- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
InterestedApologist said:If I may be so bold, I think you are falling into the trap of forcing God into human restraints. When thinking of God, it is important to understand He is a being free of the limitations of humanity, time and space. His characteristics of omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence cannot be fully grasped by the mind of the finite human anymore than a 3 year old can fully comprehend quantum mechanics. Even God’s makeup is foreign to us, as He is a trinity. Due to this, human philosophy will never be capable of answering all the questions about the character and reasoning of God. It is important that any philosophical endeavor related to God be scripturally based, as it is the only resource available to reveal what we can know about the character of God.
Wow. I hardly know where to begin. To make an incomprehensible assertion about God is NOT DOCTRINE - neither false doctrine nor true doctrine - it's just gibberish. CALL IT WHAT IT IS. Othwerwise, you're being intellectually dishonest and potentially DISTANCING THE PEOPLE OF GOD FROM THE TRUTH by disseminating a false sense of security (thus decreasing the likelihood that they will further investigate). Essentially you're saying, "We scholars have already researched these issues and found satisfactory answers - in fact we're so certain/confident of our answers that if you oppose them, we'll brand you as a heretic and excommunicate you from our assemblies." How does that foster reform? Why not just tell the people THE TRUTH? "Yes I'm your leader in this assembly but I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER on this particular issue."
As mentioned earlier, I'm not opposed to QUANTITATIVE confusion (e.g. as to the magnitude/quantity of God's love). But we shouldn't promote QUALITATIVE confusion (e.g. logically inconsistent teachings or total gibberish about the NATURE of love).
Forcing God into human restraints is PRECISELY what I'm doing - and I make no bones about it. No apologies here, as it's a REQUISITE of theology if we want to avoid absolute gibberish. I'll explain why.InterestedApologist said:If I may be so bold, I think you are falling into the trap of forcing God into human restraints.
First example. Most people, probably yourself included, read the bible in a language known to them - obviously because it would be pretty useless if they CAN'T UNDERSTAND THE WORDS. If words such as 'heaven' have no recognizable meaning to us, then it doesn't even make sense to preach eternal salvation.
Second example. How do you define love? Probably the same way I do. It is kindness defined as an effort to minimize suffering. This is the human definition of love. And we could likewise articulate a clear definition of all the other virtues (justice, integrity, merit, diligence, etc). And what do we call someone whose behavior DEVIATES from these human definitions? Unkind, unjust, dishonest, slothful, unmeritorious (etc). Again, that's human language.
Not only do I want a Bible written in my own language, I want it to be THE MOST ACCURATE TRANSLATION POSSIBLE. It must:
(A) Use words I can understand.
(B) Accurately represent the truth.
Ok so let's say that God is the sort of being who DEVIATES from the human definitions of the virtues named above. As explained above, this means, to put it in HUMAN LANGUAGE - words that I can understand - that He is: Unkind, unjust, dishonest, slothful, unmeritorious (etc) - AND OUR BIBLE TRANSLATIONS SHOULD BE UPDATED ACCORDINGLY.
Problem is, this leads to a logical contradiction. The very promises that were INTENDED to console us by promising us His eternal kindness would now be trying to 'console' us by promising us His eternal UNKINDNESS! All those 'comforting' verses are now CAUSE FOR ALARM!
This is the sort of nonsense, gibberish, and logical self-contradiction that theology collapses into if it tries to side-step and/or transcend finite human understanding.
Look, this is a forum based on acquiescence to the Nicene Creed. If we can't understand the words - or if the words have no recognizable meaning - then this whole forum, and all of mainstream Christianity as an organization, is a complete joke.
You're assuming that God is infinite - which seems to be precisely one of those humanly incomprehensible doctrines so problematical. Later on I'll probably launch a logical critique of infinitude.InterestedApologist said:His characteristics of omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence cannot be fully grasped by the mind of the finite human anymore than a 3 year old can fully comprehend quantum mechanics.
He merely DESIRED it? Or NEEDED it? You're saying He made this kind of world just for the fun of it? And the price of all this good fun was nailing His Son to the Cross? Or was Calvary too, all part of the fun in your view?As to this world and why he created man, it seems scripturally evident to me that God desired to create us out of love and for fellowship and intimacy with him. Remember, this world was created perfect for us, and man himself chose to fall. Why the ability to choose disobedience, then? Because God is Love, and desired to be loved by man. There can be no true love without the ability to choose not to love. The ability to choose was an act of love.
If God is infinitely self-sufficient, why would He need our existence to have fun?
Upvote
0