I agree that there are problems with our normal words when applying them to God. The words we tend to use are just used because they are the easiest way to explain it to the average person who doesn't spend time thinking about these contradictions. I think is partly because we havn't the words or understanding to talk about these things which are outside our experence, but also because I worded it badly.
Nothing but agreement from me so far!
I would say then that God is a being which instantly acts according to His nature which would seem to us like consciousness. I think Benevolence could be said to be the human attribute of God, meaning that if God was human this is what He would be, as seen in Jesus. I suppose for God the Father it would mean in the instant eternity that He sees us it is His instant reaction of 'love' towards us. This is how best my limited understanding understands it at least.
Though I am biased because this is in line with what I already think, this is an excellent response! What a wonderful way of thinking about religious language as somehow analogous. It would explain why we speak how we speak also, as well as its importance.
I don't wish to merely pick out the opinions on this site which I already believe, and I'm looking for development of my own ideas as much as reinforcement or embellishment of already held opinions, but in this instance I'm happy for the reinforcement!
I agree that these word do 'anthropomorphosise' God but they are the best words to practically understand Him. Philosophy/Theology may give better literal explanations, but are not so practically helpful.
"Anthropomorphosise"...horrible word, I know
!
Again, I'm afraid that there is merely more agreement on my part here. I find that there are often clashes with how I feel and the beliefs which I
act out when reading the Bible or praying or going to Church, and those beliefs I consider myself to have upon theological or philosophical reflection. I'm inclined to agree that these statements, however philosophically dubious, are the most practically useful for expressing beliefs about the divine and for preaching, services and the like.
The book I read which was all about the reasons to believe in the ressurection was called 'More than a Carpenter' by Josh McDowell. I may be able to give an overview of the reasons here if you want, though I could not do it anywhere near as well as the book.
Purely for the fact that I've already used far too much time this evening replying on this website to be able to read another book at the moment, I would be extremely grateful if you could summarise for me. I'll keep it in mind that it will only be a substitute for the real thing.
What is it you find hard to 'come to grips with' with events such as the ressurection and virgin birth?
Roughly because they are events which, devoid of religious context, I would never even consider in believing if I had not witnessed them with my own eyes. Even then I may be considered to doubt my senses.
There seem to be enough reasons to collectively explain away what actually happened without resorting to admitting the events. It seems preferable not to have to admit such improbable events purely on the basis of the metaphysical can of worms it opens up.
Just as I would seek to deny the initial appearance of a magic trick, even if I didn't know how it was done, a similar analogy could be applied here. The sheer improbability of the event(s) lead me to seek other explanations.