God is perfect: he cannot change, he cannot please or hurt. How so?

[AnnieOgoo]

I think the author's stance that God cannot please nor hurt agrees with the freewill he has given unto mankind. Therefore, we are the architects of our life. We are the ones prompted to love and please each other. An exception would be natural disasters, which is a discussion for another day. But can we really know everything about God?

I do not really understand how man's freewill agrees with the statement that God cannot be pleased or hurt. However, the mention of freewill strikes a chord. And I agree with you that we are the architects of our lives.

I have a theory (it's how I kinda understand God's plan for every man in relation to freewill). So how can we say that God has a plan for every man and knows what every person would do, and still claim that man has freewill? I theorize that God maps out each life, including major routes and sub-routes. Some routes are 'bad' and some are 'good', some lead to dead ends (death), but throughout the map, there's always a route that links the bad and good. Now God doesn't choose which route you take, but he knows all the available routes on your map (a very big map of a zillion routes). He leaves the choice to us, and that is freewill. Every day we wake up, there are a million routes for us to take (the all-knowing God knows all of them and He knows the sub-route that each route leads to), but it's entirely up to us choose which route to take. This is how I merge the idea that God knows what I could do (good or bad) with the idea that I actually have freewill.
I hope this makes sense . I just felt like sharing.
In response to your last question, we cannot know everything about God. We just have to work by faith and with what little we can grasp.

[Fozia RYK]

The sacred text portrays a very inclination God. I trust God can be satisfied (that is the general purpose of confidence in Him) and he can sting as well. So indeed, God is amazing on the grounds that he is God. As people, we feel torment, delight, harmed, and more since we got it from Him. We are made in His picture. The thing that matters is that God is amazing in light of the fact that he is the standard that is so high we can never arrive at it.

[Joan642]

God is perfect in a way we cannot understand. If he blesses you, he has a reason, if he punishes you, he also has a reason. He is perfect because he is God.

[Huini Hellen]

The whole concept of trying to understand God brings in the "Transcendent" aspect about Him. That no matter how much we try, He is beyond human understanding, whose comprehension is solely pegged upon what the eye can see and infer and less on what the heart can hope for. We, therefore, cannot claim to front fool-proof answers as to what extent God's perfection extends.

[Eriny Youssef]

In a bid to explain God's perfection, the author states that;
a. God cannot change
b. He cannot please or hurt.
The reason behind this later conclusion being that: "Admitting the possibility of such would be admitting to an inherent defect in God’s perfection and would completely negate the concept of perfectness. Pleasing him admits to the existence of a pleasure port that is insufficiently filled, a partial void, a defect, and certainly not perfect. Hurting him would admit to the existence of cracks in His armor where noxious agents could penetrate and cause damage eliminating His perfection."
I find the reasons behind this conclusion (that God is perfect) to be unconvincing, even faulty.
Yes, I believe God is perfect, but not because he cannot be pleased or hurt. That would make him an unfeeling God. Perhaps he is perfect because he is the highest authority and the standard for perfection, i.e God is perfect because he is God.
This whole syllogism brings to mind the question, "What is perfection?"
So I ask:
a. Is God perfect because He cannot change, or please or hurt? And;
b. What is perfection?

The way I see this is that God is not subject to our doings. And that makes sense. God is not there to please and we cannot hurt God.

But I agree that our belief that God is perfect shouldn't be based on just the fact the He cannot change, please or hurt. I'm not a big fan of the wording of this statement either. The word "cannot" in particular, in my opinion, is not the most suitable to describe it.

[BellAJoEb]

i believe that God can be pleased and also displeased but not hurt.in all things, he is perfect. And since God is not Man, our definition of perfection will definitely be poles apart. But one thing I will forever believe in is that God is and will remain PERFECT.

God is perfect because he cannot change. He remains unchanged even from the old testament unto the new testament.

[RachelEmmanuel]

I think perfection itself is defined by God since He is the author of perfection. It does not mean He does not feel. That's not perfection any more than a robot is perfection. It means His love is perfect to all-without selfishness and his judgment perfect- without bias. The Bible teaches that Jesus gave Himself up as the perfect sacrifice in order to fulfil His perfect love without diluting His perfect judgment.

[Maddie Atkinson]

God is perfect in a way we cannot understand. If he blesses you, he has a reason, if he punishes you, he also has a reason. He is perfect because he is God.

I don't really know if God can punish, because if he can, that means he is displeased, but if he can do that, it means that he can be changeable. I believe that God is unbiased, which means he can neither be pleased or displeased, all he does is love, and that's what makes him perfect. That's how I see it anyway. No hate, your opinion is just as valid, I hope you are having a good day!

[Abi_kanda]

Hm, I think there are many issues in this aspect. First of all, which God are we talking about? As the author said, each Bible depicts God differently. And based on the books, each God will be either perfect or imperfect.

Secondly, since God is all-mighty, I agree it may be true that He can't be hurt, especially by humans. However, if He can't be pleased or can't change, does that mean He remains fixed towards everything? If yes, does that mean He is unbiased and will treat everyone equally? If so, why is it that some people claim they could hear His will, and the rest cannot? Shouldn't He either show himself to everyone or to no one? What about the cases of Noah, Lazarus, Abel, or his Apostles? Why did He choose those people and not the others?

I disagree with this. God can be hurt by people's actions and that is very much clear from the Bible. Take Noah's story for instance. What led to the destruction of the earth at that time? Also, why did God choose Noah and his family out of all those people? I think the Bible shows us how God can be hurt and pleased by our actions. As for perfection, I don't have a good take on that yet.

[zainherb]

In a bid to explain God's perfection, the author states that;
a. God cannot change
b. He cannot please or hurt.
The reason behind this later conclusion being that: "Admitting the possibility of such would be admitting to an inherent defect in God’s perfection and would completely negate the concept of perfectness. Pleasing him admits to the existence of a pleasure port that is insufficiently filled, a partial void, a defect, and certainly not perfect. Hurting him would admit to the existence of cracks in His armor where noxious agents could penetrate and cause damage eliminating His perfection."
I find the reasons behind this conclusion (that God is perfect) to be unconvincing, even faulty.
Yes, I believe God is perfect, but not because he cannot be pleased or hurt. That would make him an unfeeling God. Perhaps he is perfect because he is the highest authority and the standard for perfection, i.e God is perfect because he is God.
This whole syllogism brings to mind the question, "What is perfection?"
So I ask:
a. Is God perfect because He cannot change, or please or hurt? And;
b. What is perfection?

Interesting argument.

In the first place, those who believe in God in one form or the other have always had a variation of this argument, so we probably won't solve the issue here.

But, I think God is perfect.
He is perfect because He just is.
Saying He cannot do something like change or please or hurt is putting a limit on God's abilities which then diminishes His perfection according to you.
So, it's a circular thing.
If He wants to please, It still wouldn't diminish his perfection in anyway.
With regards to Change or hurt, these are negative qualities and God is not to be given negative qualities. He doesn't do negativity.
So, that point is moot.

Perfection when it comes to God is how He has defined it.
I would say perfection, is being God.

[AnnieOgoo]

In a bid to explain God's perfection, the author states that;
a. God cannot change
b. He cannot please or hurt.
The reason behind this later conclusion being that: "Admitting the possibility of such would be admitting to an inherent defect in God’s perfection and would completely negate the concept of perfectness. Pleasing him admits to the existence of a pleasure port that is insufficiently filled, a partial void, a defect, and certainly not perfect. Hurting him would admit to the existence of cracks in His armor where noxious agents could penetrate and cause damage eliminating His perfection."
I find the reasons behind this conclusion (that God is perfect) to be unconvincing, even faulty.
Yes, I believe God is perfect, but not because he cannot be pleased or hurt. That would make him an unfeeling God. Perhaps he is perfect because he is the highest authority and the standard for perfection, i.e God is perfect because he is God.
This whole syllogism brings to mind the question, "What is perfection?"
So I ask:
a. Is God perfect because He cannot change, or please or hurt? And;
b. What is perfection?

Interesting argument.

In the first place, those who believe in God in one form or the other have always had a variation of this argument, so we probably won't solve the issue here.

But, I think God is perfect.
He is perfect because He just is.
Saying He cannot do something like change or please or hurt is putting a limit on God's abilities which then diminishes His perfection according to you.
So, it's a circular thing.
If He wants to please, It still wouldn't diminish his perfection in anyway.
With regards to Change or hurt, these are negative qualities and God is not to be given negative qualities. He doesn't do negativity.
So, that point is moot.

Perfection when it comes to God is how He has defined it.
I would say perfection, is being God.

This is one of my favorite answer to this question! Thank you!
Trying to give a general and easy definition of perfection is nearly impossible. Unless you simply say, "Perfection is being God." And I agree with you that saying what God can or cannot do is itself a limitation which then diminishes His perfection.

[AnnieOgoo]

In a bid to explain God's perfection, the author states that;
a. God cannot change
b. He cannot please or hurt.
The reason behind this later conclusion being that: "Admitting the possibility of such would be admitting to an inherent defect in God’s perfection and would completely negate the concept of perfectness. Pleasing him admits to the existence of a pleasure port that is insufficiently filled, a partial void, a defect, and certainly not perfect. Hurting him would admit to the existence of cracks in His armor where noxious agents could penetrate and cause damage eliminating His perfection."
I find the reasons behind this conclusion (that God is perfect) to be unconvincing, even faulty.
Yes, I believe God is perfect, but not because he cannot be pleased or hurt. That would make him an unfeeling God. Perhaps he is perfect because he is the highest authority and the standard for perfection, i.e God is perfect because he is God.
This whole syllogism brings to mind the question, "What is perfection?"
So I ask:
a. Is God perfect because He cannot change, or please or hurt? And;
b. What is perfection?

The way I see this is that God is not subject to our doings. And that makes sense. God is not there to please and we cannot hurt God.

But I agree that our belief that God is perfect shouldn't be based on just the fact the He cannot change, please or hurt. I'm not a big fan of the wording of this statement either. The word "cannot" in particular, in my opinion, is not the most suitable to describe it.

Thank you for your opinion. I like your statement that, "The word "cannot"...is not the most suitable to describe it." Infact, the word 'cannot' is a limitation itself which by implication, disposes God's perfection.

[Ndiviwe]

I think the author was trying to say that God has no flaws in his character, words, ways and nature. God is the standard of perfection and to find imperfections or flaws in God would mean that another standard was used to find a flaws in Him. The author was trying to portray God as the same as he was at the beginning and he will be the same in the end.

[María Andrea Fernández Sepúlveda]

I do not think that He cannot be hurt by our actions, but I do believe that He is perfect. God is not affected personally by human concepts such as time, marriage, and conditional love. Perhaps trying to understand God in these areas is a little too complex for us.

Humans have the idea that perfection means that we cannot mess up or commit any sins at all (without error). But I believe that God's definition of perfect is different from ours.

After much thinking, I reached the same conclusion as you. I think it goes beyond our comprehension. It baffled me because the God of the Old Testament was clearly pissed very often.... but I'm not a theologian and I can only accept that I can't understand that level of perfection.

[CConfounded]

The Christian God in the Bible could very much be pleased or hurt. In the new testament, God was hurting when he watched Jesus die on the cross. In the old testament, God was pleased when Abel sacrificed a lamb to him.

I think the author was starting from a flawed premise. I'm guessing that when a human feels happy about an upcoming birthday party, that doesn't signal that there is something inherently wrong with the human and their lives now. They may be living a perfectly content life.

The way the writer wrote described it, it sounds like they are comparing feeling typical happiness or sadness to having a defect in one's brain chemistry- that is to say, depression, bipolar, or another mental illness that effects similar functions.

I don't think you can apply human attributes like brain chemistry to an ethereal being like God.