I am that I am, or I was, am, and will be, indicates one of two things:
1) God is clearly inarticulate and can only exist as a tautology. That or, as a subject of a sentence without an object, meaning that God is not anything since the verb be requires a direct object.
2) God, being in whatever state or non-state God might have been in, or will be in, is a megalomaniacal and solipsistic old bugger, or is entirely insecure, depending on how you look at it. He is either incredibly self-absorbed such that simply stating "I exist" in some form or another is sufficient to warrant thousands of years of slaughter and inhumanity in "His" name (or specifically lack thereof), or he is so insecure that he needs to constantly make sure that everyone knows that he exists.
Either way, God could have used a good session with Lacan to get over his linguistic troubles and Ego/Id issues as the object of his own affection.
Certainly full of Himself then?
I am that I am, or I was, am, and will be, indicates one of two things:
1) God is clearly inarticulate and can only exist as a tautology. That or, as a subject of a sentence without an object, meaning that God is not anything since the verb be requires a direct object.
2) God, being in whatever state or non-state God might have been in, or will be in, is a megalomaniacal and solipsistic old bugger, or is entirely insecure, depending on how you look at it. He is either incredibly self-absorbed such that simply stating "I exist" in some form or another is sufficient to warrant thousands of years of slaughter and inhumanity in "His" name (or specifically lack thereof), or he is so insecure that he needs to constantly make sure that everyone knows that he exists.
Either way, God could have used a good session with Lacan to get over his linguistic troubles and Ego/Id issues as the object of his own affection.