An Imperfect God

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I already gave detailed exposition of why the triune God of Christianity and not just any ol God will do. Ya know, even though he disagrees I think Kamui is still the only one who actually gets this. [/quote]

The whole trinity thing still ties me up. >>>[/quote] It won’t do to have my buddy Fletch tied up. Which long article was that? [quote]groo wrote:<<< I disagree with you. Its as simple as that. >>>[/quote]No you don’t. You disagree with your misunderstandings of me. I hasten to clarify both that I do not mean by this that you would agree if you did understand me and that I absolutely do not view your lack of understanding as an intellectual deficiency on your part. BTW, what would it look like for a believer in predestination, indeed determinism, like myself to live like they believed it in your view?

[quote]hungry4more wrote:<<< If you accept the Bible as the Word of God, than there’s not much presumption going on about God’s nature on our part. Doesn’t really have anything to do with arrogance. I’ve got many a skeptical bone in my body, why do you assume otherwise? I’ve done my share of questioning God’s existence, for a good period of time. [/quote]Indeed. I rest absolutely sure in my conviction of the bible as the revealed mind of the one true and living God. I will also confess… again. That in the end it is a faith that’s blind in the sense that it is not possible for finite sinful men to have the certain knowledge of ANYthing, including 2+2=4, in and by themselves. They require their designer. OR, comprehensive self destructive fully agnostic skepticism is the inevitable result. Nobody can live like that though. Groo said so. I agree with him and that “Hallelujah Worthy Bullseye Award” had a real element of seriousness to it. http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/free_will;jsessionid=F5E65BAE7E70922DB573439AE6353EE2-mcd02.hydra?id=4523136&pageNo=11 about 3/4 of the way down.

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:<<< the <<<>>> problem of evil <<<>>> under christian theism doesn’t present a problem since the meaning of life isn’t comfort but rather the knowledge of God. [/quote]Of course I agree. I long to do His will and I live to praise His name. May I decrease that He may increase in me. “As the deer pants for the water brooks, So my soul pants for You, O God” (Psalm 42:1 nasb) It is tragically amusing that a man who would die at the squeeze of a trigger would presume to enunciate good and evil to the eternal God, before whom the angels of heaven hide their eyes and cry “HOLY HOLY HOLY is the Lord of hosts! The whole Earth is full of his glory!”

42

The article arguing against Pantheism.

43

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I already gave detailed exposition of why the triune God of Christianity and not just any ol God will do. Ya know, even though he disagrees I think Kamui is still the only one who actually gets this. [/quote]

The whole trinity thing still ties me up. I’m going to have to keep on re-reading that long article you gave me.

At first I though there was God the father, the God-hood that is fundamentally different from creation and put all in motion. God the son, the God-hood that is both man and God and proves that God can still be perfect in man’s shoes. And the God the holy-spirit, the God-hood that breathes through and moves creation, and all God-hoods are one because they are all eternal and all the other things like omnipotent, omni-present, etc and you can’t have more than one prime-mover, but I think you’ve told that that’s either wrong or not entirely correct.

I think I’m stuck in one of those ‘I’m trying to see it through my own lens and worldview, but I need to throw that one out and use another one but I can’t find it’ kind of things. I’m not sure if that last bit makes sense to anyone but me. [/quote]

Though understanding the Trinity can be complex since we are dealing with God, I don’t think it’s as difficult as what has been made out. I believe that the issue revolves around the erroneous concept of a singular person when God is referred to as one, yet in reality it refers to something else, like essence, will, power, sovereignty etc.

KingKai, my trainer and teacher since defeating Raditz (DBZ fans anyone?) may correct me, but Echad in reference to God means, not a simple “one”, but rather a “compound unity” of one, a “togetherness”.

44

Excerpted from the book of common prayer of the Church of England, but originating from the Athanasian creed of the fifth century. This may help our Jewish friends understand the historical view a bit better as well

45

But what about the necessity and purpose of the trinity in your view?

46

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:But what about the necessity and purpose of the trinity in your view?[/quote] THEOlogically or ONtologically. To us or to God?

47

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:But what about the necessity and purpose of the trinity in your view?[/quote] THEOlogically or ONtologically. To us or to God?
[/quote]

I was thinking ontologically, but since you mention theologically you’ve piqued my interest in that view. As for your second question, it’s really hard for me to say because of the lack of separation between the two in my eyes.

Can you elaborate on your second question?

48

Well, they’re two different perspectives on the same question. Theologically would be “is the triune nature and being of God an essential component of what makes Christianity what it is?” I would say yes because taken as a whole, the scriptures I believe to be the self revelation of this God, report this God declaring triunity of Himself. KingKai would agree that the bible proclaims one and only one God AND that three distinct supernatural persons are legitimately reported as being this God, but decline to carry that to any further conclusion. I could write for pages on the implications of this topic upon the divine nature and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, but will spare you that. I will also say though that as one who GREATLY values the necessity of a biblically informed philosophy, that the triune nature of my God is a perfectly glorious answer to the ancient “problem of the one and the many”. One of THE most foundational of all philosophical conundrums. Both of which my dear friend Kamui has quite rightly agreed with. He does however like his solution better of course.

Ontologically this question is pure undiluted tautology in my view. The absolutely “compound unity” to give a nod to Forbes, the absolutely singular plurality and absolutely plural singularity of the Godhead are that because they are. There is no other rule against which the eternal God who is Himself the ground and definition of all being can be measured to determine “necessity”. He is necessarily who and what He is because He is. EVERY ontological, philosophical, intellectual, scientific, moral and ethical buck stops with Him. They all start with Him too btw. The apostle tells us that when God raises a man from death in the darkness of autonomous sin to the wondrous light of new life in Christ he is given the very mind of Christ. (1 Cor. 2:16) This is how I KNOW not only THAT 2+2 does in fact equal 4, but also WHY.

You have no idea how I long and yearn for others to have what I have. Every word you see me type is not because I think I’m better or smarter than anybody else. I should have been (almost was, more than once) dead before my 18th birthday left to myself. I love people with the love with which He loves me Fletch. I couldn’t help it if I wanted to. God is God and we are not. In that simple statement lies the answer to everything.

49

Much clearer to me. Thanks.

50

No you don’t. You disagree with your misunderstandings of me. I hasten to clarify both that I do not mean by this that you would agree if you did understand me and that I absolutely do not view your lack of understanding as an intellectual deficiency on your part. BTW, what would it look like for a believer in predestination, indeed determinism, like myself to live like they believed it in your view?

To the first part. I think its very arrogant at best to claim that my reasons for disagreeing with you are not as I put them. That I radically misunderstand you is why I disagree. That being said to your last point.

First the part about living as a Christian. I have absolutely no doubt you do that. I am more than certain that you do things very different than me because of your belief and because its sincere. I was more placing in this category someone who claims they are a Christian but doesn’t live as if they do. I think especially in America there are many people in this category that are functionally no different than atheists or agnostics.

To the predestination point. I am going to hold this the same as hard determinism and I’d agree some recent evolutionary biology stuff even points to there being a lot less free will than anyone would like that being said no one lives like this. If someone commits a horrible crime we hold them to be morally culpable and deserving of punishment. We don’t say well he had no real moral choice. Even someone who argues this in the abstract doesn’t generally disavow punishment for criminals or misbehaving children. We all act as if there is free will and moral culpability. So I hold that the argument itself is merely an example of mental masturbation. No matter how fervently someone claims to believe there isn’t moral culpability that theoretical crap hits the window if they steal something from you, or assault you or someone you know or kill someone you know where the rubber hits the road we all believe in moral culpability.

51

[quote]groo wrote:
No matter how fervently someone claims to believe there isn’t moral culpability that theoretical crap hits the window if they steal something from you, or assault you or someone you know or kill someone you know where the rubber hits the road we all believe in moral culpability.[/quote]

This is exactly what Tirib is saying, Groo.

52

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:Much clearer to me. Thanks. [/quote]You bet.

[quote]groo wrote: To the first part. I think its very arrogant at best to claim that my reasons for disagreeing with you are not as I put them. That I radically misunderstand you is why I disagree.[/quote] I specifically stated that the exact of opposite of what you here attribute to me. I said that even if you DID understand you would still disagree. That is the antitheses of “That I radically misunderstand you is why I disagree.” Kamui understands. He still disagrees.

[quote]groo wrote:<<< First the part about living as a Christian. I have absolutely no doubt you do that. I am more than certain that you do things very different than me because of your belief and because its sincere. >>>[/quote] That actually means a lot coming for you groo. I seek for every decision I make, every word from my mouth, every place my feet step, everything my hands touch and everything my eyes see to build in me a man more suited to His service and glory. I pursue the Lord and His holiness with everything I am. I fail often. That pursuit will never be satisfied in this life. I run TO Him instead of away from hHim as I once did. His merciful fatherly arms are always open. The blood of my Lord washes me clean. [quote]groo wrote:<<< I was more placing in this category someone who claims they are a Christian but doesn’t live as if they do. I think especially in America there are many people in this category that are functionally no different than atheists or agnostics. >>>[/quote] You’re pushin for another “Hallelujah Worthy Bullseye” award ain’t ya. You are more right than you even think you are. http://gregnmary.gotdns.com/judge.html This is practically nonexistent in today’s western church because utter carnality and heresy is not only merely tolerated, but openly embraced. Saying “I’m a Christian” means literally nothing anymore. That will not be allowed to go on forever. I promise. Actually HE promises.[quote]groo wrote:<<< We all act as if there is free will and moral culpability. So I hold that the argument itself is merely an example of mental masturbation. No matter how fervently someone claims to believe there isn’t moral culpability that theoretical crap hits the window if they steal something from you, or assault you or someone you know or kill someone you know where the rubber hits the road we all believe in moral culpability.[/quote] Again, you do not understand. I have posted this like 50 times, but you may not have seen it. The Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646. Chapter 3, “of God’s Eternal Decree” section 1 [quote]I. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[/quote] I will say yet again. I have no more idea how that works than you do of 2+2 equaling 4. Like absolutely every other object or proposition of human knowledge, it is NOT possible without the God who has designed us. And it. That’s why you have no choice except to assume Him in order to deny Him. You’re like a fish who proclaims the nonexistence of water. Bubbles n all.

53

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
No matter how fervently someone claims to believe there isn’t moral culpability that theoretical crap hits the window if they steal something from you, or assault you or someone you know or kill someone you know where the rubber hits the road we all believe in moral culpability.[/quote]

This is exactly what Tirib is saying, Groo. [/quote] And his highness pries his way in here one minute before his loyal court jester. I have never once uttered so much as a single syllable diminishing the moral accountability of man before the throne of God. Ever. Not even in my sleep by accident.

54

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
No matter how fervently someone claims to believe there isn’t moral culpability that theoretical crap hits the window if they steal something from you, or assault you or someone you know or kill someone you know where the rubber hits the road we all believe in moral culpability.[/quote]

This is exactly what Tirib is saying, Groo. [/quote]

I don’t agree. But if it is its still in disagreement with determinism. Even if there really is no moral culpability we all still act like there is. Or I’d rephrase it to that it totally doesn’t matter if everything is predestined since no one acts as if it does.

55

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
No matter how fervently someone claims to believe there isn’t moral culpability that theoretical crap hits the window if they steal something from you, or assault you or someone you know or kill someone you know where the rubber hits the road we all believe in moral culpability.[/quote]

This is exactly what Tirib is saying, Groo. [/quote] And his highness pries his way in here one minute before his loyal court jester. I have never once uttered so much as a single syllable diminishing the moral accountability of man before the throne of God. Ever. Not even in my sleep by accident.
[/quote]
Sure no one really acts as if they believe someone isn’t morally culpable. However if everything is determined whether it be totally from biology or fate or an ineffable plan no one is truly culpable. We act as we have to.

56

I give up for now. It’s funny how you and I seem to communicate so well sometimes and not at all at others. That’s just an observation with no assignment of blame.

57

[quote]forbes wrote:

KingKai, my trainer and teacher since defeating Raditz (DBZ fans anyone?) may correct me, but Echad in reference to God means, not a simple “one”, but rather a “compound unity” of one, a “togetherness”.[/quote]

That’s quite insightful, Son Goku! While ehad can denote simply “one,” it can also emphasize “togetherness” or “unity.” Next thing you know, you’ll be mastering the Kaio-Ken attack!

If this is in reference to the Shema, “Yahweh our God, Yahweh is one,” OT Professor Daniel Block argues on grammatical grounds (based on the nature of nominal or verbless clauses) that the proper rendering of that phrase into English is actually, "Yahweh is our God, Yahweh alone." This rendering also makes more sense contextually as the purpose of the Shema was not to preclude any claims to Yahweh’s triune nature (again, the Jews at this time had no revelation concerning such), but rather to assert Yahweh’s position as Israel’s sole deity.

58

I guess I’m Vegeta now.

59

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
I guess I’m Vegeta now.[/quote]

lol dude, Vegeta’s the only one who became as powerful as Goku. Both achieved Super Saiyan 4 (I know - I’m a dork)!

60

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Yeah, the omni properties of god that we tend to discuss in Philosophy of Religion are Omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, and all good.

They can’t all be true, I.E. God cannot do logically impossible things like make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it or make a square circle. But, so what if you can’t make or do things that are logically impossible? If God is around and is all good, but not omnipotent, then who cares? He’s still the most powerful thing around (if he exists).

[/quote]

False. The fact that logically impossible things “cannot” be done does not necessarily make God not omnipotent. You should read more Plantinga, he describes the flaws in that jump. [/quote]

I LOVE Plantinga! If you read, what I posted, I’m saying exactly that. Logically impossible things are things that make no sense. He’s arguing about the definition of omni, I’m saying who gives a shit if God gives up only logically impossible things, like pooping and not pooping at the same time? Making Pi=1+1 without any special values of 1, making a square circle. These are things we can’t even make sense of in our minds, we aren’t even capable of making sense of a square circle. :slight_smile: Hope that clears up my point, I thought it was made quite clear. Go ahead, imagine a square circle… Now, imagine the Universe being formed via big bang, or just popping into existence? You CAN imagine those, but you CANT EVEN IMAGINE WHAT A SQUARE CIRCLE IS.

So to Aragorn and brother Chris, I’m saying I think the problem of evil isn’t such a problem. Rather, all the suffering and ubiquitous nature of evil on the planet brings into question whether God is all good, or omniscient, which are much more bothersome than not being able to do logically impossible things.

And btw, what a classy man Professor Alvin Plantinga is. The illustrious gent has my complete respect and more than holds/ held his own against the 4 horseman.

Nice little piece from him.

So again, I bring up not that there is evil in the world, but the scale of it. This is the real problem of evil. That, “God is asleep.” [/quote]
I see your making a distinction between the logical problem of evil and the evidential one and it know that logical one is pretty much defeated. But even the evidental one has been talked about and under christian theism doesn’t present a problem since the meaning of life isn’t comfort but rather the knowledge of God.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-problem-of-evil[/quote]

Fist off, I want to point out that there isn’t such thing as having faith in something once you gain knowledge of it. If you have knowledge of God and Gods existence, then you can’t have faith in God anymore. That’s completing the bridge to knowledge, or the old Knowledge = justified true belief. Faith = unjustified belief, truth or falseness isn’t so important in it’s frame… Faith is there to laugh in the face of knowledge, so the purpose of life for a christian CANT be to gain knowledge of God, it’s a self defeating purpose.

I don’t think the video did much of anything to address the level of anguish and suffering in the world. It just says that the world is mysterious and somehow AIDS might be good… I’m saying whoever made this claim hasn’t gone out and seen the world outside of a 4-5 diamond/ star resort.

Thngs like Malaria, Trachoma, Dysentery, and AIDS are all horrible things, no excuse as to why they should lead to such levels of suffering. If God really wanted folks dead by disease, then it should make sense that there would be diseases that take large amounts of people with minimal or no measurable suffering. But, so long as there are 5 and 6 year old kids fighting Malaria with every oz of fight they have, or there are rape victims or children suffering from nasty secondary diseases from AIDS I’m not even stepping close to that explanation. Once you see some of this stuff, it really seems to be more ammo for there not being a God, or God just not really caring.

Just my two. I wish I could come away with a rosy picture of this problem of evil, but it’s pretty ugly if you ask me.