RE: thanks, god.
April 10, 2009 at 3:54 pm
(This post was last modified: April 10, 2009 at 3:55 pm by fr0d0.)
Yeah I don't think you quite get it LukeMC.
From a wider philosophical position, God is unknowable. From reasoned observation recorded in the Bible, from a Christian perspective, we can narrow down the definition.
The ancient book is just a collection of observations and non factual stories about God gathered over a long period of time. The point being to establish God's nature. From rational observations we can come to conclusions.
(April 10, 2009 at 3:27 pm)LukeMC Wrote: 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.Yes you're right here. Those laws that are indisputable carried forward. There's a distinct turnaround though in that Jesus came to be forgiveness. Like the rainbow before, but this was complete forgiveness and a turnaround in God's methods.
(April 10, 2009 at 3:27 pm)LukeMC Wrote: 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).Idealogically we can't put a limit on God. This is the theoretical and purist stance. On top of that I have reasoning presented in the Bible on the Nature of God, that establishes him with actual attributes. From this I can narrow the definition of God.
From a wider philosophical position, God is unknowable. From reasoned observation recorded in the Bible, from a Christian perspective, we can narrow down the definition.
(April 10, 2009 at 3:27 pm)LukeMC Wrote: 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.Like I said, descriptions of God have to be put into terms that humans understand. The Christian God obviously isn't above our capacity to encapsulate.
(April 10, 2009 at 3:27 pm)LukeMC Wrote: 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.The leap of faith is a singular one of God's existence. The rest involves rational thinking. Everything follows logically. Theists can and do verify it. They can and are sure of the vast majority of it.
The ancient book is just a collection of observations and non factual stories about God gathered over a long period of time. The point being to establish God's nature. From rational observations we can come to conclusions.
(April 10, 2009 at 3:27 pm)LukeMC Wrote: 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.It should be absurd to you. Without accepting the assumption that takes the leap of faith, it has to be. It seems you're still a little confused to me.
