No, God Can Not Lie, as He Is Truth Itself

[rossum]

I don’t understand how anyone should limit the concept of God when attributing omniscience to it.

By describing God as omniscient you are limiting God by removing all non-omniscience from God. In this case the example I used was the ability to learn something new. We can do this bacause we are not omniscient; God cannot. If we describe God as having a property X, then we remove from God everything included in non-X. Every description includes the removal of everything contrary to that description and hence a limitation of God.

It is you who claims that there is an imperfection in God - that he doesn’t know everything yet.

I do not claim any imperfection in God, I merely claim a limitation implicit in any explicit description of God. If God is omniscient then He obviously knows everything. What He then cannot do is to learn something new, or to relearn something He has forgotten.

In my view it is you who does the limiting here.

Not me, it is the language that is doing the limiting.

God is by defintion the most perfect being imaginable. There is no limiting here

Haldane said, “The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.” God is not only more perfect than we imagine, He is more perfect than we can imagine. God is not limited by the boundaries of human imagination.

rossum

 

[morgantj]

All of them. They all attempt to describe the unlimited in a limited human language. Inevitably all such attempts fail. To say that we can describd God is a limited human language is tantamount to saying that a human can understand God. All human understandings of God are faulty and hence all human descriptions of God are faulty.

rossum

Then why even bother with the bible? It is written in human language. Man wrote the bible, and god is described in the bible. So if all human descriptions of God are faulty, then the bibles desciption of god is faulty.

 

[rossum]

Even those descriptions of Him (and His determinants) found in the Bible - His revelation of Himself to us?

Yes. Both Ancient Hebrew and Ancient Greek are human languages with all the limititations that come with that status. God could not talk about either Deoxyribonucleic acid or quasars in the Bible because neither language had the words for those concepts and the peoples to whom He was talking did not have the background knowledge to be able to grasp those concepts. The Bible is itself constrained by having to be expressed in human languages.

We both seem to be on the same side.

Less so than I suspect you think. I am Buddhist, and I am basically reproducing some Buddhist arguments about the nature of nirvana, descriptions of nirvana and the relationship between the two. All descriptions of nirvana are false.

rossum

 

[davidv]

By describing God as omniscient you are limiting God by removing all non-omniscience from God. In this case the example I used was the ability to learn something new. We can do this bacause we are not omniscient; God cannot. If we describe God as having a property X, then we remove from God everything included in non-X. Every description includes the removal of everything contrary to that description and hence a limitation of God.

You are describing a logical contradiction. If A is “omniscient”, not A is limited knowledge. God is one or the other. Lack of knowledge is inferior to knowledge, so being omniscient is not limiting. Requiring the ability to learn is therefore a handicap, not perfection.

I do not claim any imperfection in God, I merely claim a limitation implicit in any explicit description of God. If God is omniscient then He obviously knows everything. What He then cannot do is to learn something new, or to relearn something He has forgotten.

Actually you have claimed an imperfection. See above.
{snip}

 

[JDaniel]

Yes. Both Ancient Hebrew and Ancient Greek are human languages with all the limitations that come with that status. God could not talk about either Deoxyribonucleic acid or quasars in the Bible because neither language had the words for those concepts and the peoples to whom He was talking did not have the background knowledge to be able to grasp those concepts. The Bible is itself constrained by having to be expressed in human languages.

Less so than I suspect you think. I am Buddhist, and I am basically reproducing some Buddhist arguments about the nature of nirvana, descriptions of nirvana and the relationship between the two. All descriptions of nirvana are false.

rossum

OK, boy are the gloves off now!:tiphat:

I am Catholic, therefore, I have no problem with my awareness that the words used as determinants for God, in the early days, are the same words we use and understand today - even though we have had to explain them and refine their definitions many times. In fact, I don’t even care if I completely understand each of them. In fact, I don’t even care if each of them cannot fully appreciate the essence of God. They are adequate and true for me and a large number of people called Catholics.

From your perspective, you may well have a problem with “all [of the] descriptions of nirvana.”

jd

 

[Leela]

All of them. They all attempt to describe the unlimited in a limited human language. Inevitably all such attempts fail. To say that we can describd God is a limited human language is tantamount to saying that a human can understand God. All human understandings of God are faulty and hence all human descriptions of God are faulty.

rossum

I agree, but since you will always be misunderstood by theists when you use the word “God,” I think it would be better to find or create a new vocabulary.

I noticed that you identify as Buddhist. Have you read this Sam Harris essay?
shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2903&Itemid=244

excerpt:
"The wisdom of the Buddha is currently trapped within the religion of Buddhism. Even in the West, where scientists and Buddhist contemplatives now collaborate in studying the effects of meditation on the brain, Buddhism remains an utterly parochial concern. While it may be true enough to say (as many Buddhist practitioners allege) that “Buddhism is not a religion,” most Buddhists worldwide practice it as such, in many of the naive, petitionary, and superstitious ways in which all religions are practiced. Needless to say, all non-Buddhists believe Buddhism to be a religion—and, what is more, they are quite certain that it is the wrong religion.

To talk about “Buddhism,” therefore, inevitably imparts a false sense of the Buddha’s teaching to others. So insofar as we maintain a discourse as “Buddhists,” we ensure that the wisdom of the Buddha will do little to inform the development of civilization in the twenty-first century.

Worse still, the continued identification of Buddhists with Buddhism lends tacit support to the religious differences in our world. At this point in history, this is both morally and intellectually indefensible—especially among affluent, well-educated Westerners who bear the greatest responsibility for the spread of ideas. It does not seem much of an exaggeration to say that if you are reading this article, you are in a better position to influence the course of history than almost any person in history. Given the degree to which religion still inspires human conflict, and impedes genuine inquiry, I believe that merely being a self-described “Buddhist” is to be complicit in the world’s violence and ignorance to an unacceptable degree."

Best,
Leela

 

[buffalo]

All of them. They all attempt to describe the unlimited in a limited human language. Inevitably all such attempts fail. To say that we can describd God is a limited human language is tantamount to saying that a human can understand God. All human understandings of God are faulty and hence all human descriptions of God are faulty.

rossum

So everyone of these contains zero truth? Hardly. You are correct though in our inability to put into language the beatific vision. It will be awsome. (but that is false too)

You argue on the evolution threads that evolution is the best evidence we have. Well the are the best descriptors of God we have.

 

[buffalo]

Yes. Both Ancient Hebrew and Ancient Greek are human languages with all the limititations that come with that status. God could not talk about either Deoxyribonucleic acid or quasars in the Bible because neither language had the words for those concepts and the peoples to whom He was talking did not have the background knowledge to be able to grasp those concepts. The Bible is itself constrained by having to be expressed in human languages.

Less so than I suspect you think. I am Buddhist, and I am basically reproducing some Buddhist arguments about the nature of nirvana, descriptions of nirvana and the relationship between the two. All descriptions of nirvana are false.

rossum

And then all descriptions of evolution are false.

Hello, English did not have words for these either. We made them up. Actually many of them were Latin, the official language of the Church.

 

[rossum]

I agree, but since you will always be misunderstood by theists when you use the word “God,” I think it would be better to find or create a new vocabulary.

In theory yes, but in practice if I replaced ‘God’ with a different word, say ‘dharmakaya’, the same misunderstandings would still apply.

I noticed that you identify as Buddhist. Have you read this Sam Harris essay? Killing the Buddha

Thanks for that, an interesting essay which makes a valid point:On a cold winter night, a big snow storm hit the city and the temple where Dharma Master Dan Xia served as a Monk got snowed in. Cut off from outside traffic, the fuel delivery man could not get to the Zen Monastery. Soon it ran out of heating fuel after a few days and everybody was shivering in the cold. The monks could not even cook their meals.

Dan Xia began to remove the wooden Buddha Statues from the display and put them into the fireplace.

“What are you doing?” the monks were shocked to see that the holy Buddha Statues were being burnt inside the fire place. “You are burning our holy religious artifacts! You are insulting the Buddha!”

“Are these statues alive and do they have any Buddha nature?” asked Master Dan Xia.

“Of course not,” replied the monks. “They are made of wood. They cannot have Buddha Nature.”

“OK. Then they are just pieces of firewood and therefore can be used as heating fuel,” said Master Dan Xia. “Can you pass me another piece of firewood please? I need some warmth.”

The next day, the snow storm had gone and Dan Xia went into town and brought back some replacement Buddha Statues. After putting them on the displays, he began to kneel down and burn incense sticks to them.

“Are you worshiping firewood?” ask the monks who are confused for what he was doing.

“No. I am treating these statues as holy artifacts and am honouring the Buddha.” replied Dan Xia.
Attachment to anything, whether to a wooden statue or to a religion, is not always helpful.

I believe that merely being a self-described “Buddhist” is to be complicit in the world’s violence and ignorance to an unacceptable degree."

He is correct, Buddhism is something you do, not a label. Attachment to the label is particularly useless. If you do the right things then the label is of no importance.

rossum

 

[Leela]

In theory yes, but in practice if I replaced ‘God’ with a different word, say ‘dharmakaya’, the same misunderstandings would still apply.

Or maybe a whole new set of misunderstandings.

But certainly in this forum, God has a very specific shared conception that is very different from your conception.

I found this quote by Walter Kaufman in his introduction to Buber’s I and Thou very interesting: “If one no longer has use for the word “God”…Still why use religious terms? Indeed it might be better not to use them because they are always misunderstood. But what other terms are there? We need a new language, and new poets to create it, and new ears to listen to it. Meanwhile, if we shut our ears to the old prophets who still speak more or less in the old tongues, using ancient words, occasionally in new ways, we shall have very little music. We are not so rich that we can do without tradition. Let him that has new ears listen to it in a new way.”

The problem is that after 9/11, I can no longer in good conscience “listen in a new way” to pedophile priests, sacred bombings, one-celled human life, Jesus crackers, predictions of the end of the world, Christian anxiety about sex, and so-called Biblically-based traditional family values.

The words “God” and “faith” are dogma words in today’s usage. The words “God” and “faith” are fine for poetry, but I would like to see them disappear from public discourse. The common use of the words “God” and “faith” is not faith as trust that the world is unfolding as it should be, an attitude of hope for a better future, loyalty, real mystical experience, etc. that I have to take the way that others use these words seriously. In the US today, faith ammounts to the idea that it is a virtue to belief things that don’t make sense to you, and I’ve come to learn that it is a very dangerous idea.

I still think there is a baby to be saved from the bath water, but I don’t think these words can or should be reclaimed at this point in time. Since 9/11, dogmatic religious beliefs aren’t just laughable to me anymore, they are scary.

Best,
Leela

 

[walshy]

Please tell me how Jesus is scaery.

 

[JDaniel]

Or maybe a whole new set of misunderstandings.

But certainly in this forum, God has a very specific shared conception that is very different from your conception.

I found this quote by Walter Kaufman in his introduction to Buber’s I and Thou very interesting: “If one no longer has use for the word “God”…Still why use religious terms? Indeed it might be better not to use them because they are always misunderstood. But what other terms are there? We need a new language, and new poets to create it, and new ears to listen to it. Meanwhile, if we shut our ears to the old prophets who still speak more or less in the old tongues, using ancient words, occasionally in new ways, we shall have very little music. We are not so rich that we can do without tradition. Let him that has new ears listen to it in a new way.”

Well, Leela, still spinning and twisting, I see! Good for you.

The problem is that after 9/11, I can no longer in good conscience “listen in a new way” to pedophile priests, sacred bombings, one-celled human life, Jesus crackers, predictions of the end of the world, Christian anxiety about sex, and so-called Biblically-based traditional family values.

Leela, Leela, Leela. Don’t you listen? Let’s see, the incidence of youngster molestation within the Church, as a whole, is slightly less than 2%. In society at large, it is in excess of 4%. Hmmm. Let’s see . . . Where would my children be safer? Hmmm?

Next, 94.5% of the young people alledgedly molested within the Church were over 13 years old! Technically - and, legally - not “pedophelia”. Pedophelia is defined as 12 and under.

You do not bring competency to your cases by lying to us.

The rest of your discourse is trash and little more than the trashing of religion, especially, Christianity. Not worth the read: is my opinion.

I still think there is a baby to be saved from the bath water, but I don’t think these words can or should be reclaimed at this point in time. Since 9/11, dogmatic religious beliefs aren’t just laughable to me anymore, they are scary.

In my opinion, it is your undisciplined thought processes that are “scary”. Do you actually believe that life will improve on earth once the Catholic Church and Christianity are checked or removed? If you do, then we really must start praying for you. Huge sums of prayer.

Do you really want to leave our lives to the “natural decency” found in mankind?

jd

 

[buffalo]

Or maybe a whole new set of misunderstandings.

But certainly in this forum, God has a very specific shared conception that is very different from your conception.

I found this quote by Walter Kaufman in his introduction to Buber’s I and Thou very interesting: “If one no longer has use for the word “God”…Still why use religious terms? Indeed it might be better not to use them because they are always misunderstood. But what other terms are there? We need a new language, and new poets to create it, and new ears to listen to it. Meanwhile, if we shut our ears to the old prophets who still speak more or less in the old tongues, using ancient words, occasionally in new ways, we shall have very little music. We are not so rich that we can do without tradition. Let him that has new ears listen to it in a new way.”

The problem is that after 9/11, I can no longer in good conscience “listen in a new way” to pedophile priests, sacred bombings, one-celled human life, Jesus crackers, predictions of the end of the world, Christian anxiety about sex, and so-called Biblically-based traditional family values.

The words “God” and “faith” are dogma words in today’s usage. The words “God” and “faith” are fine for poetry, but I would like to see them disappear from public discourse. The common use of the words “God” and “faith” is not faith as trust that the world is unfolding as it should be, an attitude of hope for a better future, loyalty, real mystical experience, etc. that I have to take the way that others use these words seriously. In the US today, faith ammounts to the idea that it is a virtue to belief things that don’t make sense to you, and I’ve come to learn that it is a very dangerous idea.

I still think there is a baby to be saved from the bath water, but I don’t think these words can or should be reclaimed at this point in time. Since 9/11, dogmatic religious beliefs aren’t just laughable to me anymore, they are scary.

Best,
Leela

Remember, the Catholic Church is a **HOSPITAL **for sinners. There is no one in the Church that is not a sinner and not in need of spiritual healing.

The Catholic proposition is one that is difficult amidst a corrupted world. The difference is the target. The Catholic target is the beatific vision. If we fail in the Catholic proposition what do you suggest its members do? Resign? or confess and try not to repeat our sins?

It is really important to separate the Catholic proposition from the failure of its members. That is where many critics fail.

 

[rossum]

Please tell me how Jesus is scaery.

Jesus is not scary, the problem is what some people do in the name of Jesus: “Jesus/God/Allah/Shiva/Buddha told me to …”, and fill in the name of your favourite atrocity. Remember that Fred Phelps is sure that he is doing God’s work. Jesus is fine, it is what some of the followers of Jesus (and other religious leaders as well) claim to be doing in their name.

As Gandhi said: “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

rossum

 

[walshy]

People do nothing in his name they just say that to exuse thier own behavour.
People, me and you do things out of are selfish desires.
Then we say this is Gods will, this is what God wants.

 

[Leela]

Leela, Leela, Leela. Don’t you listen? Let’s see, the incidence of youngster molestation within the Church, as a whole, is slightly less than 2%. In society at large, it is in excess of 4%. Hmmm. Let’s see . . . Where would my children be safer? Hmmm?

Next, 94.5% of the young people alledgedly molested within the Church were over 13 years old! Technically - and, legally - not “pedophelia”. Pedophelia is defined as 12 and under.

You do not bring competency to your cases by lying to us.

Listen? I don’t think we ever discussed the matter before.

2%? 4%? percent of what?

And are you really defending priests who molested 13 year olds???

In my opinion, it is your undisciplined thought processes that are “scary”. Do you actually believe that life will improve on earth once the Catholic Church and Christianity are checked or removed?

Yes

Do you really want to leave our lives to the “natural decency” found in mankind?

No, decency must be taught by society.

Best,
Leela

 

[JDaniel]

Listen? I don’t think we ever discussed the matter before.

2%? 4%? percent of what?

Of the per-capita occurrences versus contained populations. For the Church, that would take in priests, nuns, lay teachers, and any and all other lay- workers. For society it comprises all of us. In fact, the inclusion of the numbers from the Church ever so slightly drives down the actual numbers from macro-society. Factor us out and your numbers go up.

And are you really defending priests who molested 13 year olds???

Leela, c’mon! Straw man again? You know that I am simply defending the Church from the heinous allegations of secularists who wantonly fail to discuss why the incidences of molestation within the Church are only half of what they are outside of the Church. This would seem to be a clearly purposeful attack on the Church, and not on the perpetrators of the crimes.

No, decency must be taught by society.

Hmmm . . . I wonder who we could really rely on to do that? Perhaps you could select them?

But, as I said in another post, since reality is an absurdity beyond all absurdities, it must be an illusion. therefore, none of this matters. I am vehemently considering moving to the state of apathy.

jd

 

[Leela]

Of the per-capita occurrences versus contained populations. For the Church, that would take in priests, nuns, lay teachers, and any and all other lay- workers. For society it comprises all of us. In fact, the inclusion of the numbers from the Church ever so slightly drives down the actual numbers from macro-society. Factor us out and your numbers go up.

All I no about the priest-child molestation issue is what I’ve heard in the news. Can you provide a reference for your statistics? I still don’t understand how they are computed. Are you saying that 2% of priests, nuns, Catholic layworkers are pedophiles while 4% of the general population is pedophiles. Those numbers seem too large on both counts.

Best,
Leela

 

[buffalo]

All I no about the priest-child molestation issue is what I’ve heard in the news. Can you provide a reference for your statistics? I still don’t understand how they are computed. Are you saying that 2% of priests, nuns, Catholic layworkers are pedophiles while 4% of the general population is pedophiles. Those numbers seem too large on both counts.

Best,
Leela

You can read the study here:

The John Jay Study
Yields New Evidence on Catholic Clergy Abuse

 

[Leela]

You can read the study here:

The John Jay Study
Yields New Evidence on Catholic Clergy Abuse

I couldn’t find the 2%/4% numbers. This study seems to be about arguing that the issue is not pedaphile preiests but homosexual priests, which is just a different issue.