Are you familiar with cymatics? Sound creates form by interference patterns and standing waves.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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.
They would be using their own judgment. Why would He create being that can form judgment and then ignore them when they do so?
Is He not interested in his creature's opinions? If not, why give them the ability to form opinions?
If you really think about that, you might find out the problem.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?
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.God did intend that his creatures would make judgements, but that they would judge all things in accordance with the words of God.
Not being informed, not being swayed. In just what way is he "interested" then?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 the same reason, not the same reason by far.In the same reason that Shakespeare is not swayed by the opinions of MacBeth.
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.
Not being informed, not being swayed. In just what way is he "interested" then?
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.
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.
Anything that is right and true welcomes questioning and criticism. The fact that it comes out stronger after such examination proves its truth.Would the word of this God be open to question and criticism from his creatures? Why or why not?
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.
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?
Ok, I see your point.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.
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.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.
Not at all. Psalm 139 does not make any statement about God's will.This is exactly what Psalm 139 teaches. We can do nothing apart from 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.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.
When theologians say something, anything, you can be assured that you find some equally qualified theologians who say the opposite.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.
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.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.
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?
When theologians say something, anything, you can be assured that you find some equally qualified theologians who say the opposite.
But very accurate.
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?