J
johnnyt3000
Guest
Qualities such as, loving, merciful and just.
If we cannot fully understand God, why do we give Him human qualities?
- Status
S
Sochi
Guest
Say that again with “Since” instead of “If” and delete “why do” and the question mark. What we don’t understand we make in our own image. And if we don’t understand often we fear. We also want someone to love us. So God, whatever that means, is made by many into a bigger, more powerful and magical human image, because that’s the best we can do if we need a picture.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Don’t pay any attention to Sochi, he doesn’t believe and he is just trying to ring your bell.
The answer is two fold. First in Revelation God speaks of himself in antromorphic terms. How else could we have any concept of him. He indeed has all the perfections of our nature, but he has them to an infinite degree. In fact they are absolutely perfect in Him. In fact they are Him and we can have no concept of that.
Secondly, our human intellects are geared to earthly creation. What other means do we have of speaking of him than by earthly language? But the Mystics tell us that we can know God only by stripping away from him every perfection we attribute to Him and simply say that He is beyond any of that, so far away and beyond that His Perfection cannot in any way be conceived by the human intellect, even by analogy. He simply Is. He told us that in Genesis.
Linus2nd
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
If we’re made in God’s image, then those ‘human’ qualities such as being loving, merciful, and just cannot help but be some kind of reflection of qualities God has.
Plus just because we cannot FULLY understand God, does not mean we cannot understand SOMETHING.
Finally, Jesus is God, and Jesus had all those qualities as God made man. . .right?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
If you understand love then it must be universal otherwise its in your own image, and from there what does it say about self love?
Love, fear? I’m in, what do they mean and how do they relate? Who are “we” I counted 7 aside from you and I? Is that the interconnected conscious to which the we are all connected in, and individually in love or fear, but there is no opposite of love? I think you believe in God and don’t know it. If I did that abstract moment of death testing on you I think you would have made some self revealing statements.
S
Sochi
Guest
Pretty much what I said, only you are doing it, yes? I mean I would definitely credit “He simply Is” as being spot on, if the person was changed. But in essence it’s what I said. So are you trying to ring our bells?
N
Neofight
Guest
I would say your question answers itself!
O
oldcelt
Guest
I make a real effort not to place human qualities on God because I have come to believe that we have nothing in common. That is not to say that discussion of the possibilities is time wasted, it’s just the approach that I have taken.
Human emotions, realities, motivations, etc., are things that can be observed, at least to a degree. I can’t even say that I understand such issues “fully” on the human level. So the Deity is way out of my qualifications.
Human emotions, realities, motivations, etc., are things that can be observed, at least to a degree. I can’t even say that I understand such issues “fully” on the human level. So the Deity is way out of my qualifications.
O
orang
Guest
The sun was referred to at least once from what I remember in the writings of Saint Catherine of Sienna in The Dialog.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Pareidolia
O
orang
Guest
The only way a person, family, street, town, city, country, zone, world can flourish is by recognizing value unity. The only way unity can happen is by recognizing virtue charity.
The only way virtue charity can be interesting and part of character is by recognizing the finest intended for others, which intro’s directive love thy neighbor. ( connecting to virtue Hope.
The only way progress or flourish can happen is by going the extra mile for others as long as it is a prudent thing. So charity is the common ground language flourishing minded man has with the universe, a logical event. This includes prudence in respect for the setting as well.
The only way virtue charity can be interesting and part of character is by recognizing the finest intended for others, which intro’s directive love thy neighbor. ( connecting to virtue Hope.
The only way progress or flourish can happen is by going the extra mile for others as long as it is a prudent thing. So charity is the common ground language flourishing minded man has with the universe, a logical event. This includes prudence in respect for the setting as well.
T
tonyrey
Guest
St Thomas gives an inspired account of our knowledge of God:
Superb! At the other extreme are those who reduce everything to that which is valueless, purposeless and meaningless…
ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/gentiles.txt
Superb! At the other extreme are those who reduce everything to that which is valueless, purposeless and meaningless…
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
. The SCG is quite long!
T
tskrobacz
Guest
Because as humans we can’t fall in love with an idea or a complete unknown. This is one reason God took human form in Jesus…so that we could know him as we are.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Either you believe in God, or you make yourself or another into God. Really its that simple.
Cannibals probably gather and eat and say the same as us, gee they are “barbaric” over there, we should help them out.
We need to submit to the Universal laws. Otherwise we are victims of “whoever” decides to implement their variation of morality. Its not about religion or secular thinking, its about all of us in this “together” listen again “together”.
Through the Universal Law then we know who the madmen are regardless if they are religious or secular tribal or nationalistic.
Frankly I’ll pass on the secular gods also and the tribal gods killing in the name of God. I’m not sure their could be a greater blaspheme.
Christ said “Love Your Neighbor as Yourself” is it a Universal law? Of course it is.
Cannibals probably gather and eat and say the same as us, gee they are “barbaric” over there, we should help them out.
We need to submit to the Universal laws. Otherwise we are victims of “whoever” decides to implement their variation of morality. Its not about religion or secular thinking, its about all of us in this “together” listen again “together”.
Through the Universal Law then we know who the madmen are regardless if they are religious or secular tribal or nationalistic.
Frankly I’ll pass on the secular gods also and the tribal gods killing in the name of God. I’m not sure their could be a greater blaspheme.
Christ said “Love Your Neighbor as Yourself” is it a Universal law? Of course it is.
S
Sochi
Guest
Of course Love is Universal. It is human attempts to define it that make for limits. The human mind cannot comprehend Love as such. Like electricity, it is known only by its effects.
Love is behind the sense/feeling of including and being included. Fear is the sense of threat to survival as part of a sense of separation. Some might go so far as to say that “heaven” is a total feeling of Unity, and hell, of complete separation.
That starts out a bit unclear at to what you mean. Consciousness in not “interconnected.” It IS as a fundamental Principle. The individuation of that, appearing as awareness and its contents, may include, and most usually does, ad hoc perceptions that are taken as the dynamic of separation. This is necessary for navigation in the 3D world as humans. It also may be the dynamic of the “Fall,” which rather that being a fall in a descending sense, was the birth of the necessary me/it perception we can’t live without as humans. If it was a “fall,” it was a fall out of the instinctual reactions of the animal, ie, the birth of human awareness in its more specific nature. That yet can be transcended or matured out of into a sense of increasing inclusivity. In other words, the arc of maturity goes from infantile or animalistic self absorption toward identifying with what might be called God.
I guess you kind of have to say it that way, due to certain limitation. But in fact, “God” is not a thought, or a belief. That is impossible. If you have a belief, it is necessarily a construct. The word itself might be used a s a place holder for something incomprehensible, as we might use “0.” Also, if God is ALL, how is there the opposite of that? Only in conjectured separation as a funcion of the necessary me/it perceptual dynamic.
You did, and I answered. Were you not satisfied with what I said? I guess not.
B
babylonfalling
Guest
Love, mercy and justice are Godly qualities, we get them from God.
As far as anthropomorphisms go, those are given to us Scripturally by God so our puny minds can relate to Him in some type of terms that we understand.
S
Sochi
Guest
I believe you mean “simplistic.” There are other alternatives.
Could be; everyone is right in their own mind. It is the mind’s job to do that. That is why it is so highly and emphatically recommended to get out of your mind, or put it aside.
Too late. That is not a choice. Those operate without respect for choice, conjecture, delusion, or opinion. You might be talking about conscious cooperation with those laws, which is another matter.
Yes, that is precisely the condition of the world in general. And I totally agree bout the listening. The best thing to listen to may be absolute Silence as distinct form the lack of sound.
So you are assuming someone knows that Law? How do you know, if you are not that Law?
Uh-oh…
Law of what? Many read that pronouncement as a practice which could lead to the discovery of what is a Universal condition above any law. And that is where an original transmission might come from and be misinterpreted and made into a religion. Like legislation, religion is an after the fact construct attempting to capture the living moment of the original. If one is persistent, it might yet lead to that.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Well, God being all doesn’t require an opposite, lack of grace provides the immediate opposition. As with Adam he supplied the disobedience so your right I would say going from being in Gods presence to immediately grasping for leaves or whatever in his confused panicked state, animalistic self absorption is in effect already,
God being a belief or known isn’t impossible. But I would contend its almost impossible while refusing to acknowledge or submit to Divinity. I have no doubt Christians are in this category and don’t even know it. I also believe that as with St Paul, one can indeed be found without looking and then belief, faith, knowledge all interact as does responsibility. I think these are rare though.
Same stands for God as with love, and also with electricity at its origin of energy-light. Attempts to define it that make for limits indeed exist, so we look for the preponderance of evidence, not legal beyond a shadow of a doubt, but probability, such as Jesus Christ living and the Cross up through history. I haven’t heard a better universal plan as understood by love as a correct giver receiver relationship? Not that I’m saying Christs morality or life is perhaps enough for some but its a preponderance of evidence along with His existence and death.
Same as we know way down the line with electricity thus Energy, but down the line it existed prior to the Big Bang. And then there was Light. Who supplied the light and love.
The preponderance of evidence, statistical probability and facts, like the percent who believe in a deity. So the sequence of knowing God can’t be followed logically by denial of God, but by acceptance and submission.
O
orang
Guest
Okay here is the quote by Saint Thomas being referred to,
As God possesses the power to create whatever can be made at all, there is in Him the promise and potency of all possible being. In Him all things that are or ever can be exist eminently and virtually.’ He is all that they are, but in a better and more excellent way, – in some such way as a seal is in regard of all the impressions that ever can be taken of it, or as a king in regard of a viceroy or lord-lieutenant: so much so that actual creation makes no addition to God or to the sum total of Being absolutely speaking. – Cf. Isa. xl…
Now in the category of efficient causation everything is reducible ultimately to one cause, which is God, of whom are all things. Everything therefore that actually is in any other thing must be found in God much more eminently than in the thing itself; God then is most perfect. Hence the answer given to Moses by the Lord, when he sought to see the divine face or glory: I will show thee all good (Exod. xxxiii, 19)…
And thus in very name that we utter, if we consider the mode of signification, there is found an imperfection that does not attach to God, although the thing signified may attach to God in some eminent way, as appears in the name goodness’ and good.’ Goodness’ denotes something as not subsisting by itself: good,’ something as concrete and composite. In this respect, then, no name befits God suitably except in respect of that which the name is imposed to signify. Such names therefore may be both affirmed and denied of God, affirmed on account of the meaning of the name, denied on account of the mode of signification. But the mode of supereminence, whereby the said perfections are found in God, cannot be signified by the names imposed by us, except either by negation, as when we call God eternal’ or infinite,’ or by reference or comparison of Him to other things, as when He is called the First Cause’ or the Sovereign Good.’ For we cannot take in (capere) [66] of God what He is, but what He is not, and how other beings stand related to Him…
Nevertheless a pure spirit by knowing its own substance knows the existence of God, and that God is the cause of all, and eminent above all, and removed (remotus) from all, not only from all things that are, but from all that the created mind can conceive. To this knowledge of God we also may attain in some sort: for from the effects of His creation we know of God that He is, and that He is the cause (sustaining principle) of other beings, super-eminent above other beings, and removed from all. And this is the highest perfection of our knowledge in this life: hence Dionysius says (De mystica theologia c. 2) that “we are united with God as with the unknown”; which comes about in this way, that we know of God what He is not, but what He is remains absolutely unknown. And to show the ignorance of this most sublime knowledge it is said of Moses that he drew nigh to the darkness in which God was (Exod. xx, 21). [601]…
Continuing : I will analyze :
In the first three paragraphs God is defined and the thought s introduced.
Next in the fourth paragraph it is stated,
“And thus in very name that we utter, if we consider the mode of signification, there is found an imperfection that does not attach to God, although the thing signified may attach to God in some eminent way, as appears in the name goodness’ and good.”
Continuing,
here we see a foundation is being built for the balance of thought and developing conclusions and observations.
It is assumed in the above analysis that imperfection is not good.
where is the back-up to make this conviction and continue using as the full foundation to make a point in the subject ? How is it not a manipulation on words and meaning to get at bridging to value good. taking the subject without moderation into the intellectual labratory. Don’t get me wrong I like many of the quotes by Saint Thomas I see but there seems to be a missing moderation.
- Status