To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 22643
22642  |  22644
Subject: 
Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:25:17 GMT
Viewed: 
947 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
   In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:

  
  
  
   Okay, then why, according to the bible, did God create man and, for that matter, the universe?

Fellowship. God wants to be in relationship with us.

Then you’re asserting that God is finite and imperfect?

I don’t think that follows from what I said.

Well, the chain works like this: To “want” something (such as fellowship), is to imply a lack of that thing (or a desire to prevent the negation/removal of that thing). A being who lacks something is incomplete, and incompleteness indicates imperfection.

God intentionally limits Himself by giving us free will (as far as we know). God desires us to have abundant life-- I don’t see where this indicates that God is incomplete or imperfect. Perhaps you could say that God is limited, but it is by His choice.

  
   God is beyond logic and reasoning. I know that those are the only tools our finite brains have, but they are useless when it comes to matters of the infinite.

Let’s first stipulate that you’re witnessing in this passage rather than debating. That’s not wrong, but it’s different from actually presenting a case for something.

I fully acknowledge this. I’m not sure exactly how else to discuss the topic-- my limitation.

   Anyway, it would have been within God’s power, as an omnipotent being, to endow us with the ability to comprehend the infinite, yet for some reason He chose not do so so.

I don’t follow this. How can the finite grasp the infinite? We certainly have plenty of examples of the infinite, and we can begin to appreciate the mystery of the infinite, but how could we ever hope to actually comprehend or understand it? The logic of omnipotent being creating a finite being able to comprehend the infinite seems circular to me. If God is omnipotent, can He create a stone He can’t lift?

   Why would he force us to make a determination based on a relatively infinitessimal sampling? And how could a moral God punish those who refuse to be forced to use our God-given powers of reason to address that question?

We must acknowledge that reason has limits; knowledge has boundaries. This question is repeatedly addressed in Genesis and is ancient.

I don’t believe that God punishes those who seek knowledge and make judgments based on reason. Quite the contrary. But it is an arrogant mistake to replace God with those tools.

>> We can never find or understand God-- it is only
  
   when God reveals Himself that we are able to catch a glimpse of Him.

This sends us back to the problem that you can’t assert with any confidence that God truly is good; you can only say that you deeply believe that he’s good based on that small portion of Him that you believe yourself to have perceived.

True. I only know about God what God has revealed Himself to be. Jesus reveals Him to be a good and loving God. I accept this regardless of how I perceive Him at any given time (especially in times of grief, etc)

  
   Asserting that God is finite and imperfect is the last thing I’d do...

I’m sure that you’d never deliberately do so, but your course of argument has generated that conclusion!

Obviously the fault of my limited arguing abilities!

JOHN



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
 
(...) I'm afraid that the doctrine of free will is incompatible with the notion of original sin; it is logically inconsistent to believe in both. (...) God is limited in other ways, too. God, as an omnibenevolent being, can never take first-hand (...) (21 years ago, 27-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
 
(...) Well, the chain works like this: To "want" something (such as fellowship), is to imply a lack of that thing (or a desire to prevent the negation/removal of that thing). A being who lacks something is incomplete, and incompleteness indicates (...) (21 years ago, 27-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR