Logical Disproofs of a Biblical Type God

[Belacqua]

Sure seems like a pretty weak ass god, who feels the critical need to communicate his message to all of humanity, for the foreseeable future , but does not make it clear enough to understand as written. Not to mention, rely on admittedly fallible beings to constantly feel the need to reinterpret the message.

You have a precise idea of what kind of book God would write. I can understand that this is the kind of book that you would prefer. Or the kind of book you think you would write if you were God. 

But there are other ideas about what it's for, how it's to be used, etc. 

And please inform us, how should we go about knowing whether an interpretation from say, 500 years ago, is not more accurate than one from 1900 years ago, or 10? What is the methodology we should use? What methodology did William Blake use?

I think the defense attorney would object at this point, and say "compound question." But I'll address a little of it.

We judge the quality of the interpretations we read by using our knowledge and our judgment. This requires a certain amount of background knowledge. 

There are various methodologies, but a good introduction to biblical hermeneutics would get you started on the standard approaches. 

Blake was extremely well read in a deeply-rooted minority tradition. It was most strongly presented to him in the works of Jacob Boehme, and Boehme himself knew arguments from Nicholas of Cusa, Eriugena, and many other influential Christians. Blake was a poet and expressed himself in a number of suggestive ways. His works are generally challenges and puzzles without final answers. 

is the passage of the Bible (Matthew 5:18, where Jesus says, "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished", one that should be interpreted as written? Or is there a way to ignore it, because obeying it exactly as written is using "sola scriptura"?

We would have to decide what "obeying it exactly as written" means. Following precisely all 613 mitzvahs? He seems to say that the written law is essential, but something we should have in our hearts, so that we follow its spirit. This keeps the law intact while also demanding a difficult change in how we apply it. How his statement is to be applied is addressed elsewhere in the NT, so I suppose you could stay sola scriptura while debating this. The Church Fathers have generally helped people in their readings, though, so going outside the text is normal and useful.

Doesn't it seem, that not following the Bible, sola scriptura, is just an excuse to ignore all the truly horrible parts?

People could use it that way. Or they could use it as an excuse to ignore the parts that are difficult but good. 

Hermeneutics has a long history. It's been used in different ways.

But wouldn't ancient Christians, who were much closer to the actual events, would disagree with this?   

They disagreed about a number of things, so I suspect there would be differences of opinion. The Gospel of John begins by calling Jesus the Logos -- a term from Greek philosophy which shows him to be not external to reality, but a fundamental and inseparable part of reality itself. 

There's a notion that the early guys thought of God as a sky-daddy or a powerful guy like Zeus, but remember that the Jews had been thinking about things for a long time, and the time of Christ was soaked in Hellenism, so non-sky-daddy interpretations of God were common. 

William Blake (a serious Christian) called the kind of God you're describing "Old Nobodaddy."


Ignoring, for a minute, that this is nothing by an argument from authority fallacy, why should we listen to anything Blake says about a god, or any other 'serious' Christians have to say? 

It's not an argument from authority. Those work differently. If I said, "Blake said it therefore it must be true and you have to believe it," that would be such a logical fallacy. But I'm not saying that. I am demonstrating that there is one prominent Christian who disagreed with the God as described in the OP. I am not saying what is true, or that Blake is right. Only that the OP's description is rejected by many Christians.

We benefit from listening to Blake because he was an amazing genius.

Where is he getting their information from? How can we go about testing his information, against other 'serious' Christians, who disagree with him? 

Sure seems like he is begging the question.

He got his information from lots and lots of people and books. As a poet and artist, he used the ideas he read and manifested them in various symbols, which he then used to develop his knowledge further.

If you're wanting to test his statements in an empirical, scientific way, that's not going to work. Metaphysical claims are by definition not scientific claims. You have to argue them out, use your brain, and use your best judgment. To do this well, you have to take the time to learn what they were talking about. You also have to be comfortable with uncertainty, and the knowledge that, by definition, talking about the ineffable will fall short.

It might seem as if he's begging the question if you hadn't followed his reasoning and his system, which is worked out in detail and doesn't merely affirm the consequent.