Is the concept of God self-contradictory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Kismetji said:
Well, I am occasionally challenged. In subtle ways: like maybe that point in my worldview might be in need of some revision.

Also, I think every forum needs a gadfly; someone who flies in the face of orthodox conformity and shifts things up, ya know what I’m sayin?’

I can always try. Plus, its better to bounce ideas off of people who don’t completely agree with you than those who do: they can’t offer as much insight.

So, like it or not, I’m staying. Unless I get banned, which might happen.
Click to expand...
Kismet:

That’s why I like you. You are never ashamed of telling the truth! Good. Stick around. Who knows, maybe you’ll be converted? 😉

God bless,
jd
 
Kismetji said:
Also, I think every forum needs a gadfly; someone who flies in the face of orthodox conformity and shifts things up, ya know what I’m sayin?’
…]
So, like it or not, I’m staying. Unless I get banned, which might happen.
Click to expand...
For what it’s worth I generally find your perspective interesting and am in favor of you sticking around. Can’t say I’ve seen you say anything that I would expect to lead to a banning.
 
Kismetji said:
God is certainly the true “I” - and the perfect unity of three divine Persons is the apotheosis of love. Jesus prayed that His followers “may be one as we are one”. He also said “The Father and I are one” and referred to the Holy Spirit who would guide the Church after His Ascension into Heaven.
Click to expand...
If you think “love” is just a word there is no point in continuing this discussion…
Click to expand...
 
tonyrey said:
If you think “love” is just a word there is no point in continuing this discussion…
Click to expand...
With all due respect, I’m not sure you can quite ascertain what I think of love. My whole point is that love without content cannot properly be construed as love. I do not see content, that’s all I’m saying.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
For what it’s worth I generally find your perspective interesting and am in favor of you sticking around. Can’t say I’ve seen you say anything that I would expect to lead to a banning.
Click to expand...
Thanks TS, I appreciate it. 🙂
 
Kismetji said:
With all due respect, I’m not sure you can quite ascertain what I think of love. My whole point is that love without content cannot properly be construed as love. I do not see content, that’s all I’m saying.
Click to expand...
Is not the act of sharing reality an act of love?
 
Kismetji said:
With all due respect, I’m not sure you can quite ascertain what I think of love. My whole point is that love without content cannot properly be construed as love. I do not see content, that’s all I’m saying.
Click to expand...
The contents of a person’s attitude, feelings, and personal beliefs may undergo several changes during that person’s lifetime; but God’s love for mankind remains the same today, tomorrow, and forever because God is everything that love is. I believe that the Bible speaks about the content of God’s love perfectly:
"Love is always patient and kind; love is never jealous; love is not boastful or conceited,
"It is never rude and never seeks its own advantage, it does not take offence or store up grievances.
"Love does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but finds its joy in the truth.
“It is always ready to make allowances, to trust, to hope and to endure whatever comes” (I Corinthians 13:4-7).
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
Is not the act of sharing reality an act of love?
Click to expand...
The problem is, I cannot get a “fix” on what you mean by “reality” and “act.” If love is predicative of these things of God, then I find them either too abstract to fit my idea of what love is, or they simply do not make any appeal to me.

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of “reality” and “act” in conjunction with love? What is the correctness condition such that it matches the loving relationship one might have with a flesh and blood human?
 
Kismetji said:
With all due respect, I’m not sure you can quite ascertain what I think of love. My whole point is that love without content cannot properly be construed as love. I do not see content, that’s all I’m saying.
Click to expand...
Love is the identification of oneself with another person which entails appreciation, creativity, sacrifice, joy and fulfilment.
 
JDaniel said:
Kismet:

That’s why I like you. You are never ashamed of telling the truth! Good. Stick around. Who knows, maybe you’ll be converted? 😉

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
And yet, what is truth? Is it mere correspondence of idea to fact? That, in my view, is a ghettoized view to truth. There is a higher synthesis.
 
tonyrey said:
Love is the identification of oneself with another person which entails appreciation, creativity, sacrifice, joy and fulfilment.
Click to expand...
If that is the case, then I cannot love your god because I do not know who he is.
 
Kismetji said:
And yet, what is truth? Is it mere correspondence of idea to fact? That, in my view, is a ghettoized view to truth. There is a higher synthesis.
Click to expand...
Kismet:

Well, if I were you I wouldn’t go that far! 😉

And, what is that “higher systhesis?”

One other thing: Love, with respect to God means, primarily, the conformity of one’s will with God’s. In fact, now that I think of it, that may also be the most apt description of real love between husband and wife! The conformity of their wills!

God bless,
jd
 
JDaniel said:
Kismet:

Well, if I were you I wouldn’t go that far! 😉
Click to expand...
I already have. :rolleyes:
JDaniel said:
And, what is that “higher systhesis?”
Click to expand...
You look at systems of thought and philosophy and reconcile them into a coherent whole. What you receive by implication… doesn’t have to match objective reality for it to be true.

Though I think it does.
JDaniel said:
One other thing: Love, with respect to God means, primarily, the conformity of one’s will with God’s. In fact, now that I think of it, that may also be the most apt description of real love between husband and wife! The conformity of their wills!

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
Alright, but that doesn’t mean anything to me.
 
tonyrey said:
I’m not surprised!
Click to expand...
Isn’t that un-surprise maybe indicative of the fact that the scholastic conception of a God as “pure being” is in fact barren and out-of-tune with the needs of the human race?
 
Kismetji said:
What, you’re just going to put me on the spot like that? Sorry, but these things are harder than you think. It isn’t tactful to put someone on the spot like that.
Click to expand...
Okay! Okay! Take your time! 🤷

God bless,
jd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top