Haha yeah the jews don't have a leg to stand on. However I'd also dispute the validity of claiming the new testament overrides the old. Despite what is said in Hebrews 7:18-19, Jesus was pretty damn clear in asserting that he wasn't there to override the old laws and that not a stroke of the pen should disappear from those laws (Matthew 5:17-20). I suppose Jesus was being funny again and speaking in a way only christians will ever understand properly.
And I don't think you can have it both ways with God. You can either assume his nature and characteristics or you can claim for him to be limitless and beyond our comprehension. If you are a proponant of the latter approach (which you seemed to be in some posts) then the former position would be contradictory (or just pointless) as you would be assuming the characteristics of an entity you claim to be above our ability to characterise. If you cannot put a limit on God then you cannot assert that you know God or can label and characterise him in any way. In this sense God is unknowable in every sense of the word and assuming his existence would be exactly the same as assuming his non-existence, for both positions possess an equal amount of knowledge of God- the amount being 0 (just like it would be in a universe where God doesn't exist).
Also, with this in mind one would have to scrap a great deal of the bible as it characterises God many times with human traits. If God is beyond our capacity to encapsulate as you said, the bible was making things up when it claimed God to be fatherly, loving, caring, jealous, aggressive, tired, and all the other things he ever felt.
Perhaps I'm being a little too black-and-white here. It just seems that with a God whose traits are unverifiable by nature, the theists following this God are making extraordinary leaps of faith when they put together pieces of the bible to get an "idea" of what God "might" be like. The can't verify it, they can't be sure of it, they might be wrong in everything they assume. I suppose this is why faith is so necessary. When you know that you cannot know something, you read an ancient book and hope to God that your assumptions of his nature are correct. If the bible were the word of God, its characterisations would certainly serve as an excellent "starter pack" for understanding God with our limited capacity. In which case, no claims could be made, but you can have your own personal understanding of what God could be like.
If you feel the need to further this debate then feel free. As far as I'm concerned, I think I've just gained a deeper knowledge of how your system of beliefs works. While it seems absurd to me, I have a greater understanding of how some of your decisions are being made. Perhaps I've totally mis-characterised your position but from what you've said in this exchange I think my last paragraph makes a reasonable summary.
And I don't think you can have it both ways with God. You can either assume his nature and characteristics or you can claim for him to be limitless and beyond our comprehension. If you are a proponant of the latter approach (which you seemed to be in some posts) then the former position would be contradictory (or just pointless) as you would be assuming the characteristics of an entity you claim to be above our ability to characterise. If you cannot put a limit on God then you cannot assert that you know God or can label and characterise him in any way. In this sense God is unknowable in every sense of the word and assuming his existence would be exactly the same as assuming his non-existence, for both positions possess an equal amount of knowledge of God- the amount being 0 (just like it would be in a universe where God doesn't exist).
Also, with this in mind one would have to scrap a great deal of the bible as it characterises God many times with human traits. If God is beyond our capacity to encapsulate as you said, the bible was making things up when it claimed God to be fatherly, loving, caring, jealous, aggressive, tired, and all the other things he ever felt.
Perhaps I'm being a little too black-and-white here. It just seems that with a God whose traits are unverifiable by nature, the theists following this God are making extraordinary leaps of faith when they put together pieces of the bible to get an "idea" of what God "might" be like. The can't verify it, they can't be sure of it, they might be wrong in everything they assume. I suppose this is why faith is so necessary. When you know that you cannot know something, you read an ancient book and hope to God that your assumptions of his nature are correct. If the bible were the word of God, its characterisations would certainly serve as an excellent "starter pack" for understanding God with our limited capacity. In which case, no claims could be made, but you can have your own personal understanding of what God could be like.
If you feel the need to further this debate then feel free. As far as I'm concerned, I think I've just gained a deeper knowledge of how your system of beliefs works. While it seems absurd to me, I have a greater understanding of how some of your decisions are being made. Perhaps I've totally mis-characterised your position but from what you've said in this exchange I think my last paragraph makes a reasonable summary.
