The Word of God

[Usus Vox Tractus]

The OP is good and well, but not interesting enough. What if the Word is really some sort of incorporeal metaphysical "thing" that upholds all existence, much like the word of a person has the power of creating something that wasn't there before and therefore influencing the existing order of things? What if this Word is present in conscience, and even is the basis of what the self authentically is?

That's much more relevant, concrete theology, IMO, than that the Word became flesh for a particular moment of time and we're all trying to get the concepts down correctly about this fleshly Word.

Are you familiar with cymatics? Sound creates form by interference patterns and standing waves.

 

[Tree of Life]

The OP is good and well, but not interesting enough. What if the Word is really some sort of incorporeal metaphysical "thing" that upholds all existence, much like the word of a person has the power of creating something that wasn't there before and therefore influencing the existing order of things? What if this Word is present in conscience, and even is the basis of what the self authentically is?

That's much more relevant, concrete theology, IMO, than that the Word became flesh for a particular moment of time and we're all trying to get the concepts down correctly about this fleshly Word.

Firstly, I don't understand the relevance of the above to the OP.

Secondly, how is it that "some sort of incorporeal metaphysical thing" is more concrete than "Jesus Christ of Nazareth"?

"Some sort of incorporeal metaphysical thing that upholds all existence" is about as abstract as it gets in my book.

 

[Tree of Life]

They would be using their own judgment. Why would He create being that can form judgment and then ignore them when they do so?

Yes, indeed they would be "judging" the word of God. But in order to judge we must have some criteria we're using to make judgments. A criminal judge is using the constitution and precedent from other court cases and internal morality. What criteria could we possibly appeal to in order to judge the words of God? What would have more authority than his words?

God did intend that his creatures would make judgements, but that they would judge all things in accordance with the words of God.

Is He not interested in his creature's opinions? If not, why give them the ability to form opinions?

It would be incorrect to say that God is not interested in our opinions. God is not informed by our opinions nor is he swayed by our opinions. In the same reason that Shakespeare is not swayed by the opinions of MacBeth.

 

[Freodin]

Yes, indeed they would be "judging" the word of God. But in order to judge we must have some criteria we're using to make judgments. A criminal judge is using the constitution and precedent from other court cases and internal morality. What criteria could we possibly appeal to in order to judge the words of God? What would have more authority than his words?

If you really think about that, you might find out the problem.

A judge would use quite a number of things. The constitution and precedent (tradition), morality, their own views (conscience)... all things human.
It is all we have. Even if there was something like "the words of God", we would still have to use all that tradition and conscience to figure it out. It isn't preprogrammed into us, it isn't obvious and crystal clear.

Human judgement, based on anything that you are able to base it on, is always your own. You alone can make it.
That makes it free. It also makes it fallible. This seems to be necessary... no one has ever found a way to align "free will" and "infallibility".

So if the creator intended his creatures to work in exactly this way, he cannot complain when they do work exactly in this way.

God did intend that his creatures would make judgements, but that they would judge all things in accordance with the words of God.

Then he should have made us in this way. He didn't, so you should consider that maybe he had a point in not doing it.

It would be incorrect to say that God is not interested in our opinions. God is not informed by our opinions nor is he swayed by our opinions.

Not being informed, not being swayed. In just what way is he "interested" then?

In the same reason that Shakespeare is not swayed by the opinions of MacBeth.

Not the same reason, not the same reason by far.
Shakespeare's MacBeth is not a conscious person. He is fiction. Fictional character do not think and don't judge.
They are rather "the same" as you think God's creatures should be. Fictional characters cannot do anything beyond what their creator has them do.

Humans do not work that way... and Christians state constantly that "God does not want robots". He does not want stage roles either.

By the evidence of what exists - us! - it seems he wants creatures who decide for themselves. If he didn't want to have them decide in a certain way, then he should have made sure they didn't. But he has only himself to blame for that.

 

[Tree of Life]

If you really think about that, you might find out the problem.

A judge would use quite a number of things. The constitution and precedent (tradition), morality, their own views (conscience)... all things human.
It is all we have. Even if there was something like "the words of God", we would still have to use all that tradition and conscience to figure it out. It isn't preprogrammed into us, it isn't obvious and crystal clear.

It's seems like you're talking about the necessity of extra-biblical datum for hermeneutics. How can we rightly understand God's word without life experience, tradition, a sense of right and wrong, our conscience, etc...

This is a good point to make. We need all of these things in order to understand God's words. His words are spoken into the world he created, not to be understood in a vacuum. So it is indeed our responsibility to understand God's words and to respond appropriately. We can certainly make judgments about what God said and what he means. In fact God expects us to make such judgments. But once we understand a word to be God's word and once we understand its meaning, do we have any right to judge its truth or wisdom? Do we have any right to criticize it? That's the question at hand.

Not being informed, not being swayed. In just what way is he "interested" then?

God cares about what we think. He desires that our thoughts and opinions would be shaped by his and in agreement with his. He blesses such thinking. He is angered when our thoughts and opinions contradict his and curses such thinking. Our opinion do not change his opinions but they do invite blessing or curse. That's what I mean when I say that he is interested.

Not the same reason, not the same reason by far.
Shakespeare's MacBeth is not a conscious person. He is fiction. Fictional character do not think and don't judge.

They do in their own way. Stories are full of characters judging and making decisions. Now these judgments are created - they don't exist apart from the author. But they do "make judgments" within the story.

The author/character analogy is simply an analogy between creator and creature. It describes our relationship with God better than pointing at two things within creation, I think.

Fictional characters cannot do anything beyond what their creator has them do.

This is exactly what Psalm 139 teaches. We can do nothing apart from God's decretive will.

Humans do not work that way... and Christians state constantly that "God does not want robots". He does not want stage roles either.

By the evidence of what exists - us! - it seems he wants creatures who decide for themselves. If he didn't want to have them decide in a certain way, then he should have made sure they didn't. But he has only himself to blame for that.

Theologians in my camp talk about God's prescriptive will and his decretive will. God's prescriptive will is his moral will for humanity. Within this will he does desire that people choose Him and love Him from the heart - not under coercion. This will can be obeyed or rebelled against.

His decretive will is His sovereign will by which he has authority and control over all creation just like Shakespeare has sovereignty over his creation. It is impossible to disobey or rebel against God's decretive will.

 

[Oafman]

Would the word of this God be open to question and criticism from his creatures? Why or why not?

Anything that is right and true welcomes questioning and criticism. The fact that it comes out stronger after such examination proves its truth.

If anyone ever tells me that something cannot be questioned or criticised, I assume they have something to hide.

 

[Received]

Firstly, I don't understand the relevance of the above to the OP.

Because obeying commands and realizing truths according to a book is limiting things to a universal application of what can be carried out. We as human beings need meaning that goes well beyond "thou shalt not..." and "love your neighbor," etc. The logos provides this particular meaning by being the stuff in conscience that tells us what to do at each moment, whether or not we're totally consciously or only preconsciously aware of it, and by fulfilling we become ourselves.

Secondly, how is it that "some sort of incorporeal metaphysical thing" is more concrete than "Jesus Christ of Nazareth"?

"Some sort of incorporeal metaphysical thing that upholds all existence" is about as abstract as it gets in my book.

Only if you think the wind is more abstract than a rock. The incorporeal nature of the Logos is such that it's holding up every atom in the universe, and holding up your very self. That's very concrete, and there's nothing more concrete than that. With a rock you can only feel and see it when it's around; the logos is around and upholding everything, even you.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Because obeying commands and realizing truths according to a book is limiting things to a universal application of what can be carried out. We as human beings need meaning that goes well beyond "thou shalt not..." and "love your neighbor," etc. The logos provides this particular meaning by being the stuff in conscience that tells us what to do at each moment, whether or not we're totally consciously or only preconsciously aware of it, and by fulfilling we become ourselves.



Only if you think the wind is more abstract than a rock. The incorporeal nature of the Logos is such that it's holding up every atom in the universe, and holding up your very self. That's very concrete, and there's nothing more concrete than that. With a rock you can only feel and see it when it's around; the logos is around and upholding everything, even you.

Are you comparing the Logos to the quantum field?

 

[Received]

Are you comparing the Logos to the quantum field?

That's a huge question! QM opens a whole new world of possibilities regarding our previous dichotomy between spiritual and material. I think the Logos definitely acts on the quantum field; not sure if it *is* the quantum field.

 

[Freodin]

It's seems like you're talking about the necessity of extra-biblical datum for hermeneutics. How can we rightly understand God's word without life experience, tradition, a sense of right and wrong, our conscience, etc...

This is a good point to make. We need all of these things in order to understand God's words. His words are spoken into the world he created, not to be understood in a vacuum. So it is indeed our responsibility to understand God's words and to respond appropriately. We can certainly make judgments about what God said and what he means. In fact God expects us to make such judgments. But once we understand a word to be God's word and once we understand its meaning, do we have any right to judge its truth or wisdom? Do we have any right to criticize it? That's the question at hand.

Ok, I see your point.

But I'd still say that, yes, we do have that "right", by evidence of existence. It is something that humans do, and so, if we follow the context of your OP, something that we were created to do.

They do in their own way. Stories are full of characters judging and making decisions. Now these judgments are created - they don't exist apart from the author. But they do "make judgments" within the story.

The author/character analogy is simply an analogy between creator and creature. It describes our relationship with God better than pointing at two things within creation, I think.

No, "they" do not, in any way that is meaningful. They cannot. They do not exist as entities that can make judgements. "Their" decisions are made by their creator alone.

This analogy fails at least at your concept of "prescriptive" and "decretive" will: an author cannot exercise a "decretive" will upon its creation, because this creation is unable to exercise a "free will".

This is exactly what Psalm 139 teaches. We can do nothing apart from God's decretive will.

Not at all. Psalm 139 does not make any statement about God's will.

Theologians in my camp talk about God's prescriptive will and his decretive will. God's prescriptive will is his moral will for humanity. Within this will he does desire that people choose Him and love Him from the heart - not under coercion. This will can be obeyed or rebelled against.

His decretive will is His sovereign will by which he has authority and control over all creation just like Shakespeare has sovereignty over his creation. It is impossible to disobey or rebel against God's decretive will.

The distinction between "prescriptive" and "decretive" will is just a thing theologians made up to explain the obvious discrepancy between theology and reality.

But it still leaves only one possible explanation: the ability to judge - even God, and even against him - is wanted by the creator.
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have a being that is able to judge you, without the "right" to judge you.

 

[Tree of Life]

The distinction between "prescriptive" and "decretive" will is just a thing theologians made up to explain the obvious discrepancy between theology and reality.

This is not a fair assessment of the work that these theologians have done. God's prescriptive and decretive will come from the biblical datum itself. Theologians classify God's will in this way because they believe that the Bible seems to make this distinction.

The Bible teaches about God's moral will for humanity but also teaches about God's complete control over nature, history, and people.

But it still leaves only one possible explanation: the ability to judge - even God, and even against him - is wanted by the creator.
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have a being that is able to judge you, without the "right" to judge you.

To be sure, human beings are totally unable to judge God even though they attempt to make such judgements. Pontius Pilate sat in judgement over Jesus and condemned him to death but that verdict was quickly overturned.

 

[Freodin]

This is not a fair assessment of the work that these theologians have done. God's prescriptive and decretive will come from the biblical datum itself. Theologians classify God's will in this way because they believe that the Bible seems to make this distinction.

The Bible teaches about God's moral will for humanity but also teaches about God's complete control over nature, history, and people.

When theologians say something, anything, you can be assured that you find some equally qualified theologians who say the opposite.

Basically, all of what "the Bible teaches" is what earlier "theologians" believed that "the Bible" says... and that again was only something that human beings wrote down in connection with their religion.

Yes, we can debate whether it is useful or leading to truth (and not, "a right") to judge something that one has "understood as a word of God".
But in "theology" there seems to be no way to reach such an understanding. All you can reach is belief.

To be sure, human beings are totally unable to judge God even though they attempt to make such judgements. Pontius Pilate sat in judgement over Jesus and condemned him to death but that verdict was quickly overturned.

We seem to have drifted a little from the original use of the term "judgement" in this thread. If you want to use it in the way of your example, you would also have to admit that humans are totally unable to judge anything.

 

[juvenissun]

Sure. Let's imagine for a moment that God's existence and his desires were clear. Would his word be open to question from his creatures?

Should be yes.
Because His creature is not as good as Him. Thus learning-teaching is a good activity between them.

 

[lesliedellow]

When theologians say something, anything, you can be assured that you find some equally qualified theologians who say the opposite.

Coming from an atheist, that remark is both predictable and pointless.

 

[bhsmte]

Coming from an atheist, that remark is both predictable and pointless.

But very accurate.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

But very accurate.

No it is not.

I can think of a lot of things theologians agree on.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

That's a huge question! QM opens a whole new world of possibilities regarding our previous dichotomy between spiritual and material. I think the Logos definitely acts on the quantum field; not sure if it *is* the quantum field.

As far as I've mapped the Kingdom of Heaven: The Logos is a hyper massive body at it's very center, and the Holy Spirit is the quantum field that surrounds and interpenetrates all things at the lowest possible scale.

Both are perfectly still while creation moves around the Lgs, through the HS.

 

[Tree of Life]

We seem to have drifted a little from the original use of the term "judgement" in this thread. If you want to use it in the way of your example, you would also have to admit that humans are totally unable to judge anything.

I did make a shift here. I was attempting to respond to a nuance in usage that you introduced. Humans can certainly "judge" God in the sense that they can "play the judge" and evaluate his words and decide whether or not to take him seriously. If I may, I'll call that judging in a "temporal" sense.

Humans cannot judge God in an eternal sense such that their judgments will ultimately stand. Even if all humans wanted God exiled from creation their judgement, at the end of the day, would not stand. God's judgement will be the final judgement.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

I did make a shift here. I was attempting to respond to a nuance in usage that you introduced. Humans can certainly "judge" God in the sense that they can "play the judge" and evaluate his words and decide whether or not to take him seriously. If I may, I'll call that judging in a "temporal" sense.

Humans cannot judge God in an eternal sense such that their judgments will ultimately stand. Even if all humans wanted God exiled from creation their judgement, at the end of the day, would not stand. God's judgement will be the final judgement.

Getting back to the origins of the meaning and function of justice, it is to "keep the balance". To give reward or chastisement as the person merits. So it revolves around perfect vertical uprightness and perfectly horizontal equanimity.

 

[Freodin]

I did make a shift here. I was attempting to respond to a nuance in usage that you introduced. Humans can certainly "judge" God in the sense that they can "play the judge" and evaluate his words and decide whether or not to take him seriously. If I may, I'll call that judging in a "temporal" sense.

Humans cannot judge God in an eternal sense such that their judgments will ultimately stand. Even if all humans wanted God exiled from creation their judgement, at the end of the day, would not stand. God's judgement will be the final judgement.

That differs now quite a lot from the question you asked in the OP. It has no longer to do with questions and criticism, or the ability, right or openess to such... you now try to divert that to actions and results.

And even here... humans are able to act and get results, based on their own decisions. And these results will, from an atemporal view, stand eternaly.

Of course you can try to introduce a new, different state of things - "at the end of the day" - where the conditions of existence will be different, and there will be a "final judgement".

But that is not what we experience, nor can relate to as human beings. The state that we are in differs fundamentally from such a suggestion.

And if we assume that this is the result of a creative action, we also would assume that this is what the creator wanted.