I have faith that God is perfect in every way I can conceive, and that He does not continue to develop in knowledge or learn new things…otherwise, I could not have faith in His commandments today because they might change tomorrow when He learned something new.

No, I think He is a resurrected man who is omniscient and omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and that His continued eternal progression is the increase in Glory He continues to grow in as He saves His children in all the worlds He’s created. His growth is in glory, not in character.

I think that is the basis of faith…that one can believe in a God that is the same yesterday, today, and forever. That His teachings on how to find happiness and Eternal Life are constant.

Ken Wilbur, a thought-provoking non-Christian philosopher, has developed Integral Theory, a theory of human individual and social progression. His conclusion that each human being must start individual and social development at ground zero explains why human progression has occurred with the speed and direction of an amoeba.

This life is part of eternity. Why shouldn’t Mormons join the discussion of human social progression and the progression of human concepts about the nature of God?

*crowd disperses, party streamers strewn on the ground*

*Arthur swipes the champagne before walking out*

However, I talked myself out of all of that. But that really was for naught.

Thanks Chris and kuri for trying to salvage things. I think I’m just unqualified to discuss any further, however.

In my reading, the viewpoint of the book is basically that – that people and societies have changed their viewpoint of what “God” means as their societies have evolved. Looked at it this way, it almost takes God out of the picture completely, leaving “God” as a society-defined concept that helps achieve some greater societal goal.

kuri,

That’s what I argue on my site. HOWEVER, he seems to confuse these things several times, so it’s unclear whether he is *only* talking about the idea of God evolving (e.g., “god”) or an actual god evolving (God without quotation marks).

re 2:

Clay,

I was afraid of a comment like that. I guess that kind of kills the discussion.

Sorry for wasting everyone’s time!

My group isn’t anywhere near finished [...] we’ve only finished through the part on Judaism that sets the stage for Christianity [...] I already have concerns about the arguments that Wright presents.

For reals? My advice, finish the book before writing a post about it. (Hint: you are wrong about what Wright ultimately is suggesting.)

Wright basically demonstrates via the history of religion that the attributes assigned to God by humans generally adapt to the most convenient configuration for the survival and prosperity of the people. Sort of like God changes in a similar process to natural selection. If it helps a group more for God to promote brotherly love, then we start to see the descriptions of God change to paint him as a loving God. etc.

Primarily, Wright is conveying an idea that God is only a reflection of the moral evolution of human beings. As we get better, God gets better. Even interpreted most liberally, its a very Agnostic approach, but its a little more Atheist than Agnostic. Wright does kind of muse on the concept that perhaps if the man-made God keeps getting better, thus demonstrating that humans are getting better, then perhaps that might mean there is something out there guiding this evolutionary process. (yet, even that musing doesn’t really give any support to the particular concept of God in the Abrahamic traditions) But according to Wright himself, its only a musing, not the primary point of his book.