20 Jun 09
Originally posted by vistesdYou might have seen the truth that appears beyond the contradiction, but you have not demonstrated it.
Well, those are pretty bald claims! You might have seen the truth that appears beyond the contradiction, but you have not demonstrated it. You have not shown that you are any less prone to seeing what you wish to see than anyone else. (Your declarative one-liners really carry no weight.)
Let’s be frank: your particular theological conceptualization of ...[text shortened]... le suffering on the part of the newborn that LJ used for an example (as well as all the others).
At length, I previously posted specific and detailed truths regarding the integrity of God. In light of that body of truth, I herein reference the same.
To say that God has (or is defined by) integrity or perfection—and is hence non-contradictory—does not entail that your conceptualization, no matter how rich, is necessarily free from contradiction(s).
Again, in light of those previous postings, the status of non-contradiction has been established. The best that any naysayers were able to come up with throughout the entire endeavor previously was something along the lines of 'this is so boring; why are you wasting our time?' and the like.
But it commits you, as LJ has also pointed out, to the position that one less child rape, one less victim of torture, one less victim of the Nazi holocaust, one less short-lived suffering newborn, etc.—would make the world less good (or render the perfect imperfect).
You forgot one less (or, gasp! more) crossword puzzle, didn't you? Here's the funny thing. The contradiction always centers on two isolated--- and, by 'isolated' I do mean totally and completely removed from all other--- characteristics of God's essence: His power and His love. Doesn't it seem strange to you (especially considering how He is constantly maligned as a justice-bent hate monger in these parts) that no one ever broaches the argument with an eye toward, say, His power and His justice?
Imagine that argument: how could an all-powerful God allow even the slightest deviation from His own perfection? Either He is not all-powerful, or He is not as perfect as He is made out to be.
Chew on that for a while and see if you don't start to understand why I so boldly declare the problem of evil/suffering/crossword puzzles exactly what it is: silly.
20 Jun 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMore likely you simply ignored any posts that contradicted what you had to say. I seem to remember commenting on one of those threads and if you feel that what I came up with was no better than 'this is so boring; why are you wasting our time?', then I suspect you had your blinders on.
The best that any naysayers were able to come up with throughout the entire endeavor previously was something along the lines of 'this is so boring; why are you wasting our time?' and the like.
Or perhaps you feel that 'this is so boring; why are you wasting our time?' was not such a bad comment?
20 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBH[/b]Again, in light of those previous postings, the status of non-contradiction has been established.
[b]You might have seen the truth that appears beyond the contradiction, but you have not demonstrated it.
At length, I previously posted specific and detailed truths regarding the integrity of God. In light of that body of truth, I herein reference the same.
To say that God has (or is defined by) integrity or perfection—and is hence non-contrad ldly declare the problem of evil/suffering/crossword puzzles exactly what it is: silly.
I read the posts, and I don’t think so. (This seems to be an area where you and I perennially disagree.)
Now, I grant the integrity of God (under any definition of “God”, dualistic or non-dualistic), since otherwise there would be no point in even considering the matter.
—I want to add here that there was no personal spitefulness intended in my comments, nor did I infer any from yours. You and I, I think, are long past that kind of thing! (Since that one time when it was I who, in your words, lost my “inner Buddha”!)
Imagine that argument: how could an all-powerful God allow even the slightest deviation from His own perfection? Either He is not all-powerful, or He is not as perfect as He is made out to be.
Very good. I agree. I think, though, that the words “as He is made out to be” are extremely cogent. What is the nature of that “perfection” that we “make out to be”? That is a crucial theological/philosophical question (again, for non-dualists—such as myself—as well as dualist-theists).
This remind me of an error that I have constantly (more or less) accused you of in your theology: confusion of essence versus attributes. (I do not think that any sola scriptura Christian can properly argue that agape is not proffered as God’s essence, under which such conceptions as Gods justice must be subsumed. I am only raising that old argument as an example.)
Nevertheless, with all that “reminiscing” aside, God’s moral perfection either entails that God would act to prevent/eliminate the kind of gratuitous pain and agony that we have talking about—or it does not. The “trilemma” is neither silly nor dismissible. If you say that all pain and agony must, in the light of God’s integrity and perfection necessary, then you must admit that one less instance of pain and agony—of any kind—in the world would render God’s creation less than perfect. [NOTE: This does necessarily entail that our efforts to relieve such pain and agony also are futile attempts that render the world less perfect; I suspect that you see that.]
22 Jun 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadMore likely you simply ignored any posts that contradicted what you had to say.
More likely you simply ignored any posts that contradicted what you had to say. I seem to remember commenting on one of those threads and if you feel that what I came up with was no better than 'this is so boring; why are you wasting our time?', then I suspect you had your blinders on.
Or perhaps you feel that 'this is so boring; why are you wasting our time?' was not such a bad comment?
Never take a knife to a gun fight.
The only authority on God is the Bible. Anyone arguing a position which relies on any less authority than the Bible has already lost the fight: they may as well be saying "I know you are, what am I?" for all the weight their statements carry.
That being said, the only valid argument to anything posted would have to at least begin with Scripture. Those who refuse to recognize the authority of the same are merely sounding off to hear their own voices--- nothing substantive is being brought to the table.
22 Jun 09
Originally posted by vistesd(I do not think that any sola scriptura Christian can properly argue that agape is not proffered as God’s essence, under which such conceptions as Gods justice must be subsumed. I am only raising that old argument as an example.)
Again, in light of those previous postings, the status of non-contradiction has been established.
I read the posts, and I don’t think so. (This seems to be an area where you and I perennially disagree.)
Now, I grant the integrity of God (under any definition of “God”, dualistic or non-dualistic), since otherwise there would be no point in e ...[text shortened]... gony also are futile attempts that render the world less perfect; I suspect that you see that.][/b]
In the postings regarding God's integrity, the issues regarding both aspects of love and justice are addressed. Specifically, His justice guards His entire being. Less specifically, justice is just as much an aspect of His essence as is love, as is righteousness. More to the point, a being driven by love first is a being without any moorings: what to love? All? Everything?
22 Jun 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAs I thought. You simply dismissed any argument not in your favor.
Never take a knife to a gun fight.
The only authority on God is the Bible. Anyone arguing a position which relies on any less authority than the Bible has already lost the fight: they may as well be saying "I know you are, what am I?" for all the weight their statements carry.
Of course your claim leads to the conclusion that the only influence God has on this world is the Bible. Do you see how ridiculous that claim is?
That being said, the only valid argument to anything posted would have to at least begin with Scripture.
So if you announced "2 plus 2 is 5", no amount of contradictory evidence would have been accepted by you unless it began with Scripture?
Those who refuse to recognize the authority of the same are merely sounding off to hear their own voices--- nothing substantive is being brought to the table.
That is because you refuse to accept that logic is valid or substantive. Not surprising as it would destroy your beliefs wouldn't it?
But I already know you will ignore anything I said in this post because I didn't start with scripture.
22 Jun 09
3 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSpecifically, His justice guards His entire being.
[b](I do not think that any sola scriptura Christian can properly argue that agape is not proffered as God’s essence, under which such conceptions as Gods justice must be subsumed. I am only raising that old argument as an example.)
In the postings regarding God's integrity, the issues regarding both aspects of love and justice ar ...[text shortened]... a being driven by love first is a being without any moorings: what to love? All? Everything?[/b]
I realize that you said this before, and it might seem clear to you—but I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. What could God’s being possibly need to be guarded from!?
Nevertheless, I will note that the being that is guarded is not the same as that which is used to guard it—although, like karate, say, might be considered a particular expression of that being (or being-ness).
Less specifically, justice is just as much an aspect of His essence as is love, as is righteousness.
This, speaking strictly Biblically (and on a close reading) does not seem accurate.
There are two statements (that I am aware of) in the NT that use the Greek construction of identity to define God’s being-ness (essence, substance):*
1. God is spirit (John 4:24); and
2. God is agape (e.g., 1st John 4:8).
To say that God is agape, and then to add something like, “Yes, but God is also just” is like saying that God is spirit, and then adding, “Yes, but God is also just (righteous, etc.)”.
Now, if you were to say that God’s justice is an attribute that guards God’s being-ness (essence) as spirit and agape, then that idea might be defensible (depending on what it means, how it is applied)—so long as such an attribute is not set as a limit on the essence, but as a functional expression of it.
But nowhere is there any statement that God is justice; so that cannot be taken as any kind of counter-limitation on God as agape.
More to the point, a being driven by love first is a being without any moorings: what to love? All? Everything?
A soteriology of healing (literally, a soteriology of soterias!) provides the moorings that a soteriology of pardon-and-punishment would not.
At bottom, quite frankly, your argument is not really with me but with the Biblical texts themselves—and especially the 1st Letter of John. He is the one who put agape on the same level as spiritness, as an identifying essence of (the being of) God.
Undoubtedly a lot of theological ink has been spilt in the West (and perhaps especially in Protestantism) to try to limit this statement of God’s essence—largely, I suspect, to avoid embracing a soteriology of soterias that has been more predominant in the East (and is also Biblical).
______________________________________________________
* The other two such constructions that I am aware of are: “the logos is God” (John 1:1)—in which the order runs from logos to God, rather than the other way around—and “God is a consuming fire” (Hebrews 12”29—which, with its use of a physical/material image, is clearly metaphorical: i.e., a metaphor for God’s essence as spirit and agape.
24 Jun 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadAs I thought. You simply dismissed any argument not in your favor.
As I thought. You simply dismissed any argument not in your favor.
Of course your claim leads to the conclusion that the only influence God has on this world is the Bible. Do you see how ridiculous that claim is?
[b]That being said, the only valid argument to anything posted would have to at least begin with Scripture.
So if you announced "2 plus ...[text shortened]... ady know you will ignore anything I said in this post because I didn't start with scripture.[/b]
No, I simply dismissed any argument which lacked authority. Were anyone to dissent using Scripture, the same would be considered.
Of course your claim leads to the conclusion that the only influence God has on this world is the Bible. Do you see how ridiculous that claim is?
"In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways,
but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe."
No, not really. Since AD 100 (or thereabouts) God speaks always and only through the Bible until further notice.
So if you announced "2 plus 2 is 5", no amount of contradictory evidence would have been accepted by you unless it began with Scripture?
Typically, I don't bother myself with such mundane issues, so your question is irrelevant.
That is because you refuse to accept that logic is valid or substantive. Not surprising as it would destroy your beliefs wouldn't it?
I see logic for the limited value that it has, as well as what it is. The question is, do you? Do you see the limitations logic faces when it comes to ascertaining truth?
24 Jun 09
Originally posted by vistesdSo if you see actual Scriptures which intone the concept that God is righteousness, you'll change your mind?
Specifically, His justice guards His entire being.
I realize that you said this before, and it might seem clear to you—but I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. What could God’s being possibly need to be guarded from!?
Nevertheless, I will note that the being that is guarded is not the same as that which is used to guard it—a ...[text shortened]... aterial image, is clearly metaphorical: i.e., a metaphor for God’s essence as spirit and agape.[/b]
24 Jun 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo in your opinion, anyone claiming to have a personal relationship with Jesus, or having experienced any form or revelation, is wrong?
No, not really. Since AD 100 (or thereabouts) God speaks always and only through the Bible until further notice.
Typically, I don't bother myself with such mundane issues, so your question is irrelevant.
So you admit that logic and common sense are not important to you? I thought so.
I see logic for the limited value that it has, as well as what it is. The question is, do you? Do you see the limitations logic faces when it comes to ascertaining truth?
I do not expect logic to the the only way to get to the truth, but I also do not expect the truth to be illogical. You on the other hand appear to think that the truth can be illogical as you do not accept as valid criticism of your claims an argument that shows your claim to be incoherent or illogical.
But thats not surprising as I don't remember any Bible verses dealing with logic.
24 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo in your opinion, anyone claiming to have a personal relationship with Jesus, or having experienced any form or revelation, is wrong?
So in your opinion, anyone claiming to have a personal relationship with Jesus, or having experienced any form or revelation, is wrong?
Typically, I don't bother myself with such mundane issues, so your question is irrelevant.
So you admit that logic and common sense are not important to you? I thought so.
I see logic for the limited valu illogical.
But thats not surprising as I don't remember any Bible verses dealing with logic.
No and yes.
The very reason for God's continued endeavors on man's behalf is to establish a personal relationship with each and every one of us.
However, once the Bible was put to paper, all forms of revelation during the Church Age ceased. What we have in those 66 books is it for now.
So you admit that logic and common sense are not important to you? I thought so.
Talk about your selective reading!
I do not expect logic to the the only way to get to the truth, but I also do not expect the truth to be illogical.
Logic can--- in and of itself--- never lead to truth. It requires input, and is restricted to the same. Without revelation, logic is simply a matter of pushing the same old peas around the same old plate.
That being said, the only time truth would ever appear to be contradictory (illogical) is when perspective is not complete: the person doesn't have all of the facts.
You on the other hand appear to think that the truth can be illogical as you do not accept as valid criticism of your claims an argument that shows your claim to be incoherent or illogical.
As previously stated, if the "rule book" to which I am adhering is the Bible, one would want to use the same source in order to show the incoherency you consider me to be caught in.
But thats not surprising as I don't remember any Bible verses dealing with logic.
I might be off base, but I get the feeling that your memory of Bible verses isn't your strong suit... unless, of course, it has to do with ones you consider to 'prove' absurdities.
24 Jun 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBut your claim that no information can be gleaned about God except through the Bible implies that this 'personal relationship' is decidedly one sided ie God takes extreme care in the relationship not to disclose anything about himself. For example he cannot even comfort you in times of need as that would be revealing his comforting nature would it not?
The very reason for God's continued endeavors on man's behalf is to establish a personal relationship with each and every one of us.
However, once the Bible was put to paper, all forms of revelation during the Church Age ceased. What we have in those 66 books is it for now.
Logic can--- in and of itself--- never lead to truth. It requires input, and is restricted to the same. Without revelation, logic is simply a matter of pushing the same old peas around the same old plate.
Quite so, just as a wheel on its own will not get you anywhere, but try to drive your car without one and you will see the problem.
That being said, the only time truth would ever appear to be contradictory (illogical) is when perspective is not complete: the person doesn't have all of the facts.
So if I point out a logical contradiction in your claims - without quoting the Bible to do so, why is my argument immediately dissmisable? Surely such a logical contradiction shows that either your argument is not the truth or you need to present more facts?
As previously stated, if the "rule book" to which I am adhering is the Bible, one would want to use the same source in order to show the incoherency you consider me to be caught in.
Why would 'one want to use the same'? If you are talking incoherrently, it is incoherent whatever your source and it may be possible to show that you are being incoherent without reference to your source.
24 Jun 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadFor example he cannot even comfort you in times of need as that would be revealing his comforting nature would it not?
But your claim that no information can be gleaned about God except through the Bible implies that this 'personal relationship' is decidedly one sided ie God takes extreme care in the relationship not to disclose anything about himself. For example he cannot even comfort you in times of need as that would be revealing his comforting nature would it not?
...[text shortened]... t may be possible to show that you are being incoherent without reference to your source.
This is not an example of revelation; rather, an experience which only confirms what has already been revealed.
Quite so, just as a wheel on its own will not get you anywhere, but try to drive your car without one and you will see the problem.
Point taken. However, I was pointing out the fallibility inherent in our reliance upon a source-dependent system... especially when the source is man-derived.
So if I point out a logical contradiction in your claims - without quoting the Bible to do so, why is my argument immediately dissmisable?
Because logic dictates the same. If I am using a source, you would have to show a contradiction of my statements using that source: apples for apples. All the more so for a treatise on the characteristics of God!
You wouldn't even know if there an incoherent argument was being made without something with which to compare the statements--- a suggested scenario as seen in the light of a known truth.