Sniffles,
When I say Buddhism is a “feel good” faith, I say it in terms of “what can I do to achieve inner peace.” In truth, there are a lot of everyday methodologies one can use to achieve inner peace – yoga, meditation, what have you. But if you don’t believe my Buddhism comment, look it up and read about it. Sure, it’s a religion that practices moderation, but the ultimate goal, at least from what I understand, is achieving nirvana. This is sort of like a heavenly state in which conflict no longer exists and one finds peacefulness.
Secondly, I don’t know why the hell it is so difficult letting the concept of God be God.
If we ignore the concept of Christianity momentarily, just think for a moment what it means for “a god” to exist. I guess I could ask you something like this: When asked what “a god” is, how would you define it? Would you bind this god to certain limitations? If so, I have a few words for you:
That isn’t a god. . .or maybe it could be by your definition. But that really seems more like a superhuman. It can do some things beyond human standards, but is limited in other areas.
If I believe in this god, I essentially am taking stake in something you just made up. That’s like you taking some crayons and a piece of construction paper and drawing “a god,” and me subsequently devoting my whole life to it.
Now that we’ve gotten past the general concept of “a god,” let’s consider God, as written in the Bible (the same God Boyd and I supposedly believe in, along with all other Christians).
Revelation 11:17 - Exclaiming, To You we give thanks, Lord God Omnipotent, [the One] Who is and [ever] was, for assuming the high sovereignty and the great power that are Yours and for beginning to reign.
Omnipotence – look it up.
Sniffles,
If God is omnipotent, he has infinite power. Infinite. Meaning unending. He always was, is and will be. He defies “time.” And why shouldn’t he? He created it.
If God created time Sniffles, and he subsequently became a victim of it, of his own created concept, he exists in the time frame as do we. He cannot know what will be, what will happen. He is no longer all-knowing. He merely moves through a timeline with us, completely oblivious to anything in the future. And if He cannot foresee the future, how could He have prophesied like He did?
That is what I mean by drawing lines. If Christianity is supposedly the only way and this is the one true God, He should reign above all. . .and according to Revelation, He does. What does this mean? HE HOLDS EVERYTHING. Take that kid’s song. . . “He’s got the whole world in his hands” and alter the words a bit: “He’s got the whole universe and all of its concepts in his hands.”
And if you’re going to try to argue that, because Jesus was human, he walked the earth and was subject to time just like the rest of us, I will agree with you. . .PHYSICALLY. But if Jesus is God, He abided by the same concepts as God (read above). He still had infinite knowledge and power. What was the Greek word that explained this concept? Ah yes. . . Kenosis.
In short, Sniffles, I have a difficult time when people start throwing God-Limitations at me, because it contradicts the concept of "god" itself! If these people understand God so well, meaning they can define what He would and wouldn’t do, they are really stating that they are gods over God. If God has limitations made up by some arrogant philosopher, then I’d much rather not adhere to that heresy.
Consider it this way: A limited mind can only produce a limited answer.
The rest follows suit.
Grandpa C
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Thanks for the great advice on Buddhism! I never thought to look it up and read about it!
Saying God has to be omnipotent is just as much a limitation as saying he has to be subject to time. And regardless of what you or Boyd or anyone say you (all of you) are only ever limiting your mental constructs of God.
Saying you can't go faster than 55 on the Hwy doesn't actually limit you to 55mph.
The fact of the matter is no one knows what God is but we've been ruminating on it as a civilization for millenniums. No matter how much we think about it, that isn't going to change the reality of what God is. This isn't quantum physics. It's not Schroedinger's cat. If God exists, he exists in a certain way and that's it.
There are plenty of ways God (and even people) can and have "prophesied" correctly while being in time.
It looks to me that you take your definition of God from that phrase in Revelations which is a TRANSLATION. Have you looked at other translations? Do they all say omnipotent? or do some just say 'great power'?
I mean if your reason for believing God's omnipotent is "because the bible said so" then why don't you just leave it at that?
By saying "a limited mind can only produce a limited answer" you either have to aknowledge that your mind is limited too or that your thinking and thus your mind are somehow better than these other people.
How about considering it this way instead:The carnal mind is an enmity against God.
Bitches wanna know.
Sniffles
How is saying God is omnipotent putting a limitation on him? Yes, it's a word, and no I'm not sure if it's in every translation. But if you're going to argue with me on the relevance of English phonemes to concepts, we could honestly argue all day, picking apart little words.
The point is that God is infinite Sniffles. Does such a think as infinity exist? Well, we use it in mathematical equations. And these equations describe laws that are physically present, so yeah, I’d say infinity exists. If God is infinite, there is no limitation.
Saying that you can’t go 55 on the highway is a pre-understood notion that “you can’t LEGALLY go 55 on the highway.” Everyone knows you can PHYISCALLY go faster than 55. Bad analogy.
I know this isn’t quantum physics and Schroedinger’s cat and Pavlov’s canker sore. I’m going to quote you here Sniffles: “If God exists, he exists in a certain way and that's it.” What does that even mean? What does it even mean to exist Sniffles? And if God exists in a certain way, why can’t He exist in another way?
This is what I mean by God being infinite. You are saying He exists in a certain way, so therefore He has limitations. Well, keep in mind, you only really understand one way of existing. What if there are infinite numbers of ways to exist, be it metaphysical or perpetually potential?
I don’t just leave it at “the Bible says so” because you first have to ascertain what it even means for a god to be a god. When topics become more Christianity-focused, then I will use the Bible because we as Christians use that as the foundation for our discussions.
Listen up here Sniffles:
Take a paramecium. I am saying a paramecium could be a god, but it certainly is not limited to it. That, itself, is a restrictionLESS statement.
You are also saying a paramecium could be a god, but by saying that something just exists are certain way, you would also be saying that it would be possible for this paramecium to not realize it was a god, and it would also be possible for it to not perform metaphysical functions. If you consider a physically present and functioning, yet soulless paramecium to be a god, then I guess I can’t argue you. I’d say you should also be worshipping loaves of bread, piles of dirt, maxipads, and dentures. Really, they have about as much relevance as the next.
But again, I’m saying the paramecium would know it is a god and have limitless capabilities, therefore rendering it possible of anything, whether within the realm of our understanding or not.
A limited mind produces a limited answer. Therefore, my statement about limitation has only limited it more. Perhaps our minds are slightly above their physical processing capabilities, but it doesn’t ignore the fact that we are still mortal and only have finite abilities at conceptualization. Consider my limited mind’s statement about limited minds to be a second filter added to an already present filter.
And I could just as easily say your reply to me was limited, so how can I really be sure your intuition was as visceral as you intended? This would be a third filter.
I can’t say the following: “How about considering it this way instead:The carnal mind is an enmity against God.” Because a carnal mind is still making this statement; therefore it doesn’t negate your limited mind argument. This is like a double negative. Your carnal mind is saying that a carnal mind is an enmity against God.
If I substitute in your definition I get:
Your enmity against God is saying that an enmity against God is an enmity against God.
If a non-reputable source is saying a non-reputable thing about a non-reputable thing, it’s basically a reputable thing. (not the statement itself, but the idea). You pretty much just said that a carnal mind is a friend of God. And then you’ve made a limited statement.
Las putas quieren saber
Grandpa C
First of all, saying something isn't putting a limit on anything. Saying God has to be omnipotent is limiting the construct of God in your head to only being omnipotent. If you aren't able to be less-potent you're limited. You think because of the nature of the limitation in the real world (you can do anything) changes the fact that it is a limitation in you head? You are describing God. Defining. Reducing the entropy of God in you head. Limiting. Anytime you add order or structure to an idea you limit it in the hopes of making it more focused.
"God is infinite" is a meaningless statement. The only conceivable concept in that sentence is "is", which is another form of describing or limiting. So you only limit God and infinity by relating them to eachother.
How can you acertain what a god is when your whole claim is that it's impossible to know what God is?
I'm going to try and understand the paramecium thing. There's two ways of thinking about a paramecium-god, which are the same, except you explained one more than the other. But then you say the paramecium-god WOULD KNOW it is a god. That seems reasonable but that doesn't make it necessary. I don't know what you were trying to do besides create an artificial scenario where you could mock me for worshiping maxipads. Well, congratulations, you did it!
Then the end of your response just completely dives of the deep end. I have no idea what your trying to say except that you disagree with me. But I'll try to clear things up.
"A limited mind can only produce a limited answer" This is an axiom. I don't disagree with you, I just don't think it's fruitful because you'll just fixate on how every answer you come up with is limited.
I'm pretty sure you divided by zero with my statement. A non-reputable source saying a non-reputable thing doesn't make anything reputable. Just because a carnal mind is faulty doesn't mean it's always going to lie or be backwards.
The carnal mind is an enmity against God.
Me. You. Bitches. All of us want to know. and therein lies our mistake. I really don't think it is possible to think about God without putting some limits on him. How do you think about something indescribable? It's like thinking about nothing. Isn't that weird. The only things that are completely indescribable are God and nothing. The absence of something looks just like God to the human mind. But to many human minds God looks like the complete absence of anything. How do you tell the difference?
I’ve given up any chance at being productive today. This is too entertaining.
If we say something has infinite entropy, we are not putting boundaries on it. I wasn’t saying God HAS to be infinite, but He just is. I know that sounds like a defining, concrete statement, but think of it this way: God could be a jellybean or God could be a monsoon. He doesn’t HAVE to be, but He can. But in order to be able to be any of those things, you have to have infinite abilities. In order to exist and/or not exist in the physical world, you still need infinite abilities.
I make a definite statement that God is infinite, but it doesn’t mean I am defining infinity. I’m saying God is infinite, whatever infinite entails. That isn’t putting limitation. By having any ability in any physical dimension or whatever realm, being able to do ANYTHING means having infinite abilities..
In essence, I am saying this: “?”
Or, in other words: “God is infinite is ?”
You say God doesn’t HAVE to be infinite, but what if He does? What if He created some spiritual set of dynamics that state that He HAS to be infinite? You can’t say He doesn’t have to be infinite.
But if you can’t say He doesn’t have to be infinite, and I can’t say He is infinite, maybe we’re not supposed to talk about Him at all.
So your paramecium statement: If a paramecium didn’t realize it was a god, it could still be a god? Isn’t a general foundation for the god concept, among all religions, that a god is a self-appointed deity? Can a god exist, in whatever realm, if it has so ability to realize that it is a god?
Let me restate this. Follow me here:
“A carnal mind is an enmity of God”
You have a carnal mind.
A carnal mind states that a carnal mind is an enmity of God.
Because your mind is carnal, your carnal nature renders your own view “limited” or in a state that is an “enmity of God” as you say.
Because of your enmiatic state with God, your view of enmitiousness with God is a double negative. You are a friend of God. But you cannot state this, or it will be reversed, as your mind is carnal.
And if I choose to argue the same path as you, you described God in your last paragraph. How do you know if God is indescribable? You have contradicted your own argument by defining God as being indescribable. Maybe He is describable. How would we ever know? Maybe we aren’t supposed to talk about [?] or think about [?] because we inevitably define [?] once we do. Perhaps that is what nothing is Sniffles.
Grandpa C
I can say God doesn't have to be infinite. He doesn't. All I have to do to prove that is make up some ridiculous situation in which someone creates life but is not infinite. Anyway, it's semantics now.
I think a god could not realize it is a god.
If non-god's can think they are gods then why not the other way around?
Just because our carnal minds are enmities AGAINST God, doesn't mean everything we think about God is opposite. It isn't a double negative. That is stupid.
Finally, your last paragraph makes sense. You're right, I did describe God as indescribable. maybe he is describable. So the only thing we can say about God is that he might be describable or he might be indescribable. Saying anything else about God is presuming he is describable. This then completely destroys your claim that he is infinite.
When we say he is in/describable we really aren't even saying anything about God we are saying something about the instruments we use to see God--our eyes, ears, minds, souls(?)--. Perhaps we are able to understand and perhaps we aren't. Our carnal mind is and enmity against God. simply means our instruments have their own opinions on what the observe. And they don't want to observe god. Essentially, there is no way to determine whether open theism or predestination is right. (that is what we are arguing about right?). So is Boyd a heretic for preaching something that can't be shown one way or the other?
no.
he is a heretic for holding beliefs that are separate from the most widely held belief. Boyd is probably a little wider than you Graps so I guess YOU are the heretic. The only way to determine heresy is to survey everyone and label all minorities as heretics. Basically what it comes down is 'heresy' is a stupid concept. I don't know why you chose to use it in the first place. If there were never any heretics then ideas would never progress. There's a reason why heresy only exist in religion anymore. Because politics and science and social law and economics realized it was stupid.
I'm sure that religion has hung on to the term because of the idea that divine inspiration means perfect from the start. if our carnal minds can't see God how well do you suppose they can see perfection?
ok, heresy aside, is boyd wrong about open theism? yes. if there's a god, he knows what's going on.
if there is another sentient supremely superior creator who can't see the future, then the bible's probably wrong and the point is moot.
if there's no God and only entropy, matter, and heat, then he's definitely wrong.
It is a matter of semantics now Sniffles. I’m saying you can’t say any of that. Maybe God has to be infinite. How would you ever know?
And saying a god could not realize it’s a god simply because it exists the other way around, you should know you can’t make those assumptions in any scientific or mathematical field. Plus, you contradicted yourself : “if there's a god, he knows what's going on.”
Want to talk about stupid? How about the use of the word “enmity,” which essentially means antagonism. If something antagonizes you from your own will, it is add odds with you. If we are at odds with God, we desire what He doesn’t and we don’t desire what He does. Opposition.
When I say God has to be infinite, I’m not even limiting it to my senses. Being infinite includes being able to be finite, because if you want to exist as both, you need infinite abilities, whether perceived by our senses or not. Maybe God is infinite in snarfblat so He can zuhachi in snarfblat or He can become a spoon and not realize it. That takes infinite abilities to be both finite and infinite, as well as snarfblat and zuhachi. You’re limiting the term infinite to only include infinite (which is stupid because you don’t even know what infinite entails).
If you claim ‘heresy’ is stupid, then you may as well call religion stupid. Spiritual things are things humans can’t prove. Heresy means “opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, esp. of a church or religious system.” I can’t very well call Boyd “wrong” aside from religion as you suggest because I can’t prove him wrong. But I can say He does oppose Christian faith, making him a heretic.
And if you argue that heresy is responsible for progress, I would agree with you to some degree. However, if this more positive view is implemented in this case, why doesn’t Boyd write his own book of religion and adhere to that instead of claiming to believe the Bible? He is a heretic for claiming to believe a book of principles, for which he alters to conform with his synthetic beliefs. That is heresy Sniffles.
Boyd probably is wider that I expect, but in that case, he should write a book called “Boyd.” It could go down in history with the book of Mormon and the Torah. Then anybody who wants to believe in those concepts can have themselves a heyday.
Here’s an analogy. Say you hated your job Sniffles. But you made compromises and stayed in it for stupid reasons. Why the hell wouldn’t you go get another job? Say you always ate macaroni and cheese for dinner, but you hated it. Why not eat something else? Why claim to believe in the Bible if you’re just going to change everything about it? Write your own stupid book and find some followers.
Ok, lots of good points there.
I think alot of what I say causes confusion because I intermix ideas from a universe where there is a "real" infinite God, and where there is a superior creator.
So calling the creator God in both of those situations is wrong. The first is a God, the second is not.
I shouldn't be saying to you "God could not be infinite" I should be saying "What we call 'God' in this universe could only be a creator".
So I guess we are trying to distinguish between the two in the bible, in boyd's ideas, and in reality.
Your right I might as well-- Religion is stupid.
K, so How do you acertain the "Christian faith" it is a changing thing. Depending on where you are and who your with it changes. Do you just take the sum average? In Boyd's church YOU'RE the heretic. Simply because you deviate from their "Christian faith". I think maybe there should be some more stringent requirements for "Christian faith". If you're a Christian and you believe red is greener than blue, is that "Christian faith"? if you believe the world is 5000yrs old is that? if you believe Jesus looked like Jim Caviezel is that?
I imagine that Boyd writes books in Christianity instead of Boydism because more people will buy his books that way.
Every Christian makes compromises so they can still call themselves Christians. To be Christian means to be a Christ follower right? to be like Christ? well no on is! so why don't they just call themselves by their own names? at least then they are being absolutely accurate. I'm a Lewisian because I act like Lewis.
So Boyd things what we call God is just a creator, and you think he's a true god. How do you propose to reconcile that?
Regarding your statement: "What we call 'God' in this universe could only be a creator". I don’t agree with this. If God is creator of this universe, He isn’t merely subject to this universe. He had to have existed in something before creating this universe.
It’s like the question of “what was before the big bang?” If people say “nothing,” well, what really is nothing? Whatever ‘lack of universe’ there was, God was there. . .assuming you believe in God. . .and He created the universe.
I guess if we’re going off relativity, much like time, then yes, I would be a heretic in Boyd’s church. But I’m not talking about heresy in the church. It goes beyond that – heresy of the Christian faith.
Yes, the Christian faith has taken changes over time; the elimination of a lot of Catholic routines, the modernization of music, a lot of interrelational concepts among humans. It would be stupid of me not to also mention the importance of Mother Mary in Catholicism. But a lot of major beliefs have withstood the modernization of Christianity, and rightfully so. The belief that God is sovereign and Jesus was of God, sent to reconcile our sins and redeem us from hell. . .well, that hasn’t changed. . .at least to my knowledge.
But the most important statement about that is that God is sovereign over all. I think every Christian will agree on that point, mostly because they have no flippin clue what that means; when you ask them more personal questions about their lives and what is important to them, they’ll give you answers that contradict the former.
So for Boyd and his church to preach the empowerment of human action and decision over God. . .well. . .that’s a heresy. Of the Christian faith.
I would agree with you about Boyd selling his books. In fact, a friend of a friend, who happens to recognize Boyd as his “man crush” attempted to talk to Boyd to clarify an issue, and Boyd told him the same thing he told me: Go read my books and then we’ll talk. The truth is, this kid had already read 3 of his books.
I think you should start a religion called Lewisian. I guarantee you could get people to follow. People are willing to follow anyone as long as he or she exhibits confidence. So as long as you could authoritatively convince these people that your Jello cups are really a means of enlightenment, you will definitely gain some followers in Lewisianism.
There are plenty of things that could have been before creation. We don't know. It could have been another universe and some non-god creator started the big bang and it watching us ever since. He's not an omnipotent God, but he's sure got the edge on us. You're just saying you don't BELIEVE that's true. it still could be true.
Ok, so it looks like it comes down to the statement in the bible that "God is sovereign over all".
Well this still leaves quite a bit of room for interpretation. I mean we call monarchs sovereign. But people can still say he sucks. He didn't make them do it. He just has power over them.
And does 'sovereign' on it's own necessarily imply over space and time.
A lot of people in the bible say when praying "O sovereign Lord" but where does it say more than that?
But I guess preaching ht empowerment of human action and decision over God is heresy. Kudos.
Exactly. If there was a word that implied an omnipotence beyond our understanding, that’s what I’m trying to say.
I really think the dividing line between us is our use of semantics. You’re merely disassembling the words I’m choosing to use from the English language. Let’s for one moment say words like “omnipotence” and “sovereign” merely pertain to universe-related concepts, simply for your sake.
I’m going to make up a word right now: Foob. Foob means infinitely enduring, even beyond universal standards. Foob means having presence, and thus endless abilities, within our realm and not within our realm. Therefore, whatever existed prior to the creation of the universe, or whatever exists “outside” of our universe . . .that is what I call “God.” If God supposedly existed prior to the universe in order to create it, He was a part of whatever was before the universe. Having the ability to create the universe, and therefore, exist in whatever was prior, well, that makes Him Foob.
And I can hear you asking me, “What if God existed in that prior-to-universe state, but He merely existed in it? What if He was subject to the ruling of another power in that realm?” My response would be “He isn’t a god then. . .or again. . .I guess He could be a god by your standards.” But if that was the case, why wouldn’t you worship whatever entity reigns above “God” in that realm?
What I’m saying is that the ULTIMATE, supreme, Foob form of power, regardless of inner or outer-universe existence. . .That’s what I call God. If God is subject to some other power, like time for example, wouldn’t time be the god?
Grandpa
Post a Comment