If God is omnipotent (all-powerful), why is he constrained by human language?

[tonyrey]

Basic moral principles never change but we have to take into account changes in our way of life - such as the financial system. If interest were abolished people would starve…

 

[shoe]

Humans have been limited creatures ever since the fall, but human limitations certainly do not limit God. God is able to communicate in any language with any individual who is ready and willing to listen to Him.

 

[ConstantineTG]

If God is omnipotent (all-powerful), why is he constrained by human language?

Across several different religions, their respective proponents will have said at least once that their God/gods was speaking to a specific generation in their sacred scripture (e.g. Bible, Quran, Tanakh, Bhagavad Gita, etc) and that whatever statement made to that specific, previous generation may not be applicable to today’s generation. For the purpose of relevance and simplicity, let’s focus on Christianity/Catholicism.

It is widely known that the Church historically condemned usury (charging interest). As a matter of fact, it was a mortal sin. Today, with the rise of global financial institutions, it’s impossible and even asinine to adhere to such a law. So we don’t usually find Church officials condemning interest. Those who believe the Church has always taught truth during it’s existence in the world will say that this is a case of “doctrine not changing, but rather, our knowledge of doctrine deepening”. I have read the justification for “allowing” usury, and it goes along the lines of the definition and practice of usury was different in the Middle Ages than it is today. St. Thomas Aquinas regarded usury as similar to charging a person “twice” for the same amount, and was therefore sinful. Today, the definition of usury has “changed”. To explain the justification/explanation in full is a bit complicated (and I say this as an Economics student), but that is the gist of it. There are many more examples like this.

So it begs the question, if Church teaching really is “handed down from Heaven”, and God is regarded as being omnipotent, why is he constrained by human language? Why can’t God give just give XYZ law at the beginning of time that is applicable to all generations, no changing, altering or deepening. Because the very nature of having knowledge of doctrine deepen suggests that God is bound by human language, and is therefore not omnipotent.

Simple really. The first generation must be able to teach the second, and so forth. If God gave something to people so advanced, they won’t understand it. Then God will be forgotten. Its the limitation of humans, not of God.

This is why we need the Church, because it is a long line of Apostolic Successors who have received the faith from previous generations. They make sure the faith remains the same, but is made relevant to today.

There is no way that God can speak in a way that 2000 years ago and today can understand the same thing. Its not a limitation on God, its a limitation on man. God would be incomprehensible to us.

 

[Shike]

The limitations that we find in human language are our limitations, not God’s. Because He is omnipotent, He is able to etch His moral law in the conscience of every person. For example, the moral law, “Do good and avoid evil,” is the same for all men at all times and in all places. However, our understanding of good and evil, and the linguistic expression of the moral law, its details and applications, will vary according to our education, background, and changing circumstances. The various expressions of the moral law that we find in different religions and in different periods of human history reflect our limitations, not God’s.

Now for a word on “usury”. Usury, conceived as the charging of exorbitant interest, has always been wrong. However, people can have different judgment on what is to be considered as “exorbitant.” Is 18% interest exorbitant? Sometimes, yes, but not always. When there is a lot of risk involved on the part of the lender - such as when there is no collateral, and when the borrower has a poor credit score - then the 18% may not be exorbitant. But if the borrower is offering a security, and has a good credit rating, then 18% is difficult to justify morally, and could be a case of usury.

Bump to rom422’s post, as I think he makes understanding usury simple, even to those who are not economics students.

 

[vz71]

God’s not constrained but you are…

But I would add as well that is the reason for development of tradition and teaching.

We do not understand fully what God is telling us at first, but as time goes on and we learn more we understand more fully what God intended.

 

[DCNBILL]

I would think that the more appropriate question here would be, (Why is God constrained by the language of Latin?)