. I mean only to as directly as possible answer the questions that trouble me as to the nature of God and our relation to Him.
I contend that Christians are not forced to any such position Joshua.
Your pointing out an old and classical philosophical argument (The Free Will Argument)
The argument in this "part" states that, “
if God can be unhappy then He is also imperfect to prevent His own unhappiness;” therefore if God is not perfect to prevent His own unhappiness, then He is not the God of the bible and is subject to limitations amidst His own choices.
Is this the philosophical antagonist that would intervene with perplexity? If so here is an answer.
If God is immutable (never changing) and omnipresent (enveloping all spaces though time) and omniscient (knowing all things in every linear time envelope), then He has not invested a single unwanted second upon those who are inherently evil, yet also if He uses evil for His own cause to manifest a culmination which seasons a growing remnant to maturity, then also no unwanted emotions are manifest with an ever-present God. Thus if God is “unhappy” with the wicked and destroys them justly with unfettered violence, then it’s “His happiness to do so.”
Thus what is the concept of “unhappiness with God?” I should say “constant happiness;” for His culmination regarding His maturing remnant amidst despotism matures to adopt the mind of Christ as we negotiate this life, yet the wicked shall know violence as their just-end, but also amidst His constant interaction.
Is it possible that there are two ways the eggs can be spoiled in the hen-house? One where a fox breaks through in plain-sight to destroy openly and another where the strategy slithers slowly beneath the straw in the dark to consume an egg undetected; for though the antagonism can cause the question to move to an answer, can it not also become a clandestine utility to spoil unaware?
God bless you Joshua
