If a slug was asked to explain the inherent capabilities of a puma, it would be as clueless as 3 week old human infant trying to expound on the intricacies of quantum physics. Both our intellect and consciousness are constrained by biology and our frame of reference. From time to time, certain individuals have been able to expand this frame ever so slightly, but the overall constraints remain in place.
In the ongoing discussions about the God of Judeo-Christianity, we must first admit that our ability to understand and comprehend such an entity is also confined by theses same restraints. It borders on [sinful] pomposity and arrogance for any of us to think we can view the totality of creation through our limited frame of reference and to believe this represents the overall frame.
Each of us is nothing more than one tiny grain of sand on an endless beach or one tiny droplet of water in a bottomless sea. The portion of the vastness within our view is so small as to represent almost nothing. If we could see, feel or comprehend what God (or Tao or Allah or Buddha or whatever name you'd like to place here) can see, feel or comprehend, we would be so overwhelmed that we might instantaneously combust on the spot!
This point intersects with the discussion of what a God can or cannot accomplish. It is an inherently difficult topic for we humans to discuss because of the constraints of our consciousness. It is very difficult to contemplate ideas that, for us, appear illogical, untenable or unfathomable. What we must try to understand is that the rationality that we exhibit necessarily only represents a fraction of the overall rationality of the universe.
Discussions of this nature are made even more difficult by the very fact that our language and the ways we express our ideas serve as constraints as well. It's hard to describe something one can't envision. It's near impossible to expound on concepts that we will never be able to formulate.
About all we CAN do is to be open to the myriad of possibilities that what we think and know about life either is completely wrong or, at least, a pale facsimile. If one holds to the belief of a supreme entity -- be it a personified god or a process or anything in between -- we must acknowledge that it's frame of reference is so much wider than ours that all that we "know" only represents one grain of sand on an endless beach.
In the ongoing discussions about the God of Judeo-Christianity, we must first admit that our ability to understand and comprehend such an entity is also confined by theses same restraints. It borders on [sinful] pomposity and arrogance for any of us to think we can view the totality of creation through our limited frame of reference and to believe this represents the overall frame.
Each of us is nothing more than one tiny grain of sand on an endless beach or one tiny droplet of water in a bottomless sea. The portion of the vastness within our view is so small as to represent almost nothing. If we could see, feel or comprehend what God (or Tao or Allah or Buddha or whatever name you'd like to place here) can see, feel or comprehend, we would be so overwhelmed that we might instantaneously combust on the spot!
This point intersects with the discussion of what a God can or cannot accomplish. It is an inherently difficult topic for we humans to discuss because of the constraints of our consciousness. It is very difficult to contemplate ideas that, for us, appear illogical, untenable or unfathomable. What we must try to understand is that the rationality that we exhibit necessarily only represents a fraction of the overall rationality of the universe.
Discussions of this nature are made even more difficult by the very fact that our language and the ways we express our ideas serve as constraints as well. It's hard to describe something one can't envision. It's near impossible to expound on concepts that we will never be able to formulate.
About all we CAN do is to be open to the myriad of possibilities that what we think and know about life either is completely wrong or, at least, a pale facsimile. If one holds to the belief of a supreme entity -- be it a personified god or a process or anything in between -- we must acknowledge that it's frame of reference is so much wider than ours that all that we "know" only represents one grain of sand on an endless beach.
In the ongoing discussions about the God of Judeo-Christianity, we must first admit that our ability to understand and comprehend such an entity is also confined by theses same restraints. It borders on [sinful] pomposity and arrogance for any of us to think we can view the totality of creation through our limited frame of reference and to believe this represents the overall frame.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree. To say that I know everything about God would be an outright lie. For instance, did God create the universe in a literal 6 days or over billions of years? Or the problem of predestination? We may never know these things in this life. However, the Christian Bible gives clear examples of where God or God's prophets or Jesus describe the characteristics and nature of God. Through these descriptions, we can know truths about God such as his love for all sinners, his omnipotence, his omnipresence, his omnibenevolence, omniscience and other truths.
I absolutely agree that humans alone could not even begin to comprehend God. John 6:44 says No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. However, humans are not alone. We have the inspired Word of God and we have the Holy Spirit to inform us about God and draw us closer to him.
Tyler,
ReplyDeleteYour answer is all over the map. Even though the bible explicitly states that God created the universe in six (count 'em, 6) days, you are questioning the veracity of this claim. Yet, in the very next paragraph, you quote text literally to back up your point.
If you believe that 6 days may not literally mean 6 days, then maybe the phrase "I will raise him up at the last day" doesn't mean what you think it means.
Of course, this one of the great problems with the bible. No one can seem to agree what almost any of it means. Many people believe that Mary was a virgin, while just as many others state the specific word was mistranslated and it should have read "a young woman" -- which changes the entire tenor of the story.
So if there are metaphorical passages in a book does that mean we can no longer trust anything else the book says? Do any of your taoist writings contain figurative language? If so, then by your own words; How do we know what is literal and what is not?
ReplyDeleteWe can use context clues and author's writing style to determine their true intent when reading a passage they have written. And I'm not sure what "I will raise him up at the last day" has to do at all with knowing attributes of God. I was using the first part of the verse "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him,". Raise him up at the last day most likely refers to the resurrection.
Note- I don't necessarily think that the earth wasn't created in a literal six days. I have not studied that particular subject and so have yet to form an opinion on it. I do know that both young and old earth creationists have strong evidence to support there side. My point was that it is one of the major differences in the beliefs of Christians that we may never know.
However, just because there are some literal and some figurative passages doesn't mean that we don't know which is which. The doctrinally important passages are all agreed upon within most Christian circles. If we follow your logic that because there is some figurative language; then we can't know what's literal and what's not, then we would never be able to read anything at all and know that it was true.
However, just because there are some literal and some figurative passages doesn't mean that we don't know which is which.
ReplyDeleteSuch a statement may reflect your young age. There is very little agreement between the various churches, denominations and sects as to which passages are literal and which ones are figurative.
If everybody agreed, there wouldn't be these great divisions in the Christian Church. If everybody was in basic agreement of what is what, you wouldn't have Baptists, Nazarenes, Mormons, Assembly of God, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Quakers, Catholics, Pentacostals, Congregationalists and scads more -- you'd have one church.
Heck, there are like 10 different Baptist denominations simply because they all disagree about one interpretation of the bible versus another.
Thus, your statement is incredibly naive and also laughable to the tenth power.
If everybody agreed, there wouldn't be these great divisions in the Christian Church. If everybody was in basic agreement of what is what, you wouldn't have Baptists, Nazarenes, Mormons, Assembly of God, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Quakers, Catholics, Pentacostals, Congregationalists and scads more -- you'd have one church.
ReplyDeleteSuch a statement may reflect your ignorance. In the first place, many Christians don't think of Mormonism as a denomination because they differ on a huge central doctrine- that is that they don't believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Second, most of the denominations you list do not differ on the major doctrines; only small things like can there be women ministers. Also, how does it follow that just because people disagree that we cannot know which one is right?
Tyler,
ReplyDeleteAgain, I think your age is responsible for a bit of naivete. There are chasms of differences between the various Christian denominations. Pick almost any topic you want -- abortion, the "virgin" Mary, whether the bible is the inerrant word of God, homosexuality, etc. -- and you will find a wide divergence of opinion.
Also, how does it follow that just because people disagree that we cannot know which one is right?
Because every denomination believes that their interpretation is the correct one.
Again, I think your age is responsible for a bit of naivete. There are chasms of differences between the various Christian denominations. Pick almost any topic you want -- abortion, the "virgin" Mary, whether the bible is the inerrant word of God, homosexuality, etc. -- and you will find a wide divergence of opinion.
ReplyDeleteYou're ignoring what i said. Those are minor doctrines besides the inerrant word of God which pretty much no denominations disagree on. All CHRISTIAN denominations are in agreement when it comes to the doctrine of salvation.
Because every denomination believes that their interpretation is the correct one.
So? If someone believes something that is wrong, does that make them right?
You need to get out more! I'd suggest you spend a few weeks going to different Christian Churches and speaking to the pastors at each one. Once you've done this, then let's see if you call all the differences you find "minor doctrines".
ReplyDeleteSo? If someone believes something that is wrong, does that make them right?
That's not the issue, is it? As I stated, the followers of each denomination believe their way of interpreting the "holy word" is the correct way. So, who is to say who's correct and who's not?
For example, you might tell me that the church you go to has it right, but the next person who happens on this blog might say, "No. Tyler's church has it all wrong. My church has it right."
I like all your points but would like to add a little rant if I may... ;-)
ReplyDeleteGod does not exist. To give a name to the extent of your imagination is god. As there is infinity and there is no room for infinity+1 then we are infinity.
As for personified god then it is open to the problems of duality so is not the highest possible thing. Once we have removed all duality then nothing with qualities can exist - Tao, is not god, god does not exist except in the dual split mind of a knower. It is simply the figment of a limited imagination.
Thanks :)