Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread

[Lizra]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Anduril:
When I say that he cannot be understood, I do not mean that nothing can be understood about him; I mean one cannot understand the workings of His mind. One may understand certain truths about God, but to know the workings of His mind is completely beyond humankind. You know that he is above and beyond mankind simply because mankind does not and cannot understand him.

Using your own reasoning, then God must have the ability, since he can do anything, to prevent himself from lying. Obviously, this could go continously in a circle for a long time, so please refer to my previous statement; the workings of God's mind and the exact specifics of his omnipotence are unable to be understood by mankind.


Rian: Hurrah! Reinforcements!

Here is the way I took Anduril's point. You said your God is beyond our comprehension to understand, yet you then proceed to describe certain things about "him". Anything that doesn't jive with your concept is then "written off" because your God is too complicated to understand. Not to be rude, but this seems to be a bit of a "cop-out".

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I thought I had clarified this, but I guess I was wrong.

Some things can be understood about God, but some cannot. Parts of him can be understood, and parts are above human understanding. I'm sorry if this sounds like a copout to you, but how is it a copout to acknowledge that there are things which we cannot understand? If anything, presuming that there is nothing we cannot understand seems arrogant to me.

[Finmandos12]

To respond to the whole arguement about understanding that something can not be understood...

Here's an analogy. We know some stuff about the near universe. Scientists say that there are billions of trillions (some huge number), etc. of stars. Can you really comprehend that concept? I'm sure you can understand the number, but its so large that we can't really visualize it.

Does that help?

[Rían]

Just a quick note, because I need to leave to help out at school in a few minutes -

Lizra, I think what you also need to throw into the equation is the relational aspect of Christianity. From the Biblical point of view, God IS above our comprehension (but not OUTSIDE of it) (i.e., He is the omniscient creator, we are His creation - it is just a fact, not a slur on us, that He is greater than us), but it's not a cop-out to say we can't fully understand Him - try looking at it this way -

When I say I don't understand what God is doing, it's like (to use a slightly higher analogy than my previous dog/human one ) a young child to a loving parent. The child understand many things about the parent, but there are some things that the child simply cannot understand, because the parent is older and wiser. However, because of the relationship that the child has experienced, he/she is able to trust where he/she cannot understand. IOW, "my mom has always been there for me - she takes care of me, loves me, plays with me - I don't quite understand why I have to get these shots, how can something called a virus that I can't even see hurt me? - but I love and trust my mom, so I'll go along with it". It isn't a cop-out for the child to not have problems with not understanding something about his/her parent - it's realizing that everything that he/she sees has always made sense, so having faith in the parent when he/she doesn't understand something also makes perfect sense. Of course, tragically, we as imperfect parents DO fail our children sometimes; however, God is holy and perfect and does not fail us.

I hope that made sense - I gotta run off now to help MY child (I'm being a good parent here - and my child has tremendous trust in me even though I fail him, too!).

[Lizra]

Originally posted by Finmandos12
To respond to the whole arguement about understanding that something can not be understood...

Here's an analogy. We know some stuff about the near universe. Scientists say that there are billions of trillions (some huge number), etc. of stars. Can you really comprehend that concept? I'm sure you can understand the number, but its so large that we can't really visualize it.

Does that help?

Sure! But I don't think it applies. First of all, I CAN comprehend that #, but I'm sure we could find some scientific concept that I really don't comprehend yet am willing to accept as truth, so I'll take that clarification. BUT, these scientific "things" that I don't understand but accept, are understood by some, and proven with different methods that others in the scientific community accept and understand. Thus these objects and phenomenon take on a reality to me even though I have not seen or experienced them myself.

Descriptions of a God that nobody has seen or heard except in dreams and visions passed down thru the generations in a book totally written by many different humans is an abstract concept that requires willingness and "faith" to accept. If you have it, good for you! If you don't, it it very difficult to see the logic. I just keep thinking of that whole Y2K thing. Too bad nothing happened! I was ready for anything. Too bad the Christian God couldn't have thrown a bone to us all! (I am not poking fun, I'm serious, I was disappointed!)

I like your description too Rian, I understand your point.

[Andúril]

Gwaimir Windgem:
When I say that he cannot be understood, I do not mean that nothing can be understood about him;

Really? Look at the way Gwaimir's post came across to me:

God is an incredibly vast being, beyond any feeble attempts at understanding which the greatest of mankind can make. God is so vastly above and beyond us that we cannot possibly understand him. How could we possibly hope to understand this Being? God transcends all of human understanding.

*snip*
(My emphasis)

RÃ*an seems to think that the way I read his post was "unnatural" and "forced". I fail to see how it isn't clear that he meant that God:

• is beyond any feeble attempts at understanding which the greatest of mankind can make
• we cannot possibly understand him, and
• transcends all of human understanding.

First, it is plain to see in all three points that this "understanding" Gwaimir mentions is unqualified.

Regarding the first point, the natural implication is that an attempt by the "greatest of mankind" to understand even a fraction of God's mind is impossible, since this is an attempt to understand, and God is above any such attempt.

Regarding the second point, not only is "understand" unqualified, but "him" additionally lacks qualification.

Regarding the third point, if there is no understanding of God that is not transcended by God, then what can really be said of God that is truly understood? In conjunction with the implication of the first point, the answer is nothing, since not only can something not be understood in its entirety, but even an attempt to understand something partially is fruitless.

The conclusion I see is that RÃ*an is incorrect in labelling the way I read that part of his post "an unnatural and forced way", and that the interpretation was justified.

Not that that was Gwaimir's actual argument...

[Andúril]

Gwaimir Windgem:
*snip*

Using your own reasoning, then God must have the ability, since he can do anything, to prevent himself from lying.

*snip*

I think you are missing the point, Gwaimir. Maybe this will clear things up.

Let P = God has the ability to lie.

It is logically impossible for P and ~P to simultaneously obtain.
Either P obtains, or ~P obtains. The main point being that if God can do all things (unqualified, therefore strong omnipotence), then God can lie. Simple.

More:
the workings of God's mind and the exact specifics of his omnipotence are unable to be understood by mankind.

I was about to respond to this, but I thought I'd first let you provide the definition of omnipotence that you are using.

[Andúril]

RÃ*an:
I think that as far as the discussion between the two of us goes, we're going to end up just saying we disagree with each other. We can try to discuss a little longer, but I think it's going to end up that way.

I wouldn't come to that conclusion just yet.

More:
One of the main problems here is that you are introducing terminology like it is an accepted fact that everyone agrees with; for example, "strong" and "weak" omnipotence. I completely disagree with the usage of those terms.

And why is that? Have you never come across these concepts? Regardless, my argument was not intended for you, my dear.

More:
And I will not accept them on your authority, because as I said earlier, you do not have any authority over me.

Blast! Mine plans foiled once again!

[markedel]

Of course negative theology serves to eliminate such problems.

[Lizra]

ok Markedel, what do you mean!

If there was less emphasis on "believing" and more emphasis placed on what being a Christian can do for you, (you know, help you to become a more caring person, keep you trying to do "right", allowing you to join with others in a feeling of love- to help those in need) it would be a lot easier to get people to "join on". I can't tell you how many times I have gone to Christian church and gotten turned off by the Bible driven "save the heathens" sermon. (Of course, if you don't believe, you just aren't a Christian. )

In these modern times, we are very accustomed to seeing proof. With video, audio, photography, etc. proof is do-able. When all info was delivered via oral stories, this "belief without proof" was probably easier to do. That reminds me of that church called "Unity" I used to go to. It was good. I'll have to refresh myself on what it was about. Sorry , I realize I'm rambling....

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Anduril: I'm sorry, I didn't mean all of God, I was referring to the aspects of God which were in question. I didn't make that clear, I apologize.

But as I said; using your logic, then God would also have the power to prevent himself from doing certain things, such as lying. This is an endless circle, which of course cannot be ended. As I said before, this is a part of omnipotence which cannot be explained. But really, as no human being has ever come close to omnipotence, then how can we hope to understand it except in the simplest of terms?

As I said before, something like omnipotence, which none of us has ever come close to experiencing, could not fully be understood by humankind, but only in the vaguest (sp?) sense. But the word omnipotence means "All-powerful". God is all-powerful; but not in the sense of doing anything, but rather in the sense of having all power, if that makes any sense. I'm sorry, that's the closest I can come to explaining what I mean in words, at least right now.

And, just for reference, I have never heard of the terms strong and weak omnipotence or atheism before.

Lizra: Christianity is about man being incapable of redeeming himself. It is about saving that which is almost unredeemable, and about faith, grace, and relationship with God, rather than works.

[Rían]

Why Andúril, you naughty, naughty thing! Here I asked people nicely to not respond to my post that was interrupted due to my youngest child getting home 20 minutes early, and I said I would finish it by Monday, and ... you quoted it and responded to it! Is it Tuesday where you are now? (do you live in S. Africa, BTW? What time zone are you in? I'm in GMT-8). *whacks Andúril over the head (gently) with her 20-year-old, falling-apart copy of LoTR*

I just got back from my kids' school, where I was helping out, and intended to settle back with my drink of choice (Dr. Pepper for hot days, tea w/ cream and sugar for cold days - since it's warm here today, I have a DP in front of me now) and post a few replies to you. Honest, I really did mean to! I feel that I've neglected our part of the discussion a bit, but whenever I log onto this thread, I keep seeing things from some of my favorite Entmoot friends that make my hair stand on end and/or my heart break, and I end up spending my Entmoot time responding to them, instead. Anyway, my intent was to answer you in the time I have before I have to pick up the kids, so here I go.

*hang on a sec, I'm going to scan back over this thread, and I'll start a new post*

[Lizra]

That which is almost unredeemable! I beg your pardon! Maybe that's the type of "put-down" Eruviel was refering to!

[Rían]

Oh no, I just saw Lizra's post, and there's a MAJOR misunderstanding about the word "redeemable"!!!!!! Lizra, don't take it that way!!! Gwaimir is NOT saying you're worthless! On the contrary, you're of GREAT value to God! Gwaimir, you probably want to be a little more careful about using Christian terminology - you probably need to expand a bit on that term - it refers to the ability to pay a debt, like in a court of law, and it means that we don't have the resources to pay the debt that we have incurred, but Christ does it for us ......... I absolutely agree with what you're saying, Gwaimir, but I think the word has different connotations for non-Christians....



*must ..not .. read .. other .. posts .. until .. I .. finish .. Andúril's .. replies ... *

[Coney]

Gwaimir, you probably want to be a little more careful about using Christian terminology - you probably need to expand a bit on that term

That would be appreciated........so far on this thread I've learned that I'm going to Hell and there is nothing I can do about it .

it refers to the ability to pay a debt, like in a court of law, and it means that we don't have the resources to pay the debt that we have incurred, but Christ does it for us .........

Will he see if he can do anything about my overdraft?

[Rían]

*must .. not .. reply .. to .. Coney's .. post .. until .. I .. finish .. Andúril's .. replies ... *


OK, Andúril, looking back to the original thread, I have no comment on your first post, but I must say that I AM IN TOTAL AGREEMENT WITH YOUR SECOND POST!!

by Andúril
I have no doubts about the existence of Eru as a fictional character.

Now, moving on..... I'll add numbers for reference.

(1) Next, on pg. 4, you quoted from my post, where I said "(or atheism, for that matter, which is also a belief system)", and you said "atheism is not a belief system". When I asked you what you thought it was, you said

It can be two things:
The lack of belief of God or gods, and/or
the belief that God or gods do(es) not exist.

(2) On pg. 5, I said that by some defs of 'religion', that atheism could be considered a religion, but that I wouldn't bother to pick that nit because my main concern was :

My main concern is that atheism should NOT be portrayed as a "neutral" position as opposed to religious beliefs, because atheism is in itself a belief, just like religious beliefs. I would say that we would probably both agree that atheism is not an organized religion, though, which is what many people think of when they think of "religion".

(3) Also on pg. 5, you asked if a single belief constituted a belief system (giving the example of 'the sky is red' and asking if I thought that was a belief system. You asked which dictionary I referred to when saying that atheism could be considered a religion by some defs. You also asked me to stipulate the belief of weak atheism.

(4) On pg. 6, I told you I was going to start a new thread out of respect to the thread starter's stated wishes for 'no argument'. I also disagreed with your opinion that "that is all" was "better" than "that's all" in Wayfarer's post .

(5) On pg. 7, we discussed academic qualifications.

----------------
My responses to the above items from the first thread:

(1) This is one of the areas that we will continue the discussion on, n'est-ce pas?

(2) same as above, as far as the quoted section goes (at least, I will comment further on this idea)

(3) Working from the last to the first - Now that I have seen your definition of 'weak atheism', I will not stipulate. We will need to discuss this definition further first. Re where the def comes from - Webster's dictionary. Re the 'sky is red' - No, I would not say that 'the sky is red' constitutes a belief system in the context of the discussion we were having. Re the 'single belief' aspect, I will discuss that further in the context of atheism; I won't bother to discuss it in the case of 'the sky is red'. You may if you want to, but I would rather stick to the more important aspects of the 'single belief' comment, which is 'single belief' as related to atheism.

(4) New thread's been fun, hasn't it . And I still say that "that's all" is just fine, and even better than "that is all", because its informality is in humorous contrast with the formality of the first statement! But that's a matter of individual opinion, and not worth taking any more of my time.

(5) If you don't mind sharing, why are you starting a course of study in Theology?

Well, I have to go pick up the kids - this post will just have to stand as it is, and I'll deal with anything I left out later tonight Does that finish up the issues from the first thread (some of which we transferred over here)?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

My, my, that DOES sound bad, doesn't it? My humblest apologies, I did not at all mean that I think you people are worthless; not in the least! Indeed, I like the way you post a good deal, Lizra! I am extremely sorry if you interpreted it that way (which would not surprise me). All of mankind is of great value to God, despite all of our imperfections, and he would that none perish; and the same goes for me! I don't want to see anyone in Hell (I don't think even Osama Bin Laden!). I meant that mankind cannot achieve the standard of perfection which would be required for us to earn our way into heaven and the presence of God. I've been familiar with Christain terminology all my life, so I must beg forgiveness for using it in places where it doesn't mean the same to you as it means to me.

Coney: To say that there is nothing you can do about is not true at all! All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God, but it is also never too late for you to repent of your sins and be accepted into the Kingdom of Heaven, and become a child of God!

Again, I sincerely apologize for my inappropriate use of Christian terminology, and hope you can all forgive me.

[Lizra]

Hah! You complimented me! Apology accepted! Thank you!

[Coney]

Again, I sincerely apologize for my inappropriate use of Christian terminology, and hope you can all forgive me.

Well I certainly can forgive you Other peoples attitudes don't really worry me (hope you spotted the in my last post )....unless, of course their attitudes directly effect me.

Coney: To say that there is nothing you can do about is not true at all! All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God, but it is also never too late for you to repent of your sins and be accepted into the Kingdom of Heaven, and become a child of God!

Well yes, there is that I suppose........not likely to happen in my case tho'

Does it not really get annoying to think that non-christian friends will end up in Hell?..............personally it would drive me round the loop if I thought that so many folks I love and respect are going to spend eternity in a lava bath

*must .. not .. reply .. to .. Coney's .. post .. until .. I .. finish .. Andúril's .. replies ... *

Take ya time Rian ............ the clogs are still secure

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Yes, it does sadden me; one of my best friends is Jewish. Not to disparage the Jewish; next to Christianity, Judaism is my favorite religion, and Messianic Judaism is prolly my all-time fave. But it still makes me sad to think that many of my friends will probably not go to heaven (though there's always hope!).