What kind of God do you believe in?

[JAL]

You're just regurgitating Platonistic ideals. That's not the same thing as demonstrating them to be facts of Scripture.

I don't think it's about integrating Scripture with Platonism (although I don't deny that that has happened in some traditions).

I think it's about taking the doctrine of creation seriously. If God is the creator of everything that exists, such that before God first spoke...

God spoke? Hmm....several billion people speak every day. That makes for a lot of examples of speech over the years. Can you cite me an example where speech is not a material dynamic using, for example, vocal cords? An example where it doesn't involve sonic energy radiating from a specific geographical location, typically a visible body of matter? Hebrews tells us, "At that time his voice shook the earth" referring to how God's Voice sonically shook Mt Sinai. But again, you don't believe the Scriptures. You believe Plato.

...there was nothing except God, and from God's creative act came all time and space, matter and energy, everything that our senses and intelligence can perceive and grasp about the cosmos

Did you draw that conclusion from the Bible, or from Plato? For example there is no clear evidence of creation ex nihilo in Genesis as acknowledged, for example, in the ISBE, authored by 200 evangelical scholars.

No, God isn't a literal body with a literal throne. That's conceptually dragging God down to our level, using concepts from the created world in order to let our limited little brains construct some meaning to which we can relate.

Then you must think God is stupid. Have you ever heard of idolatry? Are you aware it was a serious problem in Israel? So let me get this straight. In your view, God's technique of putting an end to idolatry was to stimulate, in the minds of His people, false idolatrous images of Himself sitting on a throne? For example:

"As I looked,“thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat, His clothing was as white as snow, the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze. 10A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him." (Dan 7)

 

[Saint Steven]

I think that your god is much, much too small.

If you think that God is only a trillion times greater than you are, then your view of God is far, far below what it ought to be.

Are you claiming I am not a Christian? ("...your god is much, much too small.")

Where did you come up with that "trillion times greater" idea? Is that the standard of orthodoxy?

 

[Saint Steven]

God spoke? Hmm....several billion people speak every day.

More proof.
You need a mouth to speak.

How will we recognize God if he doesn't look like us?

 

[Paidiske]

God spoke? Hmm....several billion people speak every day. That makes for a lot of examples of speech over the years. Can you cite me an example where speech is not a material dynamic using, for example, vocal cords? An example where it doesn't involve sonic energy radiating from a specific geographical location, typically a visible body of matter? Hebrews tells us, "At that time his voice shook the earth" referring to how God's Voice sonically shook Mt Sinai. But again, you don't believe the Scriptures. You believe Plato.

Did you draw that conclusion from the Bible, or from Plato? For example there is no clear evidence of creation ex nihilo in Genesis as acknowledged, for example, in the ISBE, authored by 200 evangelical scholars.

If you are denying that God created all that exists (claiming that there was pre-existent matter which God shaped?) then that would put you at odds with the basic requirements for posting in this forum, which include acceptance that God created "all things visible and invisible."

In which case, of course God's primal speech is a metaphor, because there was no air in which sound could be carried.

Then you must think God is stupid. Have you ever heard of idolatry? Are you aware it was a serious problem in Israel? So let me get this straight. In your view, God's technique of putting an end to idolatry was to stimulate, in the minds of His people, false idolatrous images of Himself sitting on a throne? For example:

"As I looked,“thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat, His clothing was as white as snow, the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze. 10A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him." (Dan 7)

In my view, God uses things we can comprehend (including ideas like bodies and thrones) to point us towards things which, ultimately, we cannot comprehend.

 

[JAL]

If you are denying that God created all that exists (claiming that there was pre-existent matter which God shaped?) then that would put you at odds with the basic requirements for posting in this forum, which include acceptance that God created "all things visible and invisible."

Oh God indeed created. But as the ISBE noted, Genesis has no evidence for creation ex nihilo.

In which case, of course God's primal speech is a metaphor, because there was no air in which sound could be carried.

Ok so earlier you said God spoke. Now it's just a "metaphor". Yes, 100% of the Bible is materialistic, but we can dismiss that 100% as a metaphor - essentially misleading - because, after all, who needs the Bible for doctrine? Why should I look to the Bible for information about God when I can simply ask Plato?

 

[Radagast]

Where did you come up with that "trillion times greater" idea? Is that the standard of orthodoxy?

No, the standard of orthodoxy is that God is infinitely greater than us.

As I said, the Reformed Protestant view is: We all believe with the heart, and confess with the mouth, that there is one only simple and spiritual Being, which we call God; and that he is eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, immutable, infinite, almighty, perfectly wise, just, good, and the overflowing fountain of all good (Belgic Confession #1). Here "simple" means "not having parts."

Catholics and Orthodox believe the same.

 

[Paidiske]

Oh God indeed created. But as the ISBE noted, Genesis has no evidence for creation ex nihilo.

I am confused about what you are saying. If God did not create ex nihilo, was there not something there which God did not create, but only shaped?

Here you are, as best I can understand your position, on particularly shaky ground, theologically.

Ok so earlier you said God spoke. Now it's just a "metaphor". Yes, 100% of the Bible is materialistic, but we can dismiss that 100% as a metaphor - essentially misleading - because, after all, who needs the Bible for doctrine? Why should I look to the Bible for information about God when I can simply ask Plato?

Just because something is a metaphor, doesn't mean we can dismiss it. Each metaphor about God in Scripture is God-breathed and intended to inform our relationship with God.

 

[JAL]

In my view, God uses things we can comprehend (including ideas like bodies and thrones) to point us towards things which, ultimately, we cannot comprehend.

God is incomprehensible? Both quantitatively and qualitatively? Then you're theology is facing much bigger problems than exegetical materialism. For example I do not understand God's love quantitatively - I cannot grasp the full measure of it - but I certainly understand it qualitatively. I know what love is, it means kindness. Otherwise, none of us have hope.

If the position of mainstream theologians is that is incomprehensible (even qualitatively), then they need SHUT UP. They need to desist from teaching. It is a contradiction, on the one hand, to express multiple positive assertions (doctrines) about God, on the one hand, while claiming, on the other, that He is incomprehensible. Again, this calls for the honesty in the pulpit - the preacher, at minimum, should say, "I really have no idea what I'm talking about."

You cannot have it both ways.

 

[Radagast]

Oh God indeed created. But as the ISBE noted, Genesis has no evidence for creation ex nihilo.

It's a requirement of Christianity, and of this forum, that you believe that God is the "Maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things visible and invisible."

 

[Hazelelponi]

The point was that God didn't need to use human means. I asked...

Saint Steven said: ↑
In that case, why even involve Mary?

While @Salvadore was close, I differ as Jesus was born through Mary (aka Israel) in order to fully fulfill a promise.

 

[JAL]

I am confused about what you are saying. If God did not create ex nihilo, was there not something there which God did not create, but only shaped?

Here you are, as best I can understand your position, on particularly shaky ground, theologically.

Every theology is on a bit of shaky ground at some point. Let's start with one that WORKS, nay, one that works the best, in terms of both internal logical consistency and biblical harmony. For example, do you believe that God can at least push a pencil? You don't, right? Because logically speaking, an immaterial hand is too intangible to push a tangible object.

Just because something is a metaphor, doesn't mean we can dismiss it. Each metaphor about God in Scripture is God-breathed and intended to inform our relationship with God.

Inform us? You're implying that these biblical "metaphors", as you call them, essentially MISINFORM us. They positively assert what is NOT to be believed about God, even in historical, factual, empirical contexts such as the 70 elders looking at His feet resting on pavement.

 

[Paidiske]

God is incomprehensible? Both quantitatively and qualitatively? Then you're theology is facing much bigger problems than exegetical materialism. For example I do not understand God's love quantitatively - I cannot grasp the full measure of it - but I certainly understand it qualitatively. I know what love is, it means kindness. Otherwise, none of us have hope.

If the position of mainstream theologians is that is incomprehensible (even qualitatively), then they need SHUT UP. They need to desist from teaching. It is a contradiction, on the one hand, to express multiple positive assertions (doctrines) about God, on the one hand, while claiming, on the other, that He is incomprehensible. Again, this calls for the honesty in the pulpit - the preacher, at minimum, should say, "I really have no idea what I'm talking about."

You cannot have it both ways.

Here we touch on the tension between apophatic and kataphatic theology. We can say some things which - in our limited way - approach truths about God. We can do so particularly because God has revealed Godself to us through Scripture, giving us a "safe" conceptual framework with which to work.

But we need to realise that in the end, all of our conceptions about God are limited, partial and flawed.

Was it Theresa of Avila who followed every statement about God with "but I blaspheme!"? I may be thinking of someone else. But there is wisdom in reminding ourselves that everything we can say about God completely fails to do justice to the reality of God.

 

[JAL]

It's a requirement of Christianity, and of this forum, that you believe that God is the "Maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things visible and invisible."

And so He is. For example He created Adam and Eve, right? Or don't you believe He created them?

"Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created" (Gen 5).

But did He create them ex nihilo?

"Then the Lord God formed a man c from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being" (Gen 2).

So the Bible tells us that God creates - it also tells us HOW He creates. I'm sorry that the Scripture doesn't lend any support to your philosophical ideals. Here's a thought - what if God is, most fundamentally, your Father, as Jesus suggested? Maybe He's a lot more similar to you than Plato speculated?

 

[Paidiske]

Every theology is on a bit of shaky ground at some point. Let's start with one that WORKS, nay, one that works the best, in terms of both internal logical consistency and biblical harmony. For example, do you believe that God can at least push a pencil? You don't, right? Because logically speaking, an immaterial hand is too intangible to push a tangible object.

God can certainly cause the pencil to move, or to implode, or to turn into a flock of flying pigs, if God so wishes.

But you are correct that, should God cause the pencil to move, we might speak about God having "pushed" the pencil; in fact that would be an inaccurate statement because God would not have physically exerted force with a body part to do so.

 

[ewq1938]