Ask a Complicated Ecumenical Existentialist Universalist Christian Stuff

[Received]

The mind set on the flesh cannot please God because it in no way wants to submit to God. But the mind set on the Spirit is free to obey God because it wants to obey God. Given, there is a splitness to the Christian life. Our flesh (remaining sin) wants to rebel against God. But our spirit, regenerated by the Holy Spirit, wants to obey God. Our self becomes disassociated from our sin. This is why Paul says in Romans 7 that "it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me."

No, according to your proposition, the mind set on Christ isn't free, given that the mind set on Christ is precisely the mind that rises above temptation (wants).

Until full glorification the Christian is not completely free. He is free and becoming more free to serve God, but his flesh still serves sin. He has not been completely liberated to serve God.

So he's free in Christ to some degree, but because he's not completely free he's unfree in Christ? (That's the only thing I'm getting from this.)

Freedom in Christ does not mean immediate deliverance from sin, though some experience more deliverance in this life than others - and that miraculously. But this freedom is a growing, joyful desire to obey God from the heart.

And unless this desire to obey God is capable of being fulfilled, there's really no point in being saved and "putting on the character of Christ" if you're incapable of doing such things.

If I threw out God's sovereignty I would have to throw out the Scriptures themselves.

As you understand it. Calvinists understand sovereignty as actual power over everything. The alternative would be that God has potential power over everything, which is better in line with the Latin omnipotens, meaning "power over all." A king doesn't have no power if he's not directly exercising it; it's precisely his ability to exercise it if needed that grants him power. And for God, exercising power in every instance would mean human wills would be exercised as well. And a negated human will is an unfree will.

 

[Received]

Assuming that a deity still exists … if you forget all the assumptions, beliefs, theology, and theories, and set them all aside for a moment, what evidence do you have in your own personal life that a deity exists in some manner ? For example, let's say we're talking about an animal that is sitting in front of you, and no one can agree on what type of animal it is. Some say it's a duck, others say it's a unicorn, still others say it's a chihuahua. So, for moment, forget what everyone is saying … even yourself … and look at the evidence. What does the animal look like ? What are it's attributes you've observed ? Do others agree on these attributes ? Does it have feathers, or a long single horn coming out of it's head ? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck … just maybe it's a duck. So along these same lines … what is the evidence you have personally seen, which may cause you to conclude there is a deity that exists, and *why* you would think it was a deity and not something else (i.e. take your pick: aliens, leprechauns, time traveling humans, collective consciousness, spirits of dead Atlantians, the Greek/Roman pantheon, you name it).

What, in your opinion, would be the best way for a majority of people to come to consensus on what exactly they are describing and interpreting ?

The best way would be to try to understand their experiences within metaphysical constraints. This, again, goes back to metaphysical necessities if God exists: if he created the universe, he must be "beyond" the universe, therefore not divisible (divisibility is an aspect of the natural universe), and because of this indivisibility we must necessarily be speaking about a "single" (even that term without quotes is problematic) deity and not multiple ones.

So when you add reasoning like this, in addition to the intrinsic epistemic problem of "multiple interpretations meaning multiple things," you have a pretty good case (and maybe a great case) that multiple interpretations of God means just that: multiple interpretations of an otherwise singular thing.

Note that all the reasoning above works on the condition of God creating the universe. If he didn't, then it's much more metaphysically necessary that he is basically one with it, like the pantheists think; and if he's one with it, then of course you can have multiple deities who personify multiple aspects of nature, or something like that.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Here's my idea.

Dreams, matrix, brain in a vat - if they exist - are all "things" or finite objects. These are "skeptical alternatives to the scientific model of reality".

Skepticism competes with science, offering other "finite" perspectives. But theism transcends the interpretative.

We have level A rationally minded experience. B finite models positing finite things (skeptical and scientific). And C (God, the non-finite).

Thoughts? Hmm, sounds like the transcendent God of your last post?

Maybe God is like the Hindu "sat" of Being, ontological rather than "ontic"?

Thus when a scientist or a skeptic claims things are [exist in such and such a fashion] ..... ...then he implicitly believes in some shape or form - inE.

 

[Received]

What is E?

I think God is incredibly complicated to define given that he's the creator of not just beings but all Being. For that reason you can't technically speak of him as a being, and it's a little screwy to say that he is Being, but it's probably in that direction where the answer lies. If he created Being, and being applies to this physical universe, then of course he can't "be" in the sense that we understand the term; and this isn't to say that he just doesn't exist, but rather that our ability to grasp him goes beyond all concepts (anything that exists can be conceptualized).

There's a fantastic poem by Rilke that goes something like, "are you, God, the one who lives life?" I think there's something there.

 

[bhsmte]

What is E?

I think God is incredibly complicated to define given that he's the creator of not just beings but all Being. For that reason you can't technically speak of him as a being, and it's a little screwy to say that he is Being, but it's probably in that direction where the answer lies. If he created Being, and being applies to this physical universe, then of course he can't "be" in the sense that we understand the term; and this isn't to say that he just doesn't exist, but rather that our ability to grasp him goes beyond all concepts (anything that exists can be conceptualized).

There's a fantastic poem by Rilke that goes something like, "are you, God, the one who lives life?" I think there's something there.

IMO, if there is a supreme being (God) who created everything or got the ball rolling, I don't believe anyone has any viable evidence, to have a clue what characteristics this being (God) has.

 

[Received]

IMO, if there is a supreme being (God) who created everything or got the ball rolling, I don't believe anyone has any viable evidence, to have a clue what characteristics this being (God) has.

That might be why the best theologians understand characteristics of God as anthropomorphisms, with the exception of very abstract ones like justice (fairness) and love (will-to-good). The question of why God should have even these goes back to personal experience and, well, intuition. It's not an easy process for sure.

 

[bhsmte]

That might be why the best theologians understand characteristics of God as anthropomorphisms, with the exception of very abstract ones like justice (fairness) and love (will-to-good). The question of why God should have even these goes back to personal experience and, well, intuition. It's not an easy process for sure.

I don't know about you, but if there is a God, I can not reconcile the existence of this God having characteristics of "justice/fairness", when I look at the realities of the real world.

 

[Received]

I don't know about you, but if there is a God, I can not reconcile the existence of this God having characteristics of "justice/fairness", when I look at the realities of the real world.

Assuming God should or could be omnipresent in administering this justice or fairness.

 

[bhsmte]

Assuming God should or could be omnipresent in administering this justice or fairness.

What would be the purpose of God having the characteristics of; justice/fairness, if he could not administer the same in the real world?

If I fail to see the application of a God exhibiting these traits, why would I believe a God possesses them?

 

[Received]

What would be the purpose of God having the characteristics of; justice/fairness, if he could not administer the same in the real world?

If I fail to see the application of a God exhibiting these traits, why would I believe a God possesses them?

Because you think being omnipotent -- at least as we understand the term -- is an intrinsic quality of God. Is it? I'd recommend reading Plantinga's godawful complicated God, Freedom, and Evil book for 20 pages and seeing how complicated any conception we have of omnipotence is when it gets down to logical possibilities.

And here's a terrifying thought (I mean this seriously): what if our appeals to injustice and God are in fact God's way of handing over justice to us and we're pushing away this possibility? That is, what if ominpotence (or whatever that means) can be fully actualized only if we -- and our varying degrees of insight into justice and how things should be -- choose to shut down injustices when possible?

 

[bhsmte]

Because you think being omnipotent -- at least as we understand the term -- is an intrinsic quality of God. Is it? I'd recommend reading Plantinga's godawful complicated God, Freedom, and Evil book for 20 pages and seeing how complicated any conception we have of omnipotence is when it gets down to logical possibilities.

Why would anything need to be logical to a human with a God, if it is assumed he created the universe and everything in it. On top of that, the Christian God sent his son to perform miracles and be risen from the dead to save everyone. I don't see a lot of logic in the above.

 

[Received]

Why would anything need to be logical to a human with a God, if it is assumed he created the universe and everything in it. On top of that, the Christian God sent his son to perform miracles and be risen from the dead to save everyone. I don't see a lot of logic in the above.

You're of the Cartesian camp, where God can do illogical things. I don't think God can do illogical things, and if he could then we would have absolutely no way of comprehending them given our poor logic-limited brains.

God creating the universe doesn't mean he created logic. Logic is the stuff that applies to subjectivity (ideas, concepts, etc.); it's the logos or holding-together of ideas. Logic as such is more likely a necessary part of God's being, which he projected onto the universe by creating it. I say this because it's inconceivable to me that someone could create logic; it's just too fundamental to be created.

Miracles, etc., aren't illogical at all. They're perfectly logical once you get how physical laws are basically inductive things regarding the consistent behavior of material things. A miracle just says they're only inductive, not necessary, and if God created the material things from which these laws could be applied, he can "create around" these material things. Which is a totally different thing than speaking about things like non-contradiction, which aren't inductive but are more fundamental to how we think about the world.

 

[bhsmte]

=Received;67192819]You're of the Cartesian camp, where God can do illogical things. I don't think God can do illogical things, and if he could then we would have absolutely no way of comprehending them given our poor logic-limited brains.

Well yes, I am in the camp of Jesus performing miracles and being risen from the dead after three days is illogical.

Not sure what type of brain would see creating universes, rising people from the dead is logical. That is of course, unless we make assumptions, that these things are logical and we just don't get it, because after all, it is God and he plays by a different set of rules.

Well, if this is the case, how do you know what God can do or can't do, wouldn't that just be more baseless assumptions?

To me, the more people try to figure out their God and make his characteristics fit with what they believe, the more assumptions they have to make and they dig a deeper hole.

 

[Received]

Well yes, I am in the camp of Jesus performing miracles and being risen from the dead after three days is illogical.

Not sure what type of brain would see creating universes, rising people from the dead is logical. That is of course, unless we make assumptions, that these things are logical and we just don't get it, because after all, it is God and he plays by a different set of rules.

Well, if this is the case, how do you know what God can do or can't do, wouldn't that just be more baseless assumptions?

To me, the more people try to figure out their God and make his characteristics fit with what they believe, the more assumptions they have to make and they dig a deeper hole.

And to me the moment you get into complicated territory, which is by definition where God is going to be (see how he's, you know, God), that gives you an excuse to raise up your hands and walk away while saying what you did in the last paragraph.

I mean that completely as an observation with no judgments. And the reason I would make such a comment is it seems to indicate deeper differences beyond the scope of this argument -- differences which determine how you see and tolerate different arguments regarding God. Part of this difference seems to be your presupposition that God should be no more difficult to understand than anything in our world. Do you walk away from quantum mechanics saying what you did in this quote? No? Well, if QM is incredibly complicated, and if God exists he created a universe with QM, what on earth makes you think talking about God would be any easier than QM on some points?

 

[bhsmte]

And to me the moment you get into complicated territory, which is by definition where God is going to be (see how he's, you know, God), that gives you an excuse to raise up your hands and walk away while saying what you did in the last paragraph.

I mean that completely as an observation with no judgments. And the reason I would make such a comment is it seems to indicate deeper differences beyond the scope of this argument.

Let's assume for a moment that God is this complicated being that humans could never understand and that is possible.

If this is the case (or could be the case) why does anyone try to reconcile his characteristics and define his being, if he is so complicated and you are inferring we could never understand him.

Seems a lot like throwing darts blindfolded.

 

[Received]

Let's assume for a moment that God is this complicated being that humans could never understand and that is possible.

If this is the case (or could be the case) why does anyone try to reconcile his characteristics and define his being, if he is so complicated and you are inferring we could never understand him.

Seems a lot like throwing darts blindfolded.

I never said he was so complicated you can't understand him. I'm saying he's very complicated, just like QM, and like QM you don't throw up your hands and walk away; you still try to get some work done.

 

[bhsmte]

I never said he was so complicated you can't understand him. I'm saying he's very complicated, just like QM, and like QM you don't throw up your hands and walk away; you still try to get some work done.

I'm more interested in how the work is done and how the conclusions are justified.

I have yet to see anything of significance, beyond simple human speculation, that make all sorts of assumptions.

So yes, I do throw up my arms and say; this is not reliable and is based on too many personal perceptions, which will bring us all the varying opinions we see.

Lastly, if a God exists, who is to say this being is not very simple, much simpler than we could ever imagine?

 

[Received]

I'm more interested in how the work is done and how the conclusions are justified.

I have yet to see anything of significance, beyond simple human speculation, that make all sorts of assumptions.

So yes, I do throw up my arms and say; this is not reliable and is based on too many personal perceptions, which will bring us all the varying opinions we see.

Lastly, if a God exists, who is to say this being is not very simple, much simpler than we could ever imagine?

Regarding the simple part: that's just what Aquinas said. Do you think that the simplest things are always the easiest to understand?

And for the rest: do you think it's too much of an assumption to say that the universe was created or it wasn't?

 

[bhsmte]

Regarding the simple part: that's just what Aquinas said. Do you think that the simplest things are always the easiest to understand?

Sometimes not. As humans, we have a tendency to make things more complex than they really are and look for meaning that just isn't there.

And for the rest: do you think it's too much of an assumption to say that the universe was created or it wasn't?

It was created somehow, either through natural forces or maybe some supreme being got it going. I am entirely open to both possibilities. To me, it is the greatest question we have; how and why did this baby get rolling.

When it comes to Gods, I look at it like this; which God and which characteristics are we talking about? The Christian story makes specific claims and does describe God. Yes, there is some disagreement, but there is a basic premise to go off of. When I analyze the story and description of God and compare that to reality, I come to the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that this God exists.

Now, a God with different traits; non personal God, etc.., I would give more possibility to, of being true, but still unlikely, as I stand right now.

To me, one of the major soft spots of the Christian story, is the amount of claims it makes and the answers it claims to have for so many things. Could be one of the reasons, there are so many denominations of the same, because people disagree on the answers and some of the claims.

 

[Received]

Sometimes not. As humans, we have a tendency to make things more complex than they really are and look for meaning that just isn't there.



It was created somehow, either through natural forces or maybe some supreme being got it going. I am entirely open to both possibilities. To me, it is the greatest question we have; how and why did this baby get rolling.

When it comes to Gods, I look at it like this; which God and which characteristics are we talking about? The Christian story makes specific claims and does describe God. Yes, there is some disagreement, but there is a basic premise to go off of. When I analyze the story and description of God and compare that to reality, I come to the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that this God exists.

Now, a God with different traits; non personal God, etc.., I would give more possibility to, of being true, but still unlikely, as I stand right now.

To me, one of the major soft spots of the Christian story, is the amount of claims it makes and the answers it claims to have for so many things. Could be one of the reasons, there are so many denominations of the same, because people disagree on the answers and some of the claims.

The characteristics of God are going to be logically drawn out by how we answer the question: did God create the universe or not? That doesn't make it easy, but it doesn't make it blindingly complicated -- not even as complicated as QM.

So if we can make that assumption -- that the universe began to exist and that God was a part of it -- we're well on our way. Nothing overcomplicated here, but it should be complicated, because, again, we're talking about God.