If humans are 80% water, why did he not turn his guards to wine, and run away from the cross?
Quote: from Rabgix at 8:40 am on Dec. 22, 2011 Quote: from carie at 11:38 am on Dec. 22, 2011 Quote: from Rabgix at 11:36 am on Dec. 22, 2011 Quote: from carie at 11:32 am on Dec. 22, 2011 Because he was a willing sacrifice. He could have stopped them at any time, in any number of ways, he had the power. He CHOSE to die, and to follow the will of the father. Isn't that suicide no, it is the purest and truest definition of non-violence we can see. That's really odd considering how violent and misanthropic God is. I mean, I know you're an atheist, but that's a bit rude...God is DEF not misanthropic!!! Sure, Sodom and Gomorrah, but that HAD to be done. Those people were sinners.
Quote: from carie at 11:38 am on Dec. 22, 2011 Quote: from Rabgix at 11:36 am on Dec. 22, 2011 Quote: from carie at 11:32 am on Dec. 22, 2011 Because he was a willing sacrifice. He could have stopped them at any time, in any number of ways, he had the power. He CHOSE to die, and to follow the will of the father. Isn't that suicide no, it is the purest and truest definition of non-violence we can see. That's really odd considering how violent and misanthropic God is.
Quote: from Rabgix at 11:36 am on Dec. 22, 2011 Quote: from carie at 11:32 am on Dec. 22, 2011 Because he was a willing sacrifice. He could have stopped them at any time, in any number of ways, he had the power. He CHOSE to die, and to follow the will of the father. Isn't that suicide no, it is the purest and truest definition of non-violence we can see.
Quote: from carie at 11:32 am on Dec. 22, 2011 Because he was a willing sacrifice. He could have stopped them at any time, in any number of ways, he had the power. He CHOSE to die, and to follow the will of the father. Isn't that suicide
Because he was a willing sacrifice. He could have stopped them at any time, in any number of ways, he had the power. He CHOSE to die, and to follow the will of the father.
Isn't that suicide
no, it is the purest and truest definition of non-violence we can see.
That's really odd considering how violent and misanthropic God is.
lol is this a serious post
Jesus was a transformative Messiah. One of his abilities was to turn water to wine. If humans are 80% water, why did he not turn his guards to wine, and run away from the cross?
i still don't see the relevant distinction between "god is good" and "god is not evil", or more generally a relevant distinction between positive and negative definitions. an arbitrary declaration that an unknown x is not a member of Set A is no more likely to be true than an arbitrary declaration that x is a member of Set B. both statements are meaningless if the sets are undefined, and unjustified if they are.
an arbitrary declaration that an unknown x is not a member of Set A is no more likely to be true than an arbitrary declaration that x is a member of Set B.
both statements are meaningless if the sets are undefined, and unjustified if they are.
that is explained somewhat better in the article. there are probably better things that explain the value of apophatic vs cataphatic theology, I will see if i can find something.
the statements are meaningless when the sets are undefined, and unjustified when they are defined.
if these questions could be resolved by my reading the wiki article, don't hesitate to say so. i'm nobly and stoically suffering a cold which has greatly magnified my habitual laziness, but i suppose i could probably drag myself through it if absolutely necessary.
This is relevant, and from the wiki article :
In negative theology, it is accepted that the Divine is ineffable, an abstract experience that can only be recognized or remembered—that is, human beings cannot describe in words the essence of the perfect good that is unique to the individual, nor can they define the Divine, in its immense complexity, related to the entire field of reality, and therefore all descriptions if attempted will be ultimately false and conceptualization should be avoided; in effect, it eludes definition by definition.
by defining god as "not evil", we circumscribe his actions and character with our necessarily insufficient definition of "evil", quite possibly denying many actions and attributes he does indeed possess, and there is still the possibility of god performing an action which we cannot but categorise as evil.
That possibility does not exist in Christian theology.
You cannot say that God is good. instead you must simply say that God is simply, not evil. It is not within his character or nature to be evil. This may sound like 2 sides of the same coin but its not. To describe God as good is to limit him to our definition of what good is, and to allow for the possibility, that when God acts against our understanding of good, God is somehow, inexplicably, evil.
we could, of course, re-classify any action god performs as "not evil", but why not do the same with "good"? in either case, we are left with a word we do not know the meaning of, if it can be said to have a meaning at all.
What attributes can you attribute to God that aren't human? Love? Benevolence? If God did it, it is good? I have to go but i'd like to come back and comment on that later
If God did it, it is good? I have to go but i'd like to come back and comment on that later
God transcends human definition. The words we use to try to understand him are but a vague attempt on our part to make God tangible to the human mind. The problem is when the definitions we attribute to him become greater than God is, which is common to even Christian understandings of God.
Apophatic theology (what I am encouraging and urging towards here), or "negative" theology, begins by saying what God is not, and ends with silence (the via negativa). It makes no declarative statements about who God is, and celebrates the mystery that is Deity.
(for the sake ofconversation I pulled this from wiki, I acknowledge it is a paltry explanation and not a valid source in the grand scheme of things, but it is a decent place to start).
Link to full article here
Neither existence nor nonexistence as we understand it in the physical realm, applies to God; i.e., the Divine is abstract to the individual, beyond existing or not existing, and beyond conceptualization regarding the whole (one cannot say that God exists in the usual sense of the term; nor can we say that God is nonexistent).
Quote: from Rabgix at 11:40 am on Dec. 22, 2011 Quote: from carie at 11:38 am on Dec. 22, 2011 Quote: from Rabgix at 11:36 am on Dec. 22, 2011 Quote: from carie at 11:32 am on Dec. 22, 2011 Because he was a willing sacrifice. He could have stopped them at any time, in any number of ways, he had the power. He CHOSE to die, and to follow the will of the father. Isn't that suicide no, it is the purest and truest definition of non-violence we can see. That's really odd considering how violent and misanthropic God is. Stop ascribing human atributes to God. God is the definition of words, words dont define him. Taking a human characteristic and then holding God up to it to see if he shares in it is backwards. I am not asking you to believe in Christianity or insisting that you see God from that perspective, but from a Christian perspective God isnt defined by things, God sets the defenition. If God did it, is is good, because God cannot be anything but good. That is the basics of a deontological system that is religious in its focus.
God is the definition of words, words dont define him. Taking a human characteristic and then holding God up to it to see if he shares in it is backwards.
I am not asking you to believe in Christianity or insisting that you see God from that perspective, but from a Christian perspective God isnt defined by things, God sets the defenition. If God did it, is is good, because God cannot be anything but good. That is the basics of a deontological system that is religious in its focus.
What attributes can you attribute to God that aren't human? Love? Benevolence?
I could definitely get behind a God that turned the police into giant human wine barrels, however.
See Odin, Ares, Mercury, et al
271 users online 
268840 members 290 active today Advertise Here
271 users online 268840 members 290 active today Advertise Here
You have 1 new message.
