Having a relationship with God is impossible

[LethalMouse]

So you simply believe that you are having a relationship with God. You simply ignore the argument presented in OP.

Bahman, first off you randomly try to isolate your posts. You post what? Like 3 a week if not more?

They all piggy back off eachother and all have the same ties to the same made up theories.

I am nit ignoring you “OP” nor the thousand of OP’s tied to it. I referenced the MANY MANY posts from others and inordinate amount of post from me on this and its innumerable inter-related threads by you.

You single out, isolate every thread and post with the hopes to confuse the issue and “prove” one of your made up points to somehow validate the rest of this insanity.
And at some point say “ha you are all wrong”

But you fail. 10,000 threads of Bahman quoting his own made up religion and no one has converted to you. Seriously dude.

 

[Wildgraywolf]

We know that we are finite and God is infinite. The relationship is due to cause and effect. This means that relationship requires changes. How we could possibly have a relation with God accepting the fact that God is infinite and we are finite and the fact that God is changeless and relationship requires change?

I always have difficulty following your threads and posts.

It seems to me you’re making a conclusion couched in the form of questions. You’ve concluded a relationship with God is impossible based on some vague definition or understanding of “relationship” and “change”. Humanity was (and is) created by God in God’s “image and likeness” - there’s your cause and effect. It’s a direct, unbreakable and unchangeable relationship. God is our creator. And it’s the vehicle that makes other relationships with God, creation and each other possible. By the way God isn’t infinite, God is eternal - big difference.

 

[Bahman]

I always have difficulty following your threads and posts.

It seems to me you’re making a conclusion couched in the form of questions. You’ve concluded a relationship with God is impossible based on some vague definition or understanding of “relationship” and “change”. Humanity was (and is) created by God in God’s “image and likeness” - there’s your cause and effect. It’s a direct, unbreakable and unchangeable relationship. God is our creator. And it’s the vehicle that makes other relationships with God, creation and each other possible. By the way God isn’t infinite, God is eternal - big difference.

I can simplify the argument as following. God is changeless in your view. Relationship is about cause and effect. In simple word, you do something to please another person (act), this act changes the person (effect), the person in reply does something to please you. If you agree with this then you understand that making relationship with God is impossible since you cannot change Him.

 

[vz71]

I can simplify the argument as following. God is changeless in your view. Relationship is about cause and effect. In simple word, you do something to please another person (act), this act changes the person (effect), the person in reply does something to please you. If you agree with this then you understand that making relationship with God is impossible since you cannot change Him.

You are making a few assumptions that have no basis.
First, you claim relationships necessitate changes by both parties, but this is not proven.
The others do not need to be listed until the first is reconciled.

 

[Fauken]

I can simplify the argument as following. God is changeless in your view. Relationship is about cause and effect. In simple word, you do something to please another person (act), this act changes the person (effect), the person in reply does something to please you. If you agree with this then you understand that making relationship with God is impossible since you cannot change Him.

That’s not what he’s meaning. The issue is with your definitions. Can you prove to us that a relationship is about cause and effect? Why should we accept your definition? Who says that we even want to change God or that we must change God? You’re the one claiming we must by your definition, we are saying we are neither trying nor want to change God.

 

[LethalMouse]

I can simplify the argument as following. God is changeless in your view. Relationship is about cause and effect. In simple word, you do something to please another person (act), this act changes the person (effect), the person in reply does something to please you. If you agree with this then you understand that making relationship with God is impossible since you cannot change Him.

A painting does bot change. However, i can be in position to see it or not. I can get closer or farther for different levels of apprciation.

I can study art and later stand in awe of the painting in now fully understanding the brush strokes and other methodology involved in its creation.

A circle is not impressive to look at, a circle drwn free form and near perfect is impressive to look at. The image here also does not change, only my understanding of it.

God is a perfect circle, a perfect most wonderful, most beautiful piece of artowrk that does not require change, we only need to see and understand.

If that isn’t comprehensible to you I assume nothing will be

 

[Wildgraywolf]

I can simplify the argument as following. God is changeless in your view. Relationship is about cause and effect. In simple word, you do something to please another person (act), this act changes the person (effect), the person in reply does something to please you. If you agree with this then you understand that making relationship with God is impossible since you cannot change Him.

So, you understand “relationship” to be quid pro quo? That’s only one kind of relationship and it generally relates to material things.

 

[Bahman]

 

[Bahman]

You are making a few assumptions that have no basis.

My only claim is that any relationship requires cause and effect which is not possible without changes in both parties.

First, you claim relationships necessitate changes by both parties, but this is not proven.

I don’t need to prove that because it is evident. Look at how human and animal make relationship with each other. And even a simpler case, relationship between a person and a piece of stone, which happens when you kick a piece of stone, it simply kicks you back.

The others do not need to be listed until the first is reconciled.

Let me know if you have another problem with the argument.

 

[Bahman]

That’s not what he’s meaning. The issue is with your definitions. Can you prove to us that a relationship is about cause and effect?

I cannot prove that for you because that is simply my premise. This is however true. We just need to look at reality to make sure that it is true. It is similar to causality. You cannot ask me to prove causality since it is evident.

Why should we accept your definition?

Because it is evident. Look at how human make relation with each other.

Who says that we even want to change God or that we must change God? You’re the one claiming we must by your definition, we are saying we are neither trying nor want to change God.

It is not about wanting to change God. It is about the possibility of having a relationship with God considering the Catholic definition which claims that God is changeless.

 

[Bahman]

So, you understand “relationship” to be quid pro quo?

Not exactly. I am talking about cause and effect in their general forms.

That’s only one kind of relationship and it generally relates to material things.

That is not a fair answer. Do you believe in causality? Yes. You accept causality as intrinsic properties of reality. You then even use the causality to prove God. I am simply striving in the same principle.

 

[LethalMouse]

Let me know if you have another problem with the argument.

Okay, first your arguement was that YOU feel this is self evident… something no one else sees.

So err you did not prove the point he said.

Second you ignore the myriad of relationships people have posted that do not involve dual change… (and I thought my artwork metaphor was good lol)

But basically you prove nothing other than your similarity to a brick wall.

 

[Bahman]

Okay, first your arguement was that YOU feel this is self evident… something no one else sees.

So err you did not prove the point he said.

That is only matter of time.

Second you ignore the myriad of relationships people have posted that do not involve dual change… (and I thought my artwork metaphor was good lol)

So that is a paradoxical situation since as it was discussed Catholics believes, having relationship with God, opposes with idea of changeless God. Why do you persist with the idea of changeless God? There is no need that God stays in changeless state once creation is done. Let me to give you an example: What is the meaning of omnipresent before act of creation? Nothing, since nothing exists at all. The omnipresence only have a meaning after the act of creation is done. This however requires a change in God which is meaningful since He could be with us! You like that God be present to you so I don’t understand why you reject this idea.

Moreover your example of artwork metaphor is not mutual relationship.

But basically you prove nothing other than your similarity to a brick wall.

That is what you believe, God as a brick of wall.

 

[LethalMouse]

That is only matter of time.

So that is a paradoxical situation since as it was discussed Catholics believes, having relationship with God, opposes with idea of changeless God. Why do you persist with the idea of changeless God? There is no need that God stays in changeless state once creation is done. Let me to give you an example: What is the meaning of omnipresent before act of creation? Nothing, since nothing exists at all. The omnipresence only have a meaning after the act of creation is done. This however requires a change in God which is meaningful since He could be with us! You like that God be present to you so I don’t understand why you reject this idea.

Moreover your example of artwork metaphor is not mutual relationship.

That is what you believe, God as a brick of wall.

Again, you play with words, for your purposes, no I do not believe God is changless. However He is in the way that in some ways I am only to a grander degree.

For example, I keep my promises.

I did, do, and will.

In this fact I am changless.

However yes, in order to say keep a promise of picking up Bahman from the airport, I need to drive there… ergo in some ways I have changed. But my nature of keeping my promises is unchanged.

God’s nature is unchanged as is mine in this example. He is not unchanged in that He can not act or move.

You again are playing with words.

 

[Fauken]

I cannot prove that for you because that is simply my premise. This is however true. We just need to look at reality to make sure that it is true. It is similar to causality. You cannot ask me to prove causality since it is evident.

I disagree. Not all human relationships are quid pro quo. And also, a causal relationship does not definitively mean that there is a relationship between both parties changinging.

Because it is evident. Look at how human make relation with each other.

I don’t see how it’s evident. To me it seems you’re only going by a very narrow definition that’s been questioned by everyone on this post. That seems to mean it’s very unevident.

It is not about wanting to change God. It is about the possibility of having a relationship with God considering the Catholic definition which claims that God is changeless.

EDIT: I read LethalMouse’s response above me. By how you view what the Catholic definition is, God is an unmoving statue. By the Catholic definition, God is beyond and transcends time. He know what has happened, what is happening, and what will happen. Like a movie he’s already seen being played back before him. God knows when Bahaman will pray to him on October 24th, 2016, before his (I’m assuming you’re male) great-great-great-grandfather exists. Bahman does pray not a picosecond early or late, and God does something (or perhaps nothing). You call it change, since you rely on time, but for God, who does not, He has not changed. He has only done what He knew would happen.

 

[kdbueno]

Relationship with God is simply being in love with Him.

 

[Bahman]

I disagree. Not all human relationships are quid pro quo. And also, a causal relationship does not definitively mean that there is a relationship between both parties changinging.

I cannot really discuss the self evident things with you. Do you have an example that relationship does not implement changes in both parties.

I don’t see how it’s evident. To me it seems you’re only going by a very narrow definition that’s been questioned by everyone on this post. That seems to mean it’s very unevident.

I don’t understand how that could be unevident. You say something to one person. This cause changes in another person and anther person replies to you.

EDIT: I read LethalMouse’s response above me. By how you view what the Catholic definition is, God is an unmoving statue. By the Catholic definition, God is beyond and transcends time. He know what has happened, what is happening, and what will happen. Like a movie he’s already seen being played back before him. God knows when Bahaman will pray to him on October 24th, 2016, before his (I’m assuming you’re male) great-great-great-grandfather exists. Bahman does pray not a picosecond early or late, and God does something (or perhaps nothing). You call it change, since you rely on time, but for God, who does not, He has not changed. He has only done what He knew would happen.

This leads to block universe which is paradoxical. I have a thread on this topic here.

 

[fred_conty]

So you believe that Jesus can answer to all our pries at once? How about those people who lived before Jesus incarnation?

“From far away you know my thoughts: you know every step I take, when I walk, when I lie down: you have seen all that I do.” Psalm 138

If he knows all this on an individual basis, then he would also know prayers as well on an individual basis.

I know you know that Jesus is the second person of God, and as such, before his incarnation, is the God of the OT as well.

As far as a person in the OT sharing in the divine life of Jesus, we know they didn’t until Jesus went to limbo, after his death, to preach to them of the good news of heaven being opened to them. The good news was that they too would now enjoy the divine life with him in heaven.

“I offered my back to those who struck me, my cheeks to those who tore at my beard. I did not cover my face against insult and spittle.” Isaiah 50;6 We know the perpetrators of this were not just the soldiers, but we, in our sins, as well, both the people in the OT and the NT, for he suffered to expiate sin.